By stable I mean a half-life of thousands of years at the very least.

We may never have enough resources to synthesize stable isotopes from those periods, but is it theoretically possible that somewhere in the universe there has been a stellar nucleosynthesis with enough energy to naturally produce them, so that they may exist on some distant planet somewhere in the universe?

If so, we can only imagine to ourselves what sorts of materials may be abundant on those planets...

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Neutron stars may contain some of these, but things are getting more and more weird the deeper they are in there. $\endgroup$ – Mithoron Oct 22 '17 at 23:08
  • $\begingroup$ Neutron stars do not contain what we would recognize as atoms in their bulk. You would have to find them in the thin outer crust and even that would be hard to extract from their powerful gravitational fields. $\endgroup$ – Oscar Lanzi Oct 22 '17 at 23:29
  • $\begingroup$ @OscarLanzi Well, "extraction" from there is indeed rather out of question ;) $\endgroup$ – Mithoron Oct 24 '17 at 0:42

There are no reliable models for nuclei that can be used to make reasonable predictions.

The island of stability is really not well defined in theory and it is disputed if such an island even exists. "Stability" for physicists doing this work means quite a long way short of thousands of years - thousands of seconds would be considered pretty stable by these standards.

Heavy elements are generally less abundant, so don't expect them to be abundant anywhere even if they exist. These super heavy elements are being manufactured, and not discovered in nature.

  • $\begingroup$ This is not answering my question. I did not ask for predictions or observations. I was asking if it's theoretically possible, or otherwise our current models suggest that heavier elements are necessarily less stable, i.e. we know for sure there can't be a stable isotope with an atomic number larger than 82. $\endgroup$ – Moon Oct 23 '17 at 14:20
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ We don't know that for sure. You're essentially asking me if we can completely rule out something I've told you we can't model properly, so the answer to such a question is always going to be "yes, it's possible", simply because we cannot disprove it. As I tried to explain it seems unlikely. Even if we had models we had great confidence in, it is the nature of science that the word "impossible" is rarely used in such a context $\endgroup$ – StephenG Oct 23 '17 at 17:27

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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