Newest element, 115 just confirmed.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/28/world/europe/new-chemical-element/index.html

The periodic table just got a bit larger. I keep waiting for the next stable level, 118 and above.

Things sure have changed since I was a kid. There used to be less elements, more planets, less moons, only Saturn had rings, Diplodocus was the longest dinosaur, Brachiosaurus was the heaviest, Brontosaurus was real...hard to keep up

Since these superheavies decay so quickly, one cannot say that they have chemical properties or physical properties like melting point, density, conductivity or color. But can experts in quantum theory say theoretically what the properties of a chunk of pure element would be if only the nuclei were stable?

Originally posted by woodypusher
Things sure have changed since I was a kid. There used to be less elements, more planets, less moons, only Saturn had rings, Diplodocus was the longest dinosaur, Brachiosaurus was the heaviest, Brontosaurus was real...hard to keep up

*more planets in our solar system

Originally posted by woodypusher
*more planets in our solar system

A reference to Pluto's demotion methinks.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
A reference to Pluto's demotion methinks.

There is one out there, no atmosphere, called Eris.

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
Since these superheavies decay so quickly, one cannot say that they have chemical properties or physical properties like melting point, density, conductivity or color. But can experts in quantum theory say theoretically what the properties of a chunk of pure element would be if only the nuclei were stable?

The quantum model of the hydrogen atom is a truly complicated beast, though it involves only a single proton "orbited" by a single electron. Maybe someone can set me straight here, but I don't think physicists to this day have managed to work out the complete model of the next element in line, which is helium. And anyway a quantum model doesn't necessarily bear up when you have more than one atom of a given element present in a solid mass, so it will probably be useless in predicting melting temperatures under various atmospheric conditions.

Science. It has gone so far, yet has so far to go...

Originally posted by Soothfast
The quantum model of the hydrogen atom is a truly complicated beast, though it involves only a single proton "orbited" by a single electron. Maybe someone can set me straight here, but I don't think physicists to this day have managed to work out the complete model of the next element in line, which is helium. And anyway a quantum model doesn't necessari ...[text shortened]... der various atmospheric conditions.

Science. It has gone so far, yet has so far to go...

In fact the Problem of the H2+ molecule is the most difficult entity yet described (nearly) perfectly by equations.

The Problem is in the elctrons. Look up the "three Body Problem".

But for metals we have a quite good Approximation of physical properties via a hypothetical grid and the electron gas Approximation.

Originally posted by sonhouse
There is one out there, no atmosphere, called Eris.

Eris, Xena or Eric (as I like to call it) is about Pluto size and so sadly just another -oid.

YouTube
Perhaps Sonhouse you could change the lyrics to Eris the half a planet 🙂