Long-lived Super Heavy Element Created
treeves writes "Radioactive nuclei that hang around for a mere half-minute before falling apart hardly seem stable. Yet compared with the fleeting lifetimes of their superheavy atomic neighbors, the roughly 30-second period that transpired from creation to disintegration of four atoms of a newly discovered isotope of element 108 qualifies those atoms as rock solid.
Theoretical physicists predicted years ago that some nuclei of elements much more massive than uranium should survive for a relatively long time — possibly long enough to probe their chemical properties — if they could be synthesized. On the chart of nuclides, theoreticians pinpointed a region with coordinates corresponding to 114 protons and 184 neutrons and indicated that nuclei with those "magic" numbers of subatomic particles should lie at the center of an island of stability. The nuclear longevity, according to the models, is due to the closing of proton and neutron shells, which renders the particles stable against spontaneous fission much the same way that a filled outer electron shell endows noble gases with chemical inertness. Experimentalists, though, haven't yet found a route to reach the center of the island."
Money for nothing, pix for free
It is the entirely wrong time of day to try to comprehend this one.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Theoretical physicists predicted years ago that some nuclei of elements much more massive than uranium should survive for a relatively long time -- possibly long enough to probe their chemical properties -- if they could be synthesized
In the year 3000, all they'd have to do is follow Nibbler around with a pooper scooper.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
Now is your chance to get the super amazing "30 Seconds to Massive Biceps" weight training program, with new enhanced dumbbells! No refunds after product has stabilized.
Hey, I'm alive! Wow! This is fun! I've got 114 protons... ...and 184 neutrons! I'm surrounded by high-energy beams,
scientists, and a homolog. Uh, oh! Am I a volatile oxide?!
No, way! I'm being swept in to a multistage chromatographic
detector, which is cooled along its length in a gradient
from room temperature at one end to -150 degrees Centigrade
(at the other end). But I've done nothing wrong!!!
Sure, I've got similar nuclear properties to Hs-269, but
you've got the wrong isotope! Whoa, I'm feeling weird...
Kind of, uh, uhn, un-s-s-stable... I'm definitely --
KA-BOOOM!!!
THE END...?
(Coming up next: The somewhat longer, happier life of Gadolinium,
or Osmium -- I'm not sure, because I know nothing about this
part of the periodic table or nuclear physics!!! LOL!!!)
The whole point of the article is that this element has a lifespan on the order of seconds, not milliseconds, which means that you can do chemistry and other fun things with them. But, really, people do this for two reasons: 1) to test the theories that predict a set of very heavy elements that are nearly stable and 2) because they can.
I like my beverages with warning labels!
I was briefly thrilled the other day about the possibility of counting neutron stars as individual atoms of stable super-heavy elements. I asked my brother, a nuclear physicist, if this was reasonable. he said no, because the neutrons in a neutron star are held together by gravity.
Decay! Decay! Decay! -Helium
Maybe this should have been: "...Island of Stability..." If you're visually inclined, check out the aptly illustrated "chart of nuclides," showing stability as a function of nucleon counts (i.e. proton and neutron counts).
Back when I was in high school, we'd have to share PC computers at 'computer science' classes, but 1 atom per six researchers.. er, couldn't we increase funding, or something?
OK, I am missing something here...
:)
:)
For starters, I accept that they can do this but...
1. I thought Hydrogen (and deuterium) were the easiest atoms to fuse together (Call it a naive assumption if you like).
2. I also thought that these were incredibly hard to fuse together.
3. I also thought that even in a star, there is only enough energy to fuse atoms together up to Iron.
4. I also thought that you only get the energy needed to fuse atoms to form elements higher than Iron in a Supernova.
5. So I figured we'd not be able to harness the kinds of energy needed to fuse atoms this big.
6. I have just been watching Steven Hawkins series about all this shit over the xmas break
7. I did have rudimentary knowledge of all this stuff before watchign those shows.
So obviously we can create this kind of energy. I must have been confusing "not being able to fuse atoms together" with "not being able to fuse atoms together in an energy efficient manner" - i.e. the reason we dont get more out than in with our fusion energy attemts.
So if we can fuse hige Super Heavy atoms together, why can't we fuse lesser atoms together to make, say, gold?
I obviously have a flaw somewhere in my assumptions, if it's a simple one-liner, please tell me. Otherwise I will just go research it all again and find where I went wrong
Thanks for your time.
Tom...
For those of you who aren't theoretical physicists/chemists, another visualization for this Island of Stability is shown in a spiral periodic table. The predicted region of heavy elements that might be stable are labeled superlactindes and come off as a third arm.
So, how soon can we get Elerium-115 and start building UFO Defence ?
So if we can fuse hige Super Heavy atoms together, why can't we fuse lesser atoms together to make, say, gold?
We can. In fact, it was one of the first things we did with our new toys It's a fun game.
It's also very, very expensive.
KFG.
These elements aren't useful in the commercial or industrial sense. At the moment, only a handful of atoms can be created at a time.
The creation of these elements is more useful for testing our theories of the structure of the nucleus (finding the Island of Stability) and of the periodicity of the chemical elements (if the chemical properties of these rather unnatural elements correspond to their positions on the Periodic Table).
Soon we'll be able to build an anti-gravity machine like that in all the alien flying machines! Bring on the Element 115.
Yeah, yeah, everyone thinks these super-heavy elements are going to have incredible properties (based on pretty much no scientific evidence). I think it's going to be awesome when they're finally synthesised and tested and the announcement reads, "We found they were all pretty much like lead, except a bit heavier. Oh, and they generate anti-gravity. No, only joking about the anti-gravity."
IANAP (I am not a physicist) but I have studied some astronomy including reactions in stars.
Up to the iron group, fusion reactions are exothermic but produce increasingly less energy, so the higher the mass of the resulting element, the more reactions are needed to produce the energy required to sustain a star.
Reactions beyond the iron group are endothermic so require energy from the star to complete.
The other way elements are produced in stars is the addition of neutrons to already existing atoms, hence increasing their atomic mass and producing a different element. IIRC, the energy required to do this is high and exists only in stars.
There are two types of this reacton, slow and fast. Slow happens in the normal course of events of star evolution where fast happens in the seconds of life during and after a supernova. Elements such as uranium are produced during the fast process. From this, I think these guys have replicated one of the slow/fast addition processes rather than what we tend to call fusion.
As I say, IANAP but that's what I remember.
In a recent press release, a major fast-food chain announced to have successfully created Long-lived Super Heavy Elements by changing the oil in their deep fryers to a healthier variety.
Not only that, elements are defined by the number of protons, not neutrons.
I'm not a physicist, and barely remember the difference between protons and neutrons. Really. Probably it's the way they choose the names, having nothing to do with the physical properties of the elements, and not even sounding cool. I mean, Uranium, Plutonium, Titanium have cool names. Krypton -- cool name. "Carbon" is at least descriptive, deriving from the Latin for burning. I've always thought "Gold", "Iron", and "Lead" were onomatopoeic. And everyone knows that "Sodium" is Greek for "soda pop". Good names, all, and they don't sound phake and made up.
But "Hassium"? "Bohrium"? Not cool, not descriptive. These are vanity names, like getting your name in a phony star registry, or some weak license plate, except it goes in the encyclopedia. Yes, I know there's this tradition for naming the radioactive ones after people, but that kind of thing ought to be left to the entomologists, hadn't it? I mean, what if there's a disaster, and Jonesium kills a bunch of people and gives the rest weird cancers? How will ol' Doc Jones feel about his legacy then, hmm? Better to be devoured by wasp larvae. So clearly, we need better, less risky names for these elements.
Let's see, an element that sticks around for 30 seconds and then goes away. I believe I can come up with a few right here, even without some fancy-shmancy degree:
-
Postite
- BlogTrollium
- Wevedoneitohnowehaventium (or Heybosslookatuhnevermindium)
- Anaviagrium
- Blinddatium
It's a wonder they don't put me in charge of much here at the gas station.sigs, as if you care.
Plus you look pretty stupid pusing an atom around your desktop while making "Vroom, vroom" noises.
KFG