Submitted 2 weeks ago by janus2@lemmy.zip to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://lemmy.zip/pictrs/image/d324ae0d-e499-467f-825e-9b67111aee7b.webp
jabde.com/…/should-neutron-stars-be-added-to-the-…
I say yes, entirely because it’s hilarious
After reading I realised that this proposal isn’t a single new element for all neutron stars, but a separate new entry on the table for every individual neutron star in existence, unless there are two that happen to have the exact same number of protons which is unlikely. Sounds good to me
protons
we have assumed that Rex is comprised of a uniform nucleon fluid, with protons, neutrons and electrons in an idealised 1:8:1 ratio
This is how the author is estimating it, they are assuming 1/9th of the mass is protons. No idea how good that assumption is though, there is a source which doesn’t look the most convincing
“It is a truth universally acknowledged that no physics problem is complete unless some major component of reality is excluded to simplify the numbers.”
I’ll save this quote for my students. Amazing.
IUPAC currently recognises 118 chemical elements. The last twenty have half-lives shorter than Australian prime ministers, and are of equally limited utility to science.
Lmao
This is problematic, because 7.82 × 1052 meters is about 1037 lightyears, and the universe is currently estimated to span a mere 93 billion lightyears.
Comedy gold. I could see Mitch Hedberg saying this.
7.81 * 1052 =8216.12 check mate atheist
J/k, you forgot this (づ ᴗ _ᴗ)づ 10^52^ = 10^52^
I just copy pasted it, so thats why its messed up.
Are they elements? 🤨
Do they have protons or only neutrons? because if there are no protons then it is technically just neutronium and not an element,
If they do have protons, then it is safe to assume it is a ridiculous number like 10^40. in which case I would count it as an element. And given how unlikely is for 2 neutron stars to share the number of protons, then every single neutron star is its own element,
And also, because they do not react with other atom, and if 2 collide then they merge their nucleus, we can agree that they are non reactive, and therefore we can consider them noble gasses…
Wait, are they gas?
YES, they are, if there is a single atom floating in space I think that counts as a gas
I don’t think a single neutron star is a gas, but a neutron star binary system is a gas
Earth, Wind and Fire is where it’s at.
Do you remember?
In The Stone.
Apparently, I am a top. Link to a quiz
(not to scale) is my favorite part
Figure 3’s label.
“Chlorine atoms are shown in red.” got me.
I particularly enjoyed
10^20^ +/- 10^20^ Å
Do they have protons or only neutrons? because if there are no protons then it is technically just neutronium and not an element,
If they do have protons, then it is safe to assume it is a ridiculous number like 10^40. in which case I would count it as an element. And given how unlikely is for 2 neutron stars to share the number of protons, then every single neutron star is its own element,
I would argue that, since they lack an electron cloud and are comprised of a collection of free-floating nuclei, they are actually a plasma.
can we say that neuron stars are ions?
wait, are neuton stars positively charged?
Astronomical levels of snark
A representation of a binuclear compound of element 10^(56) with an average bond length of 100 quintillion angstroms.
Okay that was funny.
Of course there is a relevant xkcd
This collapse generates a body of neutron-removed matter with a radius as small as 10 km, but a mass comparable to our Sun’s. As such, they are the densest known material outside of Twitter, at around 1017 kg/m3. For American readers unfamiliar with SI units, that means a pair of truck-nuts made of neutron star would weigh as much as ten million aircraft carriers.
Cooking with TNT
a pair of truck-nuts
new favorite unit
Okay this is good
Hum… The width of each row increases exponentially with their number.
It’s probably just some ~1m away from the small elements.
The width of each row increases exponentially with their number.
Doesn’t it only increase quadratically?
Sinc esurface area of a sphere grows quadratically with radius …
The number of solutions to the Schrodinger equation of the atom increases exponentially with the main quantum number.
Our current periodic table is already huge. People break the last lines down into a set of disjoint lines that have about the same width as the main table.
Shouldn’t they be element 0 as they dont have any protons?
The conversion from protons to neutrons does not complete 100% so there are still some (trillion) protons left per “atom”
Didn’t know that, thanks
It’s the periodic table of ELEMENTS, which are defined by their number of protons.
The lone neutron deserves a place before any size neutron star.
Neutron stars do contain protons and electrons. It’s a misconception that they’re 100% pure neutrons.
A well-known type of neutron star is a pulsar. These rotating objects have extremely powerful magnetic fields which can only be produced by the movement of electric charges. If they were purely made of neutrons there could be no electric charges to move, and thus no magnetic fields.
No, seriously, materials like electron metal and strange matter.
Do they have 0 protons? Because if they do, they should be in the spot above helium
No the ratio of protons neutrons electrons is assumed to be 1:8:1 in the article. It’s a fun read
If we were to expand the periodic table to include them. would the poster fit within the planet? solar system?universe?
Depends on the font
Here’s what the article says:
Assuming a periodic table in which each element is represented by a 1 cm by 2.5 cm rectangle, 40 rows of 32 elements will take up one meter of space. At this scale, a periodic table incorporating element 10^56^ would need to be 7.82 × 10^52^ meters long. This is problematic, because 7.82 × 10^52^ meters is about 10^37^ lightyears, and the universe is currently estimated span a mere 93 billion lightyears. As such, the new periodic table would be a quadrillion times larger than the observable universe.
The universe is expanding, however, which is good news for chemists and first-home buyers. The rate of this expansion is apparently about 73 km/s for every million parsecs of space, which corresponds to 2 × 106 km/s across the entire universe.8 At that rate, the universe will be able to accommodate the new periodic table in about 10^34^ years.
So it is a matter of time, I’ll star setting up a website and accept preorders for completed periodic tables
Would neutron stars “decay” into black holes? and would that be its own element with even higher atomic number?
Now add a neutron star.
GraniteM@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Image
The rare reverse-Saddam.
teft@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
The air vent is actually a particle accelerator shooting neutrons into the periodic table.
Fedizen@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The particle is a neutron star
peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 2 weeks ago
I’ve never seen a reverse-Saddam and I am delighted to say that I’m glad it was in this community.
fossilesque@mander.xyz 2 weeks ago
It’s a rare Saddam ( ^-^)ノ∠※。.:*:・'°☆
Image
janus2@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
not to scale
es_eskaliert@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
The first (last) column makes it look like a Trump style haircut