FRESH

Hacker News

Einstein's relativity rules chemical bonds in heavy elements, new research shows

359 points by hhs

by gcanyon

3 subcomments

> The increased nuclear mass causes orbiting electrons to speed up to a significant fraction of the speed of light, where the rules of Einstein’s theory of relativity are important.
Fun fact: this is why mercury is liquid at room temperature. Its inner electrons move at close to 60% the speed of light, pulling in its outer electrons more tightly, making it harder for it to bond and be solid. (I am not a physicist, don't rely on my statements for your space ship design)

by kristianp

4 subcomments

> The increased nuclear mass causes orbiting electrons to speed up to a significant fraction of the speed of light, where the rules of Einstein’s theory of relativity are important.
> In the relativistic regime, an electron’s spin — the magnetic moment that points either up or down — and the electron’s orbit are no longer independent of each other, a state known as spin-orbit coupling.
Interesting stuff. I've never heard of sigma or pi bonds.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aei1285

by seanhunter

0 subcomment

My most recent fun fact about chemistry is that the shape of the periodic table is as a result of the symmetry group of a sphere. This was part of this great talk https://www.youtube.com/live/btlQl93qOhc?is=7v7GQ92ozW_kpQtk

by nanolith

9 subcomments

Wait... wasn't it already understood that relativity influences electron orbits of heavy elements? I clearly remember being taught some of this in physics, in the mid-noughties.
For instance, we know that gold gets its color from relativistic effects.
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v10/s3

by de6u99er

2 subcomments

by RetroTechie

1 subcomments

by Svoka

0 subcomment

For context: this is one more experimental confirmation of Dirac's equations (incorporating special relativity into quantum physics).
Very cool.
The paper PDF: https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.brown.edu/dist/0/196/fil...

by cyberax

0 subcomment

Relativity is also responsible for a lot of weird behaviors of heavy elements, such as the color of gold. Or that lead is a good material for batteries.

by westurner

0 subcomment

But what about superfluids (BEC Bose-Einstein Condensates)?
Is it a different set of rules for superfluids like 3He, or should the laws of superfluids cover heavy elements, too?
Here, again, a need for a model of superfluid quantum gravity

by michaelsbradley

1 subcomments

Can equivalent theoretical predictions be calculated in a Bohmian framework for the quantum aspects, or is this (potentially) an interesting case where there’s divergence and falsifiability?

by waldrews

1 subcomments

Very farsighted, after working as a patent clerk, to lay claim on such a foundational technology. Back in the day, they must've been like, oh, so Mercury blocks the sun at the wrong time, but where's the commercial value - and now every chemical company throughout the universe is about to get a bill every time they make something more complex than hydrogen gas.
Meanwhile, Galilean relativity has long gone out of patent, and people on board planes and other vehicles just move around like they were in a stationary reference frame paying no royalties.

by 14

0 subcomment

I had a couple drinks so having one of those moments. I am always so fascinated by the science and experiments done to prove what we know. I consider myself at least of average intelligence probably slightly above but the things scientists research and solve always blows me away.
My guess to the Fermi paradox is that there actually are intelligent life across the universe but just like in Star Trek they stay quiet until we reach a certain level of knowledge.

by devmaster2

0 subcomment

by zkmon

2 subcomments

In general, anything that is observed to be true at a smaller scale or context can't be extended to much larger scales. That involves assumptions on logic and mathematics to be homogenous across all scales. A pure theoretical extrapolation without bounds is quite common in mathematics, such as proof by induction etc.
Also, the foundational axioms of logic themselves could be valid only at a scale that is familiar to humans. For example, the strict bounday between true and false might get blurred and things could be true and false at the same time at other scale.