Notices
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Sphere Packing Problem and Chemistry

  1. #1 Sphere Packing Problem and Chemistry 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    37
    Physcists and chemists alike know that an element is determined by the number of protons in its nucleus. For example, a hydrogen atom can be defined as an atom with a single proton in its nucleus, a helium atom can be defined as an atom with two protons in its nucleus, and so on and so forth.

    However, what if we looked at the nucleus of an atom as a sphere, and we considered protons as spheres as well. Therefore, finding the maximum number of protons that can fit into the nucleus of an atom would be tantamount to solving a sphere packing problem. In doing so, we could find all of the derivable elements in the universe, both artificial and natural.

    An initial problem that comes to mind is that neutrons are also found in the nucleus of an atom, but perhaps we could determine the minimum number of neutrons and from that derive the maximum number of protons. Any thoughts on this or?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,828
    Quote Originally Posted by ellatha View Post
    However, what if we looked at the nucleus of an atom as a sphere, and we considered protons as spheres as well. Therefore, finding the maximum number of protons that can fit into the nucleus of an atom would be tantamount to solving a sphere packing problem.
    Apart from the fact that you're using the vastly simplified (and not-quite-correct) Bohr model the other problem is that the packing problem doesn't enter into it.
    Unless there's a maximum allowable "space" for those "spheres" to be fitted into then there isn't a "maximum number" of protons to a nucleus. You can always just bung another wherever it'll go, as it were.


    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Apart from the fact that you're using the vastly simplified (and not-quite-correct) Bohr model the other problem is that the packing problem doesn't enter into it.
    Unless there's a maximum allowable "space" for those "spheres" to be fitted into then there isn't a "maximum number" of protons to a nucleus. You can always just bung another wherever it'll go, as it were.
    I see what you're saying, but than why don't we see atoms with an atomic mass of 3,495,898,434 amu? Clearly the nuclei seem to possess a maximum achievable volume.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,828
    Good question.
    I have no idea.
    Stability?

    Ah possibly: Scientists will continue to try to create larger atoms -- even though they will decay nearly instantly. Is there an upper limit to how large these atoms can get? We do not know. Right now the technical hurdles are preventing us from making infinitely larger atoms.
    http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05174.htm
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Cool Dude ostkef's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    154
    Yes, it's got a lot to do with stability.

    I find the OP question a bit vague and confusing. So here's a good starting point:

    Any nuclear structure will be based on the radioactive half lives, to explain why this particular isotope has a half-life of this length.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Cool Dude ostkef's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Wrong way around, the half life is a consequence of the (in)stability of the nucleus, nuclear stability is not a consequence of half life...
    Oh, that's not what I meant.

    what I meant was, any nuclear structure theory that scientists come up with will first be based on all the half-lives we've measured.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,602
    Quote Originally Posted by ellatha View Post
    However, what if we looked at the nucleus of an atom as a sphere, and we considered protons as spheres as well.
    The structure of the nucleus is a major problem in physics.

    It is important to note that nucleons (protons and neutrons) are not really little solid spheres and so sphere packing doe not really apply. There are also other issues such as the positive charges of protons cause them to repel one another (and hence the need for increasing proportion of neutrons as atomic number increases). And also the fact that re fermions and so the Pauli exclusion principle applies (no two protons can have the same quantum sate)

    However, the shell model, which is one of the most successful approaches, is not too far from what you suggest:
    Nuclear shell model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,602
    Quote Originally Posted by ostkef View Post
    what I meant was, any nuclear structure theory that scientists come up with will first be based on all the half-lives we've measured.
    Or bottom-up, based on QCD (but most likely a mixture of observation and theory).
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,602
    Quote Originally Posted by ellatha View Post
    I see what you're saying, but than why don't we see atoms with an atomic mass of 3,495,898,434 amu? Clearly the nuclei seem to possess a maximum achievable volume.
    Larger nuclei become increasingly unstable. But there is thought to be an "island of stability" where some very large nuclei will be stable.
    Island of stability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Loosest circle packing
    By MagiMaster in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: April 19th, 2011, 06:31 PM
  2. Very hard chemistry problem. >:(
    By DivideByZero in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: November 24th, 2008, 10:29 AM
  3. One small Chemistry problem
    By Sci-Realism in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 22nd, 2008, 06:16 PM
  4. Chemistry problem
    By Plutonarch in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: January 14th, 2008, 10:36 PM
  5. Chemistry problem.
    By ahmoshi in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 28th, 2006, 03:26 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •