4 ms·

As a non-scientist this sounds pretty huge to me, but what actually are these new elements? The article doesn't elaborate. They're all in a similar numeric ran

by ry_ry 10y ago

As a non-scientist this sounds pretty huge to me, but what actually are these new elements? The article doesn't elaborate. They're all in a similar numeric range, but are these entirely new elements, or other elements recategorised?

wlesieutre 10y ago
They're all very heavy elements at the bottom of the periodic table and not found in nature. We made them in particle accelerators (they decay very quickly after creation), and have been calling by temporary names until we got around to naming them. For example, element 118 was called "Ununoctium" and abbreviated "Uno". Now it has a real name, "Oganesson" (Og) after one of the discoverers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oganesson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oganesson
- dalbasal 10y ago
  Any use for them?
  - wlesieutre 10y ago
    Not directly that I'm aware of, since they decay before you could do anything with them. Just a better understanding of their physics. We've hypothesized an "island of stability" where we might find heavier but more stable elements, but the ones we've found so far aren't it.
idlewords 10y ago
These are all real elements. They decay within tiny fractions of a second to other stuff, so they're hard to make and study. Think of the nuclei as big, quivering blobs of jelly. They are too big to hold together and really want to split into other stuff. But studying them while they're still in one piece tests our understanding of a lot of basic physics, and lets us compare predictions to reality.
takingflac 10y ago
Edit: Other replies are better. Just going to add that if we create a new element that is stable it will be big news by itself.
- tedajax 10y ago
  I just realized how big a deal a stable super heavy element would actually be. I mean is it crazy to think that if such an element were synthesized and it was stable enough to amass like a gram of it you could be looking at the largest single quantity of this element in the known universe?
  - dalbasal 10y ago
    Just an uneducated guess but... if an element was stable enough to amass a gram I don't think it would be that rare in the universe. At least unless the conditions in our accelerators are singular in the universe.
    - ars 10y ago
      It might be rare. If it lasted say 100 years, a supernova could make some, but it wouldn't last long, making it quite rare. (Depending on how you define "rare", is rare a relative measure compared to other elements, or an absolute total quantity?) > the conditions in our accelerators are singular in the universe. Most likely they are. A supernova is a random event, an accelerator is directed. It's quite possible we could make lots of something in an accelerator that would never happen in the random conditions of a supernova (for example if some other more common effect consumed the raw material needed for the rare thing to happen).
    - MereInterest 10y ago
      At some point, they could be. The heaviest of elements are formed in the "r-process" [1]. We're not really sure where it happens (either core-collapse supernova or neutron star mergers, but that is a different topic altogether), but we know in general what is happening in it. The r-process starts with something fairly stable and relatively light, like iron. Then you start throwing phenomenal amounts of neutrons at it. Outside of a nucleus, neutrons are unstable, and decay to protons in about 15 minute, so this can only happen if something is producing lots and lots of neutrons, all at once. Anyways, the iron catching those neutrons, becoming heavier and heavier. Eventually, the nucleus becomes heavy enough that beta decay, in which a neutron inside the nucleus changes into a proton, starts happening at the same rate as neutron capture. At this point, it is a competition. In the table of isotopes [2], neutron capture moves to the right, and beta decay moves diagonally up and to the left. Between the two, the nuclei get heavier and heavier, with more and more protons and neutrons. The general path is known [3], zig-zagging through the isotopes, becoming more and more unstable. The process stops when the source of neutrons runs out. At that point, everything beta-decays back to stability. Everything is finished, and the heavy elements of the universe have been produced. There is a theorized "island of stability" [4]. We have enough protons, but not enough neutrons. Remember how the r-process adds one neutron at a time? Well, if the island of stability is as stable as predicted (half-lives of a few hours are typically predicted), then we might be able to produce those isotopes by careful selection of the input nuclei. Nature is limited to what exists in stellar environments, and can't choose. So (and here I'm stepping out of my area of expertise), since this selection wouldn't happen in nature, it is entirely possible that we are creating conditions that haven't existed in large quantities elsewhere. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-process [2] http://cdn.iopscience.com/images/0034-4885/76/5/056301/Full/rpp438526f07_online.jpg http://cdn.iopscience.com/images/0034-4885/76/5/056301/Full/... [3] http://www.onafarawayday.com/Radiogenic/Ch1/Ch1-2_files/image014.jpg http://www.onafarawayday.com/Radiogenic/Ch1/Ch1-2_files/imag... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability
ars 10y ago
> what actually are these new elements? They are as different from other elements as gold is different from carbon. Each is unique and unlike any other element, with unknown properties (they don't last long enough to study, although some guesses can be made). We are hoping there is a "magic" number, that if we reach can make elements that actually last long enough to study (because certain numbers of particles are extra stable because they "fit" together very nicely - like how you can fit 6 coins around another coin much nicer than 7). That's called the Island of Stability if you want to look it up. These elements are on the path to that, so it's important to study them. As of right now we don't know how to make anything heavier.
- djsumdog 10y ago
  I wonder if there is a limit to how dense a single atom can be. Does there exist somewhere in the universe, in some massive star, elements that would construct another row on our table? I find limits like these interesting (absolute zero, the plank temperature which may or may not be absolute hot, the speed of light, etc.)
  - ars 10y ago
    > I wonder if there is a limit to how dense a single atom can be. Yes, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_drip_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_drip_line In particular the Neutron drip line is not known, so we don't know how large an atom can be. But there is such a number. It's easy to understand why protons drip: Their electric repulsion pushes them out. For neutrons it's more complicated, but basically you need energy to force a neutron to attach to a nucleus, and at some point the energy released in falling off is high enough that they will no longer stay attached (this is a simplification BTW).
  - adrianN 10y ago
    I'm no expert, but my understanding is that a neutron star looks very much like a ridiculously huge nucleus.
    - ars 10y ago

by ry_ry 10y ago

wlesieutre 10y ago

They're all very heavy elements at the bottom of the periodic table and not found in nature. We made them in particle accelerators (they decay very quickly after creation), and have been calling by temporary names until we got around to naming them. For example, element 118 was called "Ununoctium" and abbreviated "Uno". Now it has a real name, "Oganesson" (Og) after one of the discoverers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oganesson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oganesson

dalbasal 10y ago
Any use for them?
- wlesieutre 10y ago
  Not directly that I'm aware of, since they decay before you could do anything with them. Just a better understanding of their physics. We've hypothesized an "island of stability" where we might find heavier but more stable elements, but the ones we've found so far aren't it.

idlewords 10y ago

These are all real elements. They decay within tiny fractions of a second to other stuff, so they're hard to make and study. Think of the nuclei as big, quivering blobs of jelly. They are too big to hold together and really want to split into other stuff. But studying them while they're still in one piece tests our understanding of a lot of basic physics, and lets us compare predictions to reality.

takingflac 10y ago

Edit: Other replies are better. Just going to add that if we create a new element that is stable it will be big news by itself.

tedajax 10y ago
I just realized how big a deal a stable super heavy element would actually be. I mean is it crazy to think that if such an element were synthesized and it was stable enough to amass like a gram of it you could be looking at the largest single quantity of this element in the known universe?
- dalbasal 10y ago
  Just an uneducated guess but... if an element was stable enough to amass a gram I don't think it would be that rare in the universe. At least unless the conditions in our accelerators are singular in the universe.
  - ars 10y ago
    It might be rare. If it lasted say 100 years, a supernova could make some, but it wouldn't last long, making it quite rare. (Depending on how you define "rare", is rare a relative measure compared to other elements, or an absolute total quantity?) > the conditions in our accelerators are singular in the universe. Most likely they are. A supernova is a random event, an accelerator is directed. It's quite possible we could make lots of something in an accelerator that would never happen in the random conditions of a supernova (for example if some other more common effect consumed the raw material needed for the rare thing to happen).
  - MereInterest 10y ago
    At some point, they could be. The heaviest of elements are formed in the "r-process" [1]. We're not really sure where it happens (either core-collapse supernova or neutron star mergers, but that is a different topic altogether), but we know in general what is happening in it. The r-process starts with something fairly stable and relatively light, like iron. Then you start throwing phenomenal amounts of neutrons at it. Outside of a nucleus, neutrons are unstable, and decay to protons in about 15 minute, so this can only happen if something is producing lots and lots of neutrons, all at once. Anyways, the iron catching those neutrons, becoming heavier and heavier. Eventually, the nucleus becomes heavy enough that beta decay, in which a neutron inside the nucleus changes into a proton, starts happening at the same rate as neutron capture. At this point, it is a competition. In the table of isotopes [2], neutron capture moves to the right, and beta decay moves diagonally up and to the left. Between the two, the nuclei get heavier and heavier, with more and more protons and neutrons. The general path is known [3], zig-zagging through the isotopes, becoming more and more unstable. The process stops when the source of neutrons runs out. At that point, everything beta-decays back to stability. Everything is finished, and the heavy elements of the universe have been produced. There is a theorized "island of stability" [4]. We have enough protons, but not enough neutrons. Remember how the r-process adds one neutron at a time? Well, if the island of stability is as stable as predicted (half-lives of a few hours are typically predicted), then we might be able to produce those isotopes by careful selection of the input nuclei. Nature is limited to what exists in stellar environments, and can't choose. So (and here I'm stepping out of my area of expertise), since this selection wouldn't happen in nature, it is entirely possible that we are creating conditions that haven't existed in large quantities elsewhere. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-process [2] http://cdn.iopscience.com/images/0034-4885/76/5/056301/Full/rpp438526f07_online.jpg http://cdn.iopscience.com/images/0034-4885/76/5/056301/Full/... [3] http://www.onafarawayday.com/Radiogenic/Ch1/Ch1-2_files/image014.jpg http://www.onafarawayday.com/Radiogenic/Ch1/Ch1-2_files/imag... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability

ars 10y ago

> what actually are these new elements? They are as different from other elements as gold is different from carbon. Each is unique and unlike any other element, with unknown properties (they don't last long enough to study, although some guesses can be made). We are hoping there is a "magic" number, that if we reach can make elements that actually last long enough to study (because certain numbers of particles are extra stable because they "fit" together very nicely - like how you can fit 6 coins around another coin much nicer than 7). That's called the Island of Stability if you want to look it up. These elements are on the path to that, so it's important to study them. As of right now we don't know how to make anything heavier.

djsumdog 10y ago
I wonder if there is a limit to how dense a single atom can be. Does there exist somewhere in the universe, in some massive star, elements that would construct another row on our table? I find limits like these interesting (absolute zero, the plank temperature which may or may not be absolute hot, the speed of light, etc.)
- ars 10y ago
  > I wonder if there is a limit to how dense a single atom can be. Yes, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_drip_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_drip_line In particular the Neutron drip line is not known, so we don't know how large an atom can be. But there is such a number. It's easy to understand why protons drip: Their electric repulsion pushes them out. For neutrons it's more complicated, but basically you need energy to force a neutron to attach to a nucleus, and at some point the energy released in falling off is high enough that they will no longer stay attached (this is a simplification BTW).
- adrianN 10y ago
  I'm no expert, but my understanding is that a neutron star looks very much like a ridiculously huge nucleus.
  - ars 10y ago