464
submitted 2 months ago by janus2@lemmy.zip to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] GraniteM@lemmy.world 131 points 2 months ago
[-] teft@piefed.social 24 points 2 months ago

The air vent is actually a particle accelerator shooting neutrons into the periodic table.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 14 points 2 months ago

I've never seen a reverse-Saddam and I am delighted to say that I'm glad it was in this community.

[-] fossilesque@mander.xyz 3 points 2 months ago

It's a rare Saddam ( ^-^)ノ∠※。.:*:・'°☆

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] janus2@lemmy.zip 12 points 2 months ago

not to scale

[-] es_eskaliert@feddit.org 9 points 2 months ago

The first (last) column makes it look like a Trump style haircut

[-] ns1@feddit.uk 96 points 2 months ago

After reading I realised that this proposal isn't a single new element for all neutron stars, but a separate new entry on the table for every individual neutron star in existence, unless there are two that happen to have the exact same number of protons which is unlikely. Sounds good to me

[-] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 25 points 2 months ago
[-] ns1@feddit.uk 33 points 2 months ago

we have assumed that Rex is comprised of a uniform nucleon fluid, with protons, neutrons and electrons in an idealised 1:8:1 ratio

This is how the author is estimating it, they are assuming 1/9th of the mass is protons. No idea how good that assumption is though, there is a source which doesn't look the most convincing

[-] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 18 points 2 months ago

Whoopsie. I used to assume neutron stars are made of neutrons. It turns out Big Astronomy lied to me.

[-] Revan343@lemmy.ca 31 points 2 months ago

Neutron stars are made of neutrons in the same way that tapwater is made of water molecules: primarily, but not entirely

[-] Natanael@infosec.pub 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Neutron stars have so high pressure that MOST but not all protons decay into neutrons plus ~~electrons~~ positrons (plus neutrinos)

Edit: (see quote below)

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Engywuck@lemmy.zip 61 points 2 months ago

"It is a truth universally acknowledged that no physics problem is complete unless some major component of reality is excluded to simplify the numbers."

I'll save this quote for my students. Amazing.

[-] cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 45 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I highly suggest reading the entire article. That shit is pure comedy gold. Here are some highlights:

IUPAC currently recognises 118 chemical elements. The last twenty have half-lives shorter than Australian prime ministers, and are of equally limited utility to science.

Instead, we have assumed that Rex is comprised of a uniform nucleon fluid, with protons, neutrons and electrons in an idealised 1:8:1 ratio.7 This assumption will have to stand until cosmic-scale mass spectrometers can be developed.

Assuming a periodic table in which each element is represented by a 1 cm by 2.5 cm rectangle, 40 rows of 32 elements will take up one meter of space. At this scale, a periodic table incorporating element 1056 would need to be 7.82 × 1052 meters long. This is problematic, because 7.82 × 1052 meters is about 1037 lightyears, and the universe is currently estimated span a mere 93 billion lightyears. As such, the new periodic table would be a quadrillion times larger than the observable universe.

With the admin out of the way, it is now time to speculate about the chemical properties of the new element. At first, this might seem like your dentist asking you if you’re free at 3:15 on a Thursday afternoon in 2057, but the periodic table is more organised than your calendar.

Being in group 10, we might expect element 1056 to predominantly exhibit 2+ and 4+ oxidation states, and to participate in carbon-carbon cross- coupling reactions. This is unlikely however, because astronomical observations of neutron stars indicate that they do not behave like conventional atoms.

To appropriately study this exciting new branch of astrochemistry the authors have formed a new research institute the Centre for Unstable Neutron Transient Structures (CUNTS). This new institute comprises of two research groups the Baryonic Investigation Group (aka BIG CUNTS) and the Baryonic And Dark Matter Focus (aka BADMF CUNTS). We’re very proud that the exceptional nature of this research group is already being recognised with Amnesty International awarding CUNTS the 2024 Most Inappropriate and Offensive Acronym Award.While pleased to receive international recognition we have not been able to identify any offensive acronym usage and have invited Amnesty International to come and view our Award of Registered Sociopaths Equity (ARSE).

To experimentally verify this hypothesis, we proposed to send chemists to RX J1856.5−3754, but the ARC rejected our grant.

Finally, we considered the nuclear stability of our new element. Rex is radioactive in the literal sense because it emits radio waves.

We hope this paper will prompt someone to go to RX J1856.5−3754 and count its protons, so we can confirm exactly which element it is.

We thank the management of the Alien-Life Molestation Array (ALMA) for allowing us to piss around with their telescopes, while they were having lunch.

That shit almost made me piss myself from laughing.

[-] teft@piefed.social 8 points 2 months ago

This is problematic, because 7.82 × 10^52^ meters is about 10^37^ lightyears, and the universe is currently estimated to span a mere 93 billion lightyears.

Comedy gold. I could see Mitch Hedberg saying this.

[-] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

7.81 * 1052 =8216.12 check mate atheist

J/k, you forgot this (づ ᴗ _ᴗ)づ 10^52^ = 10^52^

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Kolanaki@pawb.social 43 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Are they elements? 🤨

Personally, I think it's high time we went back to just 4 of 'em. Earth, Wind, Water, Fire. It's so much easier to remember them all.

[-] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Do they have protons or only neutrons? because if there are no protons then it is technically just neutronium and not an element,

If they do have protons, then it is safe to assume it is a ridiculous number like 10^40. in which case I would count it as an element. And given how unlikely is for 2 neutron stars to share the number of protons, then every single neutron star is its own element,

And also, because they do not react with other atom, and if 2 collide then they merge their nucleus, we can agree that they are non reactive, and therefore we can consider them noble gasses…

Wait, are they gas?

YES, they are, if there is a single atom floating in space I think that counts as a gas

[-] Natanael@infosec.pub 3 points 2 months ago

I don't think a single neutron star is a gas, but a neutron star binary system is a gas

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Una@europe.pub 27 points 2 months ago
[-] teft@piefed.social 20 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Go take the test everyone. It's pretty funny.

[-] magnetosphere@fedia.io 27 points 2 months ago

(not to scale) is my favorite part

[-] The_v@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

Figure 3's label.

"Chlorine atoms are shown in red." got me.

[-] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 6 points 2 months ago

I particularly enjoyed

10^20^ +/- 10^20^ Å

[-] JayTreeman@fedia.io 25 points 2 months ago

Astronomical levels of snark

[-] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Do they have protons or only neutrons? because if there are no protons then it is technically just neutronium and not an element,

If they do have protons, then it is safe to assume it is a ridiculous number like 10^40. in which case I would count it as an element. And given how unlikely is for 2 neutron stars to share the number of protons, then every single neutron star is its own element,

And also, because they do not react with other atom, and if 2 collide then they merge their nucleus, we can agree that they are non reactive, and therefore we can consider them noble gasses...

Wait, are they gas?

YES, they are, if there is a single atom floating in space I think that counts as a gas

[-] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 months ago

I would argue that, since they lack an electron cloud and are comprised of a collection of free-floating nuclei, they are actually a plasma.

[-] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

can we say that neuron stars are ions?

wait, are neuton stars positively charged?

[-] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago

Well, we can't call them atoms, which are defined by the presence of an electron cloud surrounding a nucleus.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Fleur_@aussie.zone 8 points 2 months ago

I'm sure there's at least more than 200 protons throughout regardless of majority composition

[-] IHeartBadCode@fedia.io 24 points 2 months ago

A representation of a binuclear compound of element 10^(56) with an average bond length of 100 quintillion angstroms.

Okay that was funny.

[-] Hupf@feddit.org 21 points 2 months ago
[-] cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 8 points 2 months ago

Of course there is a relevant xkcd

[-] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 16 points 2 months ago

This collapse generates a body of neutron-removed matter with a radius as small as 10 km, but a mass comparable to our Sun’s. As such, they are the densest known material outside of Twitter, at around 1017 kg/m3. For American readers unfamiliar with SI units, that means a pair of truck-nuts made of neutron star would weigh as much as ten million aircraft carriers.

susie-laugh

Cooking with TNT

[-] janus2@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 months ago

a pair of truck-nuts

new favorite unit

[-] Sibshops@lemmy.myserv.one 15 points 2 months ago

Okay this is good

[-] marcos@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Hum... The width of each row increases exponentially with their number.

It's probably just some ~1m away from the small elements. At least on the vertical.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] spacesailor@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 months ago

Shouldn't they be element 0 as they dont have any protons?

[-] sm1dger@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago

The conversion from protons to neutrons does not complete 100% so there are still some (trillion) protons left per "atom"

[-] spacesailor@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 months ago

Didn't know that, thanks

[-] betanumerus@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 months ago

It's the periodic table of ELEMENTS, which are defined by their number of protons.

The lone neutron deserves a place before any size neutron star.

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

Neutron stars do contain protons and electrons. It’s a misconception that they’re 100% pure neutrons.

A well-known type of neutron star is a pulsar. These rotating objects have extremely powerful magnetic fields which can only be produced by the movement of electric charges. If they were purely made of neutrons there could be no electric charges to move, and thus no magnetic fields.

[-] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

No, seriously, stuff like electron metal and strange matter.

[-] m532@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 2 months ago

Do they have 0 protons? Because if they do, they should be in the spot above helium

[-] Flyberius@hexbear.net 4 points 2 months ago

No the ratio of protons neutrons electrons is assumed to be 1:8:1 in the article. It's a fun read

[-] tfed@infosec.exchange 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

@janus2 yes, put them in there. also we need to include every single isotope out there.

Probably This Table in Future will use circles instead of squares. Where in the middle circle are the Hydrogen and Helium, next layer has next atoms that are on the 2nd layer, etc.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

If we were to expand the periodic table to include them. would the poster fit within the planet? solar system?universe?

[-] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Depends on the font

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2025
464 points (98.9% liked)

Science Memes

17710 readers
1666 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS