Is It Time to Upend the Periodic Table? (nytimes.com) 90
The iconic chart of elements has served chemistry well for 150 years. But it's not the only option out there, and scientists are pushing its limits. From a report: The heaviest naturally occurring element on the table is uranium, with the atomic number 92 (because it has 92 protons in its nucleus). But the periodic table contains still more; the heaviest so far is element 118, oganesson, a "super-heavy" element with 118 protons and a half-life of half a millisecond. It was first synthesized in 2002 by Yuri Oganessian and an intercontinental Russian-American team at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna, north of Moscow. Starting in 2020, scientists will attempt to synthesize elements 119 and 120, with a newly inaugurated Superheavy Element Factory and an experimental apparatus that is 100 times more sensitive. They hope to reach the "island of stability," a fabled region of the periodic table populated by superheavy elements with greater longevity.
Like Pandora's box, the discovery of superheavy elements presents tricky questions, Dr. Oganessian said. Will these elements behave the way the periodic table predicts? So far, only some deviations in behavior are expected. But as the atomic numbers go up, deviations will increase rapidly, challenging the periodic table's schematic integrity. Will the periodic table hold up? Or as Pekka Pyykko, a computational chemist at the University of Helsinki, put it in the title of a 2016 paper: "Is the Periodic Table All Right ('PT OK')?" Probably, with modifications, he concluded. Dr. Pyykko formulated a periodic table that chemically classifies the elements up to atomic number 172. Dr. Pyykko noted, however, that the probability of finding the heaviest of superheavy elements is less than hitting a golf ball in Tokyo and making a hole-in-one on the top of Mount Fuji. If scientists get lucky, the resulting super-superheavy elements might even have nuclei with exotic shapes, like a doughnut. Further reading: Why the Periodic Table of Elements Is More Important Than Ever.
Like Pandora's box, the discovery of superheavy elements presents tricky questions, Dr. Oganessian said. Will these elements behave the way the periodic table predicts? So far, only some deviations in behavior are expected. But as the atomic numbers go up, deviations will increase rapidly, challenging the periodic table's schematic integrity. Will the periodic table hold up? Or as Pekka Pyykko, a computational chemist at the University of Helsinki, put it in the title of a 2016 paper: "Is the Periodic Table All Right ('PT OK')?" Probably, with modifications, he concluded. Dr. Pyykko formulated a periodic table that chemically classifies the elements up to atomic number 172. Dr. Pyykko noted, however, that the probability of finding the heaviest of superheavy elements is less than hitting a golf ball in Tokyo and making a hole-in-one on the top of Mount Fuji. If scientists get lucky, the resulting super-superheavy elements might even have nuclei with exotic shapes, like a doughnut. Further reading: Why the Periodic Table of Elements Is More Important Than Ever.
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
What TFA is saying is the periodic table might (!) need minor tweaking.
The bar for what is considered news sure dropped a few feet...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is Slashdot. Dupes will be posted periodically.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
We might have to adjust our periodic table for the periodic periods of periodic dupes.
Re: (Score:2)
I also got that they were dismissing the primary uses of the Periodic tables since the new elements have not been shown to have similar behaviors to other elements in the existing column/categories since the newer heavier elements do not exist for long enough to effectively study them
fwiw, they should just keep a separate heavy-element list for now, and then bring them into the existing Periodic table as they are studied further
Re: (Score:1)
Another list for all the results of sin?
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
The periodic table is used to track chemical properties.
Radioisotopes with sub-second half-lives have essentially no chemical properties.
no shortage of alternatives (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
1022
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
it is possible major tweaking might be needed, element 121 would have a "g" orbital electron and though there is the standard solution for its shape relativistic effects might change the "aufbau effect" of how electrons normally fill lowest to highest energy state sequentially. That's assuming atom hangs around long enough to cool to normal neutral state. Even if 121-125 don't hang around enough to detect chemical properties there is hypothesized stability island starting at 126 that won't quickly fission (though alpha decay still possible). This is assuming nuclear shell model is correct, that shells exist in the nucleus and a filled shell is stable. Another island is hypothesized at 164.
Re: (Score:2)
We just need to get to 137 so we can finally name Feynmanium (Fy). Hope that one's still in the island of stability.
Re: (Score:2)
Feynman said some things about that atom but more accurate models put the weird effect he was talking about at about element 173. Refined models take into consideration extent of nucleus. the sum of the energy of the electrons of the atom will be negative, a bizarre state. If the innermost 1s orbital has an electron removed, the nucleus's electric field causes pair production, and an electron/positron pair get created. The positron is ejected while the electron fills the previously vacant orbital.
https [chemistryworld.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Even so, 137 is reserved for Feynman, because 137 is 137, and Feynman is Feynman.
Re: (Score:2)
he didn't predict nor find the fine structure constant though
137 should be reserved for them
Re: (Score:2)
You don't understand the impact that Feynman had on the field. That's fine. The people in the field do.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I do, studied his work along with others for my physics degree. So, I know what he did, and what he didn't
XML is the answer. What was the question? (Score:5, Funny)
The hierarchical relationships of the periodic table are so branched now that the 2D table format is no longer useful. We need to convert the whole system from a flat matrix representation to a relational database system, then we can store this in a non-human readable format like XML and have it rendered in broswers in many bespoke boutique non-standard ways so no one can really communicate anymore.
Re:XML is the answer. What was the question? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No Blockchain, only Hostfiles.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't say that word! Don't say that word! You know that it is the word that summons him!
Re: (Score:2)
Before we all shit on this article, it's worth pointing out that a guy named Walter Russell came up with a design for the periodic table a long time ago. It's based on vibration and was used to originally predict the existence of unknown elements. Quite an interesting read here [occultphysics.com].
Betteridge's Law of Headlines Applies (Score:2)
Answer to the question is "no".
Re: (Score:2)
This is actually very interesting discussion (about the properties of those heavier elements).
Few months ago I watched the movie Arrival. Fantastic film, no doubt. On two occasions however the narrative got choppy in my opinion. In an interview with he director he admitted that both of those instances where my scientific bullshit-meter got triggered (rightfully or wrongly, we shall see) were inserted deliberately, because the director thought that scientist in general are too arrogant and need to be taken d
Re: (Score:2)
You could say it should be updated periodically
Re: Dam I just got done writing it on my hand! (Score:1)
Even worse, the test isn't until next week.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just waiting for the announcement of Felonium, showing that even physics/chemistry has a criminal element.
Re:not the heaviest element (Score:4, Funny)
Spanishinquisitium, the Element of Surprise.
Re: (Score:2)
Narrativium, then they'll really have a story to tell!
Re: (Score:2)
I never expected that one.
Time to open your eyes sheeple! (Score:5, Funny)
This is nothing but a scam by "big atom" to sell more charts to us periodically!
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention all those cabinetmakers who are running out of customers for their Periodic Table Tables.
Re: (Score:1)
You don't want that 2018 chart any more, do you? That's the olden days.
My day we only went up to 103. In college there were some 1950s charts around. They were different.
And Bob Lazar fans are wondering... (Score:2)
Will this new "Superheavy Element Factory" be able to synthesize stable 115?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is "easy to loose" the same as "hard to tight"?
Re: (Score:2)
Usually nuts that are easy to loosen are also easy to tighten (and I'm not talking about edible seeds of plants).
Re: (Score:3)
Jumbonium also makes for a nice setting in a tiara, or sum-such
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Utility (Score:5, Insightful)
So the periodic table works perfectly fine in 99.99% of the cases when needing to find information on elements. It breaks down the 0.01% of the time you are researching an element that only exists for a fraction of a second before decomposing into other elements. This is happening when you are synthesizing the element in your giant particle accelerator, or studying the inside of a star.
Yeah, I think the current one is fine.
Re:Utility (Score:4, Interesting)
Pretty much this.
Really, this 'article' redefines clutching at straws. By the time they reach any useful island of stability, the atoms being produced will be so rare, so expensive, and so special in nature that making them fit into a college textbook chart will be of no consequence.
The are basically leading with the wrong part of the story in a stupid attempt to get 'shock reads'.
The interesting part is progress towards making ultra rare and possibly interesting ultra heavy atoms, NOT in any possible reorg of a basic chart.
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from the obvious Betteridge answer, the fact is scientists and chemical engineers will be the most excited when we discover chemistry beyond the periodic table. When that happens - and almost certainly not before - we'll have some ideas about what we'll have to change with the periodic table. Much like physicists will need to discover what dark matter is before they will really know how to talk about it.
Yes, because Hollywood (Score:3)
Can't tell you how many times I cringe when some dumbass Hollywood screenwriter writes a line like, "This material doesn't correspond to anything on the periodic table."
Re: (Score:2)
Impossiblium?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it is theoretically quite possibly, if astoundingly unlikely.
It is possible that in the ultra high weights something COULD be found with a useful halflife, which we dont yet have on the periodic table.
It is also possible that there are other stable atomic layouts that simple do not occur commonly enough around us for humanity to have noticed.
A (theoretical) example of this are captive electron like baryons captive within a nucleus, or even bound leptons.
However, its pretty damn unlikely, and yes, i
Re: (Score:2)
is often just lazy writing for 'we need magik here'
Aliens, it's always about aliens (yep even Avatar).
Dammnit, I forgot about The Core. It specifically had Unobtanium in it.
Re:Yes, because Hollywood (Score:4, Insightful)
It is HIGHLY unlikely. Impossible even.
I was about to write a nitpick about these elements not occurring "naturally". They do. At the very least it is very, very likely that they, too, get produced in supanova explosions. The main reason we don't find them anywhere it that they are SO rare and decay SO quickly that even if we could watch a star go supernova, we would probably not detect any of that stuff.
The main reason that Uranium is the heaviest "naturally" occurring element is that it is also the heaviest element with isotopes that have a half life long enough to survive long enough that we can actually find any. There may have been heavier stuff even at the formation of our solar system available, maybe even here on Earth, but with a half life of a mere couple thousands of years, there's a snowball-in-hell chance that we'd ever find enough to detect it.
That "island of stability" should not be overestimated, either. We're not talking about elements that suddenly have half life times around those of the "stable" Bismuth atoms. We're talking seconds. Tops. Even if such elements were created in a supernova, by the time that those elements condensed to form new stars and planetary systems around them, these elements would have been long gone. Twice so by the time that any intelligent life would go down on such planets to mine and harvest it.
so... it's impossible (Score:2)
"the probability is less than hitting a golf ball in Tokyo and making a hole-in-one on the top of Mount Fuji."
Do you are saying it's literally impossible. Because that metaphor is impossible. So, why are we even talking about this?
Re: (Score:3)
There's a nonzero chance that Mt. Fuji could move in the way of the golf ball and you get a hole in one.
Re: (Score:2)
cdsparrow posited:
There's a nonzero chance that Mt. Fuji could move in the way of the golf ball and you get a hole in one.
<literalist_fuckhead_mode>
No there's not.
Fujiama is 3,776.24 meters high. No golf course anywhere in the vicinity is anywhere close to that altitude - and no golfer in the world is capable of lofting a ball to more than 12,000 feet.
On the other hand, there is an actual non-zero probability (I'm guessing it's about the same probability that you will win both the MegaMillions and Powerball lotto jackpots on consecutive nights) that a passing tornado could capture your golf ball in fl
Re: (Score:2)
The ball could be caught be a passing sparrow and dropped into Mt Fuji.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Two sparrows could rig a sort of line to hold it!
Re: (Score:3)
African or European?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know..... ahhhhhhhh
Re: (Score:3)
You forgot to account for the fact that golf balls don't give a shit about meters vs feet conversions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Could have been knocked there by the tail of a falling whale.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a nonzero chance that Mt. Fuji could move in the way of the golf ball and you get a hole in one.
Even if that happened there is still an exactly zero chance of getting a hole in one on the top because no human can hit the ball hard enough to give it sufficient energy to get to the top. Even quantum mechanics will not help you with the energy conservation violation required here since the ball would have to remain in the state long enough to be observed by a human.
Re: (Score:2)
Listen Simon... Don't forget. Believe in yourself. Not in the you who believes in me. Not the me who believes in you. Believe in the you who believes in yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
What gets crazy is (Score:1)
It gets crazy if we make elements heavy enough. I forget the reasons but scientists theorize that at some point they will become stable. I think it's when you approach 200 neutrons or something. All made via atom smashers.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah right. That's like saying someone who weights 300 lbs is unhealthy but if he keep eating, at some point he becomes an olympic athlete.
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, at some point he's eaten all his critics.
Leave Plutonium alone (Score:2)
Do what they want, but leave Plutonium where it is.
I will never understand "Naturally occuring" (Score:2)
A new quantum number? (Score:2)
The thing that's interesting to me is, are they going to find elements with angular momentum quantum numbers "l" greater than 3?
0 = "s" orbital, 1 = "p" orbital, 2 = "d" orbital, and 3 = "f" orbital.
So, if "l" is four in one of these new elements, what kind of orbital is that? A "g" orbital? What is its shape?
Re: (Score:2)
g, h, i ...
After f, it just goes alphabetical---it's slightly more intelligent than the idiotic^W idiosyncratic s, p, d, f ordering anyway.
What's with those 2 funny rows? (Score:2)
A) Their electrons snuggle inside the outer shell, so it's hard to tell them apart from the row above:
B) Their shells are special, and the table would need to be a lot wider if we didn't break them out
This is something I've wondered about since I first learned of the periodic table (70's, I was 13 or so), wondered about when I took a college chemistry course in the 80s, and as a dilettante still w
Re: (Score:2)
Which periodic table are you referring to? (Score:2)
There are several arrangements depending on what relationships one want to show...
Alternative Periodic Tables (Score:1)
There already are many alternative periodic tables, which IMHO do a much better job of organizing the physical properties. Personally I've always liked the Left-step Periodic Table. I wish/hope it is taught in schools, it makes the orbitals make much more sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Goddamn clickbait publications (Score:2)
Goddamn it, have scientific publications devolved into having fucking clickbait titles as well now?
"Is the Periodic Table All Right ('PT OK')?"
What the fuck.