Periodic Table To Welcome Two New Elements

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Periodic Table To Welcome Two New Elements

Posted by Soulskill on Friday December 2, 2011 @08:29AM from the spellchecker-database-grows-by-two dept.

adeelarshad82 writes "Chemistry's periodic table can soon welcome livermorium and flerovium, two newly named elements, which were announced Thursday (Dec. 1) by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. The new names will undergo a five-month public comment period before the official paperwork gets processed and they show up on the table. Three other new elements just recently finished this process, filling in the 110, 111 and 112 spots."

111 of 157 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Rejected again! by cashman73 · 2011-12-02 08:31 · Score: 4, Funny

Will they ever name an element Colbertium, after Stephen T. Colbert, DFA?
1. Re:Rejected again! by tripleevenfall · 2011-12-02 08:33 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Hasbeenium?
2. Re:Rejected again! by ooshna · 2011-12-02 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  This comment saddens me.
3. Re:Rejected again! by JavaBear · 2011-12-02 08:41 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Or Roadrunnium, because it has a half life so fast you won't be able to catch it.
4. Re:Rejected again! by circletimessquare · 2011-12-02 08:52 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Strange.
  I've read comment threads where name droppping Stephen Colbert makes you look like a genius compared to everyone else posting, and here we have a context where name dropping Stephen Colbert makes you look like an idiot.
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
5. Re:Rejected again! by JavaBear · 2011-12-02 08:52 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Of course after Roadrunnium, we need Wileeum and Coyotium, though it'll be unwise to put either of those in the vicinity of the highly unstable Ajaxium.
  The proximity of either Eileeium or Coyotium with Ajaxium is known to create a localized reality nullification field, and we all know how much serious scientists hates it when reality stops taking them seriously, and starts making or changing it's own rules.
6. Re:Rejected again! by ackthpt · 2011-12-02 09:14 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Will they ever name an element Colbertium, after Stephen T. Colbert, DFA?
  Insovietrussiaelementnamesyounium
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
7. Re:Rejected again! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-02 09:23 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I dunno, but they really should keep 111 as unununium. It just sounds too damn funny to discard.
8. Re:Rejected again! by tom17 · 2011-12-02 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  Warning. Soviet Russia jokes are now being used in 'hip and on the pulse' radio adverts. It is time to stop using it now. It has lost its funny (In Soviet Russia, its funny loses YOU!).
9. Re:Rejected again! by MrWin2kMan · 2011-12-02 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Kind of like when Howard Stern staffers call in to serious talk shows...
  
  --
  Nothing to see here but us trolls...move along...
10. Re:Rejected again! by colinrichardday · 2011-12-02 10:00 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It's Acmeium, not Ajaxium.
11. Re:Rejected again! by Darinbob · 2011-12-02 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  But what you look like will be unknown until the event is actually observed.
12. Re:Rejected again! by mikael · 2011-12-02 22:23 · Score: 1
  
  Dilbertium?
  Large non metallic element, has an affinity for anything silicon. Has a half-life of 30 years. Found mostly in IT departments and university research labs.
  
  --
  Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Livermorium stinks by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-02 08:34 · Score: 1

Anything but that!
1. Re:Livermorium stinks by ohnocitizen · 2011-12-02 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  What were the scientists thinking? Maybe they got so consistently drunk they named it in memory of their formerly healthy organs?
2. Re:Livermorium stinks by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-02 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  What were the scientists thinking?
  I bet they were thinking, "Hey let's name it after the town in which we work.
3. Re:Livermorium stinks by SnarfQuest · 2011-12-02 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  Is flerovium some breed of onion?
  
  --
  Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
4. Re:Livermorium stinks by ackthpt · 2011-12-02 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  Is flerovium some breed of onion?
  Sounds like the latest artificial sweetner or food additive .. but I'm being culturally insensitive.
  Do these people ever have fun? How about Unobtanium?
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
5. Re:Livermorium stinks by Vastad · 2011-12-02 19:43 · Score: 1
  
  Answering to an AC but so very much agreed I had to comment. It really stinks. It just doesn't flow when you say it. It makes you think of food. It just doesn't have a cool "STAND BACK! I'M USING SCIENCE!" name.
  I'm assuming it refers to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory?
When does comment period begin for Element 115? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-02 08:34 · Score: 3, Funny

I have a number of people to coordinate in order to make sure it ends up with the name Elerium.
1. Re:When does comment period begin for Element 115? by SleazyRidr · 2011-12-02 09:32 · Score: 2
  
  I'll join your quest to make element 115 Elerium.
  Personally though, I'm looking forward to Unobtainium becoming official.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
Real elements - or theoretical? by raydobbs · 2011-12-02 08:35 · Score: 3, Informative

Were these stable elements - or did they exist as a product of some super-collision for fractions of a second?
1. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by eric_brissette · 2011-12-02 08:40 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  FTA - "All five of these elements are so large and unstable they can be made only in the lab, and they fall apart into other elements very quickly. Not much is known about these elements, since they aren't stable enough to do experiments on and are not found in nature."
2. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by gumbi+west · 2011-12-02 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  The longest lived isotopes stay around for seconds.
3. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by nitefallz · 2011-12-02 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  By this definition aren't, how can they be classified as elements? Growing up, and being taught in school "elements cannot be broken down any further." If these elements are breaking down into other elements..wtf?
4. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by nitefallz · 2011-12-02 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  Wow I mangled that post. Why isn't my brain functioning today?
5. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by Obfuscant · 2011-12-02 08:55 · Score: 2
  
  Growing up, and being taught in school "elements cannot be broken down any further." If these elements are breaking down into other elements..wtf?
  By that definition, there are no elements other than hydrogen. Any atom can be split, given enough energy, into atoms of other elements, except for the proton, which can be pulverized, but the products are not another element.
  Otherwise, I would agree. Any element with a half-life so short should be considered an intermediate reaction product, not an element.
6. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by nitefallz · 2011-12-02 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  They breakdown into other elements? Uranium can become gold?
7. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by nedlohs · 2011-12-02 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  Uranium does this too (over ever so slightly larger time scales...) - it is not an element?
8. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by eepok · 2011-12-02 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  LOL -- Give it another shot, Tiger. ;)
9. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by sortius_nod · 2011-12-02 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  No, but it does become plutonium.
10. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by X0563511 · 2011-12-02 09:02 · Score: 2
  
  No, gold is not one of the decay products of uranium. Lead, however, most certainly is. read.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
11. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by forkfail · 2011-12-02 09:06 · Score: 2
  
  An element consists of only one kind of atom, cannot be broken down into a simpler type of matter by either physical or chemical means, and can exist as either atoms (e.g. argon) or molecules (e.g., nitrogen).
  Uranium can't become gold; it does decay to lead, however.
  
  --
  Check your premises.
12. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by blueg3 · 2011-12-02 09:08 · Score: 2
  
  They break down into other elements, but Uranium's decay series never passes through gold:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_chain#Radium_series_.28also_known_as_uranium_series.29
13. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-02 09:11 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The problem probably comes from several parts. Mostly, the 'Atom', which came from Greek 'atomos': something that couldn't be made any smaller. It was the basic 'element' forming everything else, the building blocks of the universe.
  What was stated to be indivisible was found to be: protons, neutrons, and electrons. Those things that made up atoms... thus proved that we COULD cut the uncutable. And now those three parts are being subdivided further, into quarks.
  So it isn't exactly that elements are indivisible. It's just that the myriad of parts making them up (Protons, Neutrons, and that cloud of Electrons hovering around the nucleus) may change, with some of the changes drastically affecting the element enough that it's no longer what it is; the cases of elements like Uranium breaking down and becoming other elements is what happens with nuclear reactors (with us just harvesting the heat byproduct to make steam to turn turbines to generate electricity). The reverse can happen; combine two elements (say... Hydrogen) and fuse them together, and you can end up with a different element (Helium, among others). Same principle; the 'divisible' parts of the atoms are pushed together so that their nuclei join, and now the new single element changes with its new contents.
  The interesting thing will be how long it'll take to divide quarks into even smaller bits of 'something'... and whether it's turtles all the way down.
14. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by Brett+Buck · 2011-12-02 09:12 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  An element is defined by the number of protons in the nucleus. Not by the number of protons in the nucleus that happen to stay together for a "long time (TBR)".
15. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by LoudNoiseElitist · 2011-12-02 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  Short answer: your elementary education was wrong.
16. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by Bucky24 · 2011-12-02 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  Take for example nuclear fission, a process that involves an unstable isotope breaking down into another element (possibly also an unstable isotope). Likely the only isotopes of these elements they have been able to make so far are extremely unstable. However "breaking down" isn't really a good term to use. Better would be "becoming a smaller element by losing pieces of itself" but that's long.
  
  --
  All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
17. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by Bucky24 · 2011-12-02 09:21 · Score: 2
  
  An element generally (as far as I understand it anyway) can't break down into any element smaller than it. It can break down into certain elements smaller than it.
  
  --
  All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
18. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by newcastlejon · 2011-12-02 09:25 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Allow me, then.
  If you define an element as something that "cannot be broken down any further" you exclude anything that decays into lighter elements, such as uranium or radium. You also exclude substances that can be induced to break down through various means.
  However, it's not a problem if you refine the definition slightly: an element is that which cannot be broken down chemically. You can't turn an atom of X into a lighter atom of Y just by mixing chemicals together in a beaker (no offence, chemists, I'm just trying to illustrate a point). Fire X through a particle accelerator hard enough, though, and sometimes it breaks apart into smaller/lighter pieces when it hits something.
  Is that better?
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
19. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by LWATCDR · 2011-12-02 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  When did you go to school? The 1800s?
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
20. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by colinrichardday · 2011-12-02 10:05 · Score: 2
  
  When did you hear this? We've known that atoms can be broken down since WW II (and somewhat before). I suspect that your instructors were not residents of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
21. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by colinrichardday · 2011-12-02 10:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  There are no stable transuranium elements.
  Yet. Perhaps we will find a transuranium island of stability.
22. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-02 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's not better. It just punts the problem from the unclear definition of "element" to the unclear definition of "chemically"
  "You can't turn an atom of X into a lighter atom of Y just by mixing chemicals together in a beaker"
  I can make Uranium into Thorium by mixing two chemicals - Uranium and Uranium (and then waiting for the reaction to finish). Your definition needs to make it clear WHY this is not a chemical reaction.
  We arbitrarily draw a line between "chemical" events and "nuclear" events based on what particles are involved, what they're doing, and so on. But it's still an aribitrary destinction created by humans and there are still oddball situations that straddle the line.
  Some things just aren't made of atoms in the usual sense. There's positronium, free neutrons, atoms with a bound muon, neutron stars...
  The superheavy atoms in TFA are a case where the usual definition of element is a bit weak, since their real-world behavior is nothing like that of stable elements.
  It might be wiser to redefine "element" in a way that specifically excludes them and call them something else instead, much like we redefined "planet" to exclude Pluto and Eris.
23. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2011-12-02 10:58 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Growing up, and being taught in school "elements cannot be broken down any further."
  It's always nice to run into a fellow member of the Class of 1827 here on /.
  
  --
  The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
24. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by newcastlejon · 2011-12-02 11:06 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  No, it's not better. It just punts the problem from the unclear definition of "element" to the unclear definition of "chemically"
  Very well, I'll try again, though I suspect I'll fare no better.
  
  "You can't turn an atom of X into a lighter atom of Y just by mixing chemicals together in a beaker"
  I can make Uranium into Thorium by mixing two chemicals - Uranium and Uranium (and then waiting for the reaction to finish). Your definition needs to make it clear WHY this is not a chemical reaction.
  You can't make thorium from uranium by mixing it with more uranium. The uranium would decay anyway; you wouldn't have actually done anything to bring about the change. Perhaps it's just semantics but this is equivalent to saying you can make a hammer fall when you drop it by saying the magic word when you let go.
  
  We arbitrarily draw a line between "chemical" events and "nuclear" events based on what particles are involved, what they're doing, and so on. But it's still an aribitrary destinction created by humans and there are still oddball situations that straddle the line.
  I'm neither a physicist nor a chemist but I was taught that chemical reactions are all about interactions between atoms' electrons and that such interactions don't give rise to changes in the nucleus. I'm happy to be corrected on this point, and I'd be very happy to hear about the line-straddling situations you mention.
  
  Some things just aren't made of atoms in the usual sense. There's positronium, free neutrons, atoms with a bound muon, neutron stars...
  Indeed. No argument there.
  
  The superheavy atoms in TFA are a case where the usual definition of element is a bit weak, since their real-world behavior is nothing like that of stable elements.
  I'm not going to dispute this either, but I would ask that you consider the atom's point of view. As someone once said (I regret the name escapes me) "[subatomic particles] operate on a different timescale; it may not look like much on my watch but it's eternity to them". Superheavy elements seem to behave very differently to us, but aren't they very much like 'normal' elements albeit with an extremely short half-life?
  
  It might be wiser to redefine "element" in a way that specifically excludes them and call them something else instead, much like we redefined "planet" to exclude Pluto and Eris.
  What definition do you suggest? I was merely trying to improve on the faulty one given by saying you can't change one element into another through chemistry.
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
25. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by pclminion · 2011-12-02 11:27 · Score: 2
  
  If there was an island of stability why do we not find even a single atom of such an element in 300 years of searching for new elements? If such elements cannot be produced even by supernova processes why should we expect to create them with a particle accelerator?
26. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by Darinbob · 2011-12-02 11:39 · Score: 1
  
  Molecules are the smallest building blocks in physics, which are built out of elements.
  Elements are the smallest building blocks in physics, which are built out of atomic particles.
  Atomic particles are the smallest building blocks in physics, which are built out of quarks.
  Quarks are the smallest building blocks in physics, which are built out of scientific papers.
27. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by c++0xFF · 2011-12-02 12:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  We haven't found them yet because:
  1) Making elements that large is really, really hard
  2) Even if there exists an element with a half-life of, say, a few million years, it's been so long since the last supernova that finding one of them in nature would be impossible.
  3) We're just now producing elements in the range where we might find more stable elements (according to current theory). These are exciting times, as we explore the boundaries of what we believe to be the island of stability.
28. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by Deadstick · 2011-12-02 12:24 · Score: 2
  
  If the atomic number is greater than 92, you'll only find it in a lab for a fraction of a second at a time.
  ...for varying values of "a fraction of a second". Plutonium is transuranic, and it has a half-life measured in millennia.
29. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-02 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  You can't make thorium from uranium by mixing it with more uranium. The uranium would decay anyway; you wouldn't have actually done anything to bring about the change. Perhaps it's just semantics but this is equivalent to saying you can make a hammer fall when you drop it by saying the magic word when you let go.
  Semantics means meaning. When you're arguing about definitions (which we are) semantics are the whole point.
  Even if you disregard reactions that are not clearly caused by the mixing, your definition is still broken, since H-H nuclear fusion is done by mixing Hydrogen with Hydrogen.
  D+T -> He + n -> He + H
  You start with two heavy Hydrogens which are your Atom X. And after the neutron decays you end up with a plain Hydrogen, which is your lighter atom Y. And since it's a D+T reaction, and not D+D or T+T the mixing matters so you can't say it's just a hammer dropping itself.
  It does require very high temperature and pressure and an extraordinary beaker. But there's no reason to prefer one set of temperatures and pressures over another unless specified in the definition.
  
  I'm happy to be corrected on this point, and I'd be very happy to hear about the line-straddling situations you mention.
  which is why I provided them...
  But in case you want further details, Positronium is essentially an unstable Hydrogen isotope. The electron is bound in a set of Hydrogen-like orbitals by a particle of +1 charge, just like a proton. In fact, it's very much like if you were subtracting neutrons from a heavy Hydrogen isotope, and you overshot and subtracted one more neutron than was ever present.
  It has a different mass than normal Hydrogen (a thousand times less), but so do Deuterium and Tritium. That's totally normal stuff for isotopes. It also has a radioactive decay path (electron capture/gamma emission), but then, so does Tritium. Again, normal stuff. So, from a chemical perspective, it is very much a legitimate Hydrogen isotope.
  But, from a nuclear perspective, it's not. There's not a single proton or neutron in it at all. It has no nuclear material. There are only leptons here.
  Now, Positronium, as an oddball Hydrogen isotope that has no nucleus, can bond with other atoms. So you could have say, H2 with a Positronium as one of the H's. When the Positronium decays, an electron is moving from the molecular orbital of the H2 molecule to a ground state that is no orbital at all, in which the electron, and in fact the entire "atom" has ceased to exist, and the molecular bond is broken leaving the other H as a dangling radical.
  It's like a nuclear reaction and not a chemical reaction in that the number of each type of atom is not conserved during the reaction and an atom effectively changed atomic number from one to zero, But it's not like a nuclear reaction because there is no nucleus involved, only electrons breaking and/or forming bonds to reconfigure themselves to a lower energy state.
  So, does this mean that Hydrogen is not an element, or that positronium is a separate element with the same atomic number as Hydrogen, or what?
  I would say it only means that elements are a limited concept that does not apply well to this situation which is straddling the line.
  
  What definition do you suggest? I was merely trying to improve on the faulty one given by saying you can't change one element into another through chemistry.
  I would recommend some threshold halflife be chosen (say, a microsecond or nanosecond or some such) and any "group of nuclear configurations sharing a single atomic number" below that threshold be given another name besides "element."
  We shouldn't call them dwarf elements, since they are bigger than normal ones. Maybe "elementoids"
30. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by ChrisMaple · 2011-12-02 14:27 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  But .. But .. Scientific papers are built out of molecules.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
31. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by dissy · 2011-12-02 15:35 · Score: 1
  
  By this definition aren't, how can they be classified as elements? Growing up, and being taught in school "elements cannot be broken down any further." If these elements are breaking down into other elements..wtf?
  What school was this? And in what country?
  Protons and Electrons were discovered just before the year 1900, by Ernest Rutherford.
  Neutrons were theorized then discovered two and three decades later respectively.
  As long ago as 1945 was the first nuclear warhead testing detonation, which pretty much proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that atoms of elements can be split into smaller things. It made a news paper or two I think.
  Anyone attempting to claim otherwise (Your school and teacher(s) included) is so embarrassingly wrong as to cast doubt on anything else they have claimed in life.
  Unless you really are over 80 years old, and some how made it these past 60 odd years without learning a single new thing since school... In which case I feel really bad for you.
32. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by petermgreen · 2011-12-02 15:58 · Score: 1
  
  If the atomic number is greater than 92, you'll only find it in a lab for a fraction of a second at a time.
  
  BULLSHIT
  Elements 93 through 97 all have at least one isotope with a half life of over a thousand years. beyond that calafornium having a maximum half life of 898 years, Einstenium having a maximum half life of 471.7 days, fermium having a maximum half life of 100.5 days, mendelevium having a maximum half life of 51.5 days, with nobelium it's down to 58 minuites, lawrencium is back up to 3.6 hours and so on, it's not until Ununtrium (atomic number 113) that the half life of the most stable isotope drops below a second.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
33. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by Hognoxious · 2011-12-03 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  Even if you disregard reactions that are not clearly caused by the mixing, your definition is still broken, since H-H nuclear fusion is done by mixing Hydrogen with Hydrogen.
  There's a bit more involved than just mixing.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
34. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by Hognoxious · 2011-12-03 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  They breakdown into other elements?
  No, nervous wrecks. [eyeroll]
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
35. Re:Real elements - or theoretical? by Hognoxious · 2011-12-03 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  Those are not "atoms of other elements".
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It's so nice to see... by eegad · 2011-12-02 08:36 · Score: 5, Funny

this table is updated periodically.
1. Re:It's so nice to see... by Red+Flayer · 2011-12-02 08:55 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Well, to be pedantic, it's not updated periodically -- that would imply that it gets updated on a regular basis with a predictable cycle. It's updated sporadically.
  
  To be more specific, the periodic table can be thought of as a fungus. The elements are the mycelia of the fungus, and once in a while the table produces fruiting bodies (like mushrooms) that will produce spores for the periodic table to reproduce. It is these fruiting bodies that are the new elements. The spores will be released from these new elements when moisture and temperature conditions are right -- and with luck, a given spore may land upon the wall of another elementary school classroom and become a new periodic table of the elements.
  
  --
  "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
2. Re:It's so nice to see... by Aryden · 2011-12-02 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  To be more pedantic:
  
  repeated at irregular intervals; intermittent: periodic outbreaks of the disease.
  Link
3. Re:It's so nice to see... by Nationless · 2011-12-02 09:19 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I imagine renaming it the sporadic table of the elements wouldn't go down too well with the academics.
4. Re:It's so nice to see... by mr1911 · 2011-12-02 09:29 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Well, to be pedantic, it's not updated periodically -- that would imply that it gets updated on a regular basis with a predictable cycle. It's updated sporadically.
  
  To be more specific, the periodic table can be thought of as a fungus. The elements are the mycelia of the fungus, and once in a while the table produces fruiting bodies (like mushrooms) that will produce spores for the periodic table to reproduce. It is these fruiting bodies that are the new elements. The spores will be released from these new elements when moisture and temperature conditions are right -- and with luck, a given spore may land upon the wall of another elementary school classroom and become a new periodic table of the elements.
  Yet he still doesn't know why he isn't invited to parties.
  
  --
  This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
  Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
5. Re:It's so nice to see... by FrankHS · 2011-12-02 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  If he is willing to bring the fungus he will be invited to certain types of parties.,
6. Re:It's so nice to see... by Red+Flayer · 2011-12-02 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  1. Your link has no definition for periodic (not sure if that was the case when you posted it).
  
  2. the definition you quote is down the list of accepted definitions. Especially for mathematic and scientific use, periodic means "happening or appearing at regular intervals". The general definition is
  
  periodic (pîr-dk) adj.
  1. Having or marked by repeated cycles.
  2. Happening or appearing at regular intervals.
  3. Recurring or reappearing from time to time; intermittent.
  4. Characterized by periodic sentences.
  Source
  
  --
  "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
7. Re:It's so nice to see... by chebucto · 2011-12-02 18:53 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know, he sounds like a fun guy...
  
  --
  The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
Worse than Moland Springs. by jweller13 · 2011-12-02 08:38 · Score: 1

Livermorium, holy yuk! That's worse than Moland Springs [tv sitcom reference]
1. Re:Worse than Moland Springs. by Obfuscant · 2011-12-02 08:57 · Score: 2
  
  Livermorium, holy yuk!
  Especially when I first read that as "liverandonionium".
2. Re:Worse than Moland Springs. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-02 10:55 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  a) you're an idiot
  b) the "-ium" suffix is used for pretty much everything else.
  c) the discoverer of aluminium called it that first.
any word on element 0? by alen · 2011-12-02 08:42 · Score: 1

i was going to try some biotic implants
1. Re:any word on element 0? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-02 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Element 0 (neutron, no protons) is unstable with a half-life of approximately 10 mnutes.
2. Re:any word on element 0? by alen · 2011-12-02 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  MASS EFFECT
  play it on the x-box
3. Re:any word on element 0? by Bucky24 · 2011-12-02 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  You mean it actually exists? I did not know that. Any results from children being exposed to it while in the womb?
  
  --
  All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
4. Re:any word on element 0? by marcosdumay · 2011-12-02 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, death is a very common result. But that depends on the amount of the element exposed.
  
  --
  Rethinking email
Love potion? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-02 08:48 · Score: 1

I Lv U?
(slightly radioactive)
1. Re:Love potion? by MachDelta · 2011-12-02 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  Love hurts?
I see that these are atomic numbers 114 and 116 by idontgno · 2011-12-02 08:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

Atomic number 115 still hasn't been named (or confirmed, according to TFA), but I know what it should be named when the time comes.

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
1. Re:I see that these are atomic numbers 114 and 116 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-02 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  I'll go with NetCraftConfirmium for that element 115. Why not? Makes as much sense as the other ones. I don't know why they come up with these lame names anyway. Look at the older elements on the chart. Gold. Silver. Oxygen. Xenon. No "whateverium" garbage. Just names. Maybe we should call the next one "Bob" just to get out of the naming doldrums.
2. Re:I see that these are atomic numbers 114 and 116 by blueg3 · 2011-12-02 09:17 · Score: 2
  
  The first part is named after a person or place of scientific significance, usually in the field of particle physics.
  The -ium ending is pretty common for elements. Just look at some of the older entries on the periodic table, as you recommended: helium, lithium, beryllium, sodium, magnesium, potassium, calcium, titanium, vanadium, chromium, gallium, germanium, selenium, rubidium, strontium, zirconium, molybdenum, palladium, cadmium, iridium, platinum.
3. Re:I see that these are atomic numbers 114 and 116 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-02 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  And some places is more significant than others. yttrium, ytterbium, terbium and erbium is all named after a village named ytterby.
  holmium, thulium, and gadolinium was also discovered in the ytterby quarry.
Starktonium by oodaloop · 2011-12-02 08:50 · Score: 1

When is that going to get added? Hmm?

--
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
I say we by newsman220 · 2011-12-02 08:50 · Score: 1

Make 'em name of them Spunk.
I was holding out for.... by forkfail · 2011-12-02 08:50 · Score: 1

.... livermorium and onionium.

--
Check your premises.
1. Re:I was holding out for.... by Fjandr · 2011-12-02 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  No, that was just renamed to roentgenium. :p
2. Re:I was holding out for.... by colinrichardday · 2011-12-02 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  I think we all saw through that.
WOW by Murdoch5 · 2011-12-02 09:05 · Score: 1

Wont every school now have to replace there periodic tables with the new updated version?
1. Re:WOW by Bucky24 · 2011-12-02 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  And with the budget cuts too... Won't someone think of the children?
  
  --
  All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
Livermorium by dorix · 2011-12-02 09:08 · Score: 2

I don't like liver. Can we call it "Liverlessium" instead?
1. Re:Livermorium by quixote9 · 2011-12-02 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  Hah. You beat me to it. Exactly what I was going to say.
First encounters by airfoobar · 2011-12-02 09:17 · Score: 1

Chemistry's periodic table can soon welcome livermorium and flerovium, two newly named elements
Welcome welcome! Would you like some Ti?
Thanks Science, by TiggertheMad · 2011-12-02 09:20 · Score: 1

..You just made next year's college chemistry students have to buy a new edition of the textbook. College books might just be affordable if people would just stop learning new things.

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
It's true by Weaselmancer · 2011-12-02 09:22 · Score: 1

"Elements cannot be broken down any further." Which is true but only half the story. "Because if they do, then they become something else." is the other half of the story.
These gigantic atoms are unstable. You can make them but they quickly fall apart into the things they were made of. Like a house of cards in a windy room.
The research teams are taking large atoms and firing them at other large atoms to make these gigantic atoms. They only last for a few moments before they fall back apart into the large atoms they were originally made of.

--
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Octopussium by bryan1945 · 2011-12-02 09:29 · Score: 2

Always trying to take out Bond(s).

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
How about... by pahles · 2011-12-02 09:35 · Score: 1

"the element that cannot be named" ?

--
Sig?
1. Re:How about... by colinrichardday · 2011-12-02 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  Voldemortium?
Re:A genuine question by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-02 09:43 · Score: 1

Obviously this isn't going to be in some widget you buy anytime soon, but I think the point was to test theories relating to the field of physics. It's basic research. How will it improve our lives? Nobody knows! Many of the things we use every day started the same way. Go hug a scientist today (but not for too long please).
I'm ok with it... by Maltheus · 2011-12-02 09:48 · Score: 2

...so long as Plutonium remains classified an element.
Corny by WillyWanker · 2011-12-02 09:51 · Score: 1

Anyone else think they sound like made-up names from really bad science fictions movies?
1. Re:Corny by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2011-12-02 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone else think they sound like made-up names from really bad science fictions movies?
  Treknobabble.
  
  --
  "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Waiting for Element 125 by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2011-12-02 10:04 · Score: 1

I'm waiting for the magical, life-changing element #125, that should either be called Protonite, or Magicium -- because it will be.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
theodore gray by Cyko_01 · 2011-12-02 11:20 · Score: 1

I wonder how he will capture these elements for his table
Tom Lehrer is getting out of date by Rhodri+Mawr · 2011-12-02 11:21 · Score: 1

Sadly, the last line of Tom Lehrer's "The Elements" is getting more and more out of date as the years go by.

Even the list of new elements at the end of this animation is getting out of date... http://privatehand.com/flash/elements.html
Island of stability by ISoldat53 · 2011-12-02 11:23 · Score: 1

I wish I lived on an island of stability.
1. Re:Island of stability by Darinbob · 2011-12-02 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  Trouble is the ferry comes only one a week to that island and internet service is dial up only and they inhabitants have their own variant of burning man.
morecowbellium by wideBlueSkies · 2011-12-02 11:30 · Score: 1

They need to include morecowbellium. How could they forget this lightweight, metallic element, which could be used to produce one of the most pleasant should in all the multiverse.

--
Huh?
1. Re:morecowbellium by wideBlueSkies · 2011-12-02 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  most pleasant SOUNDS in all the multiverse.
  
  --
  Huh?
Nanna Nanna boo boo! I counted to 120 & You Ca by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-02 14:54 · Score: 1

The rabbit hole of classifying elements is infinitely deep.
This is because the universe was not designed from the top down; It was created from the bottom up. We may not know exactly what the fabric of space-time itself is made of, if anything at all, but that is what things are actually made of.
It's useful to name stable configurations of space-time+energy (mater), much like it's nice to have a name for a musical note; However unlike with matter, with music we understand the fundamental concepts of sound, and don't get excited over every new higher or lower note we've just "proven" exists on the Universe's scale.
We started with the 4 elements, but that wasn't right; Things are made of many small "indivisible" things called Atoms... No! There are Quarks! Nay, There is a Zoo of quantum particles + waves! Wait, there's some fuzzy yet un-knowable property to these things...
In time, we'll decipher yet another lower level set of "properties" on our quest to discover that this whole Universe was just an energetic pebble being dropped into a space-time pond. The complex interactions of some of the waves have become sentient and they look at their surrounding structures, and categorize and label all the very complex patterns they see. "What happened Before the Pebble Dropped (big bang)", Some will ask -- The pond was there, certainly; This concept of "nothingness" is merely the lack of energy -- a smooth part of the pond that we can not comprehend or experience because, as energy waves ourselves we can only interact with other waves.
You see, once we understand the lower levels the upper levels aren't so interesting anymore. I read the article as: "Eureka! We've proven more notes exist!" To me, it's like a toddler learning to count to higher and higher numbers before they've mastered basic mathematics and/or the concept of infinity.
I vote for... by mark_reh · 2011-12-02 18:58 · Score: 1

Cooperium!
One is still missing by aglider · 2011-12-02 19:47 · Score: 1

Dilithium

--
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
Adobe Flerovium by tverbeek · 2011-12-03 07:11 · Score: 1

I wonder if Adobe will object over the appropriation of their trademarked [Fl] icon by the periodic table?

--
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
periodic table download by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-03 07:15 · Score: 1

I work for a company that makes periodic tables. They haven't updated their posters yet but I just updated the free A4 color periodic table download they have with these new names on it. You can download it here:
http://www.science-story.com/periodic-table-up-to-date-large-poster.php
Enjoy!
flerovium? by surd1618 · 2011-12-03 07:55 · Score: 1

how about Frinkium? Bombastium also comes to mind. Or just break with the -iums and call one flubber.