News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Big Alien Theory by Analog24 on Thursday March 24, 2016 @01:29PM (#11354667)
The structure of elements/atoms is well understood based on their subatomic constituents. Naively, you might think that can you just keep combining increasingly larger numbers of electrons, protons, and neutrons to create new elements. However, the stability of an atom becomes problematic when the size of the nucleus approaches the interaction length of the strong force (i.e. the nucleus is too large for the strong force to hold it together). These elements are unstable and therefor not relevant as far as organic chemistry is concerned.

Furthermore, the formation of elements in the Universe is also a fairly well understood process. For elements lighter than Fe it generally occurs through nuclear fusion in the center of stars. For elements larger than Fe it generally occurs through the r-process and s-process. With these we can model nucleosynthesis extremely well and it gives us a very good idea of the elemental composition of the Universe. That being said, there could be some crazy unknown element out there but it would contradict almost everything know about atomic physics.

Re:The Big Alien Theory by danbruc on Thursday March 24, 2016 @01:44PM (#11354775)
To add some visualization, you can have a look at the isotope chart [1] from Wikipedia showing the half-live times of the known isotopes to get the big picture. The distinct area towards the top is called island of stability [2] and contains long-lived but nonetheless unstable elements. A second island of stability is suspected even further up in yet uncharted territory but nobody expects additional stable elements beyond lead.

[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Isotopes...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability

Re:The Big Alien Theory by nknezek on Thursday March 24, 2016 @01:43PM (#11354763)
Good answer, but I think you mean Fe, not Pb.
Re:The Big Alien Theory by Analog24 on Thursday March 24, 2016 @01:52PM (#11354849)
Good catch! It has been corrected in my comment.