Slashdot Mirror


Atomic Disguise Makes Helium Look Like Hydrogen

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."

24 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. too bad they're so unstable by FooAtWFU · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  2. Super cool by chihowa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  3. Re:Anybody figured out how to disguise... by FooAtWFU · · Score: 2

    I have bad news for you. If you disguise your THC so that it acts like a different chemical compound, it probably won't actually make you high anymore.

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  4. Re:So, better weapons? by camperdave · · Score: 2

    You may be able to, but why would you want to. Helium is a lot more expensive than hydrogen to begin with, and this "mutated" helium is probably an order of magnitude more expensive still. Of course, hydrogen bombs work by fusing hydrogen into helium, so your bomb would have to fuse helium into lithium or beryllium. That's probably a harder reaction to establish and may not yield as much. (Although it should be noted that fusion bombs typically bombard lithium with neutrons and fission it into tritium, which then fuses into helium.)

    So... more expensive and not as powerful. Regular bombs would give you more bang for your buck.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  5. what everyone wants to know... by Cyko_01 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    does it make your voice go higher or lower when inhaled?

    1. Re:what everyone wants to know... by Menkhaf · · Score: 3, Informative

      I guess it was a joke, but it should be rather simple to determine: if the gas if lighter than the atmosphere you're breathing, your voice will be lighter if you inhale this.

      --
      A proud member of the Onion-in-Hand alliance
    2. Re:what everyone wants to know... by sploxx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To be more specific, the molecular weight of normal He to He with one muon attached is roughly 4.1/4.0. The change in pitch relative to breathing He should be the square root of that ratio, which is a change of about 1.2%. For someone with absolute pitch, it may be possible to hear the difference of tone of a musical instrument. But I doubt anyone will hear a difference when a person speaks.

  6. Re:Let's deplete helium sooner! by nedlohs · · Score: 2

    Are you serious????

    It's an experiment confirming QM predictions of reaction rates varying with mass, not a way to produce a hydrogen alternative for general use (because a fast decaying hydrogen that you need a particle accelerator to make is so useful...)

  7. Muon catalyzed fusion by DCFusor · · Score: 3, Informative
    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.

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    1. Re:Muon catalyzed fusion by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Informative

      In essence, they don't live long enough to catalyze enough fusion to pay back the energy of creation at this point. That is for free myons!!! As soon as they are bound to an atom core and involved in a chemical bound they live as long as any other particle ... e.g. an electron. Angel

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  8. MCF, UDD by sanman2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:MCF, UDD by rgbatduke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
  9. Re:Let's deplete helium sooner! by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 2

    Nah, it won't be useful outside of the lab. Those muons just decay too fast. This is very obnoxious, because muons catalyze fusion - they tighten up the nucleous, so it's easier for another atom to get in and fuse. If they lasted a bit longer (say 2x or 3x), then muon catalyzed fusion would be a practical energy source.

    --
    Responsibility is an addiction
    Virtue is a temptation
    Community is a cartel
  10. The slippery slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  11. Muon on over... by Mr+Z · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  12. Further study by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 2

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

  13. Re:Let's deplete helium sooner! by confused+one · · Score: 4, Funny

    There's no helium shortage. There's shitloads of it over there *waves in direction of Jupiter*

  14. Great work at TRIUMF by sackvillian · · Score: 5, Informative
    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!

    --
    Hey mate, spare a sig?
  15. Rules for posting 'Woooosh' by mangu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Rule #1: the joke has to be funny, at least funnier than the explanation, which is not the case here.

  16. Re:HHeO/HeHO or He2O? by McNihil · · Score: 2

    Don't forget C2He6O Highliumanol ofcourse ;-)

  17. Re:Interesting by jonbryce · · Score: 2

    If it is a theory, it is supported by many strands of scientific evidence, and so should be taken seriously. But maybe it is not a theory, just a hypothesis. Please try not to misuse the word "theory", it only helps the creationists, quack doctors, climate change denialists and so on in their attempts to discredit science.

  18. Re:Chemically, but what about stoically? by cnettel · · Score: 4, Informative

    The atom has no physical shape. If the p1 orbital occupied by the single electron is similar enough "chemically", the effective radius will also be identical.

  19. Re:Let's deplete helium sooner! by confused+one · · Score: 2

    Alright, go and fetch a barrel.

    I will. At that small a quantity though, there's going to be a considerable per unit cost. 1 barrel of Helium, from Jupiter, guaranteed delivery, will cost you $49 billion. I'll bring you the contract tomorrow, if you're interested.

    Might I suggest you consider buying it in bulk?

  20. Cat's Cradle by RedBear · · Score: 2

    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.