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'."
mmmmmm....mini-doughnuts..
-B
Mmmmm... Forbidden ununpentium....
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
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.
...but when are we going to have the ununceleron, ununathlon, ununopteron & ununitanium?
-- Power corrupts, but PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
Cuz if it is
Laboratory tests prove the new element can't divide or multiply.
For the tin-foil hat impaired, here is a de-register-it-ized link: The Story
Unless then meant that Macs are the UnPentium. In which case the above still holds. :)
You are not the customer.
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.
t 115.htm l
Document about ununpentium published in 1999:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/elemen
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
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.
Virgil:All right, then. For half a million dollars, which of the following is not a subatomic particle? ... well, I was born in Indiana, so that ain't it. And, uh, hmmm ... I'd better call my lifeline.
...
Moe:Oy.
Virgil:
A) Proton
B) Neutron
C) Bonbon, or
D) Electron
Moe:Oh, boy. All right, let's see here, uh
Homer:Well, it all starts when a nulicule comes out of its nest.
Lisa:[taking the phone] The answer is "bonbon!"
Moe:Uh, I'm going to say, "bonbon."
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
The ununpentium: Element number 114.9999659899937582.
Tom Geller
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.
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... :)
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
(e6003 - chemist and part-time geek).
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.
I thought the scientists had lost count and just called it umpteenium.
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).
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.
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!
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.
One would expect the sciences to continue to advance quickly. After all, science progresses via an open source model.
:-) Neither does proprietary development of software, for the same reasons!
Proprietary development of new physics doesn't advance very rapidly.
If Microsoft "owned" 95% of physics, we'd still be stuck on Newtonian mechanics, because only a small handful of physicists would be allowed to read physics books...and they wouldn't be the really smart physicists either.
I hope that after I die the one word people use to describe me is "resurrected."
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.
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.
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.
It's called an Athlon.
Cheaper anti-matter? Where are you buying yours from that it's so expensive? I get mine wholesale at rockbottom prices. Shop around.
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.
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.
1000000 BC: Ug, rock rock *BAM* *BAM* ug!
2004 AD: Ug, nucleon nucleon *BAM* *BAM* ug!
siggy played guitar
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.
"To allow us to continue colliding atomic nuclei at high speeds, please click the PayPal link below."
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.
Intel has their lawyers on standby, waiting to file a trademark infringement suit.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
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
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.