5 ms·

Periodic table gets a new element

40 points by habs 17y ago

kinghajj 17y ago
Wikipedia states that Ununbium (element 112) was first created in 1996, but that team's research was disregarded. Apparently, we've synthesized elements up to 118, except 117.
- Confusion 17y ago
  It wasn't so much disregarded as retroactively discounted on grounds of fraud. In retrospect, we aren't sure whether any of those elements have ever been synthesized (though I seem to recall reading about 115 in the past year).
tocomment 17y ago
It seems like an element should have to be stable to be considered an element. This only lasted a few microseconds. Couldn't you put almost any combination of particles together for an arbitrarily short amount of time? What's special about an element?
- Keyframe 17y ago
  I can't find it now no matter what, but there is a video in here somewhere where professor talks exactly about that http://www.youtube.com/user/periodicvideos http://www.youtube.com/user/periodicvideos I rememebr he says something about higher you go in the periodic table you add more electron to the shell and there is only a finite amount of space in there, and at the time, highest element had all of the slots filled in and then something weird about electron orbit.. ugh and I have watched it just the other day.. but there it is, and all of the videos are very interesting (at least to me) edit: here it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stxor9L00BU&feature=channel_page http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stxor9L00BU&feature=chann... - a video about element 118 and professor gets asked how can they know there are only 118 elements in about a minute in video and here is an edited video of all 118 elements they have explained http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFsdbLFHgY8&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFsdbLFHgY8&feature=relat...
- stratomorph 17y ago
  If you only counted stable substances as "elements", an awful lot of things would have to get a different name. Uranium wouldn't be an element at all, because even U-238 (the most common isotope, more than 99% of the stuff found in nature, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_uranium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_uranium) will be reduced by half in a few billion years. You could set some time limit of half life, below which is considered "completely unstable" and doesn't count, but what purpose would such an arbitrary division serve? Yes, you can slam particles together in any combination, but the special thing about elements is that, for at least a few microseconds, it didn't need any external force or containment to hold together. A few microseconds is a long time at the subatomic scale.
- ars 17y ago
  They are not just particles near each other, but they actually combined into a single particle - an atom. In the macro world if you put things together, then separate them you get the same pieces back. In the micro world it's not like that - the protons and neutrons combine into a single mixed jumble. So that's what's special about it, despite it being unstable: at least for a time it was a single particle. Instability is all about energy, if you release energy by splitting off a particle, it will do so. Guaranteed. If you need energy to do so, it won't. The time it takes to decay is directly proportional to the amount of energy released. (Another thing that can cause stability is conservation of quantum number like charge and momentum. If it's illegal for a piece to split off, then even if there is a lot of energy, it won't.) But instability does not imply the atom is somehow less of an atom than another one. It's just an atom at a very high energy level.
bravura 17y ago
"Professor Hofmann began his quest to add to the periodic table in 1976." This really seems like a poor scientific imperative.
- nostrademons 17y ago
  The world would look very different now if Lise Meitner had thought the same thing in 1917.
- wlievens 17y ago
  It's more likely poor journalism.
PieSquared 17y ago
I am left to wonder though: what is the possible use of this? I realize it's basic research (and as such am all for it), but it would be interesting to know whether any practical uses are even planned or theorised.
- ars 17y ago
  If we could reach the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability we might get some very interesting materials.
  - simonista 17y ago
    Thanks for the Island of Stability link, I had never heard that term before.
  - ovi256 17y ago
    But given that the atoms of these elements need to be manufactured with a high energy cost, using them to manufacture pure materials would be prohibitively expensive. As in, physically prohibitive : we would need Kardashev level 1 energy to manufacture macroscopic amounts. I could see an use as dopants though : this would require minuscule amounts of these elements, but it would still be amazingly expensive.
    - ars 17y ago
      You got downmodded (I think) because it's way way too early to worry about how much energy they take to make. Lets first make them - for all me know by the time we manage it, fusion reactors will be cheap. But I bumped you back up since I don't think your comment deserves a zero.
  - jsonscripter 17y ago
    Shouldn't 118 have been the pinnacle of the island of stability? It's a noble element...
    - 17y ago

40 points by habs 17y ago

Wikipedia states that Ununbium (element 112) was first created in 1996, but that team's research was disregarded. Apparently, we've synthesized elements up to 118, except 117.

Confusion 17y ago
It wasn't so much disregarded as retroactively discounted on grounds of fraud. In retrospect, we aren't sure whether any of those elements have ever been synthesized (though I seem to recall reading about 115 in the past year).

tocomment 17y ago

It seems like an element should have to be stable to be considered an element. This only lasted a few microseconds. Couldn't you put almost any combination of particles together for an arbitrarily short amount of time? What's special about an element?

Keyframe 17y ago
I can't find it now no matter what, but there is a video in here somewhere where professor talks exactly about that http://www.youtube.com/user/periodicvideos http://www.youtube.com/user/periodicvideos I rememebr he says something about higher you go in the periodic table you add more electron to the shell and there is only a finite amount of space in there, and at the time, highest element had all of the slots filled in and then something weird about electron orbit.. ugh and I have watched it just the other day.. but there it is, and all of the videos are very interesting (at least to me) edit: here it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stxor9L00BU&feature=channel_page http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stxor9L00BU&feature=chann... - a video about element 118 and professor gets asked how can they know there are only 118 elements in about a minute in video and here is an edited video of all 118 elements they have explained http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFsdbLFHgY8&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFsdbLFHgY8&feature=relat...
stratomorph 17y ago
If you only counted stable substances as "elements", an awful lot of things would have to get a different name. Uranium wouldn't be an element at all, because even U-238 (the most common isotope, more than 99% of the stuff found in nature, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_uranium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_uranium) will be reduced by half in a few billion years. You could set some time limit of half life, below which is considered "completely unstable" and doesn't count, but what purpose would such an arbitrary division serve? Yes, you can slam particles together in any combination, but the special thing about elements is that, for at least a few microseconds, it didn't need any external force or containment to hold together. A few microseconds is a long time at the subatomic scale.
ars 17y ago
They are not just particles near each other, but they actually combined into a single particle - an atom. In the macro world if you put things together, then separate them you get the same pieces back. In the micro world it's not like that - the protons and neutrons combine into a single mixed jumble. So that's what's special about it, despite it being unstable: at least for a time it was a single particle. Instability is all about energy, if you release energy by splitting off a particle, it will do so. Guaranteed. If you need energy to do so, it won't. The time it takes to decay is directly proportional to the amount of energy released. (Another thing that can cause stability is conservation of quantum number like charge and momentum. If it's illegal for a piece to split off, then even if there is a lot of energy, it won't.) But instability does not imply the atom is somehow less of an atom than another one. It's just an atom at a very high energy level.

bravura 17y ago

"Professor Hofmann began his quest to add to the periodic table in 1976." This really seems like a poor scientific imperative.

nostrademons 17y ago
The world would look very different now if Lise Meitner had thought the same thing in 1917.
wlievens 17y ago
It's more likely poor journalism.

PieSquared 17y ago

I am left to wonder though: what is the possible use of this? I realize it's basic research (and as such am all for it), but it would be interesting to know whether any practical uses are even planned or theorised.

ars 17y ago
If we could reach the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability we might get some very interesting materials.
- simonista 17y ago
  Thanks for the Island of Stability link, I had never heard that term before.
- ovi256 17y ago
  But given that the atoms of these elements need to be manufactured with a high energy cost, using them to manufacture pure materials would be prohibitively expensive. As in, physically prohibitive : we would need Kardashev level 1 energy to manufacture macroscopic amounts. I could see an use as dopants though : this would require minuscule amounts of these elements, but it would still be amazingly expensive.
  - ars 17y ago
    You got downmodded (I think) because it's way way too early to worry about how much energy they take to make. Lets first make them - for all me know by the time we manage it, fusion reactors will be cheap. But I bumped you back up since I don't think your comment deserves a zero.
- jsonscripter 17y ago
  Shouldn't 118 have been the pinnacle of the island of stability? It's a noble element...
  - 17y ago