New element discovered! Unobtainium?

[StinkyPinky]

I'm only reading this thread because of the amusing argument between gayner and eits. Carry on please.

 

[Gibsons]

I want to find out what the minimum half life of an atom must be before it can be considered an element. Then we'll have the Official Anandtech Element Definition.

 

[eits]

look, i'm not claiming to be a chemist or physicist. but this is a little ridiculous. i'll readily admit that there are some things, like chemistry, that i don't fully remember from when i took it in high school (i took gen chem in high school, organic chem in college). although part of the definition of an element is that it's a basic building block of matter, i didn't recall the primary definition, which is that an element is defined by its proton number. does that mean i can't have a viewpoint that thinks it's silly to have completely unstable elements that will never and can never be used in any sort of application or material in life? that doesn't mean i don't agree that it's an element, it means i don't agree with the rules.

and, gayner, for you to criticize me for my profession or for you to criticize my profession is ridiculous. whereas i have a basic understanding and knowledge of chemistry, you have none of chiropractic. the difference between us, gayner, is that when i'm wrong about something, i'll more than likely admit it. you, on the other hand, decide it's best to take a fool's approach and reject anything that doesn't go along with what you think. quite an ego... but, then again, what should we expect from a guy who's username is his own fucking name.

have you ever hit your funny bone and had your hand feel tingly and numb? that's a nerve compression. we can both clearly agree that if you compress the ulnar nerve, your ring and/or pinky fingers will feel numb/tingly. well, if that's the case, what makes you think that a nerve cannot be compressed at the spinal level for a similar result? what happens to a the nerves of visceral organs when compressed (here's a hint: they stop working the way they should). well, what if they were compressed at the spinal level? the same thing would occur. that's just a normal understanding of physiology.

your rejection of chiropractors may have a lot to do with how chiropractors in new zealand are taught and how they practice. the former president of the new zealand college of chiropractic is a super straight chiropractor, which means that he believes that just about all diseases and ailments of the body can be treated/cured through chiropractic care. that is absurd. however, for you to ignorantly accuse me and other progressive chiropractors in the field of being quacks because of what you THINK we do is like me for criticizing you in your line of work because some other janitor who used to work at my college got arrested for setting up a camera in the womens bathroom.

you're free to have whatever opinion you want to have, gayner... just know that while you're riding around on your high horse calling things unscientific, understand that your opinions are unscientific as well. you leave no wiggle room and you don't accept any credibility to chiropractic care whatsoever even though research shows that it helps people with back and neck pain. in science, you tend not to criticize in absolutes. you can make a criticism about there not being enough research to support something, but to ignorantly say that chiropractic is quackery and that it does nothing is laughably wrong.

now, please, quit baiting me and trolling me on every goddamn thread. your bullshit got me into trouble this time. it's not going to get me in trouble again. if i see you attack me again, i'm simply going to report you and ignore your inflammatory post.

 

[silverpig]

Guys: Island of stability probably refers to a spot on the periodic table where the atoms have a half-life of 10^-6 seconds instead of 10^-10.

 

[Jeff7]

Guys: Island of stability probably refers to a spot on the periodic table where the atoms have a half-life of 10^-6 seconds instead of 10^-10.

Science reporting.

 

[eits]

Science reporting.

lol

 

[WHAMPOM]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/science/07element.html?ref=science

Scientists Discover Heavy New Element

A team of Russian and American scientists has discovered a new element 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 team produced six atoms of the element by smashing together isotopes of calcium and a radioactive element called berkelium in a particle accelerator about 75 miles north of Moscow on the Volga River, according to a paper that has been accepted for publication at the journal Physical Review Letters.

Data collected by the team seem to support what theorists have long suspected: that as newly created elements become heavier and heavier they will eventually become much more stable and longer-lived than the fleeting bits of artificially produced matter seen so far.

If the trend continues toward a theorized “island of stability” at higher masses, said Dawn A. Shaughnessy, a chemist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California who is on the team, the work could generate an array of strange new materials with as yet unimagined scientific and practical uses.




Pretty big discovery.

Transuranuriums?? Elements heavier then 92?? Artificial elements produced by Sci-Fi high tech civilizations?? OK!

 

[purbeast0]

i love hearing about new discoveries, just makes me realize that i'm sure there is A LOT of crap out there that humans do not understand/know of yet.

reminds me of when they find new species in the depths of the ocean.

 

[BW86]

pretty cool

 

[RESmonkey]

All these elements are so bullshit. "ooooh we smashed these two random substances together at light speed and made a new element. It existed for exactly .0000000000000000000000000001 seconds". Bullshit. Nitrogen. That's an element. Xenon, that's an element. Your bullshit fake element that you had to try too hard to get? Not an element. Keep that shit off my periodic table, asshole

You sir, are stupid.

 

[zinfamous]

how does a thread receive infractions? what does it mean?


I must know.

 

[Matthiasa]

I laughed...
But really shouldn't they know where that island is already but doing the math?

Wait... just looked and they already have.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

How do you define "unstable". Many elements that we know and love are "unstable", it just depends on the time scale used. It's a little human-centric to me that we'll consider one element "unstable" because it decays in 10^-8 seconds but not another that decays in 10^6 seconds. I made those numbers up, but my point is still valid.

 

[eits]

How do you define "unstable". Many elements that we know and love are "unstable", it just depends on the time scale used. It's a little human-centric to me that we'll consider one element "unstable" because it decays in 10^-8 seconds but not another that decays in 10^6 seconds. I made those numbers up, but my point is still valid.

it is valid, and i completely understrand what you're saying. i guess what i'm saying is that when you have to spend billions of dollars in technology to artificially create something that will never exist in life for any purpose whatsoever, is it worthy of being called an element? or is it worth spending more time with the atom to try and make it a little more stable or try and find a purpose for the atom before you can say, "ok, this atom isn't completely trivial... it can be a building block of matter, so we can now all agree that it fulfills all the definitions of being an element"?

i dunno. i'm not a chemist, but i would rather side with the latter notion than to say, "hey, we made a completely useless and almost impossible to reconstruct atom... let's put it on the chart."

i dunno.

 

[Matthiasa]

it is valid, and i completely understrand what you're saying. i guess what i'm saying is that when you have to spend billions of dollars in technology to artificially create something that will never exist in life for any purpose whatsoever, is it worthy of being called an element? or is it worth spending more time with the atom to try and make it a little more stable or try and find a purpose for the atom before you can say, "ok, this atom isn't completely trivial... it can be a building block of matter, so we can now all agree that it fulfills all the definitions of being an element"?

i dunno. i'm not a chemist, but i would rather side with the latter notion than to say, "hey, we made a completely useless and almost impossible to reconstruct atom... let's put it on the chart."

i dunno.

Um they could put all of them on the chart even the ones they haven't found since the math does work, that is even how some current elements were discovered by simply looking at where there should be stuff... like helium.

 

[Chaotic42]

i guess what i'm saying is that when you have to spend billions of dollars in technology to artificially create something that will never exist in life for any purpose whatsoever, is it worthy of being called an element?

Again, yes, per the definition of chemical element. If you want to try and get IUPAC to change the definition of chemical element, go for it. Until that happens, whether you like it or not, 117 is a chemical element.

or is it worth spending more time with the atom to try and make it a little more stable or try and find a purpose for the atom before you can say, "ok, this atom isn't completely trivial...

Whether these things are worth the effort is up for debate.

it can be a building block of matter, so we can now all agree that it fulfills all the definitions of being an element"?

We *can* now all agree that it fulfills all the definitions of being an element. For whatever reason it appears that you are not making the connection between the definition of the term and the reality of the science.

A definition is a definition. x² is defined as x times x. It doesn't matter if you're cool with 4 being 2 times 2, but then suddenly say that 0 isn't the square of 0 because some aspect of that rubs you the wrong way or seems like a cop out to get money spent on mathematics. Definitions are definitions.

i dunno. i'm not a chemist, but i would rather side with the latter notion than to say, "hey, we made a completely useless and almost impossible to reconstruct atom... let's put it on the chart."

In what sense is the Periodic Table of Elements a periodic table of elements if elements are discluded based on a lack of percieved usefulness and excessive cost to construct?

 

[eits]

Again, yes, per the definition of chemical element. If you want to try and get IUPAC to change the definition of chemical element, go for it. Until that happens, whether you like it or not, 117 is a chemical element.


Whether these things are worth the effort is up for debate.

We *can* now all agree that it fulfills all the definitions of being an element. For whatever reason it appears that you are not making the connection between the definition of the term and the reality of the science.

A definition is a definition. x² is defined as x times x. It doesn't matter if you're cool with 4 being 2 times 2, but then suddenly say that 0 isn't the square of 0 because some aspect of that rubs you the wrong way or seems like a cop out to get money spent on mathematics. Definitions are definitions.



In what sense is the Periodic Table of Elements a periodic table of elements if elements are discluded based on a lack of percieved usefulness and excessive cost to construct?

you're right,. i don't disagree. it just seems... i dunno... ridiculously artificial. it's like saying dragons don't really exist, but then genetically engineering a lizard in a laboratory with wings so it can fly and saying "see? dragons exist!"

yes, i understand that that doesn't negate the "discovery"... it's just that something feels off about it... like cheating science with science...