Eka-Thorium

Now, this is neat: A superheavy element (Z=122, A=292, tentatively named “eka-Thorium” or “unbibium”) which is relatively stable (t1/2 ≥ 108 yr) has been observed in nature, in natural Thorium samples. (It’s called eka-Thorium because it would sit directly below Thorium on the periodic table; as a result, it’s chemically very similar to Thorium, which means it can mix in to Thorium ores and stick there because it doesn’t separate very easily)

This is a whole 30 atomic numbers above the next-largest naturally occurring element, Uranium. (Z=92, A=238) It’s the first empirical proof that superheavy nuclei can actually exist and be stable.

Edit: Some history – the last time an element was discovered in nature was Francium (Z=87), which was discovered in 1939 by Marguerite Perey. It was thought highly likely that that would be the last time anyone ever did.

Advertisement
Published in: on April 28, 2008 at 10:43  Comments (26)  
Tags:

26 Comments

  1. On April 28, 2008 at 17:48 mrissa said:

    !!!

  2. On April 28, 2008 at 17:48 mrissa said:

    !!!

  3. On April 28, 2008 at 17:51 zorbathut said:

    I’ve been showing this to people and talking about how ridiculously cool it is. Nobody seems to agree with me 😦
    But, I mean, new stable elements

  4. On April 28, 2008 at 17:51 zorbathut said:

    I’ve been showing this to people and talking about how ridiculously cool it is. Nobody seems to agree with me 😦
    But, I mean, new stable elements

  5. On April 28, 2008 at 17:56 zunger said:

    Dude. Seriously. But while writing this post it became clear to me just how hard it is to explain how cool this is to a general audience.

  6. On April 28, 2008 at 17:56 zunger said:

    Dude. Seriously. But while writing this post it became clear to me just how hard it is to explain how cool this is to a general audience.

  7. On April 28, 2008 at 18:14 zorbathut said:

    I think the best way to explain it in terms of legos.
    Imagine that you had a bunch of legos, and you could order as many more as you wanted . . . but only of the types you already had. No new special shapes, no new gizmos, just the same stuff. For years. And then someone shows up with entire new types of legos.

  8. On April 28, 2008 at 18:14 zorbathut said:

    I think the best way to explain it in terms of legos.
    Imagine that you had a bunch of legos, and you could order as many more as you wanted . . . but only of the types you already had. No new special shapes, no new gizmos, just the same stuff. For years. And then someone shows up with entire new types of legos.

  9. On April 28, 2008 at 20:13 faerieloch said:

    definitely the best way to explain it!

  10. On April 28, 2008 at 20:13 faerieloch said:

    definitely the best way to explain it!

  11. On April 28, 2008 at 23:02 factitiouslj said:

    Unbibium sounds like it should be Bib-Man’s secret weakness.

  12. On April 28, 2008 at 23:02 factitiouslj said:

    Unbibium sounds like it should be Bib-Man’s secret weakness.

  13. On April 28, 2008 at 23:33 zunger said:

    To me, it just sounds undrinkable…

  14. On April 28, 2008 at 23:33 zunger said:

    To me, it just sounds undrinkable…

  15. On April 29, 2008 at 00:14 writerspleasure said:

    astonishing. thank you!

  16. On April 29, 2008 at 00:14 writerspleasure said:

    astonishing. thank you!

  17. On April 29, 2008 at 00:52 writerspleasure said:

    that’s usually my line. 🙂

  18. On April 29, 2008 at 00:52 writerspleasure said:

    that’s usually my line. 🙂

  19. On April 29, 2008 at 08:54 xthread said:

    Oh, my.

  20. On April 30, 2008 at 04:56 jephly said:

    That totally rocks (pun intended).
    Of course, it’d rock even more if it was more common than 10^-12 relative to Th. Still, one wonders if the stuff can be refined.

  21. On May 2, 2008 at 06:20 lightlinn said:

    I just typed “eka thorium” into Google search and your journal was link #12. That was rad. Almost as rad as Unbibium. I think your journal is more common in nature than Unbibium, though.

  22. On May 2, 2008 at 06:27 zunger said:

    Sweet! I’m famous! 🙂

  23. On June 2, 2008 at 03:29 Anonymous said:

    Apparently scientists have big doubts about this eka-thorium discovery. Amnon Marinov, who led the team who claimed to have found the stuff, has said he submitted the article to Nature and Nature Physics, but both turned it down without sending it for peer review.
    Best,
    John Baez

  24. On June 2, 2008 at 03:29 Anonymous said:

    Apparently scientists have big doubts about this eka-thorium discovery. Amnon Marinov, who led the team who claimed to have found the stuff, has said he submitted the article to Nature and Nature Physics, but both turned it down without sending it for peer review.
    Best,
    John Baez

  25. On June 2, 2008 at 06:11 zunger said:

    Sigh. Another lovely idea shot down by unfortunate experimental issues. Their explanation of how they distinguished isotopes from ion combinations seemed a bit too pat; it seemed to rely on being able to predict the interaction energies of nuclei with a great deal of precision. I guess that the experts in that field don’t seem too impressed.
    Good to see you around here, though! Do you read here often?

  26. On June 2, 2008 at 06:11 zunger said:

    Sigh. Another lovely idea shot down by unfortunate experimental issues. Their explanation of how they distinguished isotopes from ion combinations seemed a bit too pat; it seemed to rely on being able to predict the interaction energies of nuclei with a great deal of precision. I guess that the experts in that field don’t seem too impressed.
    Good to see you around here, though! Do you read here often?


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: