Slashdot Mirror
As the Chase For New Elements Slows, Scientists Focus on Deepening Their Understanding of the Superheavy Ones They Already Know (nature.com)
From a report: The quest to extend the periodic table is not over, but it is grinding to a halt. Since Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev published his periodic table 150 years ago, researchers have been adding elements to it at the average rate of one every two or three years. Having found all the elements that are stable enough to persist naturally, researchers started to create their own, and are now up to element 118, oganesson. Although they still hope to find more, they agree that prospects of venturing beyond element 120 are dim.
"We're reaching the area of diminishing returns in the synthesis of new elements, at least with our current level of technology," says Jacklyn Gates, who works on heavy-element chemistry at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. As a result, research on the edge of the periodic table is shifting focus. Rather than chasing new elements, scientists are going back to deepen their understanding of the superheavy ones -- roughly speaking, those with an atomic number above 100 -- that they have already made.
Studying the chemical properties of these elements could show whether the most massive ones obey the organizing principle of the table -- which sorts elements into groups with similar behaviours on the basis of periodically recurring patterns of chemical reactivity. And although the heaviest elements decay in less than the blink of an eye, researchers still hope that they might arrive at the fabled 'island of stability': a hypothesized region of element-land where some superheavy isotopes -- atoms that have the same number of protons in their nucleus, but differing numbers of neutrons -- might exist for minutes, days or even longer.
"We're reaching the area of diminishing returns in the synthesis of new elements, at least with our current level of technology," says Jacklyn Gates, who works on heavy-element chemistry at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. As a result, research on the edge of the periodic table is shifting focus. Rather than chasing new elements, scientists are going back to deepen their understanding of the superheavy ones -- roughly speaking, those with an atomic number above 100 -- that they have already made.
Studying the chemical properties of these elements could show whether the most massive ones obey the organizing principle of the table -- which sorts elements into groups with similar behaviours on the basis of periodically recurring patterns of chemical reactivity. And although the heaviest elements decay in less than the blink of an eye, researchers still hope that they might arrive at the fabled 'island of stability': a hypothesized region of element-land where some superheavy isotopes -- atoms that have the same number of protons in their nucleus, but differing numbers of neutrons -- might exist for minutes, days or even longer.
... they're just big-boned.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
So the idea of finding an 'island of stability' after all those shrinking half-lives didn't pan out, then?
I wonder if large elements become unstable because they're approaching the size at which quantum effects no longer manifest. I imagine it's known, but also wonder why certain non-isotopes are radioactive.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
You need to go further than Mars. Calvera is the closest neutron star, located in Ursa Minor, about 1000 LY from earth. A neutron star is basically a giant nucleus, so it is technically an element.
I said:
> so adding protons doesn't help.
Its neutrons, not protons - it should have been
Neutrons stabilize the nucleus by adding more strong force without electric force, but again size matters, a proton at one extreme of a uranium nucleus feels almost no strong force from the other side so adding *neutrons* doesn't help.
While that's often true for many lighter nuclei (think, for example, carbon-12 or nitrogen-14, which are the most common isotopes of those particular elements), the band of stability for most neutron:proton ratios is actually closer to 1.5:1. Stable isotopes of most elements from period 4 onward almost always have more neutrons than protons, and oddly, about 99% of hydrogen atoms have no neutrons, the nucleus being composed of just a single proton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... is closer (about 400LY) and there may be other cold ones even closer. They're hard to detect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
You might think it's odd, but it makes sense when you think about it.
Imagine the phase of the big bang where nucleons have just formed. As the temperature cools, most neutrons will decay into more stable protons; it is thought that the final ratio was about 7 : 1. Pairs of protons repel; you might think pairs of neutrons bind due to the strong force, but to exist together in such a bound state they need to be different enough and this requires them to have just enough extra energy that actually they don't stick together. So deuterium nuclei form, but not that many as there aren't enough neutrons. Furthermore, deuterium nuclei have a tendency to clump together into more stable helium nuclei. There was actually only a short window of time during which deuterium nuclei could form and during that time most of it was consumed by the formation of helium nuclei. The deuterium we see today is what little of the stuff is left.
The end result when measured by mass is ¾ normal hydrogen, ¼ normal helium, 1 part in 10000 deuterium and helium-3, just a whiff of lithium and virtually nothing else. We had to wait for the first stars to form to get the other stuff.
A neutron star is basically a giant nucleus, so it is technically an element.
Not by a long shot. Neutron stars are made up of neutron degenerate matter which is a press of multiple neutrons into an incredibly dense material. The neutrons are still separate and do not merge into one. Even the neutrons present can not be described as an element since they lack the other key features of an element, namely protons and electrons.
Your hypothesis is novel, but lacks a basic understanding of the phenomenon.