It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Scientists confirm new element 115 after atoms collide.

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 12:52 AM
reply to post by SloAnPainful

Never claimed to be, all I know is I read that it was stable for about a nanosecond

I don't think you read that it was stable.
The atoms may have lasted a nanosecond (possibly longer, actually) but that does not mean that they are stable.

posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 12:57 AM
reply to post by Phage

Phage, was exactly are your credentials that you just have knowledge of this? Are you a scientist? Chemist?

Because you know a lot of information and I've always been curious... A word of mouth is a lot different then pulling some random stuff from the internet... Or even more so that you actually know this...


posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 11:11 AM

reply to post by Phage

I get it. I am no expert. Never claimed to be, all I know is I read that it was stable for about a nanosecond... if that even...

That didn't come from Lazar either...

edit on 31-8-2013 by SloAnPainful because: (no reason given)

I think Phage is saying calling element 115 "stable" would be a misnomer when saying "it was stable for about a nanosecond". Any element that decays into another element is not stable. Uranium 238 (the most common form of uranium found in nature) may have a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, which obviously is a long time, but the fact that it eventually decays means it is not stable, even if it takes a long time to decay. Plutonium has a half life of about 24,100 years, therefore it is not stable. Element 115 also eventually decays into element 113 in about 1/10 of a second -- so it, too, is unstable. (by the way, element 113 also is unstable, and decays after several seconds).

Therefore saying it can be "stable" for those fractions of a second is a bit of a misuse of the word. An element/isotope is unstable whether it decays in 1/10 or a second or if it decays in 24,000 years. An element is either stable or it isn't.

edit on 8/31/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 11:22 AM

good stuff, this has been "rumored" and floating arround for a long time. its good its now out and about....

Element 115 was first synthesized 10 years ago, but it really wasn't a rumor. The team that first synthesized it openly published the results of those initial experiments back in 2004.

This new news about Element 115 is regarding that fact that the original experiments to synthesize element 115 have now been corroborated (i.e., another team was able to replicated the 2003 findings and synthesize Element 115), and that means element 115 is a step closer to "officially" making it to the periodic table.

It can take a long time for an new element to "officially" be recognized as such. Science can be a slow process, because findings need to be replicated and corroborated.
edit on 8/31/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 01:15 PM
You could argue that there isn't much point in categorising an element that only exists for a tenth of a second.

posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 01:21 PM
reply to post by Mogget

You could argue that there isn't much point in naming a martian crater and an asteroid after Gene Roddenberry.
But it's pretty cool.

posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 03:50 PM
I posted this link earlier today.

The higher the atomic weight, the greater the atomic instability.

From one theory I have read, there are tiny little electrical currents flowing through the nucleus between the quarks inside the neutrons and protons. When a particular configuration is reached, the nucleus blows apart.

posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 06:50 PM

Originally posted by Frocharocha
Original link:

(CNN) -- As though it wasn't hard enough to memorize the names and atomic weights of 117 elements in the periodic table, scientists have now confirmed a new one.

Researchers from Lund University in Sweden created it by slamming atoms of one element, calcium, into atoms of another called americium.

The newly formed element vanished quickly in a flash of radiation that scientists could measure. That flash, or "fingerprint," confirmed the existence of an element with 115 protons at its center. That would give it the atomic number of 115 on the periodic table, the list of all elements known to humanity.

The Swedes were the second group of scientists to create the element. A group of Russian scientists put together the same type of atom in 2004.But the new experiment corroborated their work and confirmed 115's existence.

Still, this doesn't mean that you'll see element 115 on the next periodic table poster that gets published. The discovery still has to be approved by a committee composed of members of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry and the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics. This working group will determine whether the existing evidence is enough to justify adding the element to the table, or if more proof is required.
Super-heavy element

The more protons an atom has, the higher its number on the periodic table. And with 115 protons, this new element earns the moniker "super-heavy element."For the sake of comparison, an atom of lead only has 82 protons. Gold has just 79. But you won't find a chunk of element 115 lying around anywhere.

The highest-numbered element on the periodic chart that exists in nature is uranium, which has 92 protons at its core. However, trace amounts of plutonium and neptunium have been found naturally as well.
Follow CNN Science News

"All elements with larger proton numbers have been created artificially in nuclear reactions," says the Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research in Germany, where the Swedish scientists made element 115.
That means more than two dozen of all the known elements were artificially created.

Why create elements that disappear in a flash? Scientists hope one day to make one that doesn't, thus creating a brand new lasting element, Popular Science magazine reports.But for this particular element, the researchers assert on their website, "any practical implications are seemingly far fetched."

The Swedish scientists have not given element 115 a name yet.

Until they do, it has a temporary name: "Ununpentium." That may be harder to memorize than "element 115," but it is a scientific term made from Latin and Greek that basically means 1-1-5.


This gives an entirely new credibility to Bob Lazar history. Who first talked about that element over 30 years ago when it was first seen in 2004.

For the propulsion of the studied vehicles, Bob Lazar claims that the atomic Element 115 served as a nuclear fuel. Element 115 (temporarily named "ununpentium" (symbol Uup)) reportedly provided an energy source which would produce anti-gravity effects under proton bombardment, along with antimatter for energy production. As the intense strong nuclear force field of Element 115's nucleus would be properly amplified, the resulting large-scale gravitational effect would be a distortion or warp of space-time that would, in effect, greatly shorten the distance and travel time to a destination.

Lazar also claims that he was given introductory briefings describing the historical involvement by extraterrestrial beings with this planet for the past 100,000 years. The beings allegedly originate from the Zeta Reticuli 1 & 2 star system and are therefore referred to as Zeta Reticulans, popularly called 'greys'. According to Lazar these beings were referred to as 'the kids' within the program, or as 'gourds' among the personnel.

So what is your opinion on this?
edit on 30-8-2013 by Frocharocha because: (no reason given)

Lazar is an interesting character. He correctly described the employee cafeteria of are-51 to a journalist who did his homework and interviewed other former employees who could corroborate this information. He also states that element 115 is obtained in useable quantity from outer space, whatever that means.

But scientifically, it does not occur naturally and must be force created, is very unstable and dissipates in 160 milliseconds.

Lazar's statements are inconclusive and scientifically inaccurate as far as we know.

posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 10:52 PM
Hasn't element 115 been synthesized for a while now?

posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 03:45 AM
Perhaps 115 and other heavy elements can only be stable at creation when the proper conditions are present like outside of planetary and stars influence like outside the solar system. Earth bound science may be limited..

posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 04:29 AM

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Frocharocha

115 cannot "be made" stable because by its nature it isn't.
That is not to say that other transuranics may be stable.

I read somewhere that an isotope of 115 may be stable.

posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 06:17 AM

Originally posted by Mogget
You could argue that there isn't much point in categorising an element that only exists for a tenth of a second.

You could also argue that maybe a ET intelligence has managed to stabilize 115 or other elements similar .So often things are rejected based on what science CURRENTLY understands , to me that is the primary source of rebuttals and rejections.Was Bob Lazar simply stating that E 115 was in a stabilized form and that stabilization was due to some as yet unknown stabilization process understood and applied by ET intelligence's.More to the point are we simply just in a part of the universe that is just right for us in that what science currently knows is simply because the part of the universe we occupy is what determines what we can understand or what is possible, is it a different matter in other parts of the universe were there are different laws governing a totally different form of physics giving rise to more advanced elements or their possibilities existing due to that part of the universe... absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and i would never rule this perception out certainly as i believe science does not know all there is to know and those claiming it is are the ones to avoid...
edit on 15/07/2010 by K-PAX-PROT because: (no reason given)

edit on 15/07/2010 by K-PAX-PROT because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 07:23 AM
Regarding my last post were i touched on the Bob Lazar claims and pontificated on the subject of Lazars claims suggesting that he could have been simply been telling some truth if this E 115 was in fact a stabilized form by Et intelligence's who posses the means and understanding to stabilize or that it originates from a part of the universe that they occupy, sounds not plausible if you go along with what science understands just now, what if our laws of physics is just right for us in our part of the universe and is not universal , well this below is certainly adding fule to that real possibility. Came across this article bout a recent discovery by the VLT in Chile...

VLT/Our Laws Of Physics COULD be Wrong??
**Breaking** VLT May Have Proven That Our Laws Of Physics Are Wrong - The Universe Is Not Equal!

the VLT (Very Large Telescope) in Chile has found that may prove our science based knowledge of laws and physics in the universe is completely and utterly incorrect and the so called experts in these matters may have to issue apologies for trying to ridicule the people who disagreed with them".

"Defying Einstein's equivalence principle, which states that the laws of physics are the same everywhere, researchers have found new evidence that supports the idea that we live in an area of the universe that is "just right" for our existence".

Taking data from the Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile Webb has observed that alpha varies in space rather than time.

The VLT data suggests that, elsewhere in the universe, the value of alpha is very slightly bigger than on Earth;

Laws of physics are not the same everywhere;

2010-09-09 16:20:00
Defying Einstein's equivalence principle, which states that the laws of physics are the same everywhere, researchers have found new evidence that supports the idea that we live in an area of the universe that is "just right" for our existence.

The controversial finding comes from an observation that one of the constants of nature appears to be different in different parts of the cosmos.

"This finding was a real surprise to everyone," New Scientist quoted John Webb of the University of New South Wales in Australia as saying.

Even more surprising is the fact that the change in the constant appears to have an orientation, creating a "preferred direction", or axis, across the cosmos.

That idea was dismissed more than 100 years ago with the creation of Einstein's special theory of relativity.

But the new study focuses on the fine structure constant, also known as alpha.

This number determines the strength of interactions between light and matter.

Taking data from the Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile Webb has observed that alpha varies in space rather than time.

The VLT data suggests that, elsewhere in the universe, the value of alpha is very slightly bigger than on Earth.

The difference in both cases is around a millionth of the value alpha has in our region of space.

Moreover, the team's analysis of around 300 measurements of alpha in light coming from various points in the sky suggests the variation is not random but structured, like a bar magnet.

The universe seems to have a large alpha on one side and a smaller alpha on the other.

This "dipole" alignment nearly matches that of a stream of galaxies mysteriously moving towards the edge of the universe.

However, it does not line up with another unexplained dipole, dubbed the axis of evil, in the afterglow of the big bang.

Earth sits somewhere in the middle of the extremes for alpha.

If correct, the result would explain why alpha seems to have the finely tuned value that allows chemistry - and thus life - to occur.

Grow alpha by 4 per cent, for instance, and the stars would be unable to produce carbon, making our biochemistry impossible.

The study will be published in Physical Review Letters. (ANI);

This paper is saying that the universal constants ALPHA is going against Einsteins equivalence theory ,(i.e that physics acts in the same way throughout the universe) and varies in different regions of space.

It is also saying that this part of the universe is good and suited to the existence of life;

In physics, the fine-structure constant (usually denoted α, the Greek letter alpha) is a fundamental physical constant, namely the coupling constant characterizing the strength of the electromagnetic interaction. The numerical value of α is the same in all systems of units, because α is a dimensionless quantity;

Link what ALPHA or "The fine structure constant" actually is from the above quote;


Now the important bit below....

“The implications for our current understanding of science are profound. If the laws of physics turn out to be merely 'local by-laws', it might be that whilst our observable part of the universe favours the existence of life and human beings, other far more distant regions may exist where different laws preclude the formation of life, at least as we know it.”

“If our results are correct, clearly we shall need new physical theories to satisfactorily describe them

posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 12:48 PM
Lazar is grilled constantly by many big players,stanton friedman is his biggest critics,but i always felt that Lazar was telling the truth.this is going to give him some credibility for sure,and calling it a coincidence is not going to work,they better come up with a better reason than that.
He had good details to some things located in the base that would be hard to get right by guessing.His expressions didn't show signs of someone lying,and his answers were quick,not like someone looking for answers.
edit on 2-9-2013 by zigoapex because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-9-2013 by zigoapex because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 10:36 AM
Maybe you dont understand that the supposed Aliens could make it stable? Ya know, being they are thousands of years ahead of us most likely

reply to post by Phage

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in