Talk:Extended periodic table

A prediction of the extended table

Pekka Pyykkö from the University of Helsinki has made a prediction of the extended table that differs significantly from the one in the article. He is a pioneer in the field of relativistic quantum chemistry and his prediction is based on rigorous calculations. It is covered in Highlights in Chemical Science from the Royal Society of Chemistry and is published as "A suggested periodic table up to Z ≤ 172, based on Dirac–Fock calculations on atoms and ions" in Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 2010, Advance Article DOI: 10.1039/C0CP01575J. Since this is, I think, the only source that makes a real prediction, I think we should alter the table in the article to reflect this work. I would like to discuss it here however, before I make changes. Note that Pekka Pyykkö does not have a wikipedia article but as a member of the International Academy of Quantum Molecular Science he certainly should have and I will try to write it soon as I have written several articles on members of that body. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm, aren't several known elements also out of order? Why should they be treated differently than undiscovered elements?

No matter how rigorous Pyykkö has been, I doubt this is the final word on the matter. I would feel more comfortable with keeping the current table, and adding Pyykkö's as a more specific model, which is likely more accurate but which is liable to being further refined. — kwami (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I can see some merit in adding Pyykkö's table but I did not mention it earlier. Maybe that is what we should be doing, but I would be happier about doing this if the current table was actually sourced. At present it is very much original research, while Pyykkö's table is sourced from a paper in a very respected journal. Of course it is not the final word, but as sources change we change the article. Pyykkö's table is the latest word. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There isn't much to source in the current table, except the end point (which we have a source for, and which it looks like Pyykkö may have more-or-less accepted) and the position of the G block, which is uncertain but which again Pyykkö is confirming. The difference is in elements not all lining up in order, something which we already note is likely. I think it's reasonable to present the current table as an admittedly naive view, given the position of the G block as assumed by X, and the end point as predicted by Y, and then give Pyykkö as a refinement. But if we're going to order the elements according to orbital rather than number, as Pyykkö does, then for consistency wouldn't we need to move hydrogen and the various exceptions to Madelung's rule among the known elements? — kwami (talk) 04:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No, we do not have to move anything for atomic number 1 to around 100 or so. We just need to give a source for where that form of the normal table comes from, For the new not known elements it is precisely the order that is original research. Why do we assume 8s 8g 8f 8d 8p? However I agree roughly with what you say, but let us see whether anyone else cares. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

We already have the relevant adviso: "The labels "g1", etc. are inspired by the Madelung rule, but this is merely an empirical rule, with well-known exceptions such as copper." If copper isn't moved to the column conforming to its orbital, why should higher elements? Am I missing something? — kwami (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think you are missing something. The position of copper is not just inspired by the Madelung rule, but is in the periodic table in every text book, often without mentioning the Madelung rule. Also the changes that you are suggesting could be made are minor - copper fills the d shell. The table produced by Pyykkö are more major - 9s and some 9p before filling the rest of 8p. I do not know of a source for a periodic table with copper moved from its normal position, but you have a source, we could use Pyykkö for the 54 elements he has studied and that source for all the earlier ones. We would then display two tables. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Or we could just list the period 8 & 9 elements. IMO it does our readers a disservice to present a chimera with two different standards for placement. We should use a single criterion for the entire table, and if we can't do that, then present only the work that Pyykkö actually did. — kwami (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record (I am too busy to edit the article) Chemistry World, Vol 7, No 11, 2010, pg 10 has an article on the Pyykkö paper and, in the same issue on page 35, an article on the general question of the limit for the periodic table. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyplace that's available for the general reading audience? — kwami (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure whether it has an electronic version. It will be found in libraries particularly in the UK and Europe. All RSC members throughout the world receive it. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I got a copy of the Pyykkö paper (2011 version), but haven't yet been able to find the other one, which may be more important here. (Author and title would be helpful!) — kwami (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Links below. — kwami (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Element 173 the last one?

What does really cause Unsepttrium to be the the last possible atom to exist? Something about the electrons' speed of light thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Flammic (talk • contribs) 15:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The idea has been that neutral atoms are not possible > 173 (the valence electrons would be forced to travel faster than the speed of light), which means that only ions could exist and which I interpret to mean that you could not assign those elements to a position in the periodic table. But no-one knows exactly what will happen around Z=137. Read the 2nd link two sections below for an overview. — kwami (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

For the correct answer, see bottom of page. Also, note that particles break down at the speed of light, if you asked. --3.14159265358pi (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Chemistry World, Vol 7, No 11, 2010

The two review columns in Chemistry World are available online here. Or, at least I believe these are them:

• Extended elements: new periodic table (22 October 2010) Review of Pyykkö's work. (It seems that Hodge, or perhaps his editor, may not understand the subject)
• Column: The crucible (November 2010) 137, what happens at 173, and the unknown beyond ('it never ends at all!')

— kwami (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

An improved table?

Improved Table 1

Improved table? 1

Extended Periodic Table (Superheavy elements may not follow the order of this table)              s1 s2 p1 p2 p3 p4 p5 p6 1 1 H 2 He 2 3 Li 4 Be 5 B 6 C 7 N 8 O 9 F 10 Ne 3 11 Na 12 Mg d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9 d10 13 Al 14 Si 15 P 16 S 17 Cl 18 Ar 4 19 K 20 Ca 21 Sc 22 Ti 23 V 24 Cr 25 Mn 26 Fe 27 Co 28 Ni 29 Cu 30 Zn 31 Ga 32 Ge 33 As 34 Se 35 Br 36 Kr 5 37 Rb 38 Sr f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6 f7 f8 f9 f10 f11 f12 f13 f14 39 Y 40 Zr 41 Nb 42 Mo 43 Tc 44 Ru 45 Rh 46 Pd 47 Ag 48 Cd 49 In 50 Sn 51 Sb 52 Te 53 I 54 Xe 6 55 Cs 56 Ba 57 La 58 Ce 59 Pr 60 Nd 61 Pm 62 Sm 63 Eu 64 Gd 65 Tb 66 Dy 67 Ho 68 Er 69 Tm 70 Yb 71 Lu 72 Hf 73 Ta 74 W 75 Re 76 Os 77 Ir 78 Pt 79 Au 80 Hg 81 Tl 82 Pb 83 Bi 84 Po 85 At 86 Rn 7 87 Fr 88 Ra g1 g2 g3 g4 g5 g6 g7 g8 g9 g10 g11 g12 g13 g14 g15 g16 g17 g18 89 Ac 90 Th 91 Pa 92 U 93 Np 94 Pu 95 Am 96 Cm 97 Bk 98 Cf 99 Es 100 Fm 101 Md 102 No 103 Lr 104 Rf 105 Db 106 Sg 107 Bh 108 Hs 109 Mt 110 Ds 111 Rg 112 Cn 113 Uut 114 Uuq 115 Uup 116 Uuh 117 Uus 118 Uuo 8 119 Uue 120 Ubn 121 Ubu 122 Ubb 123 Ubt 124 Ubq 125 Ubp 126 Ubh 127 Ubs 128 Ubo 129 Ube 130 Utn 131 Utu 132 Utb 133 Utt 134 Utq 135 Utp 136 Uth 137 Uts 138 Uto 139 Ute 140 Uqn 141 Uqu 142 Uqb 143 Uqt 144 Uqq 145 Uqp 146 Uqh 147 Uqs 148 Uqo 149 Uqe 150 Upn 151 Upu 152 Upb 153 Upt 154 Upq 155 Upp 156 Uph 157 Ups 158 Upo 159 Upe 160 Uhn 161 Uhu 162 Uhb 163 Uht 164 Uhq 165 Uhp 166 Uhh 167 Uhs 168 Uho 9 169 Uhe 170 Usn 171 Usu 172 Usb 173 Ust 174 Usq 175 Usp 176 Ush 177 Uss 178 Uso 179 Use 180 Uon 181 Uou 182 Uob 183 Uot 184 Uoq 185 Uop 186 Uoh 187 Uos 188 Uoo 189 Uoe 190 Uen 191 Ueu 192 Ueb 193 Uet 194 Ueq 195 Uep 196 Ueh 197 Ues 198 Ueo 199 Uee 200 Bnn 201 Bnu 202 Bnb 203 Bnt 204 Bnq 205 Bnp 206 Bnh 207 Bns 208 Bno 209 Bne 210 Bun Natural and Stable Natural and Unstable Synthetic Undiscovered Undiscovered and can theoretically exist, but considered practically impossible to Undiscovered and can only theoretically exist as an ion

The blocks can be separated by borders, or by another type of formatting. Robo37 (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I like the general principle with different colors giving information about stability, but I would make several changes. First, I would change the label "Undiscovered and can theoretically exist, but considered practically impossible to" to "Undiscovered and may theoretically exist". We do not understand everything about the theory to say they can exist". Second, I would stop that section at 173 as we have agreed that previously. Third, I would remove the section labeled "Undiscovered and can only theoretically exist as an ion". Again, we do not know that much about the theory. Forth, why the change from 137 to 138. Perhaps all the undiscovered one should be in one section. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. 174 and 175 were in the purple section my mistake there, sorry, and the reason I changed from 137 to 138 is because element 137 is mentioned a few times in this article as the last element that can exist by some theories and is the highest element to have it's own article, so I thought it would be relevant to include that in the table. I could of also separated at 130 as that's also mentioned in this article, but I'm not sure where that figure comes from.

Improved Table 2

Here's another idea going by you're suggestions.

Improved table? 2

Extended Periodic Table (Superheavy elements may not follow the order of this table)              s1 s2 p1 p2 p3 p4 p5 p6 1 1 H 2 He 2 3 Li 4 Be 5 B 6 C 7 N 8 O 9 F 10 Ne 3 11 Na 12 Mg d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9 d10 13 Al 14 Si 15 P 16 S 17 Cl 18 Ar 4 19 K 20 Ca 21 Sc 22 Ti 23 V 24 Cr 25 Mn 26 Fe 27 Co 28 Ni 29 Cu 30 Zn 31 Ga 32 Ge 33 As 34 Se 35 Br 36 Kr 5 37 Rb 38 Sr f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6 f7 f8 f9 f10 f11 f12 f13 f14 39 Y 40 Zr 41 Nb 42 Mo 43 Tc 44 Ru 45 Rh 46 Pd 47 Ag 48 Cd 49 In 50 Sn 51 Sb 52 Te 53 I 54 Xe 6 55 Cs 56 Ba 57 La 58 Ce 59 Pr 60 Nd 61 Pm 62 Sm 63 Eu 64 Gd 65 Tb 66 Dy 67 Ho 68 Er 69 Tm 70 Yb 71 Lu 72 Hf 73 Ta 74 W 75 Re 76 Os 77 Ir 78 Pt 79 Au 80 Hg 81 Tl 82 Pb 83 Bi 84 Po 85 At 86 Rn 7 87 Fr 88 Ra g1 g2 g3 g4 g5 g6 g7 g8 g9 g10 g11 g12 g13 g14 g15 g16 g17 g18 89 Ac 90 Th 91 Pa 92 U 93 Np 94 Pu 95 Am 96 Cm 97 Bk 98 Cf 99 Es 100 Fm 101 Md 102 No 103 Lr 104 Rf 105 Db 106 Sg 107 Bh 108 Hs 109 Mt 110 Ds 111 Rg 112 Cn 113 Uut 114 Uuq 115 Uup 116 Uuh 117 Uus 118 Uuo 8 119 Uue 120 Ubn 121 Ubu 122 Ubb 123 Ubt 124 Ubq 125 Ubp 126 Ubh 127 Ubs 128 Ubo 129 Ube 130 Utn 131 Utu 132 Utb 133 Utt 134 Utq 135 Utp 136 Uth 137 Uts 138 Uto 139 Ute 140 Uqn 141 Uqu 142 Uqb 143 Uqt 144 Uqq 145 Uqp 146 Uqh 147 Uqs 148 Uqo 149 Uqe 150 Upn 151 Upu 152 Upb 153 Upt 154 Upq 155 Upp 156 Uph 157 Ups 158 Upo 159 Upe 160 Uhn 161 Uhu 162 Uhb 163 Uht 164 Uhq 165 Uhp 166 Uhh 167 Uhs 168 Uho 9 169 Uhe 170 Usn 171 Usu 172 Usb 173 Ust Key Natural and Stable Natural and Unstable Synthetic and can be formed by neutron bombardment Synthetic and cannot be formed by neutron bombardment Undiscovered and theorized to be in the island of stability Undiscovered and may theoretically exist

Robo37 (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I like that one. However, I think we need more comment from the regulars here before it can go in the article. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

We once listed the suborbitals, as in this table, but removed them as inaccurate.

We don't know where the Island is and there is no reason to make a change at 137. So I would oppose both tables. — kwami (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hm, perhaps we could change "Undiscovered and in the island of stability" to "Undiscovered and theorized to be in the island of stability"? Robo37 (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not like that. I agree, on reflection, with kwami. Combine those two sections as "Undiscovered". There is too much specuation on this topic. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, if we're going to list by orbital, helium would need to be on the left. — kwami (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Improved Table 3

You could go by the Chinese version of this article with Buu-Buo listed as (nonexistent), but that seems a bit weird. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

We also lack a good source that things would end at Bun. The EB seems to have been the source of these numbers. Under "Transuranium element", the 2010 edition of the EB has a section "End of the periodic table". It reads,

At some point the stability of the orbital electrons in the ordinary sense must be destroyed as more protons are added to the nucleus. There is, therefore, a critical atomic number, or range of atomic numbers, which represents the end of the periodic table. This end, it should be noted, is separate, at least philosophically, from the question of stability of the nucleus itself; i.e., nuclear stability is not the same as stability of the electron shells. The maximum atomic number, according to current theories, lies somewhere between 170 and 210. However, in a practical sense, the end of the periodic table will come much earlier than this because of nuclear instability (perhaps at or before Z = 120).

So they would appear to be saying something very different: the table would extend to somewhere around 170–210 if those elements exist at all (that is, anything above could only be ionic, and therefore not tablable), but they may not exist much beyond 120 to even test the idea. (In the same article they speculate that the island of stability might lie around Z = 114 and N = 184 (the heaviest isotope so far synthesized is short by 9n).

Now, that was written by Glenn T. Seaborg, but probably several years ago. The table dates from 2006; the article suggests that elements up to 112 had been synthesized at the time. He also writes,

Not every element of this new series ['superactinoids', Z ≈ 122–153] would correspond to an actinoid (or lanthanoid) element on a one-to-one basis, and prediction of the chemistry of the members of the series is a complex problem. The difficulty arises partly because of uncertainty of the exact point at which the energetically similar 5g and 6f orbitals begin to fill and partly because calculations indicate that the 8p and 7d orbitals may be very close in energy to the 5g and 6f orbitals. These orbitals may all be filled, then, in a commingling fashion, resulting in a series of elements that show multiple, barely distinguishable oxidation states. The electronic basis for the periodicity shown in the Figure would then no longer be present.

— kwami (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the island of stability, I just went by the information on Unbihexium, whereas it says "It is of interest because of its location at the peak of the hypothesized island of stability." Robo37 (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Improved table? 3

Extended Periodic Table (Superheavy elements may not follow the order of this table)              s1 s2 p1 p2 p3 p4 p5 p6 1 1 H 2 He 2 3 Li 4 Be 5 B 6 C 7 N 8 O 9 F 10 Ne 3 11 Na 12 Mg d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9 d10 13 Al 14 Si 15 P 16 S 17 Cl 18 Ar 4 19 K 20 Ca 21 Sc 22 Ti 23 V 24 Cr 25 Mn 26 Fe 27 Co 28 Ni 29 Cu 30 Zn 31 Ga 32 Ge 33 As 34 Se 35 Br 36 Kr 5 37 Rb 38 Sr f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6 f7 f8 f9 f10 f11 f12 f13 f14 39 Y 40 Zr 41 Nb 42 Mo 43 Tc 44 Ru 45 Rh 46 Pd 47 Ag 48 Cd 49 In 50 Sn 51 Sb 52 Te 53 I 54 Xe 6 55 Cs 56 Ba 57 La 58 Ce 59 Pr 60 Nd 61 Pm 62 Sm 63 Eu 64 Gd 65 Tb 66 Dy 67 Ho 68 Er 69 Tm 70 Yb 71 Lu 72 Hf 73 Ta 74 W 75 Re 76 Os 77 Ir 78 Pt 79 Au 80 Hg 81 Tl 82 Pb 83 Bi 84 Po 85 At 86 Rn 7 87 Fr 88 Ra g1 g2 g3 g4 g5 g6 g7 g8 g9 g10 g11 g12 g13 g14 g15 g16 g17 g18 89 Ac 90 Th 91 Pa 92 U 93 Np 94 Pu 95 Am 96 Cm 97 Bk 98 Cf 99 Es 100 Fm 101 Md 102 No 103 Lr 104 Rf 105 Db 106 Sg 107 Bh 108 Hs 109 Mt 110 Ds 111 Rg 112 Cn 113 Uut 114 Uuq 115 Uup 116 Uuh 117 Uus 118 Uuo 8 119 Uue 120 Ubn 121 Ubu 122 Ubb 123 Ubt 124 Ubq 125 Ubp 126 Ubh 127 Ubs 128 Ubo 129 Ube 130 Utn 131 Utu 132 Utb 133 Utt 134 Utq 135 Utp 136 Uth 137 Uts 138 Uto 139 Ute 140 Uqn 141 Uqu 142 Uqb 143 Uqt 144 Uqq 145 Uqp 146 Uqh 147 Uqs 148 Uqo 149 Uqe 150 Upn 151 Upu 152 Upb 153 Upt 154 Upq 155 Upp 156 Uph 157 Ups 158 Upo 159 Upe 160 Uhn 161 Uhu 162 Uhb 163 Uht 164 Uhq 165 Uhp 166 Uhh 167 Uhs 168 Uho 9 169 Uhe 170 Usn 171 Usu 172 Usb 173 Ust 174 Usq 175 Usp 176 Ush 177 Uss 178 Uso 179 Use 180 Uon 181 Uou 182 Uob 183 Uot 184 Uoq 185 Uop 186 Uoh 187 Uos 188 Uoo 189 Uoe 190 Uen 191 Ueu 192 Ueb 193 Uet 194 Ueq 195 Uep 196 Ueh 197 Ues 198 Ueo 199 Uee 200 Bnn 201 Bnu 202 Bnb 203 Bnt 204 Bnq 205 Bnp 206 Bnh 207 Bns 208 Bno 209 Bne 210 Bun 211 Buu 212 Bub 213 But 214 Buq 215 Bup 216 Buh 217 Bus 218 Buo Natural and Stable Natural and Unstable Synthetic Undiscovered Undiscovered and can theoretically exist, but considered practically impossible to Undiscovered and can only theoretically exist as an ion Undiscovered and cannot theoretically exist

Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Compact extended periodic table?

Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Fictional elements

does anyone else think that a small section mentioning fictional elements with atomic numbers in this range would be permissible or a good idea? I dont even know if there are any significant mentions outside of star trek and comics, but if, say, greg bear mentions one, thats somewhat notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No. this is about science, not fiction. Keep them on star trek articles. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That information belongs in List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles, not here. In the particular case of fictional elements mentioned on Star Trek, they should also be added to List of Star Trek materials, but again, not here. Guy Macon (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

g-block

Why do all blocks have their own articles, but not the g-block? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Because there is nothing much to say that is not already said here. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

So it was made a redirect to Extended periodic table. --3.14159265358pi (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The elemental limit: z=173

The periodic table will end at $z=173$. Here's what it would look like:

Extended content

End of Periodic Table 1: Extended Periodic Table, Colored by Description (Superheavy elements may not exist, and may not follow the order of this table even if they do) 1 1 H 2 He 2 3 Li 4 Be 5 B 6 C 7 N 8 O 9 F 10 Ne 3 11 Na 12 Mg 13 Al 14 Si 15 P 16 S 17 Cl 18 Ar 4 19 K 20 Ca 21 Sc 22 Ti 23 V 24 Cr 25 Mn 26 Fe 27 Co 28 Ni 29 Cu 30 Zn 31 Ga 32 Ge 33 As 34 Se 35 Br 36 Kr 5 37 Rb 38 Sr 39 Y 40 Zr 41 Nb 42 Mo 43 Tc 44 Ru 45 Rh 46 Pd 47 Ag 48 Cd 49 In 50 Sn 51 Sb 52 Te 53 I 54 Xe 6 55 Cs 56 Ba 57 La 58 Ce 59 Pr 60 Nd 61 Pm 62 Sm 63 Eu 64 Gd 65 Tb 66 Dy 67 Ho 68 Er 69 Tm 70 Yb 71 Lu 72 Hf 73 Ta 74 W 75 Re 76 Os 77 Ir 78 Pt 79 Au 80 Hg 81 Tl 82 Pb 83 Bi 84 Po 85 At 86 Rn 7 87 Fr 88 Ra 89 Ac 90 Th 91 Pa 92 U 93 Np 94 Pu 95 Am 96 Cm 97 Bk 98 Cf 99 Es 100 Fm 101 Md 102 No 103 Lr 104 Rf 105 Db 106 Sg 107 Bh 108 Hs 109 Mt 110 Ds 111 Rg 112 Cn 113 Uut 114 Uuq 115 Uup 116 Uuh 117 Uus 118 Uuo 8 119 Uue 120 Ubn 121 Ubu 122 Ubb 123 Ubt 124 Ubq 125 Ubp 126 Ubh 127 Ubs 128 Ubo 129 Ube 130 Utn 131 Utu 132 Utb 133 Utt 134 Utq 135 Utp 136 Uth 137 Uts 138 Uto 139 Ute 140 Uqn 141 Uqu 142 Uqb 143 Uqt 144 Uqq 145 Uqp 146 Uqh 147 Uqs 148 Uqo 149 Uqe 150 Upn 151 Upu 152 Upb 153 Upt 154 Upq 155 Upp 156 Uph 157 Ups 158 Upo 159 Upe 160 Uhn 161 Uhu 162 Uhb 163 Uht 164 Uhq 165 Uhp 166 Uhh 167 Uhs 168 Uho 9 169 Uhe 170 Usn 171 Usu 172 Usb 173 Ust Key: Background color Description df12ac Elements with stable isotopes. c83dc0 Naturally occurring elements without stable isotopes. b1fcdd Synthetic elements. cff377 Uniscovered elements that can exist as a neutral atom. ff7700 Undiscovered elements that can only exist as an ion. --3.14159265358pi (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Ref? — kwami (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC) All heavier elements than Ust (the heaviest element listed on the table) would not exist. And, the answer to your question is: I copied the table off the article, self-recoloring it. I used the colors df12ac, c83dc0, b1fcdd, cff377, and ff7700, and deleted the key template. I added my own key to show what each color means. It was therefore from the article Extended periodic table and from my own work. --3.14159265358pi (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC) And here's another table like this one but with a complete period 9: End of Periodic Table 2: Extended Periodic Table, Colored by Description, with complete Period 9 (Superheavy elements may not exist, and may not follow the order of this table even if they do) 1 1 H 2 He 2 3 Li 4 Be 5 B 6 C 7 N 8 O 9 F 10 Ne 3 11 Na 12 Mg 13 Al 14 Si 15 P 16 S 17 Cl 18 Ar 4 19 K 20 Ca 21 Sc 22 Ti 23 V 24 Cr 25 Mn 26 Fe 27 Co 28 Ni 29 Cu 30 Zn 31 Ga 32 Ge 33 As 34 Se 35 Br 36 Kr 5 37 Rb 38 Sr 39 Y 40 Zr 41 Nb 42 Mo 43 Tc 44 Ru 45 Rh 46 Pd 47 Ag 48 Cd 49 In 50 Sn 51 Sb 52 Te 53 I 54 Xe 6 55 Cs 56 Ba 57 La 58 Ce 59 Pr 60 Nd 61 Pm 62 Sm 63 Eu 64 Gd 65 Tb 66 Dy 67 Ho 68 Er 69 Tm 70 Yb 71 Lu 72 Hf 73 Ta 74 W 75 Re 76 Os 77 Ir 78 Pt 79 Au 80 Hg 81 Tl 82 Pb 83 Bi 84 Po 85 At 86 Rn 7 87 Fr 88 Ra 89 Ac 90 Th 91 Pa 92 U 93 Np 94 Pu 95 Am 96 Cm 97 Bk 98 Cf 99 Es 100 Fm 101 Md 102 No 103 Lr 104 Rf 105 Db 106 Sg 107 Bh 108 Hs 109 Mt 110 Ds 111 Rg 112 Cn 113 Uut 114 Uuq 115 Uup 116 Uuh 117 Uus 118 Uuo 8 119 Uue 120 Ubn 121 Ubu 122 Ubb 123 Ubt 124 Ubq 125 Ubp 126 Ubh 127 Ubs 128 Ubo 129 Ube 130 Utn 131 Utu 132 Utb 133 Utt 134 Utq 135 Utp 136 Uth 137 Uts 138 Uto 139 Ute 140 Uqn 141 Uqu 142 Uqb 143 Uqt 144 Uqq 145 Uqp 146 Uqh 147 Uqs 148 Uqo 149 Uqe 150 Upn 151 Upu 152 Upb 153 Upt 154 Upq 155 Upp 156 Uph 157 Ups 158 Upo 159 Upe 160 Uhn 161 Uhu 162 Uhb 163 Uht 164 Uhq 165 Uhp 166 Uhh 167 Uhs 168 Uho 9 169 Uhe 170 Usn 171 Usu 172 Usb 173 Ust 174 Usq 175 Usp 176 Ush 177 Uss 178 Uso 179 Use 180 Uon 181 Uou 182 Uob 183 Uot 184 Uoq 185 Uop 186 Uoh 187 Uos 188 Uoo 189 Uoe 190 Uen 191 Ueu 192 Ueb 193 Uet 194 Ueq 195 Uep 196 Ueh 197 Ues 198 Ueo 199 Uee 200 Bnn 201 Bnu 202 Bnb 203 Bnt 204 Bnq 205 Bnp 206 Bnh 207 Bns 208 Bno 209 Bne 210 Bun 211 Buu 212 Bub 213 But 214 Buq 215 Bup 216 Buh 217 Bus 218 Buo Key: Background color Description df12ac Elements with stable isotopes. c83dc0 Naturally occurring elements without stable isotopes. b1fcdd Synthetic elements. cff377 Uniscovered elements that can exist as a neutral atom. ff7700 Undiscovered elements that can only exist as an ion. aaaaaa Undiscovered elements that are impossible. The color aaaaaa was used to show elements that would be impossible. --3.14159265358pi (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Neutral atoms can exist until Z=173, not only 137. And I don't see the sense in listing impossible elements. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Well, I can prove element 174 would have nucleons faster than light. Untrioctium's electrons would travel faster than light, and thus can only exist as an ion. Untriseptium would have electrons traveling at near the speed of light, and thus can exist as a neutral atom. Unsepttrium would also have electrons faster than light, but nucleons traveling at a velocity near the speed of light, and thus can only exist as an ion. Unseptquadium's nucleons would travel faster than light, and thus would not exist at all. And by the way, "and thus would not exist at all" in that last sentence is what I refer to as "impossible" in that last periodic table key. --3.14159265358pi (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC) And here's a similar Periodic table: End of Periodic Table 3: Extended Periodic Table, Colored by Description, with complete Period 9 and extra descriptions (Superheavy elements may not exist, and may not follow the order of this table even if they do) 1 1 H 2 He 2 3 Li 4 Be 5 B 6 C 7 N 8 O 9 F 10 Ne 3 11 Na 12 Mg 13 Al 14 Si 15 P 16 S 17 Cl 18 Ar 4 19 K 20 Ca 21 Sc 22 Ti 23 V 24 Cr 25 Mn 26 Fe 27 Co 28 Ni 29 Cu 30 Zn 31 Ga 32 Ge 33 As 34 Se 35 Br 36 Kr 5 37 Rb 38 Sr 39 Y 40 Zr 41 Nb 42 Mo 43 Tc 44 Ru 45 Rh 46 Pd 47 Ag 48 Cd 49 In 50 Sn 51 Sb 52 Te 53 I 54 Xe 6 55 Cs 56 Ba 57 La 58 Ce 59 Pr 60 Nd 61 Pm 62 Sm 63 Eu 64 Gd 65 Tb 66 Dy 67 Ho 68 Er 69 Tm 70 Yb 71 Lu 72 Hf 73 Ta 74 W 75 Re 76 Os 77 Ir 78 Pt 79 Au 80 Hg 81 Tl 82 Pb 83 Bi 84 Po 85 At 86 Rn 7 87 Fr 88 Ra 89 Ac 90 Th 91 Pa 92 U 93 Np 94 Pu 95 Am 96 Cm 97 Bk 98 Cf 99 Es 100 Fm 101 Md 102 No 103 Lr 104 Rf 105 Db 106 Sg 107 Bh 108 Hs 109 Mt 110 Ds 111 Rg 112 Cn 113 Uut 114 Uuq 115 Uup 116 Uuh 117 Uus 118 Uuo 8 119 Uue 120 Ubn 121 Ubu 122 Ubb 123 Ubt 124 Ubq 125 Ubp 126 Ubh 127 Ubs 128 Ubo 129 Ube 130 Utn 131 Utu 132 Utb 133 Utt 134 Utq 135 Utp 136 Uth 137 Uts 138 Uto 139 Ute 140 Uqn 141 Uqu 142 Uqb 143 Uqt 144 Uqq 145 Uqp 146 Uqh 147 Uqs 148 Uqo 149 Uqe 150 Upn 151 Upu 152 Upb 153 Upt 154 Upq 155 Upp 156 Uph 157 Ups 158 Upo 159 Upe 160 Uhn 161 Uhu 162 Uhb 163 Uht 164 Uhq 165 Uhp 166 Uhh 167 Uhs 168 Uho 9 169 Uhe 170 Usn 171 Usu 172 Usb 173 Ust 174 Usq 175 Usp 176 Ush 177 Uss 178 Uso 179 Use 180 Uon 181 Uou 182 Uob 183 Uot 184 Uoq 185 Uop 186 Uoh 187 Uos 188 Uoo 189 Uoe 190 Uen 191 Ueu 192 Ueb 193 Uet 194 Ueq 195 Uep 196 Ueh 197 Ues 198 Ueo 199 Uee 200 Bnn 201 Bnu 202 Bnb 203 Bnt 204 Bnq 205 Bnp 206 Bnh 207 Bns 208 Bno 209 Bne 210 Bun 211 Buu 212 Bub 213 But 214 Buq 215 Bup 216 Buh 217 Bus 218 Buo Key: Background color Description df12ac Elements with stable isotopes. c83dc0 Naturally occurring elements without stable isotopes. a4fd9e Synthetic elements that can be formed via neutron capture. b1fcdd Synthetic elements which can't be formed via neutron capture. b3fcfa Synthetic elements in the island of stability. e4dda8 Undiscovered elements in the island of stability. cff377 Undiscovered elements outside the island of stability that can exist as a neutral atom. ff7700 Undiscovered elements that can only exist as an ion. aaaaaa Undiscovered elements that are impossible.

The "synthetic element" group is divided into three parts: those that can be formed via neutron capture, colored a4fd9e, those which cannot (b1fcdd), and those in the island of stability (b3fcfa). Undiscovered elements that can exist as a neutral atom are separated into two groups: those in the island of stability, in e4dda8, and those outside the island of stability (cff377). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3.14159265358pi (talk • contribs) 15:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The fourth and fifth colors in the key are b1fcdd and b3fcfa. --3.14159265358pi (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I got made up names and symbols for elements 113–218, take a look! BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 23:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice try, but the suggested name for element 116 is moscovium (Mc). Any refs? --3.14159265358pi Have a discussion here 23:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

And the symbol for copernicium is Cn, not Cp. --3.14159265358pi Have a discussion here 23:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

And finally, D is the symbol for deuterium. --3.14159265358pi Have a discussion here 23:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the article, livermorium (Lv) is a suggested name for element 116 while I name element 118 moscon (Ms). The reason I don't use symbol Cn for copernicium is because this symbol is already used for element 139 (canadium) since the symbols Ca (calcium), Cd (cadmium), and Cm (curium) already used, thus Cp seems to be a better symbol for copernicium. In fact, Cp was originally the symbol for copernicium until it changed to Cn, why? For davyum (element 181), I changed the symbol to Dv since D is already used for deuterium, which is an isotope of hydrogen. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 22:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

There is an awful lot of WP:MADEUP stuff here. We should confine ourselves to describing the verifiable facts which have already been announced in scientific literature. Consider: I could suggest that element 164 be named "redrosium", but no scientist in the world is going to listen to me unless I am the first to synthesise element 164, write up a paper describing exactly how I managed it, have it published in a reputable journal, have the result independently confirmed, and get IUPAC ratification. It's just not going to happen. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "Canadium". Copernicium is 'Cn' because 'Cp' is already used for cassiopeium and cyclopentadienyl. — kwami (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Time to face reality

The problem with the Extended periodic Table is the same as with traditional Periodic table: It ignores quantum mechanics and therefore inconsistent. Since s, p, d, f and g-blocks of the periodic system correspond to quantum number l=0,1,2,3 and 4, placing them in order such as in that periodic table 0,4,3,2,1 is mathematically repugnant. Therefore, all layouts where s-block is not followed by p-block are subjective and do not reflect quantum reality. Such periodic table layouts will be inevitably replaced in the future by Janet's LSPT-like layouts, just as geocentric cosmological model, that persisted for about 1900 years, was replaced by heliocentric model.Drova (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

So long as published periodic tables begin periods with s-block and end them with p-block, we will continue to follow suit. Wikipedia is not the place to propose novel ideas. Should reputable physics or chemistry journals radically change the accepted way that periodic tables are laid out, we may follow their lead. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The table is meant to reflect chemistry, not physics. — kwami (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The traditional layout, that breaks sequence of the elements between p and s blocks was first introduced by Alfred Werner in 1905 and was found objectionable by most chemists of that time. (See J.W. van Spronsen "The Periodic System of Chemical Elements. A history of the First Hundred Years", 1969). It is especially inconvenient for the introduction of newly discovered elements, which have to be fitted between s and the rest of the blocks. Ironically, it was revived in 1960's by Seaborg, about sixty years after it was first introduced. Hundreds of periodic table layouts were published since 1869. Only few of them are consistent with both chemistry and physics and also amenable to mathematics. Coincidentally, they also allow simple and logical addition of newly discovered elements.Drova (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem I have with the set of graphical motivations for the now traditional periodic table and most of its approximately 1000 incarnations is that they are a historically cumulated set- reflecting different eras with different understandings of the chemical and physical phenomena whose capture is being attempted. Is hydrogen a halide (H- hydride) or an alkali metal (electronic configuration s1)? Is helium a noble gas (combinatory behavior) or an alkaline earth (electronic s2 configuration)? In depicting the periodic system one has to have some sort of hierarchical plan- which motivations are primary, which secondary, and so on? The quantum mechanics-first ordering gives, ideally, something like the Janet Left-Step table. The traditional table is far too dependent on 'surface' properties that meant so much to 19th century chemistry. These properties are no less real than the quantum mechanical ones, and both deep and surface levels have their own individual inconsistencies (as for example in the Aufbau anomalies of chromium, copper and so on). For me this indicates a complex hierarchical situation, not helped by the fact that quantum mechanics isn't the only structurally significant effect here (others including differential shielding of different values of l, role of relativity, etc.). Given all this, and the numbers of different forces helping to shape the periodic system's member elements and their properties, it is claimed by some that there cannot be any 'best' general depiction- there are simply too many ways to prioritize the graphical representation's structural motifs, in a small number of available dimensions (spatial, symbolic, etc.). I'm actually not sure that this is true, entirely. It may be that the periodic system's motivations change their prioritization in some regular fashion as one builds it up- this might reflect some kind of fractal organization that is currently not clear to investigators. For example Fibonacci numbers, taken AS atomic numbers are both nonrandomly and nonarbitrarily placed within the system/table. Up to 89, the last Fib number within known elements, they map, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, to the leftmost positions within orbital half-rows. In addition, ALL the odd Fib numbers within this set map to the first half-row's leftmost position, and ALL the even Fib numbers map to the second half-row's leftmost position. Look for yourself- don't take it on faith. Related Lucas numbers map to RIGHTMOST positions within orbital half-rows, but less perfectly, with exceptions starting with 29, copper, and 47 silver. Both these 'fix' their table-positional error by having anomalous electronic configurations that do fit the half-row mapping, in terms of half- or completely filled orbitals. 76, osmium, behaves often as if it were xenon, a noble gas with a filled orbital. Some might say that such facts amount to a conspiracy- though not necessarily implying deliberation or design. So there is plenty of room for discovery with regard to finding out what makes the periodic system tick. By no means is it a 'done deal' even in terms of the connectivities of known elements. 67.81.236.32 (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)