If atoms are defined by their number of protons, aren't

>>9152284
Yes but also if you add 3 or more.

>>9152284
atoms are just numbers
physics is applied math

Yes you could theoretically keep doing that, but Feynman pointed out that at one point the atom would be so large that the electrons in the outer shells would have to move at a speed faster than light. And that's at 173 Atomic Number. So theoretically 173 is the number of elements that could be made. Apart from that theres also the issue of stability, the elements artificially created decay very soon.

>>9152284
Nuclear force can't keep an enormous nuber of protons together

>>9152284
Heavy elements are unstable as fuck, and they need neutrons and electrons to balance the equation

>>9152312
What if you made an atom with a hole in the center so electrons didn't need to go all the way around? Like a fractal maybe.

>>9152434
Lmao mate, not sure what you're trying to say but you can't replace an atom with a hole, it needs a nucleus for the electromagnetic force to hold up.

Also, consider the size of the nucleus. It's so small it's quite hard to hit. The electrons don't need to go around much at all. The scale of the nucleus relative to the area the electron traverses is like a blueberry in a football stadium.

>>9152312
Electrons don't move like that anon.

>>9152434
The forces in a nucleus will always make sure that it becomes a sphere.

File: 0242f8d3c49bd6adf68cb3aeb083ef7b.png (87KB, 417x234px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 417x234px

>tfw before the big bang was one very huge and dense atom

>>9152566
>believing the big bang
ishygddt

>>9152566
There were no electrons, protons, or neutrons at the big bang dummy.

>>9152434
Lmao hippies gtfo please

>>9152284
You hit stability issues the higher up the periodic table you go. The newest ones can barely maintain their stability for tiny fractions of seconds. Could you in theory keep making bigger elements? Ya, I guess. Would any of those be at all applicable to anything or even exist for an amount of time to be useful? Not really.

>>9152554
Not sure as to what you mean?

>>9152434
American detected

Ahahahahahahaha

>>9152651
Lmao Ikr mate, I was like wtf is this nigga talking about. Fucking fractals?

>>9152560
Give source.

I mean, sure, naturally. But as a thought experiment, like the toroidal planet etc, are we sure complex nuclear geometries would collapse? And if it did, how long would it last and what would it conform to? It sounds like a pretty interesting thing to discuss and simulate. Suppose a super advanced civilization could manipulate protons and neutrons as we do atoms, could something interesting come out of it?

>>9152329
Would it be possible that heavier elements could exist but only in a bond with another ion that "holds" some of it's electrons?

Tell me /sci/, is the island of stability physicist tricks to build a bigger accelerator?

>>9152693
No if you're talking about ionic bonds because they do not involve sharing electrons. And these heavier elements are not naturally occurring and when they are even are artificially created, it decays in the matter of a few hundred microseconds.

File: Screenshot_10.png (138KB, 1056x467px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1056x467px

>>9152560
No that is incorrect, have a look at this table electrons can take all sorts of whacky orbitals

>>9152713
That is not the nucleus. Those are electron orbitals. The nucleus is composed of protons and neutrons.

>>9152734
How come I can't find visualisations of the wave function of the nucleus? The nucleons are at their energy levels and shells so it'd seem intuitive to me that you can plot their wave functions as well

>>9152284
Beyond a certain number of protons, they become too unstable to be of interest as anything other than physics lab curiosities.

It's ridiculous that they keep giving names to shorter and shorter lived ultraheavy elements, just because existence of a few atoms of them is deduced from their decay processes.

While a case could be made for naming nobelium (102 protons) or lawrencium (103) out of a desire for a tidy periodic table, there's absolutely no excuse for naming "rutherfordium" (104) and up. Fermium (100) and mendelevium (101), with most-stable isotopes with half-lives of 100.5 days and 51 days respectively, is the last element that can hang around long enough to deserve a name, and fermium is the last element that can be produced by neutron capture. This is the logical end point for the list of elements.

Everything with more protons than fermium can only be produced under extreme conditions, such as in a particle accelerator, and nothing with more protons than mendelevium has any isotope that comes near to lasting a week.

>>9152771
It's way too massive to have interesting wave functions. It's probably just a spike so localized that can't be said it's not a particle. And then you put a bunch of them together to form a multiparticled nucleus like uranium, then you really can't say it's a wave.

>>9152734
I know that's exactly what I said....

Metallic hydrogen can run through the qubits of background radiation and with a precisely designed mesh (like subatomic scale) of qubit streams, large objects can be 3D-printed in space.

This thread is being duplicated on another site, lmao.

http://veekyforums.com/thread/9152284/science/if-atoms-are-defined-by-their-number-of-protons.html

>>9153956
That entire site is a mirror of 4chan, my dear newfig.

>>9153989
Wow, isn't that like illegal?

>>9154013
Why would it be?

>>9154013
4chan is itself just a lame copy of Futuba Channel

>>9152284

>implying protons aren't finite

fucking math nerds man