My little neutron!
Continuing the calculations, putting the neutron mass as 1.67x10**-27kg, G=6.67x10**-11 and
c=3x10**8m/sec, the radius of the neutron for it be just a black hole needs to be just about 2x10**-54 metre or 2x10**-51 mm. Taking the diametre to be twice the radius, this gives about 2.5x10**50 neutrons stackable in a millimetre! In case the real blackholes contain empty space, the neutron could be much smaller!
srini
Monday, November 20, 2006
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Eureka! Eureka! Scientists discover new element - UNUNOCTIUM!
Just as the deliberation is going on about the densest material, there is some news (October 2006) that US and Russian scientists announced that they had discovered a superheavy element, known as 118, albeit one that has only existed in three different atoms lasting a fraction of a second over months of experiments. The last discovery of a naturally occurring element on the periodic table was in 1925 and have since sought to create new heavier elements. The last new elements discovered , 113 and 115, were announced in 2004.
Scientists said they found their first superheavy element 118 atom in 2002, then found another two atoms in 2005 in a second round of experiments in which they fired 10 to the power of 19 calcium ions at the californium. In the end the atoms of element 118 - also known as ununoctium - lasted 0.9 milliseconds, researchers said. But due to some controversies, this was not fully accepted. Adding a fresh lease of hope, in the latest experiments, scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna, Russia, bombarded Californium with Calcium ions to create 118 - the heaviest ever created in such experiments. 118 denotes the number of protons in the nucleus or the atomic number, technically speaking. It is said to fit just below Radon in the column of the periodic table containing what are called noble gases for their inert chemical properties.
Now the point I (the author of the blog) would like to add and highlight is that the solid form of the element 118 must be considered and that too at absolute zero temperature! I have an inkling that any material cooled to absolute zero could degenerate into a totally packed bunch of neutrons. Am I right? Any comments from our esteemed physicist-fratenity?
srini.
9 nov 2006
Just as the deliberation is going on about the densest material, there is some news (October 2006) that US and Russian scientists announced that they had discovered a superheavy element, known as 118, albeit one that has only existed in three different atoms lasting a fraction of a second over months of experiments. The last discovery of a naturally occurring element on the periodic table was in 1925 and have since sought to create new heavier elements. The last new elements discovered , 113 and 115, were announced in 2004.
Scientists said they found their first superheavy element 118 atom in 2002, then found another two atoms in 2005 in a second round of experiments in which they fired 10 to the power of 19 calcium ions at the californium. In the end the atoms of element 118 - also known as ununoctium - lasted 0.9 milliseconds, researchers said. But due to some controversies, this was not fully accepted. Adding a fresh lease of hope, in the latest experiments, scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna, Russia, bombarded Californium with Calcium ions to create 118 - the heaviest ever created in such experiments. 118 denotes the number of protons in the nucleus or the atomic number, technically speaking. It is said to fit just below Radon in the column of the periodic table containing what are called noble gases for their inert chemical properties.
Now the point I (the author of the blog) would like to add and highlight is that the solid form of the element 118 must be considered and that too at absolute zero temperature! I have an inkling that any material cooled to absolute zero could degenerate into a totally packed bunch of neutrons. Am I right? Any comments from our esteemed physicist-fratenity?
srini.
9 nov 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
