Slashdot Mirror


Six Atoms of Element 117 Produced

mr crypto writes "A team of Russian and American scientists has produced six atoms of a new element, number 117, that has long stood as a missing link among the heaviest bits of atomic matter ever produced. The element, still nameless, appears to point the way toward a brew of still more massive elements with chemical properties no one can predict. The researchers say that the discovery bolsters the idea of an 'island of stability' among still heavier elements."

213 comments

  1. No name yet by tedgyz · · Score: 5, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, elements name you

    --
    "No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
    1. Re:No name yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Sovietrussianium? Sweet.

    2. Re:No name yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the Russian word for 119 - there may be an interesting name there.

    3. Re:No name yet by Cryacin · · Score: 3, Funny

      Pure weapons grade Balonium.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    4. Re:No name yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Anything is better than Unobtainium.

    5. Re:No name yet by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Funny

      What is the Russian word for 119 - there may be an interesting name there.

      Well I tried to enter it in cyrillic, but I can't bend /. to my will to get it to display. So I'll have to translate it back into English for you:

      One Hundred and(*) Nineteen

      * The "and" is optional and depends on you locale, so use caution before mocking me

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    6. Re:No name yet by 49152 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It cannot be Unobtainium, they already have 6 atoms of it. That was far to easy to be Unobtainium!

    7. Re:No name yet by Cryacin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Unaffordium then.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    8. Re:No name yet by ijakings · · Score: 4, Funny

      Id rather they just call it unobtainium. That way film writers will have to think of a new one.

    9. Re:No name yet by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Pure weapons grade Balonium.

      Me say you full of cesium salami!

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    10. Re:No name yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stodevyatnadsot.

      I guess.

    11. Re:No name yet by mirix · · Score: 1

      sto (i) devjatnadcat? (hundred [and] nineteen)

      odin odin devjat? (one one nine)

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    12. Re:No name yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Transliterated:

      shto devyatnadtsat'

    13. Re:No name yet by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As long as they don't call it Belgium.

    14. Re:No name yet by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Weneedanewnamium.

    15. Re:No name yet by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 4, Funny

      Only until the isotope, Walmartium, is discovered.

    16. Re:No name yet by AmigaMMC · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      In Soviet Russia the government decides how many atoms to make

    17. Re:No name yet by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Ferngullyium?
      Danceswithwolfiums?

    18. Re:No name yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > you locale

      Can we mock you for using "you" instead of "your" instead? :-)

    19. Re:No name yet by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Funny

          Nope, it's Unobtainium. **THEY** have the 6 atoms of it, not you or I. Go ahead, try to get a sample, I dare you.

          It's another instance of the man keeping us common folks down.

          At least they didn't make a black hole with it this time. Just think about it. What's a black hole? It's a super dense object, which attracts objects towards it, which in turn are crushed under it's gravitational attraction, adding to it's mass in an unstoppable chain reaction. All it takes is one atom, and poof, we're all screwed. And they're trying for heavier and heavier atoms. It's the damned Reds. I tell you, they're looking to destroy the world! They're going to do it, and this time we're helping them! It's the Reds and the Republicans! They're going to kill us all! KILL US ALL I TELL YOU!

          This time even your tinfoil hat won't help! There's no escape! There's only one thing to do. Send me all of your worldly possessions, and pray to god that there is a god, and your soul can escape!

         

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    20. Re:No name yet by fractoid · · Score: 1

      AnviliciousEcoPukium.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    21. Re:No name yet by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Informative

      сто девятнадцать

      Just put that into Google, and it'll show up highlighted in the searches. Chrome offers to translate the page, so you get it in English too. :) It's not like it really matters which way I show it, it's not like you can read Cyrillic if you asked. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    22. Re:No name yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And soviet russia chooses Sovietanium!

    23. Re:No name yet by ZosX · · Score: 1

      Uh. The name doesn't fit. Clearly it is obtainable. They obtained 6 atoms.

    24. Re:No name yet by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you need an Unobtainium foil hat...

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    25. Re:No name yet by mortonda · · Score: 1

      Fine. Almostunobtanium.

    26. Re:No name yet by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          psst, read that again carefully. You have to be one of the loonies to get them to give you all their money before the "end of the world" comes. {grin} You wouldn't believe the score at Y2K. I can't wait until Dec 21, 2012! I have my eye on a nice yacht.

          Errr, I mean... They're going to kill us all! :)

         

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    27. Re:No name yet by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Well, they got obtained some. Maybe it is Omega.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    28. Re:No name yet by tftp · · Score: 1

      Just "stodevjatnadcat'".

    29. Re:No name yet by dbet · · Score: 1

      Balonium.

      Stop using that Oscar Meyer promotional periodic table.

    30. Re:No name yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were you going for funny? I think you landed in lame.

    31. Re:No name yet by Idarubicin · · Score: 1

      But nothing is better than Wonderflonium. (Do not bounce.)

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    32. Re:No name yet by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      I can read Cyrillic (or at least sound it out), you insensitive clod!

    33. Re:No name yet by paeanblack · · Score: 5, Funny

      In Soviet Russia the government decides how many atoms to make

      In the United States, the many Adams decided how to make the government

    34. Re:No name yet by tomatensaft · · Score: 1

      It sounds like: "sto divyatnadtsat".

    35. Re:No name yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Go ahead, try to get a sample, I dare you.

      I have a bunch of the stuff right here!
      They're only slightly used, however, and some of the elementary particles appear to have fallen off, but I can provide replacements as long as you are willing to do the work of putting them back together.

      They can be yours, for FREE, just ACT NOW! (S&H $19.99 US only)

      And if you order in the next 10 minutes, I'll throw in a second do-it-yourself kit, which contains 100 (unassembled) atoms for FREE!

    36. Re:No name yet by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      Chucknorrissium.

    37. Re:No name yet by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Only six atoms? It's going to be Onlyhexium, them.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    38. Re:No name yet by Whalou · · Score: 4, Funny

      My vote is for Mattdamium

      --
      English is not this .sig mother tongue...
    39. Re:No name yet by RudySolis · · Score: 1

      It's a high grade fertilizer called Chernobylium

    40. Re:No name yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      russian for 119 would be:

      sto dyevyatnadtsat

      Slashdot is irritating in that it doesn't support unicode. Apparently, if 7-bit ASCII was good enough for my father, it should be good enough for me.

    41. Re:No name yet by spartacus_prime · · Score: 2, Funny

      What's a black hole? It's a super dense object, which attracts objects towards it, which in turn are crushed under it's gravitational attraction, adding to it's mass in an unstoppable chain reaction. All it takes is one atom, and poof, we're all screwed.

      Much like your mother.

      --
      If you can read this, it means that I bothered to log in.
    42. Re:No name yet by GameMaster · · Score: 1

      Yes, we should redistribute the wealth and pass out the atoms. We can use nuclear fission to break them down so they go farther. It is Russia after all, they know all about redistribution of wealth.

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
    43. Re:No name yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True.....and about that time, they'll discover the next element......Samsclubium!!!!

    44. Re:No name yet by Ponyegg · · Score: 1

      Leninium... it sounds like something you'd cover your kicthen floor in.

    45. Re:No name yet by RichiH · · Score: 1

      Wrong, It is _not_ unstoppable. Go read up on Hawking radiation.

      Not sure if a single atom can become a black hole, but I would say no.

    46. Re:No name yet by orim · · Score: 1

      Yup... black holes "evaporate" after some time, they lose mass through radiation. So tiny micro ones would appear and just disappear pretty much instantly. Or so the physicists say.

      --
      "If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes..." - Roy Batty
    47. Re:No name yet by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Ya, it's easy to say that, until you're on the event horizon of one some crazy scientist in Russia made, and then we're all just screwed. :)

          We're playing with things that we've only theorized about. Unfortunately theories are only that. They're guesses based on our current knowledge. They'll be proven to be right or wrong later on. That's the whole game that theoretical physicists play. They can argue their whole lives and still never come up to the same answer.

          Since no one has ever observed and been able to test the actual properties of a superdense material that could form a black hole, we only guess. It's in the best interests of all of us if they test and are right though.

          Not to say they shouldn't try though. If they do make a superdense atom which in turn creates a black hole that sucks up the whole world, it will likely happen so fast that to any of us it will be instantaneous. It may be eons to the outside world though, if the theories of time dilation at the event horizon are correct.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    48. Re:No name yet by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Yes, they have the 6 atoms. While we still have none. Try re-reading GP's post. :P

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    49. Re:No name yet by Scottar · · Score: 1

      There are six atoms of this element, but there is only one Chuck Norris

    50. Re:No name yet by smithmc · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia the government decides how many atoms to make

      And they always get it wrong. Always too much carbon and nitrogen, never enough gold and platinum. Stupid commies...

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    51. Re:No name yet by ZosX · · Score: 1

      I read it correctly the first time. Why would you call something unobtainable when you can in fact obtain it. They obtained 6 atoms. Thus making it obtainable. If you had the same equipment/knowledge that they had, you could obtain some too. Unobtanium should be clearly 100% unobtainable before you decide to call it thus.

    52. Re:No name yet by mortonda · · Score: 1

      Oh, this thread landed there a long time ago.

  2. It has a name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Ununseptium. It's just not the final name. I think in honor of Lost, it should be called Smokium.

  3. still more... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "still more massive elements with chemical properties no one can predict."

    I bet one of them will look great on the tiara for Mrs. Universe pageants.

    1. Re:still more... by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 0
      I was thinking of the "unobtanium" in Avatar. From TFA:

      As researchers have artificially created heavier and heavier elements, those elements have had briefer and briefer lifetimes -- the time it takes for unstable elements to decay by processes like spontaneous fission of the nucleus. Then, as the elements got still heavier, the lifetimes started climbing again, said Joseph Hamilton, a physicist at Vanderbilt who is on the team. The reason may be that the elements are approaching a theorized "island of stability" at still higher masses, where the lifetimes could go from fractions of a second to days or even years, Dr. Hamilton said.

      If super-heavy elements are stable, who knows, maybe room temperature super conductivity would be one of their properties. There are some superconducting uranium containing materials, which are of the unconventional type that can achieve superconductivity above the boiling point of nitrogen.

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
    2. Re:still more... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'll bet a pound of this stuff weighs a million pounds.

    3. Re:still more... by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      There could exist a very heavy inert element,
      perhaps it is the dark matter.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    4. Re:still more... by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Informative

      > I was thinking of the "unobtanium" in Avatar.

      "Unobtainium" is much, much older than that silly movie.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    5. Re:still more... by CorporateSuit · · Score: 0, Redundant

      still more massive elements with chemical properties no one can predict."

      I HAVE discovered the most massive element in the universe.


      It's called "your mom."

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    6. Re:still more... by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Informative

      > perhaps it is the dark matter.

      No. Whatever dark matter is, it cannot be baryonic matter of any sort.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    7. Re:still more... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Hey, she's not a /. reader!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    8. Re:still more... by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dude.

          #1) This is why your still single.
          and
          #2) The obligatory xkcd to explain it to you.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    9. Re:still more... by dickens · · Score: 1

      I laughed out loud when I heard that in Avatar. People were looking at me.

      Back in the 1970s I remember someone explaining (with a wink) that their motorcycle engine didn't burn up at some insane compression ratio because their pistons were made of unobtainium. It was applied in the trade press to lots of parts on "works" bikes. It's probably older than that.

    10. Re:still more... by thelexx · · Score: 1

      There was also an electronics parts company years ago called Pure Unobtanium that specialized in hard to find stuff. Appears they are gone now. Great, now I'm sad and pinin' for the fjords!

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    11. Re:still more... by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, Dark matter isn't a superheavy element, inert or otherwise.
      Here's why:

              We have some observations of nearby spiral galaxies, that seem to show dark matter. It is revealed by gravitational influences on the visible parts of those galaxies. These include the speed the visible parts rotate at, around galactic centers that are probably supermassive black holes. The speed of rotation doesn't fall off according to the normal square/cube function for gravity, and adding enough conventional type matter to get anything like the observed numbers for motions means that conventional matter would all be trying to fall into the center, not exist as a rather extended cloud that show effects all the way to outside the major arms of the spiral galaxy.
              Either we see galaxies of some somewhat differing ages and seriously differing sizes and masses, and yet somehow, all of them have a cloud of normal but unilluminated matter, that is at a particular stage of infall, and all of those galaxies will be past that stage within a very few million years, or else they are surrounded by something that isn't normal matter, and doesn't want to pack down as tight as normal matter, or start clumping enough to shine like stars as normal matter does. Astronomers don't like theories that say we are observing a very statistically unusual and unstable state that just happens to look like a normal condition from our especially privileged viewpoint. Ergo, there's some kind of matter that won't fit on the periodic table no matter how much you extend it.
            Now just what other restrictions there are, that's debatable. When dark matter was first proposed, it was supposed to make the whole universe have enough mass that it was just barely, exactly, geometrically flat (that is, it wouldn't expand quite forever, wouldn't have an overall curvature that counted as either 'open' or 'closed', and certain other numbers, such as the Hubble constant, would be exactly enough to give us a universe with what is called an omega of exactly 1). Some theories also proposed a role in this for what was/is called dark energy.
            Recent observations of very distant galaxies have revealed a lot of previously unaccounted for normal matter, enough that normal matter may make up much more of the universe as a whole than we thought for about the last thirty years. Maybe that's even enough to mean we don't need much or any dark matter at all to make omega = 1. But, we now have actual observations of what appears to be some kind of dark matter. So even if one of the original reasons for suspecting dark matter existed is invalid, and even if we could be certain there isn't as much of the universe made of dark matter as that reason suggested, now we have to explain the observations that say there is at least some dark matter around.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    12. Re:still more... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I thought it was hilarious myself. It was a wink from the director to us nerds. It told me not to take the movie so seriously. :P

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    13. Re:still more... by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 1

      The point of my post had nothing at all to do with the name, the point was room temperature superconductivity of heavy elements. In the movie they never called the substance by its official name so I had to refer to it as unobtanium. What in the world made you think I didn't know what the word unobtanium was used for?

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
    14. Re:still more... by trapnest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was thinking of the "unobtanium" in Avatar.

      I have never been more disappointed in a slashdot post.

    15. Re:still more... by IceCreamGuy · · Score: 1

      Great, now I'm sad and pinin' for the fjords!

      PININ' FOR THE FJORDS!?

    16. Re:still more... by lennier · · Score: 3, Funny

      How dare you, sir! Blue catgirls on flying dinosaurs fighting Nick Fury's Helicarrier and a squadron of Space Marines is very serious business indeed!

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    17. Re:still more... by smart_ass · · Score: 1

      You must be new around here.

      --
      Ouch ... did I just say that.
    18. Re:still more... by sapphire+wyvern · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nick Fury? I thought they'd cast Duke Nukem, myself. I hear he's looking for work, after all...

    19. Re:still more... by treeves · · Score: 1

      No, he's not. He's pushing up daisies. He's shuffled off this mortal coil. He is an ex-Slashdot commenter.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    20. Re:still more... by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      Hey there, $new_member_name, and welcome to Slashdot !

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    21. Re:still more... by KDEnut · · Score: 1

      True, they've already run down the curtains and joined the choir invisible.

    22. Re:still more... by dpilot · · Score: 1

      FWIW, the outer shell of the "plot vehicle" in the movie "The Core" was cited as being made of Unobtanium.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    23. Re:still more... by Heian-794 · · Score: 1

      I'll bet a pound of this stuff weighs a million pounds.

      s/weighs/costs ...and even that's optimistic!

    24. Re:still more... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryonic_dark_matter

      HTH, HAND

  4. How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unobtainium?

    1. Re:How about... by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      No, it has now been obtained.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    2. Re:How about... by Spatial · · Score: 1

      We could then rename it 'Oxymoranium'.

    3. Re:How about... by mkiwi · · Score: 1

      spasibium / pajalstium ?

    4. Re:How about... by PPH · · Score: 1

      Retrounobtainium?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  5. err.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Canada-ium

    1. Re:err.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada-ium

      Naw, Canada doesn't have a population that high. :)

    2. Re:err.. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Naw, Canada doesn't have a population that high

      Man, I been to Nova Scotia. They got the good cush up there. All sticky 'n' shit. A coupla hits of that and your dick's in the dirt.

      Up there Trailer Park Boys ain't just a tv show, it's a way of life. [*raises hand for high-five*]

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  6. Chemical properties by techno-vampire · · Score: 4, Insightful

    AIUI, once you know where an element fits into the Periodic Table, you have a good idea as to what its properties are based on the other elements in its group. In fact, that's one of the table's most valuable properties.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
    1. Re:Chemical properties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      117? Isn't that leet speak for 'id'?

      Idium!

    2. Re:Chemical properties by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You have a good idea of some properties in general but not all and not in specific. Like, you could probably guess that this element would like to form a single bond, but how strong would it be? How readily does it ionize? Blah blah blah nevermind you're right.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:Chemical properties by maxume · · Score: 5, Informative

      Study it for a minute. The chemical properties you speak of are largely represented by the columns. Super-heavy elements would be in the middle, in their own 'new' columns.

      Wikipedia actually has an article about it:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extension_of_the_periodic_table_beyond_the_seventh_period

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:Chemical properties by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      So, we would expect this to behave as a halogen? Sadly, I have retained almost none of two years of university chemistry.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    5. Re:Chemical properties by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Okay. What are the properties of, say, element 120? Unfortunately there aren't any known exemplars in it's group. In fact, it seems it's group is largely theoretical.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table_(extended)

    6. Re:Chemical properties by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nope. Not at these atomic numbers.

      Outer electrons start to move at appreciable fraction of speed of light, so relativistic effects begin to affect chemical properties.

      A good example of relativistic effect - color of gold and copper.

    7. Re:Chemical properties by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Sorry, element 121.

    8. Re:Chemical properties by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1, Funny

      No stupid it's more complicated than that, that's why lead doesn't act like carbon. DER DUH DER.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    9. Re:Chemical properties by pclminion · · Score: 5, Informative

      More accurately, the classical velocity of the electrons, if you calculate it from Newtonian principles, approaches (or even exceeds) the speed of light. Nevertheless, the electron does not "move" when in a bound state, from a quantum perspective.

      It's interesting that even when a less accurate physical theory is technically wrong, it may still have some predictive value.

    10. Re:Chemical properties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I guess I've learned something today.

    11. Re:Chemical properties by modrzej · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, not outer but inner, or core, electrons move at relativistic velocities. Classically described, they are moving in orbits close to the nucleus, so when it has huge positive charge, electric field is strong enough to accelerate movement of negatively charged particles to relativistic speed. Outer electrons aren't affected as much because they feel as if the nucleus had smaller charge simply because it is screened by core electrons.

    12. Re:Chemical properties by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Funny

      Except for the fact that it's wildly hallucinogenic. That's why it took a few months for them to report it. What didn't officially come out was this:

        "We were all tripping so hard, somehow we ended up naked, running around in the lab apparently for like two days. No one remembers a thing, but the technicians that found us said we were laughing our asses off and talking to non-existent creatures in the room."

          It's always embarrassing when something like that comes out.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    13. Re:Chemical properties by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      What makes it interesting is that I studied high school chemistry 44 years ago.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    14. Re:Chemical properties by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Sounds like we have a candidate for the name of the new element: halucinicium.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    15. Re:Chemical properties by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      Nah, it'll never happen. They won't admit that it happened, and then the CIA will get a hold of it and start doing experiments like they did with LSD. :)

          It's all fun and games until some scientist does a swan dive out a window and goes splat in Manhattan.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    16. Re:Chemical properties by quanminoan · · Score: 3, Informative
    17. Re:Chemical properties by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      No, I specifically meant _outer_ electrons.

      Inner electrons do not (greatly) affect the chemical properties of elements.

  7. Hey chemists by amicusNYCL · · Score: 3, Interesting

    still more massive elements with chemical properties no one can predict.

    Why can't this be predicted? An element is defined by the number of protons in the nucleus, right? So why is it difficult or impossible to predict what happens when you add another proton? We already have a known sequence of over a hundred elements we can look at to see what changes as the number of protons increases.

    Thanks for answering the stupid question of the day.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    1. Re:Hey chemists by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Well yeah, that is what the groups in the periodic table are for. When the periodic table was "invented" there were even holes in it and eventually elements where discovered with predicted properties and element number. However it seems that predicting the half life is non-trivial. Also while some things can be predicted there is still a lot of room for error or whatever.

    2. Re:Hey chemists by modrzej · · Score: 5, Informative

      Light elements, say, those you can find in first three rows of the periodic table, can be qualitatively described using hydrogen atom-like model. Basically, it says that properties of elements are periodic, when you go through the periodic table in a consecutive manner. But then you got heavier elements. The hydrogen atom-like approximation breaks down here, the properties are still periodic, but there are many exceptions from set of simple rules that were valid for lighter elements. In some cases even quantum-mechanical methods fail to describe heavier elements, for example gold wouldn't have gold color if not treated relativistically. One can expect that going towards extremely large Z well established techniques won't prove successful.

    3. Re:Hey chemists by PatDev · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am not a chemist, but I'd wager its because this constitutes extrapolation. The periodic tables I just looked up online only go up to 103. Extrapolating > 10% off the end of your data set is a risky proposition, likely to produce incorrect results.

    4. Re:Hey chemists by spvo · · Score: 3, Informative

      People have predicted some of their properties. Since these super heavy elements are difficult to produce, and the isotopes produced are generally short lived, the only thing that can really be observed is the elements half-life.

      The models that exist for the currently known elements seem to work pretty well, but they also predict the island of stability mentioned in the summary. Basically a region of very heavy and very stable elements. So, if these elements are discovered and actually are very stable, then it tells us that the current nuclear models aren't too bad.

      Also, and this I'm not positive about, the reason the properties are likely different than the common elements is because these superheavy elements are very neutron rich and very heavy. And I think the most stable ones are supposed to be deformed as well.

    5. Re:Hey chemists by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Informative
      Why can't this be predicted? An element is defined by the number of protons in the nucleus, right? So why is it difficult or impossible to predict what happens when you add another proton?

      Because most of the interesting properties of an element are not defined by the number of protons but by the number of electrons and which orbitals they are found in in the ground state.

      The orbitals are not simply layers like a layer cake and they don't fill up in a strictly one-two-three kind of order. The way the lanthanides stick up out of the periodic table is due to the fact that an outer orbital fills in before one of the inner ones does for those elements.

      The fact that sodium behaves like potassium is not because of the number of protons for each, for example, it is because the number of electrons to balance those protons results in one electron in the outermost 's' orbital. The atom prefers to get rid of this electron, making the + ion. The inert elements are all due to the fact that they have the right number of electrons to completely fill the outer shell. Chlorine and the elements in that column lack completeness by one electron, so they prefer to pick up one electron and form the - ion.

      H2 is stable because the two H atoms share the two electrons, making a complete outer shell. Na2 is not stable, because even though they'd share the outer electron and make a complete 's' orbital, the outer shell of Na has more than an s orbital.

      It's all an electron thing, not proton.

    6. Re:Hey chemists by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In some cases even quantum-mechanical methods fail to describe heavier elements, for example gold wouldn't have gold color if not treated relativistically.

      Wow, for some reason I never knew that. Mercury being a liquid at room temperature is apparently also a relativistic effect. Interesting stuff.

    7. Re:Hey chemists by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Because most of the interesting properties of an element are not defined by the number of protons but by the number of electrons and which orbitals they are found in in the ground state.

      However, those interesting properties can be derived from the number of protons.

    8. Re:Hey chemists by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Because most of the interesting properties of an element are not defined by the number of protons but by the number of electrons and which orbitals they are found in in the ground state.

      Can you infer properties about the electrons from just the number of protons? Is it possible to have two distinct elements with the same number of protons in the nucleus, but different configurations of electrons?

      Most of my questions are based on the apparent fact that for any given number of protons in the nucleus, there is exactly one element with that amount. If that were true, it would seem that given the number of protons, you would be able to deduce certain properties about the element (if there was only one possible configuration of electrons for a given number of protons).

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    9. Re:Hey chemists by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Informative

      Most of my questions are based on the apparent fact that for any given number of protons in the nucleus, there is exactly one element with that amount.

      That's the definition of an element, yes.

      If that were true, it would seem that given the number of protons, you would be able to deduce certain properties about the element (if there was only one possible configuration of electrons for a given number of protons).

      There is one set of possible electron orbitals, yes, but the problem is that with large elements like this the number of orbitals is very large and their behavior is non-obvious. You can't just look at element 117 and say that oh, the outer-most shell (the one that matters most with regards to chemical behavior) is one electron short of being full in the non-ionized element, so it's going to behave like Florine. There's a lot more going on in this element.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    10. Re:Hey chemists by jacix · · Score: 2, Interesting

      An element is defined by the number of protons in the nucleus but its properties are largely determined by the number and configuration of electrons around that nucleus. Remember that the definition of an element is entirely made up by and for humans. Physical properties couldn't care less how we categorize them. Roughly speaking the more electrons there are the more possible configurations there are for them so the larger the element (and hence the more electrons) the harder their behavior is to predict. If you look in detail at a periodic table you'll find that the triple-digit elements in particular are missing a lot of physical details because they can only be obtained empirically and they don't stick around long enough to do that. As for names how about Faradanium, Hawkonium, Salkium, Kakunium, Saganium.

    11. Re:Hey chemists by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Ah, so you really can't predict what the electron configuration will be based on the number of protons. It's true that there is only one configuration possible, but there's not a formula to predict what it would be.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    12. Re:Hey chemists by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I honestly don't know the details but I think the types of orbitals for a given element are predictable from QM, but that no there is no formula for determining the chemical behavior that results. These elements especially have a large number of electrons in the valence shell and some of the orbital types are mostly understood through theory because the only elements we know that have them are so short lived.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    13. Re:Hey chemists by aqk · · Score: 0

      The periodic tables I just looked up online only go up to 103.

      And I bet you still use a slide rule also!

    14. Re:Hey chemists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solid state physicist here. But I think I can answer your question. The short answer is: Many-body effects.

      Many-body effects basically capture everything where the electrons are acting in concert. They are very difficult to calculate, because as you might know even clasically we can not solve the three-body problem exactly (we can obtain very good numerical simulations for the three-body-problem). With quantum mechanics, it is largely the same.
      How are these "very good" simulations obtained? By introducing effective one-particle equations, where all the other particles/electrons/etc. are treated as "background" to the one electron you are currently looking at. Then you solve for this electron, calculate the new "background" with this solution included, solve for the next electron, etc.

      However, this gets worse as you get more electrons/particles, as to be expected. For solid state physics, it breaks down for most semiconductors, and regarding metals it breaks down as soon as Nickel (it's magnetism is described wrong - however there are heavier elements that are described well). There are ways around that, but as you can imagine, these get more and more intricate.

    15. Re:Hey chemists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, relativistic predictions have suggested that the chemistry of elements might not be as expected from their presumed positions in the periodic table on a number of occasions. But almost without exception chemical experiments have shown that the periodic behavior prevails even in the face of these relativistic effects.

      Eric Scerri
      UCLA, and
      author of, The Periodic Table, Its Story and Its Significance, Oxford University Press, 2007.

  8. Maybe... by actionbastard · · Score: 4, Funny
    --
    Sig this!
    1. Re:Maybe... by Slur · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm going to have to vote for Bradium because The Brady Bunch ran for 117 episodes. Moreover, they've made 6 actual particles, so they knew that it was much more than a hunch ... that this group would somehow form a family ...

      --
      -- thinkyhead software and media
  9. Name Suggestions by Kapten+Kalabajooie · · Score: 1

    Spartanium, Reclaimerium, Johnium, Demonium, Masterchiefium... Just throwin' 'em out there.

    1. Re:Name Suggestions by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      onehundredandseventeenium?

    2. Re:Name Suggestions by John+Hasler · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Unobtainium.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re:Name Suggestions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what it's already named: ununseptium.

    4. Re:Name Suggestions by Cor-cor · · Score: 1

      n00bium?

    5. Re:Name Suggestions by El+Capitaine · · Score: 1

      I was simply scrolling down, waiting for someone to make the reference.

      Quite amusingly, being in Group 17 on the periodic table (also known as Group VII or Group VII-A), it will behave as a halogen. Masterchiefium is a halogen. Go figure.

    6. Re:Name Suggestions by martin-boundary · · Score: 1
      Spartanium?

      I'm Spartanium!

      No, I'm Spartanium!

      No, I'm Spartanium!

      No, I'm Spartanium!

      I'm Spartanium!

      Always look at the bright side ...

    7. Re:Name Suggestions by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Spartanium, Reclaimerium, Johnium, Demonium, Masterchiefium

      With due respect to Halo, I humbly suggest Cadefosterium after Subject 117 of First Wave, Cade Foster, as having prior claim to the number than Halo by three years.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    8. Re:Name Suggestions by Anthelme · · Score: 1

      Master chief was 147 wasn't he? So not quite? they need to name it after the guy who created the Xcom series, cos now we can goto Mars and bash some ethereals

    9. Re:Name Suggestions by Jawcracker+Fuzz · · Score: 1

      Taconium?

    10. Re:Name Suggestions by spedrosa · · Score: 1

      Master chief was 147 wasn't he? So not quite? they need to name it after the guy who created the Xcom series, cos now we can goto Mars and bash some ethereals

      That's what I thought, then I remembered the element is Elerium 115, not 117.

    11. Re:Name Suggestions by Beretta+Vexe · · Score: 1

      ununseptium: un un sept ium, literal translation from French give you: one one seven ium

      Centdixseptium and Hundertsiebzehnium have my vote.

  10. Should be easier to get agreement on name by billstewart · · Score: 1

    So many elements took a long time to get named because the Russians and Americans couldn't agree on who gets the credit; hopefully that should be less of a problem for this one, unless they just decide to leave it with the boring numerical name.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Should be easier to get agreement on name by 49152 · · Score: 1

      It is already named Ununseptium

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununseptium

    2. Re:Should be easier to get agreement on name by 49152 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Although a temporary one. Sorry, jumped the gun :)

    3. Re:Should be easier to get agreement on name by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      You realize that name just means "One, One, Seven"-ium, right? 115 is Ununpentium (tm Intel), 116 is Ununhexium, 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.
    4. Re:Should be easier to get agreement on name by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Easy one for Halo fans. After all, we can name it after the guy who'll save the humans against the Covernant and the Flood.

      (John-117 aka Master Chief).

  11. unnamed - Colbertium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You know Stephen's going to make a claim to it.

  12. non predictable ... ? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The chemical properties are determined by the electron cloud around the atom. (Which is ofc determined by the number of protons in the core)

    Nevertheless the chemical properties are completely predictable as the element will behave similar as the other elements in its group.

    Best Regards

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    1. Re:non predictable ... ? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Element 121 is theorized to be in a group by itself (and so on for 122 through 138).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:non predictable ... ? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      Not quite. The periodic table gives rough predictions. And yes, we understand what those should roughly be. But even given that the complexity of the interactions in the electron clouds mean we can only make rough estimates about how something would behave. For example, we barely understand why certain metals make certain types of allows and certain other metals don't. Or to use another example, many metals are superconducting at very low temperatures but we can't work out more than a very rough approximation of what temperatures those should occur at (we know the temperatures very precisely due to empirical work). For a lot of chemistry and physics we have a lot of very good theoretical models but trying to actually use them in practice becomes incredibly difficult because of the amount of computation involved.

    3. Re:non predictable ... ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nevertheless the chemical properties are completely predictable as the element will behave similar as the other elements in its group.

      Wrong, idiot.

  13. What happens when you go outside what's there? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

    What I mean is, starting with element 119 you are in to a new, 8th period of the periodic table. Ok well each two periods adds new blocks due to the electron shells. Starting at element 121, you are in that new block. As such there isn't anything to compare it against. You are now dealing with g-block elements, which don't exist in lighter elements.

    1. Re:What happens when you go outside what's there? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      The article also mentions shells of protons and neutrons in the nucleus helping to determine stability, something which I don't recall learning in chem. Is that an error in explanation, or something that gets discussed when you get a dedicated nuclear chemistry class? Our nuclear chem sections only involved a chapter or two, and largely dealt with the byproducts of decay.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    2. Re:What happens when you go outside what's there? by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      There is a huge amount of knowledge, so your classes can't teach you everything. Just enough to get started, really. Modern or Nuclear Physics courses probably touch on it.

    3. Re:What happens when you go outside what's there? by Animaether · · Score: 1

      Your chem (or physics, depends a little) class never dealt with the island of stability when discussing the periodic table?

      I think it's one of the first things we were taught here - although I do admit it was in the very first year and it was never touched upon again (simply because we wouldn't be likely to ever have to deal with it, and knowing the hypothesis was good enough).

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability

    4. Re:What happens when you go outside what's there? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      My last chem class was in 1992, and nuclear chemistry was a very small part of it. The Island of Stability was mentioned, but not delved into with any great depth.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    5. Re:What happens when you go outside what's there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if I was to tell you I am extremely high ATM and had an insight the G-Block elements (something which I have no experience whatsoever with, I never took chemistry in HS). Ok, I'll be as curt as to not extrapolate so much I distort the meaning, but In whatever way we measure G-block elements, once they get to the lighter elements, in whatever increment is measurable, by measuring the lack of light (darkness) to determine what a Gblock in lighter elements exist but its because they are now in the dark spectrum. A universe of ying yang to the 12th dimension man. Also darkness or lack of light could be considered an expansion of space, the atom now being a universe...ok I'll shutup now.

    6. Re:What happens when you go outside what's there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its sorta like if you use an extreme amount of electricity there is that peak of a nano second and then you loose a certain amount of power, conductivity whatever, it dims, at that point the universe is convex upon itself. This is also applicable to humans and their interactions/spirits.
      Oh man, if yall could see my da vinci style notebook of this shit that doesnt exist yet, your minds would explode.

    7. Re:What happens when you go outside what's there? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      No it is quite right. I do not have the requisite knowledge to give you a concise explanation as to why this is the case, but it is. The ratio of protons to neutrons is critical to stability.

      A simple example of this can be seen with hydrogen. It's a nice simple element, of course, 1 proton and one electron. However that is technically Hydrogen-1. It is the kind you see most commonly (99.98%) but there are others found in nature. Hydrogen-2 also called Deuterium, and Hydrogen-3 also called Tritium. They all contain one proton and one electron, wouldn't be hydrogen with a different number of protons and it'd be an ion without the electron, however the contain 1 and 2 neutrons respectively.

      Well, Hydrogen-3 isn't stable, it is radioactive. It has a halflife of about 12 years. So while Hydrogen-1 is completely stable, knock on two more neutrons and it isn't. In fact the radioactive properties of Tritium are exploited to make things like watches with hands that glow all the time.

      This trend continues up the chain. Certain proton/neutron combination are stable, others aren't. You can have pretty much any element be radioactive with the right isotope. Put on too many, or too few, neutrons and it won't be stable. It'll decay in to something else.

      That's how carbon dating is done. Normal Carbon-12 is stable, however we also contain some Carbon-14, which isn't. The ratio stays pretty constant when we are alive since we take in new carbon all the time. However once we die, the C-14 starts decaying. Measure the ratio, you can estimate the age.

    8. Re:What happens when you go outside what's there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its sorta like if you use an extreme amount of electricity there is that peak of a nano second and then you loose a certain amount of power, conductivity whatever, it dims, at that point the universe is convex upon itself.

  14. Island of stability, they say? by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    Well one of its isotopes seems to have a longer half-life than my ping time, I guess that makes it stable! They can even make more than one atom per month!

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  15. Repeatable? by Wiscocrew · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pics or it didn't happen, scientists.

    1. Re:Repeatable? by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      . -- Element 117 magnified millions of times

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
  16. Need a name? by daoshi · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Easy! I name it Oneonesevenium !

    1. Re:Need a name? by daoshi · · Score: 1

      Hey people check this post out!

  17. Wonderflonium by Neil+Jansen · · Score: 1

    Great for making freeze rays. Bad things can happen if it is bounced.

    1. Re:Wonderflonium by trum4n · · Score: 1

      just don't cross the streams!

    2. Re:Wonderflonium by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      If it is so cool, call it Zambonium.

  18. Island of stability by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2, Informative

    Although there is a predicted island of stability (due to being nearer to a nice magic number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_number_(physics)). However, TFA's statement about these elements lasting days or years is wildly optimistic. By most estimates it isn't likely that we will have elements which are stable for more than at most a few minutes. However, that doesn't sound sexy so everyone talks about the island of stability a lot. A lot of scifi has had fun with the idea of very stable elements in the island being not only stable but having really weird properties (allowing warp drives, wormholes and other fun stuff). However, more likely than not even if we can make these larger these elements they won't more than a few seconds. And we will only be able to make them in very tiny quantities. Of course, they certainly won't allow stargates and all that fun stuff either, but that's at least fun to dream about.

    1. Re:Island of stability by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

      TFA's statement about these elements lasting days or years is wildly optimistic.

      Still, Tiger Woods might be able to have a wedding ring made of it.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Island of stability by spvo · · Score: 1

      So far all the elements produced near the island of stability are isotopes with a fewer neutrons than would be needed for them to have long lifetimes. It is still too early to know how long these super heavy elements will last. Yet, there have been several produced in the 112+ range with half-lifes on the order of minutes.

      Just explore the top of the chart at nndc to see.

    3. Re:Island of stability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He would get an ugly scar when he gets a slap from a hand wearing it.

  19. Very Surprised... by wtbname · · Score: 1

    ...that no one has made any boring, unoriginal, or redundant Unobtainium jokes about this article.

    1. Re:Very Surprised... by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      ...that no one has made any boring, unoriginal, or redundant Unobtainium jokes about this article.

      And nobody will if you insist on being engaging, unique and first. Cut it out! ;-)

      -FL

  20. Pantheonium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    117 was the year construction of the Pantheon was started.. and what else but gods are these heavy elements to our paltry hydro-oxy-nitro-carbo atoms?

  21. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you take a look at your own shit today?

  22. 3D Table is Required by Plekto · · Score: 3, Interesting

    http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/03/05/163226/First-Creation-of-Anti-Strange-Hypernuclei

    This was on Slashdot a few weeks ago. And it shows us that the periodic table is without a doubt in need of a major revision from what we've always assumed to be correct.

    http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/pt.html
    Dozens of (the major) alternate versions are listed here as well. I personally like the Dufour Periodictree myself, as it has a nice symmetry to it that's similar to the circular one.

    1. Re:3D Table is Required by glwtta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And it shows us that the periodic table is without a doubt in need of a major revision from what we've always assumed to be correct.

      What do you mean? The point of the story was that if you create exotic matter, you can't just plop it down on the periodic table; doesn't mean it's not correct for normal matter.

      I didn't see a single version on that page that wasn't obnoxiously difficult to read.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    2. Re:3D Table is Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the two articles talk about very different things. Element 117 contains conventional protons and neutrons, not 'strange' particles.

    3. Re:3D Table is Required by Plekto · · Score: 1

      Yet that's apparently why the "easy to read" one is such a horrendous mess. Because it doesn't easily fit into two dimensions like that. IF you map it in three dimensions, though, it also can fit exotic matter as well.

    4. Re:3D Table is Required by glwtta · · Score: 1

      Yet that's apparently why the "easy to read" one is such a horrendous mess.

      Really? "Horrendous mess"? Are you sure you are not overstating that one, just a tiny bit?

      IF you map it in three dimensions, though, it also can fit exotic matter as well.

      Right, for all those times when you need a handy reference for exotic matter... because, you know, the second time they create one of those particles, it will be really handy to look it up on a chart.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
  23. just name it element 110 by malp · · Score: 1

    to be difficult

  24. Belt of Stability by RobinEggs · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Speaking of periodic trends, I bet some of you are wondering just why we care about ultra heavy elements that last for roughly .0000000000002 seconds before falling apart.

    The deal is, there's a rough property of periodic trends and neutron/proton ratios in which certain ratios stick together well, and one of the hopes is that once we're synthesizing some really, really heavy stuff the ratios will be such that it all sticks together again, and we will have stable, completely synthetic, super-heavy elements with cool properties.

    1. Re:Belt of Stability by John+Hasler · · Score: 2

      > ...we will have stable, completely synthetic, super-heavy elements with cool
      > properties.

      And which will be even harder to manufacture than anti-matter. How much chemistry can you do with six atoms?

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:Belt of Stability by RobinEggs · · Score: 1

      I think you lack a bit of imagination...it presumes a serious breakthrough in energy production to say we'll manufacture this stuff on a large scale, but we *are* pursuing serious breakthroughs in energy production. If we ever get both cold fusion and cool new elements, we'll be able to make cool new elements in surplus. Going for broke is kinda the basis of futurism and the long term goal of careful, incremental science.

    3. Re:Belt of Stability by tpwch · · Score: 1

      Even if we can't use it for practical purposes we can still use it to learn a lot about how the universe works.

      --
      Posted by a Debian GNU/Linux user
  25. Just 6? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just 6? talk to me when they manage to come up with the rest of the new element's atoms

  26. But will it blend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..iPadium... Jobsium... /trollium

  27. Seven-[past]-elevenium. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes I can type more than that for my comment.

  28. Element 115 Will Be the Prize by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 1

    As anyone who has read about Bob Lazar and the "Sport Model" UFO knows, it's Element 115 that is the prize. That is the element that allegedly powers UFOs. Can't wait for that one. Laugh all you want but that's supposedly the actual fuel source for the gravity warp drive

    1. Re:Element 115 Will Be the Prize by spedrosa · · Score: 1

      And X-Com reverse-engineered alien craft.

  29. Not true by students · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A good quantum analog of the classical speed grandparent was talking about is the root mean square velocity (computed from the momentum operator), which need not be zero for a bound state. The Heisenberg uncertainty relation shows that a particle in any state may be observed to have a nonzero velocity.

    Perhaps you are thinking that the wavefunction, as it is written in most textbooks, does not depend on time. Usually in books the time dependent factor is dropped because it is not very interesting. Also, it is incorrect to think that the motion of a wavefunction is the quantum analog of the classical motion of a particle. Always think in expectation values.

    1. Re:Not true by pclminion · · Score: 1

      The Heisenberg uncertainty relation shows that a particle in any state may be observed to have a nonzero velocity.

      The act of observation perturbs the state -- otherwise there could be no observation. Whether the electron moves or not when not observed is really a matter of your personal interpretation of quantum mechanics. One could argue that whether it moves or not is not even a physical question.

  30. Might I respectfully suggest... by ezzthetic · · Score: 1

    Illudium Phosdex.

    --
    You know what they say about opinions. They're all fabulous!
    1. Re:Might I respectfully suggest... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Illudium Phosdex is the shaving cream molecule . It's made up of an illudium atom and an "ex" ion based on the element phosdium, just as calcium carbonate is made of calcium and an "ate" ion of carbon.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  31. Trollium by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

    Trollium would be a GREAT name for an element.

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    1. Re:Trollium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -You- saw what I did... Trollium FTW! Thanks :)

  32. Conspiracy by istartedi · · Score: 1

    The Federal Reserve is manipulating element 117! Fools! The six atoms are not even there. We sold them to China already. Shut off the MSM, and listen, sheeple. How can you keep using your worthless paper money? Element 117 is unique, rare, and unlike fiat can't be crea... oh... wait. Ummm.... buy my book!

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  33. Names by Dirtside · · Score: 5, Funny

    Name ideas:

    - Yetanotherium
    - Unremarkablum
    - Irrelevantium
    - Onehundredseventeenium
    - Instantlydecaysium

    --
    "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    1. Re:Names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely it'll just be Ununseptium for a while, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_element_name ?

  34. Is no one doing their research today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Element 117 is called Cortexrulestheworldium.

  35. Are nanoscale accelerators possible? by mattr · · Score: 1

    I have a question for any physicists in the room. Is it theoretically possible to create nanoscale machinery that can mechanically, perhaps via a nanoscale accelerator, add and subtract protons and neutrons to atoms?

    Wondering what the possiblity is of seeing superheavy elements from this new island appearing in quanitities useable by industry.

    I suppose another question would be, the possibility of seeking such atoms in the solar system where they could be discovered and obtained more easily.

    Just a thought experiment for now but it might be reality this century, if physically possible.

  36. Element 117 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe sixatomsonlyium?

    However as soon as the mobs realise this would be "A real Heavy sniff up ya nose man!" I am sure it will be made in bulk. OK only priced for russion oil zillionaires but hey its a start.
    xRay

  37. Synthetic Pelosium? by Compaqt · · Score: 1, Troll

    Heaviest Element Yet Known to Science Discovered

    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California has now identified with certainty the heaviest element known to science.

    The new element, Pelosium (PL), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

    These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

    Pelosium is inert, and has no charge and no magnetism. Nevertheless, it can be detected because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Pelosium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete.

    Pelosium has a normal half-life of 2 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a biennial reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

    Pelosium mass will increase over time, since each reorganization will promote many morons to become isodopes.

    This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Pelosium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.

    When catalyzed with money, Pelosium becomes Senatorium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Pelosium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    1. Re:Synthetic Pelosium? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      C. Northcote Parkinson did some preliminary research on this subject, which resulted in Parkinson's law (q.v.) and other observations of government and hierarchies.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:Synthetic Pelosium? by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      Who moderated this Troll? Obviously someone without a sense of humor.

      It's funny, esp. the stuff about morons and peons, and assistant deputy neutrons.

      It could actually be adapted for any politician, but it's currently making the rounds for Nancy Pelosi.

      A crack about the heaviest element is entirely appropriate for an article on the discovery of a new element.

      And it goes without saying that labeling joke posts as "Warning: This is a joke" undoes the entire effect.

      Finally, you don't have to disagree with a politician in order to laugh at a joke about them. If John Boehner were Speaker of the House, people would be making funnies about him. Last time I checked, late night shows and SNL sweker bother parties because they both deserve it.

      The interesting thing is the post was already moderated +2 Funny (so it was clear it's just a joke) when a humorless moderator came by and so could not stand the fact that someone made fun of the bureaucracy that he had to drive-by moderate it with a -1 Troll.

      -1 Fanboi for this moderator.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
  38. Chronium exists!!! by Wormfoud · · Score: 1

    Relativistic effects, eh? Perhaps super heavy elements are unstable within the Time/Space continuum. Maybe the Heisenberg uncertainty principle needs to be expanded to include not only a "Where" and "How Fast" but also a "When" factor? Chronium, anyone?

  39. i vote for.... by inerlogic · · Score: 1

    TomLehrerium!!

    1. Re:i vote for.... by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

      TomLehrerium!!

      Beautiful! I'll second that!

      --
      "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
  40. Yawn... by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

    Let me know when they've created a mole.

    --
    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    1. Re:Yawn... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Is that an African mole or a European mole?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  41. the team of Russian and American scientists" by tristes_tigres · · Score: 0, Troll

    I guessed, based the words "the team of Russian and American scientists", that the new element was produced in Russian lab on Russian equipment, maybe with some Americans taking part. If it were the other way around, Russian participation would not have been mentioned, because Americans are so unselfconsciously nationalistic.

  42. how about by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    gymnasium

    auditorium

    pandemonium

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  43. Alchemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if they can 'make' elements, can they finally turn lead into gold?

  44. Colbertium Enema? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    I'm presuming, of course, that the t is still silent.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  45. And there may be many others... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    ...but they haven't been discarvard!

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?