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."

Comments

No name yet

[tedgyz]

In Soviet Russia, elements name you

Re:No name yet

[Cryacin]

Pure weapons grade Balonium.

Re:No name yet

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything is better than Unobtainium.

Re:No name yet

[OzPeter]

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

Re:No name yet

[49152]

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

Re:No name yet

[Cryacin]

Unaffordium then.

Re:No name yet

[ijakings]

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

Re:No name yet

[Yvan256]

As long as they don't call it Belgium.

Re:No name yet

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

Only until the isotope, Walmartium, is discovered.

Re:No name yet

[JWSmythe]

    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!

   

Re:No name yet

[JWSmythe]

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. :)

Re:No name yet

[paeanblack]

In Soviet Russia the government decides how many atoms to make

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

Re:No name yet

[Whalou]

My vote is for Mattdamium

Re:No name yet

[spartacus_prime]

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.

still more...

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:still more...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:still more...

[John Hasler]

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

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

Re:still more...

[John Hasler]

> perhaps it is the dark matter.

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

Re:still more...

[JWSmythe]

Dude.

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

Re:still more...

[Artifakt]

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.

Re:still more...

[Chris Burke]

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

Re:still more...

[trapnest]

I was thinking of the "unobtanium" in Avatar.

I have never been more disappointed in a slashdot post.

Re:still more...

[lennier]

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!

Re:still more...

[sapphire wyvern]

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

Chemical properties

[techno-vampire]

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.

Re:Chemical properties

[Chris Burke]

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.

Re:Chemical properties

[maxume]

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

Re:Chemical properties

[Cyberax]

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.

Re:Chemical properties

[pclminion]

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.

Re:Chemical properties

[modrzej]

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.

Re:Chemical properties

[JWSmythe]

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.

Re:Chemical properties

[quanminoan]

And it explains why mercury is liquid: http://voh.chem.ucla.edu/vohtar/fall02/classes/172/pdf/172rpint.pdf

Hey chemists

[amicusNYCL]

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.

Re:Hey chemists

[modrzej]

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.

Re:Hey chemists

[PatDev]

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.

Re:Hey chemists

[spvo]

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.

Re:Hey chemists

[Obfuscant]

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.

Re:Hey chemists

[Trepidity]

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.

Re:Hey chemists

[Chris Burke]

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.

Re:Hey chemists

[jacix]

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.

Maybe...

[actionbastard]

Jumbonium?

Re:Maybe...

[Slur]

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 ...

Re:Should be easier to get agreement on name

[49152]

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

non predictable ... ?

[angel'o'sphere]

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

What happens when you go outside what's there?

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Repeatable?

[Wiscocrew]

Pics or it didn't happen, scientists.

Island of stability

[JoshuaZ]

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.

Re:Island of stability

[PPH]

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.

3D Table is Required

[Plekto]

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.

Re:3D Table is Required

[glwtta]

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.

Belt of Stability

[RobinEggs]

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.

Re:Belt of Stability

[John Hasler]

> ...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?

Not true

[students]

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.

Names

[Dirtside]

Name ideas:

- Yetanotherium
- Unremarkablum
- Irrelevantium
- Onehundredseventeenium
- Instantlydecaysium