User talk:Double sharp/Unbiquadium

R8R comments

• Unbiquadium has attracted historical attention -- why historical?

I don't understand your question. Is it the use of the word historical or is the context unclear? ComplexRational (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I understand the word historical here as a relation to the past: "Unbiquadium attracted attention in the past (but does not any more)". If that's what you meant, why? If you meant something else, it's better to rephrase this.--R8R (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• unbiquadium is expected to bear some resemblance to its lighter congeners neodymium and uranium -- it just occurred to me that Nd and U are very different chemically: U is mostly hexavalent while Nd is trivalent; U forms complex anions of importance, Nd does not; etc. So this raised my eyebrows. Also, again, you don't say anything about the possible similarities between 124 and Nd in the body of the article.--R8R (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Removed all mentions of Nd and stated 124 as a possible congener of U. ComplexRational (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• relativistic effects may affect its chemistry and cause properties unknown in any element to emerge -- like what? You don't seem to have said a word about this in the body

The section on chemical properties mentions difficulty in predictions (if relativity was not a factor, we could extrapolate ad infinitum as everything would follow a predictable pattern), and if they were unknown in any other element, what basis would he have to make comparisions? If the language is unclear, feel free to correct it yourself to make it consistent with the body. ComplexRational (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I remember seeing once a notion that even if there were no relativistic effects, Aufbau would be wrecked by the eighth period anyway. I don't remember why, though :(

The thing is that while that's technically possible to conclude from those words, it does take some effort from you to do so, and you are not supposed to make your own conclusions about anything (but as I'll mention later, you are not as tightly bound when it comes to choosing from what information to represent). So you'll be better off saying that predictions are going to be hard instead; that's what you actually say in the body.

I've tried to change the information as you put it but then my thoughts run wild as it often happens and I couldn't do it in a short time. I'd rather like to try to finish the round of responses in one go for now if that's okay with you.--R8R (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Don't hesitate to experiment with your thoughts. ComplexRational (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

(Returning to this very late): yes, it occurs to me that 50 elements should be enough that 8s would be drowned by the end of the period even without relativistic effects. Still haven't found any sources, though. Double sharp (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• lighter congeners neodymium and uranium -- very doubtful suggestion. Both Nd and U are (n-2)f⁴ns². Even according to Aufbau, 124 wouldn't be that; it would be (n-3)g⁴ns². We wouldn't call S a light congener of Cr or even Mo a light congener of Nd, right? And Aufbau is apparently going to be wrecked at all, so do you really think that Nd and U are actually congeners of 124?

The breakdown of Aufbau is agreed upon, yes, though many of the authors propose 124 as a congener. I'm not entirely sure on what basis, but that was considered when predicting chemical properties and natural occurrence, and I haven't found anything in clear opposition to these claims. Interestingly, these sources refer to 124 as eka-U and 126 as eka-Pu, but make no mention of 134 as eka-No or 144 as eka-U (outside the PT diagrams in the more generic articles), so what gives?

You don't have to say something just because somebody said it. That's where your editorial judgment comes in play. First of all, information you can find in otherwise reliable sources may be wrong and you shouldn't represent that (unless the very fact that somebody was wrong about this is important). That's in Wikipedia rules somewhere, I have seen it. In this particular case, though, I'd rather recommend explaining that U is a sort of congener of 124 and some people referred to it as such even though not quite because they, strictly speaking, aren't, in a note.

• You don't need to link GANIL twice. In general, I suggest you use User:Ucucha/duplinks (if you plan to work on an article for a period of time, then it may be useful to suspend the usage until you're done actively changing the text).

 Done I will check for other links later. ComplexRational (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Come to think about it, "GANIL" at the first mention leaves a reader somewhat puzzled. I usually refer to universities/facilities by their location, so that would be "GANIL (Grand Accélérateur National d'Ions Lourds; English: whatever that is in English) in Caen, Normandy, France." It doesn't hurt us to add this as we're not a paper encyclopedia for whom the word count is very important. Also, I use a three-level introduction of a location because I presume that when a reader from the country that is being mentioned reads this, they want want to know where that place in their country is; we can immediately answer that question. (I remember wondering where Dubna (where many elements were created) was until I learned it was actually just over a hundred kilometers north from Moscow, so I presume other people have these questions, too.)--R8R (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Future work -- this is a somewhat misleading title. I expected mentions of how someone plans experiments on 124 but nothing is there. Give this a thought: what in all of this section qualifies suitable under the History header in an article on element 124?

I agree that the title could be misleading. I temporarily moved it under predicted properties and the title heading Possible methods of synthesis, but if you have a better proposal, feel free to suggest it. ComplexRational (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC) (edited 21:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC))

This seems pretty self-descriptive, so I'd say this title can stay. However, I think this doesn't really fit under the Properties header, either. Would you agree this would be better off as a standalone section?--R8R (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done ComplexRational (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• as the instability of possible evaporation residues -- I admit not having recognized the word "residue" now that it is used as a verb and I went on to google it. Google says that "residue" is exclusively a noun. I've checked Merriam-Webster, the dictionary I use when Google is not sufficient and guess what, they think the same. But that aside, what does the phrase mean? From what I get, "to decrease" would be a synonym to this one. But then, "as the instability decreases" does not fit into the context.

It was intended as a noun, but I rewrote it under the broader term nuclear instability to clarify. ComplexRational (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Aaaaah, I see. I think the former wording was better; it added more information. Maybe try These dynamics are highly speculative, as detection in a laboratory would be hindered by the instability of possible evaporation residues, especially toward spontaneous fission which is of growing importance in this region -- this wording doesn't make me think "residue" could be a verb. Come to think of this, though, how is the predicted nuclear data "speculative" just because it would be difficult to confirm experimentally? Difficulty of confirmation doesn't compromise the data itself.

This particular question remains: why are you calling that data speculative on the basis of that it would be difficult to confirm?--R8R (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• Even so, it will likely be a great challenge to continue past elements 120 or 121 given short predicted half-lives and low predicted cross sections. -- this is really asking to get sourced

 Done ComplexRational (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• has predicted that in one generation -- does it matter? maybe he said that in 1980?

The source is dated 2016, though I am not sure when this prediction was made, and it may indeed be one among many. ComplexRational (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

This is really time-sensitive, so if you can't bind it to any particular period of time, then it becomes worthless and you're better off leaving it out.

 Done Removed. ComplexRational (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• 112-118 this should be an en dash: –

 Done ComplexRational (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• It was suggested -- it is possible to say that when you provide a source, but why not explicitly say who suggested that? It's not near-common knowledge to stay authorless and it's not universally accepted now even in the field so we could pretend is is common knowledge. It then was postulated -- same here. Generally, look for that in the article. One early calculation by P. Moller et al. -- that's one way to do that, though I'd mention what university or facility he works at.

I rewrote part of this and provided credentials when I could find them. For P. Moller, him and his team work at different universities and it isn't clear how I would give credentials here. Maybe I could state the specific work he does in his field? ComplexRational (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that would be good.--R8R (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Sort of still not what I would recommend but I recognize my take can't always be the only right one and I think some variation here is possible.--R8R (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• Tom Cahill -- my general suggestion is to name a person's nationality and occupation on first mention because most people are not likely to know who a person is and that's how the text does not leave them hanging. For instance, Niels Bohr becomes Danish physicist Niels Bohr. So who was Mr. Cahill again? Also, when did his work get released?

 Done ComplexRational (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Using Mendeleev's nomenclature for unnamed and undiscovered elements, unbiquadium should be known as eka-uranium -- that's questionable. I am aware that Mendeleev himself called what would be known as scandium "eka-boron" but Mendeleev had a different vision of the periodic table than we do, and scandium in his table was indeed directly below boron (see File:Mendelejevs_periodiska_system_1871.png if that's confusing). Nobody today would say that 124 would be below uranium, so this whole eka- thing at least seems not to apply and requires explanation, if correct at all.

As I wrote earlier, it may be incorrect (especially considering electron configurations and periodicity), though the authors of the sources do state, directly or indirectly, that 124 is a congener of U and 126 is a congener of Pu. How do you propose to clarify this? ComplexRational (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Did anyone openly call 124 eka-U? If so, say that it has been called eka-U. If not, either avoid this whole eka- thing altogether or say that if 124 is considered by a heavier homolog to U, it could bear the name of eka-U, maybe in a note in you need to. (By the way, if you're not familiar with using notes yet, I definitely recommend familiarizing yourself with the possibility. See Template:Efn for details.)--R8R (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I tried rephrasing this section; I don't think a note is necessary here (unless it really breaks the prose). ComplexRational (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Much better! This wording is just fine.--R8R (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Nevertheless, because of reasons not very well understood yet, there is a slight increased nuclear stability around atomic numbers 110–114, which leads to the appearance of what is known in nuclear physics as the "island of stability". This concept, proposed by University of California professor Glenn Seaborg, explains why superheavy elements last longer than predicted. First, reasons is linked to Magic number (physics). The concept is not the reasons why some superheavy elements are more stable; it is merely a partial description of the shell structure of the atomic nucleus. The reasons would be the shell structure (not limited to the magic numbers) and the fact that closed nuclear shells are more stable. (Also, come to think of that, why are numbers closed to the magic ones gain the extra stability? I thought that the opposite was correct; for example, Be-8 essentially doesn't exist because it immediately decay into two extremely stable alpha particles.) Second, again, the concept of the island of stability does not explain why superheavy elements last longer. There is reasoning for that but it is not a part of the concept.

I'm still pondering how to handle this. What I understand (though I'm unsure how to include without going too far off topic) is this (I hope this at least partially answers your questions):

1. The liquid drop model predicts that nuclei beyond a certain Z (I think I read 104 somewhere) would undergo spontaneous fission in very short lifetimes and essentially not exist if not for the island of stability and shell effects. The prediction from Koura (ref 18) makes some mention of that and shows how closed shells enhance stability regardless of the "fissility line."
2. Experimental evidence indicates that there is a gradual increase in stability up to a magic number, and then a quick drop-off immediately beyond a closed shell. This is a consequence of a large energy gap between the closed shell and any additional nucleons that are added, resulting in lower binding energy and increased susceptibility to decay (e.g. in ⁸Be (= ⁴He + α); ¹⁰⁴Te (= ¹⁰⁰Sn + α); ²¹²Po (= ²⁰⁸Pb + α). However, not all shells are created equal, and overall binding energy that is determined by factors other than shells also plays a role in stability. ComplexRational (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

P.S. This would then demand a rewrite of similar sections in all SHE-related articles. (21:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC))

First of all, thanks for the response; this was educational.

Second, for the rephrasing I have in mind, you can check out the first para in Tennessine#Nuclear stability and isotopes: it does not have any inaccuracies and is quite easy to comprehend. I am not a huge fan of just copying and pasting information throughout articles, though that would still be better than inaccuracies. If you could change the text to your styling, that would be perfect.--R8R (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, no, "This concept, proposed by University of California professor Glenn Seaborg, explains why superheavy elements last longer than predicted" is inaccurate. The concept of the island of stability does not explain why some superheavy nuclei (note the word "nuclei") will be extra stable. It is a mere representation of that fact, nothing more.--R8R (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• will also likely -- "will also probably" or "are likely to"?

 Done "Will also probably" was correct. ComplexRational (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• This renders the identification of many unbiquadium isotopes nearly impossible as detectors cannot register and distinguish half-lives shorter than microseconds. Really? How was the half-life of beryllium-8 measured then? What about the heavier isotopes of hydrogen?

I'm not sure on this; many of the recent sources explain that there is a pileup of decay signals or an inability to pass through the detector in under 1 microsecond, though I suppose the decays of the isotopes you mentioned may be detected differently or leave a single trace that is easier to identify than a buildup of alpha particles in too short a time to separate. ComplexRational (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. This sounds plausible. I definitely recommend adding a footnote about this, since I may not be the only reader who will have this question.--R8R (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

My recommendation holds. The current version of the text is still seemingly at odds with my knowledge. It is bad when a reader has questions an article cannot address.--R8R (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• It is therefore unknown [...] if unbiquadium can exist at all -- this is supposed to be a summary but I don't see how a possibility of that was mentioned in the section by this moment.

Removed for now, there ought to be a better way to summarize this section. ComplexRational (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• It is also predicted to be the fourth member of a new block of valence g-electron atoms, although the position of the g-block to the left of the f-block is speculative[29] and the 5g orbital is not expected to start filling until element 125. In the superactinide series, the Aufbau principle is expected to break down due to relativistic effects, and an overlap of the 5g, 6f, 7d, and 8p orbitals is expected, rendering predictions of chemical and atomic properties of these elements very difficult. -- first of all, I'd definitely swap these sentences. Also, although the g⁴ position is speculative, you start off with saying that as if it were right. Try something like "In the superactinides, the Aufbau principle is expected to break down due to relativistic effects, and an overlap of the 5g, 6f, 7d, and 8p orbitals is expected. Aufbau predicts the configuration of [Og]5g⁴8s², while calculations by XXX show that it's actually going to be [Og]6f³8s²8p¹. This predicted overlap of orbitals renders predictions of chemical and atomic properties of these elements very difficult." You may skip the part on where 5g filling starts because it is not relevant to 124.

 Done though I left in the part on the g-block. ComplexRational (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I still don't understand it. First, you mention how 124 is predicted to have a configuration with no g electrons at all and then, in the very next sentence you say 124 "is also predicted to be the fourth member of a new block of valence g-electron atoms." Why is that sentence of any value at all when it has been contradicted by a sentence before? After five minutes of thinking about it, I got it, you probably mean the same as in "thorium is a part of the f-block" (despite its electron configuration of [Rn]6d²7s²), but then again, this really needs a clarification. (I may be dense at some times, but then again, many readers are also dense.)--R8R (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• from element 125 onwards, the [Og]5g1 configuration is preferred -- why does it matter? We're talking about 124, right? If you think this needs to be mentioned, please do it in a note.

I believe it is relevant in the main text as it provides a comparison of the predicted properties of 124 to other nearby elements and further supports the conjectured difficulty in predictions. ComplexRational (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, you don't need to focus on how predicting superheavies in general is complicated; this is a little out of the scope here. Information on multiple elements would be most appropriate in extended periodic table, for example. I know I sometimes recommend to draw some analogies but here, the analogy is not too tangible: for example, it feels strange to say that [Og]5g¹, as apparently opposed to [Og]6f¹ (!), is analogous to [Rn]5f¹ and [Og]5g¹⁸6f¹8s². Analogies with unrelated elements could be justified if 124 were a one-off fluke, but it is not, so it is really more of a general thing rather than specifically related to this element. That is not to say you can't mention 123 or 119 at all, but you shouldn't do that in the main text, which is supposed to be centered on 124 (again, you can use footnotes). Same for the 144 thing from the next point.--R8R (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Almost there. We don't need to mention the electron configurations of 119⁰ and 123⁴⁺ are not any more relevant than that of 125⁶⁺. You could probably place the left alone config of 124⁵⁺ near that of 124⁰.--R8R (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• This is analogous to the [Rn]5f1 configuration of the U5+ ion, as well as to the [Og]5g186f18s2 configuration of another possible heavier congener of uranium, Uqq5+ (element 144) -- this certainly doesn't matter here. We're supposed to be talking about element 124.

 Not done Again, a comparison of U, 124 (eka-U?), and 144 (also eka-U?). Maybe the comparison is not made sufficiently clearly? Something like this, though, may find a better home in extended periodic table or a subsection in a new article dedicated to predictions on specific elements suggested at WT:ELEM, though I'm leaving it here for now. ComplexRational (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

By now, I haven't been entirely sure whether we need articles on elements 124 and 126, not to mention the rest. I've come to think that the part of an article that actually determines its notability is History. So if 137 were indeed the last element, it would be related to the theory the explained why so, and not the element itself, which sort of would just happen to be at the end. We have an article on the theory of relativity not because it is important but because other people think it is important. Same with properties: they are important only when a number of people finds them important.

For example, let's say, element 130 was expected to have a density of 100 g/cm³, have stable isotopes, and for whatever reason these isotopes seemed possible to be synthesized within years. Even combined, these do not qualify as a justification to have an article on that, but they could attract other people to discuss the element, how it would be synthesized, and how it would be used and that's why we could have the article. (A stable isotope of element 130 would be a theory-changer but even then, it's rather more relevant to the theory.)

I'm currently leaning towards thinking that the report on how these elements were found in the nature, even if false, is notable and that's why we could have the article.--R8R (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: I did some more reworking, both to this and similar occurrences in the 126 draft. Please take another look whenever you are ready. ComplexRational (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for making you wait. Feel free to ping me again when you think it's appropriate.--R8R (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: Finished making all the changes and removed the parts about 125 and 144. Is there anything else delaying the recreation of these articles in mainspace - especially anything in 126 along similar lines that I did not address there? BTW, I too am sorry for the delay. ComplexRational (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a quick note just to let you know that I've seen this message; I'm unable to focus on this now because I have an exam on Monday but I'll try to check your progress on Tuesday, both in this draft and that on 126. By the way, when the two are released, please do so by moving these drafts rather than copying and pasting into the existing redirects (that's what the local guideline advises to do). You may need help from an administrator but I think they'll agree after you have pointed them to the relevant discussion at WT:ELEM.--R8R (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: Sounds good - though what will we do with the history of the old articles? ComplexRational (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

You probably know that Wikipedia has article histories in order to attribute authorship of its articles. Since the old articles are effectively deleted anyway, their histories are probably no longer needed when they are replaced for good. (That's what I think. I suspect contacting an admin is unavoidable, so you may ask them to make sure.)--R8R (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: I addressed the five comments you left and made a note about the detectors. If that is an adequate explanation, feel free to add it to 126 as well. I will need to contact an admin as the target page already exists (preventing me from doing a move myself) - either a history merge will be required or the original page must be deleted to make way for a move. ComplexRational (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to have let you down with 126 yesterday, I promised more than I could actually do, I recognize that, sorry. I won't give any hard promises today but I think I'll be able to finish this and look at 126 today.--R8R (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

One other question: for the less notable elements such as 123, 127, 164, and a few others, what's your opinion on creating a separate article such as undiscovered chemical elements to summarize what we have without creating stubs (per this discussion) that may not fulfill WP:GNG or dumping more content into extended periodic table? ComplexRational (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I rather think not.

If there is not enough notability for an individual element, then for the article on multiple elements must have some shared notability for these elements. Why have an article on 123, 125, and 127, but not on 200 and 300? I doubt there would be enough reasoning for either (though I'm eager to stand corrected).

The other approach would be to present them as a subarticle from extended periodic table (compare aluminium and history of aluminium, the latter being a subarticle of the former). However, just as I think that an article on a series of elements, be that the lanthanides or group 11, couldn't be considered a subarticle of periodic table, a list of the undiscovered elements couldn't be really a subarticle of extended periodic table.

As for dumping that directly into extended periodic table, I think you should clearly see what falls within the scope of the article and what doesn't. You can, for instance, mention that people have tried to create these elements, but you should remember this is an article about representation of the relationship between those future elements, not on the elements themselves, so listing all synthesis attempts is out of scope.

Unlike what I have listed above, making drafts in awaiting of the future notability of these elements is a possibility, but that's unrewarding.--R8R (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: I made a few more edits recently, mainly the addition of another study on the fission properties of ³¹²124. Is anything else missing before we move these into article space? ComplexRational (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick comment to let you know I'll get to this in a few hours.--R8R (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, a force majeure occurred and the plans will have to be postponed until tomorrow. The intention, however, was genuine.--R8R (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'm starting right now. I hope we'll finally get this over with. Sorry for all the previous delays.--R8R (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

So, I find that all my comments have been resolved save for the first one: the phrase "relativistic effects may affect its chemistry and cause properties unknown in any element to emerge" is not dubbed in the body. There are two ways out of this: either get rid of it or elaborate on what those could be. I remember trying to explain this in detail myself but I don't have any idea any more on what I wanted to say. Maybe you could say something like "the relativistic effects may influence the properties of the element greatly, for instance, diverting its electronic configuration significantly from what would be expected per the Aufbau rule" (but preferably, then you should have a second variation from the otherwise expected values influenced by the relativistic effects). Or you could limit the sentence in the lead to "the electronic configuration has been calculated to differ significantly from the one expected from the Aufbau rule due to the relativistic effects," which isn't as exciting but at least fair. Once this has been dealt with, the article may go live.--R8R (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@R8R: I tried to fix it, more along the lines of the second suggestion. At around 13:45 local time (18:45 UTC), i will perform the page moves (for this and 126) if there is nothing else to fix. ComplexRational (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

No, please wait. I'm reading 126 right now; although another emergency occurred, and I'll have to leave home for a couple of hours in a few minutes. Could the moves wait until your evening? I'll surely be done by then.--R8R (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@R8R:OK, I will wait. In the meantime, I'll add that footnote to 126. ComplexRational (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I think this will do. The article is good to go to the main space. I will check your progress on 126 tomorrow, okay? Back at my place, it's about 12:30 AM and my vision is growing blurry. Good night--R8R (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)