What is Digg?69 Comments
- raymondmarble, on 10/12/2007, -13/+65Marty: Why don't you just make 117 the top number of protons, and make that a little heavier?
Nigel: (pause) This goes to 118. - MrSidnet, on 10/12/2007, -5/+48Would have been more funny if it made sense...
(and yes, I know the reference) - NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -3/+38Holy crap, it's 2006! My time machine works!
- zeromancer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19"they smashed together calcium with the manmade element Californium" ... in a process called Californication.
Thanks. I'll be here all week. - oskite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15It's called currently called ununoctium, but... "The name ununoctium is a systematic element name, used as a placeholder until the IUPAC decides on a name."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununoctium - ZippidyDoo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16This was cool back in October of 06'.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13shat
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I know people think its geeky, but the periodic table ***** rocks. I think its so awesome you can just look at the table and before you even synthesize the atom you can predict some of its properties, like for example it would be a noble gas.
Wish they said how many neutrons it had.
Then again, I am a molecular biology major, and organic chemistry was my favorite class of all time...so I guess it makes sense. - Harbinger67, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12I know it's still rather remarkable, but cmon, one milisecond?
That's like me calling a press conference claiming I learned how to make objects weightless, and then throwing an object into the air and at the apex of its trajectory going "THERE! Did you see it?!?" - TLAKABM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Actually it's not like that at all.
Though you might be able to call a press conference if science hadn't already discovered this phenomenon hundreds of years ago. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7At some point in the future I can just see a race between scientists.
I just created a new element with 537 protons!
-Really? That's too bad, because MY new element has 538! - rockforever, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7One scientist claims that creating a new element is the "holy grail of physics". Can anyone here explain why? Its so important yet they don't say in the article why.
- NightBlade40, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@anidal
Inert means that the outer electron shell is full, it has nothing to do with the stability of the element. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7^^ and you are welcoming me to junior high?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Inert gas AKA noble gasses all have certain characteristics. First of all, they are GASSES. Second of all, they don't naturally form bonds with other atoms because they have the much-coveted octet of valence electrons.
Its more than just the placement on the table...although they are all placed there for a reason...they all have the same properties. - archlich, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6rockforever, Because they name it after you or where it was located.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"Wow, imagine breathing this in, since it's a gas and all... something so heavy in your lungs would probably ruin your day, I'd venture to think."
Naw, you can inhale sulfur hexafluoride, which I believe is the heaviest gas (highest density to be correct)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_hexafluoride - nismo334, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This was actually discovered in 2006, but still some pretty cool stuff.
- acdcfanbill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Well most of the Super Heavy Elements they have been achieving in the last couple of decades all only exist for a very short amount of time. For some natural reasons, these particles are very unstable. An Island of Stability has been theorized for Super Heavy Elements but last I heard, nothing concrete has been found yet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability
- Dpack1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It the famous words of Marty McFly...
"This is heavy!" - hudef, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Oops, Honey, sorry I only lasted a millisecond this time. But you gotta admit, it was pretty heavy while it lasted!
- Flanker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yup. And it was dugg then too: http://digg.com/general_sciences/Controversy_Plagued_Element_118_the_Heaviest_Atom_Yet_Finally_Discovered
- garyh84, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So what does this really mean?
- Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hmm, 1 ms is actually not too shabby when it comes to very heavy radioactive nuclei.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Another little square on the periodic table. It means "This element can exist, we have witnessed it."
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Oops..i was wrong..
Radon is considered an inert gas...though the definition of 'inert gases' seems to be a bit obsolete, now that compounds have been formed with some of them . - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6118 118 !!
Please don't digg me down, USians. - AReallyGoodName, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Another use for creating super heavy elements is that there is a possibility of creating stable super heavy elements.
Element 126 on the periodic table has a theoretical halflife of over 1.5 million years. Only problem is we haven't yet been able to create it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unbihexium
If it could be made it would be another relatively stable element that will have its own unique uses. - danconia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm pretty sure that for that short amount of time they are able to make basic observations that give physicists and chemists a better look into the behavior of atoms, etc. So discoveries like this can be pretty damned important.
- numbered, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Radioactivity is a symptom of atomic instablilty. To achieve stability I would guess this morbidly obese atom decays emitting alpha radiation and neutrons.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Those "natural reasons" for atomic unstability is called being radioactive. A radioactive atom spontaneously breaks down into smaller ones...the half life of this new element (and others that have been synthesized) is just very, very short.
- dagooh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So those scientists created my mother in law?
amazing... - Juntistik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2*****! Now we have to reprint and distribute the new periodic table.
- NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6The atom is heavy, doesn't at all imply the substance will be.
- MindStalker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@rockforever I think it has to do with our limited understanding of exactly the effect a proton has on an element. We can theorize the properties of element 118 all day long based upon our understanding of quantum physics, but we can't completely test those theories without trying them out. Of course we understand the effects of electron shells fairly well, and know it will be a nobel gas with the same properties of the other nobel gases. But what else..
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@boycy
Ok dude,
A) you replied to me in teh wrong thread.
B) I wansnt questioning his spelling of the word 'gasses'. He said "noble gasses" refers to the position on the periodic table, and doesnt mean its a gas. I said noble gasses are gasses, and that is why they appear where they do on teh table.
Stop trying to play mini mod when you dont even know what the argument is about.
"so stop going on at people when you don't know yourself."
Ironic that you say that, but you yourself dont know what we are talking about. - knaps, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Wow, imagine breathing this in, since it's a gas and all... something so heavy in your lungs would probably ruin your day, I'd venture to think.
- boycy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@goatbnn: firstly it can be either gases or gasses, so stop going on at people when you don't know yourself.
@gtitian: > Technically I think every element is a "metal"
What? Are you implying that, say, oxygen is a metal?
@NanoStuff: you're totally right. The weight of something is determined by its density as well as atomic weight. Gold has an atomic weight of 79 yet is far heavier than lead which has an atomic weight of 82. - tmar89, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Huge Materia??
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4It's important because the elements as I understand them are what everything we know of are made up from. So if you can make one then that kinda changes what's possible.
- K3ITHK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good thing a story so old was posted. This was new like 5 months ago.
- Jammie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That was discovered last October, this is old news
- ThatOneDudeski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That was funny..californication..sigh*
- mikaelc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Nah, thats nothing. 'Humongolium' atoms are so large "...you can practically see it through a high-powered standard optical microscope."
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/scientists_create_largest_novelty_atom - hmemcpy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1There were some scientists trying to figure out the Sasquatch riddle, then they figured out it was a missing link...
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4OMG Did anyone else notice that the submitter said in the intro that the inert gases were Helium, Neon, and RADON?
That is a very dangerous mistake.
I think he meant ARGON.
Radon is nasty stuff!
Radon gas is radioactive, and it seeps out of the ground all over the world (more in some places than others), collecting in basements and causing lung cancer. It is generated by the radioactive decay of thorium, of which there is a lot in the earth's crust. You can install special fans and venting systems to remove the radon from your house, which may be a good idea if the levels in your geographical area are unusually high.
There was a brief period of time in the early twentieth century during which people thought radon was a good thing, and actually bought products to introduce it into their drinking water. I have an example listed under uranium. (They were wrong.) - shoppista, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This must be what nuclear physicists do on weekends...
- vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1An element being inert has absolutely nothing to do with it being radioactive. Inert means that its outer shell of electrons has the full complement of 8.
Stating otherwise is akin to claiming that planes painted black can't fly because penguins are black and flightless.
Ionizing the atoms, i.e. removing one or more of the outer electrons, does not make the definition obsolete. An ionized inert gas is different than an a normal inert gas. - Topher06, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Do we really need to supersize everything?
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2OOPS.
..that quote about radon wasn't mine, but came from
http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Elements/086/index.s7.html -
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is