Slashdot Mirror


It's All About the Ununpentium

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'."

411 comments

  1. ooooh..me first by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 5, Funny

    mmmmmm....mini-doughnuts..

    -B

    1. Re:ooooh..me first by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Next... "un-un-pentium"? "I'm not not licking toads..."

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    2. Re:ooooh..me first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if it's Un-un-pentium, does that make it just pentium?

    3. Re:ooooh..me first by GMC-jimmy · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      __________________________________
      Free your mind - Flush your toilet
    4. Re:ooooh..me first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of course not... 115 isn't just 5 just like ununpentium isnt just pentium...

    5. Re:ooooh..me first by DataPath · · Score: 1

      mmmmmm... nucleic donut

      --
      Inconceivable!
    6. Re:ooooh..me first by d3faultus3r · · Score: 1

      Hawking: I like your theory of a donut shaped universe. I may just have to steal it.

      --
      read my blog
      musings on politics and technol
    7. Re:ooooh..me first by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 3, Funny

      I call it a Hawking-donut. It was my idea.

      /Hawking

    8. Re:ooooh..me first by Macguyvok · · Score: 1

      ......Wait. I was playing around with a random string theory, and I got a feeling in my GUT that it was time for a doughnut nucleus, or 2. However, when I pulled out my Uber Calculator, and tried to test it, all it said was, "A Suffusion of yellow...." Realitivistically speaking, of course. So, the long of it is that Sience is really Sci-Fi; and reality is nothing more than snackfood.

      --
      --Mac "Nine point eight meters per second squared: The Best Damn Windows Accelerator, Ever."
    9. Re:ooooh..me first by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      nuc-u-lar. its pronounced "nucular".

      ;)

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    10. Re:ooooh..me first by oRiCN · · Score: 1

      This always makes me wonder why /. isn't an NYTimes partner.. It'd make sense :)

    11. Re:ooooh..me first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that you, Darl?

    12. Re:ooooh..me first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My bad, I though it was nukelar.

    13. Re:ooooh..me first by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      "By eliminating covalence inhibitors we can create triple-dense carbohydrates... thus the so-called SUPER donut." - Homer (in some commercial)

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    14. Re:ooooh..me first by WesG · · Score: 1

      I was hoping for "un-un-AMD"...

  2. I'm still waiting.. by Walterk · · Score: 0, Redundant

    for the first bagel shaped nucleus.

    1. Re:I'm still waiting.. by Josh+Booth · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wonder if the new chemical elements have coffee cup electron orbitals to go with their doughnut nuclei.

  3. Science Today by tobechar · · Score: 1

    Two new elements AND a new form of matter? These latest breakthroughs are simply amazing!

    I for one salute our science community. Keep up the good work folks.

    --
    -
    1. Re:Science Today by flynt · · Score: 4, Funny

      I for one salute our science community. Keep up the good work folks.

      The science community thanks you for your support. We are currently accepting cash donations.

    2. Re:Science Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My, you're so insightful.

      My ass.

    3. Re:Science Today by Winkhorst · · Score: 1

      New form of matter? Huh?

      Not to be a spoil sport or anything, but this gets to look more and more like academic self gratification rather than anything with any conceivable use. You can't even build an ununpentium bomb. These elements are so unstable one has to wonder if there isn't a good reason why they don't exist. Just how much ununpentium do we need lying around? I'm all in favor of basic research, but there have to be more fruitful avenues to explore.

      --
      "Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
    4. Re:Science Today by tobechar · · 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.

      --
      -
    5. Re:Science Today by Simonetta · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Two new elements AND a new form of matter? These latest breakthroughs are simply amazing!


      I for one salute our science community. Keep up the good work folks.


      The most amazing thing about this whole business is the justifications that the scientists use to get all the money for this.

      It costs millions, and has no possible direct benefits to the taxpayers who are paying for it. There is even no remote long term benefit from this activity. It's just welfare for white guys with science degrees.

    6. Re:Science Today by Tango42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the article is right about them being strangely shaped, then there could be new physics to be discovered, which could lead to all sorts of useful things. Maybe Uranium can be made strangely shaped, and therefore safer to use in reactors, who knows?

    7. Re:Science Today by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      What makes you say there is "no remote long term benefit"? The whole point about "long term" things is that they haven't happened yet. Unless you do the experiments, you don't know if the results may have useful benefits.

    8. Re:Science Today by McAddress · · Score: 0, Funny
      The science community thanks you for your support. We are currently accepting cash donations

      i for one support our new science community overlords.

    9. Re:Science Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It costs millions, and has no possible direct benefits to the taxpayers who are paying for it. There is even no remote long term benefit from this activity. It's just welfare for white guys with science degrees.

      Fuck the taxpayers. They are too dumb to even understand what an element or a state of matter is, anyway. These idiots should work like slaves so the smart people can learn how the universe works. That's what average joes are made for.

    10. Re:Science Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      If the article is right about them being strangely shaped

      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!

    11. Re:Science Today by z33k03 · · Score: 2, Informative

      some people believe in 'the island of stability' a google search gives this: http://www.public.asu.edu/~jpbirk/CHM-115_BLB/Chpt 21/sld038.htm (couldn't find a better picture) http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/39/7/18 Measurements lead to the idea that there would be a quite stable element with a very high atom mass.

    12. Re:Science Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Sir,

      "Maybe Uranium can be strangely shaped" would warrant a goatse link. Unfortunately some Elbonian bitch decided that it's not an option anymore.

    13. Re:Science Today by zeux · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Many people were claiming the exact same thing when mathematicians started to work on the binary system in the 19th century.

    14. Re:Science Today by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      Could that be because toruses (tori?) have very interesting topological properties?

    15. Re:Science Today by Winkhorst · · Score: 1

      "Who is to say that...element 139...wont be stable...?" Um, all these elements HAVE existed--at the "beginning" of the universe, whatever that means post-relativity--just after the big bang. The reason they do not exist now is that they are unstable. I'm no physicist, but I think the instability is a direct result of the size of the element. The bigger they get, the more radioactive. And keep in mind that that's what we're talking about here, radioactive decay. The LD50 for Plutonium is something like 2 molecules. What do you think it is for unimbecillium?

      --
      "Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
    16. Re:Science Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naaah, I believe it's just because tori (indeed) are kinda 'in' at the moment.

    17. Re:Science Today by Winkhorst · · Score: 1

      "Measurements lead to the idea that there would be a quite stable element with a very high atom mass."

      Which gives new meaning to the term "heavy metal." Gee, I know what we could do with it. We could make long-lasting paint with it!

      "Mrs. Smith, we only have two options. We can either leave the unimbecilium in your child's system and allow him to grow up severely retarded, or we can convert it into its radioactive form and subject him to a 99.9% chance of developing brain cancer in the next month."

      Ain't science wonderful?

      --
      "Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
    18. Re:Science Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awesome. I've just decided that I'm going to name my daughter tori.

    19. Re:Science Today by TrueJim · · Score: 3, Troll

      One would expect the sciences to continue to advance quickly. After all, science progresses via an open source model.

      Proprietary development of new physics doesn't advance very rapidly. :-) Neither does proprietary development of software, for the same reasons!

      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.

      --
      I hope that after I die the one word people use to describe me is "resurrected."
    20. Re:Science Today by patdabiker · · Score: 2, Informative

      The big thing is they think they are approaching the island of stability. Elements in this "island" will be stable and could have a ton of potential uses. Discoveries such as this are stepping stones to even greater achievements.

    21. Re:Science Today by TapTapTheChisler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it takes millions of dollars (in electricity bills) just to make a few atoms of Element 155, I don't think it will be a new energy source.

    22. Re:Science Today by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      It would if I had the maturity level of a ten year old, yes, but luckily I don't, so recent decisions make no difference.

    23. Re:Science Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you on about? Pingala invented binary numbers circa 100AD. And Leibniz was working with them in 1666.

    24. Re:Science Today by zeux · · Score: 1

      Yep but real work on it started at the end of the 19th century. At the time nobody understood why.

    25. Re:Science Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one support the use of five year old catchprases

    26. Re:Science Today by Canadian_Daemon · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is a little known fact, but the binary system, while being developed in 100 AD and throught till 1666, made little progress. In fact, they were still working on the 0, and Leibniz's research greatly progressed this field. Later, a DARPA funded experiment discovered the 1.

      --
      This sig is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
    27. Re:Science Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has been brought to you by the American gas and oil producers with support from Enron...

    28. Re:Science Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's how it always is... alot of ooh's and and and, aah's... and then there's, running, , and... screaming.

    29. Re:Science Today by FredGray · · Score: 1
      This has been brought to you by the American gas and oil producers with support from Enron...

      Actually, the experiment was done at Dubna, which is in Russia. Try again. :-)

    30. Re:Science Today by bishop32x · · Score: 2, Informative
      all these elements HAVE existed--at the "beginning" of the universe, whatever that means post-relativity--just after the big bang. The reason they do not exist now is that they are unstable.

      It doesn't matter if they are completely stable, just stable enough to use, something which breaksdown over a thousand years is still useable.

      I'm no physicist, but I think the instability is a direct result of the size of the element. The bigger they get, the more radioactive

      More or less, but when you start looking at alot of these big elements you realize we don't know all that much about them, and so maybe one of these will turn out to be stable, as the article mentioned( although in very bad terms) there are certian numbers of particles which appear more stable, although we don't reaaly know right now, we're still smashing things together to see if something neat happens.

    31. Re:Science Today by PacoTaco · · Score: 4, Funny

      "To allow us to continue colliding atomic nuclei at high speeds, please click the PayPal link below."

    32. Re:Science Today by canajin56 · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    33. Re:Science Today by EuroChild · · Score: 1

      2001 should be re-cut so insted of having the ape throwing a bone into the air, it should throw a donught...It would be much more apt... Hey! George Lucas could do it too!

      --
      Does this make my brain look big?
    34. Re:Science Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A week ago I'd have said the same thing, but last Thursday we got a grounding in the four elemental forces (Weak Nuclear, Strong Nuclear, Gravitatonal, Electromagnetic) - Strong nuclear force is an attraction between nucleons (ie protons and neutrons). Strong nuclear is what stops the positive charges in the nucleus from repelling each other to the destruction of the nucleus. This force only acts over distances of (iirc) 10^-14m. The nuclii of elements with atomic number greater than lead are all bigger than the range of the strong nuclear forces, so it's as if they're too big to fit inside the space assigned them. They therefore decay to lead to alleviate their instability. It follows that all the trans-plumbumic (i just made that term up, it's meant to be a fancy word for 'bigger than lead') must eventually decay into lead, and at the very least implies that the half-life of an element is inversely proportionl to its atomic numeber (plutionium decays faster than uranium, which decays faster than thorium...).

      I hope you can follow this, it's pretty early in the morning for me and my brain is really not working all that well ;P

    35. Re:Science Today by cheesybagel · · Score: 2, Interesting
      For one, you don't know for sure if elements with higher atomic weight than we have found on Earth exist or not. They could be extremely rare or just not have been discovered yet, yet not be radioactive.

      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...

    36. Re:Science Today by spitefulcrow · · Score: 2, Informative

      Heh, except that they didn't exist right after the big bang. From what I've read on the theory, the quickly-expanding universe was still too violent and active to permit the existence of anything more cohesive than hydrogen for a good deal of time. It took a really long time for it to cool off enough for stuff like carbon and oxygen to form, let alone the heavy metals.

      --
      Sorry, my karma just ran over your dogma.
    37. Re:Science Today by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      The nuclii of elements with atomic number greater than lead are all bigger than the range of the strong nuclear forces, so it's as if they're too big to fit inside the space assigned them. They therefore decay to lead to alleviate their instability. It follows that all the trans-plumbumic (i just made that term up, it's meant to be a fancy word for 'bigger than lead') must eventually decay into lead, and at the very least implies that the half-life of an element is inversely proportionl to its atomic numeber (plutionium decays faster than uranium, which decays faster than thorium...).

      Nice theory. But Actinium (element 89) has a shorter half-life than Uranium (element 92). Lead is element 82. Seemingly element 109 also has more stable isotopes (3.4ms half-life) than element 108 (2ms half-life).

      So much for strictly inversely proportional half-lifes versus atomic number past Lead. Next theory please?

    38. Re:Science Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *coughcough*thechurch*coughcough*

    39. Re:Science Today by CelloJake · · Score: 1

      I don't think we can create an energy source in a lab. Basic laws of physics say that we can't get more energy out than we put in. At best we could get an element which allows us to store or deliver energe more efficiently.

      -Jacob

    40. Re:Science Today by JebusIsLord · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the strong and weak nuclear forces hold the nucleons (protons and neutrons) together, while the positive electic charges on protons repell each other. This is why, as you move to heavier and heavier elements, the # of neutrons has to increase faster than the proton count - the neutrons buffer the electric repulsion. Even with lots of neutrons, however, at some point the positive charges just get too strong and beta particles (He nuclei) are emitted until the nucleus shrinks to a stable size once again.

      --
      Jeremy
    41. Re:Science Today by JebusIsLord · · Score: 1

      ... or alpha + particles, which is when a proton breaks down into a neutron, positron (anti-electron) and a neutrino. The alpha emission is actually the positron, while the new neutron serves to stabilize the nucleus.

      --
      Jeremy
    42. Re:Science Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said!

    43. Re:Science Today by FredGray · · Score: 2, Informative
      You've confused alpha and beta decay. An alpha particle is basically a helium-4 nucleus: two protons and two neutrons. A beta particle is an electron or positron.

      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 protons can't, forcing one of them up to a higher energy level. That's the primary effect in lighter nuclei, keeping the number of protons and neutrons nearly equal.

      As the number of protons becomes larger, and the net charge becomes greater, electrostatic repulsion between the protons becomes more of an effect: it grows with the square of the number of protons. Adding extra neutrons increases the radius of the nucleus, spacing the protons farther apart from each other on average and therefore decreasing the electrostatic repulsion.

    44. Re:Science Today by InadequateCamel · · Score: 1

      You have to blast your fuel pellet with a whole lot of energy to initiate fusion, but once you get the system running it releases more energy than it required for initiation. So while they aren't creating the fuel pellet from elementary particles, it is not impossible to get energy from something that requires an initial investment.

    45. Re:Science Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is Mercury injected into children? Can you explain?
      I've heard that Mercury is too toxic for human health.

    46. Re:Science Today by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1
      It's in vaccines. I'm sure it wouldn't be there if there weren't a good reason since mercury can be nasty stuff..

      I used to play with mercury metal when I was a kid though and I don't seem to be throwing unbirthday parties or to be suffering any ill effects. I think as long as you don't heat it, don't react it with any chemicals, and wash your hands afterwards, and don't lose it in the carpet, mercury metal is a safe and facinating toy when played with occasionally ( like when a switch or thermometer happens to break )

      --

      Eat at Joe's.

    47. Re:Science Today by Simonetta · · Score: 1

      Research in the 19th century was done by wealthy aristocrats and their eccentric friends. It was considered cool to spend your time investigating areas that had no possible application in the real world. 99.9% of that energy and research was wasted and today we remember only a few of these people like George Boole and Countess Ada Lovelace.

      Research today is a huge taxpayer funded collecton of unrelated projects primarily designed to give employment to people who got college degrees with little or no commercial potential (not even enough to pay for the expense of their education) like astrophysics and Mars exploration. If people want this stuff, let them pay for it with their own money, not taxpayer's funds.
      One out every ten women get breast cancer. I would like to see every dollar spent on NASA go instead to breast cancer research. Because, frankly, I love women more than I love NASA space engineer geeks. The number of jobs for scientists and technicians would be the same and the benefit to ourselves, our families, and the world would be much better.

    48. Re:Science Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amalgam fillings.

    49. Re:Science Today by CelloJake · · Score: 1

      Right, but say you have known element group a, from which you form new element x and by-product group or known elements b. x and b will contain less energy than a. But it is possible that x is more useful as a fuel... -jacob

    50. Re:Science Today by japhmi · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it wouldn't be there if there weren't a good reason since mercury can be nasty stuff..

      It's there because it's cheaper than alternatives, and it's considered low enough to be allowed by the FDA.

      --
      "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
    51. Re:Science Today by JebusIsLord · · Score: 1

      fair enough - couldn't remember which was which and frankly i was too lazy to reach for my textbooks :) Thanks for the added clarification.

      --
      Jeremy
    52. Re:Science Today by ChupaChipmunk · · Score: 1

      Wow. You went right to thinking of a bomb as a possible application. That's actually pretty sad. Besides which, what's the problem with learning just to know? From what I can tell, these were private groups. Why can't they do purely useless research?

    53. Re:Science Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And you were doing so good until that last comment about mercury. *sigh* Just goes to show that even smart people can make dumb conclusions.

      For your reference

    54. Re:Science Today by hellraizr · · Score: 1

      wow the ignorance coming off this post is almost blinding. you like that lightbulb in your room? thank astrophysicists for that one discovering nuclear power. or better yet, how would you like to have your breast cancer cure 100 years from now. alot of fucking good it's going to do you.

      The earth can support roughly 9 billion people, there are roughly 6.2 billion people on it right now. DOUBLE WHAT IT WAS 20 YEARS AGO! if we don't find a way to either a) kill 1/2 the worlds population or b) find a way off this planet and colonize other planets than you can kiss your happy human race goodbye in less than 200 years.

      it's fucking morons like you who have held back real science for hundreds of years. astrophysics is humanity's only hope. if you think we can live the way we live now on this planet for another 500 years than I STRONGLY suggest you get your self a college education because you obviously didn't pay attention in high school. by the end of most of our lives most of the natural resources of the earth will be at less than 50% of what they were. the earth _WILL_ strike back. disieses, plagues, famine, you name it it will happen. oh and never mind the constant threat from 2-10 mile across heavenly bodies that would just love to usher in the next mass-extinction. oh but I guess saving 2 people's lives is FAR more important than the survival of an entire life form. .... fucking idiot. please just go back in ivory tower and put on your rose colored glasses. if you leave the house please wear a sign, so we know who you are.

  4. Obligatory Simpsons Reference #1F04 by The-Bus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Mmmmm... Forbidden ununpentium....

    --

    Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    1. Re:Obligatory Simpsons Reference #1F04 by originalTMAN · · Score: 1

      your theory about a donut shaped universe intrigues me... I will have to steal it.

  5. The 115th Element by AtariAmarok · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm sure there will be a movie about it. Bruce Willis the cab-driver and his girlfriend who wears nothing but ductape, all over again.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:The 115th Element by real_smiff · · Score: 1
      yeah. that's gonna be one long movie.

      btw, they are "protective (thermal?) bandages", although how they are protective or thermal is beyond me... you should probably ask Luc Besson.

      --

      This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

    2. Re:The 115th Element by tobechar · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That was the 5th element. :)

      --
      -
    3. Re:The 115th Element by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 1

      mmmmmmmmmm, women in duct tape....

      I'd like one roll of duct tape and one Slashchick, please!

    4. Re:The 115th Element by giminy · · Score: 2, Funny

      That movie is going to have to star a real fat opera-singing chick.

      --
      The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
    5. Re:The 115th Element by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you have no humour. Think before you post next time.

    6. Re:The 115th Element by Miffe · · Score: 1

      I'll take eight!

    7. Re:The 115th Element by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      that was a joke

      ...that aparently went right over your head (you know, that wooshing sound you heard?)

    8. Re:The 115th Element by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He who laughs last, doesn't get the joke

    9. Re:The 115th Element by tommck · · Score: 1

      Why? Was there a fake fat opera-singing chick?

      --
      ---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
  6. Sorry, couldn't resist... by locknloll · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...but when are we going to have the ununceleron, ununathlon, ununopteron & ununitanium?

    --
    -- Power corrupts, but PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
    1. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      That's so ununfunny.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    2. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... by Zocalo · · Score: 1
      And when are these physicists going to learn how English and its roots work? That's a confusion of Latin and Greek and has what suspisciously looks like a double negative at the front...

      Surely they could have worked a split infinitive in there as well! ;)

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    3. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... by miketang16 · · Score: 4, Informative

      To be honest, I think they name them with Latin, where "un" = one, and "pent" = five, hence one-one-five (115).

      --
      -------
      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
      -- George Orwell
    4. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > ununitanium

      I thought we had this but for a long while, it was known as Unobtainium?

    5. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... by WD · · Score: 1

      Just because it's a joke, that doesn't mean that it's funny.

    6. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... by originalTMAN · · Score: 2, Funny

      you mean ununfunion

    7. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I always thought that was kind of obvious, am I missing something?

    8. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... by miketang16 · · Score: 1

      Nah, I just figured I'd make it excessively obvious. You'd be amazed how many people aren't able to pick up something so simple.

      --
      -------
      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
      -- George Orwell
    9. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine a molecule of these...

    10. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Informative

      Time to reveal my true geek.

      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.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    11. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      My classical languages knowledge is very limited, thanks for the lesson. I know enough to know they got the 113 right though, if they'd made the same mistake it would have been ununtetraium. Good job they didn't, because that is almost unpronounceable.

    12. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To even call that a joke is offensive to other jokes. I really wonder about the moderators sometimes.

    13. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... by Chaset · · Score: 1

      Did the scientists announce these in clean-room bunny suits?

      --
      -- "This world is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel."
    14. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a wierd al reference. I couldn't tell wether or not you knew that from your post.

      It's all about the pentiums!

    15. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 1

      Yes, and we must all protest against Microsoft's Ununpalladium!

    16. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      when are we going to have the ununceleron, ununathlon, ununopteron & ununitanium?

      I'm waiting for unobtanium, myself. I hear it's quite good stuff, if we could only find/manufacture it.

    17. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      To ununpentium or to not ununpentium... that is the question. I think?!

    18. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... by bluewee · · Score: 1

      What about UnUnG5s?

      --
      [blue] - The Ministry of Information approved this message...
    19. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... by newhoggy · · Score: 1
      To be honest, I think they name them with Latin, where "un" = one, and "pent" = five, hence one-one-five (115).

      You mean like "di-untium octide"?

    20. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Virginia Tech has all of them right now. They need to make more before they can be distributed throughout the universe.

    21. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... by aziraphale · · Score: 1

      erm... tetra means '4'. As in tetrahedron...

    22. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      *hits self on head* Right you are...

    23. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      That got +5 informative how?

      Yes, of course they name it with its latin ordinal while they confirm it, and then they'll name it properly. That's how it's worked ever since we recognized the lanthanides.

      Remind me to call you when there's a murder.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    24. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist... by este · · Score: 1

      You mean Ununfunyuns? Those are somewhat doughnut-shaped.

      --
      [este]
  7. A what Pentium? by thedogcow · · Score: 0

    Does this mean that the isotopes of this element will be cheaper versions of original element?

    --
    Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
  8. Obese nuclei. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "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'.""

    Obesity strikes again.

  9. Ununpentium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I'm pretty sure the final name for the ununpentium element is going to be unathlon.

  10. Is it early un-un-Pentium? by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cuz if it is
    Laboratory tests prove the new element can't divide or multiply.

    1. Re:Is it early un-un-Pentium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      At Intel, quality is Job 0.9999987

    2. Re:Is it early un-un-Pentium? by jrockway · · Score: 1

      It has a 678-stage pipeline, too. Hopefully the division circuitry doesn't affect branch prediction!

      --
      My other car is first.
  11. Google Link by jeffkjo1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    For the tin-foil hat impaired, here is a de-register-it-ized link: The Story

    1. Re:Google Link by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

      This might be more usefull for the tin-foil hat impaired.

    2. Re:Google Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The tin-foil-hat-impaired would probably be happy with the normal link; it is the tin-foil-laden or tin-foil-wearing people who would be on the look-out for your de-registered link.

      Just another day in the life of a Grammar Nazi.

  12. Thats great, but... by gabeman-o · · Score: 1

    I think what we're all wonder is when are they going to get to Balognium?

  13. New Intel Chip? by Limburgher · · Score: 4, Funny
    I mean, if AMD makes the UnPentium, by extension, Intel would make the UnUnPentium.

    Unless then meant that Macs are the UnPentium. In which case the above still holds. :)

    --

    You are not the customer.

    1. Re:New Intel Chip? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on.... you've got to be laughing about your Dean support at this point... don't you?

      Go support someone sane that can win.

    2. Re:New Intel Chip? by Limburgher · · Score: 1
      Mmmm, no. I'll vote for whoever wins the nomination in November, but I'll support Dean until another nominee is announced. Besides, what's to laugh at? I mean, if Kerry can surge that quickly, Dean, with his huge grassroots base, can too.

      Honestly, though, politics aside, replying to .sigs is kinda lame. Like talking to billboards while you drive.

      --

      You are not the customer.

    3. Re:New Intel Chip? by TyrranzzX · · Score: 0, Troll

      nah, unpentium would be 15, which is phosphorus. Phosphorus starts on fire when exposed to air, and anyone who has a palamino knows the similarities. Remove the heatsink and phrooomph!

    4. Re:New Intel Chip? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did you know I talked to billboards?

    5. Re:New Intel Chip? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not crazy unless the billboards talk back.

    6. Re:New Intel Chip? by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1

      Uses sparkling clear limon flavored soda as coolant.

      --

      Eat at Joe's.

    7. Re:New Intel Chip? by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      No, no. The Unpentium has to be a computer; therefore, Macs, Abaci and supernumerates are disallowed. Curiously, this leaves Alan Greenspan in the running.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
  14. Un-Un-Pentium is just Pentium right? by APonBass · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's not a new element, that's an old Intel chip!

  15. Copyright Violation by Microlith · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can Intel now sue Mendeleev for trademark violation?

    This will be a black mark on the physics community for sure...

  16. Probably the same article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    here but without registration.

  17. I smell intel coming soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ununpentium? So how soon till Intel gets a hardon for them using this name and sends a C&D letter? Put me down for 8-12 months.

  18. area 51 conspiracy link to ununpentium by cr@ckwhore · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Interesting notion ... I happened to stumble across a reference to this "ununpentium" the other day while satisfying my science fiction curiosities on a site called "AboveTopSecret.com". Apparently, some of the Area 51 conspiracy theorists believe it's used in anti-gravity research... or something like that.

    Document about ununpentium published in 1999:
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/element 115.htm l

    --
    Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
    1. Re:area 51 conspiracy link to ununpentium by Loadmaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ununpentium was the supposed element that powered alien spaceships as stated by Bob Lazar. After many years and a website (boblazar.com) they admitted that this whole thing was an attempt to promote a movie idea. Too bad the main character, Lazar, looks like friggin' Keith Richards after a badger attack. Tom Cruise gets paid the big bucks for something guys, and it's sure not his acting.

    2. Re:area 51 conspiracy link to ununpentium by plasticpixel · · Score: 1

      I'm recalling this from memory but, I think Lazar got the idea for Element 115 from a Popular Science magazine article from the 1960's. A scientist had theorized about the island-of-stability in elements around this number. It looks like we may have to wait until elements 117 and 118 to see if this island appears. It could be a boon for science, but I'm not holding my breath for "anti-gravity" properties just yet.

    3. Re:area 51 conspiracy link to ununpentium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have a url pointing to this "fact"?

    4. Re:area 51 conspiracy link to ununpentium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried the link (boblazar.com). There is a picture of a crashed saucer and the message "This site has been hacked to death. Contact Webmaster."

    5. Re:area 51 conspiracy link to ununpentium by DynaSoar · · Score: 2, Informative

      plasticpixel (323537) sez: "I'm recalling this from memory but, I think Lazar got the idea for Element 115 from a Popular Science magazine article from the 1960's."

      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.

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    6. Re:area 51 conspiracy link to ununpentium by blincoln · · Score: 1
      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    7. Re:area 51 conspiracy link to ununpentium by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      The thing I hate with all those 'area51' ufo websites is that they never state what is 'suspicion' or 'guess work' and what is 'real investigated facts'

      Why cant they write in a style like, "Here are the facts, plain and boring, lawyer style", and now "Heres our interpretation of the facts, wild and fancy" Even if they make wierd conclusions based on weak facts, they should explain how/why they came to those conclusions.

      But whos to know if they are high school dropouts with Fs in writing, or grads in literature.

      I for one would a) make more professional websites, b) remove all 'speculation' or at least label it as such, and c) make it more sensible and seperate facts from 'we think this xyz....'

      Maybe they all want movie/book deal aspirations. Then write a damn script not silly websites.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    8. Re:area 51 conspiracy link to ununpentium by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Area 51 conspiracy theorists are to be trusted regarding the nature of cutting edge materials research in the way that the scriptwriters for Buffy can be counted on to describe the sociological impacts of Vlad Tepes' madness on the nearby royal courts.

      Conspiracy authors are one of three things: entertainers, intrepid reporters, or madmen. Given that the best evidence they've been able to cough up seems to consist of Alien Autopsy, Bryant Gumball Presents "Aliens Abducted my Credibility," and plots to hypnotize the entire population of China into jumping up and down simultaneously to knock the world out of orbit (admittedly, I read the tabloids in the checkout line,) I think we can rule out reporters.

      Which leaves you with two options: are you believing an entertainer (rube) or a madman (sheep) ?

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    9. Re:area 51 conspiracy link to ununpentium by cr@ckwhore · · Score: 1

      Hey Jackass ... Did I miss something? Where did I mention that I believed this stuff? I've simply contributed something relevant to the conversation, whether you believe the content or not.

      Since you don't seem to be up on subtle reading clues, I'll help you out ... referring to "Area 51 conspiracy theorists" in the 3rd person indicates that I'm not one of 'em. Got it?

      Ok, with that established... the fact that ununpentium has appeared on Area 51 conspiracy sites is quite fascinating!

      I'll repeat again this again... I'm not an Area 51 conspiracy theorist. I'm not an Area 51 conspiracy theorist. I referred to that group in the 3rd person. Ok? I'm not an Area 51 conspiracy theorist, and I don't believe things I read on conspiracy web sites.

      One final memo, just to make the point clear -- I'm not an Area 51 conspiracy theorist and I don't believe things I read on tabloid-style conspiracy web sites, despite the entertainment value.

      Geez.

      --
      Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
  19. The Second one should be named..... by ThomasFlip · · Score: 1

    unuG5ium or unuPowerPCium, pentium doesnt deserve such an honour, we are talking about cpu's right ?

    --
    If the dollar is an "I owe you nothing", then the Euro is a "Who owes you nothing." - Doug Casey
    1. Re:The Second one should be named..... by goldfndr · · Score: 1

      Based on your subject line, I thought for sure you were going to name "unluckium".

      --
      Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
  20. It's pronounced "nuc-u-lar" by da3dAlus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Virgil:All right, then. For half a million dollars, which of the following is not a subatomic particle?
    Moe:Oy.
    Virgil:
    A) Proton
    B) Neutron
    C) Bonbon, or
    D) Electron
    Moe:Oh, boy. All right, let's see here, uh ... well, I was born in Indiana, so that ain't it. And, uh, hmmm ... I'd better call my lifeline.
    ...
    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."

    --

    Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
    1. Re:It's pronounced "nuc-u-lar" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To address your post's subject, I'd just like to note that both pronunciations are considered acceptable according to the dictionary... Might want to check on that again?

    2. Re:It's pronounced "nuc-u-lar" by jensend · · Score: 1

      Dictionaries are descriptive, not normative. It makes no sense to say something is "acceptable according to the dictionary". It's either common enough in regular usage to merit mention in the dictionary or not. Use of the normative "it should be said/spelled like this" is meant to improve clarity and reduce the possibility of miscommunication, for which purpose "nuc-u-lar" is probably not how one should pronounce it.

  21. Quantum computer material by Space+cowboy · · Score: 1

    ... obviously :-)

    Simon

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
    1. Re:Quantum computer material by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It would need to compute REALLY fast, and there might be trouble with the readout, when the thing exploded.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  22. Element 115 by harperbl · · Score: 0

    Element 115 is the preferred fuel of choice for Aliens: http://anw.com/aliens/ArtsParts.htm http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/element115.htm l http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Element_115.htm

  23. Element 114 by tobechar · · Score: 0, Troll

    If elements 113 and 115 were created by these scientists, what prevented them from creating 114? Was it simply that they could not create a stable element with the correct atomic weight? I am no atomic scientist, but if I could create elements with atomic weights of 113 and 115, it wouldn't be to long before I could create the perfect combination to reach 114.

    I guess I should just be thankful for our scientific community.

    I know I am missing a lot of the fine mechanics here, but is it the pursuit of the correct combination that is so hard? Or is it just minor alterations to existing elements?

    Does element 114 already exist?

    --
    -
    1. Re:Element 114 by Q-Hack! · · Score: 2, Informative

      Both 114 and 116 exist...

      http://www.webelements.com/

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    2. Re:Element 114 by e6003 · · Score: 4, Informative
      The elements in this area of the periodic table are all highly radioactive. They are INCREDIBLY unstable - we're talking half lives of seconds or less and production scales of maybe one atom a week. The theory is rather complex, but basically the binding energies of these super-heavy nucleii aren't enough to hold them togetehr, AIUI. That said, the same theory predicts a "sea of stability" at even larger atomic numbers (around 130 IIRC). That's not to say that such elements would be non-radioactive but they may be stable enough to isolate in sufficient quantities to do "normal" chemistry experiments on. Element 114 may not be stable enough even to detect in these minute levels.

      (e6003 - chemist and part-time geek).

    3. Re:Element 114 by sbennett · · Score: 3, Informative

      Element 113 only appeared when the atoms of 115 decayed, and it lasted a lot longer (1.2 seconds- that's a seriously long time in particle physics).

      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 114 already exist?

      According to this, yes.

    4. Re:Element 114 by tobechar · · Score: 1

      In that case, how is a new atomic element created? Do scientists try to find a combination of existing weights(individual elements) that add up to a specific new atomic weight?

      Wow my head hurts.

      --
      -
    5. Re:Element 114 by at_18 · · Score: 1

      Yes, discovered more or less by the same people.

    6. Re:Element 114 by McAddress · · Score: 1
      Then, that decays, losing two protons, and becomes 113.

      that would be through alpha decay for those who diid not pay attention in high school physics.

    7. Re:Element 114 by falsified · · Score: 1

      Some of your suspicions are confirmed in the freakin' article. In great detail, no less.

      --
      HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
    8. Re:Element 114 by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      That's about it, yes. Try reading the article, it explains it quite well.

    9. Re:Element 114 by MrLint · · Score: 1

      Well these bubbled and donut shaped nuclei are very intresting, Im not up on my nuclear physics, but these heavy nuclei have a problem that the strong force isnt quite strong enough to keep all the protons hanging (so close?) together. In a donut shape you have the same number of nuclei in a larger volume, may end up being more stable as so many positive charges arent jammed so close together.

      Things are gonna get interesting.

    10. Re:Element 114 by Linker3000 · · Score: 1

      But will it mean that:

      a) At last, the post-mix crap that comes out of bar soda taps will AT LAST taste like the bottled stuff.

      or

      b) A supermarket chinese ready-meal will ever taste anything CLOSE to a real take-out?

      Until we sort out the fundamentals, nothing else matters (or antimatters!?)

      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
    11. Re:Element 114 by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      You gota add the basil/garlic paste and corriander leafs.

      The supermarkets cant synthesize those herbs, and are too scummy cheap asses to put real ones in there.

      They should rename the supermaket to Nasa Space Food shop, all tasteless.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    12. Re:Element 114 by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Basically, then they smash them together and hope they stick.

      Eventually some do, and presto! a new element.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    13. Re:Element 114 by josh+glaser · · Score: 1

      Not only does 114 exist, but 116 and 118 do to. I think it's easier to make elements with even numbers because the atomic number is based on the number of protons (i think) and it seems to be easier to add two protons at a time (all these "unun-" elements are made in a lab). This is coming from my very limited knowledge and reasoning skills, so keep that in mind...hope this helps, to whoever asked.

  24. Playing Dice with the Universe by theatre_freak · · Score: 1

    Isn't it amazing what happens when folks slam atoms together at amazing speeds in a supercollider? For as amazingly advanced as civilization has become, we're still taking baby steps in discovering how the subatomic world really works.

    And I don't understand much more than a quark of it.

    1. Re:Playing Dice with the Universe by madpierre · · Score: 4, Funny

      1000000 BC: Ug, rock rock *BAM* *BAM* ug!

      2004 AD: Ug, nucleon nucleon *BAM* *BAM* ug!

      --
      siggy played guitar
    2. Re:Playing Dice with the Universe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know in the Sci-Fi show LEXX...supposidly Earth is a class of a planet that is soon to be destroyed when scientists find some super heavy particle that turns the Earth into a black hole....perhaps it's time we leave before we all do something stupid?

  25. Yet another Pentium joke by tgeller · · Score: 5, Funny

    The ununpentium: Element number 114.9999659899937582.

    --
    Tom Geller
    1. Re:Yet another Pentium joke by jrockway · · Score: 1

      That's pretty good. :)

      --
      My other car is first.
    2. Re:Yet another Pentium joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would be surprised at the amount of slashbots who are too young to have ever heard of the pentium bug... you might as well make jokes about that old MSDOS hard disk corrupting bug.

    3. Re:Yet another Pentium joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That's pretty good."

      Not only is it yet another pentium-division-bug-joke, but it's also pretty good in that the answer is almost correct.

    4. Re:Yet another Pentium joke by sulli · · Score: 1
      Next several elements:

      116 - Ununpentium Pro
      117 - Ununpentium Pro with MMX
      118 - Ununpentium II
      119 - Ununpentium !!!
      120 - Ununpentium !!! without unique element ID
      121 - Ununpentium IV

      --

      sulli
      RTFJ.
    5. Re:Yet another Pentium joke by Big+Nothing · · Score: 1

      Well, that IS sufficiently accurate for all practical purposes.

      --
      SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
    6. Re:Yet another Pentium joke by PenguiN42 · · Score: 1

      But.. but... the pentium bug had nothing do to with normal floating point rounding error. Why does everyone keep making this joke?

      --
      The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
    7. Re:Yet another Pentium joke by dublin · · Score: 1

      But.. but... the pentium bug had nothing do to with normal floating point rounding error. Why does everyone keep making this joke?

      I don't know, Andy. Maybe you're just paranoid...

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
  26. I wish they'd just stop by corebreech · · Score: 2, Funny

    We're looking for a stable heavy element. My question is, "Why?"

    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.

    1. Re:I wish they'd just stop by trmj · · Score: 2, Funny

      Haven't these guys ever played DOOM?

      If you will remember correctly, that doesn't happen until we put stuff on mars... oh.

      --
      Work sucked, until it became unemployment, when it became slightly more tolerable. -Tet
    2. Re:I wish they'd just stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We're criticising progress. My question is, "Why?"

      I mean, as if things weren't already fucked up enough, we actually have people arrogant enough to think that we don't actually need to expand our understanding of the universe simply because they can't see the applications of it. And the consequences? Apparently nobody gives a shit if we suddenly stop coming up with more technology.

      Hasn't this guy ever looked at the history of science? Or studied Quantum Theory? I'd feel a lot safer if corebreech's creativity was tinged with a healthy dose of passion.

    3. Re:I wish they'd just stop by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Unlike you, these guys know what they are doing. They also know that yes, these things have existed. Millions of atoms of these elements were probably created in upper atmosphere during time it took for you to write that little ignorant scaremongering rant. Nobody was there to observe, though, and that is what they want to do.

      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 plain old fantasy.

    4. Re:I wish they'd just stop by double-oh+three · · Score: 1

      1st off, he was joking. Why else would he start talking about Doom?

      And 2nd, these things are NOT created in the upper atmosphere, it is unlikley that they are created anywhere outside of suns and blackholes. They are notoriously hard to create, and need massive energies to do so.

      --
      "For years, I struggled with reality... but I'm happy to say I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
    5. Re:I wish they'd just stop by corebreech · · Score: 1

      Unlike you, these guys know what they are doing.

      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 when they hear one.

    6. Re:I wish they'd just stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "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 plain old fantasy."

      Not the brightest bulb are you ...?

    7. Re:I wish they'd just stop by HeghmoH · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      The first experiments into this area created a gateway into another dimension. The horrors which came through the gateway before it could be closed are indescribable. Ever since, these scientists have worked under the constant, unblinking eye of these... things, knowing that if they ever waver or stray, they and their families will be fed to that which is only known in nightmares. Their task: to reopen the gateway to bring through others of their kind.

      These scientists' lives are tinged with more fear that you will ever know. At least, more than you will know until they get that gateway open again.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    8. Re:I wish they'd just stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grandparent is correct actually, extremly high power particles constantly smash into the upper atmosphere. They have more then enough power to create trifling things as this.

      Quickshot

    9. Re:I wish they'd just stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Infact they do know what they're doing up to a point. It's not like they have verything under control. But there also quite aware that a few small atoms don't create world disasters.
      And I was thinking it was a joke to, but the responses were to interesting to resist answering back. ^_-

      Quickshot

    10. Re:I wish they'd just stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The first experiments into this area created a gateway into another dimension..."

      Hey, I've seen that b4 or read or sth. Please tell where it's from. J

    11. Re:I wish they'd just stop by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Err, they did create element with 115 protons. It was very unstable and almost instantly decayed to one with 113, which in turn became something else in 1.2 seconds until they end up with something stable n+1 splits later. Very fast decay is pretty much expected and the norm for superheavy elements.

      And unfortunately there are plenty of idiots on Slashdot who really think what you joked about, that high energy particle physics are somehow dangerous and will destroy the universe. And that Doom is pretty much real, so it's damn hard to tell.

    12. Re:I wish they'd just stop by juhaz · · Score: 1

      1st off, he was joking. Why else would he start talking about Doom?

      Lowest common denominator. Unfortunately there are plenty of people capable of thinking Doom is perfectly credible scenario. Many idiots do actually believe this kind of experiments will cause end of the world (or universe). Many are against genetic engineering because they think Jurassic Park is true. Maybe this one was joke, but it resembles some "serious" arguments quite a bit.

      They are notoriously hard to create, and need massive energies to do so.

      Yup, they need pretty massive energies to do, but that's about it. Nothing more than smashing two things together very hard, the notoriously hard part is to get some useful data out of it, and to get those things going fast enough.

      But there are cosmic rays out there with orders of magnitude more energy than we can create in our pathetic little particle accelerators, and they eventually tend to smash into things, including our atmosphere.

    13. Re:I wish they'd just stop by imbaczek · · Score: 1

      You forgot UFO: Enemy Unknown (or X-COM, or whatever it was called.)

    14. Re:I wish they'd just stop by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      I didn't consciously take it from anywhere, I just made it up. But it's entirely possible that I'm subconsciously copying something I don't know about.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    15. Re:I wish they'd just stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. My fears... true

    16. Re:I wish they'd just stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately there are plenty of people capable of thinking Doom is perfectly credible scenario. Many idiots do actually believe this kind of experiments will cause end of the world (or universe). Don't spit 'idiot' so fast. Do you think anyone would do an experiment like that if he knew the results

    17. Re:I wish they'd just stop by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Haven't these guys ever played DOOM? Or watched Event Horizon?

      So you're saying life might be a boring, repetitous video game or a boring, pointless movie?

      Now what would really scare me is if life was "Night of the Lepus".

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    18. Re:I wish they'd just stop by conan776 · · Score: 1

      From pentium to gateway jokes?

      --
      "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick
    19. Re:I wish they'd just stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As stated billion times before, natural collisions of similar and vastly larger energies happen all the time - so yes, everyone except ignorant idiots knows the results enough to understand they won't cause world to be sucked into black hole or spreading quantum fluctuations to destroy all matter.

    20. Re:I wish they'd just stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm really intrigued. What are gateway jokes please? Google knows not of the subject

    21. Re:I wish they'd just stop by spiko-carpediem · · Score: 1

      If they can make element 115 4 times out of 25 tries I guess thay can make quantuum space fluctuations that destroy the universe/earth 1 time out of 1000's. I know this is SF but only because it hasn't happened in our known history, not saying there was no such history but this is too OT to discuss

  27. Re:TRADEMARK Violation by Microlith · · Score: 1

    Excuse me, I'm stupid.

    And I have a headache at 3:25 AM. So sue me.

  28. Protective alright... by AtariAmarok · · Score: 4, Funny

    The only thing that girl's bandagewear could have possibly protected against was an NC-17 rating.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:Protective alright... by dpilot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The movie was only rated PG-13, and the bandageware protected it from getting an R. Even two very brief scenes in less didn't up the rating.

      (5th Element is one of my favorites, because like Brazil, it strives to attain a 50's view of the future.)

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    2. Re:Protective alright... by merlin_jim · · Score: 2, Funny

      The only thing that girl's bandagewear could have possibly protected against was an NC-17 rating.

      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.

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    3. Re:Protective alright... by tommck · · Score: 1

      (5th Element is one of my favorites, because like Brazil, it strives to attain a 50's view of the future.)

      That is, of course, because Terry Gilliam directed them both.

      --
      ---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
    4. Re:Protective alright... by dpilot · · Score: 1

      I keep hoping Gilliam really does get to do, "Good Omens." The project keeps coming and going.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    5. Re:Protective alright... by redwraith · · Score: 1

      Luc Besson directed the Fifth Element, not Terry Gilliam. TG directed Bruce Willis in Twelve Monkeys, maybe that's the confusion.

    6. Re:Protective alright... by tommck · · Score: 1

      Ahh... you're right... brain fart on my part.

      Both of them very good movies in my opinion..

      Thanks for the correction.

      T

      --
      ---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
  29. anti-gravity pot theories be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    anyone here a alien nut job?

    A lot of people that beleive in Roswell and other anti-gravity events for some reason have decided that element 115 is THE element that has the property of producing anti-gravity when an electrical current is run through it...they base this assumtion on poorly done tests for elements just above 115 (I think copper?). Theere even is a book with the title element 115 on it....at least now we'll either have anti-gravity devices or be able to shut those idiots up!

    1. Re:anti-gravity pot theories be wary... by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1
      Within a fraction of a second, the four atoms of Element 115 decayed radioactively to an element with 113 protons.
      Seems your antigravity emmiter would have to be replaced nearly as often as windows has to be rebooted.
    2. Re:anti-gravity pot theories be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet it would take a mighty special triple-beam to accurately weigh this anti-gravity pot you speak of.

    3. Re:anti-gravity pot theories be wary... by tobechar · · Score: 1

      Copper will lift with current applied using the Biefeld-Brown effect discovered by Thomas Townsend Brown in 1928.

      This is a real effect, NASA has patented its use.

      Many people around the world have created small anti-gravity lifters with this effect.

      --
      -
    4. Re:anti-gravity pot theories be wary... by El · · Score: 1

      Actually, I beleive the "anti-gravity lifters" lift by ionizing air; they are really just fans with no moving parts.

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    5. Re:anti-gravity pot theories be wary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that's what those scientists in Half-Baked were up to.

      -A.C.

    6. Re:anti-gravity pot theories be wary... by quantum+bit · · Score: 1

      Copper will lift with current applied

      'Lift' being a relative term, of course. It's been pretty thoroughly proven that the Biefeld-Brown effect has nothing to do with anti-gravity, or gravitational fields at all, but is rather a directional force in the same way a traditional rotor or jet behaves.

      It's still a quite interesting effect though, and shows promise for building propulsion devices with no moving parts. The debate is still on as to whether it requires a dielectric medium (i.e. air), or can work in a vacuum as well.

    7. Re:anti-gravity pot theories be wary... by DynaSoar · · Score: 2, Informative

      quantum bit (225091) sez: "It's still a quite interesting effect though, and shows promise for building propulsion devices with no moving parts. The debate is still on as to whether it requires a dielectric medium (i.e. air), or can work in a vacuum as well."

      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 necessary to create the effect. If so, yes, it is an ionic flow effect, but this does not mean it's restricted to atmospheric use. His patent on this design is US# 3,022,430.

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    8. Re:anti-gravity pot theories be wary... by jettoblack · · Score: 1

      There is no debate...

      Some geeks got together, put a "levitator" into a crude vacuum jar, and discovered it still works. Magic anti-gravity, woohoo!?

      Then some NASA guys put one of them into a REAL vacuum chamber, and guess what, it didn't work. As they slowly increased the air pressure in the chamber, it started to work again.

      Turns out that all these things do is push charged air around. They work at low air pressure, possibly low enough to be useful on a LEO satellite, but not in outer space. Their energy-lifting capacity efficiency is quite low, much lower than using a fan. But it might have some use in a device which can't have moving parts.

    9. Re:anti-gravity pot theories be wary... by quantum+bit · · Score: 1

      While I personally agree that it's just ionizing the air, two experiments with conflicting results isn't exactly scientific proof. I seem to recall a third experiment besides the NASA one but don't remember off the top of my head who performed it...

      Unfortunately there hasn't been just a whole lot of real research into the effect, possibly due to the "UFO anti-gravity sekr3tz" air surrounding it.

      Ah, I remember now. The third one was done by the Army Research Labs. The abstract for the paper is here. Unfortunately, the PDF itself seems to have been deleted from the official site (break out your tinfoil hats, heh), but there is a mirror.
      Looks like they didn't try the vacuum experiment, but theorized (and did some math based on) that the effect was the sum of two different forces: A smaller one (ionic wind) that would persist in a vacuum, and a larger one (charge drift) that required a fluid dielectric such as the air.

  30. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it isn't. It's completely ununfunny, in fact.

    See, THAT was funny.

  31. Yeah, Yeah by Naked+Chef · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is like the 3rd time we've heard this, and again the article says "pending verification" from other labs' experiment. I wish they'd hold off on the story until it really is verified independently, and we can all bask in the glory of the new elements... :)

    1. Re:Yeah, Yeah by iswm · · Score: 1

      According to the newspaper here, it says that the two new super heavys have been added to the periodic table. So either they missed the bit about awaiting varification, or we missed that bit about them being varified.

      --
      Buckethead
    2. Re:Yeah, Yeah by cbreaker · · Score: 1

      Yea, ununpunusulium or whatever is going to change my life..

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
  32. What's the point ? by vlad_petric · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I'll start by saying that I am not a physicist (by far).

    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)

    --

    The Raven

    1. Re:What's the point ? by Sparr0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, one possible benefit would be finding a heavy element that decays in some unusual and useful way, possibly an easier way to start/stop a fission process (random idea, no feasibility assumed).

    2. Re:What's the point ? by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1
      Still, for roughly half a century, nuclear scientists have been searching for an elusive "island of stability," somewhere among the superheavies, in which long-lived elements with new chemical properties might exist.
      There might be more stable elements than those we already know. Without this research we'll never be able to build our flux capacitors, deflector dishes or quatum particle emmiters. Not to mention, it would be damn hard to build a decent warpcore without superheavy elements.
    3. Re:What's the point ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need exotic matter for most of the things you mention, not just heavy elements.

    4. Re:What's the point ? by QEDog · · Score: 1

      In science a lot of times you do things just because you can. Maybe to check again your theory, hey, it might be wrong after all. So, this is a boundary, everyone thinks they know how it would be, but someone has to go there and make sure. It is just for the sense of discovery

      --
      "There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
    5. Re:What's the point ? by kryptkpr · · Score: 1

      To study the spray of elementary particles that come off it when it's decaying.. how else are we going to proove/disproove our theories of "everything"?

      --
      DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
    6. Re:What's the point ? by Cappy+Red · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Seconded... sort of. Slightly less accusatively, I hope.

      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*

      --
      This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
    7. Re:What's the point ? by jpflip · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As other posters have said, the point is that we learn more about the nucleus - we find out exactly what the half-lives of these nuclei are, etc. This info could have applications to reactors, weapons, energy sources, etc. But the main point is that we know more about the universe. And one never knows where applications will come from. Sometimes a seemingly pointless discovery has a lot of real-world consequences - superconductors, for example, have revolutionized sensor technology for medical scanners and such (though we still don't have them for power lines). Other times, the big result is the spinoffs you come up with along the way - the internet was invented as a way to coordinate particle physics experiments.

    8. Re:What's the point ? by nutznboltz · · Score: 1

      Thing how much money ununpentium will be worth!

      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?

    9. Re:What's the point ? by Ozymandias1350 · · Score: 0
      Far more new technologies and major discoveries have been made while doing "useless" research than any directed research.

      In other words, any time you find yourself saying "It seems to me the money would be better spent", chances are you're wrong.

    10. Re:What's the point ? by spectasaurus · · Score: 3, Funny

      Cheaper anti-matter? Where are you buying yours from that it's so expensive? I get mine wholesale at rockbottom prices. Shop around.

    11. Re:What's the point ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may not get moded up... but I laughed!

    12. Re:What's the point ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the point of fundamental research is to figure out how something works in a certain circumstance. Now you can tell me alot, but if you don't know how something freaking works, you can't even possibly imagine how to use it for something useful. As such I don't begrudge them looking into this field, something useful might crop up. Expecially if the stable atoms they find remains stable for quite some time, they'd have new chemical properties etc etc blabla bla.

      So to sum it up, fundamental research has it's uses, but as with everything you need to balance it with getting practical results out of what you already know, that way you can keep up your speed on making ever more sophisticated devices.

      Quickshot

    13. Re:What's the point ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah right. I don't believe you can get it all that cheap, it's a tight market, with but few sources.

      Quickshot

    14. Re:What's the point ? by Kotukunui · · Score: 1

      I got mine on EBay. Real Cheap. The seller had listed it as ante-matter.

    15. Re:What's the point ? by Saberwind · · Score: 1

      There's hope that some super-heavy elements might be stable. If that's the case, they might be suitable for containing fusion reactions, if enough of the element can be synthesized.

    16. Re:What's the point ? by blincoln · · Score: 1

      So I'm wondering - what's the point ?

      If you RT entire FA, they mention the goal - finding an "island of stability" of elements which do not decay and may have unusual properties.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    17. Re:What's the point ? by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I heard element 126 is predicted to be stable.

      If so, we are getting closer.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    18. Re:What's the point ? by jpmorgan · · Score: 1
      To learn how to produce ever heavier elements, obviously.

      But why do we want to do that? Well, there are predicted patches of stability in the 120s and 130s, I believe. There are also some interesting properties predicted about those super-heavy and stable elements.

    19. Re:What's the point ? by autophile · · Score: 5, Informative
      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 ?

      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. There's also an interactive one, color-coded for lifetimes, here. 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

      --
      Towards the Singularity.
    20. Re:What's the point ? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      IIRC, I read recently that none of the Bismuth isotopes are stable... apparently the one they thought was stable instead has a REALLY long half-life.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    21. Re:What's the point ? by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1
      And that's why nuclear chemists continue to search for heavier and heavier artificial elements.

      I seem to recall that Isaac Asimov wrote an article about this in F&SF (or Asimov's SF, one of them...), titled "The Magic Isle" (which appears in the collection "Quasar Quasar Burning Bright")... I remember him explaining in his typical way, that elements with high element numbers, as yet undiscovered, would start to be stable, though of course very, very dense...

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    22. Re:What's the point ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "superconductors, for example, have revolutionized sensor technology for medical scanners and such (though we still don't have them for power lines)"

      Where I live we do.

    23. Re:What's the point ? by igny · · Score: 1

      Myth: Unstable isotopes are useless. Myth Busted!

      According to the chart, link of which you provided, Deiterium is stable.

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
    24. Re:What's the point ? by jeblucas · · Score: 1

      Josh, is that you?

      --
      blarg.
    25. Re:What's the point ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stable means it has a really long half-life (how long depends on what you need it for).

      Even protons are expected to eventually decay, just not across such timespans that we would need to worry about it.

    26. Re:What's the point ? by RobertB-DC · · Score: 1

      IIRC, I read recently that none of the Bismuth isotopes are stable... apparently the one they thought was stable instead has a REALLY long half-life.

      Man, that sort of news really gives me a stomach ache...

      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    27. Re:What's the point ? by Insipid+Trunculance · · Score: 1

      The idea is to find out their properties such as can be verified in their rather brief lives to see how far the periodic table and the theory of periodicity holds i.e. do elements in the same group display similar(not same) chemical and to some extent physical properties.

      BTW,its believed that certain "islands of stability" of stability exist in the ranges of element nos 127-135 and 180 ish.(Can someone please verify theses numbers please.I am not quite sure abt them).These elements its predicted (and hoped) will be stable i.e. have long half lives.

      So the idea is to progress from one element to the next to reach elements whose existence is more than momentary.

      --
      Wanted : A Signature.
    28. Re:What's the point ? by OrcishSpacesuit · · Score: 1

      "the internet was invented as a way to coordinate particle physics experiments"

      Getting off topic, but no. The World Wide Web, which is the whole "browse to this page" type stuff that the general public tends to think of when you say "Internet". The Internet is the network of computer networks that includes such things as the World Wide Web, email, FTP servers, connections for playing online games, and most anything else that involves computers talking to each other over said network.
  33. Naming new elements... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 4, Funny

    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'.

    Containing bubbles and doughnut-like shapes? I say they should be called Duffium and Homerium.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  34. Re:Dumbest element ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But it's true!

  35. Unobtanium! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please! Mars needs unobtanium to continue powering their defense systems to rid themselves of the invading forces!

  36. Simpsons quote (Big shocker) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Must Resist need to put simpsons quote...

    Can not do it... getting weak...

    Mmmm, Doughnuts... Is There Anything They Can't Do?

  37. Intriguing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rather than being round, nuclei in that region and beyond could contain bubbles and have strange doughnut-like shapes

    Adding weight to Homer's theory of a doughnut shaped universe.

  38. Vaporware by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1
    The atoms of 113 lasted for as long as 1.2 seconds before decaying radioactively to known elements.
    113: The stuff vaporware is made of.
    1. Re:Vaporware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Within a fraction of a second, the four atoms of Element 115 decayed radioactively to an element with 113 protons.
      115: The metastuff vaporware is made of.

      I await the discovery of more elements so we can make this thing recursive...
  39. Lyrics by paul248 · · Score: 1

    so what y'all wanna do
    gonna go do Dubna, in Russia
    use isotopes in the atom crusher
    find elements with a big atomic number
    stabilize the subatomic structure, what?

  40. Am I the only one who misread? by eet23 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought the scientists had lost count and just called it umpteenium.

  41. About the *stupid* name... by Pikhq · · Score: 1

    For all of you who don't pay attention in class, ununpentium is Latin for "115". Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, though...

    --
    echo "rm -rf ~/* ; echo "echo "Exit" ; exit" > ~/.bashrc ; exit" > ~user/.bashrc
    1. Re:About the *stupid* name... by sbennett · · Score: 4, Informative

      ununpentium is Latin for "115"

      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.

    2. Re:About the *stupid* name... by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it's 1, 1, 5. Not 115.

    3. Re:About the *stupid* name... by Pikhq · · Score: 1

      *feels stupid, crawls into large hole with laptop*

      --
      echo "rm -rf ~/* ; echo "echo "Exit" ; exit" > ~/.bashrc ; exit" > ~user/.bashrc
    4. Re:About the *stupid* name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be precise, the syllables of the provisional names are drawn from both Latin and Greek. They are:

      0 nil
      1 un
      2 bi
      3 tri
      4 quad
      5 pent
      6 hex
      7 sept
      8 oct
      9 en

      So you pick the correct three syllables, and add "ium" (or "um" after "bi" or "tri") to get the provisional name for the element.

      I don't think that these provisional names can end with "on" or "ine" even if those endings would be chemically appropriate; but I don't see why the permanent names couldn't.

      Note that all the syllables have different initial letters. You get the provisional chemical symbol for the element by taking the three initials, so the symbol for ununpentium is "Uup". When this element gets a permanent name, it will have a one- or two-letter symbol.

  42. Re:TRADEMARK Violation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excuse me, I'm stupid.

    Yes. Yes, you are.

  43. it's the old video game, x-com ufo enemy unknown! by Monkey+Liar · · Score: 0

    we've got elerium-115, alien alloys and ufo navigation.

    UFO Power Source, Power Suit Armour and Heavy Plasma weapons here we come!

    --
    He who fights with Monkeys must take it upon himself not to become a Monkey.
  44. Just Like... by Sibshops · · Score: 0

    'Rather than being round, nuclei in that region and beyond could contain bubbles and have strange doughnut-like shapes'.

    Real Doughnuts (TM)! Who would have thought that the tasty 'O' of glazed goodness would have been higher form of matter?

    Or maybe the intern shouldn't have put breakfast so close to the microscope....

    ___
    Awaiting the "In Russia, the scientists discover you" jokes any minute now.

  45. I don't care what they call it. by The+Creator · · Score: 2, Funny

    I will always call element 115 Elerium.

    --

    FRA: STFU GTFO
    1. Re:I don't care what they call it. by d_strand · · Score: 1

      ooh... ufo - enemy unknown reference!

      now that was a wonderful game.

    2. Re:I don't care what they call it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For all your plasma cannon, blaster-launcher and Avenger needs!

    3. Re:I don't care what they call it. by r00zky · · Score: 1

      but... but... i thought it couldn't be made in earth
      were this "scientifics" abducted?

      --
      I'm a chainsmokin' alcoholic sociopath, so-ci-o-path
    4. Re:I don't care what they call it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *scientists

      omg my spelling sucks

      - r00zky

    5. Re:I don't care what they call it. by Chaset · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's funny. In my fit of retro-gaming, I had JUST finished a session of XCOM:EU a minute ago and fired up the browser to see this. It's still a good game, and one of the reasons I keep this Cyrix/200 box around.

      --
      -- "This world is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel."
    6. Re:I don't care what they call it. by The+Creator · · Score: 1

      No that was back in 1999, nowdays we can make it here.

      --

      FRA: STFU GTFO
    7. Re:I don't care what they call it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hint: runs perfectly under WINE in my "fast" machine, and there's even a Linux clone project.

    8. Re:I don't care what they call it. by kisielk · · Score: 1

      There's a Linux clone project? Got a URL? I couldn't find any references to it through google.

    9. Re:I don't care what they call it. by goldfndr · · Score: 1
      --
      Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
  46. Intel inside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet these new elements will require you throw away your entire old periodic table and get a new power supply. Slot 1 will last forever. Yeah, right.

  47. wierd al reference? by Fishstick · · Score: 1

    at first the slasdot title puzzled me, then I remembered It's All About The Pentiums by Al Yankovic?

    a parody of "It's All About The Benjamins" by Puff Daddy


    It's all about the Pentiums, baby
    Uhh, uh-huh, yeah
    Uhh, uh-huh, yeah
    It's all about the Pentiums, baby
    It's all about the Pentiums, baby
    It's all about the Pentiums! (It's all about the Pentiums, baby)
    It's all about the Pentiums! (It's all about the Pentiums, baby)
    Yeah ...

    Now, what y'all wanna do?
    Wanna be hackers? Code crackers? Slackers
    Wastin' time with all the chatroom yakkers?
    9 to 5, chillin' at Hewlett Packard?

    Uh, uh, loggin' in now
    Wanna run wit my crew, hah?
    Rule cyberspace and crunch numbers like I do?
    They call me the king of the spreadsheets
    Got 'em printed out on my bedsheets
    My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
    But it was obsolete before I opened the box
    You say you've had your desktop for over a week?
    Throw that junk away, man, it's an antique
    Your laptop is a month old? Well that's great
    If you could use a nice, heavy paperweight
    My digital media is write-protected
    Every file inspected, no viruses detected
    I beta tested every operating system
    Gave props to some, and others? I dissed 'em
    While your computer's crashin', mine's multitaskin'
    It does all my work without me even askin'
    Got a flat-screen monitor forty inches wide wide
    I believe that your says "Etch-A-Sketch" on the side
    In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user
    You've got your own newsgroup, "alt.total-loser"
    Your motherboard melts when you try to send a fax
    Where'd you get your CPU, in a box of Cracker Jacks?
    Play me online? Well, you know that I'll beat you
    If I ever meet you I'll control-alt-delete you
    What? What? What? What? What?


    Wow, my post had too few characters per line to be accepted by /. (currently 33.6) - I have two choices: abandon my post (which I probably just should have) or add as much text on one 'line' as needed to bring my average up to some magical number that makes it acceptable. Well, I chose to drop a few lines of the lyrics and type in a paragraph here to make it balance out. Mod me down if you must. ;-)

    --

    There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
    Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

  48. Not the first doughnut element by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 2, Informative

    There are many other nuclei that can take the shape of a torous ( doughnut shaped). I accordance witht he uncertianty principle you can only predict a probobility of the shape, jsut like electron orbitals.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    1. Re:Not the first doughnut element by quetzalc0atl · · Score: 1

      not that i dont believe you, but could you give an example of one?

    2. Re:Not the first doughnut element by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Informative

      Everyone seems surprised that nuclei are not always spheres. Lopsidedness is common in nuclei. O-16, for example, has a complete set of filled proton and neutron shells (making it the nuclear equivalent of a noble gas like the helium nucleus). If you add another neutron to make O-17, the neutron fills the first available orbital (an s-orbital) in the next, empty shell. This means it will tend to zig zag back and forth in a little straight line through the center of the nucleus. Since the other particles are always attracted to it and moving toward wherever it is, the rest of the nucleus gets distended from a round sphere and stretched in the direction of the neutron's motion. O-18 is even more football-shaped because there are two neutrons in that s-orbital now. Of course, in the case of s-orbitals there is little angular momentum to use as a reference, so the axis is indeterminate and it doesn't make any sense to say the football is "pointing" in any given direction.
      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.

    3. Re:Not the first doughnut element by tornado2258 · · Score: 1

      Are you sure about all that?
      I haven't done much in chemistry but some of the terminology you were using (orbitals) sounds a lot like you are talking about electrons rather than the nucleus. I am trying to figure out how you could have orbitals in the nucleus but there is nothing for the nucleus to orbit. Electrons orbit the nucleus in shells that fill up in the manner you described but not in isotpes but rather in ions (or different elements).
      Was this intended as a joke by somebody who knows what they are talking about and the mods thought you were informative?
      Has somebody been lying to you about how chemistry works? Or have lecturers been lying to me about how this works?
      You've gone and confused me now.

    4. Re:Not the first doughnut element by tornado2258 · · Score: 1
      Sorry I read that again and have now come to the conclusion that you might be right. Actually you probably are right.

      If I wasn't on /. I would now be really embarassed for posting before actually thinking about what I was posting about.

    5. Re:Not the first doughnut element by ralphclark · · Score: 1

      How the hell was this determined? Particularly the wobbly Uranium nucleus. Is it just a theory based on mathematical predictions, or is it actually based on direct observations like X-ray, neutron or electron diffraction studies?

    6. Re:Not the first doughnut element by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh dear you're "physochemistry" is a bit front to back...

      I confess I have no idea what shape the average nucleus is - not that much of a physicist but neutrons in orbitals - what are these orbitals orbiting precisely??

      Oxygen has 8 protons, (for the most part) 8 neutrons and (in the stable state) 8 electrons - the electrons are arranged so that there are two on the internal 1s orbital then two in the 2s and four more in the 2p orbital - if this was filled it would have 6 and would then be an O(2- superscript) ion... the bit about orbit shapes would seem to refer to d and f orbitals but well I got a bit lost in the bs science.

      Basically MillionthMonkey needs a bit more time at the typewriter before he can do elementary physics or chemistry...

    7. Re:Not the first doughnut element by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be embarressed (sp?) for Millionth Monkey is def. not right.

    8. Re:Not the first doughnut element by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2, Informative

      I confess I have no idea what shape the average nucleus is - not that much of a physicist but neutrons in orbitals - what are these orbitals orbiting precisely??

      I refer you to the shell model of the nucleus. 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 - the electrons are arranged so that there are two on the internal 1s orbital then two in the 2s and four more in the 2p orbital - if this was filled it would have 6 and would then be an O(2- superscript) ion... the bit about orbit shapes would seem to refer to d and f orbitals but well I got a bit lost in the bs science.

      Look, these are the nuclear magic numbers: 2,8,20,28,50,82,126. 2 is helium. 8 is oxygen. There is no point in arguing about it.

    9. Re:Not the first doughnut element by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How the hell was this determined? Particularly the wobbly Uranium nucleus. Is it just a theory based on mathematical predictions, or is it actually based on direct observations like X-ray, neutron or electron diffraction studies?

      Yes.

      A number of experimental tools are available for nuclear shape determination:
      -The electric quadrupole moment
      -Neutron scattering experiments
      -Giant dipole resonance
      -Momentum distributions of collision fragments

      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.

  49. Re:Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please keep your lips inside the vehicle at all times.

  50. You're not the only one by shayne321 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I misread it as unimportium, which seems to fit for these type of elements.

    --
    Today I didn't even have to use my AK; I got to say it was a good day -- Icecube
  51. Jumbonium by OppressiveGiant · · Score: 1

    That's all fine and well,butThe higher elements seem to be pretty worthless. Let me know when they discover jumbonium.

    --
    i could not think of anything clever.
  52. The Answer is 126. by leoaugust · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Rather than being round, nuclei in that region and beyond could contain bubbles and have strange doughnut-like shapes, Dr. Nazarewicz said.
    One of the theories is that our universe is shaped like a doughnut. Universe as Doughnut: New Data, New Debate So, the highest and the deepest reaches are similar in our conception.
    The discoveries fill a gap at the furthest edge of the periodic table and hint strongly at a weird landscape of undiscovered elements beyond.
    I recollect that Star trek 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."
    Those numbers should help map out what Dr. Nazarewicz prefers to call generically a "region of stability" among the superheavies. (Because, he says, it could resemble a peninsula more than an island.) Various theories have suggested that the next magic proton number is 114, 120 or 126, he said. There is general agreement that the next magic neutron number is 184, he said.
    According to Douglas Adam, the answer is 42. I would say the other possible answers are 84, 126, 168, & 210. So, the correct answer is 126.

    Q.E.D

    --
    To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies ...
    1. Re:The Answer is 126. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the original ST used "where no man has gone before". Not the politically correct "one".

  53. Purpose by PhotoGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Other than bragging rights, does the discovery of these newer elements (most of which only exist for a tiny moment in time) serve any real purpose? Could someone explain how this type of research has produced real benefit for science?

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    1. Re:Purpose by FredGray · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Heavy elements provide additional data points that let us test our understanding of nuclear structure and the interactions that hold the protons and neutrons together. The universe is basically powered by nuclear processes, so what we learn about nuclear structure is then related to astrophysics and cosmology.

      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.

    2. Re:Purpose by flynns · · Score: 1

      So. Neutron star. Clumps of heavy matter. Collections.

      One might even say...

      ...a Beowulf cluster of UnunPentium? :D

      ::ducks the karma reaper::

      --
      'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
  54. The Big deal with Element 115... by NuWinter · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Assuming it was found, is that based on our understanding of the Periodic Table of Elements, those elements in the same Group or column have similar properties.

    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.

    1. Re:The Big deal with Element 115... by forkboy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except that element 115 probably measurably existed for about a nanosecond, giving it limited practical use.

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
    2. Re:The Big deal with Element 115... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Retard. Elements that high aren't found, they have to be created. Sheesh, based on your theory, there'd only be a dozen or so types of elements.

    3. Re:The Big deal with Element 115... by jeblucas · · Score: 1
      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.
      Actually, for the reasons you think it would be a better diagmagnetic material it would not be a better diamagnetic material. You are working in a Periodic-Table-Is-Periodic paradigm, where diamagnetism increases as you move through the group. However, for these superheavy elements, the innermost electrons are experiencing such an intense electromagnetic field from the enormous pile of protons that they move at relativistic speeds. Their orbitals experience a Lorentz contraction and better shield the nucleus for the outermost d-electrons--the source of the diamagnetic effects. Because of the shielding, these orbitals are much larger than one would think for a nucleus of that size, and hence, the chemical and physico-chemical properties are more like a lighter element of the group, antimony (Sb).
      --
      blarg.
    4. Re:The Big deal with Element 115... by stonecypher · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it lasted for almost a second. Remember, half-lives go back up as you reach predicted islands of stability, one of which happens to be at p=126.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
  55. Unintel Inside? by `Sean · · Score: 2, Funny

    I was going to attempt a witty remark about Unintel Inside, but couldn't pull it off...

  56. Conspiracy website already reported this years ago by Hackie_Chan · · Score: 2, Informative

    Interesting? I remember reading about Ununpentium years ago right here. How can this be news?

    --

    What's so bad about being lazy? What if there was a war and nobody showed up?
  57. They don't all have to end in 'ium' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just look at hydrogen, oxygen, boron, carbon, flourine, argon, xenon, radon, chlorine, bromine, silicon, nitrogen, iodine etc, etc,.

    1. Re:They don't all have to end in 'ium' by addaon · · Score: 1

      aluminium...

      --

      I've had this sig for three days.
    2. Re:They don't all have to end in 'ium' by pclminion · · Score: 3, Informative
      They still fit a pattern.

      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.

  58. The title is a pun by Xel'Naga · · Score: 1
    "It's All About The Pentiums" - By Weird Al
    On the album "Running with Scissors".

    It's all about the pentiums, baby!

    1. Re:The title is a pun by Xel'Naga · · Score: 1
      I was too late!

      User "Fishstick" beat me to it! He must be using something faster than my 486. Mod him up, not me.

  59. Elements that don't divide by Imperator · · Score: 1

    So that means they might actually find this element in Iraq. Maybe they bought it from Niger?

    --

    Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
  60. Lazar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    So I guess that sort of disproves that Lazar guy's story about alien craft at Area 51, as he says they use the stable element 115 as fuel, and it has now turned out to be an unstable element.

    From this site:
    The copper-orange colored fuel pellet aliens use is about the size of a fifty- cent piece, and it weighs about 223 grams. Supporting the claim that ununpentium is a stable element, Lazar notes, ". . . in that heavy ion research facility in [Darmstadt] Germany, they just discovered that in their dabbling in transmuting elements, and as we got higher up on the periodic chart their half lives got shorter and shorter. Well, for the first time they came up with element 109, I think, and the half life became longer, and they are seriously considering that this may be a trend and that it may lead up to a stable element. And they theorize that it would be in the 115 area. And, in fact, this is true, and this is what this element is; it is essentially stable."
  61. Plutionium is not the deadliest substance. by Firethorn · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nope, sorry. Cyanide is 5 times more poisonous than plutonium. Botulism is over a thousand times more deadly.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Plutionium is not the deadliest substance. by HFXPro · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Botulism is over a thousand times more deadly.


      And we have people injecting that stuff into their bodies for purely cosmetic reasons. That way they may look like what the media portrays as pretty. To top it off these people will then spend hundreds for stuff to "detox" their bodies right after. Yet you ask them about nuclear power and they will say something about how dangerous it is.

      Is it just me or is the world going mad?

      --
      Reserved Word.
    2. Re:Plutionium is not the deadliest substance. by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      Well, there's plutonium, and there's depleted plutonium. There's botulism, then there's 'purified strains' of botulinum toxins which create Botox. In high doses it can be deadly since it's a toxin after all, but in small doses it can knock ten years or more off your face.

      Not like I would ever do something as asinine as youth-faking facial surgery, but I'm a married man and as we all know, men gain distinction while women age. It's unfortunate but that's the western perception of aging for the sexes.

    3. Re:Plutionium is not the deadliest substance. by Beardydog · · Score: 1

      Women gain distinction too.

      The problem, if it could be called that, is that women want men of distinction, and men want hot women.

    4. Re:Plutionium is not the deadliest substance. by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1

      Lead is even deadlier when approaching your skull at 3 times the speed of sound.

      --

      Eat at Joe's.

    5. Re:Plutionium is not the deadliest substance. by Sgt+York · · Score: 1
      The mechanism by which Botox works is precisely the same mechanism by which botulinum poisoning works. In both scenarios, the "effect" is acheived through flaccid paralysis of muscles by inactivation of nerves. Botulinum binds to and prevents secretion of certain synaptic vesicles, such as those containing acetylcholine.

      The 'purified strain' they tout about is 'purified' in that is makes a lot of the toxin, so it's easy to purify. The reason people don't get killed by Botox injections is not that it's a modified version of the toxin, but that they give a low dose. As a result, the area of effect is smaller, but the effect is identical, all the way down to the molecular level.

      --

      There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.

  62. I'm still hoping for .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Upsidaisyum.

  63. Unobtainium by panurge · · Score: 4, Funny
    Nice one in the header. For those who don't know, unobtainium was the superdense metal needed to make the balance weights for the crankshafts of single cylinder motorcycle engines with unfeasibly small flywheels. Then the Japanese came along and reinvented balance shafts.

    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.

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
    1. Re:Unobtainium by B.D.Mills · · Score: 1

      Separating quarks and gluons is somewhat tricky. Instead, I recommend constructing superheavy elements using very small tweezers.

      --

      The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
  64. When are we going to get... by elitebrad · · Score: 0

    Dilithium? We need it for warp drives.

  65. clearly... by rebelcool · · Score: 1

    to provide fodder for ignorant slashdotters to question the value of research by people who have far more knowledge about a topic than they do.

    --

    -

  66. I already have an unpentium by spectasaurus · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's called an Athlon.

  67. Re:The 115th Element = Elerium by samsmithnz · · Score: 1

    It should be called Elerium... you XCom players will know what I'm talking about...

  68. now wait a minute by Cappy+Red · · Score: 1

    His tone is a bit harsh, but vlad_petric raises a fair question: "what do they think they might find, or what ability might they gain?" If the answer is, "they don't know -- they're researching it because it was there," then that's fine... but those of us only peripherally aware of this kind of research wouldn't know that without asking.

    And really, compared to some of the people in the threads on space travel, his tone was extremely tame.

    *honk*

    --
    This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
    1. Re:now wait a minute by danila · · Score: 1

      His tone notwithstanding, h? doesn't ask a fair question. You did, but he claimed that the money should be spent on "real" applications and he implied that the scientists do it just to have a publication. These accusations have no basis in reality.

      His "what's the point" was simply a rhetorical question, intended to mislead indulgent people like you.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    2. Re:now wait a minute by Cappy+Red · · Score: 1

      granted... but his post was the first I saw in the thread that came close to asking about the kinds of aims the researchers currently have. If there had been another post asking that in a better way, this one wouldn't have mattered.(and the thread was getting to the point where starting a new top-level comment would get lost)

      *honk*

      --
      This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
  69. Descrption... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, the article says they were able to maintain them for atleast some time, what kind of properties, did these elements emit? Anything interesting? Also, how can they stabelize such an element, so it does not decay to 113?

  70. Re:The 115th Element = Elerium by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

    my thoughts exactly...so does this mean the next episode of the Gulf War will feature Blaster Bombs? :-)

    --

    People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  71. bubbles? by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 1

    Bubbles in the structure? Maybe it'll form a geodesic? Then we can have Buckminsterfullerium!

  72. new subatomic particles by infinite9 · · Score: 1

    About a year ago, my daughter was studying the bohr model of the atom. I was helping her with her homework. The question was, name the subatomic particle that orbits the nucleus. I said, "Well, atoms have protons, neutrons, and what?" She thought for a minute, then replied, "Croutons?"

    --
    Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    1. Re:new subatomic particles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn that's cute.

  73. Really Strange Name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually it's "One-One-Fifth". (as in "the fifth", not in "one fifth")

    Un is One in Latin and Pente is Five in Greek. (In Latin, Five is Quinque).

    So it's more like in Latinogreek.

  74. Re:Sad news... Stephen King, author, dead at 56 :( by xtrucial · · Score: 0, Troll

    I just read this on CNN.com. Singer/actress Jennifer Lopez has died in a car crash on her way to her music studio. More details as they come in.

  75. Unpentium? by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    Unpentium? So, so, like this?

  76. Golf War Part 3.141592.... by Macguyvok · · Score: 1

    Heh... I've been waiting for the Golf War Series to get canceled... after all, I'm tired of them bringing back that Damned Bush Character ;)

    --
    --Mac "Nine point eight meters per second squared: The Best Damn Windows Accelerator, Ever."
  77. X-com: Elerium 115 by vaccum+pony · · Score: 0

    In the great game, "X-Com: Enemy Unknown," Element 115 (Elerium) was what the aliens used as a power source. I wasted soooo much time with tha game.

  78. X-Com by payndz · · Score: 1
    Wasn't element 115 also the power source for the aliens in the X-Com games?

    I remember reading about Lazar (for a while there was a joke that when 115 was discovered, it should be called 'lazarium') a few years back, when X Files mania was at its peak. The thing that convinced me he was full of shit was... well, the fact that he hadn't suffered a lethal 'accident' for exposing the guv'mint's biggest secret!

    --
    You must think in Russian.
    1. Re:X-Com by Rorschach1 · · Score: 1

      Yep, Elerium-115. Exactly what I thought when I read that comment. Damn annoying, always having to raid Sectoid battleships to get the stuff, too.

    2. Re:X-Com by sadomikeyism · · Score: 1
      Actually, Lazar got arrested by the feds for setting up a computer system for a Nevada brothel. He says it was an illegal bust intended to discredit him without killing him. Claimed that he got too much public exposure and was too young to suffer from a mysterious death or 'heart attack', so a prostitution/pimping bust did the job.

      --
      "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves
  79. Countdown to Intel Trademark Infringement Lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So who wants to place bets on how long it is before Intel files a Trademark Infringement suit?

  80. When's the multiprocessor version? (nt) by cmacb · · Score: 1

    (no text) Really!

  81. Re:Conspiracy website already reported this years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can this be news?

    You must be new to Slashdot.

  82. Things have gotten so bad that ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    when I saw that headline, I first thought the story was going to be about Intel suing for trademark infringement over the name "Ununpentium".

    Sadly, it would not have surprised me at all if I had been right.

  83. Which episode had the beer-can nuke blast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Bart puts one of Homer's beers in the paint shaker at the hardware store down the street. As Homer pops the can open, Bart steps into the doorway to watch. As the can explodes, the flash of light reveals Bart's skeleton.

    Cut to an outside view of a mushroom-cloud-shaped fountain of beer, and Chief Wiggum on the radio exclaiming, "Bring pretzels!!!".

    Anyone remember what episode that was in?

    1. Re:Which episode had the beer-can nuke blast? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      It was Bart's response to an April Fools day joke. I think the main plot was just April Fools pranks.

      -B

    2. Re:Which episode had the beer-can nuke blast? by UserGoogol · · Score: 1
      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
  84. Wrong Name by DDumitru · · Score: 2, Funny

    I thought it was supposed to be called:

    Unobtainium

    or

    Reallyexpensium

  85. IBM Research Labs by smz420 · · Score: 1

    If scientists at IBM Research had come up with this, would they have called it UnunPowerPC?

  86. Yup... by HiggsBison · · Score: 1
    > ununitanium

    I thought we had this but for a long while, it was known as Unobtainium?

    Yup, still looking for Unobtainium and Ultronium on the chart.

    Damn! They was just here somewhere!

    --
    My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
  87. Been done before, UFO fuel by Space_Soldier · · Score: 0

    Didn't Bob Lazar said in his interview a decade ago that they are using element 115 at Area 51 to power UFOs, and that they have large quantities of it from the ETs?

    1. Re:Been done before, UFO fuel by boy_afraid · · Score: 1

      Yeah. They shape the fuel into some sort of donut shape one a saucer cup. I saw a diagram on how they assembled the fuel (element 115) in with the ufo ship to make it bend gravity.

      I'm sure they're going to talk about with Art Bell tonight on "Coast to Coast - AM" talk radio show.

  88. UnUnAthlonium the next heavy element by tr0llb4rt0 · · Score: 1

    Faster cheaper and hotter than UnUnPentium.

    --
    Worst .sig ever!
  89. mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mod parent up!

  90. ununpentium by ShadowRage · · Score: 1

    wouldnt that make it just pentium?

    looks like intel strikes again..

  91. I do remember that it was a 'flashback' episode by ClassicG · · Score: 1

    The explosion put Homer in a coma, and the rest of the episode was everyone talking around him in his hospital bed, reminiscing, showing clips of earlier episodes.

    --
    I game, therefore I am...
  92. Obligatory IP joke by t0ny · · Score: 4, Funny
    ununpentium

    Intel has their lawyers on standby, waiting to file a trademark infringement suit.

    --

    Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

    1. Re:Obligatory IP joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ununpentium ......hmm

      So "Un" pentium ........ must be severely underclocked!

  93. BEWARE THE COPPER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is round like a circle and makes you a dumby!! The learning triangle is the ultimate truth!!11!one And beware the caves too!

    1. Re:BEWARE THE COPPER by quantum+bit · · Score: 1

      lol! funniest thing I've read all week. The time cube is pretty hilarious on its own, but this is great!

  94. Copyright by dotwaffle · · Score: 1

    Word on the street is that Intel invented the Pentium brand as you can't copyright/trademark a number, and the logical succesor to the 486 is the 586 - hence PENT-ium. Well, isn't that trademarkable? Otherwise, surely the Nuclear research facilities at CERN etc would have a valid preexistence case? Errr... I'm inventing the new Unium chip... With new salsa dip...

  95. What's the half-life? by SharpFang · · Score: 2, Informative

    110 is 270 microseconds.
    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.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    1. Re:What's the half-life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, in subatomic time, even nanoseconds are an aeon. Although you also have to consider relativistic effects; since these things are created by particles whizzing around at near the speed of light, they experience time dilation and so their half lifes are extended. They can compensate for all that in their calculations, though, so I don't know how to interpret the times you cite.

  96. Check this out by qrash · · Score: 0

    http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/me dia/nearingzero/U.gif

    --
    you may find the Higgs in this signature.
  97. Yeah but by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    The real advance will be with the new universe shaped donuts...

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  98. At least it's not mikerowesoftium by conan776 · · Score: 1

    What, are all the good names taken anyway?

    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick
  99. YA-ununwintel joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, no wonder ununpentium is unstable. These guys should stop using Windows and go with linux. The next thing you know, ununpentium is full security holes, or should I say security bubbles.

  100. Thanks for the reply by Cappy+Red · · Score: 1

    (beats a troll mod :)

    I really don't know much about this field, so I didn't know that the research was at more of a fundamental stage than a practical one.(and I have no problem with that, nor their contiuation)

    Again, thanks for the response.

    *honk*

    --
    This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
  101. 5th Element by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And thanks to "The Fifth Element", the skycar scenes in Star Wars "Attack of the Clones" had a "Been there, done that" aspect.

  102. No big suprise... by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

    People like doughnuts.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  103. What about ice-9? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably need a lot less energy than this baby to it get up & running!

  104. good time to point out... by Polo · · Score: 1

    It's a good time to reference:

    The Table of Condiments (that Periodically Go Bad),

    which is arranged in order of lifetime.

  105. Naquadah? by Bloody+Peasant · · Score: 1

    Or maybe even Naquadria...

    Probably not, but it's a nice thought.

    --
    -- This .sig intentionally left meaningless.
  106. Space-Time Compression by JoshRoss · · Score: 1

    Great news!! According to Bob Lazar, Element 115 has a "Strong Nuclear Force" to generate the gravity field for "Space-Time Compression." http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Element_115.htm

    1. Re:Space-Time Compression by JoshRoss · · Score: 1
  107. What is it worth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I created some ununpentium at home hoping it is worth more than gold. Unfortunatelly nobody bought it at ebay. What is 1kg of this matter worth?

  108. and inefficient to boot by Rhinobird · · Score: 1

    and inefficient to boot.

    everybody oohs and aahs at the lifters, but nobody seems to notice the 400 pound power supply needed to lift aluminum foil and balsa wood. a bladed fan and an electric motor can also fly, but uses way less power and can carry more.

    --
    If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
  109. Dosen't Last long anyway. by NeDo+CrAm · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The problem with practical use of these super-heavy elements is they only exist for a couple of seconds, at best, under ideal labratory conditions.

  110. The problem is... by NeDo+CrAm · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The problem is these super-heavy synthetic elements don't last very long ( a couple of seconds at best ). So they would not be practical for application other than that of the scientific community.

  111. How about Gollopium? by 4ntifa · · Score: 1

    In honor of the creators of X-Com, 115 should be called Gollopium.

    --
    -=- 4ntifa -=-
  112. Deuterium is stable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Deuterium is a stable isotope of hydrogen. Tritium is the only unstable, radioactive isotope. It's used in things like watches, for that nice tritium glow (the radiation produced isn't that penetrating, so keeping the tiny quantity of tritium gas in a glass tube is enough to minimize the risk... compare that to radium watch dials!).

    Since deuterium isn't radioactive, it can't be used as a radiological tracer. Its use in nuclear reactors is because deuterium-laced "heavy" water (D20) is better at acting as a moderator for nuclear reactions. Normally, the neutrons produced in a reactor are moving too fast to cause a chain reaction. When they collide with light water, the hydrogen atoms absorb the neutrons and turn into deuterium. The deuterium atoms, however, simply slow down the neutrons without absorbing them, thus improving the efficiency of the chain reaction. That's why heavy water is useful for nuclear reactors.

    Light water reactors are more common today, just because light water is slightly easier to get (heavy water is quite common in the oceans, but requires processing to separate the relevant isotopes), but heavy water reactors were important early on in the development of nuclear power, and they still have their uses today.

  113. in other news ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in other news scienticts have
    found out that francium is a
    super conductor at room temperatur...

    to bad it's not stable.

    but i bet yah it's gona make that time-maschine
    1000x more accurate.

  114. deep freeze? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i was just wondering if dousing the
    "crash chamber" (where the nuclei hit
    each other) in liquid hydrogen
    at the moment of creation would
    make these super-heavy atoms live a bit
    longer maybe?

  115. Names by StormReaver · · Score: 1

    "The temporary names are ununtrium and ununpentium [emphasis added] until the experiment has been duplicated and verified in another lab."

    Or until Intel sues for using the name "pentium" in any form of communication without paying a fine to Intel.

  116. Milla Jovovich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Milla Jovovich, the actress who plays "his girlfriend who wears nothing" is on the net.

    Google Milla Jovovich. With one hand, if you like.

  117. ...Element Movie by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1
    Mentioning that movie reminds me of the robo-flesh-repairer that reconstructed her out of a few living cells from her glove.

    If such a gizmo existed that could reconstruct you with all your memories intact, then I bet there would be extreme sports types who would for instance, skydive they wouldn't use parachutes because 'those are for wusses'. Real world/Road rules challenge could have immolation racing, where the contestants douse themselves with gasoline, and try to run as far as they can before they drop.

    And of course, Gladiatore Violencia for dollars!

    --

    Eat at Joe's.

  118. Element 225 by KingTank · · Score: 1

    "dudupentium" teehee

  119. Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom by irontiki · · Score: 1

    Or people get a cold and go to the doctor who trivially replaces you with a clone so they can skip the feverish bedrest? Or doctors develve into 1-hour-photolab technicians since anything that is wrong with you can be solved with a patched clone and a brain scan. Those are far from the only interesting hints of future science covered but Cory Doctorow has been there and done that in his downloadable book, "Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom." It's some of the best SF I've read in years, check er out...

    1. Re:Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom by irontiki · · Score: 1

      One more time, with a link this time.

  120. One more problem with your assertions by Tired_Blood · · Score: 1

    I recall Technetium being radioactive, and therefore unstable.

    The link also mentions:
    ...All the isotopes of technetium are radioactive. It is one of two elements with Z < 83 that have no stable isotopes; the other element is promethium (Z = 61).

    --
    This is not my sig.
  121. Slashdot as NYT partner... by KnarfO · · Score: 1

    ...it is

    --


    "Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams
    1. Re:Slashdot as NYT partner... by knarph · · Score: 1

      Yeah well if you wanna look at it that way, your mom's box is a NYT partner too.

      Yep. Yer mom's box.

      --
      -- This post contains %100 recycled electrons Remove spam and eggs to send some mail.
  122. Curium Bomb? by RobertB-DC · · Score: 1

    There's also an interactive one, color-coded for lifetimes, here. The half-life of these elements decreases from millenia to microseconds.

    Cool link! As usual, since I'm not a physicist, the chart brings up more fun questions than it answers. Here's a question that I hope doesn't get me in trouble with Mr. Ashcroft & co!

    According to the page I linked above, Uranium and Plutonium, the most well-known nu-cu-lar bomb materials, have isotopes with half-lives > 100,000 years. That explains how they can be stable enough to be worked into a sub-critical mass that can be compressed explosively into a critical mass.

    But look up a couple of steps. Curium, element 96, has a couple of of isotopes with similar longevity. We know that after WWII, scientists studied the heck out of the trans-uranium elements... I wonder if anyone ever attempted to use Curium as a fissile material? Someone had to have the crazy idea to try Plutonium, so you have to figure someone tried it.

    I did a quick Google, and didn't find much. But this article is pretty cool -- it turns out that Curium is patented! Glenn Seaborg (immortialized with his own element, #106 Seaborgium) patented it along with Americium -- the radioactive element in your home smoke detector. Does that mean that nobody can use Curium in their bombs without paying royalties to his estate?

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    1. Re:Curium Bomb? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might try checking some of the nuclear weaponry websites... I can't remember if I read it on FAS's, I think it was there, but they had a section on 'alternate' fissile materials.

  123. "Elements" by jafuser · · Score: 1

    Isn't the term 'elements' really a misnomer now that we've quite clearly realized that all 'elements' are really composed of subelements themselves (leptons, baryons, etc)?

    --
    Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
  124. ooh, ooh, animation available! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Theres a rather cool animation of atoms whizzing around the cyclotron at their web site. Naughty submitter forgot it. Bad submitter, go sit in the corner!

    The best bit: (Please wait a moment while the 18 MB movie loads.)

    Gee, you think :)
  125. if it's ununpentium... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...then wouldn't it just be pentium? (you know, to be grammarically correct and all.)

  126. Re:Bubbles and Doughnuts = evidence of Strings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sha na na na, sha na na na na,
    Sha na na na, sha na na na na,
    Sha na na na, sha na na na na,
    Sha na na na, sha na na na na,
    Aw, Yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip
    Mum mum mum mum mum mum
    Get a job
    Sha na na na, sha na na na na
    Every morning about this time
    she get me out of my bed
    a-crying get a job.
    After breakfast, everyday,
    she throws the want ads right my way
    And never fails to say,
    Get a job
    Sha na na na, sha na na na na
    Sha na na na, sha na na na na,
    Sha na na na, sha na na na na,
    Sha na na na, sha na na na na,
    Yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip
    Mum mum mum mum mum mum
    Get a job
    Sha na na na, sha na na na na
    And when I get the paper
    I read it through and through
    And my girl never fails to say
    If there is any work for me,
    And when I go back to the house
    I hear the woman's mouth
    Preaching and a crying,
    Tell me that I'm lying 'bout a job
    That I never could find.
    Sha na na na, sha na na na na,
    Sha na na na, sha na na na na,
    Sha na na na, sha na na na na,
    Sha na na na, sha na na na na,
    Yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip
    Mum mum mum mum mum mum
    Get a job
    Sha na na na, sha na na na na