Nearby asteroid may contain elements 'beyond the periodic table', new study suggests

It makes some sense that the heavier elements would be found in asteroids and would be observed to be much greater in number because heavy elements sink when planets have their molten period during formation, allowing iron and the other heavier elements to sink to the core.

But, if this is true, why haven't we seen these heavier elements already in asteroids?

For the Starfield folks, this is our best shot to find an artifact, and "throw out the periodic table". ;)
Wasn't aware of these superheavy asteroids, which seem based on scant and uncertain observations... not heard of because they are scant and uncertain and therefore considered unreliable? Perhaps even unreliable in known ways.

Mistakes extrapolating from minimal data are commonplace, the rule not the exception. Superheavy elements are not so easy to find as mistakes are. Dense concentrations of dark matter that are observable are not. Come back with follow up confirmation of an asteroid having extraordinary density after some dedicated observatory time and it is a whole different story that would be truly groundbreaking, but right now it sounds like conjecture.

The solution to scant and uncertain observation is better observation rather than conjecture, but we are talking about asteroids in this solar system, a solar system that we know a lot about from a lot of observation, that shows signs of a long history of stuff getting smashed together and mixed together and smashed apart again. And that includes lots of bits of them smashing into this planet, where meteorites are much sought after for curiosity and for science.

No-one has found any superheavy elements.
Oct 23, 2023
Visit site
Naturally occurring superheavy elements beyond those listed in the periodic table could potentially explain why asteroid 33 Polyhymnia is so dense, new research suggests.

Nearby asteroid may contain elements 'beyond the periodic table', new study suggests : Read more
"Immensely heavy space rocks, known as compact ultra dense objects (CUDOs), are typically heavier than osmium, the heaviest naturally occurring element on Earth. "
Osmium is quite definitely NOT the "heaviest naturally occurring element on Earth". Please refresh your knowledge of the periodic table.
Science types, and most humans, have not been taught to assume that the information that they have been taught is false, especially limitations on what is possible, even probable.

It is helpful, when reading new ideas, to open our minds to hints that new things, that we have not been taught, arrive in packages that are not well written and do not meet publication standards.

When I developed the equations for the joint drives on the Canadarm 1, the textbook equations (in two books) did not fit the data from the first engineering model at all well. The authors of those books were not amused when my equations did; even though I had not seen the data until my new equations were developed. My equations described a slip-stick friction process and used a digital equation set, not polynomials.

What if most of what we have been taught is oversimplified to make it easier to teach? This is a very complex universe and sticking to simplified approximations is not wise.
The problem from my cursory perspective -- ignoring the likelihood their mass-size (ie density) measurements are off -- is that they are attempting to get to the observed density that was determined by at least one measurement -- 75.28 g/cc. [I saw somewhere that one or two other measurements were supportive of this figure, roughly.]

So, one is forced to look at atomic weights if the density measured is to be taken seriously. It seems clear there is a need for some "growing up" (more studies) to help our "Pollyanna" ;).

There are, surprisingly, some asteroids that have densities more than 1/2 this amount (~ 46 g/cc), though I don't know if these asteroids have been confirmed at these densities. Here's a list.