Asteroid may contain new elements of nature???

RGClark · 2023-10-16 07:51:21

This Ultradense Asteroid May Contain Elements We’ve Never Seen Before
A new study suggests that atoms could be stable at atomic number 164, which could help explain recent measurements of the ultradense asteroid 33 Polyhymnia.
BY DARREN ORFPUBLISHED: OCT 13, 2023
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/ … asteroid/#

Not saying it’s aliens but … ;-)

Bob Clark

Last edited by RGClark (2023-10-16 07:52:04)

tahanson43206 · 2023-10-16 12:44:35

For RGClark ...

Thanks for finding and posting the story in Post #1 of this interesting new topic ...

I checked my Tables of the Elements, which were new a decade ago, and the highest Atomic Number they showed was 110, so 164 is ** way ** out there!

If those elements are found to exist, and to be stable as thought, we'll have a major update to the Tables in the offing.

From the article:

The heaviest known stable element is the rare platinoid metal known as osmium, which has an atomic number of 76. Other elements have been synthetically created with higher atomic numbers, but their extremely short half-lives mean that they are mostly used as laboratory tools. However, Rafelski and his team argue that outlier asteroids like 33 Polyhymnia could be home to theoretical elements around the atomic number 164—many times heavier than osmium. Their study confirms that such an element would have a density of 36 to 68.4 g/cm3, which more closely approaches the asteroid’s immense density.

(th)

Calliban · 2023-10-17 09:49:13

The mass of the asteroid in question is uncertain. So its density is also unknown.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/33_Polyhymnia

Whilst it would be the find of the century to discover a stable superheavy element, I must admit to being sceptical. If this element does exist, its emission spectra should have been detected in stars and nebula by now. To my knowledge, no such anomalies have been detected.

Another problem with the idea of a stable superheavy element is that binding energy declines as atomic number increases for elements heavier than iron. A stable transuranic would therefore have to be an anomally. It would be great if it turned out to exist.

tahanson43206 · 2023-10-17 11:38:17

For Calliban re #3

Thank you for your sobering reminder that the mass estimates for this asteroid were "unrealistic".

I must admit I got caught up in the momentary excitement caused by the appearance of this story, due to the upbeat nature of the reporting.

I do NOT fault the reporter. The theoretical work reported ** does ** deserve exposure to peer review and the public.

However, inspired by your observations, I went back and re-read the original article...

The original measurements of 33 Polyhymnia suggest a weight of 75.28 g/cm3, a number so dense that the researcher who took those measurements said that the results were unrealistic.

It seems likely that at some point, a more accurate measurement of mass will be attempted.

(th)

Calliban · 2023-10-25 05:03:31

Anton Petrov video on this.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wj7BM6Jt-4I

If a probe can be put in orbit around this asteroid, we could then calculate its mass from the probe's orbital speed.

RGClark · 2023-10-25 07:23:06

Another explanation of the flawed density measurement is a flawed estimate of its size, i.e., volume. In ground scopes it appears as a point light source. Commonly, when estimating asteroid size we assume some common materials on the surface of known reflectivity. Then based on how bright the asteroid is we deduce how big it needs to be. But if there are unusually dark materials on its surface, say, hypothetically for example carbon or graphite, then we would get an underestimate for its size because it would have darker than usual materials on its surface.

In any case, just because I like his videos not because I agree as likely an “alien” explanation, here’s a discussion by the “Angry Astronaut”:

NASA detects Alien Artifact in the asteroid belt?? The truth may be stranger than that!
https://youtu.be/sH4r8BXcjG4?si=6wE6qVO1oRKKuubB

Robert Clark

GW Johnson · 2023-10-25 08:34:30

Let's just say I'd be surprised if the estimates of size for this asteroid were not wildly wrong. Ground truth regarding such observations historically proves to be wrong by rather large factors.

Estimates of mass are just best guesses, using that observed size, an assumed shape, and an assumed density. Unless it is involved in some sort of orbit with something close by, which provides a much better estimate of mass. Still just an estimate, though.

You don't get real ground truth until you orbit it or land on it with something, even today.

GW

GW Johnson · 2023-10-25 09:21:12

By the way, an error of factor 2.15 on the size of a presumed sphere is an error of factor 10 on its volume, and thus its density, for a given mass estimated off of some gravitational interaction. 2.15^3 = 10.

Radar returns from something in the asteroid belt are going to be very inaccurate, as the object and a pixel are comparable in size. From an optical measurement, all that has to be wrong is the assumed albedo to get errors of that magnitude for a size measurement.

GW

Calliban · 2023-10-26 00:27:42

I cannot see how astronomers could have failed to detect the emission spectra of a stable superheavy element, if it does exist in nature. Every chemical element has a unique electron shell structure, with quantised energy states. This gives every element a unique electromagnetic signature as atoms transition energy states. A dramatic example of this is the orange flame you get when exposing sodium chloride to a bunsen flame. Those specific sodium d lines are used by chemists to identify the presence of sodium. Every atom has its own unique emission lines as it drops down energy levels. It is a signature for its presence. The metallicity of stars is determined by examining the emission spectra of stars for elements heavier than helium. We have had over a century of this kind of astronomy. If a stable superheavy existed, is it possible that astronomers could have failed to have detected its emission spectra in hot objects like stars and nebula, after a century of observation? I just don't buy it. Unless it is extremely rare, we should have seen it by now, if it does exist at all.

Last edited by Calliban (2023-10-26 00:29:50)

SpaceNut · 2023-10-26 19:01:05

We have collider data for these heavy stable elements but the time that it takes for the light to arrive means that we are not in sync. for when the elements are present.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2023-10-16 07:51:21

Asteroid may contain new elements of nature???

#2 2023-10-16 12:44:35

Re: Asteroid may contain new elements of nature???

#3 2023-10-17 09:49:13

Re: Asteroid may contain new elements of nature???

#4 2023-10-17 11:38:17

Re: Asteroid may contain new elements of nature???

#5 2023-10-25 05:03:31

Re: Asteroid may contain new elements of nature???

#6 2023-10-25 07:23:06

Re: Asteroid may contain new elements of nature???

#7 2023-10-25 08:34:30

Re: Asteroid may contain new elements of nature???

#8 2023-10-25 09:21:12

Re: Asteroid may contain new elements of nature???

#9 2023-10-26 00:27:42

Re: Asteroid may contain new elements of nature???

#10 2023-10-26 19:01:05

Re: Asteroid may contain new elements of nature???

Board footer