Science desk
< May 25	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 26

Why is there no monosmium octafluoride or moniridium nonafluoride or PtF10?

There's crazy ways to make new forms like electrocuting extremely hot plasmas and forcing noble gases to bond or crushing between microdiamonds yet no one's figured out how to make OsF8 or IrF9 but OsO4 could be made with Paleolithic tech (poisonous though). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason will be that there is not enough space to pack that many fluorine atoms around the metal, at a close enough distance to have strong enough bonds. The bond in the hexafluoride would be much stronger, and to add more fluorine, it would have to push out those other fluorine atoms to squeeze new ones in. The energy gain by this would have to exceed that of breaking an F-F bond in F₂. Perhaps atomic fluorine could assist in a rare gas matrix, but in warmer conditions F₂ would be produced. Perhaps a diamond anvil press could do something, but I have not heard of its use for these. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under high pressure it should be possible. OsF₈ and IrF₈ are predicted to be stabilised by 300 GPa, as the 6p orbitals on the metal lower and we have ligand-to-metal charge transfer from F 2p to M 6p. Also TcF₇ and CdF₃ should stabilise (the former interesting because ReF₇ exists at normal conditions and this is one case where Tc and Re differ; the latter interesting for breaking the oxidation state barrier for stable group 12 elements). Double sharp (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re Paleolithic OsO₄: an interesting thought, but even the easy metals like Au seem to have been only recognised later per Element discovery. If we want to push it as early as possible, then I think you'd need an early discovery of Pt (accomplished by pre-Columbian South Americans), together with enough alchemical knowledge to get aqua regia to separate out an Os-Ir fraction. Double sharp (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well from osmium, not completely de novo. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett: That said, is there a similarly simple explanation for why Rh, Ir, and Pt can reach the VI oxidation state only in fluorides and not oxides? And why is Pd^VI so elusive despite this oxidation state being well-established for all other PGMs? Double sharp (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will add there is no Pd^V either. Higher oxidation states get less stable as you move right in the periodic table from W to Pt or Mo to Pd. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Reading around, maybe there is no simple answer exactly for why the threshold of impossibility is precisely where it is, so I shall have to be satisfied by this. :) Double sharp (talk) 09:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google Bard tells me it is about electronegativity of fluorine and polarizability of oxygen. Not to be trusted though. High oxidation compounds all seem to be isolated molecules, and not network solids, which would be topologically possible with oxygen. So it seems that more single bonds is more stable than a few double bonds, but up to the limit of about 6 due to not being able to pack in the atoms around the metal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This certainly makes sense. And in the 3d series, as expected the limiting coordination number seems even less in some cases: we have CrO₃ but only CrF₅, and Mn₂O₇ but only MnF₄. Double sharp (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For discussion of Pd(V) and Pd(VI) inorganic and synthesis of a Pd(V) cluster, see doi:10.1073/pnas.0700450104. DMacks (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett, we don't ever use the mono- prefix with the first word of a binary compound's name. CO2 is carbon dioxide, not monocarbon dioxide. Georgia guy (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But not applicable to Sagittarian Milky Way who likes "mono"; and there is monosodium phosphate or monosodium glutamate for non-binary compounds. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For actual Ir(IX), there is IrO₄⁺, though this is not "bottlable" stuff. Possibly Pt(X) will be possible too in PtO₄²⁺, but that one has not yet been experimentally confirmed. Double sharp (talk) 04:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two universes in same space

My heading may be mediocre considering Nasa's simplified definition "The universe is everything. It includes all of space, and all the matter and energy that space contains". So

can there exist two (or more) 'universes' in the same space-time domain?
- If yes, can we say the space compromises the universe and not vice-versa?
- If no, does that mean all of space is part of 'universe', thus even if mass in form of galaxy, planets etc. is limited in mass and volume, still all of that infinite vacuum that surrounds it is part of 'our universe'?
If there is something far away from our 'observable universe' which did not come out of big bang (considering big bang happened for sure), would that still be considered part of our universe?

You may answer any part you like. Thanks, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 20:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your "if no" option means that empty space is part of the Universe. Far away stuff would be part of the universe. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You talk of an infinite vacuum that surrounds the universe. That would be absolutely empty space. But everything that exists, even absolutely empty space, is by definition part of the universe. So, either there's some sort of boundary, beyond which there is nothing, not even absolutely empty space - which means there is no "beyond"; or, there is no boundary and the universe is infinitely limitless. Take your pick. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or it is a finite closed manifold. —Tamfang (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The universe, by definition, is everything. Or did you say that already? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The universe has (potentially) been demoted. See Multiverse (not a long song). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really "potentially" at this point, just "hypothetically". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly sure that "absolutely empty space" is, very much by definition, not a "thing" and hence not part of "everything" 2A01:E0A:CBA:BC60:CF2:682A:5D96:ED9D (talk) 07:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematicians might disagree with you. Is the empty set, for example, a "thing"? I'd say so. I'll concede that there is some controversy on the point. --Trovatore (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that's right. What about scalar fields? Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q. Imagine big bang really happened, so by definition that the entire space (our space time domain to be exact) is part of 'our universe', and so that will mean something far away which did not come out of our big bang is still part of 'our universe'; thus meaning that big bang did not necessarily give birth to 'our universe' but just a part of 'our universe'. Also that means 'expansion of universe' would just mean expansion of 'our part of ~~our~~ universe' which is near us and came thru our big bang (and not all universe)? ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 07:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the question in that? Our definition of Universe includes the far away stuff. The definition does not depend on how it was created. You may also be interested in the idea of an inter-penetrating alternate universe that uses the same space. For example a Dark matter world, or perhaps a Counter-Earth, six months out of phase. I can imagine it as a clathrate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question is more of terminologies and what words means, than physics itself. But clarifying this helps as to know if the definitions are standardized or still vague. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 07:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence, if any, supports your premise? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like many words, people do not always use the term universe to mean the same thing. Usually you can understand from the context which sense is meant. When people say "the universe", they usually mean the totality of space and everything in it that we know to exist or can reasonably expect to exist based on what we know. So the spatial extension of the universe is the totality of space; there is no room for another universe.

Mathematically, you can have several spaces that are in no way connected to each other, so one can imagine there are other universes that occupy other spaces that we have no way of knowing about: we cannot reach them, and voyagers or information from these other universes cannot reach us. Therefore the hypothesis that other universes exist is unfalsifiable and falls outside the realm of science. It is a plot device in science fiction, but then there are portals connecting the universes, so from a definitional point of view one might say they are all part of a universe that is somehow compartmentalized.

Another sense of the term universe, given by the Merriam–Webster dictionary as sense 1c(3), is: "an aggregate of stars comparable to the Milky Way galaxy".^[1] That is a complicated way of saying "a galaxy". Used in this sense, there are maybe a trillion such universes in the observable universe. They share the space and may collide. --Lambiam 09:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a throwback to when the Milky Way was thought to be "everything". I'm also reminded of a time when I had a short discussion with a fundamentalist Christian who claimed that God was "outside of the universe." I said that the universe, by definition, is everything. So if God exists, then He must be part of the universe. The guy conceded. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that guy. If you accept the notion of an omnipotent God, then He must be able to create stuff that is not a part of Himself. Just because we "define" the Universe to conform with our limited conceptual ability does not alter that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

God being omnipotent, It is also able to create Itself. --Lambiam 09:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he conceded too easily. It's a fairly standard theological view that God exists beyond space and time, and while you personally may use "the universe" to mean "everything that exists", I think it's probably more usual to imagine the universe as being restricted to that which exists in spacetime.

That said, and this is of course a digression, the view you report does not strike me as exactly orthodox Christian theology, which usually emphasizes God's dual role as both immanent and transcendent. If you view God as transcendent only and not at all as immanent, then it seems like you might be a deist or something. --Trovatore (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

You seem to be picturing the 'Big Bang' as an explosion of matter/energy into a pre-existing infinite space, which still surrounds the (expanding) 'universe' of matter and energy that we are in (so that there could be other 'Big Bang bubbles' somewhere else in that infinite space): this is a fundamental misunderstanding of current astronomical theories. According to mainstream astronomy, The 'Big Bang' was a (rapid) expansion of space and time themselves, more properly understood as the single entity Spacetime, and of the energy (some of which became matter) within them/it. There is, geometrically, nothing 'outside' Spacetime because there is no outside. This is, of course, hard to visualise and grasp. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.67.173 (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As said by Hank Green (and expanded by Elle Cordova) "there was no up, there was no down, there was no side to side". Search youtube for "big bang poem". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]