Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Periodic Table To Welcome Two New Elements

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the spellchecker-database-grows-by-two dept.

Science 157

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."

cancel ×

157 comments

Rejected again! (4, Funny)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38242600)

Will they ever name an element Colbertium, after Stephen T. Colbert, DFA?

Re:Rejected again! (3, Funny)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#38242618)

Hasbeenium?

Re:Rejected again! (1)

ooshna (1654125) | more than 2 years ago | (#38242636)

This comment saddens me.

Re:Rejected again! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38242738)

Alright, so, hopefully fellow Slashdot readers can clear something up for me. Thing is, this has been bothering me for quite a while, but I just haven't brought up the problem to the general user base yet.

Why? Why always? I'm tired of always!

Knock off always!

Fuckin' slut!

There. Now that that routine has been sufficiently accomplished, I feel safe to continue where we last left off... in that place. The sandwich that has never known a single piece of bread will never know bread!

Re:Rejected again! (5, Funny)

JavaBear (9872) | more than 2 years ago | (#38242764)

Or Roadrunnium, because it has a half life so fast you won't be able to catch it.

Re:Rejected again! (4, Funny)

JavaBear (9872) | more than 2 years ago | (#38242938)

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.

Re:Rejected again! (4, Informative)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 2 years ago | (#38244106)

It's Acmeium, not Ajaxium.

Re:Rejected again! (3, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#38242920)

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.

Re:Rejected again! (1)

MrWin2kMan (918702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38244058)

Kind of like when Howard Stern staffers call in to serious talk shows...

Re:Rejected again! (1, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243314)

Will they ever name an element Colbertium, after Stephen T. Colbert, DFA?

Insovietrussiaelementnamesyounium

Re:Rejected again! (1)

tom17 (659054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243522)

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!).

Re:Rejected again! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38243458)

I dunno, but they really should keep 111 as unununium. It just sounds too damn funny to discard.

Re:Rejected again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38243862)

Colbertium por vida!

Livermorium stinks (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38242634)

Anything but that!

Re:Livermorium stinks (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243652)

What were the scientists thinking? Maybe they got so consistently drunk they named it in memory of their formerly healthy organs?

Re:Livermorium stinks (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38243928)

What were the scientists thinking?

I bet they were thinking, "Hey let's name it after the town [llnl.gov] in which we work.

Re:Livermorium stinks (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 2 years ago | (#38244226)

Is flerovium some breed of onion?

Re:Livermorium stinks (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38244468)

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?

When does comment period begin for Element 115? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38242642)

I have a number of people to coordinate in order to make sure it ends up with the name Elerium.

Re:When does comment period begin for Element 115? (2)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243608)

I'll join your quest to make element 115 Elerium.

Personally though, I'm looking forward to Unobtainium becoming official.

Real elements - or theoretical? (3, Informative)

raydobbs (99133) | more than 2 years ago | (#38242670)

Were these stable elements - or did they exist as a product of some super-collision for fractions of a second?

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (4, Informative)

eric_brissette (778634) | more than 2 years ago | (#38242736)

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."

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (1)

nitefallz (221624) | more than 2 years ago | (#38242832)

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?

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (1)

nitefallz (221624) | more than 2 years ago | (#38242856)

Wow I mangled that post. Why isn't my brain functioning today?

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (1)

eepok (545733) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243066)

LOL -- Give it another shot, Tiger. ;)

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38242870)

Elementary education, meet the real world

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (0)

nitefallz (221624) | more than 2 years ago | (#38242926)

Well you're useful.

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (5, Interesting)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243490)

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?

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38242922)

Elements break down all the time; its called radioactive decay.

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (1)

nitefallz (221624) | more than 2 years ago | (#38242994)

They breakdown into other elements? Uranium can become gold?

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38243098)

Yes, they break down into other elements.
No, uranium becomes thorium.

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (1)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243118)

No, but it does become plutonium.

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (2)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243122)

No, gold is not one of the decay products of uranium. Lead, however, most certainly is. read. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (2)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243186)

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.

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (2)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243418)

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.

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (2)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38242980)

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.

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#38242996)

Uranium does this too (over ever so slightly larger time scales...) - it is not an element?

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38243004)

The model of elements as "individible meatballs" has been proven an inadequate model for quite some time now.

Most elements can be broken down into smaller elements, and many can do so spontaneously. Heavier elements tend to be more prone to this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38243264)

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.

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (-1, Troll)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243032)

You should probably ask for a refund on your education.

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38243276)

Yeah, they lied to me as well.
Let me sum up what my (our?) educators should have said: This information is as true as we currently know, but could be proven inaccurate or false at any time.

FYI educators, I'm still pissed off about it.

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (2)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 2 years ago | (#38244212)

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.

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (1)

LoudNoiseElitist (1016584) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243280)

Short answer: your elementary education was wrong.

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38244432)

Could be worse... I had a second grade teacher that taught gravity was created by the rotation of the earth. Spun a bucket of water to demonstrate, "... see we stay on the earth the same way the water stays in the bucket." I was then punished for arguing with her when I insisted that did not make sense.

Stating that atoms cannot be further broken down is minor in comparison.

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38243318)

"Element" means "substance composed of a single type of atom", where "type of atom" refers to its atomic number, ie. number of protons. (As we know, the number of neutrons doesn't count because those are isotopes, which are all considered the same element.

Alternatively, "a substance that cannot be broken down further via chemical means"

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243398)

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.

It's true (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243446)

"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.

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243648)

When did you go to school? The 1800s?

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38243656)

You obviously grew up in the classical Greecian society when we didn't know about things like sub atomic particles.

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (1)

gumbi west (610122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38242810)

The longest lived isotopes stay around for seconds.

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (3, Informative)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243278)

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)".

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38243582)

Atomic numbers tell all!

There are no stable transuranium elements. 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. Well, that's true until someone comes up with a clever way to bind it to a molecule before all atomic hell breaks loose.

Re:Real elements - or theoretical? (5, Insightful)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 2 years ago | (#38244260)

There are no stable transuranium elements.

Yet. Perhaps we will find a transuranium island of stability.

It's so nice to see... (5, Funny)

eegad (588763) | more than 2 years ago | (#38242692)

this table is updated periodically.

Re:It's so nice to see... (1, Interesting)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 2 years ago | (#38242982)

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.

Re:It's so nice to see... (1)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243168)

To be more pedantic:

repeated at irregular intervals; intermittent: periodic outbreaks of the disease.

Link [reference.com]

Re:It's so nice to see... (4, Funny)

Nationless (2123580) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243396)

I imagine renaming it the sporadic table of the elements wouldn't go down too well with the academics.

Re:It's so nice to see... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38243566)

Not as bad as what was done to Pluto.

Re:It's so nice to see... (4, Funny)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243552)

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.

Re:It's so nice to see... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38243914)

So you like unstable tables?
If these updates continue there will soon be more unstable than stable elements in the table. Maybe it's inevitable but I just don't see how we can fix the table once it gets that unstable. I don't even know if IUCAP is accountable or even trustable.

Worse than Moland Springs. (1)

jweller13 (1148823) | more than 2 years ago | (#38242714)

Livermorium, holy yuk! That's worse than Moland Springs [tv sitcom reference]

Re:Worse than Moland Springs. (2)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243042)

Livermorium, holy yuk!

Especially when I first read that as "liverandonionium".

Re:Worse than Moland Springs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38243462)

What til the UK gets a hold of this. They butcher Aluminum: "AL-YOU-MIN-IUM"

any word on element 0? (1)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#38242768)

i was going to try some biotic implants

Re:any word on element 0? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38242974)

Element 0 (neutron, no protons) is unstable with a half-life of approximately 10 mnutes.

Re:any word on element 0? (1)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243016)

MASS EFFECT

play it on the x-box

Re:any word on element 0? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38243460)

So... Mass Effect plays longer than ten minutes of Half-Life?

Re:any word on element 0? (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243442)

You mean it actually exists? I did not know that. Any results from children being exposed to it while in the womb?

Love potion? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38242852)

I Lv U?

(slightly radioactive)

Re:Love potion? (1)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 2 years ago | (#38242940)

Love hurts?

Re:Love potion? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38243424)

Yes, when you do it anally.

Old News (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38242866)

New elements, like the ones we heard about a month ago? Nothing to see here, move along.

I see that these are atomic numbers 114 and 116 (4, Interesting)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#38242868)

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. [ufopaedia.org]

Re:I see that these are atomic numbers 114 and 116 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38242984)

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.

Re:I see that these are atomic numbers 114 and 116 (2)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243362)

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.

Re:I see that these are atomic numbers 114 and 116 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38244458)

I think you meant "aurum" and "argentum".

Starktonium (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38242878)

When is that going to get added? Hmm?

I say we (1)

newsman220 (1928648) | more than 2 years ago | (#38242886)

Make 'em name of them Spunk.

I was holding out for.... (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38242890)

.... livermorium and onionium.

Re:I was holding out for.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38243514)

unununium?

Re:I was holding out for.... (1)

Fjandr (66656) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243730)

No, that was just renamed to roentgenium. :p

Re:I was holding out for.... (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 2 years ago | (#38244314)

I think we all saw through that.

and the bad news is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38242892)

A certain large software company has already patented the use of HTML "BLINK" tags when displaying the new elements in a periodic table.

A genuine question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38242896)

What is the purpose of creating these elements with ridiculously low half-lives that they can barely be detected. I mean I heard about the islands of stability like element 127 or 135 etc. But even those were calculated to be extremely short-lived. So while I am happy to see our science progress, I am unable to grasp what the real import of progress in this matter is.

Can someone throw some light please?

Re:A genuine question (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38243826)

Obviously this isn't going to be in some widget you buy anytime soon, but I think the point was to test theories [wikipedia.org] relating to the field of physics [wikipedia.org] . 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).

Where's the Wonderflonium? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38243116)

Are any of these elements particularly susceptible to bouncing?

WOW (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243180)

Wont every school now have to replace there periodic tables with the new updated version?

Thanks Science, (1)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243406)

..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.

Re:WOW (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243470)

And with the budget cuts too... Won't someone think of the children?

Re:WOW (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38243674)

Maybe not the school you went to.

Won't every school now have to replace their periodic tables with the new updated version?

Livermorium (2)

dorix (414150) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243216)

I don't like liver. Can we call it "Liverlessium" instead?

First encounters (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243366)

Chemistry's periodic table can soon welcome livermorium and flerovium, two newly named elements

Welcome welcome! Would you like some Ti?

Octopussium (2)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243556)

Always trying to take out Bond(s).

How about... (1)

pahles (701275) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243654)

"the element that cannot be named" ?

How times have changed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38243726)

Back in 2008 there would have been people clamoring for an element named Obamnium. Now that Ba'raq Saddam Hussein Osama Obama is recognized by all to be an America-hating muslim terrorist born in kenya, no one would dare name an element after him. TAKE OUT THE TRASH IN 2012!!!!

I'm ok with it... (2)

Maltheus (248271) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243908)

...so long as Plutonium remains classified an element.

Corny (1)

WillyWanker (1502057) | more than 2 years ago | (#38243960)

Anyone else think they sound like made-up names from really bad science fictions movies?

Re:Corny (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#38244206)

Anyone else think they sound like made-up names from really bad science fictions movies?

Treknobabble.

Waiting for Element 125 (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#38244186)

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

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...