This is an archive of past discussions about Extended periodic table. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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)
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)
The periodic table will end at . 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
Source 5 from the EB
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)
valid discussion even if unknowable
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)
To name some elements
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 planetErin)
126--zeusium(Zs)(from Zeus)
127--newtonium(Nw)(from Newton) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 頗想鈮 (talk • contribs) 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)
P.S. on eka-superactinides: Fricke says that 6g, 7f, and 8d are being filled by E184, and later 6h, 10s, and 10p1/2 may fill too. If so, one would expect there to be 68 elements in this series, ending at E240. But given the lack of calculations reaching up to that area (and how do you suppose we would synthesize E240 anyway?), we must take this speculation with several moles of salt. Double sharp (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
From ununseptium (and the hypothetical elements would experience this effect even more strongly): "The spin–orbit interaction is especially strong for the superheavy elements because their electrons move faster—at velocities comparable to the speed of light—than those in lighter atoms. In ununseptium atoms, this lowers the 7s and the 7p electron energy levels, stabilizing the corresponding electrons, although two of the 7p electron energy levels are more stabilized than the other four. The stabilization of the 7s electrons is called the inert pair effect; the effect that separates the 7p subshell into the more-stabilized and the less-stabilized parts is called subshell splitting. Computational chemists understand the split as a change of the second (azimuthal) quantum number l from 1 to 1/2 and 3/2 for the more-stabilized and less-stabilized parts of the 7p subshell, respectively." This is where the names "p1/2" and "p3/2" come from: the subscript denotes the azimuthal quantum number of the orbital. Double sharp (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I understand this as meaning that the "p1/2" subshell is actually a new kind of orbital halfway between s and p and should be called "s and a half", and that "p3/2" is likewise halfway between p and d and is thus "p and a half". Georgia guy (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Last element?
Elements up to 369 have known atomic weights. In fact, we know the state of matter of lots of heavy elements. For example, we know that 218 is a solid at room temperature! 108.71.122.60 (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Why, thank you. I suppose we might entertain the possibility that the IP is actually a time traveller seeking to provide chemical information from the future, but if so it does not bode well for Wikipedia, because it means that our policies against original research are not exactly widely known. On the plus side, at least we still seem to exist in some form, since apparently this was the IP's first port of call back in 2016. Come to think of it, this means that the online situation in the future would be much the same as it is in 2016, which is honestly a rather depressing thought. But I do not find this theory particularly likely, since it is honestly a bit silly. Double sharp (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
In the future (ahem!), please remember to WP:AGF, and especially don't WP:BITE a newbie, and what could possibly be newer that a visitor from the future? I assume our visitor-from-Tomorrowland is not violating WP:OR, but merely needs to be reminded to cite WP:RS. All that is needed to do is to ask Mr. Peabody to provide a URL to access the WAFWD machine. Then we need to get someone to create a bot that would automatically convert links to the WAFWD machine into plain unvarnished URLs when the time is right. YBG (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I find nothing in your sites giving known atomic weights for all the elements until 369, and nothing about states of matter at STP for the undiscovered elements. Double sharp (talk) 06:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, I hope my tongue-in-cheek attempts at humor weren't taken in the wrong vein. I looked at the above links, and after poking around, did find hypothetical atomic weights for elements up into the low 200's, but not as high as 369. But at any rate, I think all would agree that these are predictions, not actual measurements. We tend to be rather conservative here at WP:ELEMENTS, and don't expect to publish predicted atomic weights of as yet undiscovered elements. This is in keeping with other decisions here, for example, not using the proposed names "nihonium", "moscovium", "tennesine", and "oganesson" in article titles or periodic tables until the names have been finalized and approved. YBG (talk) 06:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
It's not an issue of not publishing predictions. Predictions are all right to have if they come from reliable sources, like at {{Infobox copernicium}}, as long as they are clearly marked as the predictions they are. What is not all right to have is mindless extrapolations ad infinitum et absurdum. Double sharp (talk) 07:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
You will need special software at [1] for the properties of elements beyond 224, but at [2] you can see the electron configurations of the elements. 99.101.115.113 (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
That would certainly explain why you do not seem to be able to discriminate between more and less reliable sources, but I think we've made enough jokes in this thread already. Double sharp (talk) 07:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject.
Consequently, I assume you are wondering how to include this factoid in this article. One issue is that before things can be added to an article, they should have a reliable source supporting the assertion. Another issue is that elements 126 to 134 have not (yet) been synthesized, and so this statement needs to be rewritten to say something like "... are predicted to be stable." Once you have dealt with those issues, then you are ready to deal with the initial question.
On the other hand, it may be that one of my assumptions is not correct. If that is the case, I'd welcome being corrected. Thanks! YBG (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
My reserves of good faith are just about exhausted on this particular editor; s/he's either a troll, or a woefully misinformed person who enjoys spreading his/her misinformation on talk pages. While I understand that elements beyond 118 are a common subject of "periodic table fan" speculations, I would recommend that these comments simply be ignored. (There was even more of this on this talk page before I removed it under WP:TPG.) Double sharp (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Although a simple extrapolation of the periodic table would put element 169, unhexennium, under ununennium, Dirac-Fock calculations predict that the next alkali metal after ununennium may actually be element 165, unhexpentium, which is predicted to have the electron configuration [Uuo] 5g18 6f14 7d10 8s2 8p1/22 9s1.
I would like to know if anyone objects to a statement like the following in an appropriate section of this article:
Although a simple extrapolation of the periodic table would put the elements after 120 as follows: 121-138 form the g-block superactinoids; 139-152 form the f-block superactinoids, 153-162 would be transition metals; 163-166 p-block metals; 167=halogen; 168=noble gas; 169=alkali metal; 170=alkaline earth metal, Dirac-Fock calculations predict that it will most likely go: 121-140 form the g-block superactinoids; 141-154 form the f-block superactinoids; 155-164 form the transition metals; 165=alkali metal; 166=alkaline earth metal; 167-170 p-block metals; 171=halogen; 172=noble gas.
Since that simple extrapolation was Seaborg's, this sort of statement could fit very well in an expanded and rewritten "History" section. Double sharp (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
184
What is special about 184 that makes it the highest atomic number to mention in this article?? Is there a proof that it's impossible (not just difficult, but impossible) to find the atomic number of the highest eka-superactinide?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I think "nobody knows yet" is to say: "nobody made calculated predictions yet". And maybe (I'm just thinking out loud) near E184 'tradidional' buildup of heavier elements may be affected/limited by relativity limits. Like, electron #185 would need to exceed the speed of light. -DePiep (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Because it's not cool? Elements with sub-second half-lives are not generally considered cool to my knowledge, unless they are expected to be alkali metals, in which case they will appear copiously in YouTube comments (though not as often as francium). We don't really know what happens beyond 173 anyway. These predictions for 184 would be valid if you could construct it without weird things happening, but beyond 173 there may be weird things happening, and we are not really sure yet. Double sharp (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Why 7d-elements are 155-164 instead of 157-166?
First of all, a criterion to select a group number is not the number of d-electrons but the number of valence electrons including d-shell. We have 7d109s0 for element 164 as well as 4d105s0 for palladium; elements from 157 to 162 has from 3 to 8 valence electrons (over closed 5g186f148s28p2 shell), as well as elements from lutetium to osmium (over closed 4f14 shell).
Secondly, elements 165 and 166 seem to be too far from being alkali and alkali-earth metals. The soft 7d subshell under valence 9s electrons makes these elements similar to silver and cadmium, and maybe both of them (or at least element 165) could still use their 7d electrons for chemical bonding.
Thirdly, elements 155 and 156 have their 6f subshell still opened for chemical bonding, making them similar to mendelevium and nobelium, so they shouldn't count as 7d-elements.
To make all of that clear, let's remember that all of these elements are metals, so their chemical nature is better described by electronic structure of their cations instead of neutral atoms. When atom is positively ionized, a few things happen:
subshells with higher l number are generally drowned deeper because of less screening, e.g. for Ca2+ 3d lies below 4s, while for neutral Ca 3d lies above 4p;
atomic levels become less dense, making core, valence and free subshells easier to distinguish;
those exceptions from Madelung's rule which has no chemical significance (e.g. for Cr, Cu, Nb-Pd, Pt, Lr) are vanished.
Thus, for metals the periodic trends are far better described by configurations of dications instead of neutral atoms (after element 122 the given configurations may appear a bit higher than the ground state, but at least they are close to the ground state).
a proposed look of periodic table
That's why I propose a somewhat simpler and less detailed template for extended periodic table, looking like this:
Note that it has little sense trying to separate 5g and 6f blocks since both of them has quite uncertain starting bounds. However, the 18-electron capacity of 5g yields some correlations along two subsets 121-138 and 139-156 since both of them have 18-element length. Elements of the subset 121-138 have up to 6 valence electrons (like 6f28s28p2 with 8s2 gradually drowning into the core) and are very similar just like lanthanides overall, while the subset 139-156 reminds actinides: first elements has an increasing number of valence electrons (6fk7d28p2), but then 6f subshell is buried down along with 8p, leaving only 7d2 electrons easy to remove (as well as 7s2 electrons in nobelium).
So, again, I propose that simple model with elements 157-172 belonging to groups 3-18 as the best guess to their chemical nature, and elements 121-156 separated as two 18-element subsets according to their complicated electronic structure and overall likeness to lanthanides and actinides, respectively. Droog Andrey (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
About the image
Objection to the image: the two footnote ranges are not equal in size (14 columns, 18 columns). So it is unclear (undefined) how they end up once put in the main table (above which purple columns are the 14 green columns positioned?). Whatever you want to illustrate, do not use asterisked-footnotes. Just put the elements where they should be. -DePiep (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
That's done on purpose. The positions of "purple" elements 121-156 has no chemical correspondence to positions of "green" elements. And that's why there shouldn't be any columns combining them. Periodic table has groups for the elements with similar structure of valence shells, but the concept of groups doesn't work for "green" and "purple" elements. We use here a concept of series: first for lanthanides, second for actinides, now third is proposed for "superactinides" 121-156. There are no any chemical reasons for vertical correlations between series of different nature. Droog Andrey (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Then do draw that. (First you cut and misform the Table you want to show, and then you need 100 words to explain back what you broke. Why?). -DePiep (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand you. What is broken? We have a series of 4f-elements between barium and lutetium; we have a series of 5f-elements between radium and lawrencium; we also have a series of superactinides between elements 120 and 157. Of course, we could place elements 143-156 under 5f series, but there's little sense in such placement (e.g., element 146 with valence shells 6f47d28p2 should have oxidation states from +4 to +8, not a good reason to place it under uranium). We must remember than periodic table arranges elements by their chemical nature, not by formal rules. Otherwise we'd place helium above beryllium, lawrencium under thallium and so on. The current placing of elements 141-154 under f-elements is just arbitrariness.Droog Andrey (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
But that's a bit off-topic. The main question is the location of a 7d block. Fricke et.al. also suggests that element 157 should be placed into the group IIIB. What's really curious is that almost all the predicted properties (given in the article) show that element 157 is similar to Sc, Y and Lu, and the same appear through element 164 being similar to Ni, Pd, Pt. But these elements are somehow placed two more steps to the right.Droog Andrey (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm talking about the image only. I call "broken" when several series are cut out of the Table and moved to below (like footnotes). Better : do not cut them out, but leave them in their place, showing one whole Table. By moving those series an extra problem is introduced (namely: how exactly are they supposed to be in their original place?). This problem is avoided when you do not move them to below. (the same problem occurs when the basic 32-column PT is redrawn into 18-column + footnotes). And I repeat: the graph now has all asterisks in one column, defining a vertical relationship (while your reply says there is no such relationship). -DePiep (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
The key is that superactinides do not follow periodic trends, we have no groups for them, so there couldn't be any "original place" for them. They are completely new phenomenon in the table, that's why this series is placed separately. All asterisks are in one column just because that "out-of-groups-rupture" appears before d-blocks every time. Again, you may expand the table, but then you will be forced to somehow align the superactinides along f-series. Since no such alignment has any chemical sense, that will be a pure arbitrariness. Droog Andrey (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. And yes, that image does look better because it shows what you want to tell here (otherwise needs 1000 words + a puzzle to solve for the reader). I note that between the two images you changed the color for 143–156 (purple to green). That's another advantage: such things are hidden or ambiguous in the disjointing Table, but are confronted in this rectangular one. (If there is a layout problem with the second image, one could consider moving only 121–142 (only) to a footnote. But it is downgrading the point you want to show). -DePiep (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC) (struck, see my next post. DePiep)
OK, got it. I guess there are also some technical advantages of the rectangular template for Wikipedia. Anyway, we have now more compact and simple form with straightforward increasing of atomic numbers along the table. The fact that 9s and 9p1/2 subshells participate in chemical bonding in elements 157-172 could formally be the reason to place them in period 9, but that rule doesn't work anymore because of large relativistic gap between 9s+9p1/2 and 9p3/2. Take it this way: relativistically lowered 9s+9p1/2 subshells just play the role of 8s+8p1/2 subshells by the end of the 8th period. Droog Andrey (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
#3: another try: only f-series expandedAs for the color, I'd prefer purple for all the elements from 121 through 156 to show them as just one continuous series. Maybe in the future, when more detailed calculations of chemical properties are carried out, we'll broke them apart in some way. Droog Andrey (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the orbital and block issues you describe. That's why I only talk about the image. I want the image to illustrate what the text (proposed article text) says, with few or zero mental distractions. The footnote (any asterisk) is a huge mental distraction: unnecessary homework for me/Reader.
So I struck my suggestion to put any part below in a footnote (as your #3 image does). For you of course it is a very tempting shortscript (because you are inside of the issue). Please don't do that: footnoting elements does not help our Reader.
(Note to all scientists, scholars and teachers: I forbid the use of asterisk-footnoted elements in the Periodic Table. Seaborg Exception: if you have an element named after you, you are allowed to).
Do defend and push your #2 image, the very very long Table. That is what I/Reader can understand more easily (and we might look at the text even). Images #1 and #3 are IKEA-like things: compact yes, but a lot of reconstruction work to do. Compact is bad.
I see you changed color again. Color=block here, right? Now what is it? Can't have different colors for the same statement. -DePiep (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
But the current version of the article do use asterisk. What's wrong with that? A proposed version is less complicated than the current one. On the coloured blocks: as I mentioned earlier, the 121-156 block is just a continuous series of elements with 5g, 6f, 8s and 8p1/2 subshells being filled and closed; for design reasons we could still formally pull out a 6f block 143-156, but that would have little chemical sense. Droog Andrey (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
re "the current version of the article do use asterisk. What's wrong with that?"
- Sure the article should be changed, with/without your proposal here.
- This is why: the asterisked footnote requires and assumes that the Reader reconstructs the complete unmutilated Periodic table in its longest form. The Reader is loaded with the mental task to reposition those footnotes elements into the main Table (IKEA-wise), before even beginning to understand the topic. While there is no need for this: if we just show the Table in the longest form, that first huge mental action is not needed. (Think about it this way: Why would you cut & move those elements at all? You do have the full single PT at hand, don't you?).
- And this second reason: the 'compact' IKEA form hides issues into ambiguity or unclearness (giving headaches to the Reader who does try to reconstruct that longest Table). As you have shown yourself here: you had to change colors between supposedly equal versions (#1 and #2). The longest form tests you for being consistent (test failed in this). I have never seen a Periodic table asterisking elements thereby helping the Reader. Never.
(edit conflict)In image #3, you use the word "Superactinides". That is a mixup of categorisations (like, "a lot of cars are red. There are also BMWs"). Better stick with blocks only. By the way, did you consider showing this in Left Step form? -DePiep (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
#4: The expanded version without far-fetched 7f block "Superactinides" is just the name of the block. As well as "lanthanides" is the name of 4f block, for example. BTW, look at the final expanded variant. Droog Andrey (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
re image #4: Great for me, because longest PT form = no asterisks :-). Cannot judge if the purple color (g-block?) below Ln/An is OK block-wise, or if it should be f-block/green. (BTW, we have a block-color set s-p-d-f-g: here, used in this article). -DePiep (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
There's no chemical term metallishness. As for "The longest form tests you for being consistent (test failed in this)": I was just embarassed by your demand to expand the table. You know, chemical elements don't care about our understanding of their classification. The closest-to-nature form of the periodic table is the first one I proposed. Any expanding causes some sort of speculation. As for colors for blocks: there's simply no specific g-block, that's the nature of these elements. Droog Andrey (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
re "There's no chemical term metallishness". Agree, chemicists don't have a word for that. But it does exist. "Metallishness" is the categorisation we use in our Periodic table graphs background coloring, with legend (color key). My point is, that "metalishness" categorisation is not "block" categorisation. They should not be mixed up.
re "I was just embarassed" ??? How did I ask to expand the table? I only asked to change the graph, not to expanded the PT you write about here.
re "closest-to-nature form of the periodic table is the first one I proposed." - no, nature gives us a 52-column PT (as your #2 graph shows), not a "32-column plus footnotes" PT.
Nature give not any columns, just laws of physics. We use them to predict the properties of the elements and see that some of them fit a single column, while some other didn't. Elements 141-156 are those which didn't. Droog Andrey (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
The 5g-subshell is filled and drowned into the core together with 6f, 8s and 8p1/2 subshells, so the length of the superactinide series is 18+14+2+2 = 36 elements. Together with 18 classical groups we have 54 columns in total. Droog Andrey (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
TL;DR: stick to your own #2 graph. Resolve the color varying I mentioned.
Details:
Has 54 columns (not 50, not 52)
Don't use 'superactinide' as a block name
Fix the color alterations into one single statement. Add color legend (don't blame others for having to assume it is blocks)
Nature did not give us footnotes
Nature did gave us columns (groups) in the Periodic Table. That is why it is called "Periodic"
Consider showing by Janet Left Step. The quantum ordering (within blocks) seems to be relevant
And keep pushing this clarification. I like the simplicity, I'm just curious on how other editors value this.
One more time: the groups are natural, but the series 121-156 doesn't belong to any of them. BTW, why do you prefer #2 to #4? Droog Andrey (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
#4 is OK too for being the longest form (no asterisked footnotes). About groups: as you draw it (#2, #4), 143-156 are in the same group (column) as the Ln, An. -DePiep (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
By the time you are in the f-block, the groups are mostly theoretical conceits, and looking at the period left-to-right is more important. Learning about the chemistry of Cr would tell you something about Mo and W, but learning about the chemistry of Nd will not really help your understanding of U. There may be 54 columns in this table (and it's great to see that there is a source for it, because I always felt it made more sense this way), but still only 18 groups with chemical significance. Double sharp (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
So you're saying like: in the Ln, An set (14+14) column (groups) are not that meaningful. We could say "in this area of 14+14 elements the f-shell is filled", and for this topic just show two cells with Z-ranges 57-70 and 89-102 (correctly colored green for f-block). This I get and could be fine.
But the next thing we always see is that the graph is corrupted a bit more into incorrect or ambivalent showing. For example (from the regular PT), until recently this (correct) grouping also ended up hiding any statement on what is group 3. And also: how to handle Sc, Y above such a group. That's why Scerri (and I) promote: draw the PT in longest form, that forces you to think about these issues. Another example, from the source mentioned above primefan.ru (PT is transformed, OK). Look what they did with the footnote "*** Ultransition elements" (121-156): cut into two columns (periods), but they actually are to be read in one period. Why wrongfooting me? Next, these 46 elements are positioned, by "***", next to the 14-row actinides. But how can 36 elements fit next to 14 elements? Where is the filling space supposed to be? See, by not writing the PT in full length, these statements are hidden and ambiguous.
From the texts, I get that elements 121-156 are filling the 5g and 6f shells (with unclear border position between them). But whatever one does, that is no reason to color this whole set purple, as if being in one block (g-block). There should be a notion that f-block is being filled (green color).
All this is not helped by replacing in-table sets of elements with asterisks (even if done correctly i.e. without ambiguities), because the reader first must cut and paste that set before beginning to understand. -DePiep (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that since the filling of the 5g and 6f orbitals overlap, it is not meaningful in any sense to declare that 142 is in the g-block and 143 is in the f-block. I could accept such an assignment only if it is stated quite clearly that this is only formal and probably has no effect on the chemistry. Double sharp (talk) 10:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
"But how can 36 elements fit next to 14 elements?" They don't fit and are not supposed to.
"They don't fit and are not supposed to" - but the table says they should be next to each other. That is the essence of using the "***" placeholder: there is no place for all 36 elements.
"121-156 really form a new series" - what is 'series'? not a block? not part of a period? If they are unrelated to anything else in the PT, I think they don't belong in there at all. But actually, I think they are just the new g-block and a third period of the f-block. -DePiep (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
They are a part of 8th period. They are unrelated to other sets of elements. They belong to the PT. Their nature is irrelevant to what we think. Droog Andrey (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll give this a rest and hope you two can make a great immprovement to the article with this topic. -DePiep (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
