Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Un-Un-Pentium On Your Periodic Table of the Elements?

Posted by Unknown on from the waiting-for-unobtanium dept.

PolygamousRanchKid writes, quoting Forbes "Researchers at Sweden's Lund University have announced that they've been able to confirm the existence of element 115 on the periodic table. This research team isn't the first to create element 115, which is currently known as ununpentium. The first claim that ununpentium had been synthesized in a lab was by a joint group of Russian and American researchers, who believed that they created it in their lab in 2004."

130 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. Jokes by suso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you want to make a lot of stupid jokes about the Pentium chip, don't worry, they were already made 10 years ago in the other Slashdot article

    1. Re:Jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Jokes about pentium are boron.

    2. Re:Jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Insert reference to Weird Al: scientists twerking to "It's All About Ununpentium".

    3. Re:Jokes by Tarlus · · Score: 1

      Thanks for bringing us back to the Core of that joke.

      --
      /* No Comment */
    4. Re:Jokes by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      No, but I would ask if this is the fifth element!

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    5. Re:Jokes by lxs · · Score: 2

      I don't.

      I want to karma whore by linking to the Periodic Table of Videos 115 entry and wondering when there will be an update to linked video.

    6. Re:Jokes by Zordak · · Score: 1

      That is both phenomenally boring, and inexplicably fascinating.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    7. Re:Jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Jokes about pentium are boron.

      But is it molten? Because nobody doesn't like molten boron!

    8. Re:Jokes by FirephoxRising · · Score: 1

      I was thinking Ellerium 115 from Xcom

  2. so... by JustNiz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    what is it actually good for?

    1. Re:so... by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's good for getting closer to the predicted island of stability, where stable (and usable) elements may exists.

      It's also good for satisfying human curiosity (which in itself is a worthy goal) and being a catalyst for inventing new technology that may be of practical value already.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      what is it actually good for?

      What's it good for? Selling large wall maps of Periodic Tables to sci-geeks who are now pissed that theirs is as accurate as a politicians expense report.

      Oh, I'm sorry, you were looking for a valid use for some of these new Elements? Yeah, me too...

    3. Re:so... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/01/us/uut-and-uup-add-their-atomic-mass-to-periodic-table.html?src=pm hinted at
      ''It's just incredibly exciting. It seems to open up the possibility of synthesizing more elements beyond this.'' and
      ''Scientifically, just for the pure science of it, wouldn't you like to know just how many chemical elements there are?''
      As with other research we might get better nuclear weapons and something like household smoke detectors or win big with the next elements?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:so... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      what is it actually good for?

      Understanding the world around us? You know, sciency stuff.

      Nobody is going to make you a car out of this, but some of these 'exotic' materials they need to create in a lab can tell us some interesting things about the early universe.

      Since when do we need a specific reason to do science? You never know what you'll find out once you've done the research.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:so... by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 2

      what is it actually good for?

      You can use it to build a boat.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    6. Re:so... by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      War!

    7. Re:so... by __aaeihw9960 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Since when do we need a specific reason to do science? You never know what you'll find out once you've done the research.

      Since we started implementing austerity measures.

    8. Re:so... by SMACX+guy · · Score: 2

      It's one of those rare ones in the Discovery tech tree, where you don't get a new weapon or base facility, but it's a prerequisite to some other, totally kickass tech. That next tech doesn't seem to be the docs, though. Actually, I can't even find out if this tech makes a Secret Project available. It's all undocumented. You just have to play to find out what happens, I guess.

    9. Re:so... by Exitar · · Score: 1

      What's the point of better nuclear weapons?

    10. Re:so... by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      It's a legitimate question. If creating it in a lab does yield some type scientific information or even just "we created something that has never existed before (that we know of)" then that's a legitimate answer. But even after that, the next question is, what else does this mean?

      You say that it can tell us interesting things about the early universe. How is that? I'm no nuclear chemist. How does creating an element that lasts all of a few hundred milliseconds at most telling us interesting things from the early universe?

    11. Re:so... by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I should have been more clear. I've nothing against doing science, I just wondered what, if anything, this stuff can be used to make that we couldn't already do before.
      See I'm still waiting for my matter transporter, affordable flying cars and free electricity that they were promising us back in the 50's.

    12. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      We can use it to generate gravity waves which will allow us to fly to Mars and destroy the alien outpost there, ending the invasion of Earth.

    13. Re:so... by Jessified · · Score: 1

      Nobody knew the implications of the electron when it was discovered.

    14. Re:so... by RaceProUK · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since when do we need a specific reason to do science? You never know what you'll find out once you've done the research.

      Since we started implementing austerity measures.

      Just because the banks lost all our money down the back of the sofa doesn't mean we shouldn't do science.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    15. Re:so... by Poeli · · Score: 1

      Nobody is going to make you a car out of this, but some of these 'exotic' materials they need to create in a lab can tell us some interesting things about the early universe.

      It's not gonna tells us much as it is extremely short lived. They haven't 'seen' the atom itself. They measured it's decay products. There are no physical properties known of un-un-pentium because it's extremely difficult to measure anything about it.

    16. Re:so... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      How does creating an element that lasts all of a few hundred milliseconds at most telling us interesting things from the early universe?

      Because, oddly enough, many of the things in the early universe are postulated to have been elements which last a few hundred milliseconds. :-P

      My understanding is these are the kinds of things which get created when you have a really high-energy event, and you can likely learn stuff about how matter and the universe works. Mostly we get to see what really happens instead of a theoretical guess.

      As far as what this teaches us directly, I'm afraid I'll have to defer to someone a little more qualified. Having said that, this might be a good starting point.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    17. Re:so... by nonnald8336 · · Score: 1

      what is it actually good for?

      ab-so-lutely noth-ing huh

    18. Re:so... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure all the money went to the military.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    19. Re:so... by Matt_Bennett · · Score: 2

      This brings to mind the quote (and variants) that have been variously attributed to Benjamin Franklin and Michael Faraday: "What is the use of an infant?" Science is about discovering these things.

    20. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      my matter transporter

      We call that a "truck". Or "lorry", if you're British.

      affordable flying cars

      We call that one a "helicopter".

      and free electricity

      We call that one "reflashing your 'smart' meter"

    21. Re:so... by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Ammunition for the plasma rifle and fuel for advanced aircraft.

    22. Re:so... by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 3, Funny

      I've heard Element 123 possesses weapons of mass destruction. Is that enough for a reason?

      --
      My first program:

      Hell Segmentation fault

    23. Re:so... by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      But even after that, the next question is, what else does this mean?

      It depends on the result

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    24. Re:so... by Alioth · · Score: 2

      From what I understand, the "island of stability" in terms of super-heavy elements is a relative term - it just means the decay of elements in the island of stability is measured in maybe hundreds of milliseconds instead of a few microseconds.

      --
      Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
    25. Re:so... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Shorter half-life, smaller controlled explosions, need to stock pile fewer of them.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    26. Re:so... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No physical properties?
      that's not true.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    27. Re:so... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Somebody has to actually have fun playing the game for the first time instead of looking it up on the wiki.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    28. Re:so... by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From what I understand, the "island of stability" in terms of super-heavy elements is a relative term - it just means the decay of elements in the island of stability is measured in maybe hundreds of milliseconds instead of a few microseconds.

      they are expected to have radioactive decay half-lives of at least minutes or days as compared to seconds, with some optimists expecting half-lives of millions of years

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

      The answer is, we don't know for sure. That's why we're trying to get there. If their half life is anything longer than a few minutes they would revolutionize chemistry.

    29. Re:so... by elistan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here's a highly moderated comment on why, from 2004:

      http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=95064&cid=8153826

    30. Re:so... by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Nobody is going to make you a car out of this

      Maybe a hyperloop, though?

    31. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...If their half life is anything longer than a few minutes they would revolutionize chemistry....

      Not only that. If their half-life is around a couple of years, and if you can make consumer goods out of them, they would revolutionise DRM and planned obsolescence...

    32. Re:so... by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      what is it actually good for?

      "...absolutely nothing. Say it again y'all!!" Oh, wait, that's War... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv5BYEOQYLo

    33. Re:so... by Poeli · · Score: 1

      No physical properties?
      that's not true.

      Name one that has been measured. We don't know anything for sure expect the decay.

      Everything else comes from theoretical calculations and predictions.

    34. Re:so... by Skater · · Score: 1

      And landfills. Double edged sword and all that.

    35. Re:so... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      What's the point of needing to stockpile nuclear weapons?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    36. Re:so... by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

      No - there wouldn't be anything to send to the landfill since it will blow up itself and the user at the same time preventing any lawsuits.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    37. Re:so... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      What's the point of needing to stockpile nuclear weapons?

      Well, back in the day, the rationale was that with Mutually Assured Destruction, anybody would be, er, mad to set one off.

      I'm not sure anybody else believed that at the time, but that was the reason given 30 years ago or so.

      Now it seems to be mostly because we've had them so long we need to hang onto them in case someone else develops them.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    38. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You may have noticed a general lack of gigantic world wars since 1945?

      Don't know about you, but I've noticed a gigantic world war since about the turn of the millennium...
      And the rich are winning.

    39. Re:so... by VIPERsssss · · Score: 1

      Good God, ya'll

      --
      We are eternal, all this pain is an illusion.
    40. Re:so... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Now it seems to be mostly because we've had them so long we need to hang onto them in case someone else develops them.

      At this point I'm actually surprised that there have been no accidental nuclear explosions. With all of the countries that have manufactured weapons, and all of the accidents, I am shocked that there has never been an accidental detonation. We've done a pretty decent job of replacing our older warheads with newer ones, but even so I'm surprised that there have been 0 accidental detonations that resulted in major loss of life. I don't understand all of the safety measures that go into a warhead and the specific reaction and process required for detonation, but it seems with all of the warheads in the world that one of them would have accidentally exploded by now.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    41. Re:so... by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      You never know what you'll find out once you've done the research.

      Is that like looking through the fridge and cabinets and mixing random things together to see if they taste good.... and my wife says "I'm not tasting your chemistry experiment. Wait that smells good, let me try it."

    42. Re:so... by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      Since it was on slashdot, it's 100x stronger than graphene, can make solar panels 30x more efficient, can potentially cure cancer, makes electric car batteries more efficient, and is total and complete vaporware.

    43. Re:so... by Zordak · · Score: 1

      Then you're not paying attention.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    44. Re:so... by Zordak · · Score: 2

      Sorry, I don't see it in the official guide.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    45. Re:so... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      At this point I'm actually surprised that there have been no accidental nuclear explosions.

      My understanding (very loose, very old, very incomplete) is that it's actually hard to make that kind of reaction happen ... and most devices designed by anybody not planning on blowing themselves to pieces would be designed to make that difficult by keeping some of the bits separated or requiring something else to kick it off.

      My vague understanding is that you usually use some conventional explosives to force the fissile material into a tighter ball to tip it over a threshold -- and since we'd be talking about military grade explosives, most of those are pretty inert except when you want them not to be (C4 is harmless, apparently, without the right stuff to kick it off, and I'm sure they use something else anyway for that application). And without that extra compression/energy (or whatever), the material isn't just going to go into an uncontrolled reaction -- otherwise it would have done so already.

      I *think* you're more likely to get a radiation leak out of one before you actually got an accidental detonation.

      Having said that, I'm sure numerous Slashdotters will happily tell me that I'm an idiot -- a few might even tell me I'm wrong. ;-) Someone might even offer a better explanation than I can.

      But, from what I remember in grade 8 and what I've seen on TV since ... you need the conventional explosion to (compress/energize/excite/something like that) to trigger the nuclear reaction.

      And I gather for power plants, it's a little different -- put a big pile of it in one place (the technical term ;-), and stop absorbing the neutrons, and it'll just happen on its own. The trick is then keeping it under control.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    46. Re:so... by Skater · · Score: 1

      ...which would revolutionize landfills, since they would have fewer contributions. Sheesh, do I have to explain everything here?

    47. Re:so... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Ummm.

      Military = trillions

      Banks = billions

      The banks are a rounding error in the military spending since Reagan made it all important.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    48. Re:so... by __aaeihw9960 · · Score: 1

      That's actually exactly what austerity means.

    49. Re:so... by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      That's actually exactly what austerity means.

      No, austerity means 'we don't know how to fix the economy so we're gonna ignore the problem and hope it goes away by itself'.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    50. Re:so... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      I've noticed an increased propensity for nuclear armed countries to invade and kill citizens of non-nuclear ones. seems like incentive for proliferation to me

    51. Re:so... by BranMan · · Score: 1

      Huh? What a question! So you actually think anyone has time to build nuclear weapons, from scratch, when they are suddenly needed?

      Why stockpile ammunition for the armed forces? Why stockpile gasoline in your local gas station? Why stockpile food in your pantry and fridge?

    52. Re:so... by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      Then give them jobs doing science! Or regulate the banks to stop them pulling the kind of shit that flushes economies down the porcelain throne. Or both!

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    53. Re:so... by amaurea · · Score: 1

      How does creating an element that lasts all of a few hundred milliseconds at most telling us interesting things from the early universe?

      Because, oddly enough, many of the things in the early universe are postulated to have been elements which last a few hundred milliseconds. :-P

      No heavy elements were created during Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, though. Even something as light as lithium was only created in minute amounts, and as far as i know, no elements with millisecond-class halflives were important in this process. Ununpentium is moderately interesting in its own right, but it will not teach us anything about Big Bang Nucleosyntehsis.

    54. Re:so... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      My vague understanding is that you usually use some conventional explosives to force the fissile material into a tighter ball to tip it over a threshold -- and since we'd be talking about military grade explosives, most of those are pretty inert except when you want them not to be

      I scanned the Wikipedia article on military nuclear accidents, so I'm basically an expert on this now. There have been several bomb drops (either accidental or purposefully jettisoned because the plane was in trouble) where the high explosives did detonate. In fact, one of them actually fell on someone's house and blew it to bits, although the core never went critical. There have also been some lab experiments when the cores did reach critical mass for a short time and people in the room ended up dying.

      In fact, a certain core (eventually used in the Able series of tests) claimed multiple lives in 2 separate and unrelated accidents. In one of them the scientist accidentally dropped a metal brick on it, and apparently that was enough to take it critical. He quickly removed the brick, but he ended up toast a few days later.

      In the other one a scientist was performing an experiment called "ticking the dragon's tail", which involved slowly closing a sphere over the core (by hand...) and measuring the "criticality" of it to figure out when it would go critical. The guy did the experiment at least a dozen times. If the 2 hemispheres ever completely closed then the core would go critical. So, naturally, the way to prevent them from completely closing is to hold a screwdriver between them. He slipped once, they closed, and the thing emitted a blue light and burst of radiation. The increase in temperature stopped the reaction in milliseconds, but he still separated the hemispheres as quickly as he could. He got hit by 1000 rems though, and also died a few days later. A few other people in the room ended up dying of cancer-related problems. They called that core the "demon core", which would make a good metal band name.

      But the list of accidents is pretty scary. Bombers crashing with nukes on board, subs sinking with nuclear torpedoes (apparently we had nuclear torpedoes), bombers losing power and dropping their bombs over land or water, etc. There's a field somewhere where a pair of bombs fell. One of them deployed its parachute and armed 3 out of 4 triggers, but the pilot's trigger was unarmed so it didn't detonate. The other one hit the ground at 700mph and tore the bomb up. The core got buried 55 feet deep. The air force bought the land and fenced it off and periodically tests it for contamination. There's an underwater bomb off the coast of Savannah also that they've looked for over the years. It's just hanging out down there, waiting.

      And these are the unclassified American incidents. I'm sure Russia has their own set of files that we don't know about, probably Britain and France too. That's what surprises me, with all the accidental drops I'm shocked that we haven't managed to nuke ourselves.

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

      So you actually think anyone has time to build nuclear weapons, from scratch, when they are suddenly needed?

      When is a nuclear weapon suddenly needed?

      The only time a nuclear weapon has been used in war it was in fact built from scratch.

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

      what is it actually good for?

      If you have to ask, you may be at the wrong site. You might as well ask what good robots on Mars are. It's good for advancing mankind's pool of knowledge of physics.

      A substance that disappears as soon as it's created can't have much practical value, besides the aformentioned very important one. That's not to say a use for it will never be found.

      And whoever gave you that mod point should be ashamed of himself.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    57. Re:so... by dublin · · Score: 1

      what is it actually good for?

      You can use it to build a boat.

      ...or a broach, or a pterodactyl... or a flying saucer...

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
    58. Re:so... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Grow up.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    59. Re:so... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      "Suddenly" is in this case a relative term, and could extend to a few months. Having several nuclear weapons at hand would be handy when a much larger and more powerful neighboring country is taken over by a loony dictator who starts amassing troops on your border.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    60. Re:so... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Your ignorance of American history, particularly the portion of the federal budget which is military, is astounding. Where do you think the money was going in 1944 or 1862?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    61. Re:so... by aled · · Score: 1

      ...which would revolutionize landfills, since they would have fewer contributions. Sheesh, do I have to explain everything here?

      What do you mean? EXPLAIN! EXPLAIN!

      --

      "I think this line is mostly filler"
    62. Re:so... by aled · · Score: 1

      Scientists are really looking for the element that would induce mutant super powers by exposition.

      --

      "I think this line is mostly filler"
    63. Re:so... by __aaeihw9960 · · Score: 1

      No, austerity means that we don't know how to fix the economy, but we believe that cutting governmental spending is the best way to do it. I've said it here before, I'll say it again. Big players got a taste of bigger money in the 70's, 80's and 90's in places like South Africa, South America, Poland, and Greece. They use a specific form of economic theory based on what is termed as "Shock Economics" spearheaded by many faculty and graduates of the University of Chicago School of Business.

      These people got a taste of this big money in poor countries, and really, genuinely want to take a big-ass bite out of where the money is in the US and other 1st world countries: military, employee benefits and to a much, much smaller degree, education.

      We've already seen the mass privatization of the military, through contracts and hired security forces. We're getting tastes of what's to come with all the talk of cutting government pensions (I pay into one, they're not as great as what mainstream media would have you believe - 50% of my salary average for the last 6 years I'm working, and the earliest I can retire without a penalty is 67). Private companies gamble with public pensions, lose the money, then lobby and purchase the media to make it seem as if it is the government's own fault.

      Look for a wider and deeper call for privatization of education in the next 5 years. Look for harder pushes for vouchers and the complete dissolving of teacher's unions power.

      Look for you to pay a private company directly to teach your kids using minimum-wage, unskilled workers as teachers reading from a prescribed electronic curriculum.

      I say 20 years we have a completely private school system with an absolutely ridiculous gap between the have's and have-not's (more than we currently do).

    64. Re:so... by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      That kinda goes with my point, insofar as governments think privatising will solve the economy issues, whereas it actually locks the wealth away in the upper echelons, instead of spreading it more evenly among the population.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    65. Re:so... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      a much larger and more powerful neighboring country

      That certainly doesn't apply to the US. It's doubtful that it would apply to Russia, the only candidate would be China. Moreover, if a large and powerful country gets taken over by a loony dictator, however you think that might possibly happen without the armed forces or public trying to stop it, and they start threatening their neighbors, then the UN would have something to say about that. A nuke isn't necessary.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    66. Re:so... by __aaeihw9960 · · Score: 1

      The issue is that it's not a governmental idea. It's an idea forwarded through the government by private industry and international interests like the IMF and World Bank. But yes, that is the exact outcome, I just argue that the idea is from the very beginning to lock wealth away with the wealthiest people, and our government and its representatives are either too inept to figure it out, or in collusion with the folks pushing this agenda.

    67. Re:so... by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Well we strongly suspect that 1/2 lives are on the order less than a second. Even with longer 1/2 life it will not revolutionize chemistry since your never going to have more than a nanogram or something and its radioactive and its properties are not all that different from other actinides.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    68. Re:so... by atomicxblue · · Score: 1

      Telling someone to grow up.. on /. ?? That's never been done before! :p

  3. THIS. IS. SLASHDOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    So they've made the AMD K6?

  4. Hope they give it a better name by barlevg · · Score: 4, Informative
    Wikipedia was remarkably informative on the subject (even for them):

    Ununpentium is a temporary IUPAC systematic element name derived from the digits 115, where "un-" represents Latin unum. "Pent-" represents the Greek word for 5, and it was chosen because the Latin word for 5 ("quin") starts with 'q', which would have caused confusion with flerovium (previously known as ununquadium), element 114.

    From the sentence before the section I quoted, I think even "eka-bismuth" would be a better name.

    1. Re:Hope they give it a better name by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      >where "un-" represents Latin unum. "Pent-" represents the Greek word for 5

      In "The-Up-To-Date Sorcerer", Isaac Asimov notes that his scientist-protagonist shows "a proper scorn for the niceties of classical philology" by mixing Greek and Latin roots in his terminology. Score another one for the good doctor.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    2. Re:Hope they give it a better name by Minwee · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Ununpentium is wrong for the same reasons that polyamory is

    3. Re:Hope they give it a better name by scuzzlebutt · · Score: 1

      What about "kilogram"? Kilo=Greek for 1000 and gram=Latin (gramma) for small weight.

      --
      In C++, your friends can see your privates.
  5. Also know as Elerium by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Elerium-115

    1. Re:Also know as Elerium by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      While it's kind of neat that we're close to getting ready to make artificial elerium I don't think that we should focus on tracer cannons and tractor beams right away. First off, we have less than three decades left to develop even rudimentary flying submarines. Secondly, we're nowhere near having a robust mining infrastructure on Mars. Why develop tracer cannons when Solmine hasn't even gone public yet?

      In my opinion we should focus our efforts on flying sub research and on a way to completely seal off the Gulf of Mexico from the rest of the ocean. If the latter is not feasible, arcology construction should be a concern. Once we've gotten that under control we can focus on FTL drives and extrasolar mining, at which point tracer cannons might become attractive. But seriously, we should first make sure we've got our backyard under control before building gimmicky weapons that only work properly in deep space.

      And we should never fund research on robots that can single-handedly replace an entire secret paramilitary organization. Never.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  6. punny code by colfer · · Score: 1

    Let the puns begin. Isn't that just Pentium? Is that the same as unAMD?

  7. Re:Can somebody come up with a sensible name? by dido · · Score: 1

    Once the discovery of the element is confirmed, the people who discovered it get dibs on naming the new element. The funny names like 'Ununpentium' are the temporary IUPAC systematic element names used for elements whose synthesis has not yet been confirmed. Of course, priority of discovery and confirmation of discovery can be a highly politicised process, so the systematic name remains in use until this gets settled.

    --
    Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
  8. Ununpentium in Black Ops by tepples · · Score: 1

    The Xbox 360 generation might be more familiar with "Element 115" from Call of Duty: Black Ops .

  9. Hmmmm .... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    So, Chemistry was 25+ years ago for me ... does the "un-un" part actually mean anything here, or is it just some joke like "un-obtanium"?

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Hmmmm .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ununlikely

    2. Re:Hmmmm .... by Exitar · · Score: 3, Informative

      un un pentium = 1 1 5

    3. Re:Hmmmm .... by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Un-un means 1-1, as in un-un-pentium, 1-1-5

  10. It's not element 115 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Un-un-pentium is element 114.999997

    1. Re:It's not element 115 by oodaloop · · Score: 2

      Thanks, dude. You must be great fun at parties.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:It's not element 115 by scuzzlebutt · · Score: 1

      Intel inside. Do not divide. That was a good joke in its day. :)

      --
      In C++, your friends can see your privates.
    3. Re:It's not element 115 by dublin · · Score: 1

      F00F! (As distinct from FOOF, dioxygen diflouride which is even more entertaining (at least from a distance...)

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
    4. Re:It's not element 115 by aled · · Score: 1

      Yeah but by the standard model protons are composed of 3 quarks so you may want to use floating point for something.

      --

      "I think this line is mostly filler"
  11. goatseite ? by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    please please please...
    LOLZonium

    LULZite?...
    Anonynimium ?...
    Lazaronium?
    Zetatite?

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  12. Re:Element 115? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I would say more like element 114.9998797414

  13. Leeloo Dallas Multipass by tepples · · Score: 3, Funny

    Jokes about pentium are boron.

    Is Milla Jovovich still boron to look at?

    1. Re:Leeloo Dallas Multipass by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      You'd think The Fifth Element would've been a huge boon to Dial, the company most known for selling borax, but alas they never seem to have capitalized on it. This would never happen in Futurama!

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re:Leeloo Dallas Multipass by Nivag064 · · Score: 1

      This discussion is far too technetium for my aged brain...

  14. In Other News by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Gillette Company today announced plans to create element 117. A Gillette spokesperson was quoted as saying "115 protons? Screw it boys, we'll go to 117 protons!"

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    1. Re:In Other News by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      The Gillette Company today announced plans to create element 117. A Gillette spokesperson was quoted as saying "115 protons? Screw it boys, we'll go to 117 protons!"

      Except that ununseptium was created in 2011.

      Of course ,the first few postings about it in a lot of public forums at the time was to name it after Master Chief (who goes by either John-117 or Spartan-117).

    2. Re:In Other News by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Whoosh?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:In Other News by dublin · · Score: 1

      No, that was just a 117-blade razor. You hang it on the wall and walk down the hall to the kitchen, where you find your 117-slice toaster waiting...

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  16. un un pentium? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    That's a double negative. So, it's just pentium.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  17. Good they didn't have this naming years ago ... by ggraham412 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... or else poor Sulphur would be "Unsexium".

    1. Re:Good they didn't have this naming years ago ... by josgeluk · · Score: 1

      And Americium would be something like "Nonosexium". Appropriate, somehow.

    2. Re:Good they didn't have this naming years ago ... by josgeluk · · Score: 1

      Oh no, that's Curium. My bad.

  18. Re:THIS. IS. SLASHDOT! by drakaan · · Score: 1

    No, they've made zombies.

    --
    "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
  19. Re:Can somebody come up with a sensible name? by oodaloop · · Score: 1

    My vote is for Starktonium.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  20. Re:Element 115? by ggraham412 · · Score: 1

    More like Element 386.

    Trioctosexium?

    Ugh. Sounds like it was named by swingers.

  21. Re:Can somebody come up with a sensible name? by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Besides, isn't Pentium already trademarked by Intel? The whole purpose of that name was getting away from a numbering system which, at the time, rivals like AMD, NexGen, Cyrix and Centaur could use. Once Intel started using 'Pentium', its rivals could use names like 586, 686 and so on, but it didn't mean much. But as a result, I don't think the IUPAC can use Pentium as a permanent name

    And as you point out, Ununpentium is a temporary placeholder, until they decide who they want to name it after. They could name it Kurchatovium, after the Soviet scientist after whom the Soviets wanted to name Atomic number 104, but where the IUPAC named it after Ernest Rutherford. If they did that, the Russians might be more appreciative.

  22. Re:Can somebody come up with a sensible name? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Might as well just call it Elerium and be done with it.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  23. Re:Can somebody come up with a sensible name? by Minwee · · Score: 1

    Besides, isn't Pentium already trademarked by Intel?

    I think that the Greeks may be able to claim prior art on that, since they have been using the prefix "penta-" for about 3400 years longer than Intel has.

  24. Re:Can somebody come up with a sensible name? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    Well, at least Intel thinks it owns Pentium as a trademark. From: http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/trademarks/pentium.html

    Usage Guidelines for the Pentium® or Intel® Pentium® Trademark

    Whenever the Pentium® name appears, the following footnote must also appear: "Pentium is a trademark of Intel Corporation in the U.S. and/or other countries."

    Maybe the "unun" in front means that ununpentium doesn't infringe on it. So maybe AMD could name a processor, "ThisIsNotaPentium", and be OK.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  25. Are Readers Seriously This Dumb? by barlevg · · Score: 2
    The Associated Press felt that they needed to include the following line in their coverage:

    Well-known chemical elements include carbon, silicon and iron.

    Sigh...

    1. Re:Are Readers Seriously This Dumb? by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the tip! I didn't know what this thread was about until I read this.

  26. Yay, now lets fire up the elerium reactors. by Nadaka · · Score: 1

    And then go shoot some sectoids!

  27. In Related News by blueturffan · · Score: 1

    Astatine will be changing it's name to Ocho-Cinconium.

    Then after a few mediocre years it will just be known as Chad Johnson.

  28. Re:Bob Lazar by bmk67 · · Score: 1

    There's just a teensy weensy chance that Bob Lazar is a kook.

  29. Re:Can somebody come up with a sensible name? by Zordak · · Score: 2

    A trademark is not a copyright. Intel does not "own" the word Pentium. They own the exclusive right to use the name Pentium and confusingly-similar names in connection with microprocessors and confusingly-similar products. It's possible that Pentium could be a famous mark, which would give it even broader protection, but if you discover a planet, or new creature, or new element and want to name it a "pentium," it would be difficult for them to stop you. (I'm not saying they won't try, though.)

    --

    Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
  30. Re:Can somebody come up with a sensible name? by unixisc · · Score: 1

    But Pentium is registered by Intel, as one sees in the (R) next to it whenever the word appears. Wouldn't that be enough to stop other things from being named 'Pentium'?

  31. !!pentium by acid_andy · · Score: 1

    I just tried to tag this article !!pentium but they wouldn't let me. It also instantaneously gave me The Contradictor achievement which is kind of cool if it's for being self-contradicting.

    --
    Your ad here.
  32. Re:Can somebody come up with a sensible name? by InsectOverlord · · Score: 1

    Apple (R) is registered by a certain company. It doesn't stop other things from being named "apple".

  33. obligatory Tom Lehrer reference by roesti · · Score: 1

    Ununpentium:

    It's just the latest one of which the news has come to Harvard.
    There may be many others, but they haven't been discarvard.

    (Can't believe nobody else has posted this.)

    --
    Attack its weak point for massive damage!
  34. Re:Can somebody come up with a sensible name? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    I prefer delirium.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  35. Sabbath by Sarusa · · Score: 1

    Let's call it Sabbath. As a bonus, Ozzy is 115 this year.