Talk:Unbiquadium

[[Category: good articles|Unbiquadium]]

Untitled

The old history of this page prior to its 2019 recreation may be found at Draft:Unbiquadium. Double sharp (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Synthesis

I'm confused. On all the pages about elements they say that Ununoctium is the highest numbered element discovered, yet here it implies that element 124 has been discovered. Is this claim true? --Ferocious Flying Ferrets 02:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused too. Scientists did experiments about the fission of element 124 with the half life longer than 10^-18 seconds to study the stabilities of compound nuclei. I don't know if element 124 actually been discovered. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 21:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it means the nucleus has been synthesized, but not with electrons around it. Riley0143 (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

For a new element to be established, it has to be confirmed by more than one laboratory to be certain. Consider the tetraneutron anomaly also 'discovered' at GANIL.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, shoudln't the article make this a little clearer? I was just as confused when I read it. Btw, is this whole Ubq thing just pathological science? Steinbach (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not. However, the way it's written is misleading. Compound nuclei (CN) with Z = 124 were found at GANIL. A compound nucleus is just a set of nucleons that have not settled into nuclear shells yet, and doesn't count as an isotope (and thus a discovery) unless its half-life is greater than 10⁻¹⁴ s (which gives time for the nuclear shells to form). Double sharp (talk) 07:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. Well, I meant no offense; it just sounded a bit like pathological science to me: a single team eager to make a sensational discovery that noone shares and seems to be unrecognised. Anyway: could you make the text a little clearer and less misleading? Topics like these attract a lot of attention from interested laypeople like me, who don't necessarily know that a compound nucleus doesn't constitute a new element. Steinbach (talk) 08:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Yes check.svg Done Is this better? Double sharp (talk) 08:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, this is much clearer. Thanks a lot! Steinbach (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Compound nucleus

Hello, contrary to Steinbach, I am not satisied with the part on "compound nucleus". Mainly I think there is a lack of references. For example, could you give a reference for "A compound nucleus is a loose combination of nucleons that have not arranged themselves into nuclear shells yet." To me, a coumpound nucleus is a nucleus where all the possible configurations are equiprobable. Another exemple "It has no internal structure and is held together only by the collision forces between the target and projectile nuclei". What are these "collision forces"?

So I added some Template:Citation needed is this part. Thanks in advance to reference this part. Pamputt (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The reference at the end of a group of sentences refers to all those sentences. I have no idea why nobody else seems to; probably they are being cautious. This probably indicates I should reconsider this and just mark the source at the end of every sentence it sources.

Will explain collision forces later... Double sharp (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

And File:Yes check.svg Done. Personally I still feel that it should be OK to just give the source at the end of all the material it sources, but if it increases clarity to do it this way, no problem. Double sharp (talk) 08:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Personnally, I prefer to source each part. It is clearer. Pamputt (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox settings

At the moment, I have set Template:Tl infobox like this:

Physica properties

|physical properties comment=Unknown (And no more data in that subheader)

Main isotopes

No link to Isotopes of unbiquadium (is a redirect)

|isotopes=none -- suppresses tableheader

|isotopes comment=No isotopes predicted -- text shown. Or something better?

The same settings are applied in Template:Tl (E122).

Elements 119 and up have no wikilink to page [[Isotopes of ...]] in the subheader (those are all redirects).

-DePiep (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Re I'd prefer to blank the isotopes section altogether if possible. There are many isotopes of E122 and E124 whose half-lives are predicted, though there are no agreed-upon values and favoring one would constitute a NPOV violation, so I do not support the addition of anything there. That said, I also suggest taking another look at the E119 and E121 infoboxes which also list one predicted value out of many - and perhaps treating them similarly. The other changes look good. ComplexRational (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Will do so for E122, E124. There will be no sectionheader either then. -DePiep (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Nice to add attepts in History section? (use |history comment=) -DePiep (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd rather not. We don't mention unsuccessful searches or incorrect claimed discoveries of other elements such as technetium, rhenium, and astatine in their infoboxes. ComplexRational (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

What? Is someone proposing that? Link please. -DePiep (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Re No one is proposing to rework the other infoboxes. I just mentioned them because the idea to add attempts at synthesis (if I am correctly interpreting your comment above) to infoboxes for 119-126 is not reflected elsewhere and is therefore not really necessary. ComplexRational (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Remove This Page and 126 or add back 125 and 127

Element 119 has a page

Element 120 has a page

Element 121 has a page

Element 122 has a page

Element 123 has no page (Allowed because it has not been synthisized yet)

Element 124 has a page

Element 125 has no page

Element 126 has a page

Element 127 has no page

Either Unbiquadium and Unbiquadium should be removed and be redirected to Extended Periodic Table, or bring back Unbipentium and Unbiseptium because they HAVE been synthisized, because this weird gap in SPECIFICALLY THE ODD NUMBERS does not make sense. NOBODY CARES ABOUT UNBIQUADIUM AND UNBIHEXIUM!!! Unbiquadium would make sense to be in the pages of the Island of Stability and Extended Periodic Table, as well as Unbihexium. So two choices:

• Remove Unbiquadium and Unbihexium

• Bring back Unbipentium and Unbiseptium ZokiZokias (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

To propose deleting this page, use article for deletion or propose deletion. Commenting here will have no effect. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, this subject matter has been discussed extensively and the consensus is that sufficient coverage in reliable sources exists to establish notability 124 and 126, but not for 123, 125, or 127+. Also, notability is not inherited; the fact that a certain element is notable bears no implications (positive or negative) for the notability of neighboring elements. ^Complex/_Rational 04:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

None of the elements past 118 have been synthesised. The difference is whether their synthesis has been tried or not. Double sharp (talk) 09:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Also regarding "this weird gap in SPECIFICALLY THE ODD NUMBERS does not make sense", these gaps have a physical cause, see Even_and_odd_atomic_nuclei. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)