New Elements 115 & 113 Discovered: A Superheavy Report

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter dlgoff
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Elements
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the recent discovery of two new chemical elements, 113 and 115, by a team of Russian and American scientists. Participants explore the implications of these discoveries, the naming conventions for new elements, and the challenges associated with confirming the existence of superheavy elements that decay rapidly.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the stability and authenticity of newly created elements, referencing a previous retraction of discoveries related to elements 116 and 118.
  • There is a discussion about the systematic names for elements beyond 110, with some participants noting that these names will be replaced with trivial names once approved by IUPAC.
  • One participant questions how scientists can confirm the existence of elements that decay rapidly, raising concerns about the criteria for establishing stability.
  • Another participant clarifies that the detection of specific emissions during decay can indicate a period of stability for newly created elements.
  • There is a challenge to the notion of stability, with a participant arguing that any time before decay indicates stability, while another seeks clarification on how emissions are linked to stability.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the reliability of the discoveries or the criteria for confirming the existence of superheavy elements. Multiple competing views and uncertainties remain regarding the implications of rapid decay and the methods used to verify stability.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding the decay processes and the criteria for stability, as well as the historical context of previous retractions in element discovery.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying chemistry, particularly in the field of superheavy elements, as well as individuals curious about the processes involved in element discovery and verification.

dlgoff
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
4,458
Reaction score
3,265
http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/7846474.htm
A team of Russian and American scientists will report today that they have created two new chemical elements, called superheavies because of their enormous atomic mass. The discoveries fill a gap at the furthest edge of the periodic table and hint strongly at a weird landscape of undiscovered elements beyond.

For those interested.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I knew that they had gone up to 109...unnilnonium or something, so what have they named these elements?
 
According to a February 1, 2004 New York Times article, 113 is "Ununtrium" and 115 is "Ununpentium"
 
wasteofo2,

Yes, but I think the “Un” will be replaced with a name. Probably one in recognition for the discoverers.

regards
 
Hope they're sure ...

I'm pretty hesitant to include this on my Periodic Table as of yet, since a similar discovery with elements 116 and 118 was made in June 1999, but was then retracted in July 2001.

As for the element names, the systematic names (i.e. Unununium, Ununbium, etc.) for elements greater than 110 will be used until the approval of trivial names by the IUPAC.
 
Last edited:
by Life
As for the element names, the systematic names (i.e. Unununium, Ununbium, etc.) for elements greater than 110 will be used until the approval of trivial names by the IUPAC.
Thanks for clarifying.

Regards
 
That info about the retraction raises the question of how they determine they have ever authentically created any of these lab-made elements that are said to decay so rapidly. If these atoms fall apart as soon as they're made why are they considered to really exist in the first place? How is anyone ever sure they remain stable for any length of time in excess of the time it takes for the decay process?
 
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
How is anyone ever sure they remain stable for any length of time in excess of the time it takes for the decay process?

Not to be overly corrective, but your statement is contraditive, as, once decay starts stability ends. In other words, ANY excess of time before the decay process indicates stability in that time.
But I suppose you question is "how" not why. So, in answer one should remember that "decay" results in specific emmissions whereas "stability" does not. Therefore, the lack of emmissions after creation and prior to decay establishes the time frame of stability.
 
Originally posted by pallidin
So, in answer one should remember that "decay" results in specific emmissions...
So, you are saying that detection of specific emissions is what assures them that there was a period of stability? In other words they're sure these emissions never occur from non-stable interactions?

(Feel free to correct since I know precious little about the whole thing.)
 
  • #10
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
That info about the retraction raises the question of how they determine they have ever authentically created any of these lab-made elements that are said to decay so rapidly. If these atoms fall apart as soon as they're made why are they considered to really exist in the first place? How is anyone ever sure they remain stable for any length of time in excess of the time it takes for the decay process?

the signature for a new element is very clear, it is not so hard to detect particles with very short lifetimes.

the problem with those elements that got retracted is that someone working on that experiment falsified the results.
 

Similar threads

Unknown Human Group Bone Found in Siberia: New Species?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 231)
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 231)
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K