I used to joke that if you took a neutral neutron star, threw in a proton, then put an electron in orbit; then you'd have the only gravitationally bound very heavy isotope of hydrogen. Maybe it wasn't really a joke?
@scotcheggtheguyguy80094 ай бұрын
As it happens there is a shell around a neutron star where some protons still exist. So, more like a gravitationally-bound Element 10^50
@pacotaco12464 ай бұрын
neutronium would get quite the promotion
@AdrianBoyko4 ай бұрын
How does gravity interact with the wave function of the electron? How do you determine the orbit of something that doesn’t have a specific location or velocity?
@aluisious4 ай бұрын
@@AdrianBoykowhat would it “orbit” anyway? It would just find a positive ion somewhere.
@rashidisw4 ай бұрын
Gravitational lensing do suggest that gravity interact with electromagnetic wave.
@stevec79234 ай бұрын
I once vacationed on the Island of Stability. It was boring -- nothing ever happened.
@garethdean63824 ай бұрын
I loved it, the moment I had to leave I just broke down.
@stuartdryer13523 ай бұрын
But everyone was normal.
@breadm8101Ай бұрын
The island decayed before I got there
@ItzarzkyАй бұрын
guess it was relatively stable
@IndranilBiswas_3 күн бұрын
They like everyone on that island except some guy called Victor Ninov.
@Nethershaw4 ай бұрын
Bismuth fascinates me. I have a few crystals of it on my desk. It has no stable isotopes, but it's _so close_ to stability it has a half-life far longer than the age of the universe -- yet at the same time, a lump of it will do the near-impossible and occasionally kick out a positron.
@Bob-of-Zoid4 ай бұрын
Watch out for those positrons! When they hit your head they normally cause a neuron storm! It may be rare, but it could fry your brain for good!🤕
@Carcinogenic24 ай бұрын
@@Bob-of-Zoid How would they? They're basically positively charged beta particles, they can just pass into a live human if accelerated beyond what their creation provides.
@JosePineda-cy6om4 ай бұрын
@Bob-of-Zoid you receive, on a daily basis, a shower of muons from outter space - as well as a bit of anti matter and some gamma rays and X rays. Normally it's very low doses unless you're climbing mountains all the time, or spend most of your time flying balloons. Pilots and stewardesses do receivo plenty of radiation from outter space, equivalent to several Xray exams per year. So far you've survived thru it, haven't you? So the ocassional electron-positron annihilation within your body won't kill you
@demoman1596sh4 ай бұрын
@@Bob-of-ZoidI’m not sure that a lone positron created in a context like this will have enough energy to do any really meaningful damage. Correct me if I’m wrong, of course!
@idjles4 ай бұрын
It decays by emitting a 3 MeV alpha particle, which isn’t going very far. It’s half life is a billion times the age of the universe.
@SpaceCakeism4 ай бұрын
3:40 Bismuth-209: I might not be stable forever, but I think I deserve an honorable mention, with my half-life of 19 quintillion years...
@alazarbisrat19784 ай бұрын
is this stability possible in the island of stability?
@safestate87504 ай бұрын
@@alazarbisrat1978 the island of stability refers to semi-stable elements with a much higher atomic number than we can make at the moment, all theoretical at the moment
@alazarbisrat19784 ай бұрын
@@safestate8750 but if they last nearly as long as that one, we could have plenty of new cool materials to play with
@AnonNopleb4 ай бұрын
@@alazarbisrat1978 I suspect not. If they had half-lifes as long as that, we would have found them already as naturally occurring elements.
@alazarbisrat19784 ай бұрын
@@AnonNopleb maybe they don't travel nearly as far because they'd be solids? well in that case through the age of the universe it should have reached us anyway so you might be right.
@homermorisson91354 ай бұрын
I always struggled with Chemistry back at school, to the point where I didn't even really understood what the numbers in front of the molecules's name actually denote, how they correlate, and how one could deduce information on the molecule's stability (or lack thereof) from them. Of course I was later in my adult life able to find out that information through self-study, BUT: your brief explanation with visual aids was _the_ best, most succinct yet intuitive explanation of the this framework that I've seen to date. Very well done, and this also demonstrates precisely why I love this channel... you neither put on airs aka "Everyone _should_ know that by heart", nor do you dumb it down to the lowest common denominator; a great balance, and inspiring for me as an on/off tutor for Y3 to Y8 kids.
@HanakoSeishin4 ай бұрын
Stability aside, the numbers are pretty basic stuff, it's literally as simple as one being the number of protons and the other being the number of protons and neutrons combined. Like, I'm just wondering how can it possibly be explained less clearly, if your school chemistry teacher managed to make something this simple sound confusing, that's impressive in its own way.
@lajoswinkler4 ай бұрын
Your teacher must've been REALLY bad.
@Bob-of-Zoid4 ай бұрын
@@lajoswinkler Could have been him not paying attention, not necessarily the teacher.
@ifwcorvids4 ай бұрын
@@HanakoSeishinI believe it, my high school chemistry teacher was amazingly talented at explaining the most fascinating things in the most confusing, boring way possible. I'm sure if I hadn't already taught myself some of the subjects he covered I would've been screwed lol
@fuzzywzhe4 ай бұрын
Welcome to having a terrible teacher. The atomic number just is the number of electrons an atom has when it has a neutral charge. The atomic WEIGHT is a number that corresponds to it's weight found in nature as an average of all isotopes of the element. Carbon has about 12.01. If you get Avogadro's Number of those atoms you end up with 12.01 grams of Carbon. If memory doesn't fail. If I'm incorrect anybody, by all means correct me. It's been 40 years. I don't know any way to figure out stability of an atom. Usually the number of protons == the number of neutrons. I think.
@BunnyOfThunder4 ай бұрын
Whenever I hear the word, "kilonova" imagine a bossa nova song that's so good it's killer.
@Random-Captain4 ай бұрын
😂 I imagine stars spontaneously starting to shoot around the universe and crash into each other. Me on the roof at night seeing all this thinking about a jazzy tune..
@humphreybumblecuck51514 ай бұрын
That’d be kiranova
@franklyforked32704 ай бұрын
That cheese deserves a like 😂
@Wustenfuchs1093 ай бұрын
I actually had a paper on the so called hypernova models. There are a few candidates for extremely powerful explosions, orders of magnitude stronger than nova, and the means by which they happen. Usually, you need a massive, very hot star with a very low metalicity. They include things like pair-instability supernova (which requires stars between 130 and 250 solar masses). It was all early theoretical models back in 2011 when I wrote the paper, I see a few have come up since, but it is still little more than theory. We have SOME observations to support them, but it's all in fairly early stages yet.
@tk23004 ай бұрын
I am so glad this channel is going strong after all of these years. Truly, one of my most favorite channels for science and education
@skycloud48024 ай бұрын
What started out as searching for the big questions spiralled into the rest for curiosities sake for me.
@WestOfEarth4 ай бұрын
I'm surprised you didn't mention Przybylski's Star! Spectral analysis of this star suggests many heavy elements are present such as uranium and ytterbium. This could very well be remnants of a kilonova explosion which produced island of stability elements which decayed into these rarer daughter elements.
@JosePineda-cy6om4 ай бұрын
Exactly!! Now the question is: how these radioactive elements got into that damned star... it even has lots of plutonium!! I remember Carl Sagan speculated that it could be a technosignature by an alien civ, demonstrating its presence to potential observers
@fireballninja014 ай бұрын
thank you for mentioning this!!!
@Flesh_Wizard4 ай бұрын
@@JosePineda-cy6om sorry that was me hiding my plutonium stash from the space cops🥺
@SMiki554 ай бұрын
Polish surname pronunciation scares off yet another foreigner
@WestOfEarth4 ай бұрын
@@SMiki55 To be honest, I can never remember how to spell the astronomer's name, so I have to google a phonetic approximation. His discovery is sadly very underappreciated.
@Entropy8254 ай бұрын
Finally! An episode of Spacetime I understood from start to finish.
@longboardfella53064 ай бұрын
Yeah my brain usually maxes out somewhere between 50% and 70% way through
@peterflynn91234 ай бұрын
😂@@longboardfella5306
@LuisSierra424 ай бұрын
We were truly blessed
@kennymutande10814 ай бұрын
😂 me too
@davidcottington55344 ай бұрын
Can we take a moment to appreciate that the knowledge shared with the first couple of minutes of this video took hundreds of years to compile. We are fortunate to live in a time where this so well understood and is one of the reasons why I watch Space Time and other channels to see what is coming next.
@ShreeyanshPradhan-ju9ck4 ай бұрын
The minecraft periodic table shirt is fire.
@SabethDrake4 ай бұрын
I want it as a poster now
@tl18822 ай бұрын
i have it in a book@@SabethDrake
@alhypo4 ай бұрын
Ah, so trying to take a picture of a kilonova is just like taking a video of my dog doing something funny. By the time I get the camera rolling, the best part is over. 😞
@Bob-of-Zoid4 ай бұрын
I've played the STAY THEEEEEERE!!!!😠 Game so many times it's not funny! But it's the only way to get a good one every now and then.😼 I chase my cat with the camera, but also all of the wild critters around here. 🥰Too many, and too freaking cute!
@ultimaIXultima4 ай бұрын
absolutely - but don't say you didn't get a few quick vids that you watch from time to time... ;)
@netdragon2564 ай бұрын
Same with little kids. Nearly impossible to capture their cutest moments on camera. With kids - unlike dogs - you can say "do it again" and record, but it almost always looks contrived and faked because it's not genuine.
@JonnoPlays4 ай бұрын
That's why the best videos are from security cams now. They're always rolling
@BalakrishnanMoro4 ай бұрын
@@Bob-of-Zoid
@UzairW4 ай бұрын
So there's hope yet for Vibranium swords and shields? Joking aside, I have always found it fascinating that so many of the heavier elements including several essential to life only exist in the Universe because of neutron star mergers. In other words, the merger of two actual neutron stars eons ago is why we exist, and are here writing and reading comments on a science video. Rather mind-bending stuff!
@null-0x4 ай бұрын
@@SkyGravity137 yes
@geefhotmail63114 ай бұрын
@SkyGravity137 @null-0x maybe
@Flesh_Wizard4 ай бұрын
Maybe Flerovium swords that deal +500 rad damage but the durability goes down constantly
@slugface3224 ай бұрын
Well Yes. There are many advanced civilizations that mine minerals from the core of black holes.
@Bern_il_Cinq4 ай бұрын
Wakanda fo ey vah
@samuelphillippi4 ай бұрын
Once again, thank you to the entire time for everything you do to make this videos freely available to the public. The topics are fascinating, and Matt's passion for the project is also hugely evident (okay, so I'm a sucker for the dry wit).
@phdnk4 ай бұрын
9:51 There is a missing step in explanation of how NS merger-ejected neutronium is converted into free neutron flux (or the thick fast moving soup of neutrons) . That is why in space would individual neutrons get unbound from their native neutronium droplets so that being liberated they can participate in r-process to get bound again. What if instead of intense neutron flux we will speak of neutrons beta-decay happening inside the neutronium droplets. Beta decays would heat the neutronium droplets and charge them up and eventually will cause the droplets to fission into smaller droplets. While r-process builds heavy nuclei bottom-up by rapid successive neutron captures, I argue that some other process takes place in NS-merger ejecta: top-down process of neutronium droplets beta-decaying and fissioning into heavy nuclei. Thus beta-process and not r-process.
@tommiller13154 ай бұрын
All my axioms just fused 😶🌫
@vinniepeterss4 ай бұрын
😮
@T3sl44 ай бұрын
Nuclear matter is weird. Negative adiabatic expansion coefficient!
@tommiller13154 ай бұрын
@@T3sl4 Insulin maybe? 🤪
@MushroomBase3 ай бұрын
All that to say you believe that some neutron soup decays into rather than builds up.... Specify, but state your argument.
@KomradZX19894 ай бұрын
I dig the new intro. Very cool. Been subscribed for 7 years or so. Love everything you all do! ❤
@nicstroud4 ай бұрын
5:10 Your periodic table has Sodium twice. Once in it's correct place and once where Potassium should be under the letter K.
@Dalkiel694 ай бұрын
Also, Cobalt is Iron, Xenon is Gallium, Zinc is Copper. Once you notice one, the others become more apparent.
@Draykshaper4 ай бұрын
Such an elementary mistake :(
@nghiado98953 ай бұрын
Try saying "Once in it is correct place and once where Potassium should be under the letter K."
@jaywire1110Ай бұрын
THANK YOU! I THOUGHT I WAS CRAZY.
@thetux4594 ай бұрын
1: If a neutron star was bombarded with enough alpha and/or beta radiation in excess to its exposure to electrons, would the protons survive as part of the neutron star? 2: If "yes" to 1, would a proton-containing neutron star qualify as an atom, or would its inability to be stably orbited by electrons disqualify it? 3: If "yes" to 1, is there a point at which the a proton-containing neutron star would be destabilized by the number of protons? 4: If "yes" to 3, would that star then undergo nuclear decay? Edit: I'm a chemist whose work has become increasingly focused on admin and procedural documents, so this is all well outside my wheel house, not matter how many videos about these sorts of things I have watched. Thanks for the responses, especially @lukabozic5. It's honestly getting a Ponder Stibbons-style "'That may be the wrong sort of question to ask," kind of response is always the most interesting.
@mezu-e4 ай бұрын
Look into how neutron stars form. Normal stellar matter already contains large amounts of protons, but they are converted into neutrons due to the intense gravitational field and quantum stuff.
@tremmlor98074 ай бұрын
Interesting questions. But you have to keep in mind that a neutron star is not only hold together by the strong nuclear force, but also by gravity, which in turn is opposed by the degeneration pressure of the neutrons (because they are fermions). That alone would in my opinion disqualify a neutron star as an atom.
@thetux4594 ай бұрын
@@mezu-e I may be wrong, but it was my impression that part of that involved be crushed together with electrons. without a source of negative charges, I am unaware of a means of converting protons to neutrons.
@thetux4594 ай бұрын
@@tremmlor9807 I was keeping that in mind, but you do make an interesting point regarding the whether or not an atom is defined by the structure and composition of its components or by the forces acting on those components.
@Mernom4 ай бұрын
@@thetux459protons either absoeb an electron, or emit a positron. The difference is academic in some cases, given how quantum mwchanics works, iirc.
@conrad48524 ай бұрын
The idea of the island of stability and the potentiality reality of it is sooo very cool!
@LemonArsonist4 ай бұрын
The great thing with neutron stars is that since they're made up of protons too, each one in the observable universe is basically its own unique element, with an atomic number in the 10^50s So really the periodic table should be a lot longer, though the chemical properties get pretty samey after a while
@garethdean63824 ай бұрын
Well, if you lave aside the nuclei that compose their crust, they're isotopes in the way a mountain of rocks is a brick house.
@stoatystoat1744 ай бұрын
Neutron star chemical properties are experimental chemists smashed to flat soup on the surface by brutal gravity
@castonyoung75144 ай бұрын
I think you mean atomic mass in the 10^50s. Since the vast majority of nucleons are neutrons.
@not_enough_data_4 ай бұрын
@@castonyoung7514If 0.1% of nucleons are protons (made up figure), then that's still close enough to the 10^50s
@bobbun96304 ай бұрын
We're already past the point where it's meaningful to talk about the table being periodic in the conventional sense. The periodicity of the table originally reflected the similarity of chemical properties shared by elements in the same column. This is attributable to the behavior of chemically relevant electrons, which are the same as you go down a column in the table. To a point... As the elements get heavier, the behavior of their electrons becomes less predictable on those terms.
@claytonbenignus46884 ай бұрын
There is an Economic problem. It becomes progressively more expensive to make each successive element.
@Shinzon234 ай бұрын
But nerds and Rich guys like weird stuff so they will make them
@joansparky44394 ай бұрын
define 'expensive' please. Economic understanding (and more so mainstream economic 'knowledge') does a VERY bad job at what is possible and what 'expensive' really means - which is why I ask for UR definition of it.
@Jpz_38t4 ай бұрын
@@joansparky4439 lol what wierd definition do you even expect? He simply pointed out the diminishing marginal utility of modern science. He is not going to write a PhD in economics for some subjective definition. I can see his point tho, but the state is wasting ressources on so many levels why not on science?
@joansparky44394 ай бұрын
@@Jpz_38t _"He simply pointed out the diminishing marginal utility of modern science."_ No, he pointed at the 'expenses' of undertaking this science without real thought if that 'expense' actually is "real or not". His 'understanding' of 'expensive' is simply wrong from where I stand on the subject - what I know about it. That science would not be expensive at all if: 1) he would account properly 2) our economic models were plausible (which they aren't). The statement is simply incorrect as it is based on wrong assumptions and misunderstandings.
@2jdjdjdjdjdw4 ай бұрын
@@joansparky4439 found the redditor.
@williamstraub38442 ай бұрын
Science fiction stories occasionally feature some new element that has amazing properties (usually named something like "unobtainium"). But higher elements require protons, and the half-lives of those elements are measured in femtoseconds or less. I would guess that most people believe there can be new elements that exist within the range of ordinary elements, not knowing that it's equivalent to finding a new integer, say between 25 and 26.
@rogerfroud3004 ай бұрын
Do we know what the absorption bands for these new Elements are? Is it possible that these are already out there but we just don't know what we're looking at?
@sensorer4 ай бұрын
I'm not sure if there are ways to calculate those reliably since anything beyond light elements would be very hard to calculate even numerically(100+ electrons). But I'm not familiar with that area so I might be very wrong
@sensorer4 ай бұрын
Thing is, if we'd see lines that do not match known elements, everyone would be on that right away. So my guess is that we don't have any spectroscopic data that is out of line that way
@Mernom4 ай бұрын
I think you only need to calculate the properties if the outermost layer i depth.
@jamesmnguyen4 ай бұрын
@@sensorer If the element is in low abundance we might mistake those tiny spikes as noise. Could be worth investigating. Then again, multiple observations basically remove noise from the equation.
@MyNameIsSalo3 ай бұрын
@@sensorer No this is definitely not something we can calculate. To calculate that we would need an accurate wavefunction of an atomic nucleaus, so far we only have the first element and even that wave function takes like 10 textbook pages to explain. Anything larger gets exponentially more difficult to calculate. We use models to make predictions but you need real data to verify those predictions. Those models may work for some elements but be completely inaccurate for others, and you won't know if it is accurate for heavier elements even if the model is 99.9999% accurate for lighter elements. Means nothing.
@null_s3t4 ай бұрын
Earlier this year I attended a colloquium where a theoretical physicist was presenting an interesting method of probing the nucleus and studying why the nucleus is stable. I was elated when he brought up neutron stars! Incredible that we can use massive celestial objects to better understand minuscule objects like the nucleus.
@sponggg_70964 ай бұрын
5:00 Potassium is labeled as Sodium in the bottom text under the element letter K
@pabloagsutinnavavieyra23084 ай бұрын
Now I'm really wondering what are the details of the way we calculate fission decay chains. This would make an awesome episode of Space Time
@kelimike4 ай бұрын
The stable island probably loses its island in the tsunami of particles in that environment. Its half life is likely to be longer than the time until the next collision or capture.
@terdragontra89004 ай бұрын
Yes, but the next collision often creates an element that near immediately decays into the island again, I’m guessing
@AhmedRazaAli_2009_pk3 ай бұрын
@@terdragontra8900It may fission into something completely else. Or beta decay into someone unstable that fissions or beta decay again.
@AhmedRazaAli_2009_pk3 ай бұрын
But this is a very good observation @kelimike
@nghiado98953 ай бұрын
Try saying "It is half life is likely to be longer than the time until the next collision or capture."
@kelimike3 ай бұрын
@@nghiado9895 Well said, and thank you. I've been scolded for lazy writing. I prefer your method of help. That first bit was weird to read without the apostrophe.
@ribaldc39983 ай бұрын
PBS is a valuable gem on Us television. May it be preserved for the public.
@zacharyreid75574 ай бұрын
16:13 hey editor, i think you missed a spot
@AmritGrewal314 ай бұрын
What did he miss?
@RayconGlobal2 ай бұрын
This was so fascinating!! Thanks for partnering with us, you're the best!! 💙🎧
@pdudy82614 ай бұрын
Crazy how nature do that
@V1brationCanine4 ай бұрын
should comment this on every video i would like it every time
@Nefville4 ай бұрын
I agree, if I saw this on every PBS video I'd like it every time as well.
@MrTuneslol4 ай бұрын
FR FR
@CatMane12144 ай бұрын
I always thought some kind of high momentum/neutron star collision would produce so more more energy for heavier elements, this is one of my favorites so far on PBS Space Time
@Cosmodjinn4 ай бұрын
7:00 - Inaccurate table. New orbital is introduced with element 121.
@ChristopherRucinski4 ай бұрын
Was just going to comment about this
@theguyinthechair4 ай бұрын
Beat me to it
@browerkyle4 ай бұрын
Thallium also has an incorrect symbol on the table at 7:08.
@not_enough_data_4 ай бұрын
Also why are the lanthanides & actinides labelled differently?
@brianawilk2854 ай бұрын
I think the Soviets called it moscovium. It was a psy-op against Soviet Russia that produced an element but had pretty much had no usefulness due to its short life.
@Jarda_B4 ай бұрын
Finally another video on this topic 🥰😊 it seems like you are almost only one covering this topic on YT which seems wierd but fascinating at the same time
@browerkyle4 ай бұрын
The period table shown at 7:08, incorrectly lists Thallium (81) as having the same symbol as Titanium (22), Ti, instead of Tl.
@Wolf-Spirit_Alpha-Sigma4 ай бұрын
And it has two Sodiums. The new one apparently replaces Potassium [K]. How revolutionary, much advanced.
@w.szymski4 ай бұрын
Perfect timing, just as I was looking for the last video before bedtime :)
@RC-12904 ай бұрын
These are perfect videos to fall asleep to. Either you fall asleep thanks to the complexity and the calm talking, or you learn something new.
@wolfboyft4 ай бұрын
Yay, new PBS Space Time!
@NathanPieper4 ай бұрын
Really some of your best work @PBSSpaceTime! Highly interesting and entertaining!
@JonnoPlays4 ай бұрын
I enjoy these videos very much
@kumoyuki4 ай бұрын
Ok, I have a general question. We know that p+ and n exist because we see them outside of nuclei. But within nuclei, it seems to me, as a crank layman, that the existence of *separate* nucleons has to be something of a simplified model of the ongoing QCD interactions, right? What we really have in a nucleus ought to be something like a quark-gluon plasma - whatever structure exists in there seems like it would be more like waves on the ocean or in air: a very temporary structure that is an emergent property of a completely different process. And yes, of course, if we look through the lens of QFT, I suppose that seems less odd. Still I would like to hear more about this at some point. It seems relevant to the questions surrounding, trans-uranics, but also more generally to how nuclear physics *actually* works (including the weirdness of the weak force).
@AhmedRazaAli_2009_pk3 ай бұрын
Neutrons and protons consist of triples of quarks, fundamental particles bound by tunnels in the gluon field, so they are in more sense than not individual particles. Although sometimes the quarks in a nucleon attract quarks in another nearby nucleon, resulting in the strong nuclear force. BTW the strong nuclear force is a quasiforce caused by the strong force.
@the_eternal_student4 ай бұрын
I have thought of new subatomic particles in particle accelerators, but not newly discovered atoms. This was suprisingly interesting.
@garethdean63824 ай бұрын
You may also be interested in the recent detection of antihelium in space.
@bwayagnesАй бұрын
@@garethdean6382woah, and on the space station too!
@oceanicdrop4 ай бұрын
Transuranics sound like a pretty rad metal band
@andreass23014 ай бұрын
A transuranic element is a heavy metal...
@MonkeysEmperor4 ай бұрын
I always watch PBS Space Time at my coffee break and I'm not sure to this day what wakes me up more of the two
@verhataz56724 ай бұрын
Perfect shirt for the video
@markholm70504 ай бұрын
Great job explaining this. This is one of your easiest to understand videos.
@nogood2374 ай бұрын
This one strange, cosmic phenomenon has been populating the peoples periodic tables like wildfire
@_robinmc__-thesteve53804 ай бұрын
Beautiful episode as always.
@orionspur4 ай бұрын
ROUS... * Rodents Of Unusual Size * eleRments Of Unusual Stability
@Subtweeted4 ай бұрын
The island of stability is somewhere in the fire swamp!
@drdca82634 ай бұрын
“eleRments”?
@jinxed79154 ай бұрын
Radioactive Objects of Unusual Stability?
@samsonsoturian60133 ай бұрын
I don't think they exist
@rozmanslava4 ай бұрын
This idea is so elegant! A cool perspective would be the transition from quantum mechanics scale to cosmology and hence qravity and GR
@user-fj2hp3lb54 ай бұрын
Minor need for clarification at 15:48 . Beta decays (and most other decays) leave the new element in an Excited state. The excited state provides enough energy for the isotope to decay, without that energy the isotope would be stable and with a much longer half-life.
@tommiller13154 ай бұрын
Have predictions of the spectra of super heavy elements been hypothesized? That would determine the products of observed supernova, I suggest.
@garethdean63824 ай бұрын
No, they're quite complex, to the point that we're not even sure of the spectra of elements like Californium. We MAY have detected them in Przybylski's star, but cannot be sure.
@Rishi1234567894 ай бұрын
Good video, PBS.
@CyberFreaked4 ай бұрын
I love the shirt haha!
@zacharywong4834 ай бұрын
Superb video, as always! And love this episode's shirt!
@Davepotnoodle4 ай бұрын
Is it just me... or is the periodic table incorrect in this video? The symbols are correct, but Na & K are both labelled as sodium... 5:24
@Mathadder4 ай бұрын
It’s a conspiracy!!!! (Or a poor graphical designer had a busy day)
@helpimlost1374 ай бұрын
Titanium and thallium are both labeled as Ti. Someone probably had a long day
@PhilipMurphy84 ай бұрын
Always great to see a video from PBS Space Time
@patoleloo16604 ай бұрын
timming with my pizza is perfect
@TikkyTakMoo2 ай бұрын
12:55 technically, though the elements may have "decayed long ago", instruments, such as JWST, may not have decayed yet...from our perspective -- despite them having "actually decayed" long ago. That's why the JWST is sometimes referred to as a "time machine". Using infrared to determine elements may be difficult, though I'm not sure if it's technically impossible, unlike spectroscopic techniques from optical telescopes.
@enire84774 ай бұрын
5:18 there are some weird copy paste errors in that periodic table? cobalt is iron potassium is sodium
@IreneThodoreАй бұрын
The secret of joy in work is contained in one word excellence. To know how to do something well is to enjoy it.
@Marinealver4 ай бұрын
Neutron Statlrs could come up with some exotic elements.
@somiljadster5869Ай бұрын
Now that’s one good t-shirt I need
@l0lLorenzol0l4 ай бұрын
Stable Transuranics are the dream
@Kneedragon19624 ай бұрын
Thank you. I have learned so much from Space Time.
@Narmacil4274 ай бұрын
Bobby Broccoli had an amazing video on this
@jayspeidell4 ай бұрын
It's so interesting to see the periodic table grow over time.
@memberwhen224 ай бұрын
if you guys haven't already figured out that we are akin to the electrons and the planets and galaxies gravity is just a scaled up version of the WNF/SNF, and galactic clusters are akin to cells, and we just live somewhere on an infinite scale, then you aren't doing "theoretical science" quite right yet.
@celiacomeau14 ай бұрын
nice! it's good to do things just for you... well done!
@TurntableTV4 ай бұрын
One day, our civilzation will discover Unobtainium.
@hsdsaunders4 ай бұрын
We will never be able to obtain it though, unfortunately 😢
@jamesmnguyen4 ай бұрын
Once we do, we will be opening Pandora's box.
@handeggchan10574 ай бұрын
"I know writers who use subtext, and they're all cowards" -James Cameron (probably)
@jameskirkland31874 ай бұрын
Unobtainium always struck me as a temporary name for an element. So if Unobtainium was ever found and then named something else you'd never be able to get Unobtainium.
@thirstyviaduct4 ай бұрын
o7 CMDR
@goldyguns95454 ай бұрын
incredibly insightful and humble words :) i hope that the next killa nova doesn't get away from our scientists!
@ObeseChess4 ай бұрын
2:16: “they ensure they don’t get so close together that the repulsive tendencies overwhelm the strong attractive force?” Sounds like I needed some of those in my last marriage!! Heyyoooooooooooo
@TristaChristyАй бұрын
All seasons are beautiful for the person who carries happiness within.
@THE-X-Force4 ай бұрын
I need an island of stability in my life.
@nghiado98953 ай бұрын
Don't we all?
@JamesCairney4 ай бұрын
This channel is back on form again, even the sponsor seemed useful! Tiz nice.
@Dsiefus4 ай бұрын
6:50 Thalium, number 81, has the wrong symbol, Ti is Titanium, Thalium should be Tl.
@garethdean63824 ай бұрын
Potassium is wrong too...
@noneofyourbusiness41332 ай бұрын
They don’t read or address comments anymore. Give it up.
@openperspective4 ай бұрын
I finally get the realness of the big fuss of trying to tune our "optical" telescopes in to the region where mergers come from. Maybe with the addition of another Graviscope, or LISA, we'll really be able to hone in on these things, possibly even before the Big Event.
@williamcousert4 ай бұрын
Could we someday use femtotechnology to create new exotic forms of matter that don't involve atoms?
@RoZaxTheGreat4 ай бұрын
how would you have matter without atoms?
@williamcousert4 ай бұрын
@@RoZaxTheGreat Are atoms the only thing that can create a solid surface?
@drdca82634 ай бұрын
@@RoZaxTheGreatif muons didn’t decay quickly, maybe a mixture of anti-muons and electrons? I guess that wouldn’t have a very complex structure, as I guess it would largely resemble hydrogen? I don’t think muons stick to other muons, so you wouldn’t get heavier nuclei.. For it to count as “matter”, I think it needs to have Fermions? So, would need to have either quarks, leptons (electrons, muons, tauons), or neutrinos? (Well, of the fundamental particles currently known…) I guess neutrons by themselves aren’t stable, so maybe considering only hadrons that are approximately stable by themselves is too restrictive? Could some of the other hadrons be stable enough if bound to some other hadrons? I don’t know. If so, maybe such a nucleus, with electrons in orbit around it, could be considered “not an atom”? Hmm.. could some other arrangement of protons and neutrons be stable other than “a nucleus”? Like… a nucleus can be excited, with there being internal motion within the nucleus… maybe if you had multiple excited nuclei, there could be some interaction between them that keep them from going to individually lower energy states?? Idk
@JosePineda-cy6om4 ай бұрын
There are exotic atoms formed by an electron and a positron orbiting each other, as well as a proton and an anti-proton orbiting each other. They have chemical properties vaguely similar to hydrogen, but both decay very rapidly (the proton variety more so) as both members emmit energy while they move so they spiral in until both annihilate each other. Probably throwing in some pions or some weird combination of quarks and anti quarks could stabilize the thing, then you'd have a form of "matter" with very different properties to regular one
@Appletank84 ай бұрын
The main reason you don't fall through the floor is because your body's electrons repel the floor's electrons. All known interactable matter is some combinations of protons, neutrons, and electrons.
@TiE234 ай бұрын
The idea that we have stuff like plutonium in the earth’s crust but nothing exotically larger speaks to me that maybe there aren’t long last heavier elements. Maybe during a super nova we see elements with numbers above 200, 300. But none last.
@jssamp44424 ай бұрын
The definition of Coulomb Force on screen at 3:12 is sloppy. It uses "respectively" incorrectly (the order is reversed) and seems to just give up at the end talking only about opposite charges. Other than that, great video.
@bigsarge20854 ай бұрын
Fascinating!
@bigJovialJon4 ай бұрын
What keeps a nucleus from getting a lot of neutrons (Hydrogen 8 for example)?
@Mernom4 ай бұрын
Neutrons are unstable, unless they interact with protons through the strong nuclear force. And with how short ranged it is, you run into a packing problem.
@lukabozic54 ай бұрын
I will make a gross simplification here. Weak decay. Neutrons decay outside of the nucleus in about 15 minutes and the only reason they are stable in the nucleus is because the sum of energies between proton and neutron is less than the individual energies of two particles. You add too many neutrons to a single proton, you violate that law and it becomes more energy favorable for a neutron to decay to a proton via beta decay or if it's above the neutron drip line via neutron emission. Your hydrogen-8 is above the theoretical limit of neutrons (above the neutron drip line) so the neutron emission should occur
@tylerharry63194 ай бұрын
Neutron decay. They'll turn into protons eventually through the weak force.
@grah554 ай бұрын
Sphere packing and quantum chromodynamics. Hydrogen 8 with minimal atomic mass change would probably end up being Lithium-7 quite quickly. So for the sphere packing part of the example we just need to count up for the configuration of balls. 1 ball is just 1 ball. 2 balls, form a line. 3 Balls form a triangle (and would much rather be a line and a single ball). 4 balls form a triangular pyramid, also known as a tetrahedron (very stable). 5 balls create a triangular bipyramid. 6 balls create an octohedron-like shape, or just 2 triangles of balls pushed together with an offset of 60 degrees (by shape: square of balls, a ball above and below the square in the middle). 7 is with a pillar ball ontop. The pillar ball is always the a proton to isolate the charge as much as possible. Each of the triangles therefore has a single proton in them. The idea is to create balanced shapes and even distrobutions of protons within the shape. "Add neutrons as necessary" to help with the balancing... when you can. Also remember, protons do not undergo spontaneous decay on their own so that if a proton ever leaves, it means it's just no longer bound by the original group and has now become a free proton, or a hydrogen ion. (there is a plausible way to decay a proton on its own, we don't talk about it).
@lukabozic54 ай бұрын
@@ParadoxProblems For his Hydrogen example you are correct but in general this is incorrect. For higher Z you need isospin symmetry broken as the Coulomb force grows, you need way more N to interact via strong force to counteract the Coulomb force
@kefhomepage4 ай бұрын
This interests me a lot.. I idea of new elements, is very intriguing
@JamesR6244 ай бұрын
"Thank you to Raycon for supporting PBS...." We truly live in the darkest timeline. If the Public Broadcasting Station needs to take money from sketchy companies that slap their logo on cheapo no-actual-brand earbuds (that's what Raycons are), then something is *seriously wrong*.
@frtzkng4 ай бұрын
See also DankPods's videos on why the RanCans are rather poorly received. The RoyJoys aren't super bad sound quality wise, jsut bad value for money
@etunimenisukunimeni13024 ай бұрын
When you have to deal with money, revenue or loss, things tend to get complicated real quick. I'm not saying I'm happy about it, but - sigh - it seems to be how things are, and have been for a long time.
@tabularasa06064 ай бұрын
That's why I have the expensive Sony ones, that test out as the best on the market (At least they did when I bought them)
@shayan-gg4 ай бұрын
@@tabularasa0606 you dont need 1500 usd sony earbuds, 20$ moondrops sounds just fine and for 100$ you can get very good audio quality if you buy wired IEMs.
@tru7hhimself4 ай бұрын
welcome to capitalism.
@TRXxAnANaS4 ай бұрын
Great video as always! I just couldn't help but to notice that your periodic table contains a small error: K corresponds to Potassium but "Sodium" and its average atomic mass are written instead. Cheers! 😉
@AluminumOxide4 ай бұрын
Anyone notice his Periodic table of Minecraft t shirt!
@stanieldev4 ай бұрын
With the research I'm doing in Binary Neutron Star Collision simulation, I was able to keep up with a lot of the BNS terminology a lot better than I expected
@maidros854 ай бұрын
I know i am going to sound like some spoiled modern age conformist, but that loud noise at the end of the video (starting at 17:26)really disrupted my attempts at falling asleep while listening to the rest of the video. Any chance it could be done away with or just reduced in volume? 😅
@ExzaktVid23 күн бұрын
What a spoiled modern age conformist (I have never heard this term in my life) for… not being able to sleep with loud sounds? Liking science?
@EebstertheGreat4 ай бұрын
I think it would be cool to have a video on the dineutron and trineutron. The dineutron is just about bound as a nuclide, with clearly-observable resonances, while the trineutron hypothetically might be. I'm sure the half-life is almost 0 if they are bound at all, but it's still an interesting sort of exotic matter that you hardly ever hear about.
@flyingsodwai13824 ай бұрын
0:31 Nerd Hippies!? I thought I was the only one.
@OKingSizeTv4 ай бұрын
Nah, we out there
@br22664 ай бұрын
I think that one of those elements can contain the power that others cannot, and that is to initiate a black hole, which means that whenever we figure out how to make those elements, we will finally observe the particles that interact with gravity itself.
@MyNameIsSalo3 ай бұрын
particles dont initiate a blackhole, mass does. If you have enough mass close together, then light cannot go through it anymore. Thats all a blackhole is. In theory every particle is a blackhole if you can somehow compress it down small enough
@anthonyfamularo88754 ай бұрын
Is there any way to predict the actual physical properties that, say, the hypothetical super-stable Element 180 would manifest? Like, what would a gram of it look like, or feel like in your hand?
@null-0x4 ай бұрын
I think you can predict for something like 120, but I don't think for 180.
@Mernom4 ай бұрын
Chemical properties are determined by the outermost electron shell.
@Flesh_Wizard4 ай бұрын
IDK but most of the elements past the periodic table would likely feel like a nuke going off in your hand
@lukabozic54 ай бұрын
You would need to know first about nuclear physics, whether it's stable or not. For that you need a robust theory where as inputs you would have 2 inputs (number of protons and number of neutrons) and it would give you the properties of the nucleus. Such robust theory doesn't exist, it's a dream of low energy nuclear physics to have such an equation or set of equations. Nobel worthy dream. Now that we are done with the nuclear physics part you need an atomic physicist to look what kind of electron shells would be formed, look at the behaviour of electrons in the outer shells, especially considering, using your example, 180 protons would imply large electron orbitals and consequently heavy relativistic effects. Much easier job to do than the nuclear physicist mentioned above but still hard
@garethdean63824 ай бұрын
To some extent. For example, the element below mercury should be a liquid. Melting points, boiling points and appearance are reasonably easy to guess, as well a some chemistry. Of course their intense radioactivity changes everything.
@LenaRaleigh3 ай бұрын
All difficult things have their origin in that which is easy, and great things in that which is small.
@kibble-net4 ай бұрын
Underrated tee shirt!
@Hi_Im_Akward4 ай бұрын
I typically can barely understand these videos. This one was a lot easier for me to understand. Very fascinating, but I'm curious what the motivation is to finding the heaviest possible element or finding the island of stability? Maybe i should rewatch the previous episode about the island of stability. Also just want to say how cool it is we have LIGO and how this new development in science happened within my lifetime. Gravitational waves seems pretty mind boggling.
@MyNameIsSalo3 ай бұрын
Science doesn't need motivation to discover new stuff. The discovery is the motivation. If you mean practical use cases, that's for engineering to figure out. Science figures out how the world works, engineers use that for our benefit.
@sinachiniforoosh4 ай бұрын
I hate the "new element" sci fi trope because we have a literally infinite space of possible chemical compounds, and beyond that we also have infinite ways of arranging different compounds into materials and meta-materials with amazing properties, and sci fi always goes for the implausible "new elements!" that would either half a half life of 1 femtosecond, or if they exist, they'll just be extremely heavy metallic nothings.
@IncoGnito-ji5du3 ай бұрын
Cook here, Does absolute zero affect zero point energy? Like, when particles pop into existance in "absolute" vacuum, do they move at full speed, or are they slowed due to the "cold"? And if so, can't we use absolute zero during elemental bombardment to prolong the resulting elements' existance?
@MyNameIsSalo3 ай бұрын
Think you don't really understand absolute zero. Absolute zero isn't something that exists, it's not real. Temperature is the average kinetic energies of particles in some volume. An individual particle does not have a temperature and has no relation to the idea of sub zero, as temperature is not fundamental to particles like mass or energy. Also something doesn't just pop into existence, it comes from some interaction and momentum must be conserved. The new particle has the momentum of whatever interaction made it. Which momentum is related to kinetic energy which is related to temperature when averaged over a large number of particles. If you had an area of near sub-zero temperature, that means there is almost no momentum of anything inside that area, so nothing is happening. New particles aren't magically spawning in Also the vaccuum of space has a lot of stuff going on inside it. Such as photons of light passing from every direction, expansion of space, dark matter, and quantum fluctuations in the quantum fields. So there is always something happening that can create particles
@Dustin_Platt4 ай бұрын
I pretend that I'm taking random elements that aren't on the periodic table every time I take my Flintstone vitamin everyday. Me: *Opens Flintstones bottle* Oh yes.. my daily dose of Extremium, catium, cyclonium and pandemonium supplements. I'm 39.
@RedKrieg4 ай бұрын
Why is the abbreviation for Thallium "Ti" instead of "Th" in the periodic table at 5:05? I haven't checked it fully but it seems like there might be some other issues considering the precision on atomic weights is all over the place too. Some are integer and others are up to three digits of precision?
@RedKrieg4 ай бұрын
Oh wow, Hafnium is named Lutecium too. I could have done this better from rote memory. What happened?
@RedKrieg4 ай бұрын
And Xenon is labeled Gallium. This has too many mistakes.
@clashblaster4 ай бұрын
There's an error on your periodic table in this video: it says "sodium" instead of "potassium".
@draketungsten744 ай бұрын
That's some heavy sodium. 😅
@MattSmith-yq3rr4 ай бұрын
The graphics guy saw it and just said, "K, I made a mistake. Can I be bothered to fix it? Na."
@FrancisFjordCupola4 ай бұрын
There is one little thing that helps a bit: neutron star mergers should have a lot of mass in little space and thus have appreciable levels of time dilation compared to our relatively peaceful part of space-time.
@Confessor5554 ай бұрын
Californiums' radiation has been known to cause humans within the vicinity to decay into a pile of needles, human skat, crack tents, and broken dreams.