Stable Roentgenium Claimed Found In Gold

eldavojohn writes "Amnon Marinov, a physicist specializing in super heavy elements, claims that a stable isotope of roentgenium is commonly found alongside gold, just in very small quantities that we could not measure before. To prove this, he boiled gold in a vacuum, postulating that as the gold evaporated, the roentgenium should remain. He did this for two weeks and then passed the resulting mess through a mass spectrometer and was left with several peaks that could be explained away except for one. Marinov lead the team that found the first super heavy 122 thorium isotope in nature a few years back and now claims that, despite all indications that this super heavy element shouldn't exist longer than a few seconds, he has found a stable isomer of roentgenium in nature. Is he on to something, or overlooking a simpler explanation in his quest for evidence of the island of stability long theorized by physicists?"

Comments

I'll take two

[hellkyng]

Is there a roentgenium market yet? For the savvy investor looking to diversify from gold.

Re:I'll take two

[Jane Q. Public]

The problem with that being that in fact at the event horizon of a black hole, information is indeed lost (in violation of the law, which physicists acknowledge), and so this doesn't hold true. It doesn't get you anywhere to follow someone's mathematical model when it contains a known inconsistency.

Of course we know of such things as Cherenkov and Hawking radiation, which could -- just maybe -- serve to preserve that "lost information". But if so, nobody today has a clue about how that may be determined.

By the way: there is no such thing as "conservation of entropy". Entropy increases. Period.

Interesting if true

[gman003]

Roentgenium is element #111, right below gold on the periodic table, and well within the zone of "highly unstable elements". Not just "unstable" - it's well into the group of elements that decay in seconds. The most stable isotope discovered so far, Rg 281, has a half-life of just 20 seconds. So I have some doubts about this - every other "stable transuranic element" story I've heard ended up being a mistake or a hoax.

I'm also wondering how Marinov suspected it would be in gold. The only link I can find is that they're both group 11 elements, but by that logic you should be able to find tellurium in sulfur, which isn't the case.

Re:Interesting if true

[pookemon]

but by that logic you should be able to find tellurium in sulfur, which isn't the case

Maybe it is, but not at levels that have been detectable before, as in this case. However the following link seems to indicate that Tellurium is found in Sulfides.

Re:Interesting if true

[SEWilco]

I'm also wondering how Marinov suspected it would be in gold. The only link I can find is that they're both group 11 elements, but by that logic you should be able to find tellurium in sulfur, which isn't the case.

Sulfur is more reactive, so the geological and chemical processes which form sulfur deposits also separate it from gold. Gold doesn't react with as many things as sulfur, so an element with similar characteristics will be more diluted in sulfur than in a gold deposit. On the other hand, if this element does indeed also travel with sulfur then there's a chance that larger amount might be in the larger sulfur deposits even if there's less per ton.

Re:Interesting if true

[MichaelSmith]

If it does have an obscure stable state it could make a fantastic rocket fuel.

Or bomb.

Re:Interesting if true

[Monkeedude1212]

I'm also wondering how Marinov suspected it would be in gold. The only link I can find is that they're both group 11 elements, but by that logic you should be able to find tellurium in sulfur, which isn't the case.

Of course not, everyone knows that elements form their cliques based on their classification, not the group # they've been assigned. This is why you see Hydrogen sleeping around with all the other non-metals and not really with any of the Alkali Metals. Everyone knows that Sulfur is a non-metal and Tellurium is a metalloid, and metalloids are known for being really a really exclusive group - they wouldn't even let Aluminium in despite her flexible standards.

No, I'm pretty sure Marinov studied the social situation amongst the elements pretty closely and determined that transitional metals - since they are going through puberty - are noticing all those really weird little changes. I mean gold has become a little more malleable to the ladies, copper and silver are noticing their skin has started conducting these little tiny dots.

Its only a natural part that Gold has started to notice its growing a new element in odd places. Don't be worried, its all part of the process.

Re:Interesting if true

[Dthief]

He did claim to find another element (122) in gold previously. So probably just assumed every element could be found in a piece of gold

Re:Interesting if true

[Anonymous Coward]

Goldschmidt Classification. Although I too have my doubts about the stable Rg, there is some reason to the madness of expecting certain elements to be found with other ones.

Re:Interesting if true

[WalksOnDirt]

Roentgenium is element #111, right below gold on the periodic table, and well within the zone of "highly unstable elements".

Elements 110 through 114 have long been expected to be an island of stability. The problem is that we cannot stuff enough neutrons in, as Rg 281 still has too few. So far, the heaviest isotope created is also the most stable. The only problem is that the odd atomic number elements are expected to be less stable, so that 110, 112 or 114 would be more believable. I don't think it's really likely that he has found Rg, but it's not impossible.

Rg, if it exists, would indeed be found as a trace element in Au.

Re:Interesting if true

[Megane]

Maybe you don't find tellurium in sulfur, but it sure can take the place of Sulfur. Selenium can give you some pretty bad breath if it gets into your body chemistry, but if you get tellurium into your body, you'll have the worst kind of body odor ever, and it takes months for it to wear off.

You do NOT want "tellurium breath".

Yes

[SuperKendall]

Simply boil all your gold into vapor, and you'll have an even more valuable collection of roentgenium. You won't be able to see it, but it's there, trust me.

If you have any further questions you can ask my operative, conveniently located outside your house looking after a totally unrelated condensing jar.

Re:Yes

[davester666]

And I will be happy to recycle that vaporized gold for you, just so the neighbourhood children don't accidentally inhale it.

Re:Isomer?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nuclear Isomers" exist, which refers to excitation states inside the nucleus. What he is saying is that such a excited state in the nucleus makes the element 'more stable' than its ground state, and thus doesn't decay.

Prior work was flawed

[kiwix]

Here is what Wikipedia says about the previous discovery of Unbibium by this the team:

In 2008, it was claimed to have been discovered in natural thorium samples[1] but that claim has now been dismissed by recent repetitions of the experiment using more accurate techniques.

Re:Prior work was flawed

[careysub]

Here is what Wikipedia says about the previous discovery of Unbibium by this the team:

In 2008, it was claimed to have been discovered in natural thorium samples[1] but that claim has now been dismissed by recent repetitions of the experiment using more accurate techniques.

This is like the guy who keeps claiming new record-shattering high temperature superconductors which are are never confirmed by anyone (and who keeps showing up on Slashdot). Far-fetched claims from Arxiv.org should be prominently flagged as suspect if they are going t get posted here. I have yet to see one pan out.

Re:Prior work was flawed

[wizardforce]

111 has an odd number of protons which is strike number one. odd numbers of protons or neutrons are much less stable and strike number two is that the island of stability is for the most part concerning stability against fission and alpha radiation decay.
Strike number three is that the stability of isotopes of element 111 are markedly less stable than isotopes of elements 114-116

Re:Prior work was flawed

[wizardforce]

Take a look at this.

Another factor affecting the stability of a nucleus is whether the number of protons and neutrons is even or odd. Among the 354 known stable isotopes, 157 (almost half) have an even number of protons and an even number of neutrons. Only five have an odd number of both kinds of nucleons

The reason why this is so is that nuclei just like atoms in chemistry have shells (in chemistry it's electrons with nuclei it's protons and neutrons) filled shells are more stable which is why there is an island of stability. The island of stability is centered around the magic numbers 114 (the number of protons) and 184 (the number of neutrons) magic numbers of either protons or neutrons tend to create more stable nuclei. nuclei with odd numbers of either are less stable in the same way that Fluorine is less stable chemically compared to Neon. The nuclear shell is not full and is therefore less stable to various modes of decay.

Your point concerning alpha and fission modes of decay is more likely to increase the half life significantly excluding electron capture and beta decay modes.

elements 114-116 have isotopes with half lives that are significantly higher than nuclei in the 100-113 range as these lower nuclei tend to have half lives measured in fractions of a second. The island of stability is a misnomer. It'd be far more accurate to say that it is an island of relative not absolute stability. The odds of finding any nuclei beyond uranium with a comparable half life or even stable nuclei is remote.

I feel this is dubious

[Anonymous Coward]

The previous discovery of Element 122 in thorium was shown to be incorrect at higher levels of accuracy; thus, it seems unlikely that this one will bear fruit, especially since roentgenium shouldn't be stable for more than seconds.
It still may bear out, but I consider that extremely unlikely.

Re:Neal Stephenson - The Baroque Cycle

[PCM2]

In the Baroque Cycle, the background story is all about a special, heavy form of gold with magical powers.

Amazing that I slogged my way through 900 pages of the Baroque Cycle before deciding I couldn't take any more, and yet I still have no clue about this background story you mention.

Thankfully Anathem was not quite as unbearable, if no less overbearing.

Re:Neal Stephenson - The Baroque Cycle

[glwtta]

I slogged my way through 900 pages of the Baroque Cycle

Well, that's what, like half of the first volume?

"the resulting mess"

[pcardno]

Wow. Great scientific summary. Why is it a "mess"? Surely it's the output of one carefully controlled process that led to another carefully controlled process that resulted in a particular outcome. Or isn't it? Surely boiling an element in a vacuum is a pretty clean way of doing things? If it's a "mess", then the whole thing is clearly a load of old nonsense.

Either state the results or make it clear it's an editorial. Don't mix them up. Otherwise it's a mess.

Re:replacing depleted uranium

[lgw]

Tungsten is used instea of depleted uranium. Hardness matters more than density for weapons. Not that there's any special danger associated with depleted uranium in the envronment - like lead, it causes problems, but no more than any other bullet.

Re:Neal Stephenson - The Baroque Cycle

[sakdoctor]

Snape kills Dumbledore

For armor, what mostly counts

[ridgecritter]

is the bond energy and fracture mechanics. For example, ceramic armor breaks into lots of very small particles when hit by a projectile: each fracture surface is created using energy from the incoming projectile, and hence dissipates the projectile's energy. Ceramics aren't very dense compared to tungsten or DU, but their fracture energies are very high. Density counts for projectiles because it's one of the parameters that determines the pressure at the impact point, which in turn is one of the parameters that predicts penetration efficacy. Tungsten is a little more dense than DU, not significantly so for projectile use. A DU projectile will catch fire when it penetrates armor, contributing to its destructive effects. Tungsten doesn't do this. DU is a low-level radiological hazard, tungsten isn't, so for cleaning up after a battle, tungsten is a better choice. DU may have some low-level chemical toxicity, but there's evidence that tungsten (when imbedded as particles under skin) is toxic as well. I speculate the choice of D vs W for projectiles is mainly economic (unless you need to incinerate the occupants of that tank you're killing), as I think DU is cheaper than W.

Re:replacing depleted uranium

[jvonk]

Not that there's any special danger associated with depleted uranium in the envronment

You are correct that pure DU would essentially be no more hazardous than other types of heavy metal pollution. However, the situation is more complex in reality.

Quoth the WHO:

Spent uranium fuel from nuclear reactors is sometimes reprocessed in plants for natural uranium enrichment. Some reactor-created radioisotopes can consequently contaminate the reprocessing equipment and the DU. Under these conditions another uranium isotope, 236U, may be present in the DU together with very small amounts of the transuranic elements plutonium, americium and neptunium and the fission product technetium-99. However, the additional radiation dose following intake of DU into the human body from these isotopes would be less than 1%.

Somehow, I don't find that very reassuring ("Yay! Heavy metal toxicity with a side of biosequestered alpha & beta emitters!"). It seems much more likely that spent-fuel DU production would have less quality control care than the original enrichment process, but I could very well be mistaken.

I have heard it alleged that only the US uses spent reactor fuel to create DU for weapons and that other countries that produce DU weapons use only the byproduct from the enrichment stage. However, since I have no cite at the moment, I wouldn't assign that much credulity. Regardless, it does seem that in practice DU is not always pure as the driven snow.

Re:Isomer?

[bcrowell]

Strictly speaking, he may be referring to a "structural isomer", but if so, it can only be defined in terms of other isomers, and further, it is a molecular distinction, not nuclear.

The term has different meanings in nuclear physics than in chemistry. In nuclear physics, it refers to an unusually long-lived excited state of the nucleus.