Periodic table's 7th row completed with discovery of four new elements ifl science
1. CHEMISTRY
Periodic Table's 7th Row Completed With
Discovery Of Four New Elements
January 4, 2016 | by Jonathan O'Callaghan
photo credit: The new elements, highlighted in yellow, will likely be named this year. Julie
Deshaies/Shutterstock/IFLScience
Break out the champagne; the 7th row of the periodic table has been completed with the
addition of four new elements. While their existence had been predicted before, they have
only now been officially discovered – meaning they can be formally named on the table.
At the moment, the four elements – which occupy the 113th, 115th, 117th and 118th
positions – have the monikers Uut, Uup, Uus, and Uuo respectively. That will change now,
though, thanks to scientists from Russia, the U.S., and Japan. The number denotes the
atomic number, the total number of protons in one atom of the element.
Credit for element 113 has been awarded to scientists at the RIKEN Institute in Wako,
Japan, while a RussianU.S. collaboration from the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in
Dubna and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California takes the plaudits
for 118. Elements 115 and 117 were found by the same collaboration with the addition of
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
The discoveries were ratified by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry
(IUPAC) on December 30, meaning the naming process can now go ahead. The
discoverers get the right to choose the name, so the Japanese team will name element 113
– with previous reports suggesting they may pluck for “Japanium.”
“The chemistry community is eager to see its most cherished table finally being completed
space
Choose your poison
Editor's Blog
Environment
Technology
Space
Health and Medicine
The Brain
Plants and Animals
Physics
Chemistry
POPULAR POSTS
Mercury, Venus, Mars,
Jupiter and Saturn Are
About To Align
50 Percent Of NASA's
Latest Class Of Astronauts
Is Female
Search by keyword find
Follow 185K followers
Follow 581k23mLike
152K
3. by Taboola Promoted Links
tags Periodic Table, new elements, Japanium, seventh row, discovery
Comments for this thread are now closed. ×
167 Comments IFL Science Login1
Share⤤ Sort by Newest
•
Wacko • 23 days ago
They should include a new element called "Ah" which would be the element of
surprise.
38 △ ▽
•
Matt Majic • 23 days ago
The title is misleading. They were discovered years ago and are just getting
named
4 △ ▽
•
Heneral Angeles • 23 days ago> Matt Majic
more like confusing
4 △ ▽
•
Zain Raza • 24 days ago
would it help in bringing peace to the world ? or This is going to be a new neuclear
bomb element ?
1 △ ▽
•
Heneral Angeles • 23 days ago> Zain Raza
a new element does not necessarily mean it's nuclear
2 △ ▽
Bleus • 23 days ago> Zain Raza
No: they are produced largely one atom at a time, and they decay with
halflives measured in infinitesimally tiny fractions of a second. It is highly
unlikely that we will ever have even a microgram of these materials
present for even a second of actual time, meaning that they have very little
Recommend 13
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
Connect with Us
How to Eliminate Credit Card
Debt in 2 Simple Steps (LendingTree)
The Best Health Insurance for
Retirees in CA (Oscar Insurance)
Electric Companies Don't Want
Homeowners to Kno… (National Solar)
A Woman Popped A Growth On
Her Son's Knee And Found So…
T. Rex Teeth Had A Secret
Weapon, And Just One Animal …
This Font Simulates What It's Like
To Have Dyslexia
Why Was A Child's "5+5+5=15"
Answer Marked As Incorrect?
4. •
present for even a second of actual time, meaning that they have very little
to no practical application of any kind.
1 △ ▽
•
Martin Bell • 24 days ago
I dont believe they should be added to the table as an element, until they have an
elemental use in our world
1 △ ▽
•
Bleus • 23 days ago> Martin Bell
Science simply declares "elementhood" as being a measure of the
number of protons present in the nucleus of a stable atom, even if that
stability only remains for an incomprehensibly short period of time. There
are no other considerations for this designation.
9 △ ▽
•
jaypnc • 24 days ago
They are not elements ...
△ ▽
•
Heneral Angeles • 23 days ago> jaypnc
"facepalm so hard that lavosier got executed again"
10 △ ▽
•
Vlad is Gladd • 24 days ago
God is good...
△ ▽
•
Ana Tran • 24 days ago> Vlad is Gladd
All the time?
7 △ ▽
•
lol • 24 days ago
Call 115 Downium (Abbriviation is currently Uup)
△ ▽
•
Dominic Draper • 23 days ago> lol
Or Nahstillinbed... Uup?
3 △ ▽
•
Maulana Malik Nashrullah • 23 days ago> lol
Or... Divinium like in CoD :v
△ ▽
•
John • 24 days ago
I like the Japanium one because there is no element with the letter J in the table.
No one will be able to confuse that one like it happens with many others. I thought
that they were going to say more things about element 118, which is supposed to
have some very interesting properties for being in the noble gases column, but
apparently they cannot get any info with the extremely few atoms that they are
able to make. Why not go with some new name instead of those cliché "whatever
IUM" names? The first elements had their historical names without that boring
ending and there was no problem with that.
5 △ ▽
•
Ari • 24 days ago
I still maintain that ununpentium should be named Elerium as its final name. ;)
1 △ ▽
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
5. •
Rick Winslow • 24 days ago
We are so much closer to the Star Trek transporter, it's unreal, Thanks to Apple,
we have the Tricorder.
△ ▽
•
standard life • 24 days ago
I think we should be opened to new ideas and ways of doing things rather than
questioning people's works. i think the accelerator plays a vital role in this
discovery
△ ▽
•
David Bowman • 24 days ago
Element 115 should be named Lazarium.
1 △ ▽
•
Emmanuel • 24 days ago
I love science www.ngschoolz.com
△ ▽
•
Casey Koepp • 24 days ago
So many people just don't care because it's only fractions of a second or have
very little significance, but it's fundamental research (also known as basic or pure
research, as well as pure science)
The point of it is to further understand anything and everything really, and when
you have blank spots of the periodic table, you look at it like it's a hole that needs
to be filled......
SCIENCE!
p.s. if you want to talk about the money "wasted" on this, just think of the money
wasted on other things like certain government agencies that don't do their job
well............
10 △ ▽
•
Bleus • 24 days ago> Casey Koepp
The pursuit of such things primarily satisfies our desire for completeness
and is more or less an academic endeavour as, theoretically at least, the
table could be considered endless so long as you're able to generate
enough energy to add enough protons/neutrons to an existing element to
create, even over arbitrarily short timeframes, a newer, heavier atomic
nucleus. While we've already established the common properties that the
elements should exhibit by virtue of their membership in an elemental
family (i.e. the columns of the periodic table), it seems extremely unlikely
that elements such as these can be persuaded to remain coherent long
enough for us to determine any specific ways by which they may differ
from their siblings, or to really be able to do any meaningful form of
experimentation on determining their specific reactivities and other
elemental properties. As a result of all this, I do find the value of such
research to be somewhat suspect and would certainly call into question
the societal value of starting row 8 (though, in the pursuit of fame and
notoriety, I have no doubt that such pursuits are already underway).
5 △ ▽
Scotty • 24 days ago> Bleus
The pursuit of understanding and harnessing electricity was "more
or less an academic endeavour" back in the 1800's when Benjamin
Franklin was studying it. Back then, most nonscientists thought it
was a waste of time, and that Franklin would never "be able to do
any meaningful form of experimentation" to determine the
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
6. •
any meaningful form of experimentation" to determine the
properties of electricity, and they found his "research to be
somewhat suspect" and the "called into question the societal
value" of continuing to fly kites in thunderstorms.
Don't be shortsighted when it comes to science.
5 △ ▽
•
Bleus • 24 days ago> Scotty
Okay, well then tell us all exactly how we're to use an
element whose halflife is 12 orders of magnitude smaller
than 1s in ANY meaningful way. I mean, think of it this way,
we would have to create somewhere around
10,000,000,000,000 (10 trillion) atoms of something that
we've barely been able to create AT ALL in order to have a
statistically likely opportunity to experiment on ONE atom
for ONE second. In what useful/practical sense could we
ever employ such a material?
2 △ ▽
•
Unu'DinDiaspora • 23 days ago> Bleus
Maybe right away we can't but it give it some time. We will
eventually find ways to prolongue their existence. You are
again shortsighted and have missed Scotty's point in its
fullest.
2 △ ▽
•
Bleus • 23 days ago> Unu'DinDiaspora
Uhm, well, you'd need to identify a means of substantially
prolonging the decayrate of *any* element/isotope,
because, at the present time, as far as I know, an element's
halflife is considered to be a moreorless fixed
characteristic and there are no known methods for slowing
it down (obviously it can be accelerated by bombarding the
nucleus with neutrons, forcing decay to occur artificially
instead of naturally).
PS: finding such a method would probably be a surefire,
Nobelprizeworthy discovery, not to mention potentially
putting a substantial dent in the perceived efficacy of radio
dating techniques...
△ ▽
•
Casey Koepp • 24 days ago> Bleus
well you're just a stick in the mud with some big words, aren't you?
2 △ ▽
•
Bleus • 24 days ago> Casey Koepp
*shrug* I'm not sure how using different words would
affect the point of my comment other then further impeding
its brevity and, as for being a "stick in the mud", I'm simply
commenting on the science and it's questionable
applicability to societal benefit. Nevertheless, I am certainly
not an advocate of curtailing expenditures on STEM
research, especially when so much MORE money is
wasted each year on unnecessary military purchases,
political shenanigans, corporate subsidies and soon...
4 △ ▽
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
7. •
Casey Koepp • 24 days ago> Bleus
different words don't really affect your point.... just some
other people's understanding of it
But yeah, it's fine to question it, I mean, that's what science
is all about. I'm just saying to some of the other
commenters in general need to be a little bit less harsh
because there is worse out there that needs dealing with
first.
3 △ ▽
•
Jeff Stone Stone • 24 days ago> Casey Koepp
Yeah, people say that about spending money on space
exploration...these same people never mention that the
things they believe we should handle first never get
handled, nor that science gets a fraction of one percent of
the money spent on weapons to reduce cities to ruins and
burn people alive. You will NEVER hear a 'science is a
waste' idiot complain about the trillions spent on weapons.
2 △ ▽
•
Justin Theriault • 24 days ago
So question. If an element is defined as something that can no longer be broken
down or apart, then wouldn't bismouth no longer be an element as it can be
broken down into Uut? Or do I misunderstand the science?
2 △ ▽
•
Ari • 24 days ago> Justin Theriault
An element is not so defined. I'll direct you to wikipedia, which is useful for
basic definitions like this:
"A chemical element or element is a chemical substance consisting of
atoms having the same number of protons in their atomic nuclei (i.e. the
same atomic number, Z).[1]"
Basically an element is any substance that consists of a given number of
protons. Because it can be smashed apart using nuclear forces, and they
experience decay, it's no longer defined as an indivisible substance the
way that subatomic particles are currently understood to be. (And the way
that said subatomic particles behave, transmuting into each other without
losing energy, does suggest we've more likely found the fundamental set
of particles this time)
Atoms being indivisible was a very *early* understanding of how they
worked, mostly because we were trying to divide them using chemical
reactions, as we hadn't discovered nuclear forces yet.
1 △ ▽
•
Bleus • 24 days ago> Ari
LoL Redundant much? ;)
△ ▽
Bleus • 24 days ago> Justin Theriault
ALL atoms experience decay. In fact, my understanding of current
cosmologic and quantum models of the universe indicate that, over
sufficiently large timeframes, ALL of the larger elemental particles (protons
and neutrons) will not only decay into their constituent components
(quarks/leptons) but will continue to decay and be dispersed in an
increasingly large universal spacetime leaving only an evenly distributed,
ultimately entropic, background radiation (socalled zeropoint energy).
As such, the definition of an element does not incorporate the function of
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
8. •
As such, the definition of an element does not incorporate the function of
nuclear decay (the proper term for an atomic nucleus "breaking down or
apart"), it only differentiates each element by its atomic number (i.e. a
count of the number of protons coherently bound within said nucleus;
FWIW the number of neutrons present in the nucleus merely denotes an
isotopic variation of the element defined by the number of protons).
△ ▽
•
Lukyan Mraz • 24 days ago> Justin Theriault
it's like LEGOs. you can take apart a building down to the individual pieces
normally (atoms), but if you want to cut a LEGO in half you'll need "more
advanced" technology. EDIT: or in this case they melted two LEGO
together, but being an unstable configuration they fell apart quickly.
△ ▽
•
UO Redemption • 24 days ago> Justin Theriault
You misunderstand. I'm pretty sure that "smashing together light nuclei"
implies a NUCLEAR reaction. "Element: one of the basic substances that
are made of atoms of only one kind and that cannot be separated by
ordinary CHEMICAL means into simpler substances." I'm pretty sure the
Bismuth is being combined with the Zinc ions in a nuclear reaction and the
resulting super heavy elements then quickly decay (via nuclear radiation)
into the Uut, so it's not an ordinary chemical reaction. The only way I know
of to turn Bismuth into another element or to break Bismuth down into
protons and neutrons is through nuclear processes, not chemical
processes. Perhaps there is a non "ordinary" chemical way to do it of
which I'm not aware.
△ ▽
•
Ed VanDyke • 24 days ago> Justin Theriault
The semantics and distinctions exceed my comprehension of nuclear
physics to parse and describe. But in the interest of semantics:
"understanding" isn't an achievement. It's an ACTIVE VERB. You've
engaged the material, and mastered the use of a question mark. So you
"understand" just fine... :)
△ ▽
•
Andrew Blackburne • 24 days ago> Justin Theriault
I don't much about the discovery of these elements, but what I can say is
that they most likely used a particle accelerator. Basically using charged
particles and smashing them together to create an element. Your definition
is true, but the particles used are not being broken down to create a new
one. In fact, the elements discovered are the largest to date.
△ ▽
•
Casey Koepp • 24 days ago> Justin Theriault
It's not being broken down, it's a synthetic element (113 is created in a lab)
bismuth's particles are being combined with zinc's particles to make Uut's
particles
they smash nuclei together to make new elements
an element is the smallest "thing" that still has it's properties
but elements can be broken down further into protons, neutrons, and
electrons (and it only gets more complex from there)
You're thinking of breaking apart compounds
We're talking about nuclear interactions here
Not the same thing, but it's easy to see how you're mistaken
△ ▽
Dan The Man • 24 days ago> Justin Theriault
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
9. •
Dan The Man • 24 days ago> Justin Theriault
i believe the general definition of an element is a material that is a single
atom, and not a mixture or compound, if that made any sense(probably
didn't).
△ ▽
•
Dan Lund • 24 days ago
here come the "experts"
1 △ ▽
•
Sythalin • 24 days ago> Dan Lund
Preempted by "the most useless post by some nobody that the internet
already forgot".
1 △ ▽
•
Ed VanDyke • 24 days ago> Dan Lund
"peers" are everyone who takes the time to review the material and offers
whatever insights it produces.. There are no small "reviews" (as long as
they recognize their every insight is subject to the same comprehensive
scrutiny and peer group)... :)
1 △ ▽
•
de03ley@gmail.com • 24 days ago
All I see here is people with open acceptance of new discoveries and the
Unknown.. Met by those that seem to think they have all the answers.
Time is Relative. You can't argue that one, it's science fact. The decay of an atom
can be manipulated in many different ways. These conditions are met naturally in
supernova explosions. Yes, not naturally on Earth.. But in the universe, and under
the right conditions, radioactive nuclei can exist infinitely. So here's a suggestion,
how about a few more open minds, rather than closed ones that seem to think
they have all the answers, trying to prove something to the world.
3 △ ▽
•
Carlin Browning • 24 days ago> de03ley@gmail.com
Particle physics is the study of the basic elements of matter and the
forces acting among them. It aims to determine the fundamental laws that
control the makeup of matter and the physical universe. RAL is one of the
leading laboratories investigating this.
The accelerator is the basic tool of particle physics. It allows us to create
the particle collisions that we want to study in our own laboratories. The
high energy collisions between particles that physicists are interested in
do occur naturally but the events are unpredictable and the number that
can be observed(in cosmic rays) is low.
Accelerators work by accelerating charged particles using electric fields.
A linear accelerator accelerates particles in a straight line: the biggest
linear machine, in Stanford, California, is two miles long. Circular machines
are more common. As well as accelerating the particles using an electric
field, circular accelerators bend their p aths using a magnetic field. In a
machine like LEP at CERN, where they have opposite charges, the
particles being accelerated travel in opposite directions until they are
forced to collide. The drawback is that the faster a particle travels, the
harder it is to keep it moving in a circlebut, in the largest circles (LEP is the
largest in the world with a circumference of 27km) less energy is wasted
when accelerating particles to high speeds.
△ ▽
Eric Blanton • 24 days ago> de03ley@gmail.com
You are missing the point. The article was not written for peer review. It
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
10. chemistry
Litvinenko Poisoning:
Polonium Explained
chemistry
Why Is Chocolate So Bad
For Dogs?
Have Scientists Really
Found Something
How To Defrost Your
Windscreen With Science
Load more comments
Paul Rudd Challenges Stephen
Hawking To A Game Of Quantum …
5 comments • 9 hours ago
Adas — "Nerd." KILLED IT! :D :D
Daredevil Physicist Shoots Gun At
Himself Underwater
123 comments • 11 hours ago
Rick — The guy is actually Norwegian
and the countries are approximately
300miles/500 kilometers apart. …
Discovery Of HIV Persistence Brings
Us Closer To A Cure
1 comment • 4 hours ago
PotatoCaptain — After these scientists
cure HIV please focus on herpes. I'm
tired of looking like I have a zombie …
Zika Virus Has Potential To Go
Pandemic, Scientists Warn
20 comments • 9 hours ago
Anakin — Off to Madagascar then...
ALSO ON IFL SCIENCE
•
was written so the common man can understand it. Only a simple mind
would view the world through his/her subjective expectations.
△ ▽
•
Ed VanDyke • 24 days ago> de03ley@gmail.com
I can appreciate the frustration. But there's plenty of personal
enlightenment to be found in the trying to describe things in different ways,
to the minds which are resistant to the ways you've already tried..
Language is far more limited than the infinite complex diversity of the
Universe. No matter how many different ways you arrange all the available
words, you'll always fall short of comprehensively describing it. Every
closed mind offers a new way to describe the nature of reality and
existence. That's the only thing science is designed to do...
One can't give up when they're about to get 4 new words to add to the
effort...:)
1 △ ▽
•
Witch_Dr • 24 days ago
We should try smashing Ben Carson and Donald Trump and see what new
element we may create. It may contain some grain.
8 △ ▽
•
Bill Nicholson • 24 days ago> Witch_Dr
IDONIOT doesn't count
4 △ ▽
WHAT'S THIS?
Subscribe✉ Add Disqus to your site Add Disqus Addd Privacyὑ
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
Share ›
MORE CHEMISTRY ARTICLES
11. get the newsletter Your email address Sign up Follow 185K followers Follow 581k
chemistry
Found Something
Harder Than Diamond? chemistry
Windscreen With Science
New Way To Measure Gravity At
Stars Could Help Study
Exoplanets
Look Up! Your Guide To Some
Of The Best Meteor Showers
For 2016
home
contact
Advertising
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
23mLike