Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Canada Science

Atomic Disguise Makes Helium Look Like Hydrogen 127

Posted by timothy from the no-this-is-me-in-a-nutshell dept.
An anonymous reader writes "In a feat of modern-day alchemy, atom tinkerers have fooled hydrogen atoms into accepting a helium atom as one of their own, reports New Scientist. Donald Fleming of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, and colleagues managed to disguise a helium atom as a hydrogen atom by replacing one of its orbiting electrons with a muon, which is far heavier than an electron. The camouflaged atom behaves chemically like hydrogen, but has four times the mass of normal hydrogen, allowing predictions for how atomic mass affects reaction rates to be put to the test."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Atomic Disguise Makes Helium Look Like Hydrogen More

Atomic Disguise Makes Helium Look Like Hydrogen

Comments Filter:

  • Wow (Score:0, Redundant)

    by colinrichardday ( 768814 ) <colin.day.6@hotmail.com> on Sunday January 30, 2011 @01:20PM (#35049410)
    That's interesting.

    • too bad they're so unstable (Score:4, Interesting)

      by FooAtWFU ( 699187 ) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @01:24PM (#35049426) Homepage
      As I recall, the poor muon has an average lifetime of something like 2 microseconds. We might see some interesting theoretical chemistry come out of this (the reaction-rate question) but it looks like we'll end up a little light on practical applications of muons in chemical compounds.

      • Your sig, same here :)

      • MCF, UDD (Score:4, Interesting)

        by sanman2 ( 928866 ) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @01:59PM (#35049574)

        I remember that much past interest over muons and hydrogen has been around muon-catalyzed fusion. As you say, the muons are quite short-lived, which prevents them from catalyzing enough H-H fusions to get to breakeven. And then there was the alpha-sticking problem, whereby helium nuclei products then grab the muons, thus stealing them away from the process.

        Check out ultra-dense deuterium, though. It's some kind of exotic form of matter, and there have recently been some tantalizing glimpses of it in nano-sized clumps.

        • Re:MCF, UDD (Score:4, Interesting)

          by rgbatduke ( 1231380 ) <rgb@phy.duk[ ]du ['e.e' in gap]> on Sunday January 30, 2011 @03:08PM (#35049936) Homepage
          Yeah, like this. Sorry I didn't see your post. My Ph.D. advisor, Larry Biedenharn, was heavily involved in this for four or five years, but as I said, it didn't quite pan out partly because of the sticking problem, partly because one can only make muons at something like 10% energy efficiency (remembering from the many seminars we had on this back in those days, not looking up the exact numbers). Larry always thought they'd do it with a special "breeder" fission reactor to get the muons for free as a side-effect of making energy the other way to boost fission returns by a factor of 50% or so, but this never happened AFAIK.

          It is still an open problem -- the question is really is there an environment where the He sticking problem is suppressed (they didn't find one, but I doubt the search was exhaustive) and is there any way to produce muons at higher efficiencies -- say some sort of resonant conversion of electrons into muons that beats 5-10%. My recollection is that they were within a factor of ten, maybe even within a factor of 2-3 of break even but couldn't quite find a way over the hump. They know way more about neutrinos now than they did back then -- one wonders if anybody is even thinking about it any more.

          rgb

          • Re:MCF, UDD (Score:2)

            by Rei ( 128717 ) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @07:23PM (#35051656) Homepage

            I think about it a different way: the way muons catalyse fusion reactions is by dramatically reducing the covalent bond length (due to their much greater mass, they orbit much closer to the nucleus). Ultra-short laser pulses are known to be able to "dress" electrons with effectively greater mass. I can't help but wonder if there's any prospects for using this to achieve the same thing.

      • The interesting possibility is and remains muon-catalyzed fusion. The stoichiometry is within roughly one order of magnitude of breaking even -- it costs too much to make a muon, a muon can catalyze too few fusion reactions to pay for itself in its lifetime, but it is close. Of course if you have a source of "free" muons, e.g. a nuclear reactor, one can basically use them to augment the energy production of the fission processes.

        I thought that the auger replacement of electrons in diatomic hydrogen (and resulting collapse of the molecule to where fusion via tunnelling is likely) was already a pretty good test of mass effects in quantum theory twenty plus years ago, but this is still pretty science.

        rgb

  • So, better weapons? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 30, 2011 @01:21PM (#35049418)

    Can we make a bomb out of it?

  • Anybody figured out how to disguise... (Score:0)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 30, 2011 @01:27PM (#35049440)

    Excellent research... now, has anybody figured out how to disguise C21H30O2 in the form
        ()-(6aR,10aR)-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-pentyl-6a,7,8,10a-tetrahydro-6H-benzo[c]chromen-1-ol

  • Super cool (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chihowa ( 366380 ) * on Sunday January 30, 2011 @01:29PM (#35049450)

    This is super cool, but less for the kinetic isotope effect (KIE) studies and more for the muon-electron substitution. We've compared isotope masses with reaction rates using deuterium and tritium before, so using "H-4" and "H-5" is nice for extended validation, but not unexpected. The muonium is pretty bad-ass, though.

    • Re:Super cool (Score:0)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 30, 2011 @02:45PM (#35049824)

      This is super cool...

      But can it be used for super conduction?

    • for the birds (Score:1)

      by epine ( 68316 ) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @06:06PM (#35051060)

      In related news, GE UK today announces the discovery that muonium Cooper pairs confined within a transparent aluminum lattice lengthens tau while decreasing atomic radius, potentially leading to a viable fusion energy source.

      "It's possible we could fabricate power transmission lines directly from Transparent Muominium(TM) (TM), and disconnect the generating stations completely," declared a GE scientist, thumbing his nose at a rival division. "We've already begun a series of avian studies on TM power line safety. Of tests so far, the Nike proposal is presently the front runner. The bird brain is pre-adapted to this flagging icon, with effectiveness just slightly below live kittens."

      GE aims to scale their prototype muominium fusion lattice to commercial production by the year 2020. Membership renewals with The International Federation of Kite Owners sagged 5% on the news.

    • Problem (Score:2)

      by gr8_phk ( 621180 ) on Monday January 31, 2011 @08:24AM (#35055202)
      The problem is that they not only changed the mass, they substituted a muon for an electron. That would probably change the reactivity of anything.

  • No, wait... (Score:0)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 30, 2011 @01:42PM (#35049508)

    IT'S A TRAP!

  • Let's deplete helium sooner! (Score:0)

    by dalmor ( 231338 ) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @01:43PM (#35049514)

    There was an article [slashdot.org] already about helium depletion coming soon. Hopefully this is a proof of concept for other elements and not a new way to make hydrogen.

  • HHeO/HeHO or He2O? (Score:1)

    by M8e ( 1008767 ) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @01:52PM (#35049540)

    Can we make these now? What would they be called?

  • what everyone wants to know... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Cyko_01 ( 1092499 ) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @01:54PM (#35049548) Homepage
    does it make your voice go higher or lower when inhaled?

  • Muon catalyzed fusion (Score:4, Informative)

    by DCFusor ( 1763438 ) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @01:57PM (#35049566) Homepage
    Is theorized to work with fusible fuels (say deuterium). But muons don't seem to live long enough to make it practical, they take a lot of energy per to make and have very short lives. In essence, they don't live long enough to catalyze enough fusion to pay back the energy of creation at this point.

    So what's interesting is that they were able to do this at all -- either they found a way to extend muon life (unlikely, or that would be the main news here), or they worked insanely fast to get their results before the decay.

  • "Very Sexy"? (Score:1)

    by eyenot ( 102141 ) <eyenot@hotmail.com> on Sunday January 30, 2011 @02:01PM (#35049582) Homepage

    That's right up there with the air in China being "crazy bad".

    I miss the olden days when scientists would speak appropriately about their topics. These days it's too much filmreel, not enough plain real. Too much Hollywood and MTV and too little importance behind their work.

  • Muons quickly decay, amazed they can get chemistry (Score:0)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 30, 2011 @02:04PM (#35049596)

    Muons decay with a half life of about 2 microseconds. It's really amazing they can measure any chemical reaction rates at this time scale. Creating these atoms with muons replacing the electrons has been done for years.

  • The slippery slope (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 30, 2011 @02:07PM (#35049612)

    Rick Santorum was right. Gay marriage leads to a slippery slope... man on man, man on dog, helium on hydrogen...

    We've truly lost the culture wars.

  • Interesting (Score:1)

    by DaMattster ( 977781 ) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @02:08PM (#35049616)
    This discovery might really be ground-breaking if it can reduce the volatility of hydrogen and make it more suitable for use in traditional, internal combustion engines in cars and small trucks. I don't believe electric cars are really the answer to a cleaner environment because batteries have a finite life span and use caustic chemicals. However, I believe some scientists expressed concern over helium depletion. Here is a link about a http://www.physorg.com/news201853523.html [slashdot.org]">theory of helium depletion. Again, it is a theory so take it with a grain of sand.

  • Hydrogen Footprint (Score:1)

    by Stealthey ( 587986 ) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @02:11PM (#35049630)
    Government: uhm....Yea..but is it green? Prof: This is science, applications come after Government: Can't use it in election. Grant Denied Next Man: This is high gloss lipstick Government: Does it help me in Election Next Man: It will Make PM look 10 years younger with better lips than Angelina Jolie Prime Minister: Grant for $10,000,0000 approved. Have it ready in 6 months Ugh!!! could've done better :( I am comedically challenged...

  • Muon on over... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mr Z ( 6791 ) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @02:23PM (#35049710) Homepage Journal
    I come in last night about half past ten,
    That hydrogen wouldn't let me in.
    So muon on over. Rock it on over.
    Move over little atom, a mean, old atom's muon in.

  • Further study (Score:3)

    by l0ungeb0y ( 442022 ) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @02:26PM (#35049730) Homepage Journal

    It seems that after infiltrating the molecular structure, the rogue atom saps the sentries before heading to the Intel Room to steal the briefcase.

  • Great work at TRIUMF (Score:5, Informative)

    by sackvillian ( 1476885 ) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @02:52PM (#35049860)
    For those wondering what the experiment entailed:

    Fleming's team shot muons produced at the TRIUMF accelerator in Vancouver into a cloud of helium, molecular hydrogen and ammonia. The helium atoms captured the muons, then pulled hydrogen atoms away from the molecular hydrogen and bonded with them.

    This was all done at TRIUMF, the world's largest cyclotron and by far the best particle accelerator in Canada. Plus, Donald Truhlar (a giant in the field) supported the experimental rate constants with quantum mechanical predictions - very neat stuff indeed!

  • Backwards? (Score:2)

    by volpe ( 58112 ) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @03:01PM (#35049900)

    The summary says they start with a helium atom (which has 2 protons and 2 neutrons), and they make it look like a hydrogen atom (with only one proton and no neutrons) my making it *heavier*? This makes no sense whatsoever

    • Nevermind, I was confused (Score:2)

      by volpe ( 58112 ) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @03:06PM (#35049926)

      I read it too quickly. I'm the one who had it backwards. I thought, because of the muon's negative charge, it would continue to behave like Helium chemically, but would be heavier (presumably like Hydrogen, which is lighter, which is why I thought it was backwards).

    • Re:Backwards? (Score:2)

      by sploxx ( 622853 ) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @03:48PM (#35050120)

      A muon has about a tenth the mass of a proton/neutron. An electron only has only about a 1/2000th the mass of a proton/neutron.

    • Re:Backwards? (Score:1)

      by tendrousbeastie ( 961038 ) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @06:20PM (#35051178)

      They took the Helium atom and replaced one electron with a muon. The clever part is that they managed to get the muon in an orbital shell so low that it effectively cancelled out the positive charge of one of the protons on the nucleus. So it results in an atom with a nucleus of 4 nucleons and one muon (in low orbit) with +1 charge and one electron (in normal orbit) with -1 charge.

      Chemically (i.e. under electroweak theory) this behaves like hydrogen (+1 charge nucleus and a -1 charge electron shell)

      I don't understand how they can get the muon to a lower orbit than the electron? I guess if e=hf then a heavy muon must have a higher frequency than an (light) electron, and so a shorter wavelength, so a smaller atomic orbit (the orbit being the standing Schrodinger wave)

  • Crossdress (Score:2)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @03:21PM (#35049990) Journal

    Cross-dressing atoms? You sicko liberals should be ashamed of yourselves!

  • Can you make extra heavy water? (Score:1)

    by XiaoK ( 1468565 ) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @03:29PM (#35050026)
    Can you combine two of these muon hyrdogens with an oxygen atom to create extra heavy water?

  • Chemically, but what about stoically? (Score:2)

    by Vandil X ( 636030 ) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @04:14PM (#35050284)
    Helium is much larger than Hydrogen. Would the bond angles be the same? Would the physical shape of the Helium atom allow it to attach to carbon chains and hexane/benzene structures to make pseudo-hydrocarbons?

  • Electrons don't "orbit". (Score:1)

    by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @06:05PM (#35051042)
    While the "orbital" model may be useful for simple chemistry and some other work, electrons do not "orbit" the nucleus. This has been known for some 70-odd years. Time to get with the program.

  • Born-Oppenheimer Approximation (Score:2, Interesting)

    by cyberfunk2 ( 656339 ) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @07:12PM (#35051552)

    By the way... I think the commentator in the attached perspective (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/411.full) gets the born-oppenheimer approximation wrong... he states that :

    "The BO approximation makes possible the practical application of quantum mechanics to all of molecular science. As the arrangement of the nuclei changes, the BO approximation postulates that the electrons will remain in a particular quantum state. "

    When the BO approximation is the opposite : The atoms DONT move while the electrons DO (relatively speaking) because of their vast difference in mass. That is... the electrons are little bullets whizzing around at top speed, whereas the atoms are massive aircraft carriers in terms of mass (note: this is not meant to be even a remotely accurate analogy, but it's the general idea). You'd think that SCIENCE, of all journals, would get the Born-Oppenheimer approximation right !

    Note: That in the second step of a typical quantum mech. calculation (e.g. a geometry optimization), you then use the average field generated in the first part to move the atoms (if they need to move in the particular calculation). Then you iterate to self-consistency.

    • They're right, you're wrong. (Score:2)

      by MoellerPlesset2 ( 1419023 ) on Monday January 31, 2011 @06:59AM (#35054900)
      "As the arrangement of the nuclei changes, the BO approximation postulates that the electrons will remain in a particular quantum state. " is an entirely correct description.

      The BO approximation does not assume that the nuclei are completely stationary. What you're talking about with that is what's called a clamped-nuclei Hamiltonian.

      You stated the rationale behind the BO-approximation without understanding it. Because of the difference in mass, the nuclei are practically stationary relative the electron's frame of motion. That does not mean they are stationary.
      What it means is that the potential the electrons 'see' from the nuclei varies very slowly. If a potential on a particle changes sufficiently slowly, then the particle remains in the same state - that's the adiabatic theorem.
      "Adiabatic" because no energy is thus being transferred to the particle. In the BO approximation, no kinetic energy is being transferred between the nuclei and electrons. That is what the BO-approximation is.

      By assuming that, the nuclear-electronic kinetic-energy coupling terms disappear from the Molecular Hamiltonian, which allows you to separate it into an electronic and nuclear Hamiltonian.
      Then, you might additionally assume clamped-nuclei. But not necessarily. Quantum molecular-dynamics simulations are usually done with the BO-approximation in place.

      You'd think that SCIENCE, of all journals, would get the Born-Oppenheimer approximation right !

      You'd think someone would have the common-sense to check up their own knowledge before assuming that a distinguished professor
      who's been doing quantum chemistry since the early 60's doesn't know the stuff you teach on an introductory course of the subject.

  • And for my next trick... (Score:2)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @07:19PM (#35051620)
    And for my next trick, making lead into gold.

  • Chemicall, it's not helium at all (Score:2)

    by JoeBuck ( 7947 ) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @10:14PM (#35052760) Homepage
    Helium behaves as it does (as an inert gas) because its outer shell is filled. The Pauli exclusion principle means that you can't force another electron into the same place, so an He+ ion would have its extra electron in a higher energy level and very loosely attached. But the Pauli exclusion principle doesn't apply if you have one electron and one muon; the muon's average position is much closer to the nucleus (since the muon is about 200 times heavier), shielding the positive charge of the nucleus. So to any other atom the "helium atom" looks as if it were a very heavy hydrogen atom, as if it had one proton and three neutrons in its nucleus.

    Also, the muon's half-life is less than 2 microseconds, so any experiments have to be done very, very quickly.

  • Cat's Cradle, anyone? (Score:1)

    by RedBear ( 207369 ) <redbear.redbearnet@com> on Monday January 31, 2011 @06:05AM (#35054694) Homepage

    Wow. For the first time I'm actually a little bit freaked out by a science story. They're disassembling an atom and making it behave like a different kind of atom? That's spooky. Here's why this spooks me: This strongly reminds me of the fictional substance "ice-nine" in Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle, which was just a slightly "modified" form of water that was solid at room temperature. It had the unfortunate attribute that it would change any normal water into ice-nine on contact, thus causing a worldwide cataclysm when released into the wild. Until this moment I was unable to really picture how one could "modify" a simple molecule like H2O and wind up with something that was still H2O and thus still be able to call it "water". This technique would make that possible.

    I hope and pray (to the mythical God that I don't even believe in) that these people messing with the basic structure of atoms know what they're doing. I've never put any stock in silly ideas like the LHC creating black holes or any of that other nonsense people come up with, but this particular story gives me the willies. Helium is one step away from hydrogen. What if they did something similar to a hydrogen atom and it turned out to be able to create new copies of itself just by somehow interacting with normal hydrogen molecules? To those who would immediately say "pish tosh" without thinking about the implications, I'd have to respond by asking how do we know such a thing can't happen when we go around mucking with the very nature of an atom's structure? It's one thing to go around breaking down molecules into their component atoms, or atoms into their component sub-atomic particles, but I think it may be a whole different ball game to go around creating hybrid atoms (and thus hybrid elements) with possibly unknown or unknowable interactions with other atoms/elements.

    Or maybe I'm being silly and the scientists know exactly what they're doing. Riiiiiight...

    I'll be even more spooked if I find out this sort of thing can't happen in nature. If they're managing to artificially create something that has never been able to exist in the entire history of the universe, it may be time to pull a Peter Griffin, i.e., "WHOA, WHOA, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whooaaa... Are you sure your math is right and you're not gonna destroy the universe?"

    Scientists: "Yes."

    Peter: "OK. Nevermind."

    Scientists: "Whoops!"

    Universe: "BOOOOM!!!"

  • better fuel (Score:1)

    by vmaldia ( 1846072 ) on Monday January 31, 2011 @06:22AM (#35054750)
    wouldn't it be nice if this would be more powerful than standard liquid hydrogen + liquid oxygen for rocket fuel? It probably isnt but one can dream.

  • Cat's Cradle (Score:3)

    by RedBear ( 207369 ) <redbear.redbearnet@com> on Monday January 31, 2011 @06:41AM (#35054816) Homepage

    Wow. For the first time I'm actually a little bit freaked out by a science story. They're disassembling an atom and making it behave like a different kind of atom? That's spooky. Here's why this spooks me: This strongly reminds me of the fictional substance "ice-nine" in Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle, which was just a slightly "modified" form of water that was solid at room temperature. It had the unfortunate attribute that it would change any normal water into ice-nine on contact, thus causing a worldwide cataclysm when released into the wild. Until this moment I was unable to really picture how one could "modify" a simple molecule like H2O and wind up with something that was still H2O and thus still be able to call it "water". This technique would make that possible.

    I hope and pray (to the mythical God that I don't even believe in) that these people messing with the basic structure of atoms know what they're doing. I've never put any stock in silly ideas like the LHC creating black holes or any of that other nonsense people come up with, but this particular story gives me the willies. Helium is one step away from hydrogen. What if they did something similar to a hydrogen atom and it turned out to be able to create new copies of itself just by somehow interacting with normal hydrogen molecules? To those who would immediately say "pish tosh" without thinking about the implications, I'd have to respond by asking how do we know such a thing can't happen when we go around mucking with the very nature of an atom's structure? It's one thing to go around breaking down molecules into their component atoms, or atoms into their component sub-atomic particles, but I think it may be a whole different ball game to go around creating hybrid atoms (and thus hybrid elements) with possibly unknown or unknowable interactions with other atoms/elements.

    Or maybe I'm being silly and the scientists know exactly what they're doing. Riiiiiight...

    I'll be even more spooked if I find out this sort of thing can't happen in nature. If they're managing to artificially create something that has never been able to exist in the entire history of the universe, it may be time to pull a Peter Griffin, i.e., "WHOA, WHOA, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whooaaa... Are you sure your math is right and you're not gonna destroy the universe?"

    Scientists: "Yes."

    Peter: "OK. Nevermind."

    Scientists: "Whoops!"

    Universe: "BOOOOM!!!"

    P.S. The new Slashdot is broken. Good job guys. I tried to post this comment once already and it never showed up, but it's listed in the sidebar of my comment page and it wouldn't let me repost the same comment. Even though the link doesn't exist.

  • I.e. would this become water? I fear producing enough to actually test this theory might be difficult and expensive, but maybe someone knows the theoretical side (not just guessing, I can do that, myself).

  • so what does this mean? (Score:1)

    by hesaigo999ca ( 786966 ) on Monday January 31, 2011 @09:52AM (#35055662) Homepage Journal

    Other then tricking one atom to accept another in their group....what good or bad can come from this....i still do not see the importance...

Slashdot Top Deals

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Close