Talk:Extended periodic table

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Elements (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Physics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Source 5 from the EB[edit]

Reference 5 from the EB is dated "ca. 2006" but is credited to Seaborg. As Seaborg died in 1999, something doesn't seem right. Is there an explanation for this? Double sharp (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Dates such as "ca. 2006" are normally publication dates, not dates of writing. The EB page states that Seaborg was "major contributor". Posthumous publication is by no means unknown in academia: consider De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. Perhaps Seaborg got most of the article together, but died before he could complete it; and one of his students decided to assemble the notes into a complete article, giving credit to Seaborg, which the EB then published circa 2006. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

To name some elements[edit]

I want to name these elements which haven't been named.(From 113 to 127, which is the last element of stable island) (Named elements:113(Bq), 114(Fl), 116(Lv) 115--venusium(Vn)(from planet Venus) 117--jupiterine(Jp)(from planet Jupiter) 118--marson(Ms)(from planet Mars) 119--romeodium(Rm)(from Romeo) 120--julietium(Jl)(from Juliet) 121--saturnium(St)(from planet Saturn) 122--athenium(An)(from Athena) 123--aphroditium(Ap)(from Aphrodite) 124--pandorium(Pd, I want to change the sign to element 46 to "Pl")(from Pandora) 125--erinium(En)(from dwarf planet Erin) 126--zeusium(Zs)(from Zeus) 127--newtonium(Nw)(from Newton) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 頗想鈮 (talkcontribs) 13:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

E113 has not yet been named, and unless you are the discoverer, your suggestions will most likely not end up being used. Furthermore, I doubt the symbol of palladium will change.
I did think about E113–E122 (the limit of fully predicted knowledge for periodic trends), trying to think of meaningful names as a mental exercise:
E113. Japonium (Jp), per the strong Japanese claim, and also because there isn't yet a J on the periodic table.
E114. Flerovium (Fl).
E115. Moscovium (Mc), per the Russian claim.
E116. Livermorium (Lv).
E117. Berzelium (Bz), after Berzelius (why doesn't he yet have an element anyway?) who proposed the modern definition of "halogen" (F, Cl, Br, I).
E118. Ramsium (Rs), to honour the discoverer of most of the noble gases. (Would look odd with Rn above, though. Anyone wants to change that name to Niton (Nt), as suggested by Ramsay?)
E119. Newtonium (Nw), because he deserves an element, and also because the alkali metals would reflect his personality best. :-P
E120. Becquerelium (Bq), because he deserves an element regardless of whether E113 goes to him. As the discoverer of beta radiation, he fits nicely under radium. I'd also have liked to give this to Davy, because of Mg, Ca, Sr, and Ba, but I can't because that was suggested for Tc before.
E121. Villardium (Vl), after Paul Villard, discoverer of gamma radiation. (Rutherford and Becquerel, for alpha and beta, would be taken.) Its congeners are lanthanum (from lanthanein, to lie hidden) and actinium (from aktinos, a ray). Rays lying hidden? Roentgen is taken (that would be an awesome choice, though), so I'll go for gamma instead of X-rays.
E122. Odinium (Od), because both its congeners are named after gods (Ceres and Thor). Also Odin is Thor's father and therefore it makes sense to have odinium as eka-thorium.
As I said, an interesting mental exercise, but I doubt any of these (except Jp and Mc) have any sort of chance at being the final names. Further on, a lot of other chemists deserve elements, especially Lavoisier (I've wanted that one for some time!). Double sharp (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


I suggest that, although the elements past number 173 are theoretically impossible, it's theoretical. Therefore, they should be included despite the impossibility. It could be there simply for clarity. Placejuror (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur. In theory, 174 is impossible, but 119 could be impossible for all we know! E174 may have electron clouds with less spacing, or exist solely as an ion (although at that point a periodic table based solely on chemical properties breaks apart). Via nucleosynthesis, we know that compound nuclei up to Z=200 (Fermium plus Fermium) are possible before neutron channeling and all that physics stuff. While it's unknown what would happen, it is highly likely, if not very probable, that Z=200 would be produced in the subsequent reaction. I'm going to stop now before I get on a bigger rant, but I do reccomend extending the already extended periodic table to at least finish the ninth period, if not into the tenths, eleventh, and continuing on down the line. Stopping a completely theoretical extension because of predicted data that may possibly hinder existence maybe someday decades or more likely centuries in the future just doesn't seem to make much sense. I've already drafted this possible extension on my user page. Jacob S-589 (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

This extended periodic table we see in the article is really bad and should not even be in the article, except as part of the historical development of the extended periodic table concept. As it stands it is being treated as the main version of the extended periodic table, which it should not be. It is not even a correct theoretical extension that incorporates relativistic effects. See {{Compact extended periodic table}} for what the periodic table really looks like beyond 118. I do note that this corrected table goes beyond 173.
Also, elements past 173 are really theoretically possible. It's just that if the innermost orbitals are ionized, the nucleus' electric field will produce an electron-positron pair, unionizing the atom and releasing a positron. If we're going to use Aufbau as a terrible approximation at all (which I think we shouldn't), then we should at the very least not misunderstand these numbers as being limits to the periodic table, which they are not! Double sharp (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, however, this only goes up to Z=184 before going into "...". I think that our first priority should be to reform the large table to follow relativistic effects, because as far as the page viewing data is concerned, the large table is the one that people go to. However, if we do decide to continue the large periodic table, I think that we should go beyond the 184 that the compact one goes up to, as people may misconstrue this to be the "end" of the periodic table. Jacob S-589 (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

We should not, IMO. Involving relativity makes the calculations non-trivial, so extending further would be OR. While from Fricke's working I would be willing to call 185 an eka-superactinide, 186 an eka-superactinide, etc., we do not know where the series stops. This is why I used "...". The ellipsis doesn't indicate an "end", but indicates that there are more elements whose properties we do not know.
Now, the main problem with the large table is that it colours the periodic table by blocks. This is meaningless once you get beyond element 120. I've replaced the large table with a repeat of the compact table at the bottom. Inelegant definitely, but at least scientifically correct now. Now we seriously need a history section. Double sharp (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

valid discussion even if unknowable[edit]

I like to see some layout of the conjectured reasons which may limit the extent of the periodic table even if the nuclear decay-rates aren't prohibitive. This discussion does that. I broke up some long stringy sentences to help. jimswen (talk) 08:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)