43 replies to this topic

[Hydrogen]

They are not a "new" element though.

They are just an alloy. They take a bunch of other elements, shove it together, and call it a new element. The fact that it quickly breaks down into a base element means that they are not true elements. They would be 100% stable on their own, rather then needing to be made in a lab, and lasting just a few seconds.

Eventually we will just have 10,000 elements and the chemistry final will be complete and utter hell.

If this is any example, then there is an infinite number of elements. All we have to do is make it stick together for just a little while, and we can call it a new element. Eventually we will invent statis fields and just push a bunch of particles together and put a check on the clipboard and then push another one in.

Building new elements is awesome. But stop calling it an element until its actually a fucking element, not two elements stuck together by glue that's going to break any second. When an element can contain its electrons and neutrons, then it actually becomes an element. Until then, its a pile of neutrons and electrons.

You do realize that the only requirement for an element to be classified as a new element is that there is another proton within the nucleus of the atom, right? I mean, that's what the atomic number on the periodic table of elements indicates: how many protons are in the nucleus of that particular element. Missing or extra electrons imply an ion (the atom is now positively or negatively charged). Missing or extra neutrons imply isotopes (they are very common within nature with some elements having numerous isotopes and some having just a few. They are just different variations of the same element).

The fact that an atom held x protons in its nucleus, even for a short amount of time, means that that element was in existence for that amount of time. The stability of the atom has nothing to do with the atom's candidacy for being an element. Under that argument, any element that is radioactive, like plutonium or uranium, is not an element either. Wrong. They are.

Your post indicates an incredible misunderstanding of how chemistry works. I'm not sure if you are serious. I sure hope to God you are just trolling. For your sake, and the rest of the educational system's sake.

[Waser Lave]

They are not a "new" element though.

They are just an alloy. They take a bunch of other elements, shove it together, and call it a new element. The fact that it quickly breaks down into a base element means that they are not true elements. They would be 100% stable on their own, rather then needing to be made in a lab, and lasting just a few seconds.

Eventually we will just have 10,000 elements and the chemistry final will be complete and utter hell.

They are definitely elements and they decay to other elements, as far as I'm aware an alloy couldn't decay to a completely different pure element (although my chemistry is rusty since I haven't done any for about 8 years ).

If this is any example, then there is an infinite number of elements. All we have to do is make it stick together for just a little while, and we can call it a new element. Eventually we will invent statis fields and just push a bunch of particles together and put a check on the clipboard and then push another one in.

There's a finite amount of particles which exist in the universe so it would be impossible to create infinitely large elements.

Building new elements is awesome. But stop calling it an element until its actually a fucking element, not two elements stuck together by glue that's going to break any second. When an element can contain its electrons and neutrons, then it actually becomes an element. Until then, its a pile of neutrons and electrons.

They aren't two elements stuck together...

[Sida]

They are definitely elements and they decay to other elements, as far as I'm aware an alloy couldn't decay to a completely different pure element (although my chemistry is rusty since I haven't done any for about 8 years ).

Tbh, I think Hyrdo pretty much covered it...and who's gonna argue about elements with a guy who's username has been the first element in the periodic table for fuck knows how long

There's a finite amount of particles which exist in the universe so it would be impossible to create infinitely large elements.

That though, I don't understand how that wasn't obvious in the first place tbh.

[Waser Lave]

Tbh, I think Hyrdo pretty much covered it...and who's gonna argue about elements with a guy who's username has been the first element in the periodic table for fuck knows how long

It's common courtesy to reply to somebody who is talking to you. He quoted me so I replied to him.

That though, I don't understand how that wasn't obvious in the first place tbh.

Beats me.

[Sida]

It's common courtesy to reply to somebody who is talking to you. He quoted me so I replied to him.

Oh so he did. I guess there are some posts I don't pay enough attention to

[Therion]

Great a couple more things to memorize in chemistry class

If they don't interact with anything well, you can bet that no 'class' is going to require you remember them until they pose some significance. You may not have to remember their names for another 25 years.

Back on topic. I like how simple they make it sound.

1. Obtain Radioactive element
2. Fire calcium at it
3. Profit

It'll be interesting to see whether these elements actually do get put to use any time soon, Livermorium sounds like it's an expensive procedure to make.

[iargue]

You do realize that the only requirement for an element to be classified as a new element is that there is another proton within the nucleus of the atom, right? I mean, that's what the atomic number on the periodic table of elements indicates: how many protons are in the nucleus of that particular element. Missing or extra electrons imply an ion (the atom is now positively or negatively charged). Missing or extra neutrons imply isotopes (they are very common within nature with some elements having numerous isotopes and some having just a few. They are just different variations of the same element).

The fact that an atom held x protons in its nucleus, even for a short amount of time, means that that element was in existence for that amount of time. The stability of the atom has nothing to do with the atom's candidacy for being an element. Under that argument, any element that is radioactive, like plutonium or uranium, is not an element either. Wrong. They are.

Your post indicates an incredible misunderstanding of how chemistry works. I'm not sure if you are serious. I sure hope to God you are just trolling. For your sake, and the rest of the educational system's sake.

Since when does radioactive elements break down into other elements after a few seconds? They might not be as stable as all of the other elements, but they are still stable. If the element can stay together ON ITS OWN, then it becomes an element. Classifying it as an element when its incapable of being held together on its own, is both a stupid concept, and bullshit science.

There are plenty of concepts in science that are as stupid as possible, but accepted as fact for no other reason then people are sheep. Why exactly are we going to classify something as an element, if its not possible to exist outside of a lab? That completely ruins the concept and ideas of the periodic table, and holds no justification at all. We might as well add the next 1,000 elements, as we all know that you can shove another proton inside of the nucleus and be done with it. All of these "new" elements did the same thing. We took a proton, stuffed it inside, and counted to five. Case closed.

Lets just go ahead and name them all now, and look extra smart because we "discovered" new elements.

Forgive me for not accepting the stupidest concept ever.

[ShadowLink64]

They are not a "new" element though.

They are just an alloy. They take a bunch of other elements, shove it together, and call it a new element. The fact that it quickly breaks down into a base element means that they are not true elements. They would be 100% stable on their own, rather then needing to be made in a lab, and lasting just a few seconds.

Eventually we will just have 10,000 elements and the chemistry final will be complete and utter hell.

There are so many things wrong with this statement, I don't even know where to begin.

1) Alloys are materials made up of one or more kinds of metal at the "molecular" level (as in, we're not fusing two atoms together to form alloys, otherwise they would make these in nuclear reactors instead of smelting factories). They're usually used in metallurgy to improve the material properties (stress, strain, etc.) of a metallic material. Steel is an alloy, because it contains iron and carbon, but it is definitely not a new element.

2) Many elements exist which are not 100% stable. Uranium, or radium (whose discoverer won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry) are elements, and yet these elements are unstable and have a half-life associated with them where they decay into lighter elements. With these new elements, their half-lives are just extremely fast (in the case of livermorium, 60 ms). This time scale may not be of any use to people wanting to build structures out of them, but many experiments performed in optics are done at a much faster time scale than this, so there could still be some potential use (just speculating here).

Also, for the people that figure that making artificial elements is not a good thing, let's look at Technetium. This is a rather light element that is unstable (though the half-life is gigantic -- hundreds of thousands of years), and was artificially created, but they use it in nuclear medical diagnostics.

3) It's unbelievably hard to overcome the strong nuclear force with a couple hundred nucleotides (as we can see). I'm betting that putting 10,000 nucleotides together would be a bit of a challenge so I doubt this will be too much of a worry for a while.

Since when does radioactive elements break down into other elements after a few seconds?

Polonium-214 - this element decays down on the order of microseconds. It's really not that hard to find radioactive elements that break down that quickly.

[glitch]

Great a couple more things to memorize in chemistry class

The second year course on inorganic chemistry in my university once had a midterm that was a blank periodic table and their entire midterm was to fill that out.

I am dreading that course.

[Nymh]

With these new elements, their half-lives are just extremely fast (in the case of livermorium, 60 ms). This time scale may not be of any use to people wanting to build structures out of them, but many experiments performed in optics are done at a much faster time scale than this, so there could still be some potential use (just speculating here).

Oooh oooh you mentioned optics! You do have a point there, a lot of the optical field deals with ridiculously small time intervals, and not just in experimentation. Femtosecond lasers for example (like the Intralase laser used to make bladeless LASIK flaps) are named for the length of time of their pulses, measured in quadrillionths of a second.

[ShadowLink64]

That completely ruins the concept and ideas of the periodic table, and holds no justification at all.

I don't see how it ruins the concept of the periodic table. I urge you to read about the discovery of Technetium. Dmitri Mendeleev (the original creator of the periodic table) predicted the properties of many elements before they were even discovered. In the case of Technetium, there was a gap in the periodic table because no one had found this element naturally yet.

After doing cyclotron experiments at Berkeley, they stumbled upon Technetium, which fit where Mendeleev predicted and even had the same properties that he predicted. This element was not found naturally, but was produced in a lab.

So I would argue that producing artificial elements strengthened the concept of the periodic table in that the table proved its ability to predict the properties of an artificial element.

Oooh oooh you mentioned optics! You do have a point there, a lot of the optical field deals with ridiculously small time intervals, and not just in experimentation. Femtosecond lasers for example (like the Intralase laser used to make bladeless LASIK flaps) are named for the length of time of their pulses, measured in quadrillionths of a second.

I'm doing a masters degree in nanophotonics, which is why I thought of it.

[Hydrogen]

Since when does radioactive elements break down into other elements after a few seconds? They might not be as stable as all of the other elements, but they are still stable. If the element can stay together ON ITS OWN, then it becomes an element. Classifying it as an element when its incapable of being held together on its own, is both a stupid concept, and bullshit science.

There are plenty of concepts in science that are as stupid as possible, but accepted as fact for no other reason then people are sheep. Why exactly are we going to classify something as an element, if its not possible to exist outside of a lab? That completely ruins the concept and ideas of the periodic table, and holds no justification at all. We might as well add the next 1,000 elements, as we all know that you can shove another proton inside of the nucleus and be done with it. All of these "new" elements did the same thing. We took a proton, stuffed it inside, and counted to five. Case closed.

Lets just go ahead and name them all now, and look extra smart because we "discovered" new elements.

Forgive me for not accepting the stupidest concept ever.

I am baffled and flabbergasted by the level of confusion required to come to your conclusion.

[giforce2]

To clean up all the mess going on here an element is composed of a single nucleus composed of protons, neutrons held together by quarks. The NEW elements are indeed elements not molecules (made of many elements) because they have one nucleus. The short life is one down fall to their evidence of existance because we as humans like things we can use but you could confuse the short lives with isotopes that naturally degrade due to the instability of the bulk.

CHEM MAJOR

[Sweeney]

Ah man, you guys just never learn.

[supertrap]

[/font]
never

Never is a very long time. There are plenty of unstable elements used commonly.


Americium, californium, are transuranium elements as well and they are used in medical and industrial devices.


Edit: iruleatants.
And geez, my reply seems kind of small and insignificant compared to the rest of the topic. This is why you read the whole topic before replying.

Edited by supertrap, 24 December 2011 - 04:33 PM.

[artificial]

Although a tad late, I must admit I love the fact that Iargue's an expert in almost every subject matter. Kids a fucking genius.

On topic: I'm content with the discovery.

[DreadPirateRoberts]

To clean up all the mess going on here an element is composed of a single nucleus composed of protons, neutrons held together by quarks. The NEW elements are indeed elements not molecules (made of many elements) because they have one nucleus. The short life is one down fall to their evidence of existance because we as humans like things we can use but you could confuse the short lives with isotopes that naturally degrade due to the instability of the bulk.

CHEM MAJOR

you're just assuming atoms exist

[redlion]

Well, yes, however in my opinion forcing a specified number of particles together and then slapping a label on the product before it falls apart does not constitute discovering anything new. For that matter we may as well pre-discover all of the elements. Since we can't study these five due to how unstable they are, that makes them no different from any other possible element we could dream up.

It's not necessarily true that we can't study them. I guess we've studied them enough to have their atomic mass and other vital statistics down. How else could we add them to the periodic table?

I don't think it's quite pre-discovery either. We're not just dreaming up an atom with 320 protons, we're actually creating an atom with up to 118. Humans have the limitation of not being able to observe all the interactions occuring in 60ms or however long they take to decay. That doesn't mean valuable information isn't available.

An additional limitation occurs because we haven't found these atoms in nature, so we've no knowledge on what other elements the newly named elements are likely to bond with, or what types of isotopes are stable, all of which could prove useful. Imagine if we could create the 22nd century equivalent of 30th century BCE bronze, by alloying one of these new metallic elements with steel. We'd never know if we only experimented on elements found in nature.

I do agree with you that a good deal of scientific funding could be allocated to more pressing needs (let's give up on Mars until we cure AIDS at home, yeah?) but I will never agree with disabling pure scientific research, even if it has no discernible use at the present.

[imjustbored]

I'm glad to see that some things haven't changed.

Don't really have anything to add to the 'topic' other than all knowledge is useful. Don't discount things because they don't interest you, we all get one life and should take in as much information as possible. We as a species are limited by the tools we create; and the tools we create are based on the knowledge that we take in. Refusing to learn just because of ignorance is absolutely ridiculous, and a waste of your time on Earth.