Talk:3200: Chemical Formula - Revision history

88.84.156.245: Abundance of Tc

2026-02-03T14:02:17Z

Abundance of Tc

76.180.39.133 at 05:21, 1 February 2026

2026-02-01T05:21:30Z

These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For: Funnies!

2026-02-01T01:38:50Z

Funnies!

82.132.236.133 at 16:25, 30 January 2026

2026-01-30T16:25:55Z

82.13.184.33 at 15:04, 30 January 2026

2026-01-30T15:04:55Z

82.13.184.33 at 15:02, 30 January 2026

2026-01-30T15:02:38Z

Kynde at 14:52, 30 January 2026

2026-01-30T14:52:58Z

Kynde at 14:49, 30 January 2026

2026-01-30T14:49:42Z

Dextrous Fred: Clarification

2026-01-30T14:24:25Z

Clarification

Dextrous Fred: Clarification

2026-01-30T14:24:17Z

Clarification

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:02, 3 February 2026
Line 60:		Line 60:
	:What we need is a Drake-Fermi equation... The estimate for the number of sufficiently advanced civilisations (as per Drake, more or less) ''currently'' using something approximating a Fermilab capable of creating various high-end atoms like Organesson, and also factoring in the time that they exist.		:What we need is a Drake-Fermi equation... The estimate for the number of sufficiently advanced civilisations (as per Drake, more or less) ''currently'' using something approximating a Fermilab capable of creating various high-end atoms like Organesson, and also factoring in the time that they exist.
	:In all likelihood, unless there's an absurdly low baseline Drake value, the Drake-Fermi estimate of "10<sup>0</sup>" values will probably (summed universally) be an order or two too low. But acceptiply close (as the 'simultaneous' cross-cosmos count fluctuates even down to zero) and probably at least a magnitude in excess of the (similarly fleeting, but less likely per undirected event) entirely natural running total from barynucleosynthesis. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.236.133\|82.132.236.133]] 16:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)		:In all likelihood, unless there's an absurdly low baseline Drake value, the Drake-Fermi estimate of "10<sup>0</sup>" values will probably (summed universally) be an order or two too low. But acceptiply close (as the 'simultaneous' cross-cosmos count fluctuates even down to zero) and probably at least a magnitude in excess of the (similarly fleeting, but less likely per undirected event) entirely natural running total from barynucleosynthesis. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.236.133\|82.132.236.133]] 16:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
		+
		+
		+	It bugs me that we're not explicitly stating that we're talking about the '''observable''' universe. Still, even for extremely rare elements, the universe contains a substantial number of atoms. For technetium, which is radioactive and continuously decays, the instantaneous amount can still be estimated with a simple steady‑state expression:
		+
		+	(number of atoms) = (number of stars) × (average production per star per second) × (average lifespan in seconds)
		+
		+	(number of stars) is about 10EXP22 to 10EXP24
		+
		+	For Tc:
		+	(average production per star per second) is about 10EXP17 to 10EXP23
		+	(average lifespan in seconds) is about 10EXP12 to 10EXP13
		+
		+	Multiplying these ranges shows that even technetium — one of the rarest elements in the cosmos — exists in a total quantity of roughly 10EXP46 to 10EXP55 atoms at any given moment in the observable universe, far more than “just a few” and certainly not close to zero.
		+
		+	14:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 :::Some people don't understand sarcasm. Pleaze don't give them ideas. [[User:Gorcq|Gorcq]] ([[User talk:Gorcq|talk]]) 12:15, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
 ::::Don't give Americium ideas. Soon, it will want to invade other elements and create its own Periodic Table (of Peace). [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 01:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
 If anyone's interested in an accessible resource for getting more data like this, may I suggest https://ptable.com/#Properties/Abundance/Universe (which I believe derives data from IUPAC sources) [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 20:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 ::Time for a campaign to Make Americium Greater? [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 09:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
 :::Some people don't understand sarcasm. Pleaze don't give them ideas. [[User:Gorcq|Gorcq]] ([[User talk:Gorcq|talk]]) 12:15, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
 If anyone's interested in an accessible resource for getting more data like this, may I suggest https://ptable.com/#Properties/Abundance/Universe (which I believe derives data from IUPAC sources) [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 20:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:25, 30 January 2026
Line 56:		Line 56:
	The complete formula is wrong. 10^0 is equal to 1. The artificially produced elements either currently exists in larger quantities, or in case of Og in lower quantities, since not a single atom currently exists on earth. If some of these are created naturally, it is very unlikely they exists in exactly one single atom at a time. --[[Special:Contributions/2001:638:807:507:10D4:7A7B:DB7C:21FF\|2001:638:807:507:10D4:7A7B:DB7C:21FF]] 13:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)		The complete formula is wrong. 10^0 is equal to 1. The artificially produced elements either currently exists in larger quantities, or in case of Og in lower quantities, since not a single atom currently exists on earth. If some of these are created naturally, it is very unlikely they exists in exactly one single atom at a time. --[[Special:Contributions/2001:638:807:507:10D4:7A7B:DB7C:21FF\|2001:638:807:507:10D4:7A7B:DB7C:21FF]] 13:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
	:I believe the complete formula is only attempting to be in the ballpark of the correct number, using the technique (famous in what-if articles) of Fermi estimation to display an exponent which is plausible, even if the exact number is difficult to determine [[User:Dextrous Fred\|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred\|talk]]) 14:24, 30 January 2026 (UTC)		:I believe the complete formula is only attempting to be in the ballpark of the correct number, using the technique (famous in what-if articles) of Fermi estimation to display an exponent which is plausible, even if the exact number is difficult to determine [[User:Dextrous Fred\|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred\|talk]]) 14:24, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
		+	:What we need is a Drake-Fermi equation... The estimate for the number of sufficiently advanced civilisations (as per Drake, more or less) ''currently'' using something approximating a Fermilab capable of creating various high-end atoms like Organesson, and also factoring in the time that they exist.
		+	:In all likelihood, unless there's an absurdly low baseline Drake value, the Drake-Fermi estimate of "10<sup>0</sup>" values will probably (summed universally) be an order or two too low. But acceptiply close (as the 'simultaneous' cross-cosmos count fluctuates even down to zero) and probably at least a magnitude in excess of the (similarly fleeting, but less likely per undirected event) entirely natural running total from barynucleosynthesis. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.236.133\|82.132.236.133]] 16:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 How do we count the atoms that all rollled up into a singularity and otherwise vanished from the universe except to leave a big pinch in it that causes weird gravity effects. [[Special:Contributions/130.76.187.47|130.76.187.47]] 13:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
 :I'd say that's a "hairy" problem. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.239.10|82.132.239.10]] 15:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
-: Socks?
+: Socks? {{unsigned ip|195.65.24.115|11:21, 30 January 2026 (UTC)}}
 Off topic, but didn’t Xkcd used to be daily? [[User:Commercialegg|Commercialegg]] ([[User talk:Commercialegg|talk]]) 14:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 Synthesis of heavy nuclei occurs in kilonovas (neutron star mergers) as well as supernovas (or perhaps kilonovas are considered a form of supernova). [[Special:Contributions/87.75.45.69|87.75.45.69]] 10:42, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
 :Actually I think most elements heavier than iron is now believed to have formed during neutron star mergers rather than in supernovas! It was hard to find a method that the bombardment of heavy elements in a super nova by neutrons would former stable heavier elements rather than some that just decayed almost instantly to lighter elements. Not something I know much about, but read it somewhere. But neutron star mergers has very likely been common in the early universe when huge stars burned out very fast and was often double star systems. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:52, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
 Universes can hold the most information out of any molecules. As such, they make for a good computation substrate for god-life, fulfilling same role DNA and RNA has for humans. A single god-life being contains more Universes - as per '''''entire whole infinite Universes''''', not just their visible parts - than Universe has quarks inside of it. --[[User:User 8496351|User 8496351]] ([[User talk:User 8496351|talk]]) 13:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 :There have been 'special weeks', the latest being [[822: Guest Week: Jeph Jacques (Questionable Content)]] to [[826: Guest Week: Zach Weiner (SMBC)]] (with previous all-weekday seqeucnes being "The Race", "Secretary", "1337", "Choices" and "Parody Week"), and a spottier schedule back in the double-digit comics that weren't so strictly (or necessarily restricted to) the M/W/F schedule, and April Fools might come out on the relevent day (although also often on whatever day they were eventually ready!), as per other seasonal comics or ones tied to book-releases/etc.
 :Of course, every day ''is'' an xkcd day. As well as ''every day'' there's an xkcd (but of course its generally the same one as came out/should have come out on the prior Monday/Wednesday/Friday release scheduled), and [[1053: Ten Thousand|always something to learn]]... ;) [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 18:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
 ::The standard text on xkcd at the top, the so called [[Header text]] has from the very start been:
 :::xkcd updates every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
 ::And after a long time with promotion for what if? it has [[Header_text#2026-01-07_-_Back_to_standard_text|returned to the standard]] and it actually says this on {{xkcd}} at this very moment.
 ::Except for a few times with special series it has always only been 3 times a week. But also almost always 3 every week not just two. I think that has happened because of a complicated April Fool comic once. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:24, 30 January 2026
Line 49:		Line 49:

	The complete formula is wrong. 10^0 is equal to 1. The artificially produced elements either currently exists in larger quantities, or in case of Og in lower quantities, since not a single atom currently exists on earth. If some of these are created naturally, it is very unlikely they exists in exactly one single atom at a time. --[[Special:Contributions/2001:638:807:507:10D4:7A7B:DB7C:21FF\|2001:638:807:507:10D4:7A7B:DB7C:21FF]] 13:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)		The complete formula is wrong. 10^0 is equal to 1. The artificially produced elements either currently exists in larger quantities, or in case of Og in lower quantities, since not a single atom currently exists on earth. If some of these are created naturally, it is very unlikely they exists in exactly one single atom at a time. --[[Special:Contributions/2001:638:807:507:10D4:7A7B:DB7C:21FF\|2001:638:807:507:10D4:7A7B:DB7C:21FF]] 13:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
−	:I believe the complete formula is only attempting to be in the ballpark of the correct number, using the technique (famous in what-if articles) of Fermi estimation to display an exponent which is plausible, even if the exact number is difficult to determine	+	:I believe the complete formula is only attempting to be in the ballpark of the correct number, using the technique (famous in what-if articles) of Fermi estimation to display an exponent which is plausible, even if the exact number is difficult to determine [[User:Dextrous Fred\|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred\|talk]]) 14:24, 30 January 2026 (UTC)