Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Elements 115 and 113

  1. Feb 1, 2004 #1


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    For those interested.
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 1, 2004 #2

    jimmy p

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I knew that they had gone up to 109...unnilnonium or something, so what have they named these elements?
  4. Feb 1, 2004 #3
    According to a February 1, 2004 New York Times article, 113 is "Ununtrium" and 115 is "Ununpentium"
  5. Feb 1, 2004 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member


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

  6. Feb 14, 2004 #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: Feb 14, 2004
  7. Feb 18, 2004 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Thanks for clarifying.

  8. Feb 24, 2004 #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?
  9. Mar 5, 2004 #8
    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.
  10. Mar 5, 2004 #9
    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.)
  11. Mar 5, 2004 #10
    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.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook