Talk:Primordial element

why stub instead merge

copying from Talk:Classical_element.

Even while the current article is not developed very well, they are different subjects of study and they should be separated. I personally like how short and clean the primordial elements article is right now, but I can understand why the merging is suggested: it is poor and classical elements is way more complete while including everything treated so far in the first one. But my point is primordial should be classified as stub and get a complete different point of view from the Greek, although should be using Greek as one of basic studies, while Greek is the classical because it is the basis of our current Occidental society. They're just different subjects and should be threaten separately.

In fact, I believe the biggest difference is that primordial is a subject of stories and speculation, mostly without any proofs, and using mostly logic. It can even go as far and deep as alchemy attempt to study subjects of matter. While classical should be, as it is the article right now, observations and studies on cultures and communities, through history and written word.

--caue 21:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge--"primordial" is confusing (it makes me think of soup) and I have never heard this distinction before. If you take a good look at the Greeks, they had everything Caue thinks is primordial: stories and speculation, little empirical proof, matter theory. Read up on Empedocles (you have to go past wikipedia though).Maestlin 08:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If primordial is confusing, then that should explained over primordial article. I agree, after some more reading on the classical article, that they do have stories and speculation. But it's all about the classical. I can just tell you this: I know there's much more subject to primordial than there is to classical, but since it's nothing written it could even be out of an encyclopedia scope. I just wish to remember that wikipedia isn't just any encyclopedia and it does bring openning to speculations as long as there is a community big enough to support it. And, if nobody can come up with some particular study on primordial elements then maybe it should be merged after all. But, if I had the time, I would come up with studies on that, because I couldn't be more sure about the fact that there are differences, because it is a completly different name and the subject starts on the name. Just by studying the name origins it would be possible to bring two very distinct articles.

--caue 22:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Classical elements article seems to me to be intended as almost a grab-bag. It includes the "elements" and parallel concepts in several cultures, so it can't mean "classical Greece." If you feel there is a compelling reason to keep a separate article, there might be. But if "primordial elements" is going to be a chemistry article...then maybe the other "elements" need a new article of their own. You seem to have a concept in mind, so you could come up with a better name than I could. Maestlin 20:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that was nice approach. I think it shouldn't be chemestry article, rather be philosphy or something. About writing a new article for each element, if that's what you meant, it's not a bad idea at all, but I won't start it. I don't know what you meant with "elements" neither what is in need of a new name, but i'd love to try to find a name for whatever you think we should come up with one. :P

--Caue (T | C)

07:03, Sunday March 26 2006 (UTC)

Field-dependent meaning?

I'm coming at this from an astrophysicist's point of view, and to me -- thinking strictly in the scientific context -- the article's confusing ... suggesting a difference between fields in what "primordial" means. I'm used to thinking of "primordial elements" being strictly those coming out of Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) ... so thats H, D, the stable isotopes of He and Li, and Be-7. Everything else is not "primordial" (and actually a great deal of the Li in existance now must be of non-BBN origin). If in geochemistry "primordial" means "present in the Earth from the time of its formation", then there's a genuine difference in the meaning of the term as used in different fields, and it may take some interdisciplinary attention to hammer this out satisfactorily.

It sounds like at least the distinction between "classical" and "primordial" that is mentioned above is one from philosophy, and that's an entirely different bailiwick. BSVulturis 15:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a miss naming. In geo-chemistry and in nuclear physics, the correct naming is primordial isotop or primordial nuclid. This means an isotop which exists before the earth was made up and still exists today due to its high half-life. Typically a limit of at least 10^8 years for the half-life of such an isotop is set. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.70.14.208 (talk) 10:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with primordial nuclide

I don't really think this article has any information that isn't in primordial nuclide, and isn't nearly as clear. Probably this article should just be deleted, but if you can see any info that can be saved, please comment after looking at the other. S B H arris 04:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict with the Plutonium article

This article says primordial elements are those "whose half-life must be greater than about 100 million years." However, Pu-244 has a half-life of 80 million years and the Plutonium article states that Pu-244 is primordial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.195.62 (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's because this article is wrong. In practice, it's 80 million, since Pu-244 is the shortest lived one we've found. Unless somebody objects in the next week, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and carry out the merge. S B H arris 20:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life of 100 million years

As this is obviously much less than the age of the Earth, one can assume that the rate of decay beyond this timeframe is still insufficient to eliminate all traces of the isotope by the present day, but this is unclear to me. Is there anyone who can add a little more explanation on how the 100 million year figure was derived? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.134.4.226 (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hard and fast time cutoff. It just so happens that we've found some Pu-244 with half life 80 million years, but not yet any of the nuclide with the next shortest half-life, niobium-92, with a half life of 37 million years. So the breakpoint between primorial and non-primordial nuclides is between these two isotopes (it may change as detection equipment becomes better). It's unlikely we'll discover some unknown nuclide with a half-life between these, as all the nucldes anywhere close to the known elements have been synthesized and "accounted for" (characterized) already, and so there's no place for a new one that is THIS stable (> 37 million years) to hide. S B H arris 00:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This stub has now been deleted and redirected to Primordial nuclide.

Note that there was no content worth moving. No licensing issues are involved. I do not see anything on this TALK page worth saving, either, but will leave it for the moment. Feel free to move any section you think needs addressing, to Primordial nuclide. S B H arris 00:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]