-4
$\begingroup$

Why haven't scientists (or at least any reports of scientists) smash really heavy stable (or stable-enough) massive elements to produce heavier elements in the proposed island of stability?

Not being specific or accurate but the idea starts with something like this:

In late 1998, Polish physicist Robert Smolańczuk ... suggested that it might be possible to make oganesson by fusing lead with krypton

Why not smash lead with Thorium or Thorium with Fermium? Ignore the particle count, the main idea of the question is fairly layman.

There is also the obvious possibility that this has been done by the shadow society for their continued personal gain since there have been numerous leaks about the technology that they withhold from the rest of society (we're well beyond the 1950's technology we're "allowed" to toy with) such as free-energy-generation (not green tech, literal more energy output than input). So presuming that very high level elements are stable (even if under only certain conditions) what possible technological applications could they have that would clearly be intentionally withheld from public disclosure?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Before you ask "why", ask "if". $\endgroup$
    – Ivan Neretin
    Commented Jun 7, 2017 at 13:30
  • $\begingroup$ Is there a reason you put the conspiracy rant there, and then rolled it back when someone removed it? All it really does is let people know that not only are they going to need a layman's argument, they're going to need one which is even simpler and harder to misinterpret than a typical layman's argument. You might even be able to undo some of the downvotes. $\endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    Commented Jul 11, 2017 at 19:19

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
7
$\begingroup$

Smashing two very heavy nuclei requires a lot of energy to overcome the electrostatic repulsion, think of trying to play golf where the cup is on top of a high hill. Fortunately real golf holes are not designed that way.

And even if you get the ball in the hole, you still may not get what you want. The probability of a nuclear collision making a specific product, measured as "cross-section", is in general very low for superheavy nuclei. There is a lot of energy in the system (partly from what you have to put in to get atop the electrostatic hill) and there are many ways to redistribute this energy, of which your desired product is only one.

In superheavy element synthesis, a lot of failures per success is par for the course. Physicists put a lot of work up front to identify the most probable path to success in the presence of all the hazards, and "smashing lead into thorium" is not among them.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Well, that's a lot of talking, but not a real answer. Simply we don't have nuclei with appropriate neutron count, that's it. $\endgroup$
    – Mithoron
    Commented Jun 7, 2017 at 16:41
  • $\begingroup$ @Mithoron In short the bigger the nucleus the less stable the atom. The reason calcium 48 is used is because it is fairly light and so easier to accelerate to the required speeds, has lots of neutrons and reactions are more successful than when using other elements. The chances of synthesising super heavy elements would be too slim otherwise. $\endgroup$
    – The Garage Chemist
    Commented Jun 8, 2017 at 22:48

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.