Long-lived Super Heavy Element Created 110
treeves writes "Radioactive nuclei that hang around for a mere half-minute before falling apart hardly seem stable. Yet compared with the fleeting lifetimes of their superheavy atomic neighbors, the roughly 30-second period that transpired from creation to disintegration of four atoms of a newly discovered isotope of element 108 qualifies those atoms as rock solid.
Theoretical physicists predicted years ago that some nuclei of elements much more massive than uranium should survive for a relatively long time — possibly long enough to probe their chemical properties — if they could be synthesized. On the chart of nuclides, theoreticians pinpointed a region with coordinates corresponding to 114 protons and 184 neutrons and indicated that nuclei with those "magic" numbers of subatomic particles should lie at the center of an island of stability. The nuclear longevity, according to the models, is due to the closing of proton and neutron shells, which renders the particles stable against spontaneous fission much the same way that a filled outer electron shell endows noble gases with chemical inertness. Experimentalists, though, haven't yet found a route to reach the center of the island."
sweet! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trust a native speaker.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sounds great, except that in the 30 seconds or so it took you to look at your battleground map, you'll have half as much Hassium as you started with...
Rest of article (Score:5, Informative)
short supply (Score:5, Funny)
Back when I was in high school, we'd have to share PC computers at 'computer science' classes, but 1 atom per six researchers.. er, couldn't we increase funding, or something?
Re: (Score:1)
oh man.... (Score:4, Funny)
It is the entirely wrong time of day to try to comprehend this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
just wait 1000 years. (Score:5, Funny)
In the year 3000, all they'd have to do is follow Nibbler around with a pooper scooper.
Re: (Score:2)
Matter so heavy that each pound of which weights 1000 pounds!
Commercial uses? (Score:4, Funny)
futurama (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope, he was a real live person:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_Farnsworth [wikipedia.org]
And he did invent something called the Fusor [wikipedia.org]
Although, Futurama did pay homage to him with the Professor character.
No explosive properties ? (Score:1)
That sounds kinda like an atomic bomb, why doesn't this stuff explode ?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It is like an A bomb and it does explode, however the mechanisim is much bigger and the explosions are much smaller. You could also think of the energy released by the decay of the hassium nuclei as a contiuation of the explosion in the same way that Uranium stores some engery from the supernova that created it.
Re:More then just theory... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Cite? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Even though it is not a chemical element, the free neutron is often included in tables of nuclides.
(Interestingly, if you click on the link to the full table of isotopes in that Wikipedia article, it doesn't actually include the neutron at all, despite the small view implying it.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To complete the implicit concept in your sentence: whereas to qualify as an atom, it would have to be bound by the Strong Force. Cool and poetic ideas, though, both your concept and your brother's explanation.
But as always, questions like these make the mind race and create more questions, such as:
Is it possible for quarks to pile up until there's a massive proton or neutron?
Put in another way, what is the upper mass limit, if any, for the quantum mec
The short, happy life of Hassium-270... (Score:5, Funny)
scientists, and a homolog. Uh, oh! Am I a volatile oxide?!
No, way! I'm being swept in to a multistage chromatographic
detector, which is cooled along its length in a gradient
from room temperature at one end to -150 degrees Centigrade
(at the other end). But I've done nothing wrong!!!
Sure, I've got similar nuclear properties to Hs-269, but
you've got the wrong isotope! Whoa, I'm feeling weird...
Kind of, uh, uhn, un-s-s-stable... I'm definitely --
KA-BOOOM!!!
THE END...?
(Coming up next: The somewhat longer, happier life of Gadolinium,
or Osmium -- I'm not sure, because I know nothing about this
part of the periodic table or nuclear physics!!! LOL!!!)
Re:The short, happy life of Hassium-270... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Rocket Fuel? (Score:2)
Besides, a super-heavy fuel element would have higher energy storage density, and thus allow for a smaller/lighter reactor/engine. Hey, at least it's more plausible than that Hafnium isomer idea which didn'
Saving some link-hunting (Score:5, Informative)
Mod parent up please (Score:2)
SUPERCONDUCTOR? (Score:2)
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unbihexium [wikipedia.org] )
Could this be used in Quantum Computing? Let's think for a moment, here. One of the problems with quantum computing is degeneracy/decoherence. But this thing is extremely stable. Given that it has a lot of electronic orbitals, I would imagine that its magnetic spin state would be particularly stable. Magnetic spin states tend to work by majority, so if you have a lot of electrons then that's a
Spiral Periodic Table (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The predicted region of stability is centred on element 114 (sometimes known as Eka-lead), which is on the opposide side of the diagram to the superactinde branch.
True. However 114 isn't really stable... the superactinde branch is supposed to represent heavy elements that are predicted to be stable on the order of years, or the red peak of the island (even if it looks like the two diagram don't align up right). Good observation though, and honestly I'm not 100% confident about this topic; I only have a BS in chem.
Re: (Score:2)
True. However 114 isn't really stable... the superactinde branch is supposed to represent heavy elements that are predicted to be stable on the order of years, or the red peak of the island (even if it looks like the two diagram don't align up right). Good observation though, and honestly I'm not 100% confident about this topic; I only have a BS in chem.
Have you got any references? Most stuff I've seen seems to consider ununquadium-298 (Z=114, N=184) the most likey candidate for stability. See, for example, this pbs segment [pbs.org], or this [nature.com]. Though I know 126 is considered to be a magic number so Z=126, N=184 should also be very stable.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Speaking of another Nova, a recent episode of Nova ScienceNOW on PBS featured Element-114. It was a great feature and even kept my high school chemistry classes in rapt attention for 15 minutes. Quite an accomplishment.
Watch the segment online [pbs.org].
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
KRYPTONITE? (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unbihexium [wikipedia.org]
So this ultra-heavy ultra-stable element corresponds to Element 126 on the periodic table, which was named as Kryptonite by Action Comics. Heh, cool bit of trivia. I wonder if this is just a coincidence, or if the Action Comics writer(s) knew about the Island of Stability (Fortress of Solitude?)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The creation of these elements is more useful for testing our theories of the structure of the nucleus (finding the Island of Stability [nytimes.com]) and of the periodicity of the chemical elements (if the chemical properties of these rather unnatural elements correspond to their positions on the Periodic Table).
Re: (Score:2)
I remember talking about the sea of stability in a chemistry course a few years ago. At that time I think they'd just found an element that lasted a few milliseconds, and my professor was quite excited because before that most of the elements we've synthesized lasted on the order of nanoseconds. Now that we've found something that lasts for a couple of seconds this seems to be a very big deal.
Our professor explained part of why this sea of stability would be useful. Since these atoms are so large, their
Superconductivity? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They play with them. I suspect that under the right circumstances they'd be happier with some Hot Wheels. I know I am.
KFG
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
KFG
Re: (Score:1)
Now with the cameras lets take a peek to see if they notice.......
Elerium-115 ! (Score:5, Funny)
Reminds me of the book... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This was also used in a Poul Anderson story in the Polesotechnic League series. About a new civilisation that appears on the scene selling island of stability elements that no-one else can manufacture in quantity. Turns out they are an average culture that found a surviving planetary core around an old supernova. Don't remember the name of the story or date though so I don't know if it predates Nova.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem, as I understand it from following the news of the quest for heavy elements, is that these are very likely to not be created in a nova or supernova because of the incredibly tricky order of nuclear reactions required. The short half-lives of the intermediate elements are such that there is no time to build them up to the required size. If it decays faster than the arrival of more stuff, you'll never get there.
The only chance is that you've got an entire stellar mass worth of stuff to work wit
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, there are small amounts of natural Plutonium [wikipedia.org], due to supernova explosions or natural fission [wikipedia.org] reactors.
I guess the problem is it is pretty hard to find new elements if you do not actually know what you are searching for. Natural Plutonium was only discovered after man-made Plutonium was made in large quantities and well characterized. Heck, Aluminium was only manufactured in quantity in the XIXth century.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, roman numerals?
Soon... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, yeah, everyone thinks these super-heavy elements are going to have incredible properties (based on pretty much no scientific evidence). I think it's going to be awesome when they're finally synthesised and tested and the announcement reads, "We found they were all pretty much like lead, except a bit heavier. Oh, and they generate anti-gravity. No, only joking about the anti-gravity.
Models (Score:1)
Reminds me of Britney's Guide to Semiconductor Physics [britneyspears.ac].
Re: (Score:1)
Great (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
-
The actual press release (Score:3, Funny)
Write your own damned write-up (Score:1, Offtopic)
Oblig. Futurama (Score:1)
Bender: How much more?
Professor: $100,000.
I knew it! (Score:1)
Better names needed (Score:4, Funny)
I'm not a physicist, and barely remember the difference between protons and neutrons. Really. Probably it's the way they choose the names, having nothing to do with the physical properties of the elements, and not even sounding cool. I mean, Uranium, Plutonium, Titanium have cool names. Krypton -- cool name. "Carbon" is at least descriptive, deriving from the Latin for burning. I've always thought "Gold", "Iron", and "Lead" were onomatopoeic. And everyone knows that "Sodium" is Greek for "soda pop". Good names, all, and they don't sound phake and made up.
But "Hassium"? "Bohrium"? Not cool, not descriptive. These are vanity names, like getting your name in a phony star registry, or some weak license plate, except it goes in the encyclopedia. Yes, I know there's this tradition for naming the radioactive ones after people, but that kind of thing ought to be left to the entomologists [uwyo.edu], hadn't it? I mean, what if there's a disaster, and Jonesium kills a bunch of people and gives the rest weird cancers? How will ol' Doc Jones feel about his legacy then, hmm? Better to be devoured by wasp larvae. So clearly, we need better, less risky names for these elements.
Let's see, an element that sticks around for 30 seconds and then goes away. I believe I can come up with a few right here, even without some fancy-shmancy degree:
-
Postite [3m.com]
- BlogTrollium [urbandictionary.com]
- Wevedoneitohnowehaventium (or Heybosslookatuhnevermindium)
- Anaviagrium [google.com]
- Blinddatium [tv.com]
It's a wonder they don't put me in charge of much here at the gas station.Re: (Score:1)
If the physicist discovered it, he can name it whatever he wants. If he names it after himself, and it turns out to be some horribly carcinogenic element later, he most likely wouldn't care.
If the physicist is already deceased, I GUARENTEE you he won't care.
The names the etymologists ALREADY put in place to name undiscovered elements aren'
Route... (Score:2)
I'm not really sure which would be more appropriate, Mapquest or Gamefaqs, but perhaps one of those will be able to give them proper directions.
Island. (Score:1)
Now we'll never save nano Gilligan!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For starters, I accept that they can do this but...
1. I thought Hydrogen (and deuterium) were the easiest atoms to fuse together (Call it a naive assumption if you like).
2. I also thought that these were incredibly hard to fuse together.
3. I also thought that even in a star, there is only enough energy to fuse atoms together up to Iron.
4. I also thought that you only get the energy needed to fuse atoms to form elements higher than Iron in a Supernova.
5. So I figured we'd no
Re:Heavy (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Heavy (Score:4, Informative)
We can. In fact, it was one of the first things we did with our new toys It's a fun game.
It's also very, very expensive.
KFG.
P.S. (Score:1)
But the purse is lovely.
KFG
Re:Heavy (Score:5, Informative)
Up to the iron group, fusion reactions are exothermic but produce increasingly less energy, so the higher the mass of the resulting element, the more reactions are needed to produce the energy required to sustain a star.
Reactions beyond the iron group are endothermic so require energy from the star to complete.
The other way elements are produced in stars is the addition of neutrons to already existing atoms, hence increasing their atomic mass and producing a different element. IIRC, the energy required to do this is high and exists only in stars.
There are two types of this reacton, slow and fast. Slow happens in the normal course of events of star evolution where fast happens in the seconds of life during and after a supernova. Elements such as uranium are produced during the fast process. From this, I think these guys have replicated one of the slow/fast addition processes rather than what we tend to call fusion.
As I say, IANAP but that's what I remember.
Re:Heavy (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No, that is only true if that nucleus itself is energetically stable. As Dragonslicer's grandparent post indicated, neutrons bound in a nucleus can into a proton if that decay carries the nucleus-as-a-whole energetically downhill. Protons in a nucleus can also change into a neutron (via electron capture) if it carries the nucleus-as-a-whole energetically downhill.
-
Re: (Score:1)
Do you mean protons, or are you meaning to say isotopes instead of elements?
IIRC, the energy required to do this is high and exists only in stars.
Neutron absorption occurs in fusion reactors (and is the reason that fusion reactors are still radioactive). Proton absoption occurs in fusion reactors too -- H ions are simply protons when they f
Re: (Score:1)
I take it you mean fission not fusion?
And yes, I did mean isotopes as in adding neutrons creates a different isotope. However, the level of study I covered did make it clear that the s and r processes result in the formation of different elements, not just different isotopes, but doesn't make it clear how
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I totally understand about the low duration bursts etc, I just think that, as you say, those shows glance over things too much and that may have just muddled things up in my head a bit this time round.
Thanks for all your responses, they have been helpful and I am back on track
Re: (Score:2)
fuse lesser atoms together to make, say, gold?
We can and do. If you burn all the oil on earth, you might just be able to make (one by one) enough atoms of gold to be able to see it as a speck of dust under a microscope.
If you could somehow grab onto a pair of atoms and precisely press them together, you could fuse any pair of nuclei together by pressing your thumb and finger together, and never even notice it.
Fusing any two nuclei
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That reminds me of the 2005 Fundies Say The Darndest Things [fstdt.com] Post of the Year Award Winner:
"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS
Re:Heavy (Score:4)