# Potential size of the Periodic table.
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/potential-size-of-the-periodic-table/665632
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [August 7, 2013, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/potential-size-of-the-periodic-table/665632 "2013-08-07T20:31:27Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@pdunderhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pdunderhill)
#### Post date: [August 7, 2013, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/potential-size-of-the-periodic-table/665632/1 "2013-08-07T20:31:27Z")
Hello good people,
What are the current scientific theories regarding the ultimate disposition of the periodic table?A version appears to run to an element, 118, which has been named as Uuo. Unobtanium?
Peter
---
### Author:  [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)
#### Post date: [August 7, 2013, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/potential-size-of-the-periodic-table/665632/2 "2013-08-07T20:37:41Z")
An “element” is just a distinct number of protons in an atomic nucleus. As such, the table is unlimited in size. However, large nuclei are (generally speaking) unstable, and will decay in very, very short amounts of time to lower numbered elements.
There is some potential for “islands of stability” later in the table, where particular arrangements of nucleic particles might allow for stable atoms, but no one’s proven it one way or the other yet.
---
### Author:  [@aNewLeaf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aNewLeaf)
#### Post date: [August 7, 2013, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/potential-size-of-the-periodic-table/665632/3 "2013-08-07T20:39:18Z")
Wikipedia has a cool article on that island of stability^^^, with pics.
---
### Author:  [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)
#### Post date: [August 7, 2013, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/potential-size-of-the-periodic-table/665632/4 "2013-08-07T20:54:41Z")
Stability, in this context, is a relative term. Elements in the expected “island of stability”, if they can be made, are still almost certain to be highly unstable, and to decay into lighter elements fairly quickly, almost certainly well before their _chemical_ properties (which is what the Periodic Table is really about) can be measured, much less exploited. For all practical purposes, the Periodic Table is complete as it stands, and will not change.
---
### Author:  [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)
#### Post date: [August 7, 2013, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/potential-size-of-the-periodic-table/665632/5 "2013-08-07T21:02:25Z")
> [@pdunderhill](#):
>
> A version appears to run to an element, 118, which has been named as Uuo. Unobtanium?
Unfortunately, no. It’s actually Ununoctium, a placeholder name until its discovery can be confirmed. The prefixes indicate un-un-oct, or one-one-eight, for its atomic number.
---
### Author:  [@dstarfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dstarfire)
#### Post date: [August 7, 2013, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/potential-size-of-the-periodic-table/665632/6 "2013-08-07T21:04:40Z")
Element 118 is called ununoctium because the folks who decide element names decided to name stuff using the latin for it’s atomic weight, since naming it after the discoverer was deemed excessively narcissistic and resulted in names that weren’t universally pronounceable. Latin (along with international symbols and software icons) has the benefit of being foreign to everybody.
---
### Author:  [@leahcim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leahcim)
#### Post date: [August 7, 2013, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/potential-size-of-the-periodic-table/665632/7 "2013-08-07T21:13:05Z")
> [@dstarfire](#):
>
> Element 118 is called ununoctium because the folks who decide element names decided to name stuff using the latin for it’s atomic weight, since naming it after the discoverer was deemed excessively narcissistic and resulted in names that weren’t universally pronounceable.
Not to mention the feuds between western and soviet teams over the naming rights for previous high-Z elements. Latin-ish names are apolitical.
It seems like 118 has been the top dog for a while, and synthesizing new superheavy elements has fallen out of fashion.
---
### Author:  [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)
#### Post date: [August 7, 2013, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/potential-size-of-the-periodic-table/665632/8 "2013-08-07T21:16:33Z")
> [@dstarfire](#):
>
> Element 118 is called ununoctium because the folks who decide element names decided to name stuff using the latin for it’s atomic weight, since naming it after the discoverer was deemed excessively narcissistic and resulted in names that weren’t universally pronounceable. Latin (along with international symbols and software icons) has the benefit of being foreign to everybody.
However, that’s not its permanent name. That’s a temporary [systemic name](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_element_name) pending confirmation of the discovery, at which time the discoverers will be able to give it a permanent name.
---
### Author:  [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)
#### Post date: [August 7, 2013, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/potential-size-of-the-periodic-table/665632/9 "2013-08-07T22:28:59Z")
It’s generally considered tacky at best to name something after yourself. Naming it after your university, though, or your place of residence (country, state, city, etc.), is acceptable, as is naming it after someone admired and dead.
---
### Author:  [@Gagundathar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gagundathar)
#### Post date: [August 7, 2013, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/potential-size-of-the-periodic-table/665632/10 "2013-08-07T22:43:28Z")
As a Trekker of long standing (that is to say that I have been standing a long time and am a bit tired) it may be of some amusement to a few to view this periodic table of the elemts from the Star Trek Universe:
[Periodic Table According to Star Trek](http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Periodic_table)
Note that Element 118 is known as Zienite in this table. More information may be found here: [http://misc.thefullwiki.org/Zienite](http://misc.thefullwiki.org/Zienite)
It also appears that Corbomite is the heaviest element known at the time of this chart’s last update.
I know all of this must be factual as it was found using Google on The Internet.
---
### Author:  [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)
#### Post date: [August 7, 2013, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/potential-size-of-the-periodic-table/665632/11 "2013-08-07T23:07:22Z")
Also, several of the earlier elements were named after characters in DC Comics’ [Metal Men](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Men) series.
---
### Author:  [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)
#### Post date: [August 8, 2013, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/potential-size-of-the-periodic-table/665632/12 "2013-08-08T00:00:38Z")
> [@Gagundathar](#):
>
> As a Trekker of long standing (that is to say that I have been standing a long time and am a bit tired) it may be of some amusement to a few to view this periodic table of the elemts from the Star Trek Universe:
>
> [Periodic Table According to Star Trek](http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Periodic_table)
>
> Note that Element 118 is known as Zienite in this table. More information may be found here: [http://misc.thefullwiki.org/Zienite](http://misc.thefullwiki.org/Zienite)
>
> It also appears that Corbomite is the heaviest element known at the time of this chart’s last update.
>
> I know all of this must be factual as it was found using Google on The Internet.
How does a Star Trek Periodic table not have Latinum? Sloppy.
---
### Author:  [@Gagundathar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gagundathar)
#### Post date: [August 8, 2013, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/potential-size-of-the-periodic-table/665632/13 "2013-08-08T00:26:36Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#):
>
> How does a Star Trek Periodic table not have Latinum? Sloppy.
Perhaps it is a compound?
Or the table was last updated prior to contact with the Ferengi?
Or, just maybe, it is all just… naaaahhh… that’s just crazy.
---
### Author:  [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)
#### Post date: [August 8, 2013, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/potential-size-of-the-periodic-table/665632/14 "2013-08-08T00:34:59Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#):
>
> How does a Star Trek Periodic table not have Latinum? Sloppy.
What’s really sloppy is to talk about naturally occurring ores that contain element 118 - which has a half-life of 0.89 milliseconds.
---
### Author:  [@pdunderhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pdunderhill)
#### Post date: [August 8, 2013, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/potential-size-of-the-periodic-table/665632/15 "2013-08-08T00:46:20Z")
Timewinder now that does fascinate me, I assume we are discussing concepts not theorems?
‘There is some potential for “islands of stability” later in the table, where particular arrangements of nucleic particles might allow for stable atoms, but no one’s proven it one way or the other yet.’ cf.
Thank Og for the Open University, I feel another degree coming on, highly recommended.
‘Islands of stability’, I don’t mean to disparage you but ‘things we know, things we don’t know’ ?
Damn Chemists will annul Og, please.
Rambling Pete
---
### Author:  [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)
#### Post date: [August 8, 2013, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/potential-size-of-the-periodic-table/665632/16 "2013-08-08T01:01:58Z")
The islands of stability are mathematically predicted, according to mathematical laws which govern the relevant interactions. The physics isn’t perfectly understood, and the calculations aren’t all that straightforward, so there’s still some uncertainty on points like just how long “island elements” should last before decaying, but we’re pretty confident about the existence of the islands, at least, and that they would last longer than the elements on either side.
---
### Author:  [@LawMonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LawMonkey)
#### Post date: [August 8, 2013, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/potential-size-of-the-periodic-table/665632/17 "2013-08-08T01:33:08Z")
I feel like I once heard some discussion somewhere of there being a maximum theoretical size for elements, based on the fundamental forces–basically, it gets so big that some of the forces overcome the other forces and it won’t stick together. I cannot for the life of me actually find any references for this.
---
### Author:  [@bizzwire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bizzwire)
#### Post date: [August 8, 2013, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/potential-size-of-the-periodic-table/665632/18 "2013-08-08T03:27:32Z")
Atomic nuclei are held together by the strong nuclear force, which overpowers the electrostatic repulsion between the protons. However, the strong nuclear force has a very limited “reach,” and as the nuclei get bigger, the binding force cannot hold up, making high Z atoms unstable. As noted, islands of stability have been postulated but not seen.
I am reading “The Disappearing Spoon,” by Sam Kean, an excellent non-technical book about the periodic table. He says that relativity places a limit on the size of atoms:
> [@](#):
>
> …inner electrons orbit much more quickly around a nucleus than electrons in outer shells. The exact speed depends on the ratio between the number of protons and alpha, the fine structure constant discussed last chapter. As that ratio gets closer and closer to one, electrons fly closer and closer to the speed of light. But remember that alpha is (we think) fixed at 1/137 or so. Beyond 137 protons, the inner electrons would seem to be going faster than the speed of light-which, according to Einstein’s relativity theory, can never happen.
---
### Author:  [@j\_sum1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j_sum1)
#### Post date: [August 8, 2013, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/potential-size-of-the-periodic-table/665632/19 "2013-08-08T05:14:34Z")
Of course one could argue that a neutron star is really one amazingly large collapsed nucleus with gabazillions of subnuclear particles.
Of course you would have a hard time convincing anyone that it was stable. Its atomic number would be in a state of continual change.
---
### Author:  [@LawMonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LawMonkey)
#### Post date: [August 8, 2013, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/potential-size-of-the-periodic-table/665632/20 "2013-08-08T13:29:46Z")
**bizzwire** , I suspect that’s what I was thinking of. Thanks.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/potential-size-of-the-periodic-table/665632.md?page=2)