Because the earth is made of the same stuff as the rest of the universe. Exploded stars.
As to existance how long do these new elements have to hang around for for you to consider that they exist. All around the world scientists have manufactured new elements in laboratories though some have very short half-lifes and effectively vanish infront of the observing scientists eyes. I'm not sure at what point squashing particles together to temporarily make new elements looses the whole point of something existing when the results are so unstable that they fall apart as soon as they are created.
It seems highly probable that we have found all the stable elements.
2007-11-20 03:55:14
·
answer #1
·
answered by frothuk 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
> why do we assume that all of the elements must be on earth ?
Who, exactly, is assuming that? Certainly not chemists or physicists.
> Isn't it possible that there exist some elements at the end of the table we haven't discovered yet ?
Well, since an element is defined by the number of protons in its nucleus, the question really becomes, "Isn't it possible that there are nuclei somewhere with a whole lot of protons in them?"
Yes it is: but also we know enough about how neutrons and protons interact to predict how stable such nuclei would be; and generally the more protons you add to a heavy nucleus, the more unstable it becomes. So all the "undiscovered" elements would tend to last for only a fraction of a second, regardless of where in the universe they may exist. Which lends support to the argument that they don't exist anywhere (except in laboratories).
2007-11-20 11:58:47
·
answer #2
·
answered by RickB 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
On Earth (and according to spectral measurements, in the universe at large) we have not found elements higher than 92 in the periodic table naturally. All elements we have synthesized in cool machines have been unstable and collapsed. However, there are "islands of stability" predicted by the standard model. I can't remember how high you have to go up, but theoretically, such elements could exist. The supernovae required to produce them, however, are so extreme that they border on utterly impossible. So, it's a safe bet that there are no more naturally occuring elements.
2007-11-20 11:56:30
·
answer #3
·
answered by SonniS 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is possible, there are four blank spaces on the periodic table of elements, there may be a natural reason for these elements not forming, or they may be so rare that they have eluded detection up to now.
2007-11-20 12:03:21
·
answer #4
·
answered by johnandeileen2000 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is possible that there are heavier elements that have not yet been synthesised on Earth.
However current quantum theory would predict a very short lifetime for such massive atoms until they decay into composite particles.
2007-11-20 11:54:59
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Just like the rest of science, until we have evidence, we assume what we know to be fact.
2007-11-20 11:41:36
·
answer #6
·
answered by Jared D 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Quite possible!
2007-11-20 11:41:47
·
answer #7
·
answered by Wounded Duck 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
of course
2007-11-20 11:41:16
·
answer #8
·
answered by ☆ღ{C}La Maravilla☆ღFTP 2
·
0⤊
0⤋