Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Six Atoms of Element 117 Produced

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the that's-ununseptium-to-you dept.

Science 213

mr crypto writes "A team of Russian and American scientists has produced six atoms of a new element, number 117, that has long stood as a missing link among the heaviest bits of atomic matter ever produced. The element, still nameless, appears to point the way toward a brew of still more massive elements with chemical properties no one can predict. The researchers say that the discovery bolsters the idea of an 'island of stability' among still heavier elements."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No name yet (5, Funny)

tedgyz (515156) | more than 4 years ago | (#31755708)

In Soviet Russia, elements name you

Re:No name yet (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31755862)

Sovietrussianium? Sweet.

Re:No name yet (3, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31755924)

Pure weapons grade Balonium.

Re:No name yet (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31755952)

Anything is better than Unobtainium.

Re:No name yet (2, Informative)

49152 (690909) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756048)

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

Re:No name yet (4, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756128)

Unaffordium then.

Re:No name yet (4, Funny)

suomynonAyletamitlU (1618513) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756576)

Only until the isotope, Walmartium, is discovered.

Re:No name yet (0, Offtopic)

AmigaMMC (1103025) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756668)

In Soviet Russia the government decides how many atoms to make

Wonderflonium (1)

Neil Jansen (955182) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756342)

Great for making freeze rays [wikia.com] . Bad things can happen if it is bounced.

Re:Wonderflonium (1)

trum4n (982031) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756456)

just don't cross the streams!

Re:No name yet (2, Interesting)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756408)

As long as they don't call it Belgium [bbc.co.uk] .

Re:No name yet (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756246)

Pure weapons grade Balonium.

Me say you full of cesium salami!

Re:No name yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31755874)

What is the Russian word for 119 - there may be an interesting name there.

Re:No name yet (5, Funny)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756042)

What is the Russian word for 119 - there may be an interesting name there.

Well I tried to enter it in cyrillic, but I can't bend /. to my will to get it to display. So I'll have to translate it back into English for you:

One Hundred and(*) Nineteen

* The "and" is optional and depends on you locale, so use caution before mocking me

Re:No name yet (4, Funny)

ijakings (982830) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756162)

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

Re:No name yet (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756410)

Weneedanewnamium.

Re:No name yet (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756746)

Ferngullyium?
Danceswithwolfiums?

Re:No name yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31756270)

stodevyatnadsot.

I guess.

Re:No name yet (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756294)

sto (i) devjatnadcat? (hundred [and] nineteen)

odin odin devjat? (one one nine)

Re:No name yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31756850)

> you locale

Can we mock you for using "you" instead of "your" instead? :-)

Re:No name yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31756306)

Transliterated:

shto devyatnadtsat'

Should be easier to get agreement on name (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31755962)

So many elements took a long time to get named because the Russians and Americans couldn't agree on who gets the credit; hopefully that should be less of a problem for this one, unless they just decide to leave it with the boring numerical name.

Re:Should be easier to get agreement on name (1)

49152 (690909) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756012)

It is already named Ununseptium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununseptium [wikipedia.org]

Re:Should be easier to get agreement on name (3, Informative)

49152 (690909) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756032)

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

Your official guide to the Jigagoo presidency (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31755720)

Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.

INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.
You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud. House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name. Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.

CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGER
Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue. Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much. Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's). This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boat

HOUSING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through. The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers. You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape. As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.

FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.
Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton. You really would. Coffee beans? Don't ask. You have no idea.

MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.
Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind. The nigger's most prominent anatomical feature, after all, its oversized buttocks, which have evolved to make it more comfortable for your nigger to sit around all day doing nothing for its entire life. Niggers are often good runners, too, to enable them to sprint quickly in the opposite direction if they see work heading their way. The solution to this is to *dupe* your nigger into working. After installation, encourage it towards the cotton field with blows of a wooden club, fence post, baseball bat, etc., and then tell it that all that cotton belongs to a white man, who won't be back until tomorrow. Your nigger will then frantically compete with the other field niggers to steal as much of that cotton as it can before the white man returns. At the end of the day, return your nigger to its cage and laugh at its stupidity, then repeat the same trick every day indefinitely. Your nigger comes equipped with the standard nigger IQ of 75 and a memory to match, so it will forget this trick overnight. Niggers can start work at around 5am. You should then return to bed and come back at around 10am. Your niggers can then work through until around 10pm or whenever the light fades.

ENTERTAINING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger enjoys play, like most animals, so you should play with it regularly. A happy smiling nigger works best. Games niggers enjoy include: 1) A good thrashing: every few days, take your nigger's pants down, hang it up by its heels, and have some of your other niggers thrash it with a club or whip. Your nigger will signal its intense enjoyment by shrieking and sobbing. 2) Lynch the nigger: niggers are cheap and there are millions more where yours came from. So every now and then, push the boat out a bit and lynch a nigger.

Lynchings are best done with a rope over the branch of a tree, and niggers just love to be lynched. It makes them feel special. Make your other niggers watch. They'll be so grateful, they'll work harder for a day or two (and then you can lynch another one). 3) Nigger dragging: Tie your nigger by one wrist to the tow bar on the back of suitable vehicle, then drive away at approximately 50mph. Your nigger's shrieks of enjoyment will be heard for miles. It will shriek until it falls apart. To prolong the fun for the nigger, do *NOT* drag him by his feet, as his head comes off too soon. This is painless for the nigger, but spoils the fun. Always wear a seatbelt and never exceed the speed limit. 4) Playing on the PNL: a variation on (2), except you can lynch your nigger out in the fields, thus saving work time. Niggers enjoy this game best if the PNL is operated by a man in a tall white hood. 5) Hunt the nigger: a variation of Hunt the Slipper, but played outdoors, with Dobermans. WARNING: do not let your Dobermans bite a nigger, as they are highly toxic.

DISPOSAL OF DEAD NIGGERS.
Niggers die on average at around 40, which some might say is 40 years too late, but there you go. Most people prefer their niggers dead, in fact. When yours dies, report the license number of the car that did the drive-by shooting of your nigger. The police will collect the nigger and dispose of it for you.

COMMON PROBLEMS WITH NIGGERS - MY NIGGER IS VERY AGGRESIVE
Have it put down, for god's sake. Who needs an uppity nigger? What are we, short of niggers or something?

MY NIGGER KEEPS RAPING WHITE WOMEN
They all do this. Shorten your nigger's chain so it can't reach any white women, and arm heavily any white women who might go near it.

WILL MY NIGGER ATTACK ME?
Not unless it outnumbers you 20 to 1, and even then, it's not likely. If niggers successfully overthrew their owners, they'd have to sort out their own food. This is probably why nigger uprisings were nonexistent (until some fool gave them rights).

MY NIGGER BITCHES ABOUT ITS "RIGHTS" AND "RACISM".
Yeah, well, it would. Tell it to shut the fuck up.

MY NIGGER'S HIDE IS A FUNNY COLOR. - WHAT IS THE CORRECT SHADE FOR A NIGGER?
A nigger's skin is actually more or less transparent. That brown color you can see is the shit your nigger is full of. This is why some models of nigger are sold as "The Shitskin".

MY NIGGER ACTS LIKE A NIGGER, BUT IS WHITE.
What you have there is a "wigger". Rough crowd. WOW!

IS THAT LIKE AN ALBINO? ARE THEY RARE?
They're as common as dog shit and about as valuable. In fact, one of them was President between 1992 and 2000. Put your wigger in a cage with a few hundred genuine niggers and you'll soon find it stops acting like a nigger. However, leave it in the cage and let the niggers dispose of it. The best thing for any wigger is a dose of TNB.

MY NIGGER SMELLS REALLY BAD
And you were expecting what?

SHOULD I STORE MY DEAD NIGGER?
When you came in here, did you see a sign that said "Dead nigger storage"? .That's because there ain't no goddamn sign.

It has a name (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31755738)

Ununseptium. It's just not the final name. I think in honor of Lost, it should be called Smokium.

still more... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31755764)

"still more massive elements with chemical properties no one can predict."

I bet one of them will look great on the tiara for Mrs. Universe pageants.

Re:still more... (0)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756330)

I was thinking of the "unobtanium" in Avatar. From TFA:

As researchers have artificially created heavier and heavier elements, those elements have had briefer and briefer lifetimes -- the time it takes for unstable elements to decay by processes like spontaneous fission of the nucleus. Then, as the elements got still heavier, the lifetimes started climbing again, said Joseph Hamilton, a physicist at Vanderbilt who is on the team. The reason may be that the elements are approaching a theorized "island of stability" at still higher masses, where the lifetimes could go from fractions of a second to days or even years, Dr. Hamilton said.

If super-heavy elements are stable, who knows, maybe room temperature super conductivity would be one of their properties. There are some superconducting uranium containing materials, which are of the unconventional type [wikipedia.org] that can achieve superconductivity above the boiling point of nitrogen.

Re:still more... (1)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756454)

There could exist a very heavy inert element,
perhaps it is the dark matter.

Re:still more... (4, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756480)

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

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

Re:still more... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31756372)

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

Re:still more... (0, Redundant)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756586)

still more massive elements with chemical properties no one can predict."

I HAVE discovered the most massive element in the universe.


It's called "your mom."

How about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31755780)

Unobtainium?

Re:How about... (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756002)

No, it has now been obtained.

Re:How about... (1)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756214)

We could then rename it 'Oxymoranium'.

Re:How about... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756414)

Retrounobtainium?

Re:How about... (1)

mkiwi (585287) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756312)

spasibium / pajalstium ?

err.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31755834)

Canada-ium

Re:err.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31755858)

Canada-ium

Naw, Canada doesn't have a population that high. :)

Re:err.. (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756524)

Naw, Canada doesn't have a population that high

Man, I been to Nova Scotia. They got the good cush up there. All sticky 'n' shit. A coupla hits of that and your dick's in the dirt.

Up there Trailer Park Boys ain't just a tv show, it's a way of life. [*raises hand for high-five*]

Chemical properties (4, Insightful)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 4 years ago | (#31755850)

AIUI, once you know where an element fits into the Periodic Table, [wikipedia.org] you have a good idea as to what its properties are based on the other elements in its group. In fact, that's one of the table's most valuable properties.

Re:Chemical properties (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31755930)

117? Isn't that leet speak for 'id'?

Idium!

Re:Chemical properties (4, Interesting)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31755968)

You have a good idea of some properties in general but not all and not in specific. Like, you could probably guess that this element would like to form a single bond, but how strong would it be? How readily does it ionize? Blah blah blah nevermind you're right.

Re:Chemical properties (5, Informative)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756014)

Study it for a minute. The chemical properties you speak of are largely represented by the columns. Super-heavy elements would be in the middle, in their own 'new' columns.

Wikipedia actually has an article about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extension_of_the_periodic_table_beyond_the_seventh_period [wikipedia.org]

Re:Chemical properties (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756068)

So, we would expect this to behave as a halogen? Sadly, I have retained almost none of two years of university chemistry.

Re:Chemical properties (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756106)

Okay. What are the properties of, say, element 120? Unfortunately there aren't any known exemplars in it's group. In fact, it seems it's group is largely theoretical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table_(extended) [wikipedia.org]

Re:Chemical properties (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756274)

Sorry, element 121.

Re:Chemical properties (4, Informative)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756226)

Nope. Not at these atomic numbers.

Outer electrons start to move at appreciable fraction of speed of light, so relativistic effects begin to affect chemical properties.

A good example of relativistic effect - color of gold and copper.

Re:Chemical properties (5, Informative)

pclminion (145572) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756512)

More accurately, the classical velocity of the electrons, if you calculate it from Newtonian principles, approaches (or even exceeds) the speed of light. Nevertheless, the electron does not "move" when in a bound state, from a quantum perspective.

It's interesting that even when a less accurate physical theory is technically wrong, it may still have some predictive value.

Re:Chemical properties (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31756688)

Well I guess I've learned something today.

Re:Chemical properties (1, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756508)

No stupid it's more complicated than that, that's why lead doesn't act like carbon. DER DUH DER.

Belt of Stability (3, Interesting)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756634)

Speaking of periodic trends, I bet some of you are wondering just why we care about ultra heavy elements that last for roughly .0000000000002 seconds before falling apart.

The deal is, there's a rough property of periodic trends and neutron/proton ratios in which certain ratios stick together well, and one of the hopes is that once we're synthesizing some really, really heavy stuff the ratios will be such that it all sticks together again, and we will have stable, completely synthetic, super-heavy elements with cool properties.

Hey chemists (3, Interesting)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31755854)

still more massive elements with chemical properties no one can predict.

Why can't this be predicted? An element is defined by the number of protons in the nucleus, right? So why is it difficult or impossible to predict what happens when you add another proton? We already have a known sequence of over a hundred elements we can look at to see what changes as the number of protons increases.

Thanks for answering the stupid question of the day.

Re:Hey chemists (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 4 years ago | (#31755892)

Well yeah, that is what the groups in the periodic table are for. When the periodic table was "invented" there were even holes in it and eventually elements where discovered with predicted properties and element number. However it seems that predicting the half life is non-trivial. Also while some things can be predicted there is still a lot of room for error or whatever.

Re:Hey chemists (5, Informative)

modrzej (1450687) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756056)

Light elements, say, those you can find in first three rows of the periodic table, can be qualitatively described using hydrogen atom-like model. Basically, it says that properties of elements are periodic, when you go through the periodic table in a consecutive manner. But then you got heavier elements. The hydrogen atom-like approximation breaks down here, the properties are still periodic, but there are many exceptions from set of simple rules that were valid for lighter elements. In some cases even quantum-mechanical methods fail to describe heavier elements, for example gold wouldn't have gold color if not treated relativistically. One can expect that going towards extremely large Z well established techniques won't prove successful.

Re:Hey chemists (5, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756300)

In some cases even quantum-mechanical methods fail to describe heavier elements, for example gold wouldn't have gold color if not treated relativistically.

Wow, for some reason I never knew that. Mercury being a liquid at room temperature is apparently also a relativistic effect. Interesting stuff. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Hey chemists (2, Insightful)

PatDev (1344467) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756062)

I am not a chemist, but I'd wager its because this constitutes extrapolation. The periodic tables I just looked up online only go up to 103. Extrapolating > 10% off the end of your data set is a risky proposition, likely to produce incorrect results.

Re:Hey chemists (3, Informative)

spvo (955716) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756134)

People have predicted some of their properties. Since these super heavy elements are difficult to produce, and the isotopes produced are generally short lived, the only thing that can really be observed is the elements half-life.

The models that exist for the currently known elements seem to work pretty well, but they also predict the island of stability mentioned in the summary. Basically a region of very heavy and very stable elements. So, if these elements are discovered and actually are very stable, then it tells us that the current nuclear models aren't too bad.

Also, and this I'm not positive about, the reason the properties are likely different than the common elements is because these superheavy elements are very neutron rich and very heavy. And I think the most stable ones are supposed to be deformed as well.

Re:Hey chemists (5, Informative)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756252)

Why can't this be predicted? An element is defined by the number of protons in the nucleus, right? So why is it difficult or impossible to predict what happens when you add another proton?

Because most of the interesting properties of an element are not defined by the number of protons but by the number of electrons and which orbitals they are found in in the ground state.

The orbitals are not simply layers like a layer cake and they don't fill up in a strictly one-two-three kind of order. The way the lanthanides stick up out of the periodic table is due to the fact that an outer orbital fills in before one of the inner ones does for those elements.

The fact that sodium behaves like potassium is not because of the number of protons for each, for example, it is because the number of electrons to balance those protons results in one electron in the outermost 's' orbital. The atom prefers to get rid of this electron, making the + ion. The inert elements are all due to the fact that they have the right number of electrons to completely fill the outer shell. Chlorine and the elements in that column lack completeness by one electron, so they prefer to pick up one electron and form the - ion.

H2 is stable because the two H atoms share the two electrons, making a complete outer shell. Na2 is not stable, because even though they'd share the outer electron and make a complete 's' orbital, the outer shell of Na has more than an s orbital.

It's all an electron thing, not proton.

Re:Hey chemists (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756422)

Because most of the interesting properties of an element are not defined by the number of protons but by the number of electrons and which orbitals they are found in in the ground state.

However, those interesting properties can be derived from the number of protons.

Re:Hey chemists (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756458)

Because most of the interesting properties of an element are not defined by the number of protons but by the number of electrons and which orbitals they are found in in the ground state.

Can you infer properties about the electrons from just the number of protons? Is it possible to have two distinct elements with the same number of protons in the nucleus, but different configurations of electrons?

Most of my questions are based on the apparent fact that for any given number of protons in the nucleus, there is exactly one element with that amount. If that were true, it would seem that given the number of protons, you would be able to deduce certain properties about the element (if there was only one possible configuration of electrons for a given number of protons).

Re:Hey chemists (5, Informative)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756596)

Most of my questions are based on the apparent fact that for any given number of protons in the nucleus, there is exactly one element with that amount.

That's the definition of an element, yes.

If that were true, it would seem that given the number of protons, you would be able to deduce certain properties about the element (if there was only one possible configuration of electrons for a given number of protons).

There is one set of possible electron orbitals, yes, but the problem is that with large elements like this the number of orbitals is very large and their behavior is non-obvious. You can't just look at element 117 and say that oh, the outer-most shell (the one that matters most with regards to chemical behavior) is one electron short of being full in the non-ionized element, so it's going to behave like Florine. There's a lot more going on in this element.

Re:Hey chemists (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756714)

Ah, so you really can't predict what the electron configuration will be based on the number of protons. It's true that there is only one configuration possible, but there's not a formula to predict what it would be.

Re:Hey chemists (2, Interesting)

jacix (1597247) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756666)

An element is defined by the number of protons in the nucleus but its properties are largely determined by the number and configuration of electrons around that nucleus. Remember that the definition of an element is entirely made up by and for humans. Physical properties couldn't care less how we categorize them. Roughly speaking the more electrons there are the more possible configurations there are for them so the larger the element (and hence the more electrons) the harder their behavior is to predict. If you look in detail at a periodic table you'll find that the triple-digit elements in particular are missing a lot of physical details because they can only be obtained empirically and they don't stick around long enough to do that. As for names how about Faradanium, Hawkonium, Salkium, Kakunium, Saganium.

Maybe... (4, Funny)

actionbastard (1206160) | more than 4 years ago | (#31755900)

Jumbonium? [theinfosphere.org]

Name Suggestions (1)

Kapten Kalabajooie (943695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31755944)

Spartanium, Reclaimerium, Johnium, Demonium, Masterchiefium... Just throwin' 'em out there.

Re:Name Suggestions (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#31755966)

onehundredandseventeenium?

Re:Name Suggestions (1)

UnixRawks (705739) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756054)

Actually it would be onehundredseventeenium. "And" delimits who numbers from fractions.

Re:Name Suggestions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31756070)

That's what it's already named: ununseptium.

Re:Name Suggestions (0, Redundant)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756036)

Unobtainium.

Re:Name Suggestions (1)

Jawcracker Fuzz (1773468) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756766)

Taconium?

Re:Name Suggestions (1)

Cor-cor (1330671) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756094)

n00bium?

Re:Name Suggestions (1)

El Capitaine (973850) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756164)

I was simply scrolling down, waiting for someone to make the reference.

Quite amusingly, being in Group 17 on the periodic table (also known as Group VII or Group VII-A), it will behave as a halogen. Masterchiefium is a halogen. Go figure.

Re:Name Suggestions (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756334)

Spartanium?

I'm Spartanium!

No, I'm Spartanium!

No, I'm Spartanium!

No, I'm Spartanium!

I'm Spartanium!

Always look at the bright side ...

Re:Name Suggestions (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756602)

Spartanium, Reclaimerium, Johnium, Demonium, Masterchiefium

With due respect to Halo, I humbly suggest Cadefosterium after Subject 117 of First Wave [imdb.com] , Cade Foster, as having prior claim to the number than Halo by three years.

Re:Name Suggestions (1)

Anthelme (1759920) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756638)

Master chief was 147 wasn't he? So not quite? they need to name it after the guy who created the Xcom series, cos now we can goto Mars and bash some ethereals

unnamed - Colbertium (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31755984)

You know Stephen's going to make a claim to it.

non predictable ... ? (2, Interesting)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756084)

The chemical properties are determined by the electron cloud around the atom. (Which is ofc determined by the number of protons in the core)

Nevertheless the chemical properties are completely predictable as the element will behave similar as the other elements in its group.

Best Regards

Re:non predictable ... ? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756110)

Element 121 is theorized to be in a group by itself (and so on for 122 through 138).

What happens when you go outside what's there? (4, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756148)

What I mean is, starting with element 119 you are in to a new, 8th period of the periodic table. Ok well each two periods adds new blocks due to the electron shells. Starting at element 121, you are in that new block. As such there isn't anything to compare it against. You are now dealing with g-block elements, which don't exist in lighter elements.

Re:What happens when you go outside what's there? (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756232)

The article also mentions shells of protons and neutrons in the nucleus helping to determine stability, something which I don't recall learning in chem. Is that an error in explanation, or something that gets discussed when you get a dedicated nuclear chemistry class? Our nuclear chem sections only involved a chapter or two, and largely dealt with the byproducts of decay.

Re:What happens when you go outside what's there? (1)

Sir Holo (531007) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756368)

There is a huge amount of knowledge, so your classes can't teach you everything. Just enough to get started, really. Modern or Nuclear Physics courses probably touch on it.

Re:What happens when you go outside what's there? (1)

Animaether (411575) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756380)

Your chem (or physics, depends a little) class never dealt with the island of stability when discussing the periodic table?

I think it's one of the first things we were taught here - although I do admit it was in the very first year and it was never touched upon again (simply because we wouldn't be likely to ever have to deal with it, and knowing the hypothesis was good enough).

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

Re:What happens when you go outside what's there? (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756504)

My last chem class was in 1992, and nuclear chemistry was a very small part of it. The Island of Stability was mentioned, but not delved into with any great depth.

Re:non predictable ... ? (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756160)

Not quite. The periodic table gives rough predictions. And yes, we understand what those should roughly be. But even given that the complexity of the interactions in the electron clouds mean we can only make rough estimates about how something would behave. For example, we barely understand why certain metals make certain types of allows and certain other metals don't. Or to use another example, many metals are superconducting at very low temperatures but we can't work out more than a very rough approximation of what temperatures those should occur at (we know the temperatures very precisely due to empirical work). For a lot of chemistry and physics we have a lot of very good theoretical models but trying to actually use them in practice becomes incredibly difficult because of the amount of computation involved.

Re:non predictable ... ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31756478)

Nevertheless the chemical properties are completely predictable as the element will behave similar as the other elements in its group.

Wrong, idiot.

Island of stability, they say? (1)

penguinoid (724646) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756158)

Well one of its isotopes seems to have a longer half-life than my ping time, I guess that makes it stable! They can even make more than one atom per month!

Repeatable? (5, Funny)

Wiscocrew (1254242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756180)

Pics or it didn't happen, scientists.

Need a name? (0, Redundant)

daoshi (913930) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756272)

Easy! I name it Oneonesevenium !

Re:Need a name? (1)

daoshi (913930) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756516)

Hey people check this post out!

Island of stability (2, Informative)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756346)

Although there is a predicted island of stability (due to being nearer to a nice magic number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_number_(physics) [wikipedia.org] ). However, TFA's statement about these elements lasting days or years is wildly optimistic. By most estimates it isn't likely that we will have elements which are stable for more than at most a few minutes. However, that doesn't sound sexy so everyone talks about the island of stability a lot. A lot of scifi has had fun with the idea of very stable elements in the island being not only stable but having really weird properties (allowing warp drives, wormholes and other fun stuff). However, more likely than not even if we can make these larger these elements they won't more than a few seconds. And we will only be able to make them in very tiny quantities. Of course, they certainly won't allow stargates and all that fun stuff either, but that's at least fun to dream about.

Re:Island of stability (3, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756436)

TFA's statement about these elements lasting days or years is wildly optimistic.

Still, Tiger Woods might be able to have a wedding ring made of it.

Re:Island of stability (1)

spvo (955716) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756794)

So far all the elements produced near the island of stability are isotopes with a fewer neutrons than would be needed for them to have long lifetimes. It is still too early to know how long these super heavy elements will last. Yet, there have been several produced in the 112+ range with half-lifes on the order of minutes.

Just explore the top of the chart at nndc [bnl.gov] to see.

Very Surprised... (1)

wtbname (926051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756466)

...that no one has made any boring, unoriginal, or redundant Unobtainium jokes about this article.

Pantheonium (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31756492)

117 was the year construction of the Pantheon was started.. and what else but gods are these heavy elements to our paltry hydro-oxy-nitro-carbo atoms?

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31756502)

Did you take a look at your own shit today?

3D Table is Required (3, Interesting)

Plekto (1018050) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756612)

http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/03/05/163226/First-Creation-of-Anti-Strange-Hypernuclei [slashdot.org]

This was on Slashdot a few weeks ago. And it shows us that the periodic table is without a doubt in need of a major revision from what we've always assumed to be correct.

http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/pt.html [meta-synthesis.com]
Dozens of (the major) alternate versions are listed here as well. I personally like the Dufour Periodictree myself, as it has a nice symmetry to it that's similar to the circular one.

just name it element 110 (1)

malp (108885) | more than 4 years ago | (#31756628)

to be difficult

Just 6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31756650)

Just 6? talk to me when they manage to come up with the rest of the new element's atoms

But will it blend? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31756784)

..iPadium... Jobsium... /trollium

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?