5 ms·

isnt the half life of most types of molecules in air far shorter than 2k years? maybe i am nitpicking, but would it not be more to correct to say we are breathi

by lkmill 1y ago

isnt the half life of most types of molecules in air far shorter than 2k years? maybe i am nitpicking, but would it not be more to correct to say we are breathing the same atoms as those in caesers last breath? edit: itchy trigger finger, think i subconsciously wanted to be the first to comment. it is stated quite early that molecules preservation is assumed. still think it would be more correct and just as interesting to discuss atoms, not molecules. edit 2: quick research has taught me that nitrogen gas, n2, and naturally occurring isotopes do not even have a half life. they do not radioactively decay. til.

oatsandsugar 1y ago
I don't think so — Nitrogen, the most common part of air, is stable in its most common isotope
- lkmill 1y ago
  indeed it seems so, i thought all atoms (except hydrogen) had some kind of decay. i thought so called stable atoms still had half-lives of 10^{very large number} years.
  - tgv 1y ago
    In this scenario, you can think of a reaction as terminating a molecule's life. So if there's a 50% chance that an H2O (or CO2) molecule reacts in a certain period, that could be its half-life time.
  - SJC_Hacker 1y ago
    If you buy into the Big Rip, then all particles in the universe (including protons and neutrons) will eventually disintegrate
    - jasongill 1y ago
      your post made me laugh because it makes the theory sound like propaganda that is sponsored by Big Rip
      - kjs3 1y ago
        Big Bang, Big Rip, Big Crush. Cosmologists like Big Things.
        simonh 1y ago
        It’s literally the study of big things.
    - Baeocystin 1y ago
      Stephen Baxter wrote a short story about such. It sticks with you. https://web.archive.org/web/20080725045740/http://www.solarisbooks.com/books/newbookscifi/last-contact.asp https://web.archive.org/web/20080725045740/http://www.solari...
  - cyberax 1y ago
    If we're talking about these kinds of scales, N2 molecules are not stable because there's a non-zero probability for the atoms to fuse into a heavier element through tunneling. And this will release more than enough energy to break the chemical bonds, of course.
  - hnuser123456 1y ago
    Maybe you saw this story recently?: https://phys.org/news/2025-05-universe-decay-years-sooner-previously.html https://phys.org/news/2025-05-universe-decay-years-sooner-pr... Also, bismuth was once thought to be the most massive "fully" stable element, but turns out does decay with a half life of 10^19 years, compared to the universe's age of ~10^10 years. Neutrons decay into a proton/electron pair after 15 minutes when not part of a nucleus. Protons appear to be fully stable for any practical considerations, however they might decay after 10^30 years.
- scheme271 1y ago
  That's true for most timescales, however plants and other organisms fix nitrogen in the atmosphere into biologically useful molecules so nitrogen gets cycled in and out of the atmosphere. Similar things apply for carbon dioxide and oxygen.
pvg 1y ago
What's the 'half-life' you're thinking of? Your basic gas molecules will last a lot longer than 2k years short of being involved in some reaction or another. And a lot of these reactions aren't that easy in atmospheric conditions- e.g. pulling nitrogen out of the atmosphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_cycle
victorNicollet 1y ago
I have seen the similar assertion "some of the water molecules you drank today were once part of a dinosaur", which is false because water molecules do not last very long when in liquid phase (they continuously swap protons, turning into hydronium ions and back). The O-O and N-N bonds are much stronger than H-O bonds, but there are still atmospheric processes that can break them. For instance, O2 undergoes photodissociation under ultraviolet light and recombines into O3 ozone, and N2 likely also undergoes photodissociation. And obviously, the fact that living beings breathe O2...
- satvikpendem 1y ago
  People should instead say atoms, not molecules. Or maybe even say quarks.
  - raattgift 1y ago
    Why quarks? There are untold bazillions of those inside each proton, and there's no quark conservation law (rather than conservation of (for example) isospin and strangeness, but only under electromagnetism not under weak interactions, so quark counts get furiously complex in bigger nuclei). https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/largehadroncolliderfaq/whats-a-proton-anyway/checking-whats-inside-a-proton/ https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/largehadron... For a single proton, though, one always measures (with available measurement technology) a small excess of quarks: two excess up quarks and one excess down quark. That the valence quark model of hadrons works is weird. Who ordered that? The excess quarks are not "the same" quarks every time you probe your carefully selected and isolated and cold sample proton. Indeed, today's valence quarks in your pet proton are not guaranteed to exist tomorrow, even if the proton stays trapped -- particle creation and annihilation are furious inside, and there are all sorts of other disturbances of quarks that go on in there. Why atoms? While much calmer, there's still plenty of crazy stuff happening in atoms -- even a neutral hydrogen atom has a bunch of photons and positrons and excess electrons floating around "inside", with an energy fraction proportional to the fine structure constant and with no guarantees that they were there yesterday. Is it the "same" atom at that level? Also, for most of the hydrogen in an exhalation, it probably will be in and out of various electron-swapping configurations over the years. Water gets pretty crazy with its ions, for example.
adonovan 1y ago
> would it not be more to correct to say we are breathing the same atoms as those in caesers last breath? You may be right, but according to quantum mechanics, you can't really meaningfully talk about the "same" atoms, or any particles, because they don't have identities. There was a particle here, now there's a particle there, but we can't say exactly where it was at all the times in between, and it may not have been at any particular place: its amplitudes may have passed through two doors at once.

by lkmill 1y ago

oatsandsugar 1y ago

I don't think so — Nitrogen, the most common part of air, is stable in its most common isotope

lkmill 1y ago
indeed it seems so, i thought all atoms (except hydrogen) had some kind of decay. i thought so called stable atoms still had half-lives of 10^{very large number} years.
- tgv 1y ago
  In this scenario, you can think of a reaction as terminating a molecule's life. So if there's a 50% chance that an H2O (or CO2) molecule reacts in a certain period, that could be its half-life time.
- SJC_Hacker 1y ago
  If you buy into the Big Rip, then all particles in the universe (including protons and neutrons) will eventually disintegrate
  - jasongill 1y ago
    your post made me laugh because it makes the theory sound like propaganda that is sponsored by Big Rip
    - kjs3 1y ago
      Big Bang, Big Rip, Big Crush. Cosmologists like Big Things.
      - simonh 1y ago
        It’s literally the study of big things.
  - Baeocystin 1y ago
    Stephen Baxter wrote a short story about such. It sticks with you. https://web.archive.org/web/20080725045740/http://www.solarisbooks.com/books/newbookscifi/last-contact.asp https://web.archive.org/web/20080725045740/http://www.solari...
- cyberax 1y ago
  If we're talking about these kinds of scales, N2 molecules are not stable because there's a non-zero probability for the atoms to fuse into a heavier element through tunneling. And this will release more than enough energy to break the chemical bonds, of course.
- hnuser123456 1y ago
  Maybe you saw this story recently?: https://phys.org/news/2025-05-universe-decay-years-sooner-previously.html https://phys.org/news/2025-05-universe-decay-years-sooner-pr... Also, bismuth was once thought to be the most massive "fully" stable element, but turns out does decay with a half life of 10^19 years, compared to the universe's age of ~10^10 years. Neutrons decay into a proton/electron pair after 15 minutes when not part of a nucleus. Protons appear to be fully stable for any practical considerations, however they might decay after 10^30 years.
scheme271 1y ago
That's true for most timescales, however plants and other organisms fix nitrogen in the atmosphere into biologically useful molecules so nitrogen gets cycled in and out of the atmosphere. Similar things apply for carbon dioxide and oxygen.

pvg 1y ago

What's the 'half-life' you're thinking of? Your basic gas molecules will last a lot longer than 2k years short of being involved in some reaction or another. And a lot of these reactions aren't that easy in atmospheric conditions- e.g. pulling nitrogen out of the atmosphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_cycle

victorNicollet 1y ago

I have seen the similar assertion "some of the water molecules you drank today were once part of a dinosaur", which is false because water molecules do not last very long when in liquid phase (they continuously swap protons, turning into hydronium ions and back). The O-O and N-N bonds are much stronger than H-O bonds, but there are still atmospheric processes that can break them. For instance, O2 undergoes photodissociation under ultraviolet light and recombines into O3 ozone, and N2 likely also undergoes photodissociation. And obviously, the fact that living beings breathe O2...

satvikpendem 1y ago
People should instead say atoms, not molecules. Or maybe even say quarks.
- raattgift 1y ago
  Why quarks? There are untold bazillions of those inside each proton, and there's no quark conservation law (rather than conservation of (for example) isospin and strangeness, but only under electromagnetism not under weak interactions, so quark counts get furiously complex in bigger nuclei). https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/largehadroncolliderfaq/whats-a-proton-anyway/checking-whats-inside-a-proton/ https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/largehadron... For a single proton, though, one always measures (with available measurement technology) a small excess of quarks: two excess up quarks and one excess down quark. That the valence quark model of hadrons works is weird. Who ordered that? The excess quarks are not "the same" quarks every time you probe your carefully selected and isolated and cold sample proton. Indeed, today's valence quarks in your pet proton are not guaranteed to exist tomorrow, even if the proton stays trapped -- particle creation and annihilation are furious inside, and there are all sorts of other disturbances of quarks that go on in there. Why atoms? While much calmer, there's still plenty of crazy stuff happening in atoms -- even a neutral hydrogen atom has a bunch of photons and positrons and excess electrons floating around "inside", with an energy fraction proportional to the fine structure constant and with no guarantees that they were there yesterday. Is it the "same" atom at that level? Also, for most of the hydrogen in an exhalation, it probably will be in and out of various electron-swapping configurations over the years. Water gets pretty crazy with its ions, for example.

adonovan 1y ago

> would it not be more to correct to say we are breathing the same atoms as those in caesers last breath? You may be right, but according to quantum mechanics, you can't really meaningfully talk about the "same" atoms, or any particles, because they don't have identities. There was a particle here, now there's a particle there, but we can't say exactly where it was at all the times in between, and it may not have been at any particular place: its amplitudes may have passed through two doors at once.