Physicists Looking At A Potential Element 120 After Synthesizing Element 116

Yeah! Science! For the first time, scientists at Berkeley Lab have synthesized element 116 (livermorium) using a titanium particle beam. Previously, physicists created livermorium atoms using a calcium beam. The new method is a significant step towards creating an entirely new element.

Scientists at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), renowned for discovering 16 of the 118 known elements, have taken a significant step towards potentially creating another: element 120.

An international research team led by Berkeley Lab's Heavy Element Group announced they have successfully synthesized superheavy element 116 using a titanium beam. This breakthrough, presented at the Nuclear Structure 2024 conference, is pivotal for creating element 120. The team published a pre-print version of its detailed findings in Cornell University's arXiv as the academic journal Physical Review Letters peer-reviews the study for official publication.

"This reaction had never been demonstrated before, and it was essential to prove it was possible before embarking on our attempt to make 120," said Jacklyn Gates, a nuclear scientist at Berkeley Lab. "Creation of a new element is an extremely rare feat. It's exciting to be a part of the process and to have a promising path forward."

This is particularly fascinating because it showcases the innovative approach of using a titanium particle beam, which is a departure from the traditional calcium beam method.

The researchers at Berkeley Lab, who have already been credited with discovering 16 of the 118 known elements continue to push the boundaries of the periodic table.

Potentially opening doors to entirely new realms of chemistry and physics.

www.newscientist.com...
www.techspot.com...#:~:text=An%20international%20research%20team%20led ,pivotal%20for%20creating%20element%20120.

a reply to: andy06shake


Whoosh !!!!

Thats it gone flying over my head.

Great stuff, its exciting for sure.

Won't be long before they try to weaponise it somehow.

Well done all at Berkeley Lab

a reply to: SecretKnowledge2

If they do manage to synthesize element 120 it will most likely be extremely unstable and difficult to produce.

I am not quite sure how easy it would be to weaponise such a superheavy element.

Current nuclear weapons rely on fissionable materials like uranium 235 and plutonium 239 which are relatively stable compared to superheavy elements.

I suppose the element could be used is some other manner or have properties where weaponisation is concerned.

After all we do like to create new and imaginative ways of destroying one another.

a reply to: andy06shake

Fantastic breakthrough and this is now being peer-reviewed at Physical Review Letters before publication.

From your source:

"It was an important first step to try to make something a little bit easier than a new element to see how going from a calcium beam to a titanium beam changes the rate at which we produce these elements," said Jennifer Pore, a scientist in Berkeley Lab's Heavy Element Group. "Creating element 116 with titanium validates this method of production works, and we can now plan our hunt for element 120."

Let's hope this goes somewhere.

a reply to: andy06shake


Proper alchemy now mate!

a reply to: andy06shake

I was just reading what Bob Lazar said about alien craft using an unknown heavy element to harness gravity for propulsion, so in my mind, I am thinking of flying cars, the elimination of our need for fossil fuels, and a greener and healthier world.

a reply to: quintessentone

The Russians already synthesised an isotope of Element 115 in collaboration with American researchers known as Moscovium.

Unfortunately, it does not do what it says on Bob Lazar's tin aka exhibit the exotic properties claimed by the Man such as being a stable element with anti-gravity and energy-producing capabilities.

Be nice if it did all the same.

a reply to: andy06shake

Who knows we humans are very innovative, give it time.

a reply to: quintessentone

I suppose future technological advances are indeed somewhat unknowable.

But fundamentally changing an element's core properties, such as its atomic number, or how they intrinsically behave, would be quite the feat indeed.

Thats like type 2 civilisation science on the Kardashev scale by my guess.

a reply to: andy06shake

These genius' (geni? plural?) at the Berkeley Lab are tapping into the future.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: quintessentone

The Russians already synthesised an isotope of Element 115 in collaboration with American researchers known as Moscovium.

Unfortunately, it does not do what it says on Bob Lazar's tin aka exhibit the exotic properties claimed by the Man such as being a stable element with anti-gravity and energy-producing capabilities.

Be nice if it did all the same.

The reason it "doesn't do" what Bob said is because it isn't the same isotope. Try adding a few more neutrons, actually quite a few more.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Ile certainly entertain the prospect NoCorruptionAllowed no "matter" how unlikely it may be.

How does adding neutrons help where the production of antimatter/anti-gravity is concerned?

And added to what or where?

If you mean Element 115 how do they achieve that?

Would the likes of the energy required to produce such heavier isotopes of moscovium not be somewhat astronomical?

There could be possibly hundreds more elements that exist in the Universe. Just because man has not identified them yet does not mean they don't exist. How do we know the elements in other parts of the universe follow the same properties we have here, we don't even know what to look for in radio telescopes, we see what we are looking for. the rest we cannot yet comprehend exists because around here they might not even exist in our solar system. We translate what we see by what we already know. and we don't know crap compared to what is really out there yet...but we are learning.

Many things are not stable long, so we never get to observe their existence and that is where science comes in. They are now able to observe these things forming and transitioning, but they don't last more than miliseconds here, but they could last longer somewhere else in the universe where conditions are different. What comes out of a star is different star to star. Even the frequencies of energy can be different.

a reply to: rickymouse

Physics is generally believed to be the same across the universe.

And the laws of physics, such as gravity, electromagnetism, and the behavior of particles, are considered universal.

Somewhat down to the likes of the universal constants or so I'm led to believe.

To my knowledge observations of distant objects and events have consistently supported this idea that the same physical laws operate throughout the universe.

That being said i think some of the objects the James Webb Space Telescope has come across bring into question a lot of the accepted mainstream scientific rhetoric.

a reply to: andy06shake

Brilliant, they should collaborate with astrophysicists on this one.

a reply to: andy06shake

It's theorized that around 120, elements could become more stable....

If it was to be discovered, element 120 (or Unbinilium, to use its placeholder name) is predicted to be an alkaline earth metal and would sit in the currently-empty eighth row of the periodic table, alongside the also-undiscovered element 119.

But most excitingly, element 120 has a good chance of being on the “island of stability.” Superheavy elements usually have very short half-lives, meaning they decay away in a matter of milliseconds, which makes them difficult to study and impractical for basically any real-world use. But it’s been predicted that some isotopes of these elements might have just the right number of neutrons to balance the whole thing out, stabilizing it for minutes or even days.

Which is why this is exciting news.

a reply to: Kurokage



The "island of stability" theory.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Kurokage

The "island of stability" theory.

If the astrophysicists joined in, it could also be named "the goldilocks zone". lol

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: rickymouse

Physics is generally believed to be the same across the universe.

And the laws of physics, such as gravity, electromagnetism, and the behavior of particles, are considered universal.

Somewhat down to the likes of the universal constants or so I'm led to believe.

To my knowledge observations of distant objects and events have consistently supported this idea that the same physical laws operate throughout the universe.

That being said i think some of the objects the James Webb Space Telescope has come across bring into question a lot of the accepted mainstream scientific rhetoric.

You're first sentence is correct, but you have to understand what it actually says. Physics is GENERALLY BELIEVED to be the same across the universe... In other words it is a Belief, it is not scientific fact.

The second statement has also been challenged lately and they are questioning the validity of that stuff they used to believed were universal more now than in the past.

The third statement is explanatory. Somewhat down to the likes of the universal constants or so I'm led to believe. Notice you said.. so I'm led to believe

You are actually pretty knowledgeable about this, but you have not realized yet you are actually saying everything is based on belief of the holder when you are writing. Analyze your own actions to understand what is really going on in your mind.

Real science is not definitive about much, I read lots of research and there are way more ifs and buts and relationships to things in the research yet people who write books seem to say things definitively as if it is proven. I like reading real science. I also do not believe in the big bang theory, because we really have not defined the properties of time properly, plus from where we are in space, we could never really determine how the universe was formed...it does not stop most people from BELIEVING in the big bang theory though. Science is misused more than it is properly used, it is often created and interpreted just to gain prestige and money. Real science is not definitive, there are way to many variables to apply it universally.

By the way you wrote your response, I think you subconsciously know that, but do you consciously know it?

a reply to: rickymouse

I'm going out for dinner rickymouse.

But ile happily address some of the above later on in the evening if that's ok.

Cheers for contributing.