New Elements 115 & 113 Discovered: A Superheavy Report

  • Thread starter dlgoff
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Elements
In summary: Basically, they just made the numbers up.In summary, Russian and American scientists have created two new elements, Ununtrium and Ununpentium. The names of the elements have not yet been decided, but they will be systemically named after elements greater than 110. These elements are said to decay very quickly, but this has not stopped scientists from proclaiming their existence. There is some question as to whether or not these elements are really stable, as previous experiments with elements 116 and 118 have shown signs of falsification.
  • #1
dlgoff
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,431
3,221
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
  • #2
I knew that they had gone up to 109...unnilnonium or something, so what have they named these elements?
 
  • #3
According to a February 1, 2004 New York Times article, 113 is "Ununtrium" and 115 is "Ununpentium"
 
  • #4
wasteofo2,

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

regards
 
  • #5
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:
  • #6
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
 
  • #7
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?
 
  • #8
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.
 
  • #9
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.
 

1. What is the significance of the discovery of elements 115 and 113?

The discovery of elements 115 and 113 is significant because they are extremely heavy and unstable, making them important additions to our understanding of the periodic table. These elements have a large number of protons, which gives them unique properties and challenges our current understanding of atomic structure.

2. How were elements 115 and 113 discovered?

Scientists used a process called nuclear fusion to create elements 115 and 113 in a laboratory. This involves colliding smaller atoms together at high speeds, which can sometimes result in the formation of new, heavier elements. The discovery of these elements required years of research and experimentation.

3. Will elements 115 and 113 have practical applications?

At this time, it is not clear if elements 115 and 113 will have practical applications. They are highly unstable and can only be created in a laboratory, making them difficult to study and manipulate. However, their discovery may lead to a better understanding of nuclear physics and potentially new technologies in the future.

4. How do elements 115 and 113 fit into the periodic table?

Elements 115 and 113 are part of the seventh row of the periodic table, also known as the "superheavy elements" row. They are located below bismuth and lead, and their discovery fills in gaps in this row. These elements have unique properties and their placement in the periodic table is still being studied.

5. Are there any other elements that have not yet been discovered?

Yes, there are many other elements that have not yet been discovered. The periodic table currently has 118 known elements, but scientists believe that there may be more elements waiting to be discovered. These elements would likely be even heavier and more unstable than elements 115 and 113, making their discovery a difficult and complex task.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Computing and Technology
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
21
Views
968
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top