Slashdot Mirror


Japan Claims Heaviest-Ever Element

mOoZik writes "According to People's Daily Online, Japanese scientists claim to have created a new element, whose atomic number is 113, by bombarding a Bismuth atom target with 2.5 trillion zinc atoms per second for 80 days. The claim, as that of Russian and American scientists that claimed to have created elements 113 and 115 in February, remains to be officially confirmed."

59 comments

  1. Ummm. by cheeseSource · · Score: 0

    What will the ultimate goal of this research be? Aside from the proverbial, we've got the heaviest element bragging rights? This would be in comparision to IBM's Blue Gene vs. the Earth Sim results which seem more significant...

    --
    (Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
    1. Re:Ummm. by crow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All the really heavy elements created so far have been highly unstable. However, I seem to recall a theory that suggested that some heavier elements may be more stable; perhaps able to survive long enough to be useful.

      The real goal, though is to expand our understanding of physics. We're pushing the edge of our capabilities, and that's where we have the most to learn. Do the new elements behave exactly as predicted, or do we need a better model? Can the techniques used to produce these atoms be applied to other situations?

    2. Re:Ummm. by Cecil · · Score: 2

      Hey, you never know. One of the heavier elements might turn out to be a room temperature semiconducting superconductor, which will naturally be very useful in building a cold fusion perpetual motion machine.

      Seriously though, anything's possible. I have no problem with research for the sake of research.

    3. Re:Ummm. by Scorillo47 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Maybe some of them are still surprisingly stable. But you might never know since these atoms are created in extreme conditions (usually bombarding atoms of element X with atoms of element Y). This would cause quick destruction of the freshly creaed elements.

      For example, a Uranium 238 is pretty stable (half-life in order of millions of years) but when a slow neutron hits it then it is pretty much gone.

      --
      Don't try to use the force. Do or do not, there is no try.
    4. Re:Ummm. by aminorex · · Score: 1
      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    5. Re:Ummm. by oku · · Score: 1

      For the record, Uranium 238 has a half live of over 4*10^9 years.

    6. Re:Ummm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What will the ultimate goal of this research be?"

      Naquita!

    7. Re:Ummm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      semiconducting superconductor

      Is that like a jumbo shrimp?

  2. I hope I hope I hope by Schezar · · Score: 1, Funny

    I hope they call 155 Elerium. That would make my day in ways that are both profound and creepily geeky.

    I'm serious. We should petition whoever it is we petition for things like that.

    (I'll also note at this time that, if they actually do name it Elerium, I will make it my life's mission to start a corporation called X-Com and laugh maniacally as my alien-possessed squaddies panic and throw fusion bombs into the transport just as it lands...) /best game evar

    --
    GeekNights!
    Late Night Radio for Geeks!
    1. Re:I hope I hope I hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just what in the hell are you going on about, son?

    2. Re:I hope I hope I hope by Lazyhound · · Score: 2, Informative
      Just what in the hell are you going on about, son?
      In the X-Com series, Elerium-115 is used as fuel for spacecraft engines, fusion bombs, etc.
    3. Re:I hope I hope I hope by JabberWokky · · Score: 0
      Elerium is 115, not 155, but you can't have an element equal to or above 117. Or is it 147? Anybody remember or have a reference handy?

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    4. Re:I hope I hope I hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, from what little I am aware of, elements stated in such a manner (element-N) have a mass of N, to indicate what isotope they are. Which would put Elerium's likely atomic number somewhere between 52 and 62.

      Yay fiction.

    5. Re:I hope I hope I hope by bradkittenbrink · · Score: 2, Informative

      you can't have an element equal to or above 117. Or is it 147? Anybody remember or have a reference handy?

      Not sure where you got that, but wikipedia seems to think that anything up to (and possibly beyond) 218 is theoretically possible. You may have been thinking of the fact that 118 is the last element that will fit on the periodic table without extending it. However, the periodic table is kind of irrelevant as far as what elements are theoretically possible since it describes only electron configurations and the limiting factor in the formation of new elements is nuclear configuration.

    6. Re:I hope I hope I hope by JabberWokky · · Score: 1, Interesting
      I first heard about it from Feynman who was, I think, the person who found the limit. It has to do with positions of the electrons or something to do with orbitals. Once there are a certain number of electrons, a value goes to zero or infinity.

      A bit of Googling doesn't bring it up...

      Ah! I remember - something about the electrons having to exceed c past a certain shell. Damned if I can remember the whole thing or the number. 117? 147? 217? Something like that. Turns out the number is one of the classic constants (a minor one) and pops up in interesting places.

      It's one of those facts that is interesting but not terribly useful unless that is your field of research.

      --
      Evan "Not a physicist. My SO is a quantum chemist, though"

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    7. Re:I hope I hope I hope by JabberWokky · · Score: 3, Informative
      Found a fairly clear explanation on this web page:

      For the reasons previously given, the limiting value, the equivalent of zero in each scalar dimension, is eight units of one-dimensional, or four units of two-dimensional, rotational displacement. In the notation used herein, the latter is a 4-4 magnetic combination. However, as indicated in Chapter 24, the destructive limit is not reached until the displacement in the electric dimension also arrives at the equivalent of the last magnetic unit. A rotational combination (atom) is therefore stable, at zero magnetic ionization, up to 4-4-31, or the equivalent 5-4-(1), which is element 117. One more step reaches the limit at which the rotational motion terminates.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    8. Re:I hope I hope I hope by Alsee · · Score: 1

      The text you quoted, the text you mot modded up for, looks like total bafflegab to me. Not only does it look like bafflegab, but it includes apparently absurd claims such as element 117 reaching some sort of limit where "rotational motion terminates". That simply does not make any sense at all under known physics. Ok, so we are taking about some pretty radical hitherto unknown physics.

      So lets take a look at your Reciprocal Systems link and the theory behind it. It contains pages and pages of rather dense dense and improbable text, and containing the typical crackpot hallmark of "explaining" how every scientits in the last hundred years, from Rutherford to Einstein to Hawking, has been bamboozled by some stupid mistake that (apparently) should have revealed itself in virtually every scientific experiment in the last hundred years.

      The proper response to such a text is to state "The first error is on page X line Y where it says [blah blah blah]", and glibly toss the rest of the paper in the trash heap. Sadly I am not a professsional physisist and can't necessarily cite the first error and prove it. I do however know enough physics to cite a blatant error, blatant enough to tag the author as a crackpot. His paper proposes a test to "prove" his theory:

      In the original [Rutherford] scattering experiment, charged helium atoms (alpha particles) were beamed at a gold foil; the resultant scattering was claimed to be due to Coulombic repulsion by charged nuclei. Now suppose that that non-charged helium atoms are beamed at a gold foil. The Reciprocal System of Theory predicts the same scattering in this case. The Rutherford theory predicts no scattering.

      Simple test, repeat the Rutherford scattering experiment with neutral helium, and if there is still scattering Rutherford is disproven, and the Reciprocal System is tenatively proven.

      However the claim that the Rutherford theory (and all of physics) predicts no scattering is balony. Unless I am mistaken, the Rutherford theory (and all of modern physics) predicts essentially the exact same scattering. The expected result is the result the author claims will invalidate all of known science and proove this Reciprocal System theory!

      Why does the Rutherford theory (and all of modern physics) peredict the exact same scattering for neutral helium? The scattering force is the electric repulsion when nuclei get extremely close, thousands of times closer than the distance from any electron to the nucleus. Due to the inverse square law, this thousands of times smaller distance causes a scattering force millions or billions of times larger than any forces involving electrons. Even if the helium electrons did somehow get involved in a signifigant force, the *most* that could happen is that those electrons would be immediately stripped off the helium atom and would simply fly off on their merry way, imparting no further force. The force on the nucleus of stipping the two electons is absolutely insignifigant here.

      Neutral helium atoms are expeced to scatter essentially identically as helium ions (alpha particles).

      Someone who makes such a glaring misstatement of ordinary physics has no credibility in making wild claims like "Atoms are not composed of electrons, protons, and neutrons", as the Reciprocal System website does.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    9. Re:I hope I hope I hope by JabberWokky · · Score: 1
      Whups - that comes from reading a single paragraph and not the entire site. I could blame Google, but Google is a tool; I misused it by not verifying the whole source and not passing it by my SO (while I am not a working scientist, she is).

      I *do* have a significantly better reference, but it is dead tree and possibly out of date. "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" contains information about it toward the end of the book. Having recently moved, most of my books are boxed up, or I would post an excerpt. If anybody has a copy and could reference it, I'd appreciate it, especially in light of my rather embarrassingly bad reference.

      If anybody is interested in getting info on this (potentally after this weekend when I unpack my books), feel free to email me at evan7632.net@timewarp.org with the subject Heaviest Element. I'll go ahead and mail you the information when I find - and *verify* - it.

      Above all else, I feel bad about having posted that information and thus propagated incorrect information on the web. Many apologies.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
  3. Island of Stability by Schezar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The ultimate goal is reaching a theoretical Island of Stability.

    This is a hypothesized region farther down on the peiodic table where extremely heavy elements become stable and long-lasting, albeit with interesting properties due to the large number of sub-elements of which they're comprised.

    --
    GeekNights!
    Late Night Radio for Geeks!
    1. Re:Island of Stability by crow · · Score: 5, Informative

      Interesting. For the non-physicists here, the wikipedia article on the Island of stability is more accessible.

      From that article:

      The term "particularly stable" is in comparison to the half-lives of slightly lighter or heavier elements; the half-lives of elements in the island of stability are still expected to be measured in fractions of a second, or perhaps measured in days, though some theoretical possibilities include much longer periods.

  4. Mass by vijaya_chandra · · Score: 4, Informative

    The element's atomic mass number is 278, meaning its nucleus has 113 protons and 165 neutrons, he added.

    For the lazy ppl who wouldn't have time to go through the article.

    Quite surprising to see a mentioning of the atomic mass number only as the last sentence of the article, as this, and not the atomic number, actually decides whether this new element is the heaviest or not.

  5. 115! Gah! Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I meant 115! 115! Curse you, afternoon lull! CURSE YOU!

  6. No, no. by scowling · · Score: 1, Funny

    The heaviest element I've ever encountered would be my dad's synthesis of potroastium.

    --
    www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
    1. Re:No, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't vouch for that, but your Mom's roast beef is certainly quite juicy and tender.

    2. Re:No, no. by scowling · · Score: 1

      My mom is about a kilogram of ashes in a green metal box on the mantle. At least, that's what we've been led to believe. Do you have any special knowledge?

      --
      www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
    3. Re:No, no. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Somehow "Yes, Luke, I am your mother" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. According to South Park... by Universal+Nerd · · Score: 3, Funny

    They already beat the US in building a ladder to heaven, now they're trying to beat the US in building a heavier element!

    --
    Ash nazg durbatuluk, ash nazg gimbatul Ash nazg thrakatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul
  8. Whoah! by vijaya_chandra · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... the cyclotron bombarded a bismuth atom target with 2.5 trillion zinc atoms per second for 80 days, the scientist said, the team found the new element, which disintegrated in only 0.3 millisecond.

    That's 80*24*60*60 * 2.5 * 10^10 (bc says 1.728 * 10^17, which isn't quite comparable to the avogadro or whatever number, but is still quite impressive) atoms to get this new element that disintegrated in 0.0003 seconds

    and here I am, cursing myself and the world if I have to rewrite a stupid, tiny class.

    1. Re:Whoah! by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wow, that's a lot of zinc! I bet that galvanized their research!

      BTM

      --
      That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
    2. Re:Whoah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, what's more amazing is that they used less than 65 grams of zinc over the span of 80 days, and people being awed by the large numbers. But, that is what they were after, after all. ;)

      (And speaking of large numbers, a trillion is 10^12)

      So the correct number of atoms used total is 1.728e19.

      (1 mole [6.022e23] atoms would weigh 65.4g)

      They bombarded that poor bismuth with 0.00188g or 1.88mg of zinc!

      Those bastards!

      (Granted, I could have made a mistake, because I didn't actually bother writing any of this out)

      The point is, though: 2.5 trillion atoms is not that many atoms. I can only imagine how many atoms are in my fat ass, considering I weigh well more than 65.4g of zinc, and am comprised of [for the most part] less dense elements.

    3. Re:Whoah! by stevesliva · · Score: 1

      Only 0.3 millisecond?! Pah. My 2Ghz pentium can cycle 600,000 times in that period, and this atom can't even keep its protons in a bunch. Sheesh.

      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
    4. Re:Whoah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but that's 300 microseconds!

      Golly! Look how long it stays what it is!

      Or was...

    5. Re:Whoah! by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't trillion be 10^12?

      Million = 10^6
      Billion = 10^9
      Trillion = 10^12
      etc...

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  9. Suggested name: Pokemonium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Dendrobium?

  10. Bombarding? Bismuth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh man, seeing those two words together brings back a bad memory. I had been drinking really heavily one night, see? (Well, heavily for a nerd). And I was feeling pretty drunk and I thought I was going to toss my cookies bad. But there were some really sexy girls at this party and I didn't want to leave. So in my drunken state I drank some of this cheap Pepto-Bismol knockoff called Pink Bismuth, thinking it would settle my tummy. So I go back out to the main room and party like nothing happened and I'm this cool guy who can hold his liquor. Anyhow, pow! the dancing and all just was too much and I started puking all over the place. I dropped to my knees and started puking my guts out all over the coffee table. And since I had drank the Pink Bismuth not too long ago, my puke was coming out pink. I was "bombarding" the coffee table with "Bismuth atoms" -- get it?

    Needless to say, none of this impressed those babes (in a positive way, at least) and I went home alone once again...

  11. doesn't this remind you of... by nusratt · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ...stupid stuff we did as kids?

    "bombarding a Bismuth atom target with 2.5 trillion zinc atoms per second for 80 days"

    ants and magnifying glass, M&M's shaken-up in a bottle of soda, etc.

  12. Japonium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    You'd think they'd pick a different name like nipponium or japanium. Mark this flamebait if you must, but in my opinion, this would be like Nigerian scientists naming it nigonium.

    1. Re:Japonium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is nothing like Nigerian scientists naming it nigonium.

      New element names are generally based on Latin, and the name of the country we call Japan is "Japon" in Latin. And also in French and Spanish.

      So why again is japonium a stupid name?

    2. Re:Japonium? by kaos.geo · · Score: 1

      Gee this is hardly news... I have know for something more than 20 years that one of Japans best robots,Mazinger-Z is made of that material. Check it out. carnage.fanfic.org/mazingerz.html

  13. M&M's in soda? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happens if you put M&M's in a bottle of soda and shake it?

    1. Re:M&M's in soda? by VendingMenace · · Score: 1

      i don't know either, but provided that you can get to a supermarket, i think that it would be reletivily cheap and easy to find out :)

    2. Re:M&M's in soda? by nusratt · · Score: 1, Informative

      "What happens if you put M&M's in a bottle of soda and shake it?"

      when I was a kid there was a 7-Up clone called BubbleUp (I think).
      My best friend and I discovered that inserting M&Ms made it foam violently.
      Shaking, of course, aggravates it. ;-)

    3. Re:M&M's in soda? by hplasm · · Score: 0

      He gets annoyed and froths at the groin.

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
  14. Re:Bombarding? Bismuth? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    For more information on pepto bismol, look it up on E2. I did a cool wwriteup over there :) I'm not going to link it though, in the hopes that they won't get slashdotted or anything.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  15. mass not weight by grishknash · · Score: 2, Informative

    Its mass not weight. Its the most massive atom not the heaviest. The heaviest is near some black hole in the highest gravitational field currently unknown to man. Not quite sure how Einstein would state it. Something about its acceleration in the bending of the spacetime in that location....

  16. I though 116 was the heaviest by dnamaners · · Score: 2, Informative

    Looking over at my periodic table on the wall and low i see more than 112, my table goes to 118 but misses the odd #'s over 112. I thought that 116 (ununhexium) was the most massive element and then they missed 114 (ununquadium) as well.

    I am not sure if 116 or 114 are "confirmed" but 116 is fairly reproducible and the article states that japans 113 is not yet "confirmed" so that would but it on par with these others. As a note 118 was reported by a Russian but was later retracted due to reproducibility problems.

    Here is some info sites:

    http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/te xt/Uuh/key.html

    http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/U/ununh exium.html


    ** Although lead is rather non-toxic in metal form, when properly accelerated things change slightly **

    1. Re:I though 116 was the heaviest by Lazyhound · · Score: 1

      Atomic number != atomic weight.

  17. Kick-Ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I never thought they could do something as wild as create new elemnts. What purpose could this serve?

    Free Desktop PC's Here

    1. Re:Kick-Ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bragging rights, mostly.

  18. Re:Bombarding? Bismuth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was "bombarding" the coffee table with "Bismuth atoms" -- get it?

    Umm, no. Can you please elaborate?

    Sincerely

    Mr. Dimwit

  19. The heaviest element by Muhammar · · Score: 4, Funny

    "The heaviest element known to science was recently discovered at Turgid University. Tentatively named administratium, element has no protons or electrons. It has one neutron, 125 assistant neutrons, 75 vice neutrons and 111 assistant vice neutrons. These 312 particles are held together by a force that involves exchange of strong-interacting particles, so-called morons.

    Administratium has half-life of approximately three years but it does not decay. Instead it undergoes a reorganization in which assistant neutrons, vice neutrons and assistant vice neutrons exchange places. (Some studies suggest that the total mass actually increases after each reorganization.)

    Administratium is inert. However, it can be detected as it impedes every reaction it comes in contact with. A minute amount of administratium causes reactions to take over four days to complete when it would have normally occurred in less than a second.

    --
    I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
    1. Re:The heaviest element by shobadobs · · Score: 1

      By any chance, is this in the same group as bureaucratium?

    2. Re:The heaviest element by Anonymous+Luddite · · Score: 1


      By any chance, is this in the same group as bureaucratium?

      no, bureaucratium is light weight, has few constructive applications and available in quantities far outstripping demand...

  20. Sakium (Sa) by kill_-9 · · Score: 1

    I was going to suggest they name the new element Nipponium but the chemical symbols Ni (Nickel) and Np (Neptunium) are already taken, so perhaps Sakium (Sa), their national drink.

  21. Godzilium by taaminator · · Score: 1

    I am disappointed that the Japanese scientists stooped to the stereotypical and politically incorrect "Japonium."

    I think that the culturally reflective and historically pensive "Godzilium" or "Rodanium" would be more chic, 'moderne,' and appropriate. (Although I do like the previously mentioned "Pokemonium.")

    Perhaps they would also consider "Karaokenium" or "Mystiethreekaynium" ...

    1. Re:Godzilium by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      No! It's gotta be MXC-ium! Git it on!

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  22. How much zinc is that??? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

    ... 2.5 trillion zinc atoms per second for 80 days.

    2.5 x 10^12 * 60 * 60 * 24 * 80 = 1.728 x 10^19 atoms. A mole of zinc masses in at 65.409g, and we have 28.7 micromols of zinc.

    All of the zinc used massed in at a whopping 2 mg!!!

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  23. Of course there's a flying saucer connection by CodeWanker · · Score: 1

    And with the obligatory uber-nerd Coast to Coast AM/Carl Sagan connection: one of the things that would provide persuasive evidence of a UFO crash would be debris composed in whole or in part of element(s) from the Island of Stability

    Our man Carl Sagan strikes again!

    --


    "Wow. Now THAT'S a lot of angry Indians." - Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer
  24. Japan enters the physics dojo by joelethan · · Score: 1
    If Japan has made the heaviest element, then it must of course be named Sumomium!

    Thank you, I'm here all week.