New Discovery

Why on the periodic table of elements does it say there are certain elements that do not happen in nature? Where do they happen exactly?

If you can tell me that, I will answer your question. Again.

Simple, they exist theoretically but processes that exist in nature do not make them common.
Examples not existing is most often becaue their very structure condemns then to a shockingly quick half life.
If you feel this is not explanation enough please either give an example which puzzles you of a specific element, or seek a priest for “explanations” because science is about describing the universe as it is,
There are no miricales.

Well Salome may have been coincidentally both, the dancer and the dance, coming along at a time when even prances may have come in as a proof of the love of engagement.

Funny.
Only here could Salome appear in “Current Events”

Here are five examples.

Are the five examples merely theoretical?

Do the five examples describe the universe as it is if they are merely theoretical?

What is theory, anyway? Do they even rise to that level?

The half life is given by the structure. Elements are not essential when they have very high atomic wieghts, and decay to lesser ranges. The science is clear.
What is your problem exactly?

Already stated. You didn’t directly answer my questions. If you could paste them and reply directly underneath each question, you might find how you didn’t answer them, or your answers were contradictory to previous answers you gave.

It’s not that big of a deal if you don’t know.

The periodic table includes elements that do not occur naturally on Earth because they are either synthesized by humans or exist only in extreme environments. These synthetic elements are usually created in laboratories using particle accelerators or nuclear reactors.

Where These Elements Occur:

  1. In Laboratories:
  • Synthesized Elements: Many elements beyond uranium (atomic number 92) are not found naturally because they are highly unstable and decay rapidly into other elements. Scientists create them by smashing atomic nuclei together in particle accelerators or by bombarding target elements with neutrons or heavy ions in reactors. Examples include technetium (atomic number 43), einsteinium (99), and all elements with atomic numbers above 100.
  • Example Process: Curium (96) can be bombarded with alpha particles to create californium (98). This type of nuclear reaction allows scientists to explore properties of these elements.
  1. In Extreme Astrophysical Events:
  • Some elements are believed to form in supernovae (massive star explosions) or neutron star collisions where extreme temperatures and pressures allow for the creation of very heavy elements. These elements may exist briefly but are not stable enough to persist in nature.
  1. Short-lived in Nature:
  • A few synthetic elements, like technetium, might exist fleetingly in trace amounts in certain stars or as decay products of heavier elements in natural radioactive decay chains. However, they are not stable enough to accumulate in Earth’s crust.

These elements “do not happen in nature” because their isotopes have short half-lives, meaning they decay into other elements so quickly that they can’t remain detectable without human synthesis.

Answer by ChatGPT and not checked by me but that could be the answer.

I think “never found in nature” and “purely theoretical” are not a very good way to talk about these fast-decaying elements that have actually been detected in nature.

But isn’t it interesting? Maybe some of them would only occur with human intervention. That makes it sound similar to divine intervention. And yet it does not defy nature.

Why do some atheist scientists talk about “magic” (science, synthesis) that is in line with nature, but they don’t permit or even entertain the concept of miracles that are in line with nature?

In a way you’re right, but for me, this only echoes the idea that Brahman and Atman are one, and that we have divine origins.

The creation of synthetic elements through human intervention mirrors the idea of something extraordinary occurring within the natural order, akin to what some might view as divine intervention. It highlights humanity’s unique role in shaping and extending nature’s boundaries without actually defying its laws.

Much like divine acts in mythology or theology, the synthesis of elements brings into existence something that would not otherwise occur naturally. It’s a creative act that seems “beyond nature” but is still rooted in the fundamental principles of physics and chemistry.

Humans also create many materials, including metals and alloys, that do not occur naturally. These “artificial” materials are crafted by manipulating natural resources in ways that enhance their properties or produce entirely new characteristics. This innovation further demonstrates humanity’s role as a creative force within nature, extending its possibilities without breaking its laws.

The unfortunate thing is that we do not grasp the evidence as a catalyst for interactive change. Just as divine intervention is often seen as a catalyst for change or the realization of potential, human synthesis of elements allows nature to express possibilities that lie dormant within its rules but require a specific set of conditions to be actualized, including social cooperation.

The creation of elements through human ingenuity feels like adding new colours to nature’s palette. It doesn’t violate nature’s laws—it just uses them in ways that nature itself might never have. So too the diversity of human culture, which shows how humans tend not only towards synthesis but also syncretism.

Humanity acts as a natural extension of nature’s creative process. While nature might produce elements spontaneously in stars or extreme cosmic events, humans replicate similar conditions (albeit on a smaller scale) in laboratories and, culturally in social experiments. But since humans are part of nature, our actions are arguably natural. The distinction between “natural” and “human-made” is itself artificial to some extent, as we are just another agent of change within the ecosystem of the universe.

Perhaps it’s more than poetic to think of humans as partners in creation, unlocking aspects of the universe that might never have been revealed otherwise. In a way, this interplay between human intervention and natural law could reflect the divine mystery—a collaborative dance between potential and realization, rooted in awe-inspiring complexity.

Do you actually mean synchronicity?

No.

The diversity of human culture beautifully demonstrates our natural inclination toward both synthesis (creating something new by combining elements) and syncretism (blending different traditions, beliefs, and practices into a cohesive whole). These tendencies mirror our ability to innovate materials and elements, reflecting a deep-seated drive to unite, adapt, and expand.

Perhaps nature is an agent of change in the same sense that humans are, if it transcends its body the same way humans do? And perhaps our creativity that is attributable to us is only possible because we are made in the image of the agent of change that is nature?

I am in favor of pruning falsehood from worldviews, rather than forcing them to fit together despite their contradictions.

.
Well… Science did help create a hole in the ozone layer, let’s see what else it can help create. ; )

This planet is plagued with toxic/damaging waste from scientific inventions… man never learns from his every mistake.
.
I am of the school of thought, that the natural and the synthetic should not/never be merged on the periodic table or anywhere else.

I am in favour of manipulating cultural resources in ways that enhance their properties or produce entirely new characteristics.

.
Science… ruining the planet, one invention at a time.
.
Modern science… wanting to be god/playing god again.

Humans are trash!

True creation is a remembering.

That is errant nonsense. At all levels in our lives we have given up freedom; men and women.
By such myths Americans delude themsleves and oppressed the world with their delusions.
I deny the idea vigorously.

In some ways that is true, but not in all. True creation can also be discovering and manipulating.

The two/three are not mutually exclusive.