Could it be possible that there is an atom of the first breath you took when you were born still in your lungs when you...

Could it be possible that there is an atom of the first breath you took when you were born still in your lungs when you are half way through your life?

Because a little bit of air is always left inside your lungs when your breathing

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=U2bNXrVubrE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

No.

grab a newborn baby, force it to breathe 17O, then stuff it on an NMR 20 yrs later

yw

Yes
And each breath has an unimaginable number of atoms. 3 atoms of your last breath were also Caesar's last breath.

I don’t even know what this means

No, they aren't. Stop being an idiot.

17 O is an isotope of oxygen

NMR = nuclear magnetic resonance that can detect the isotope

Because I was thinking about the fact that your still breathing dinosaur air

That’s what made me wonder about this I think

It's about as possible as that there's an atom of the original substance in homeopathic solution. So I would not hold my breath.

Ah yes very good plan haha

We are not breathing dinosaur air. How old are you?

the absurdity of my idea is in direct proportion to the idiocy of your question

Na I meant atoms from air that was around when the dinosaurs were around

If you want to go that route, then all the atoms we're made out of have been in existence since the formation of our planet (and some time before). It isn't specific to air.

Also, there is no such thing as air atoms.

Well I think it’s possible

I said atoms from air

Then why did you ask?

Name an atom from air

Uranium-235

To satisfy your ignorance with some maths:

Say you retain 50% of the air in your lungs at each breath. It's probably about 10%, but let's be generous.

After 1 breath, you're left with 50% of the original breath. After 2 breaths, 25%. After 3 breaths, 12.5%.

After 10 breaths, you're left with 1/1024th of your original breath.
After 20 breaths, 1 millionth
30 breaths, 1 billionth.
After 100 breaths, about 5 minutes, you're left with one thousandth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of your original breath, or a tiny fraction of an atom. Since atoms can't be divided by our lungs, the last atom disappears within a few breaths, if not immediately.

I meant naivety anyway

seriously though, you should use a model organism, white rat, once its born put it in a chamber, pump 17O (or 18O) into the chamber, you would have to extract the air continuously otherwise the rat will breathe its own air, this implies a fresh supply of air.

according to your theory the marked oxygen would remain in the lungs of the animal, say after a certain period you kill the rat (usually with CO2, so make sure it's not CO2 with oxygen isotope) you dissect it grab the lungs, liquefy it, take a sample, dilute it, put that sample in an NMR that detects oxygen isotopes

that's your answer

oxygen
hydrogen
nitrogen
argon
neon
helium

No, but nice try.

Actually, not even a nice try.

Probably not possible. Atoms move around a lot, whether in air or nah. Likely touched the lung wall and got absorbed into the bloodstream at some point.

so this elements, which are made of atoms do not exist in the air on earth?

l2english first, please.

Jimmy

no, humans even change their skeletons every 10 years

>this
>these
implying you dont know what I meant.
Not addressing my question

hmmm its like you know I am right but are too headstrong to admit it

Bitch die

youtube.com/watch?v=U2bNXrVubrE

I can't tell if you are trolling or just fucking stupid

lol no. You changed the premise of the question to suit your answer. No use arguing stupidity.

There is very little amounts of hydrogen in the air it’s mainly nitrogen oxygen and argon

And oxygen in air is molecular, leaving only nitrogen and argon.

At least he got two out of six.

>name an atoms from air
I listed elements, which reside as atoms

speaking of learning to english
>an atoms

did user ask for the major compoent of air or atoms that exist in air

>guise he listed a couple diatomics
>they are in no way made up of atoms

No. That's retarded.

*component

Adam West

do we know yet how physics affects atoms?

also aren't atoms affected by osmosis?

i feel like if you breathed in an atom it would just stick to the tissue and absorb into it or become it.

Radon

Photon

>do we know yet how physics affects atoms?
We have an decent idea but not an absolute understanding. There is a whole field of chemistry (physical chemistry) dedicated to it. Physics prob has a field too besides for particle physics.

>also aren't atoms affected by osmosis?
yes and henrys law here

Atom Sandler

photons are particles and not atoms user

The Atoms family

You can't detect isotopes by NMR.
NMR works by measuring the chemical shift of [insert atom you're using as a base] (Hydrogen for H1-NMR, Carbon for C12-NMR). The chemical shift happens as a result of electron interactions, the distance from electronegative spots determines the chemical shift. Isotopes only differ in their neutron count. Neutrons are neutal, as opposed to electrons being negative and protons being positive. Therefore, isotopes will not change an NMR result.

Atom and Eve

John Atoms

Strange atomaly

Not user you are replying to but an isotope would give the nucleus a charge or change in charge. You only need to see a shift, assuming a clean sample and appropriate controls

Why would an oxygen molecule just stay in the lungs¿ Osmotic pressure would cause it to enter the blood stream where it would follow one of many oxygen cycles within your body OR it could miss the opportunity and be expelled within a few breaths.

Where is the charge coming from?
Isotopes of an element only differ in the number of neutrons. Neutrons have no charge.

Nice snotcatcher.

Sorry I think I used up all the good ones.

I am not a NMR guy and have limited experience with them so I could be wrong.
Typically protons and neutrons are in equal ratios in nuclei. Lose a neutron, nucleus becomes positively charged and thus change the overall magnetic resonance in the overall atom

For lower-atomic number elements, yes the ratio of protons to neutrons is 1:1, however at higher atomic numbers, there are more neutrons than protons. See pic related. Each element in its most abundant isotope is the most stable, however it can differ by a few neutrons. The shaded-in area around the points on the graph is the band of stability, wherein exist stable isotopes for each element.
The overall change on an atom is simply # protons - # electrons, has nothing to do with neutrons.

but we are talking oxygen a lower atomic number element

Oxygen-17 is a stable isotope, it doesn't have a half-life.
Doesn't change anything about the charge, though.

I get the overall charge is not changing and would not expect to see a major shift. But it would cause the nucleus to become positively charged could change the angular momentum of an orbiting electron. Would it shift the atom to become more paramagnetic? Maybe, all you need to see is a change from your control

see

>But it would cause the nucleus to become positively
Can you explain this on? How would the nucleus become (more) positive? The increase in mass would change a negligible change in angular momentum of orbiting electrons.
The aatom would not become more paramagnetic, that has to do with electron orbital pairing. And we're not adding/take away an electrons so that won't change.

Not really, every atom in our entire body is replaced every seven years, so unless OP is seven...no

sorry you are right, i just realized for some reason I was attributing to the loss of mass from a neutron with a change in electronic potential in the nucleus. This is why you dont wake and bake, haha. I am pretty sure isotopes can be used in NMR though. But I never use it so didnt retain much about it....I am biochemist and was more interested in mass spec and EM. I want to use a Cryo-EM so badly

>I am pretty sure isotopes can be used in NMR though
Yeah, you can, I was trying to google out how exactly it works, but I couldn't find any explanations yet, that's why I was trying to be proven wrong.
Chemical engineer here.
Stay true to your dreams, you'll be able to use one eventually.

yearly.

your data is waaaay outdated.

>I was trying to google out how exactly it works,
me too, kek.

I am trying to stay true to my dreams, I applied for PhD programs for fall18. 2/7 have rejected me and waiting on the rest. All the PIs i selected were either doing CryEM or Xray on proteins. Which i really want to learn how to do. But as you know its so competitive to get into these programs that I feel like my chances are low

Gotcha, I'm just going for my masters and then I'll be out. In junior year now.
You just gotta keep trying, I guess, only need 1 to work out, right?

Nah if you did any basic back of the letter calculation you'd find it's true. Thought last time i did this it came out as 8 atoms for me.

I really love how much of an idiot you are.

oxygen is still made of atoms, like it doesnt matter if its bivalent

Yea Im hoping for atleast one but am expecting at least 3 more rejects. 4/7 of the programs are out of my league and i think i fucked up on one app. so I am crossing my fingers for two. I have my masters in chem and it helped when applying for jobs that require a BS but you are caught in a weird place where you are almost too good for those jobs but not good enough for PhD jobs. For me that is sorta a big deal because I want to do research for a living

Anything is possible

Yeah I've heard that before for some people, getting caught in between qualifications.
But at least you've got a good major and education, I'm sure it'll work out.

Thank user. Doing my masters was a lot of fun. Way more fun than my BS (also in chem). The exams and what not are harder but the classes are so interesting it didnt matter. It was like taking a chapter out of your general biochemistry or physical or organic or inorganic chem book and making a semester of that. Plus you get to know you Profs alot better