Can we make atoms?

[jamest]

Do we have the technology to construct, say, Oxygen from fundamental particles? Just curious.

[jamest]

Oh, I have another [potentially embarrassing] question about atoms. Why does anything other than hydrogen form in the universe?

[Animavore]

Elements above hydrogen are generally formed in the hot, dense belly of stars. Above iron they're formed in the crushing pressures of a supernova.

And no. We can't make atoms. I'd we could gold would be worthless.

[jamest]

Elements above hydrogen are generally formed in the hot, dense belly of stars. Above iron they're formed in the crushing pressures of a supernova.

What I don't understand is that the first atomic event to happen after the Big Bang was the formation of hydrogen (correct me if I'm wrong)... yet this was when the universe was close to its hottest and most dense point. So why did it take the formation of stars to kick-start the formation of heavier elements?

And no. We can't make atoms. I'd we could gold would be worthless.

Good point, hadn't thought of that. But, what is the fundamental reason why we can't make [even simple] atoms from fundamental particles?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Do we have the technology to construct, say, Oxygen from fundamental particles? Just curious.

Yes. We have made gold in nuclear reactors. But the energy cost far outweighs the market price of the few atoms that emerge, so it's not a great idea to give up ones day job.

[jamest]

Do we have the technology to construct, say, Oxygen from fundamental particles? Just curious.

Yes. We have made gold in nuclear reactors. But the energy cost far outweighs the market price of the few atoms that emerge, so it's not a great idea to give up ones day job.

Okay, so please give me an overview of how to make gold from base particles. I'm genuinely interested.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Do we have the technology to construct, say, Oxygen from fundamental particles? Just curious.

Yes. We have made gold in nuclear reactors. But the energy cost far outweighs the market price of the few atoms that emerge, so it's not a great idea to give up ones day job.

Okay, so please give me an overview of how to make gold from base particles. I'm genuinely interested.

Your google broke?

OK. I'll do it for you...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Synt ... r_elements

[jamest]

Do we have the technology to construct, say, Oxygen from fundamental particles? Just curious.

Yes. We have made gold in nuclear reactors. But the energy cost far outweighs the market price of the few atoms that emerge, so it's not a great idea to give up ones day job.

Okay, so please give me an overview of how to make gold from base particles. I'm genuinely interested.

Your google broke?

OK. I'll do it for you...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Synt ... r_elements

Gold synthesis from the element Mercury, is not what I was talking about. I specifically asked if we could create atoms from fundamental particles, not if we could convert one atom into another. Go and take a cold shower as a punishment.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Do we have the technology to construct, say, Oxygen from fundamental particles? Just curious.

Yes. We have made gold in nuclear reactors. But the energy cost far outweighs the market price of the few atoms that emerge, so it's not a great idea to give up ones day job.

Okay, so please give me an overview of how to make gold from base particles. I'm genuinely interested.

Your google broke?

OK. I'll do it for you...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Synt ... r_elements

Gold synthesis from the element Mercury, is not what I was talking about. I specifically asked if we could create atoms from fundamental particles, not if we could convert one atom into another. Go and take a cold shower as a punishment.

When you talk of "fundamental particles", what exactly are you referring to? Is a proton fundamental enough? Or would we need to build these from quarks and gluons? I can guarantee that we have never achieved the latter, as individual quarks have yet to be observed.

And, obviously, particle physics is an incomplete field and there may well be particles more fundamental than any yet mentioned!

So, no. We have not made an atom from it's littlest bits. We don't even know what those bits are. But we have made plenty of atoms from other atoms - and such atoms occur naturally as a result of weak-force interactions.

[jamest]

When you talk of "fundamental particles", what exactly are you referring to? Is a proton fundamental enough?

Anything of a subatomic nature, I guess. Those 'things' constituent of atoms.

So, no. We have not made an atom from it's littlest bits. We don't even know what those bits are. But we have made plenty of atoms from other atoms - and such atoms occur naturally as a result of weak-force interactions.

One might think that our understanding of particle physics (QM) would be adequate enough to introduce the right particles together in the right environment sufficient to construct [say] hydrogen.

Is the problem that all of these fundamental particles do not exist, except as mathematical conceptions?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

When you talk of "fundamental particles", what exactly are you referring to? Is a proton fundamental enough?

Anything of a subatomic nature, I guess. Those 'things' constituent of atoms.

So, no. We have not made an atom from it's littlest bits. We don't even know what those bits are. But we have made plenty of atoms from other atoms - and such atoms occur naturally as a result of weak-force interactions.

One might think that our understanding of particle physics (QM) would be adequate enough to introduce the right particles together in the right environment sufficient to construct [say] hydrogen.

Is the problem that all of these fundamental particles do not exist, except as mathematical conceptions?

I would be surprised if the interactions in a cyclotron have not, at least fleetingly, created Hydrogen. All it requires is a proton and an electron in close proximity to fall love due to their electromagnetic magnetism. Both are produced in abundance during any single particle-smash. But nobody is looking for something so mundane. The primary purpose of smashing stuff together at massive energy is to make something we haven't seen before! Any spare protons, neutrons, electrons flapping about after the event are just noise...

[surreptitious57]

Is the problem that all of these fundamental particles do not exist except as mathematical conceptions

Quarks and electrons and protons and neutrons definitely exist but strings which quarks are supposedly made of
only exist in a mathematical sense at this point in time. It is not known if there are fundamental particles made
from nothing else or if particle physics is irreducibly complex which would be impossible to determine if it were

[cronus]

What do fast breeder reactors make?

[JimC]

What do fast breeder reactors make?

Plutonium 239, via neutron bombardment of Uranium 238.

Not exactly from fundamental particles...

[Tero]

If you have electrons and protons, you can make hydrogen. You can't make even helium from those hydrogens. And neutrons are unstable so you could not store a gram of them.