Some trendy icons throughout our society in the last decade include Fortnite dances and the Supreme logo. It’s difficult for these icons to maintain popularity due to the speed at which they rise to popularity — the quicker a cultural item rockets to widespread demand, the quicker it dies.
The periodic table, created by Dimitri Mendeleev in 1869, shadders this seemingly plausible popularity trend. For centuries it has been praised on t-shirts, placemats, and walls. The original table only contained 63 elements, so scientists began adding to the periodic table by scrutinizing minerals and separating them into their constituent parts. That process could only take scientists so far, as elements beyond Uranium had to be created artificially due to instability (Conover, 2019). Scientists now have a method to artificially create elements and predict their properties, right? Not entirely.
The known superheavy elements—those beyond number 103 on the table—are too short-lived to create a substantial portion for long-term analysis (Terranova & Tavares, 2022). Thus, scientists are limited to studying individual atoms. One big question is whether the periodicity the table is named for applies to these so-called ‘superheavy elements.’
In the table, elements are ordered according to their number of protons, arranged so that the elements in each column have similar properties. For nuclei crammed with 100-plus protons, a specific type of physics takes center stage. Electrons whiz around these giant nuclei, sometimes surpassing 80% the speed of light (Conover, 2019). According to Einstein’s theory of relativity, when particles move that fast, they seem to gain mass; in such atoms, ‘relatively rules,’ and standard wisdom breaks down (Conover, 2019). Relativity’s influence may surge as scientists progress along with the periodic table.
For instance, atomic nuclei could be warped into various shapes when packed with protons. Extremely high atomic numbers and corresponding masses, like theoretical element 246, for example, could have a hole in its nucleus or take the shape of a donut, with a node in its center—where electrons can pass through—and protons on the edges, which would allow for greater stability. In this model, electrons could pass through the nucleus creating a field of stability within the atom. According to modern mathematical calculations, these concepts are possible (Conover, 2019).
Physicists have recently predicted what are known as ‘islands of stability,’ which are sets of elements that are much more stable than one would expect, due to the organization of their protons and neutrons inside the nucleus, and will last longer as a result (Aranda & Green, 2016). Michael Aranda, a host on the highly acclaimed SciShow, said that “These elements might last days or even years. Some predictions say that the first island of stability might start right around number 122 or 126, depending on who you ask and how they did the calculation.” This could suggest that our ‘warped atomic nuclei’ is right around the corner.
Either way, there is no clear idea of how to search for elements beyond our current findings, but this picture has seemed bleak before. All we know now is that each new element is always the hardest to find, but it’s probably not the last.
References
Aranda, M. (Producer), & Green, H. (Director). (2016). Will the Periodic Table Ever Be Complete? [Film]. SciShow.
Conover, E. (2019, February 27). Extreme elements push the boundaries of the periodic table. Science News. Retrieved June 8, 2022, from https://www.sciencenews.org/article/physics-periodic-table-future-superheavy-elements
Conover, E. (2019, March 2). Prospecting the Periodic Table. Science News.Terranova, M., & Tavares, O. (2022, February 26). The periodic table of the elements: the search for transactinides and beyond. Springer Link. Retrieved June 8, 2022, from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12210-022-01057-w