NationStates Jolt Archive

ok i'm trying to write a book. i won't go into the details, but its a sci-fi action adventure thing mixed with classical fantasy and some other neat little things. i've been writing it on-and-off for about two years, and thinking about it near non-stop for about that time too. i've got the world and history pretty much sorted and am now moving on to writing the novel proper.

however, i have one major niggling problem to deal with first. i've tried to make sure that everything in the sci-fi element makes sense within the realms of probable science and laws of physics (in so far as i understand them), but this one problem is so central to the entire book that i've just purposefully overlooked it from day one.

i need a mineral - a crystal or otherwise - made up of a new molecule that has to have incredible energy storing properties. the mineral has to be formed in the earth's molten core, and not be found here on the surface. how probable is this? what is the likelyhood of discovering new elements, especially naturally here on earth?

you see my thinking so far is like this: this mineral could be made from a lattice of a new element, formed only in the tectonic turbulance, exact heat and pressure of the earth's core. the element could have great (massive) molecular mass - but be stable - and hence release a lot of energy in nuclear fission. the element could somehow form very, very strong intermollecular bonds in a molecule with itself (maybe 3), and hence add to the energy potential from breaking it down. this could be added to again when the molecules come together to form a very strong and stable crystal. for some reason (why i need help) because of the nature of all this, when one atom of the element is broken down, the rest of the atoms in the structure - first those in its molecule, then the lattice - simultaneously break down in an instant chain reaction... creating a nuclear fission explosion of mammoth proportions.
because of the density and sheer weight of this mineral, it has never (or so very rarely its not worth noting) been evacuated from the earth's core via volcanic action. or, perhaps the structure is stable within the core, but breaks down at lower temperatures (or exposure to the sun)... potentially into other, known, innocious molecules and elements. is this totally impossible in the realms of science? if so, what would be less stupid?
note that the mineral isn't to be used as a weapon (not at the time of the story) but as a fuel source, once a safe method of breaking down the structure is developed.


thanks to anyone who read any or all of that, and i just need comments or thoughts as to whether that makes any sense, whether its at all possible, and, if not, how i can rectify the idea. i certainly don't need (to have or to supply) molecular formulae or anything as detailed as that.
thanks :)

(ps: if its not possible in the slightest, recokon i could get away with it under "creative licence", or just claim its part of the science-fiction part? ;))

"Willful suspension of disbelief"


If you do it well enough, no one cares if the science is a bit off.

its seems logical to me, go for it

Just make up an element name. That's what they did for Star Trek (dilithium?)

Besides, we know more about outerspace than we do about our oceans, let alone what goes on under the crust of our planet. Alternately, claim it came to earth in a meteorite.

Sounds about right. Good luck.

Alternately, claim it came to earth in a meteorite.
now there's an idea! :p



ok so i need an element's name. any ideas anyone?


(this is a much more pleasant response than i was expecting lol :fluffle: )

ok so i need an element's name. any ideas anyone?

Iztatepopotlathanium :)

now there's an idea! :p



ok so i need an element's name. any ideas anyone?


(this is a much more pleasant response than i was expecting lol :fluffle: )
No dice, wouldn't happen, it just wouldn't be stable enough...

Unless it is a key feature of your writing style to be absolutelly correct about the science, I agree with the rest. If your particle doesn't stand up to the latest model statistics, no-one will care.

As for a name, just call it Lucium and be done. Corny, but better then Einsteinium.


For those who don't know latin prefixes and such, Luc=Light, ium=material.

Unless it is a key feature of your writing style to be absolutelly correct about the science, I agree with the rest. If your particle doesn't stand up to the latest model statistics, no-one will care.

As for a name, just call it Lucium and be done. Corny, but better then Einsteinium.


For those who don't know latin prefixes and such, Luc=Light, ium=material.
i don't want to be ridiculously accurate, just relatively close to the truth.

however if this seems ok with most people, then thats good enough for me :)
thanks all :fluffle:

Well, as for the name? It doesnt HAVE to be an element does it?

So you dont need to restrict yourself to an -ium name

Not that all elements end in -ium...

It couldn't be a new element, possibly a new compound within the earth.

It cannot be an element - what defines an element is how many protons an atom of that element has. Every element up to 116 (with 116 protons) has already either been discovered or artificially created, and those above about 102 or so are too unstable and only last fractions of a second before decaying to something else.

A new molecule of some sort would be much more believable. There isn't a heck of a lot known about most lanthanides, so you could make it some form of lanthanide complex - If you have access to a university, you can access isi web of knowledge from their computers, and do a search on lanthanide complex for some ideas of what the names are like. They're generally pretty long, so you'll want to abbreviate them if you do that. That would at least make it realistic. You could just make something up if you really wanted to, but it wouldn't mean a thing.

It cannot be an element - what defines an element is how many protons an atom of that element has. Every element up to 116 (with 116 protons) has already either been discovered or artificially created, and those above about 102 or so are too unstable and only last fractions of a second before decaying to something else.

A new molecule of some sort would be much more believable. There isn't a heck of a lot known about most lanthanides, so you could make it some form of lanthanide complex - If you have access to a university, you can access isi web of knowledge from their computers, and do a search on lanthanide complex for some ideas of what the names are like. They're generally pretty long, so you'll want to abbreviate them if you do that. That would at least make it realistic. You could just make something up if you really wanted to, but it wouldn't mean a thing.

Actually, chemists/physicists theorize that there may be another shell of stability beyond the elements we know.

Such an element would likely come from a massive 3rd or beyond generation star that went nova, blasting it's massive elements all over. Think of a blue giant that was formed from the ruins of a prior blue giant that itself came from a blue giant, and so on. Since blue giants "burn" hotter than our sun and last not nearly as long, this is not out of the question. It also means that the super-massive elements made in such an are would be rather unlikely around our main-sequence, mid-sized yellow star.

Perhaps, way out in the Kuiper belt, there is an extra-solar planet/planetoid/asteroid that our solar system caught in it's gravity.

Such and object, might well be unique in our local space, and would thus cause a "gold-rush" or similar of competing mining interests/nations.

I had been under the impression that the notion that any g-orbital element could be stable had been all but dismissed by chemists. I guess I was wrong.

It's a science fiction novel, so it realy does not mater. Go with the facts you have and fill in the rest with your imagination. Thats what fiction is all about.

I had been under the impression that the notion that any g-orbital element could be stable had been all but dismissed by chemists. I guess I was wrong.

I don't think the orbitals are the main problem, the nuclei simply cannot have so many protons (needed for new element) because the magnetic repulsion between the protons is greater than the strong force (at least that's what I remember)

New compound or molecule is much more reasonable. If ur looking for a non-radioactive one, try tri-nitrides (extremely explosive, don't know how they could be found in Earth's core but o well)

Also, anti-matter is always a great source for energy (but it would need to be found in space or created on Earth using particle accelerator (?))

I had been under the impression that the notion that any g-orbital element could be stable had been all but dismissed by chemists. I guess I was wrong.

Ah, but what if there are elements that have an, as-yet-undiscovered, h-orbit?

Nitrogen Power: New crystal packs a lot of punch (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040717/fob4.asp) Not exactly what you are looking for, no where near the power you want, but it may help

What about superatoms (molecules that behave like atoms)? They've made a few with aluminum.

OH, don't forget about nanotech.

I'm an idiot who flunked chemistry, but I can try to help.

If I remember correctly, neutrons are a requirement for balancing out a nucleus in most elements. A higher element that is stable would have far more neutrons than protons, and thus be far heavier than the versions we are likely to create. The neutrons are needed to counterbalance the repulsion effect of the protons. My information may be off.

I'm an idiot who flunked chemistry, but I can try to help.

If I remember correctly, neutrons are a requirement for balancing out a nucleus in most elements. A higher element that is stable would have far more neutrons than protons, and thus be far heavier than the versions we are likely to create. The neutrons are needed to counterbalance the repulsion effect of the protons. My information may be off.

The neutrons help with stability (in that they allow some space between the positively charged protons) but with each new proton or neutron added to the nucleus, it becomes more unstable.

I still think anti-matter is best bet, store it in magnetic chambers.

ok so i need an element's name. any ideas anyone?

Handwavium or Unobtanium are the two now traditional names for this kind of element.

The neutrons help with stability (in that they allow some space between the positively charged protons) but with each new proton or neutron added to the nucleus, it becomes more unstable.

I still think anti-matter is best bet, store it in magnetic chambers.

No other way to store anti-matter that I know of.

Handwavium or Unobtanium are the two now traditional names for this kind of element.
Darn, you beat me to "Unobtainium". Oh well, I can still toss in "Fictionite". :D

Say, if it's accumulating at the core of the Earth, perhaps it's not normal matter at all. Suppose they've discovered a quantity of dark matter, and have figured out a way to interact with it, and use it as an energy source (how, I have no idea... it's science fiction, man!). :D

Don't forget Futurama's "Jumbonium."

Also, one could always theorize that out there in the galaxy, again in places where super-massive suns novaed, there could be exotic sub-atomic particles that we are as-yet unaware of. Perhaps they would alter the stability of the atoms they call home.

Darn, you beat me to "Unobtainium". Oh well, I can still toss in "Fictionite". :D

To be fair though, Unobtanium is generally a type of McGuffin which is the object of a quest or a search and is generally not easily available to the central protagonists, while Handwavium is available to them and allows their adventures to proceed.

To be fair though, Unobtanium is generally a type of McGuffin which is the object of a quest or a search and is generally not easily available to the central protagonists, while Handwavium is available to them and allows their adventures to proceed.

Well, if you want the readers to be aware of the properties of the exotic matter before the action unfolds, I'm afraid you're going to have to employ Expositionium (emphasis on the "ni".)

Well, if you want the readers to be aware of the properties of the exotic matter before the action unfolds, I'm afraid you're going to have to employ Expositionium (emphasis on the "ni".)

Normally found in large chunks which are excessively dry and somewhat hard to swallow, IIRC.

You could simply not explain it at all. Just say it exists, scientists are puzzled by it, throw in the occasional theory from time to time, and move on.

I am currently studying Geology at Uni and from what I have learned about the formation of the Earth is that just after Earth formed when it was all homogenous (same throughout) then due to most likely to gravity the heavier elements moved towards the centre (often known as the Iron catastrophe) Iron been one of the heavier elements. This is when Earth differentiated. From the information we have at the moment we think that it is Iron that predominantly makes up the core so there could easily be a heavier element there. And because it is so heavy, could be why it hasn't come to Earths surface due to gravity.......

Corium?
Centranium?
Powerite?

Premise sounds good, whatever you name it! ;)

A molecule that contains an antiproton in its formula. The electron orbitals of the molecule perfectly house the antiproton within a buffered shell of intranuclear forces, keeping it safely separated from the surrounding matter.

But when the molecule is broken down, these intranuclear forces disappear and the antiproton is free to interract with its environment. The subsequent matter-antimatter reaction annihilates the antiproton and one of the molecule's protons, converting its mass into energy in a flash of gamma radiation.

The molecule can be destabilized by a gamma photon, and the subsequent annihilation releases more gamma photons that destabilize surrounding molecules, creating an antimatter chain reaction.

How does that sound?

Unless it is a key feature of your writing style to be absolutelly correct about the science, I agree with the rest. If your particle doesn't stand up to the latest model statistics, no-one will care.

As for a name, just call it Lucium and be done. Corny, but better then Einsteinium.


For those who don't know latin prefixes and such, Luc=Light, ium=material.

Besides, Einsteinium is an existing element, symbol Es, atomic number 99, part of the actinide series.

You could make the molecule in someway related to the buckyball (C_60), a molecule recently discovered with very strong chemical bonds. You could use an element with a similar structure to make up a molecule with similar chemical properties. If it needs to be very hard, then diamond is another material made up of carbon, but this one is formed in crystals, not in molecules, but under high pressure, just as you wanted. Instead of carbon for either buckyballs or diamond, one could use the heavier elements with the same chemical structure, silicium, germanium, tin, lead, ununquadium (note that the latter has possibly been made in laboratories, but is highly unstable, it would rapidly decay radioactively (nuclear fission), regardless of being part of a molecular or crystalline structure and does would not serve your purpose)

If it does have to be a new element, search for "magic numbers", there are some elements which would have relatively stable isotopes in spite of being far transuranic.

Just make up an element name. That's what they did for Star Trek (dilithium?)

A hypothetical metallic bond between lithium atoms, from the future, mayhaps? Isn't it also the name of an isotope of hydrogen?

Naw, that's deuterium. Nevermind.