Super Heavy New Element

[innerSpaceman]

I guess this makes me some sort of Luddite, but I disdain new additions to the periodic table in the same way I insist Pluto is still a planet, and the big dinosaur remains the Brontosaurus.


Besides, isn't it "cheating" to CREATE a new element? Why should it be in the Periodic Table if it does not exist in the natural universe?

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Besides, isn't it "cheating" to CREATE a new element? Why should it be in the Periodic Table if it does not exist in the natural universe?

Ummm, exactly how old are you?

No element with atomic number higher than 92 occurs naturally. These elements are produced artificially in nuclear reactors or particle accelerators.

[Pirate Bill]

Why don't we just get back to the basic 4 elements: air, earth, fire, and water.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Pirate Bill

Why don't we just get back to the basic 4 elements: air, earth, fire, and water.

Certainly legions of table memorizing students would flock to your cause...

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Besides, isn't it "cheating" to CREATE a new element? Why should it be in the Periodic Table if it does not exist in the natural universe?

I don't know if it is "cheating" but any new elements we create at this point are essentially irrelevant to practical chemistry. That's not true of all the ones previously created though. Everything from 99 pretty much have half-lives too low to be of practical use.

The search, however, is not necessarily so irrelevant. There are schools of thought (mostly cast by the wayside now but not completely discarded) that there may be "islands of stability" out there, and allow for creation of high weight atoms that are stable enough to have practical implications beyond theoretical physics and chemistry.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I guess this makes me some sort of Luddite, but I disdain new additions to the periodic table in the same way I insist Pluto is still a planet,

The difference being that "planet" is not a hard-definable word. There's no distinct line between chuncks of rock in space vs. planet. Whereas an element is an element is an element. An atom with 112 protons in its nucleus IS the 112th element. There's no debate about how it's defined, only about whether they have been created and what the exact properties are.

[Tref]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

"planet" is not a hard-definable word.

Well, that depends on how you say it.