Grammar is important. When you're speaking colloquially and say "I'm the one paying for this bitch", make sure she doesn't think you're saying "I'm the one paying for this, bitch."
The Random Crap Thread 2: It Hits the Fan.
- Thread starter North_Ranger
- Start date
Christie Brinkley..
I hope I look this good at 62. Probably won't happen without implants, though.
I hope I look this good at 62. Probably won't happen without implants, though.
Don't get implants, hun. You don't want to start buying bras.Christie Brinkley..
I hope I look this good at 62. Probably won't happen without implants, though.
Nah...they're not for me. I only want boobies if they're in my face.
B
BErt
I'm sorry, wait...does that say bacon Minotaur penis? What is happening anymore...
Well.... bacon makes everything better?
Start spreading the news.
I'm leaving today.
I want be a part of it.
New York New York.[DOUBLEPOST=1454456605,1454456501][/DOUBLEPOST]
Mind fucking blown.
Start spreading the news.
I'm leaving today.
I want be a part of it.
New York New York.[DOUBLEPOST=1454456605,1454456501][/DOUBLEPOST]
Omg. They're singing New York twice not as a musical device but as a proper address.
Mind fucking blown.
Do they make bras that fit your face?
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, remember this guy?
If anyone ever needed a face bra... Well, fortunately...
Help was available.
How many atoms would a single element need to be visible to the naked eye, and would such an element be stable?
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, that literally depends on the element. A uranium atom is 238 times more massive than a hydrogen atom.
Also, what is "stable"? Hydrogen can exist just fine as a gas but it's still highly flamable, but mercury exists as a metalic liquid at normal temperatures.
Plus, you could have all the hydrogen on Earth all around you and you still wouldn't see it.
Uh, let's switch that for some other less explosive invisible element. Like nitrogen.
GasBandit
Staff member
Depends on how tight you compress it. Or cool it, I guess. Hydrogen turns liquid around 33 Kelvin.
I just assumed a single atom so large you could see it could be easily messed with, from as simple as it dissipating to as dangerous as exploding. I mean, what would happen if I were to just TAP a single element the size of a cheese-ball? Nothing? Something?
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, again, depends on the element and the state (temperature). I mean, iron is an element, and a cheese-ball sized chunk of near-pure room temperature iron would not really care if you tapped it.
Liquid nitrogen in the same amount would boil rapidly (and give you the worst case of frostbite you ever had).
Yes. Although I was mostly (and roundaboutly) pointing out that we can't actually see with the naked eye the most abundant element right in front of our face.
I think what you are asking is how many protons would an atom need to have to be visible to the naked eye?
....YUP-I mixed that up something wrong. Thought the single units of electrical mass energy that are protons/electrons/neutrons were the atoms but here we are.
So yeah, that. Explosion? Nothing?
GasBandit
Staff member
OH WELL IN THAT CASE
I don't know what the fuck it would be, or how many protons/neutrons/electrons it would have, but I'm pretty sure it would be radioactive as fuck.
I figured, also I read a 1000th element would fragment so I guess we won't know.OH WELL IN THAT CASE
I don't know what the fuck it would be, or how many protons/neutrons/electrons it would have, but I'm pretty sure it would be radioactive as fuck.
Also this is not the first time I have mixed up terms such as these, when I was a kid I mixed up "Thermos" with "thermostat". That lead to confusion with my parents.
Well, the smallest visible things to the naked eye are several hundredths of a millimeter wide. A proton has a diameter of approximately 1 femtometer, that is, 1 x 10^-15. So that's a factor of 10 zeroes between them.
In other words, even if you had a really weird atom where its nucleus consisted of nothing but a row of protons arranged in a neat line, you'd still need an atomic number of approximately 10,000,000,000.
Of course, this is not realistic, because even if the row of protons are wide enough, it's still not "tall" enough to be visible. So let's say we have a circle of protons then, with the diameter of the circle as 10,000,000,000 protons. This means you'd have a circle of protons with an "area" of 78,500,000,000,000,000,000.
And then this doesn't account for the fact that your protons will obviously not stay in a neat, flat circle. They'd form a spherical formation, and probably would need a whole bunch of neutrons to hold them together, the number of which I do not have enough information to calculate. The formation into a spherical shape would vastly increase the number of particles, but the addition of neutrons would mean that you're replacing some of the protons in the nucleus with neutrons, so the overall atomic number of the element would fall.
And, of course, protons are all positively charged, which means they repel each other quite strongly. In other words, putting that many protons in one place will likely result in a spectacular explosion. I'm talking planetary-scale here.
In other words, even if you had a really weird atom where its nucleus consisted of nothing but a row of protons arranged in a neat line, you'd still need an atomic number of approximately 10,000,000,000.
Of course, this is not realistic, because even if the row of protons are wide enough, it's still not "tall" enough to be visible. So let's say we have a circle of protons then, with the diameter of the circle as 10,000,000,000 protons. This means you'd have a circle of protons with an "area" of 78,500,000,000,000,000,000.
And then this doesn't account for the fact that your protons will obviously not stay in a neat, flat circle. They'd form a spherical formation, and probably would need a whole bunch of neutrons to hold them together, the number of which I do not have enough information to calculate. The formation into a spherical shape would vastly increase the number of particles, but the addition of neutrons would mean that you're replacing some of the protons in the nucleus with neutrons, so the overall atomic number of the element would fall.
And, of course, protons are all positively charged, which means they repel each other quite strongly. In other words, putting that many protons in one place will likely result in a spectacular explosion. I'm talking planetary-scale here.
http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/periodic/faq/what-atom-is-largest.shtml
So, if we were somehow, no matter how unlikely, able to create an atom with enough valence shells to be visible to the naked eye, it'd be unstable as hell and would likely almost instantly and violently react to anything that touched it, to the detriment of both.Cesium is one of the most reactive elements known, partially because its atoms are so large. Cesium's lone valence electron is so far away from the nucleus on average that it is very easily removed. The electron is taken from cesium by other substances in violent chemical reactions. Cesium bursts into flames on contact with oxygen in air. Water and even ice reacts more violently with cesium than any of the other common metals:
2 Cs(s) + 2 H2O()
2 CsOH(aq) + H2(g)
You don't see protons anyway. Visual observation requires interaction with electromagnetic waves - photons, light, etc. This occurs in the outer layers of electrons. The atom, therefore, wouldn't necessarily have to be physically large enough to see, but it would have to interact with and alter enough light that you could observe its effects enough to determine its location relative to you. This could be a few orders of magnitude smaller than tens of micrometers, but unless it's emitting light itself would still require an atom with so many electrons that it's nowhere within the realm of possibility according to current atomic science.
You'd still have a tough time interacting with it.
The basic principle of reaction, though, is how loosely held the outer layers of electrons is. and such an atom would have such a loose outer layer that it would react with anything, and very violently. Atomic scale attraction would simply not be enough to hold this atom together, and it would decompose (spectacularly, as bhamv3 points out) to other more stable atoms instantly after it was formed.
The light emission from this event would be very noticeable to the naked eye, from quite a distance.
But you couldn't interact meaningfully with such an atom anyway.
I'm guessing that when you said, "Turn up the thermos, I'm cold" your parents gave you a thermos of hot soup solving the problem even though they didn't understand your request.
You'd still have a tough time interacting with it.
The basic principle of reaction, though, is how loosely held the outer layers of electrons is. and such an atom would have such a loose outer layer that it would react with anything, and very violently. Atomic scale attraction would simply not be enough to hold this atom together, and it would decompose (spectacularly, as bhamv3 points out) to other more stable atoms instantly after it was formed.
The light emission from this event would be very noticeable to the naked eye, from quite a distance.
But you couldn't interact meaningfully with such an atom anyway.
I'm guessing that when you said, "Turn up the thermos, I'm cold" your parents gave you a thermos of hot soup solving the problem even though they didn't understand your request.
Dave
Staff member
The parking lot at my work this morning. Schools are closed and we apparently open late (10 am). But I was here at 6:30 like normal, damn it!
Oh, and here's my Dallas Cowboys/geek shrine on my desk. Notice the signed picture of @Bumble the Boy Wonder.
Oh, and here's my Dallas Cowboys/geek shrine on my desk. Notice the signed picture of @Bumble the Boy Wonder.
The mug *with* URL? Tss, poser, the original just had the logo
Yes.
I fucking love that stupid picture
I love fucking that stupid picture.
Wait...yep that's what I meant.
Wait...yep that's what I meant.
Reverse in fact, I asked something along the lines of are there thermostats that could keep any liquid in them and my father was confused.