It's All About the Ununpentium 411
spitefulcrow writes "The New York Times is reporting that elements 113 and 115 have been created by a joint team of Russian and American scientists. The temporary names are ununtrium and ununpentium until the experiment has been duplicated and verified in another lab. According to the article, speculation has been made that 'Rather than being round, nuclei in that region and beyond could contain bubbles and have strange doughnut-like shapes'."
ooooh..me first (Score:5, Funny)
-B
Re:ooooh..me first (Score:2)
Re:ooooh..me first (Score:5, Informative)
Naming new elements... (Score:5, Funny)
Containing bubbles and doughnut-like shapes? I say they should be called Duffium and Homerium.
Re:ooooh..me first (Score:3, Funny)
I call it a Hawking-donut. It was my idea.
/Hawking
Obligatory Simpsons Reference #1F04 (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory IP joke (Score:5, Funny)
Intel has their lawyers on standby, waiting to file a trademark infringement suit.
The 115th Element (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The 115th Element (Score:2)
btw, they are "protective (thermal?) bandages", although how they are protective or thermal is beyond me... you should probably ask Luc Besson.
Protective alright... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Protective alright... (Score:3, Funny)
And let me say that that was a dangerous rating that I, for one, would have been willing to brave.
Oh yes I am a bastion of courage.
Re:The 115th Element (Score:2)
mmmmmmmmmm, women in duct tape....
I'd like one roll of duct tape and one Slashchick, please!
Re:The 115th Element (Score:3, Funny)
Sorry, couldn't resist... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... (Score:2)
Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... (Score:2)
Surely they could have worked a split infinitive in there as well! ;)
Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... (Score:2)
Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... (Score:2, Informative)
What you said is not quite right, in latin "unus" is 1, which you basically got right.
The problem is that "pent" is a greek prefix for 5, not latin. In latin 5 is "quinque", so 1-1-5 should be ununquintuim, if you wanted to stick with latin.
Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... (Score:2)
Is it early un-un-Pentium? (Score:5, Funny)
Laboratory tests prove the new element can't divide or multiply.
Re:Is it early un-un-Pentium? (Score:2)
Elements that don't divide (Score:2)
Google Link (Score:5, Informative)
Thats great, but... (Score:2)
New Intel Chip? (Score:5, Funny)
Unless then meant that Macs are the UnPentium. In which case the above still holds. :)
Un-Un-Pentium is just Pentium right? (Score:2, Funny)
Copyright Violation (Score:2, Funny)
This will be a black mark on the physics community for sure...
area 51 conspiracy link to ununpentium (Score:5, Interesting)
Document about ununpentium published in 1999:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/elemen
Re:area 51 conspiracy link to ununpentium (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:area 51 conspiracy link to ununpentium (Score:3, Informative)
Could this be it?:
April 1969 (pages 57-67) issue of "Scientific American" by Dr. Glenn Seaborg
Discusses transuranics, #114 in depth, but includes others.
It's pronounced "nuc-u-lar" (Score:5, Funny)
Moe:Oy.
Virgil:
A) Proton
B) Neutron
C) Bonbon, or
D) Electron
Moe:Oh, boy. All right, let's see here, uh
Homer:Well, it all starts when a nulicule comes out of its nest.
Lisa:[taking the phone] The answer is "bonbon!"
Moe:Uh, I'm going to say, "bonbon."
Quantum computer material (Score:2)
Simon
Re:Quantum computer material (Score:2)
Yet another Pentium joke (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yet another Pentium joke (Score:2)
I wish they'd just stop (Score:3, Funny)
I mean, as if things weren't already fucked up enough, we actually have people working to bring into this world something which has never existed. And the consequences? Apparently nobody gives a shit.
Haven't these guys ever played DOOM? Or watched Event Horizon? I'd feel a lot safer if their creativity was tinged with a healthy dose of fear.
Re:I wish they'd just stop (Score:3, Funny)
If you will remember correctly, that doesn't happen until we put stuff on mars... oh.
Re:I wish they'd just stop (Score:2)
Amazingly enough, they've also managed to understand the little-known elusive fact you seem to be missing, that DOOM and Event Horizon are fiction, not even science fiction but just p
Re:I wish they'd just stop (Score:2)
Actually, if you bother to RTFA, they don't know what they're doing. As they themselves acknowledge, they're "really just chipping away at the edges of it." They tried to create an element with 115 protons, and they end up with one that has only 113 instead, which appears to be entirely accidental.
As for the rest of your post, it is mostly shit so I won't bother responding, except to say that it is good to see that most everybody else here knows a joke wh
Yeah, Yeah (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, Yeah (Score:2)
What's the point ? (Score:2, Insightful)
They create heavy elements, which are so unstable that they decay as quickly as they were created.
So I'm wondering - what's the point ? Just getting your name associated with an element in the periodic table ? It seems to me that the money would be better spent in doing stuff with real applications (like producing cheaper anti-matter or getting closer to controlled fusion)
Re:What's the point ? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What's the point ? (Score:2)
Re:What's the point ? (Score:2)
Re:What's the point ? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't begrudge them researching superheavy elements... trying to force a scientist who speciallizes in those to research something else is like trying to force a writer to be a dancer -- neither pretty nor effective. I'm just wondering what they can do with the knowledge and theoretical stable atoms they develop.
So... what might we learn, or what might we be able to make?
*honk*
Re:What's the point ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's the point ? (Score:2)
If it decays as fast as it's created and it's the hot new discovery then surely supply and demand will make the price enormous, right?
clearly... (Score:2)
Re:What's the point ? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What's the point ? (Score:3, Interesting)
If so, we are getting closer.
Re:What's the point ? (Score:5, Informative)
So I'm wondering - what's the point ?
Elements 83 (bismuth) and under have one or more stable isotopes, and one or more unstable isotopes. So, for example, hydrogen (element 1) is stable, but deuterium (H-2) and tritium (H-3) are not. Nevertheless, these unstable isotopes are useful. Deuterium is used in nuclear medicine, in heavy water for nuclear reactors, and in fusion reactions. So...
Myth: Unstable isotopes are useless.
Myth Busted!
Past element 83, there are no stable isotopes. There's a pretty good chart showing the stable and unstable isotopes here [europhysicsnews.com]. There's also an interactive one, color-coded for lifetimes, here [kaeri.re.kr]. The half-life of these elements decreases from millenia to microseconds. However...
It's been known for decades that certain numbers of protons are "magic" in that they "pack together" in a very stable manner. Same thing with neutrons. As we approach the next "magic" numbers, the half-lives of the elements should start going back up. And they do.
In this latest experiment, the particular isotope of element 113 *may* have lasted for as long as 1.2 seconds. That's a long time for such a heavy element. Elements under 113 last for much less time, so that shows that we may be reaching the region of stability.
The region of stability is apparently close by, and *stable* superheavy elements will assuredly have useful properties.
And that's why nuclear chemists continue to search for heavier and heavier artificial elements. Because one day one of them will last for more than a few seconds. And then one day, one of them will last forever. Instant revolution in materials science.
Myth: There's no point searching for superheavy elements.
Myth Busted!
--Rob
Am I the only one who misread? (Score:5, Funny)
You're not the only one (Score:3, Funny)
I don't care what they call it. (Score:3, Funny)
Not the first doughnut element (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not the first doughnut element (Score:5, Informative)
But many nuclei are distended by orbitals with definite angular momentum, and many are distended into shapes that are not footballs. Disks are common. The nuclei of heavy elements like uranium are shaped like light bulbs, with a definite axis. The "bulge" in the bulb sloshes back and forth along the main axis, onto each side of the center of mass.
Re:Not the first doughnut element (Score:3, Informative)
I refer you to the shell model of the nucleus. [gsu.edu] Maybe I should have called them "shells" and not "orbitals". Still, the nucleus is not a still life like a bunch of grapes. Each particle is moving around in a shell with an identifiable set of quantum numbers.
Oxygen has 8 protons, (for the most part) 8 neutrons and (in the stable state) 8 electrons
Re:Not the first doughnut element (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes.
A number of experimental tools are available for nuclear shape determination:
-The electric quadrupole moment [gsu.edu]
-Neutron scattering experiments [iucr.org]
-Giant dipole resonance [tifr.res.in]
-Momentum distributions of collision fragments [arxiv.org]
In principle the nucleons can be approximated as particles existing in a square potential well, defined by the positions of all the other particles. Solving for a wave function in a potential well like that reveals a set of solutions with associated quantum numbers, which turn out to be somewhate analogous to those calculated for the hydrogen atom with its inverse-square potential, and which we can identify in the energy levels and spectra of real, nonidealized nuclei.
Things are complicated by the fact that the potential within a nucleus is not strictly definable as a potential. It is created by the sum of the nuclear and electromagnetic forces and these fall off at different rates. The nuclear force is short range, but the electromagnetic force reaches all the way across the nucleus. So when they reach a certain size you see the effects of the charge buildup. Large scale movements of particles through the nucleus become evident, and sometimes pieces even break off if merely poked by a slow neutron. Your skepticism is not unreasonable. In fact researchers had a hard time believing their own experiments when they exposed uranium to neutrons and suddenly had to explain the appearance of barium.
The Answer is 126. (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the theories is that our universe is shaped like a doughnut. Universe as Doughnut: New Data, New Debate [utexas.edu] So, the highest and the deepest reaches are similar in our conception. I recollect that Star trek [xs4all.nl] starts off with "Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. It's continuing mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before." According to Douglas Adam, the answer is 42. [ans42.com] I would say the other possible answers are 84, 126, 168, & 210. So, the correct answer is 126.
Q.E.D
Purpose (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Purpose (Score:4, Insightful)
Take the case of a neutron star--it's made of extremely dense nuclear matter. As elements get heavier and heavier, they become better approximations of the environment of a neutron star.
The Big deal with Element 115... (Score:5, Interesting)
So, based on that knowledge we can say that Element 115 should be very much like Element 83 (Bismuth), which is the most diamagnetic metal, giving it some very interesting properties.
Also, it should be noted that Element 115 should it possess diamagnetism, and all indications are that it should, it will be a much better diamagnetic material than Bismuth.
Re:The Big deal with Element 115... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The Big deal with Element 115... (Score:3, Informative)
Unintel Inside? (Score:3, Funny)
Conspiracy website already reported this years ago (Score:3, Informative)
Unobtainium (Score:5, Funny)
There's probably a perfectly simple way to make superheavy elements, too. We just need to get the quarks and the gluons into separate bottles, then just weigh the ingredients and get out the Magimix. All this colliding heavy nuclei at high speed may look good and make for big budgets, but all real progress is made with test tubes and Bunsen burners.
I already have an unpentium (Score:3, Funny)
Wrong Name (Score:3, Funny)
Unobtainium
or
Reallyexpensium
What's the half-life? (Score:3, Informative)
112 is 240 microseconds.
116 is 47 milliseconds
Can we say they really exist, or should we call it rather a random aglomeration of electrons, protons and neutrons?
Saying they were created is just like saying jumping is flying.
Re:Science Today (Score:5, Funny)
The science community thanks you for your support. We are currently accepting cash donations.
Re:Science Today (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Science Today (Score:4, Troll)
Proprietary development of new physics doesn't advance very rapidly.
If Microsoft "owned" 95% of physics, we'd still be stuck on Newtonian mechanics, because only a small handful of physicists would be allowed to read physics books...and they wouldn't be the really smart physicists either.
Re:Science Today (Score:2, Insightful)
Who is to say that when element 139 or 155 is discovered, it wont be stable and useful?
If there is even the slightest possibility of a new element being useful, the reasearch must go on. What if the next element found turns out to be a safe efficient fuel source? Anything is possible.
Re:Science Today (Score:4, Insightful)
Plutionium is not the deadliest substance. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Science Today (Score:3, Interesting)
Regarding stability and element size... Technetium (element 43) is radioactive, yet Gold (element 79) is stable. It is even one of the less reactive materials we know...
Re:Science Today (Score:3, Informative)
What you say about electostatic repulsion is mostly true. The binding energy of the nucleus generally decreases as the number of protons differs more from the number of neutrons, since protons and neutrons are separately subject to the Pauli exclusion principle. That is, a proton and a neutron can share an energy/spin state, whereas two proto
Re:Science Today (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Science Today (Score:5, Funny)
Doughnut-shaped stuff will be THE SHIT in the coming years. I mean, if you closely follow some of the last releases from the so called science community, you start to notice a pattern:
Scientist: I've found out something new about how the universe works!
People: Oh, well. How great for you.
Scientist: And, uh, it might by doughnut-shaped!
People: Aaaahhhhh! Oooooohhh!
Scientist: I've found a new element!
People: Big deal.
Scientist: And its nucleus might be doughnut-shaped or something!
People: Aaaahhhhh! Oooooohhh!
Re:Science Today (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Science Today (Score:4, Informative)
A heavy metals is any metal with a specific gravity higher than 5. Everybody knows the dangerous ones: Lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, plutonium, and uranium. But there are plenty of them that arn't dangerous.
Tungsten, Ruthenium, Palladium, Platinum, Gold, Rhodium, Osmium and Iridium are all heavy metals, all far less dangerous than lead, and all slightly denser to twice as dense as lead or mercury. Some lighter heavy metals include calcium, copper, iron, and zinc. And you need all of THOSE ones to live. (That's part of why heavy metals are toxic. They replace these elements in essential reactions within the body)
Besides heavy metals not always being toxic, an elements density is also unrelated to its atomic mass. Molybdenum's atomic mass is half that of lead, but they have close specific gravities.
Instead of freting over the effects on children of adding an element that hasn't even been discovered yet to paint, you should probably look into all the mercury that doctors inject into children every year.
Re:Science Today (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Science Today (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Element 114 (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.webelements.com/ [webelements.com]
Re:Element 114 (Score:5, Informative)
(e6003 - chemist and part-time geek).
Re:Element 114 (Score:2)
Re:Element 114 (Score:3, Informative)
is it the pursuit of the correct combination that is so hard? Or is it just minor alterations to existing elements?
It's a matter of accelerating atoms of one element towards another, in the hope that they collide and fuse. In this case, calcium (20) + americium (95) = ununpentium (115). Then, that decays, losing two protons, and becomes 113.
Does element
Re:Element 114 (Score:2)
that would be through alpha decay for those who diid not pay attention in high school physics.
Re:Element 114 (Score:2)
Re:About the *stupid* name... (Score:4, Informative)
Not quite. Essentially, it's a name made up out of the digits that make the number. So, 1 is 'un', two is 'bi', three 'tri', four 'quad' five 'pent', six 'hex', seven 'sept', eight 'oct', and nine I can't remember; it's probably 'non'. Then you stick 'ium' on the end, because all element names have to end in 'ium'. Stick '115' in there, and you get ununpentium. The resemblance to the Intel chip is (almost) pure coincidence.
Re:They don't all have to end in 'ium' (Score:4, Informative)
Fluorine (you misspelled it, argh), chlorine, bromine, and iodine, and don't forget astatine all end in 'ine' because they are all halogens.
Argon, xenon, radon, and also neon and krypton all end in 'on' because they are noble gases.
The other oddballs you mention: hydrogen, oxygen, boron, carbon, silicon, nitrogen, were all named back when chemistry was a little less organized than it is today. However, there is still structure in their names: hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen are all gases, and the 'gen' implies that they are involved in the creation of some other substance. In the case of hydrogen, water. In the case of oxygen, acid (although this turned out to be incorrect -- oxygen has nothing to do with acidity).
Boron, carbon, and silicon are all solid, nonmetallic elements.
You'll notice that all the metals end in 'ium', except for those which have been known far before the advent of chemistry (gold, silver, iron, nickel, copper, etc.)
The vast majority of elements end in 'ium' because the vast majority of elements are metallic in nature.
Re:About the *stupid* name... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I'm still waiting.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:anti-gravity pot theories be wary... (Score:2)
Re:anti-gravity pot theories be wary... (Score:3, Informative)
Brown tested his devices in a vacuum chamber at GE in 1959. The results are not publically available. However, the design he was working on at the time involved using a gas jet as the generator of the electrostatic charge as well as the carrier necessa
Re:Playing Dice with the Universe (Score:4, Funny)
2004 AD: Ug, nucleon nucleon *BAM* *BAM* ug!