Fusion, Fission, Quarks and such nonsense.

Er, but how does that make it more massive.
I'm confused.
Not to mention, Osmium, the most densest naturally occurring element which weighs 53 pounds per brick sized chunk of it, a brick, meaning the ones you see in red brick buildings, would have a lower mass than Uranium.

I'm really confused how an object higher up the periodic table of elements has a higher mass than something else lower on the table, when that would make objects have a much higher weight as well, and they do not. So, how can Iodine be more massive, if it weighs less?

The mass of an object determines it's weight in the presence of gravity. The more massive an object, the more weight that object has. A house weighs more than me, because it has a greater mass.
Density does play a role in this, of course.

Otherwise an uranium fuel rod should weigh several dozen times than that of a same sized object made out of Osmium.
Last time I checked, they don't weigh more than 90 pounds at most. Your statement would mean that it would weigh almost a full ton.

Please help me figure this out, Mining, because it's looking as though the laws of Physics have broken down.

Perhaps, but I don't know. I believe the formation of the moon was an important event. If what you've shown is true, that makes it about as important as a nice fireworks show. Nice way to downplay such an important event.

Also, It's not like it will kill you to agree with me on something.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass
"In everyday usage, mass is often referred to as weight, the units of which are often taken to be kilograms (for instance, a person may state that their weight is 75 kg). In scientific use, however, the term weight refers to a different, yet related, property of matter. Weight is the gravitational force acting on a given body—which differs depending on the gravitational pull of the opposing body (e.g. a person's weight on Earth vs on the Moon) — while mass is an intrinsic property of that body that never changes. In other words, an object's weight depends on its environment, while its mass does not. On the surface of the Earth, an object with a mass of 50 kilograms weighs 491 Newtons; on the surface of the Moon, the same object still has a mass of 50 kilograms but weighs only 81.5 Newtons. Restated in mathematical terms, on the surface of the Earth, the weight W of an object is related to its mass m by W = mg, where g is the Earth's gravitational field strength, equal to about 9.81 m/s2

The inertial mass of an object determines its acceleration in the presence of an applied force. According to Newton's second law of motion, if a body of fixed mass M is subjected to a force F, its acceleration α is given by F/M. A body's mass also determines the degree to which it generates or is affected by a gravitational field. If a first body of mass MA is placed at a distance r from a second body of mass MB, each body experiences an attractive force FG whose magnitude is FG = GMAMB/r2, where G is the universal constant of gravitation, equal to 6.67×10−11 N·m2·kg−2. This is sometimes referred to as gravitational mass.[note 1] Repeated experiments since the 17th century have demonstrated that inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent; since 1915, this observation has been entailed a priori in the equivalence principle of general relativity.
Special relativity shows that rest mass (or invariant mass) and rest energy are essentially equivalent, via the well-known relationship (E = mc2). This same equation also connects relativistic mass and "relativistic energy" (total system energy). The latter two "relativistic" mass and energy are concepts that are related to their "rest" counterparts, but they do not have the same value as their rest counterparts in systems where there is a net momentum. In order to deduce any of these four quantities from any of the others, in any system which has a net momentum, an equation that takes momentum into account is needed. Mass (so long as the type and definition of mass is agreed upon) is a conserved quantity over time. From the viewpoint of any single unaccelerated observer, mass can neither be created or destroyed, and special relativity does not change this understanding. All unaccelerated observers agree on the amount of invariant mass in closed systems at all times, and although different observers may not agree with each other on how much relativistic mass is present in any such system, all agree that the amount does not change over time.
Macroscopically, mass is associated with matter— although matter, unlike mass, is poorly defined in science. On the sub-atomic scale, not only fermions, the particles often associated with matter, but also some bosons, the particles that act as force carriers, have rest mass. Another problem for easy definition is that much of the rest mass of ordinary matter derives from the invariant mass contributed to matter by particles and kinetic energies which have no rest mass themselves (only 1% of the rest mass of matter is accounted for by the rest mass of its fermionic quarks and electrons). From a fundamental physics perspective, mass is the number describing under which the representation of the little group of the Poincaré group a particle transforms. In the Standard Model of particle physics, this symmetry is described as arising as a consequence of a coupling of particles with rest mass to a postulated additional field, known as the Higgs field.
The total mass of the observable universe is estimated at between 10^52 kg and 10^53 kg, corresponding to the rest mass of between 10^79 and 10^80 protons."

 

Let us pretend you could live inside a heavily pressurized gas giant. Deep inside. There would be a point where things we think of as solid and heavy literally float in the gases. That does not change their mass, but their weight is relative to the crushing pressure of the environment they are in. You may have iron filings floating in one of the deeper layers of gas. They float due to buoyancy since they weigh less than the gas at that depth.

That is what was being explained above. It makes sense. I just never thought of it.

But someone once tried to agree with you. They died badly. Now there is an unwritten rule here forbidding agreeing with you at risk of death. And those that defy the rule are dragged into the dark to be eaten by a Grue.

 

Ah, okay. Now I got it.
See, I can learn. I am kinda smart.
No more questions on my end on that topic.

Now, what other things can we talk about...I don't know.

 

I do not know either. We can continue on any subject we have already discussed to some length, or we can find some nice tangent to delve into. But as for myself, I am going back to sleep for the moment.

I will be back soon though.

 

The thing is - what Omni said is wrong too.

The reason its more massive has nothing to do with gravity, or weight, or anything like that.
One atom of Iodine has a greater mass than one atom of Iron.
In chemistry, we talk about a unit called a 'mole'. It is defined as 6.02x10^23 [atoms/molecules/etc.] of a substance. One mole of Iodine has a greater mass than one mole of iron. While at STP (i.e. your house) one mole of iodine might take up more space than a mole of iron, the mole of iodine will have a considerably greater mass.

In terms of what has a greater mass (under the same gravitational field, what weighs more), under equivalent density in *moles per litre of volume* - A litre of iodine will have a considerably greater mass than a litre of iron. Note: In everyday circumstances, you don't run into pure iodine, nor highly compressed pure iodine.

 

Also, mathematically and physically speaking, it makes more sense to refer to a gravitation field strength as Newtons per Kilogram - this unit is equivalent to ms^-2 (Newton's second law) and makes a lot more sense in terms of the interactions.

 

Iodine is also a solid, so one can run into pure iodine fairly easily, can't they?
According to the Wiki page on Iodine, it's a solid.

But I do understand what you mean now.
I wish I knew a lot about science and things, but truth be told, my knowledge is not that high.
Thanks for putting up with my craziness.

 

Give or take some pretty minor variations, all gases occupy the same volume per number of atoms. One mole of iodine takes up the same amount of space as one mole of iron.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro's_law

 

Neither one of them are gases though.
Are you saying moles as a measurement only works for gases?
Because both Iron and Iodine are solids.
Iodine also can be found as a gas easily, but it's a solid. It's melting point is around 233 F.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Iod_kristall.jpg Here's crystalline Iodine.

I'm also kind of confused why you keep bringing in volumes, mining.
I'm talking about solid objects here. Not a liter of iron, which would be molten, and therefor have different properties than it's solid form.

Also, look at Osmium, it's density is per cubic Centimeter. And its density is greater than Uranium. 22.59 compared to 19.3.
Osmium is the densest naturally occurring element on Earth. This has been proven, and cannot be debated.
Obviously, the same size sample of the two elements, say, a brick(The type red brick houses are made out of) sized chunk, would have different weights, and Osmium, which weighs 53 pounds, would weigh more than the same amount of Uranium, despite Uranium having more mass. Is that correct. More mass does not equal more weight in the same size?

I'm just still trying to grasp how it works here.

 

I am confused too. I am just waiting for someone to mention Uranium Hexafluoride gas...

 

EDIT: Oh hey, if I say something someone doesn't understand, feel free to just quote it and ask me what I meant!
mining, I've got an answer to the "iron is most stable" question under this explanation of what you were saying about mass and weight
I think I can help here. We shall begin with this mass confusion.
The reason mining keeps referring to volumes and moles and such has to do with conceptual understandings.
Typically, when you're on the street and you think of taking the same amount of two objects, you think of volumes. You either have a block of iron, or a block of wood, or a block of ice, but in any event, they're all the same size. That's what you call a "block" of something. But each of these objects has a different number of molecules inside the block. (Iron is monatomic, right? Iron's just one atom. Water is a molecule, good ol' H2O. Wood is a lot of stuff.).
To simplify things, let's grab two blocks, one of iron and one of iodine, since this is one of the comparisons causing confusion. As before, we will require that a block of material is the same size. That means that we have the same VOLUME of iron and iodine. As we know, the block of iron has a greater mass per unit volume, so that means that the block of iron has a greater mass than the block of iodine. It will subsequently weigh more than the block of iodine. But the atomic weight (this is not the same as atomic mass units, although it's related) (sort of a misnomer, since it doesn't actually have units, but it is fairly proportional mass [which is also not the same as weight]) of iodine is higher than that of iron. That means that an atom of iodine is more massive than an atom of iron. So what's going on here? How is the block of iron more massive than the block of iodine, but an ATOM of iron is LESS massive than an atom of iodine?

Well, there's a bit of a trick here. When we decided to use a block of something, we chose to interpret this as the same volume for each material. That doesn't mean that the volume contains the same number of atoms.

In fact, the block of iron contains many more atoms than the block of iodine. Almost 4 times more atoms per cm^3 than iodine. So if we talk about blocks of the same volume, we MUST be talking about different numbers of atoms of each material!

If we had some number of iron atoms in a block, and in a separate block we had some number of iodine atoms, the block of iodine would be quite a bit larger than the block of iron. This is basically the purpose of Avogadro's number (a mole). It is a count of the number of particles we are considering. If we say "one mole of iron" and "one mole of iodine," what we mean is the same number of atoms of each material.

Is this clear? I can keep trying to elaborate, but it might get confusing.


ANYWAY, iron and how it's stable or whatever.
What we mean here is a discussion of energy states. Iron is supposed to be the lowest energy state for that number of nucleons (protons and neutrons). Other atoms can also be stable. The above doesn't imply that atoms heavier than iron give off radiation until they become iron, nor that those that are lighter fuse to iron. I think I'm doing a bad job of elaborating upon this, so I'm going to just try describing examples.
So there are a set of ways that things tend to decay, e.g. alpha, beta emission. They are capable of doing this as long as the total system (the energy contained in the mass + the kinetic energy of emitted particles & the recoiling source) does not exceed the initial energy of the source nucleus (which is basically all contained in mass energy) For all observed atoms heavier than lead, there is a way to do this.
Sadly I can't actually find the atomic mass of 210-polonium. But it emits alpha particles. You'll find that if you add up the mass of the 206-Pb and the alpha, it's less than that of 210-polonium. It looks like the difference is typically called the "decay energy."
So the mass of iron / nucleon is supposed to be the lowest mass/nucleon of them all. But many atoms lighter than lead would tend to either gain energy by emitting some form of radiation (which is impossible, since this is a closed system, so the initial energy must equal the final energy), or the amount of mass-energy lost to kinetic energy is pretty low, so it is highly unlikely that the decay products can overcome the potential barrier of the nucleus.
Does this make sense?

 

Yes. All of your posts make sense. But physics is inherently confusing. Your explanations are fine. We just have to take our time to absorb and try to understand what we have read.

You know, now that I think about it, it was only a handful of years ago that I first heard the word "Quark" in any context that I understood. I was reading Brian Green's "The Fabric Of the Cosmos" and I thoroughly enjoyed it. But even then reading a book that explains such things in explicit detail I found half of it baffling.

That is half the allure of physics. We strive to understand the impossible. We learn many things only to find later that we had part of it all wrong. We learn new things that we may again learn were incorrect later. Physics is magic to some. And remarkable to any with some sense.

 

To continue to help articulate the point: You will note that you're listing mass/volume. The information that's missing is the number of atoms/volume. So Osmium has a greater mass/volume, but less mass/atom. We can do some math to this!!!

(mass/volume)*(volume/atom [in a solid material or a given state]) = mass/atom. You know that the mass/volume of osmium is larger than that of uranium. You know that the mass/atom osmium is smaller than that of uranium. We don't know the volume/atom [in the solid], but we can deduce how osmium and uranium compare from what we already know! Osmium has a smaller volume/atom [in the material] than uranium! Or inversely, osmium has more atoms/volume!

 

Just to help here:
210-polonium has a mass of 209.982873673 u (unified atomic mass units)
206-polonium has a mass of 205.980481099 u
An alpha particle has a mass of 4.00260325415 u

According to wolframalpha.com

 

Ah, thank you, Lahalito, now I no longer am confused over it all.
Now if only I could come up with something to discuss, besides Monopoles and Tesseract storage devices. Because who wouldn't want something the size of a small jar that can hold 30 million tons?

 

I am about to leave for a few hours. But I just wanted to say that I still have no idea what a monopole is. I found the Wikipedia articles about it being a magnet with only one strong pole. (The other exists, but is not really as measurable.) I have not however found any evidence that it would be exceptionally massive, except that the situations where it would be likely to occur require extreme mass.

Can anyone shed some light on this subject? Thank you in advance. See you soon.

 

I have a question for Lahalito! Or Quarky, he might know too.

Actually, it's two questions.

I know that Quarks come in six types, or flavors, the Up, Down, Top, Bottom, Charm and Strange quarks. (They're all strange if you ask me.) Ever since I first learned this I have been bothered by two things. One: Why are they flavors? Two: Why is the Bottom quark also known as the Beauty quark?

I'd appreciate any help on this subject you can give. Thanks.

 

I think you may be referring to

This is an inherently meaningless statement as to its actual mass - it only mean that it's more massive than a notably large atom. i.e. we certainly can't synthesise glucose in a particle accelerator, but its really not that massive at all - far more so than iron, or most other atoms, but less so than, say, a bar magnet.

 

Lorrelian: A lot of particle research took place in california in the 60s-80s. That should be all you need to know