# What would the theoretical Element 184 be like? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 2, 2014, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-the-theoretical-element-184-be-like/687504 "2014-05-02T14:53:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-the-theoretical-element-184-be-like/687504/21 "2014-05-03T01:28:01Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > Is there any purpose to the creation of these elements? > > I’m not asking if there’s any PRACTICAL purpose - I’d be fine with pure science for knowledge’s sake. But from what I understand, it doesn’t seem to be even that. They create a few atoms that exist for less than a second, and then declare what they “expect” the physical properties of the new element to have been - something they could have done, and probably even did, before they had actually created it. Has the actual creation of these elements led to any new knowledge other than “it was possible to create a few atoms of them, however briefly”? I am more curious to know if there are (will be) any superheavy elements with useful practical applications-such as impenetrable shielding or such… ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-the-theoretical-element-184-be-like/687504/22 "2014-05-03T01:40:13Z")
I was recently told by someone involved in the sciences that models showed atoms cannot get larger than the 130s. It had something to do with how the electrons are not able to move properly, orbitals stop working properly, etc. Does anyone know if there is any validity to this theory (that electrons wouldn’t be able to function in atoms over the 130s)? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-the-theoretical-element-184-be-like/687504/23 "2014-05-03T02:05:32Z")
Maybe someone said that their models couldn’t describe elements above there, but I’m sure the electrons would figure it out just fine. ---
**Author:** ![kaltkalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bb73d2/32.png) [@kaltkalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaltkalt)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-the-theoretical-element-184-be-like/687504/24 "2014-05-03T02:36:11Z")
Isn’t element 115 the stuff that supposedly powers UFO anti-gravity engines? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-the-theoretical-element-184-be-like/687504/25 "2014-05-03T03:22:37Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > I was recently told by someone involved in the sciences that models showed atoms cannot get larger than the 130s. It had something to do with how the electrons are not able to move properly, orbitals stop working properly, etc. > > Does anyone know if there is any validity to this theory (that electrons wouldn’t be able to function in atoms over the 130s)? According to a naive calculation from the Dirac equation, the innermost electrons of an element heavier than 137 protons (Z=137) would have to move faster than light; but this is considered more likely to be a breakdown of the theory. A more detailed analysis suggests a limit at about 173. There are also concerns that something called “nuclear drip” would set a limit on how heavy a nucleus could get before no more neutrons or protons could stay bound. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-the-theoretical-element-184-be-like/687504/26 "2014-05-03T06:31:04Z")
> [@Trans Fat Og](#): > > _ **Unionized?** _:dubious: > > But which elements would be likely to approach it to join a union? IIRC, one of Asimov’s Black Widowers stories played around with exactly that word and that word’s ambiguity. “Unionized” wasn’t, itself, the main plot point, but it was used early on to demonstrate that one’s profession could influence one’s understanding of a written word (again, IIRC, one of the Widowers was a chemist and another was a labor lawyer). ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-the-theoretical-element-184-be-like/687504/27 "2014-05-03T13:39:30Z")
You could also make “atoms” of higher elements by using something else for a nucleus. As far as an atom is concerned, all that matters about the nucleus is that it have a particular charge, and that it be small. But you could replace it with anything else small with the same charge, and the electrons won’t mind. One possibility, for instance, would be a charged microscopic black hole. ---
**Author:** ![Frodo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/frodo/32/302_2.png) [@Frodo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frodo)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-the-theoretical-element-184-be-like/687504/28 "2014-05-03T15:06:13Z")
> [@kaltkalt](#): > > Isn’t element 115 the stuff that supposedly powers UFO anti-gravity engines? 🙂 Elerium, of course! But it cannot be synthesized, only harvested from downed UFOs. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-the-theoretical-element-184-be-like/687504/29 "2014-05-03T15:16:34Z")
> [@Frodo](#): > > Elerium, of course! > But it cannot be synthesized, only harvested from downed UFOs. So were do they get it? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Frodo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/frodo/32/302_2.png) [@Frodo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frodo)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-the-theoretical-element-184-be-like/687504/30 "2014-05-03T15:21:24Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > So were do they get it? 😉 From the GameMechanicanium Mines. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-the-theoretical-element-184-be-like/687504/31 "2014-05-03T17:25:43Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > According to a naive calculation from the Dirac equation, the innermost electrons of an element heavier than 137 protons (Z=137) would have to move faster than light; but this is considered more likely to be a breakdown of the theory. A more detailed analysis suggests a limit at about 173. There are also concerns that something called “nuclear drip” would set a limit on how heavy a nucleus could get before no more neutrons or protons could stay bound. Yeah, that is what he was talking about. How above element 137 the electrons would have to move faster than light. I didn’t mention that in my first post because I only had the vaguest idea how it works (Quantum Mechanics was never my strong suit). I didn’t know this problem was considered an issue with the math, rather than an issue with potential chemistry though. That is interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Carl\_Pham](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Carl\_Pham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carl_Pham)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-the-theoretical-element-184-be-like/687504/32 "2014-05-03T18:39:20Z")
Making, or trying to make, very heavy atoms are essentially experiments in the many-body problem with the strong force. There is no question that there is _some_ upper limit on the size of a nucleus that is even temporarily stable, because at some point the nucleons on opposite sides of the nucleus are too far apart to experience enough strong force attraction to counter the electromagnetic repulsion. This happens anyway, from time to time, which is why the nucleus decays. But it’s very hard, essentially impossible with current computational abilities, to calculate theoretically what happens to two or three hundred strongly interacting nucleons. It’s like trying to calculate the properties of a raindrop starting from the interactions between water molecules – only much worse, because it’s much more quantum from the beginning. So you do experiments, just like you do experiments on the properties of tiny drops of atoms and molecules, to see if you can improve your methods of calculation of the property of many-body systems, to improve your semi-empirical models, and to learn more about the nature of the problem. You also learn about the transition from a drop to a solid; for example we know the properties of a drop of water aren’t exactly the same as bulk water – but why? How? In the same sense, the properties of a nucleus aren’t the same as, say, bulk neutronium, or the very early universe. But why? And how? I think the relatively picayune fact that if you somehow got a mole or so of these experimental atoms together, you’d have a new element, is an unfortunate red herring. It seems exciting in some sense – ooo! a new element! – but it also makes it seem it’s a mere vanity project, like erecting pyramids. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-the-theoretical-element-184-be-like/687504/33 "2014-05-03T20:12:50Z")
And, for that matter, there’s also a lot that’s unknown about bulk neutronium, too, and hence much that can be learned from observation of neutron stars. Just a couple of years ago, for instance, one was discovered with twice the mass of the Sun, which immediately ruled out a bunch of models, since most models predicted a maximum possible mass lower than that. ---
**Author:** ![buddha\_david](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ee7513/32.png) [@buddha\_david](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddha_david)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-the-theoretical-element-184-be-like/687504/34 "2014-05-03T20:39:09Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > I am more curious to know if there are (will be) any superheavy elements with useful practical applications-such as impenetrable shielding or such… Probably never. Any element with a half-life measured in milliseconds is unlikely to have any practical uses beyond scientific curiosity. Far-future technologies, such as forcefields and Star Trek-like battle shields, are more likely to come about from manipulating the Higgs Field directly, or enslaved angels holding hands, or something crazy like that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-the-theoretical-element-184-be-like/687504.md?page=1)