19
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 3 weeks ago

Periodically, yes.

...I'll show myself out.

[-] Bags@piefed.social 11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

The elements at the very end of the periodic table are somewhat tenuous as we know "elements" to be, as there has only ever been very VERY small amounts of this material produced, and the isotopes of those materials that ARE produced split apart almost immediately with insanely small half-lives, so it's not like there's any amount of it just kicking around in a jar somewhere in some lab.

There's a ton of interesting reading on the theoretical island of stability in superheavy elements, where a special number of neutrons added to the isotope can possibly make these superheavy elements stable for a macroscopic amount of time so they could actually be studied and handled instead of instantly exploding apart and only being detected through their decay products.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability

I think there are elements with experiments designed to produce them up to around atomic number 125 or 127. Currently the highest confirmed, named, and somewhat categorized is 118. There's info out there about the theoretical elements. Here's the page for element 119. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununennium. Purely theoretically, you could just keep adding rows to the periodic table, and it will keep going, but most of those materials will never actually exist or never could exist. It's kind of like theoretical vs applied math.

[-] TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 weeks ago

See also: chart of nuclides

It contains the periodic table and all the unstable isotopes of every element. The island of stability would be somewhere in the top right corner, outside the chart.

When you look at the half-life data, it’s pretty clear that lead is the last fully stable element. Anything past that line (126 neutrons) is more or less unstable, but not necessarily useless. For example, uranium and thorium are pretty far away, but they can still have practical applications.

Between hydrogen and lead, stable isotopes are abundant, but after lead, finding anything you can reasonably do chemistry with gets a bit scarce. When you go past plutonium 244, you’ll find even less chemistry there.

[-] trolololol@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago

When you say macroscopic time are we talking about seconds or years? Wondering whether we can actually build a circuit or something if we could produce a few mg of it.

[-] Bags@piefed.social 1 points 3 weeks ago

It depends on which theorist you talk to. Some say seconds to minutes, others say days to weeks, the nutcases say thousands to millions of years.

And at the end of the day, the electrical properties of these elements probably aren't that interesting or useful, and almost certainly won't be like, semiconductors or anything fun. Just dumb, heavy, really fucking radioactive wire lol.

[-] neidu3@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Yes-ish. Unlisted elements "exist" in a theoretical sense: The higher the atomic number, the more unstable they are, so you won't find them in nature.

However, they can be created temporarily in labs, and they exist a short amount of time before they decay into more stable particles. When a previously unobserved element is created, it gets added to the table.

What makes an element stable or unstable is beyond the scope of this question, but in general, the heavier an element is, the more unstable it is, and we've already discovered the lightweight ones.

The Island of Stability has been theorized, so once we reach the tech necessary to create elements from there, we might see a large amount of new elements added.

[-] Vroomfondel@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago

My ELI5 answer: The periodic table is basically "finished", there are no new additions. Meaning, the structure is is set and almost all elments found, including some (theoretical) higher-number elements that still have to be securely "discovered". This final discovery nowadays happens only in specialised labs from time to time, because the higher-number elements are extremly unstable, only created artifically and existing for a few nanoseconds or femtoseconds. Some more details you can find on Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actinide

Additionally, some people discuss different models/structures for organising the elements in general. But that is a different topic.

[-] foggy@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Nuh uh I'm working on ununununium.

[-] jewbacca117@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

You're excited now, but just you wait until I finish unununununium!

[-] Magister@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Now write it in cursive!

[-] TrojanRoomCoffeePot@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Bingo, @Madbrad200@sh.itjust.works , see the wikipedia entries which climb as high as 116: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscovium

If you want to go on a fun rabbithole dive, take a gander at what Bob Lazar has to say about Moscovium (115), and its use in craft by nonhuman entities.

[-] missingno@fedia.io 1 points 3 weeks ago

Elements are defined by the number of protons they have. Hydrogen has 1 proton, helium has 2, lithium has 3, and so on. Everything up to 94 protons, Plutonium, is known to occur naturally on Earth (some in only very trace amounts, but all are known one way or another), there are no gaps to fill in.

We can and have synthesized elements with 95+ protons in a lab, but these artificially created elements decay almost immediately. The highest element created this way is Oganesson, atomic number 118. Five whole atoms were created, and decayed in 0.7ms. Basically, it's something that can only briefly be forced in a lab. It's possible these elements may also occur within stars undergoing fusion, but nowhere else.

The table can be extended indefinitely, and we have theoretical models of what the properties of hypothetical elements will be, but the further out we go the less stable these elements will be, decaying faster and faster. So it's not like these are natural elements waiting to be discovered that we missed, we know everything that could be stable in nature.

[-] TabbsTheBat@pawb.social 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

The last new element (afaik) was like.. 2016? So depends on what counts as new I suppose :3

[-] BartyDeCanter@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 weeks ago

To expand on this, there aren’t any gaps left so the only new ones will be increasingly heavyweight and have vanishingly short half-lives, which means that they are increasingly difficult to synthesize and detect. In theory there is an island of stability once we can synthesize sufficiently heavy elements, but it seems pretty far off.

this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2025
19 points (100.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

42907 readers
378 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS