The rare reverse-Saddam.
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2025
50 points (100.0% liked)
Science Memes
17237 readers
1412 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
https://jabde.com/2024/08/10/should-neutron-stars-be-added-to-the-periodic-table/
I say yes, entirely because it's hilarious
The air vent is actually a particle accelerator shooting neutrons into the periodic table.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I've never seen a reverse-Saddam and I am delighted to say that I'm glad it was in this community.
load more comments
(3 replies)
The first (last) column makes it look like a Trump style haircut
not to scale
IUPAC currently recognises 118 chemical elements. The last twenty have half-lives shorter than Australian prime ministers, and are of equally limited utility to science.
Lmao
This is problematic, because 7.82 × 10^52^ meters is about 10^37^ lightyears, and the universe is currently estimated to span a mere 93 billion lightyears.
Comedy gold. I could see Mitch Hedberg saying this.
7.81 * 1052 =8216.12 check mate atheist
J/k, you forgot this (づ ᴗ _ᴗ)づ 10^52^ = 10^52^
I just copy pasted it, so thats why its messed up.
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that no physics problem is complete unless some major component of reality is excluded to simplify the numbers."
I'll save this quote for my students. Amazing.
After reading I realised that this proposal isn't a single new element for all neutron stars, but a separate new entry on the table for every individual neutron star in existence, unless there are two that happen to have the exact same number of protons which is unlikely. Sounds good to me
protons
we have assumed that Rex is comprised of a uniform nucleon fluid, with protons, neutrons and electrons in an idealised 1:8:1 ratio
This is how the author is estimating it, they are assuming 1/9th of the mass is protons. No idea how good that assumption is though, there is a source which doesn't look the most convincing
Whoopsie. I used to assume neutron stars are made of neutrons. It turns out Big Astronomy lied to me.
Neutron stars are made of neutrons in the same way that tapwater is made of water molecules: primarily, but not entirely
Neutron stars have so high pressure that MOST but not all protons decay into neutrons plus ~~electrons~~ positrons (plus neutrinos)
Edit: (see quote below)
I'm not exactly well-read on particle physics, but to my understanding neutrons and neutrinos are neutrally charged and electrons are negatively charged. Why does a proton break down into net-negatively charged particles? I assume some weird quark shenanigans.
https://abc.lbl.gov/wallchart/chapters/03/2.html
I got stuff mixed
In beta minus decay, a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino: n Æ p + e - +. In beta plus decay, a proton decays into a neutron, a positron, and a neutrino: p Æ n + e+ +n. Both reactions occur because in different regions of the Chart of the Nuclides, one or the other will move the product closer to the region of stability. These particular reactions take place because conservation laws are obeyed. Electric charge conservation requires that if an electrically neutral neutron becomes a positively charged proton, an electrically negative particle (in this case, an electron) must also be produced. Similarly, conservation of lepton number requires that if a neutron (lepton number = 0) decays into a proton (lepton number = 0) and an electron (lepton number = 1), a particle with a lepton number of -1 (in this case an antineutrino) must also be produced. The leptons emitted in beta decay did not exist in the nucleus before the decay–they are created at the instant of the decay.
Thanks for the clarification! That all makes sense to me.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It's the periodic table of ELEMENTS, which are defined by their number of protons.
The lone neutron deserves a place before any size neutron star.
Neutron stars do contain protons and electrons. It’s a misconception that they’re 100% pure neutrons.
A well-known type of neutron star is a pulsar. These rotating objects have extremely powerful magnetic fields which can only be produced by the movement of electric charges. If they were purely made of neutrons there could be no electric charges to move, and thus no magnetic fields.
Would neutron stars "decay" into black holes? and would that be its own element with even higher atomic number?
Astronomical levels of snark
(not to scale) is my favorite part
Figure 3's label.
"Chlorine atoms are shown in red." got me.
Are they elements? 🤨
Personally, I think it's high time we went back to just 4 of 'em. Earth, Wind, Water, Fire. It's so much easier to remember them all.
Do they have protons or only neutrons? because if there are no protons then it is technically just neutronium and not an element,
If they do have protons, then it is safe to assume it is a ridiculous number like 10^40. in which case I would count it as an element. And given how unlikely is for 2 neutron stars to share the number of protons, then every single neutron star is its own element,
And also, because they do not react with other atom, and if 2 collide then they merge their nucleus, we can agree that they are non reactive, and therefore we can consider them noble gasses…
Wait, are they gas?
YES, they are, if there is a single atom floating in space I think that counts as a gas
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
A representation of a binuclear compound of element 10^(56) with an average bond length of 100 quintillion angstroms.
Okay that was funny.
Do they have protons or only neutrons? because if there are no protons then it is technically just neutronium and not an element,
If they do have protons, then it is safe to assume it is a ridiculous number like 10^40. in which case I would count it as an element. And given how unlikely is for 2 neutron stars to share the number of protons, then every single neutron star is its own element,
And also, because they do not react with other atom, and if 2 collide then they merge their nucleus, we can agree that they are non reactive, and therefore we can consider them noble gasses...
Wait, are they gas?
YES, they are, if there is a single atom floating in space I think that counts as a gas
I would argue that, since they lack an electron cloud and are comprised of a collection of free-floating nuclei, they are actually a plasma.
can we say that neuron stars are ions?
wait, are neuton stars positively charged?
Well, we can't call them atoms, which are defined by the presence of an electron cloud surrounding a nucleus.
When will NASA finally approve my mission to send an electron cloud to a neuton star to force schools to print a periodic tables to include a neutron star.
That sounds like more of an ESA/JAXA joint venture. The only stuff NASA is going to be doing for the foreseeable future is ensuring the rapid export of Space Fascism™
load more comments
(1 replies)
No, seriously, stuff like electron metal and strange matter.
Okay this is good
If we were to expand the periodic table to include them. would the poster fit within the planet? solar system?universe?
Here's what the article says:
Assuming a periodic table in which each element is represented by a 1 cm by 2.5 cm rectangle, 40 rows of 32 elements will take up one meter of space. At this scale, a periodic table incorporating element 10^56^ would need to be 7.82 × 10^52^ meters long. This is problematic, because 7.82 × 10^52^ meters is about 10^37^ lightyears, and the universe is currently estimated span a mere 93 billion lightyears. As such, the new periodic table would be a quadrillion times larger than the observable universe.
The universe is expanding, however, which is good news for chemists and first-home buyers. The rate of this expansion is apparently about 73 km/s for every million parsecs of space, which corresponds to 2 × 106 km/s across the entire universe.8 At that rate, the universe will be able to accommodate the new periodic table in about 10^34^ years.
So it is a matter of time, I'll star setting up a website and accept preorders for completed periodic tables
load more comments
(1 replies)
Shouldn't they be element 0 as they dont have any protons?
The conversion from protons to neutrons does not complete 100% so there are still some (trillion) protons left per "atom"
Didn't know that, thanks
view more: next ›