Will We Ever Finish the Periodic Table?

Currently, there are 118 elements on the periodic table-you'd think we'd be done adding them by now, but turns out we may never be! Join Michael Aranda and learn about the newest elements and what might be the next one in this fun episode of SciShow!
Learn about the 4 Newest Elements: • The 4 Newest Elements ...
Learn about Richard Feynman: • Inside the Mind of Ric...
----------
Support SciShow by becoming a patron on Patreon: / scishow
----------
Dooblydoo thanks go to the following Patreon supporters -- we couldn't make SciShow without them! Shout out to Patrick Merrithew, Will and Sonja Marple, Thomas J., Kevin Bealer, Chris Peters, charles george, Kathy & Tim Philip, Tim Curwick, Bader AlGhamdi, Justin Lentz, Patrick D. Ashmore, Mark Terrio-Cameron, Benny, Fatima Iqbal, Accalia Elementia, Kyle Anderson, and Philippe von Bergen.
----------
Like SciShow? Want to help support us, and also get things to put on your walls, cover your torso and hold your liquids? Check out our awesome products over at DFTBA Records: dftba.com/scishow
----------
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook: / scishow
Twitter: / scishow
Tumblr: / scishow
Instagram: / thescishow
----------
Sources:
pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/e...
www.slate.com/articles/health_...
pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/j...
www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook...
www.smithsonianmag.com/science...
www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Iss...
books.google.com/books?id=sKw...
www.bbc.com/earth/story/201601...
www.superheavies.de/english/r....
Image Sources:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...

[@Maddin1313]

Limit of 256? It's time to upgrade to 16-bit then!

[@medexamtoolsdotcom]

Why 16? 9 will do.

[@DzinkyDzink]

Nobody's going to overhaul universe's engine at this point. Better preoder the next title.

[@davefoxxo]

@@DzinkyDzink lol

[@GS-dl2yh]

exactly my thought. Seems we've been living in a simulation all this time anyway. Hopefully they'll upgrade to a new version of windows soon for a better gameplay experience

[@medexamtoolsdotcom]

@alexandru dumitru and John M, Who SAYS the number of bits needs to be a power of 2? I used to write assembly language programs for PIC microcontrollers, and the ROM in that is arranged in 12 or 14-bit instructions. It was NOT organized into 8-bit bytes. So there's an example right there of what you're assuming is impossible. You're just assuming it has to be made out of bytes because that's all YOU know. Look at you simpletons explaining binary to me as if I don't know it all 2^16 times better than you. Anyway, technically 256, 512, 65536 or 2^64 wouldn't be enough, because neutron stars are effectively nuclei though.

[@anniejones3634]

I love the bit about how the element Feynman predicted couldn’t exist is going to be Feynmanium, because if you read his book, that totally matches his sense of humor.

[@user-mm8vw1ow1x]

One of the best realist of the century

[@Sherko10]

I like this SciShow host: he's clear, has good presentation skills and seems sincerely interested in popularizing scientific knowledge. Give this man a raise!

[@jakedawg253]

Abdul Kandil much better than the female one

[@brookdavidson6376]

I can't listen to the female one. Everything she says sounds like she's unenthused. Almost like she's a disinterested 20-something entitled girl talking.

[@freakystyley4000]

Plus he's cute.

[@tomw9599]

He's too much in a hurray. Slow down and savor the presentation.

[@Chris-ue8zl]

freakystyley4000 yes.

[@General12th]

I'm hoping element 126 (or thereabouts) is stable and useful. It would be so cool if we could make new materials that existed literally only on Earth -- and nowhere else in the known Universe!

[@crisocval143]

what about aliens?

[@General12th]

benito Camela We don't know about aliens.

[@danielkonecny2956]

the thing is, if it would be stable it would exist in the universe an we would know it. the thing is a lot of events in the universe are MUCH better accelerators than ours, producing relatively large quantities of even those elements we recently made, but they also decay fast so they are nowhere to be found. the element will be definitelly radioactive and probably more than less

[@hdef6602]

+

[@apburner1]

The Universe has already defeated your idea. Any element that you can create by colliding nuclei has already been created in a supernova explosion. On the flip side, the element that the explosion created decayed just as fast as any element you could synthesize in the lab.

[@G_Rad_Ski]

Feynman would definitely have had a good sense of humor about 137 if that was the case.

[@jimmurphy6095]

He'd love it.

[@oAirehko]

I was never good at memorizing the table in high school chemistry. I suddenly all these years later had a fascination with the possibility of new elements and how they would come to be. Really amazing stuff.

[@lastyhopper2792]

the teacher that told you to "memorize" the table is ?dumb? The periodic table is made so that scientists can look at it when they're doing their work. No need for them to memorized it

[@lunar9650]

@@lastyhopper2792You still need to be able to recognize them when you see their symbol. That’s just one reason why knowing them is important for scientists

[@jensraab2902]

@@lunar9650While I think you aren't wrong, I still don't think making students memorizing the table makes much sense. If you're someone who uses the symbols a lot, you'll know them by heart sooner than later. If, however, you only use them rarely, you can just look up the symbol and find out whether Th stands for Thallium or Thulium. In the final years of school, I did a lot of physics and had the electron charge and mass memorized to like 8 digits - because I was using it all the time, typing it into my calculator. I didn't mean to memorize it, I simply remembered the values. Then I went on doing other things after I graduated and I doubt that I could tell you which is which if I only saw the number without the units.

[@rsyvbh]

@@lastyhopper2792 yeah just go to calcium and you'll probably be fine

[@upandatom]

Feynman is never wrong! jks he's been wrong plenty of times but is still god ps. he'd love having an element named after him no matter the circumstance

[@david_ga8490]

3,14......4999999....like if you understand

[@mathematics5573]

There are other scientists who have been better. He was a good theoretical physicists. See "Don't Judge a Scientist by their degree grade". in The Biologist

[@LucarioBoricua]

Atomic weight of 256 seems like an initial "practical" upper bound to the Periodic Table. That's right around Einstenium and Fermium, which were the heaviest elements to be made in macroscopic quantities. Until we figure out how to make and stabilize more proportionately neutron-rich element synthesis, heavier elements will continue to be produced in quantities which are too small to be practical for all but the most basic chemical and physical research.

[@pnkflyd66]

I wanted to tell you a joke about the elements but all the good ones Argon

[@omegasrevenge]

I would have liked to make a chemistry joke but there would have been no reaction.

[@ahtzee9078]

That's an old joke. I heard that in element-ary school.

[@BertGrink]

What do you do with a sick chemist? Well if you can't helium, and you can't curium, you have to barium.

[@TurkiyeCumhurbaskani]

I used like elements jokes, I still do but I used to too.

[@that1valentian769]

+Cornelius Maximillianus HEY! That is not a good pun!

[@percyveler3971]

I understand Feynman's point about electrons theoretically moving faster than the speed of light, but electrons don't "orbit" in the classic, Newtonian sense of the word. I'm sure Feynman accounted for that, but can someone offer an explanation on why that is still a limit?

[@medexamtoolsdotcom]

remember you're hearing this filtered through editorializing journalists who relayed what Feynman said. What Feynman would have said I'm sure is that trying to find solutions for the electron configurations, produces paradoxes in the conditions that have no solution following the shroedinger wave equation. The electrons DO have modes of resonance, even if they aren't moving in the classical sense, and the "speed" being greater than the speed of light would be akin to the wavelength you solve for of the standing waves of the electron, being an imaginary number. And you can't get an imaginary frequency, or an imaginary wavelength. In other words, you'd get nonsense results. But obviously Feynman couldn't say THAT. THAT would never be published in a newspaper article. So you can be sure he dumbed it down so that it was something they could write in their little newspaper article that their dolt readers could get a grips on.

[@davespriter]

@@medexamtoolsdotcombit of a rude way to end your statement. science communications is hard and not everybody in the public has the time to focus on science

[@shimrrashai-rc8fq]

Quantum mechanics does allow you to assign a meaning to the velocity of a particle, in exactly the same sense as it lets you talk about a position. It's just that, like position, it is "fuzzy". But as this "fuzziness" is of exactly the same type, we can describe it using a wave function - yes, a "wave function in velocity space" (though physicists prefer _momentum_ space). And you can use that to in turn give at least an _expected value,_ i.e. the "statistically most sensible, even if we only have probabilistic information, representative value" or statistical average, for the speed, and for this element, the deepest electron has an expected speed > c, at least in a naive model of that atom. Because it's a naive model, this is a heuristic argument only.

[@andresmartinezramos7513]

​@@medexamtoolsdotcomPeople not being career quantum physicists doesn't make them "dolts"

[@ananyomukherjeeixd281]

​@@andresmartinezramos7513These are taught in 12th grade science in India, it's basic . And this is not quantum physics, this is simple physical chemistry. Science enthusiasts who want to learn science as a hobby should read books not ambiguous youtube videos.

[@Sheldonman123]

0:25 Elliot Quincy Adams? More like Elliot Quincy ATOMS

[@rosiefay7283]

Well, in his accent it does sound like Adams! 2:19

[@jimmyescobar9681]

*He He He*

[@41-Haiku]

Ah, yes, I see that you have found the element that forms the rocky compound "Amirite".

[@IxousLouis]

256 ? That gotta be some kind of optimisation feature hard coded in the universe's code ! (just kiding, I hope)

[@1ucasvb]

Shouldn't element 138 be called Feynmanium, not 137? THAT would be a good joke.

[@s1ndrome117]

1ucasvb Nope it would be Untrioctium (Uto)

[@fgvcosmic6752]

@@s1ndrome117 thats.... A temporsry name.... When they give it a proper name they should name it feynmaniun

[@medexamtoolsdotcom]

I was just about to comment the same damn thing. Of COURSE it's not true because a neutron star is basically a big nucleus.... covered in a shell of relatively normal matter before you get to the depth where the pressure gets high enough for it to be stable.

[@MrAlRats]

A neutron star is held together by gravity. An atomic nucleus is held together by strong nuclear interactions. A neutron star is basically matter that happens to have density exceeding that found in an atomic nucleus.

[@manualLaborer]

We are 138.

[@sharkaboi]

Just stop researching till I complete my degree xD

[@maxidejf]

Love these smart short fun informative videos! Keep it up!!

[@fatterhorner]

Since everyone else is making chemistry jokes... Two chemists walk into a bar. The first chemist says, "I'll have some H2O." The second chemist says, "I'll have some H2O, too." The second chemist dies.

[@scivolanto]

Chemists are unfortunately bad at spelling. One is supposed to use H2O2 to dye (their hair), not to die.

[@bahemisadan3684]

hydrogen peroxide

[@femmywemmy]

OH, YOU MEAN H2O2 LOL🤣🤣

[@MuhammedGemci]

Prolly the best chemistry joke i have ever seen, well done!

[@afoxwithahat7846]

Oh no

[@Near_Void]

About the island of stability around 122. this might be the point at which we can use those elements to create newer ones

[@phantasm1234]

Can you do one on cerebral aneurysms? I had one rupture at 19 and would love to learn more!

[@all_time_Jelly_Fish]

Best video yet! Well done

[@cellogirl0096]

This was really interesting - thanks!

[@allenm935]

This may sound stupid, but how did people know an atom's atomic weight if they didn't know what protons were?

[@shacamin]

You can measure the weight of atoms, but not know that there are two things that make up that weight.

[@D600Active]

They just calculated how many times heavier than an atom of hydrogen other atoms were

[@GeoffreyCavalier]

Good question.

[@omegasrevenge]

They could measure the weight of atoms but not what they were made out of.

[@dhanroj]

(no of moles = mass/molar mass) so all they need to know is number of moles and mass and they can find the molar mass of the element. which is just atomic mass for atoms.

[@noelstoehr965]

Im still waiting for them to name an element Harambe

[@marcustulliuscicero9512]

Harambium or Harambinium needs to be a thing.

[@ronniessebaggala362]

Harambenium or harambium Take your pick scientists

[@megasonicgeo]

One of us needs to become a major chemist and discover a new element and name it after Harambe, just as a final fuck you to the Cincinnati zoo for trying to stop our harambe memes.

[@deadasfak]

Dicksoutium for Harambium

[@jayneboatis6494]

+Combinacijusx humour is completely subjective. if you want to mock reference-based humour because you don't understand it then that's your problem.

[@Adharaaa]

Fascinating!

[@teagan_p_999]

So exciting!

[@WalkingL1000]

I used to tell chemistry jokes until I got no reaction out of it.

[@simonhadfield8540]

I wonder whether we will be able to create stable elements of different composite fermions involving particles such as strange quarks. Wonder how they would arrange the periodic table then

[@cluckpotato246]

your videos always blow my mind

[@jnbaratech2122]

Awesome! Great video

[@robertandersson1128]

I am looking forward to the day when we will discover element 131, Feynmanium (Fey). Thank you very much for making this video! Really interesting, actually.

[@jensraab2902]

Elements symbols traditionally only contain two letters even though I think a certain former SNL comedienne would be delighted if an exception were for this one! 😉

[@Smartness_itself]

*137

[@Crafterrian]

Great, but when are we going to create Australium.

[@apburner1]

An element created by isolating convicts in a small space?

[@danr.5017]

When the Aussies make it 1st.

[@someguy7869]

didn't think I'd ever see a tf2 reference here xdd

[@thomascameron2612]

Rofl

[@yungsloth8336]

+apburner1 OML I spilled my water midlaugh.. shit

[@ahtzee9078]

They still need to add this element to the periodic table. LOVE

[@josequiles7]

i love you guys, thanks a bumch for this chanel

[@vantongerent]

If we do find some islands of stability, are there any predictions about the material properties these elements might exhibit?

[@chlepek6944]

I don't think so, since we don't even know a lot of properties of already known elements to us. They just decay too fast for us to do anything with them. You might predict they will have similar properties to other elements in their groups, but that's all. We don't even know if we will find any and how long will their halflife be. They might just end up being absolutely useless like all other heaviest elements on the periodic table

[@6Twisted]

I'm curious to know if these more stable high mass atoms do exist, if they'll have any uses.

[@Frosttie1]

Fantastic video.

[@Infinite_Omniverse]

Very interesting topic!

[@crackedemerald4930]

gotta go fast, but not faster than light

[@quickminutetv4170]

Question: If an electron moves at a specific speed around a nucleus, what keeps it moving and why doesn’t it slow down and stop? Does it keep moving forever? That can’t be right, right? Where’s the energy come from?

[@red5t653]

Some of it probably comes from a combination of electromagnetism and gravity, with the rest being residual momentum from... I guess the Big Bang?

[@bbarbiter]

electrons have properties of waves; their "orbit" is elastic

[@momiaw]

actually electrons do enter the nucleus and they sometimes get localized in the nucleus. But this only happens if the atom has too many protons and the process is called electron capture and is a type of radio activity. If an electron is captured one of the protons become a neutron and the atom turns into a different element. Also electrons do not actually orbit around a nucleus at a specific speed and a specific radius, instead an electron in an atom spreads out according to its energy. The states with more energy are more spread out. All electron states overlap with the nucleus, so the concept of an electron "falling into" or "entering" the nucleus does not really make sense. Electrons are always partially in the nucleus.

[@elitehumpty3603]

I thin I read something (Don't know where or when) That photons of light actually increase the energy of an electron

[@kutuboxbayzan5967]

Time pass slower from electrons perspective but from outside it doesn't go faster than the speed of light

[@snaggerdoodle4303]

2:00 those hulking masses of a small part of the smallest unit for pretty much everything.

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

Very good video!!!

[@wayutakemura919]

god school teacher would totally abuse them 173 element in the exam Heck i cant even remember all 118

[@alexwang982]

Wayu Takemura 4509 I can’t remember the actinides though

[@pierreemad2220]

What education system would have you memorise 118 elements for am exam...

[@jimmurphy6095]

@@pierreemad2220 USA in the 70's We had to learn them as well as their symbols in 7th grade physical science class. Not in any particular order, but you were expected to be able to fill in the sheet you were given. I had no problem at the time. I might have to do a bit of studying before giving it a try now. I can still read most of the simpler chemical formulae from those classes.

[@goutamboppana961]

@@pierreemad2220 india in 2020's lol

[@LibbyTheVioletStickman]

You look like tungsten (its symbol is W)

[@flavour842]

0:34 inb4 atomic weight is an 8 bit value and no element can have a higher weight then 256 because it stack overflows to 1

[@danilooliveira6580]

HAHAHAHA I thought the same thing. fucking useless god aliens can't even our simulation in a 16 bits super computer

[@nodean6847]

thought you might be interested to know, I put alerts on for your channel but didn't receive an alert until at least half an hour after I watched your video on periodic tables. doubt you can do anything about it, just thought you might like to know :) thanks for making such awesome videos, you're helping change my life :D

[@mounirbaroudi5890]

Very interesting!

[@llamaduck99]

Answered some questions I've had for a long time, interesting stuff. Also, aren't neutron star cores supposed to be just giant atoms? Pretty sure that would be more than 173 protons.

[@shimrrashai-rc8fq]

Giant nuclei - sort of. They're actually more structured than that. The interior is indeed quite nucleus-like, though mostly neutrons, very few protons, and the two convert back and forth into each other. But it's not simply nuclear material all the way up to the surface. Instead, as you get further up, it starts to get "clumpier" and passes through a variety of weird stages until - surprise! - at the very top, you actually have ordinary atomic matter, typically iron and nickel, which are what the core of the star started out as. The atoms are much smaller than you would expect, though, as their electron shells have been compressed tremendously by the ferocious gravitational force. So they're actually like some weird YEEEHBY glitched-matter thing with only the very center being "nucleus-like", than a true "giant nucleus". As for how it stays stable ... gravity. Pile some protons and neutrons together, you get a stable nucleus. Pile too many together, it's unstable and blows apart. Pile WAY too many (i.e. 1 followed by a few _dozens_ of zeroes) together, and gravity now enters into the picture and fixes the problem for you. Pile more than that together, and gravity does its job _too_ well, and you get a black hole.

[@arooobine]

I sincerely hope Derek Muller discovers an element and actually names it Veritasium.

[@medexamtoolsdotcom]

As long as it doesn't get named Vsauce instead.

[@springtrap8434]

Yes we shall all be hoping for this to happen lmao

[@lauraameliarr]

I'm excited for discoveries.

[@Dragonkinglover]

i fell alseep watching this... and i drooled

[@gross____546]

Last time I was this early I died

[@ve6975]

How does that make any sense whatsoever?

[@MagnonEntertain]

time. dont ever tinker with time. for me its really late tho ;D

[@mareeyo1]

+There is one who did this that's not death tho

[@that1valentian769]

Random =/= Funny

[@WrathOfMega]

Still bitter 115 isn't Elerium.

[@YOM2_UB]

Slightly bitter 111 didn't keep Unununium...

[@General12th]

+YOM2 It just sounds cooler that way. "unoonoonium"...

[@stevenavendano4555]

What about " Mountain-DEwEum"?

[@neptunium-2374]

115 is Morscvioium (Morse-covy-yum)

[@neptunium-2374]

Unununium is Rogerium Now!

[@boulderbash19700209]

Oh, just name it Feynmanium. Knowing his reputation, he would just chuckled.

[@NiceLord]

I was wondering if he was related to the president, nice that you cleared it up straight away!

[@ShadeAKAhayate]

Wait a sec. But electrons don't actually *move* in an atom, they are just "held" in potential pits in a form of probability clouds (or exact points differentiated for each Universe in a Multiverse by it's wavefunction, depending on who you ask). So what's the problem with superheavy cores in this aspect?

[@jovetj]

Very good question.

[@kutuboxbayzan5967]

The probablity cloud is a very helpful analogy because we don't know where the electrons really are. And we can't be süre about where they are İn reality every electron is a particle and wave at the same time. And you can look from particle perspective or wave perspective. İf you assume it is a particle then the particle is at more than one place. İf you assume it is wave it is more probable in some places. İf you can look from either direction it should satisfy both rules. So this why it shouldn't break the limit of special relativity.

[@leogama3422]

They don't move in trajectories like a classic object, but they always have momentum and, thus, a velocity.

[@middlefingerguy1012]

I want to tell a joke about sodium but Na

[@medexamtoolsdotcom]

K

[@Flamuski]

Go check a therapist please.

[@eurovisioncyan9550]

#salty

[@sriramradhakrishna878]

Don't be so noble about it. I get that all the good chemistry jokes argon but even so.......

[@ryanxin1848]

Potassium

[@urstrulyvasan.5550]

Thanks you bro....

[@Oldiesyoungies]

this video is awesome

[@Xnoob545]

What if you can make elements higher? My thought is imagine that the first island of stability is 126-140 and the next is 168-179 I think that you will be able to make elements up to 140 but not 141-167 because they are too unstable but you CAN make 168-179

[@elitehumpty3603]

That's kind of like the island of stability. The thing is though, we may never stop trying to get an element, it took us 10 years to discover Tennessine which means we may never know when to stop.

[@peterbonnema8913]

What? Electrons orbiting the nucleus? Ever heard of de Broglie waves? I was really waiting for the moment that Feynman turned out to be wrong because electrons don't orbit the nucleus at all and that they form these standing waves around it instead.

[@chaotixthefox]

Electrons are particle/wave dualities.

[@JivanPal]

I was hoping for a mention of the uncertainty principle.

[@LapanConnor]

I was actually wondering about that. if in an electron cloud, the electron doesn't occupy an actual spot so much as the probability of it being there is higher, then the speed of light shouldn't matter right? information is moving from one location to another, it's changing it's value. or am i misunderstanding something

[@Taricus]

Yeah, electrons don't orbit atoms... I'm pretty sure Richard Feynmann was one of the people that worked on their wave functions.

[@genefulm]

Good episode.

[@ReksratYTB]

I need that shirt. It speaks to me on a spiritual level

[@zachcrawford5]

Neutron stars are basically giant ("giant" being a ridiculous understatement in this case) atomic nuclei and they have some protons, so would they count as elements that are higher than element 137?

[@medexamtoolsdotcom]

Yes. Yes they would, imho. Though they're held together by gravity, under extreme pressure from a crust of relatively normal matter on the surface. Neutronium can only exist when being crushed by something like 10^26 pascals of pressure or more. That's a lot of pressure if you didn't know, the earth's atmosphere's pressure at sea level is 10^5 pascals. I think they are talking about something existing on its own without any pressure applied.

[@Rozwarty]

Not really. Atoms are governed by quantum laws, such as the electron orbitals, electron superposition and being held together by the strong and weak forces. Neutron stars aren't applied any of the former, as they are large objects. You can't really define a neutron star as an atom, as it would have to fulfill all of the requirements for an atom.

[@jovetj]

Neutron stars are not atoms. There is no similarity whatsoever, other than neutron stars and atomic nucleus both have neutrons. Atomic nuclei are not that dense. Neutron stars are about as dense as the fabric of spacetime can tolerate. A neutron star can only be so large or it degenerates further, ultimately to a black hole.

[@sachiperez]

256? Really? OMG, life is a simulation....

[@medexamtoolsdotcom]

No, it being 2^8 was probably WHY he thought it would end there, but he's wrong, it definitely doesn't end there. Though everything past that doesn't exactly have a long lifetime. Fermium 257 has a half life of just over 100 days. Which is at least long enough that you could definitely have a good size sample of it without it blasting everything nearby with radioactivity on the level of a nuclear bomb, though it would probably heat itself red hot if it was even as large as a marble.

[@alexwang982]

medexamtoolsdotcom no 256 protons, not the mass number

[@noobfawks1109]

Thanks Doc. 0:47

[@DarthStuticus]

There is also some speculation that protons and neutrons may need to be arranged in "shells' like electrons are and that if you get the right number of neutrons in a larger nucleus that the element might remain stable.

[@Master_Therion]

This reminds me of the show Survivor. If you are too "unstable" you'll be "voted off the island" of stability.

[@nekomasteryoutube3232]

It'll actually be pretty cool if they can find some NEW synthetic elements that can last longer then a few fractions of a second and may even be useful, who knows, maybe in my life time I'll have to learn another 5-6 lines of the periodic table, maybe they may even just add a new area for the table for synthetic elements like the Lanthanide and Actinide groups.

[@elvest9]

Good video. I like your more serious videos more than those "why does my snot stick to the wall" ones.

[@Azzarinne]

I was honestly surprised to see Michael. Not that Michael's episodes are bad, I was just so sure that an episode about the periodic table was going to be hosted by the chemist.

[@Ngamotu83]

Last.

[@LazyBlanketCat]

2nd last :P

[@FocusMrbjarke]

3rd last

[@tfr]

4th last

[@polkadottedpolak]

5th last

[@ranielyfire]

HoW cAN you bE LaST If yOUre fir$t?????

[@yunthi]

wondering, could a neutron star be considered an atom?

[@MrCooljeppe]

+Insolence is this for real?

[@yunthi]

Insolence interesting, thank you.

[@io543]

its not actually, neutron stars are not all neutrons...

[@lozfactor]

+yunthi Neutron stars resemble atoms in many ways, but they're also quite different. Some astronomers may compare atoms and neutron stars, but none would say they're the same thing. An atom is a quantum object consisting of an atomic nuclei of protons or protons and neutrons, with one or more electrons bound to it. A neutron star is a highly dense collections of *trillions* of neutrons and some other fundamental particles. They often have an iron and metal crust with a magnetic field, which also experiences drag and "star quakes" much like Earth-quakes. But most importantly, neutron stars are large objects, and therefore aren't fully governed by the quantum laws that control atoms, and as such behave very differently from atoms and *are not atoms*. Neutron stars don't form bonds to create molecules like atoms do nor do they have specific electron orbitals bound to them like atoms.

[@Kosaro1234]

+Jay Rad Metal crust? As far as I'm aware, all atoms are violently ripped apart. The distinction between a neutron star and an atomic nucleus btw is that the nuclear is held together by nuclear strong force whereas the star is held together by gravity. Edit: fixed typo

[@purplealice]

Love your T-shirt

[@player3616_]

Can't wait for periodic table 2

[@muddellymudd3948]

I remember back in high school I was trying to tell my Science teacher that *What if* there could possibly more elements beyond the periodic table? And maybe different living creatures out there in the distant universe could possibly live with different atmosphere according to those unknown elements?

[@CallMeByMyMatingName]

Did you get an answer to your statement?

[@YCCCm7]

Bonus fact: John Quincy Adams is the reason we call matter Adams, and people asked him so many questions about matter he invented the phrase "Q&A" indirectly.

[@carultch]

That's not true at all. The term atom means uncuttable, and was coined long before JQA was even born.

[@YCCCm7]

@@carultch Yes, it's called shitposting. To state the obvious: Yes I was shitposting and this is not true. The spelling alone should indicate this, but I'm stating this for posterity.

[@daryansmith2846]

I want his shirt!!! :) My boyfriend would love it!!

[@Piemaster1029]

I find the description of a nucleus, no matter the size, as a "hulking mass" amusing

[@omarsharief8101]

I'm going to the store, anyone want anything?

[@Partyffs]

Beef, please and thank you.

[@CayoCosta123]

Sugar, a lot of it

[@daveh4461]

Cocaine, you can get that at the store, right?

[@HeatherSpoonheim]

Get some... sour cream and onion chips... with some dip, man. Some beef jerky. Some peanut butter. Get some Haagen Dazs ice cream bars. A whole lot. Make sure chocolate. Gotta have chocolate, man. Some popcorn. Bread. Popcorn. Graham crackers. Graham crackers with the marshmallows, the little marshmallows. And little chocolate bars. We'll make some smores, man. Yeah, that's what l was sayin', yo. Also celery, grape jelly, Captain Crunch with the little crunch berries. Pizzas. We need two big pizzas, man. Everything on 'em. With water, whole lot of water. And... Funyuns. Yeah.

[@djr5995]

....Yo! someones got the munchies :-D

[@Louis-fh4sh]

I want a 221 element, the "Baker-streetium" (for 221B :3) Because Sherlock

[@brandonlynn8747]

It would need two isotopes to be created, and the more stable one to be heavier. That would really make it 221b.

[@DanDart]

I think b could refer to the higher energy that one of the electrons could take to emit energy, since it's not usually the way that isotopes are described. It has a better analogy to "upstairs" as well.

[@Louis-fh4sh]

Churrbum Swurr okey

[@dereklouden7415]

Or bakerium

[@MrMega1423]

Uh, that will probably not happen

[@Xo1ot1]

I'd like to know if there's any estimation as to what these heavier elements might be useful for.

[@MrGregasaur13]

you guys should do a video on the speed of light. with as much stuff that's in the universe there's gotta be something faster than light

[@blinkx1070]

Why does drinking coffee make me poop?

[@Partyffs]

Demon magic?

[@woopygoman]

You're probably lactose intolerant. Try coffee without milk/cream.

[@BubbleGumPinkHair1]

Caffeine actually makes a lot of people poop! It stimulates your colon muscles and loosens your stool.

[@frankschneider6156]

+blinKX10 because you are a freak of nature

[@HoboSammiches]

It dehydrates you and acts as a diarhetic for your digestive system

[@ronniessebaggala362]

Where is Olivia??!!! Don't tell me Scishow axed her after the troll hate?

[@hussainattai4638]

Bring back Olivia or riot!

[@Ermude10]

She's been in a couple of videos, and she's getting better, so I doubt she was axed.

[@appl3-]

thank you bloody heart15

[@SilentBudgie]

She had a metal thing in her nose.

[@Ermude10]

David Arias Let me clarify, I meant that she has gotten better as a presenter, and not that she was recuperating (I think that's how you interpreted my comment at least).

[@piranha031091]

Actually, there is an island of stability predicted to be around element 112, Coperncium, which has been synthesized. But the isotopes expected to be most stable are 300 Cn and 302 Cn, and the heaviest isotope obtained yet is 285 Cn. That is the hardest problem in reaching such "islands of stability" : the heavier elements get, the more neutron rich their stablest isotopes are. But since those super-heavy elements are made by fusion of lighter elements, the isotopes we obtained so far are likely not the most stable : their more neutron-rich cousins are expected to be.

[@BFedie518]

I love that we can just make new elements in a lab.

[@MILEHIGHTREETOPZ]

all this is really interesting, I never had a chance to get into learning about atomic weight, or even the periodic table.. **any suggestions for introduction to helping me learn about this??

[@thetisbird7007]

Y'all that toon blast ad with Ryan Reynolds is actually amazing.

[@philaix]

I would really like to see a video about the Island of stability.

[@double-a-ron5311]

HA! Love the shirt!

[@StCrimson667]

I remember reading this article a long time ago that talked about that, if anything does move faster than the speed of light, we have no idea what sort of laws they would work under or any idea of what it would be like, our current models of physics just cut off as the speed of light and we have no way yet to measure that high, so this video made me wonder if maybe the same could theoretically be true with elements, too, and whether these elements with electrons moving faster than light could potential bring us closer to faster-than-light travel. Just thinking out loud really. :P

[@Phobero]

Ah, the Islands of Stability - great band, I have all their albums!

[@ready0008]

7 years later, still 118 elements

[@nossyhot]

what a Epic shirt!

[@lastyhopper2792]

I love your shirt

[@MasterShot-ke1mr]

I don't know I think the island stops at lead. Everything above that (including Pb-212 radioactive lead) decays up by beta or down by alpha. I'll absolutely flip out if element 124 or something is either a long halflife (over 1000 years) or stable.

[@mjisabelle18]

I need his shirt!

[@rsyvbh]

Feynman waiting for the fine structure constant to drop to 1/138:

[@koohoo4500]

Great. I'm anxiously waiting for the newest Istability from Apple to hit the stores.

[@clayton717]

I was wondering this yesterday...

[@clayton717]

Coincidence? I think not!

[@nicodemusedwards6931]

KEEP ADDING PROTONS!!!! MORE PROTONS!!! ADD ALL THE PROTONS!!!!!

[@rizz184]

The universe is unimaginebely big there could be A LOT more elements than we think, like there could even be other types of cells that might come in handy as well as the elements