The destructium element

[Beatnik307]

I like the idea of the anti-hydrogen...this could have some possibilities.

 

but if you had the electrically neutral anti-H then you couldn't contain it with magnetic fields, making it hard to store for any appreciable period of time.

[munch]

I don't think the answer of elements only existing for a fraction of a second truly ends the debate. Although no example has been found, physicists think it possible that some extremely heavy elements (atomic number at least 150 or so) may form a group of stable heavy nuclei. In essence, there would be one or more elements in a row with atomic numbers over 100 that have a half-life measured in minutes or greater, or not have a half-life at all.

 

If one of these elements existed, there wouldn't be much of a problem unless it happened to be a catalyst. Due to the small numbers produced, the effects of the catalyst would initially be small. The problem with a catalyst is once it's produced, it never disappears without, in this case, a nuclear reaction. As time went on, more scientists would, either accidentally or intentionally, create more of the element.

 

Now let's say this stable catalyst causes common molecules in the atmosphere to produce a particularly nasty compound, like VX nerve gas. Or it could produce a second catalyst, one that eats ozone or oxygen or something else important.

 

With the nasty compound scenario, eventually levels will be high enough to cause problems. Still, knowing the element's properties will give us time to prepare. It causes problems, but it's not exactly world-ending.

 

Second scenario: In this case, the second catalyst is the one that causes problems, and the levels of the final product, whether it's being created (as in the first scenario) or destroyed, will change quite rapidly. We'd have much more of a problem to deal with.

 

I have to stress, though, that any of these scenarios have about a one in a zillion gajillion chance of happening. There's no evidence that stable heavy elements exist, I believe platinum is the only elemental catalyst (too tired to look it up) we've discovered, and the chances that it happens to be exactly the right way to destroy the planet are less than my odds of finding a date for tomorrow.

 

Or consider this: no one intentionally looking for new ways to kill people has stumbled across a way to completely destroy the world. What are the chances a few scientists will stumble across what weapons researchers have been, well, researching, since Oog the caveman clubbed his first dinosaur to death?

 

Apologies if this was a bit long. I spent a couple hours today helping a clueless friend install a program, and I think I kept the hand-holding mindset.

[IDMclean]

In responce to the killer Chain reaction bit?

 

Conservation of Mass-Energy.

 

If a new element were created as you purpose, it's destructive potential is extreamely limited, by conventional physics. if there is some odd mechanism, then that might be worry some, but that as of yet, would be the exception, not the rule. This is to say, it would be statistically unlikely, to a greatly insignificant degree. Not likely to happen.

 

As for BH formation? BH formation depends completely on density. If a particle's matter components cross the critical radius, a black hole can form. Theoretically anything can become a blackhole, it's just far more likely for REALLY big things. This is not to say it couldn't happen with small things, just that it's unlikely.

[munch]

I'm not sure why everyone is obsessed with atom-sized black holes. First off, it's way too small to do anything. I believe it would have problems absorbing even an electron.

 

Second, and more important, is that black holes as small as we're thinking are unstable. It has to do with the creation and capture of virtual particles. If a pair of virtual particles, matter and its antimatter counterpart, are created just outside a black hole's event horizon, the black hole can capture both, let both go, or capture one but not the other.

 

The third option is how black holes lose mass. When one of a pair of virtual particles escapes, the black hole loses that mass. For black holes created from a star, this isn't much of a problem. The hole absorbs a lot more matter than escapes from its event horizon. The rate of mass loss speeds up significantly as the black hole approaches atomic size. It eventually gets to a point, theoretically at least, where it loses all its mass in an instantaneous evaporation extravaganza. An atom has much less mass than that required for a black hole explosion, and our black hole atom would simply turn itself into a bunch of random particles flying off.

 

Atom black holes: Nothing to worry about.

[GAHD]

Oh and on experiments blowing up the world, Stranglets are the things to worry about ;)

[myspip90]

I don't think that there exists an atom that has such a destructive power. As mass is related to energy a small atom (E=mc^2) would suffice to blow up the earth.

If there was something that would blow up earth, it'd be nuclear weapons or a meteorite...