Big Bang

[spongehammer]

Hi All,

 

now this may be a stupid question but its something i have always wondered about.

 

If we accept that the universe was created at the point of the big bang and that stars and planets followed. This means that all matter came from the same source i guess. Does this mean that wherever we travel in the universe we will only ever see the same elements that we see here on earth?

In other words is it possible that certain elements could exist in the universe that we know nothing about?

I realise this has to be a guessed answer seeing as we are not at liberty to explore the universe properly yet :evil:

 

Chris

[Tormod]

is it possible that certain elements could exist in the universe that we know nothing about?

 

Yes.

[lindagarrette]

Yes.

Anything's possible. :evil:

[goku]

nothing un-natural exists

we also assume that there is matter outside our solar system

[Tormod]

we also assume that there is matter outside our solar system

 

FWIW I think that is fairly given considering our solar system comprises perhaps 0,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% (give or take a dozen zeroes) of the matter in the universe... :hihi:

[virtualmeet]

In other words is it possible that certain elements could exist in the universe that we know nothing about?

Chris

Oh yes, all we can say right now is that our understanding of the universe is very very limited...right here, in our galaxy, we are pretty sure that we have a Black hole in it's center and nothing in the actual science can explain what lies inside such objects.

[Jay-qu]

not sure what you mean by 'souce'. In the very early universe only Hydrogen and small amounts of Helium exsisted. It wasnt untill the formation of suns that the Hydrogen begun to fuse together and create the heavier elements. As we assume that suns work the same the universe over than we assume that they all convert Hydrogen into heavier elements. This can be backed up by a thing called emmision spectra. The emmision spectra of a sun can help us determine what it is composed of, lo and behold mainly Hydrogen and Helium (traces of heavier elements can be found in old or 2nd+ generation stars).

 

Now whether or not there are other elements we have not yet discovered is debateable. You see we have this thing called the periodic table and it organises the element in atomic order (increasing no. of protons in the neucleus) and so far there arent any gaps. To find an element that is heavier than all the ones we have so far discovered, I would say is somewhat improbable. This is becuase stars fuse elements together this process normally realeases vast amounts of energy. But once a star has used a lot of its hydrogen it fuses helium into berillium and eventually Iron - this is the limit for the release of enery from fusion. Iron has the most stable nucleus and th create elements any heavier than Iron it no longer releases energy but it actually requires energy!

So this makes the heavier elements a lot more scarce throughout the universe, add this with the fact that the heaviest stable know element is the Bismuth-209 isotope (this means anything heavier is unstable and will eventually decay untill it becomes stable) and it sounds very unlikely to find a previously undiscovered naturally occuring element.

 

But who knows I am a firm believer in linda's statement that 'Anything is possible'. Only time will tell at this point.

[goku]

not sure what you mean by 'souce'. In the very early universe only Hydrogen and small amounts of Helium exsisted

 

is that a fact?

[Jay-qu]

current estimates say 74% hydrogen 26% helium and <1% lithium

[Qfwfq]

Jay-Qu is quite correct about the heavier elements having come from stellar fusion.

In other words is it possible that certain elements could exist in the universe that we know nothing about?

If you mean elements in the ordinary sense, a given Z value, quantum mechanics can show whether or not there can be a more or less stable nucleus. I don't know if anyone has tried working it out for very large Z values, like several hundred, and I don't think it's a simple calculation to perform. It is however not very plausible to think that stellar activity would produce elements very much heavier than the naturally occuring ones, there are various reasons for this and spectroscopy does tell astronomers which elements are present in significant quantities in stars, even very far ones.

[Bo]

in fact one can (under reasonable assumptions) calculate up to high Z if a nucleus is stable or not. and it appears (see basicly every image here: http://images.google.com/images?q=stable%20nuclei&hl=en&hs=4BL&lr=&client=opera&rls=en&sa=N&tab=wi ) that there is a limit at about Z=80.

finding "elements that we know nothing about" would be very strange, since finding elements that don't fit in the scheme as we know it, would mean that some crucial parameters are different at other places (for example a small change in the fine structure constant would completely alter the pictures given in the link above)

 

Of course: nothing is impossible

 

Bo

[Turtle]

___Seems everyone danced around some on formation of the heavier elements. Yes they form from stars, but not until the star goes super nova or otherwise dies, not during their "regular" life. :hihi: :hihi:

[Erasmus00]

in fact one can (under reasonable assumptions) calculate up to high Z if a nucleus is stable or not. and it appears (see basicly every image here: http://images.google.com/images?q=stable%20nuclei&hl=en&hs=4BL&lr=&client=opera&rls=en&sa=N&tab=wi ) that there is a limit at about Z=80.

 

Most of those curves I believe are experimental. Doing QCD calculations is very difficult, I'm not sure if fundamental calculations have been carried out for very high Z numbers. Of course, using the semi-empircal mass formula, finding stable nuclei can be done with relative ease for quite high Z, but the formula is, of course, semi-empirical.

-Will

[Bo]

your absolutely right, our knowledge of nuclei is semi empirical, however that doesn't mean that we have good reasons to believe that the calculations are correct ;)

 

(btw I doubt that you need QCD for these kinds of calculations)

 

Bo

[Qfwfq]

(btw I doubt that you need QCD for these kinds of calculations)

Why not?

 

It is the strong and nuclear forces that determine the matter. I also believe straightforward calculations can't be done, just as for atomic orbitals. I do remember having read years and years ago, I can't remember where, that there may be an island of stability for Z above 120 or so.

[Jay-qu]

do you by any chance remember what it is that creates this 'island' to me it doesnt make sense to become more stable unless there are other forces at work that we dont know of

[Qfwfq]

I really don't know the details. However, it doesn't strike me so odd that there could be stability at larger Z values. QCD is definitly a complicated topic, let alone counting in the electro-weak forces too.