Talk:Extended periodic table/Archive 1

table
What is the idea being adding the "Period 8" and "Period 9" table to this article? These elements have never been synthesized, and most likely never will be (and, as the orbital approximation is in tatters for such high Z, the whole "g block" concept is a bit of a myth anyways)--feline1 10:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right about Period 9, which would require breaking the speed of light barrier. Period 8 is theoretically legitimate though. Andre (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The article says:
 * No elements in this region have yet been discovered in nature or synthesized artificially. The first element of the g-block would have atomic number 121, and the systematic name unbiunium.

but some of the period 8 elements have been synthesized, and if recent news is correct, at least one has been found to occur in nature. Is this information simply outdated or does it need more clarification? 66.195.255.88 (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In a tetrahedral model (see www.perfectperiodictable.com) of the periodic system, 120 is the end of the line. There is a 'perimeter' rule, where the sum of the number of vertical rows plus half the number of horizontal columns (so equal to the number of electron PAIRS) always equals 9: Thus for each orbital block S has 8+1, P has 6+3, D has 4+5, and F has 2+7. Note that columns descend in even numbers, rows increase in odds. No room for any other elements in this system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.246.4 (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You might also consider the structure in the models pictured in Talk:Nuclear model where the structure is such as to also run out of room at Z=120. But it also shows that the next (9th) layer will also include an additional wrap-around series of 14 + 4 = 18 additional deuterons, making it consist in 50 additional Z numbers, as will likewise the 10th layer.WFPM (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Also see Charles Janet


 * The Tetrahedral model would have to be adjusted to take into account the elements above 120, should they be confirmed to exist. The most logical manner would be by having them add up to greater than 9 (perhaps to 11, to acount for both the sets in the g-block, paired and unpaired), the only real limit currently on the number of elements on that table, which makes a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy. By tweaking the rows and columns, one could retain the perimiter rule as well.
 * Also, the speed of light barrier would not necessarily need to be broken by the orbitals of the g-block. The important thing here is that electrons, like photons, do not have a precise location as we percieve them in our non-quantum daily lives, but rather behave more like a "force field" when coupled with a particular atom. So the electron does not even have to move, necessarily, but simply exist partially in all of its possible positions simultaneously. This may sound like quantum quackery but as we probe further it is looking more and more to be the strange reality. Compare this to the one-and-a-half bond of a benzene ring in which pairs of carbon atoms have a stable "shared custody" of an electron pair; this pair exists in two places at once unless forcibly measured.-- S c or pio n4 5 1 rant 17:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The pertinent question concerning the extent of a periodic table is more about the basic structure of the atom and the format of presentation of the relevant information than it is about the physical limitations of the processes used by nature to carry out the accumulation process. That's why this argument about where to put data about elements no's 119 and 120 is bad because it's getting in the way of determining the main problem, which is that of most correctly providing the best format of illustration of the existing determined number of elements as well as a way in which any future discovered larger atom elements will fit into the format. With regard to this goal, the format of the Janet Periodic table has the superior position because it presently has an illustration location for 120 elements in 8 blocks, and also a rational explanation for the expansion of the table to 50 additional elements in each the 9th and 10th blocks, for another, but not limited capacity limit to up to 220 elements. This is mainly due to the unwillingness of the format of the standard periodic table to recognize the 2 element block of (3Li + 4Be) as an individual block of elements. This is an unfortunate circumstance.WFPM (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC) See Charles Janet.

Merge of Periodic table (extended)
I have started the merge process that was the conclusion of an AfD on Periodic table (extended) and made that into a redirect. This article now needs some cleanup. Do we need both the table of the extended periodic table and the table of just the g-block? -- Bduke   (Discussion)  05:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the extended table alone suffices. As I said on the AfD debate, I suggest to rename this article "Extension of the periodic table beyond the seventh table", with a redirect from g-block. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If noone disagrees with the title change, I'll do it. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

g-block
I removed the table of the g-block out of the article since it is now redundant. I put it here if someone wants to use it still. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that these proposed additions to Rows 8 and 9 of the "Janet" periodic table are also each followed by 32 additional element locations to get to the end of each extension level. Thus the total number of elements to the end of level 8 is 170 and to the end of level 9 is 220 elements.WFPM (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for a better citation
The article says that the maximum theoretical number of protons that can exist in an atom lies between 170 and 210. The citation, in my opinion, does not clarify. It merely says "Present theory suggests that the maximum atomic number could be found to lie somewhere between 170 and 210, if nuclear instability would not preclude the existence of such elements." It does not even state the fact assertively. I would like to know why that's the theoretical maximum. Disclaimer: I am neither a chemist nor a physicist, or I would provide it myself. 64.73.227.2 (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly (this is _not_ authoritative, or even trustworthy, but it might help you to search for a cite), 171 would have electrons that traveled faster than light (and therefore could only exist as an ion), while 210 would have nucleons that traveled faster than light (and therefore could not exist at all). --76.205.25.244 (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The citation given also says, some chapters below the quote given by 64.73....:
 * "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 here it does state the fact assertively. As to why this is so, I don't know. I don't think it has anything to do with the speed of light, since nucleons and electrons do not have a well-defined speed in quantum theory. I suppose the reason will be some complex calculation comparing electromagnetic and strong/weak nuclear forces for such a nucleus. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is on the Encyclopaedia Britannica website, and is stated there to be from the encyclopedia itself, and written, or at least substantially contributed to, by Glenn T. Seaborg. Will look into it. BlackGoat138 (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are still relativistic momentum constraints at a quantum level. kwami (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're willing to consider a structural concept of the atom with respect to it's size limitations etc. then I suggest you look at my real physical models in Talk:Nuclear model where it is apparent that the next series will start on the left side with 18 additional elements (121 to 138) and then to 170. And the next series will repeat that and run from 171 to 220. This is what happens when you make balanced additions to a 4 sided structure.WFPM (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This idea is totally original research and has no reliable sources. It is crossly over-simplistic and can not even explain the helium isotope nuclei, let alone the nuclei of large elements yet to be discovered. We should ignore it as it has no scientific basis for this article. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  22:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm glad to know that this idea has reached you down under and I didn't know I had problems with the EE2He4 nucleus. I though most of the problem was in selling the concept of the creation of a second 2He4 nucleus with the 3Li and 4Be additions, and then adding a neutron to make the combined stable EO4Be9 nucleus, like they show in the left step periodic table. Once you get the concept of the first 2, 2, series, then the extension of the table through the rest of the 2, 2, 8, 8, 18, 18, 32, 32, 50, 50, 72, 72, etc, sequence seems almost logical.WFPM (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC) See Charles Janet

Chemical elements over 210th
On the Website http://www.princess-it.org/kp9/hrh-projects/file/20060327_sammakkee/lanchang/element/elements/224.htm I found info about some "new" elements, from 211st to the last, 224th, Bibiquadium.

Please insert that into article, if you can.

83.23.187.75 (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * These data must be pure speculation, since these elements have not been created and in fact are impossible to create, according to current research (see reference in the article).--Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

ion limit at 176 or 137?
Untriseptium states that the relativistic ionization problem occurs at Z ≈ 137, not 176. Is one wrong, out of date, or are the calculations so approximate that this is the range of possibility? kwami (talk) 06:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The reference given there for the Z=137 relativistic limit is from 1965, so it might be outdated. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I may be misreading it, but I took that to be ref'd by Greiner & Schramm (2008). kwami (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Possibly - but Greiner and Schramm are also used in this article as reference for Z=176! So which number do they really give in that paper? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I was able to access the Greiner-Schramm article via my local university account. It says the following: Using the standard formula for the lowest energy eigenvalue of the electron in a hydrogen-like atom,
 * $$E_{1s_{1/2}}=m_0 c^2 \sqrt{1-Z^2 \alpha^2}$$

the expression for the binding energy formally becomes imaginary at Z>1/$$\alpha$$, signaling the collapse of the electronic wavefunction at small distances. In a more realistic approach one has to take into account the finite extension of the nuclear-charge distribution. In such a calculation the electronic binding energy of the 1s state will exceed 2mec2 for a hypothetical nucleus with charge $$Z>Z_{cr}$$ ~ 173 (Refs. 112– 116). If the 1s state is not occupied the state will be filled by an electron from the lower continuum, leading to the emission of a (monoenergetic), so-called spontaneous positron. This state is also called charged vacuum although, of course, charge is not generated but the negative charge is bound to the ion. This process is closely connected to the Klein paradox and can be essentially understood by solving the singleparticle Dirac equation as in Klein’s case. A charged ion with ....

Note that they discard the "standard formula" approach (giving Z≈137, as used in the Untriseptium article) as "less realistic".

So the right number seems to be Z=173. (It seems that the number given in this article used to be Z=173, until an IP user changed it to Z=176 on 1 July, 2009 without changing the reference.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think we need to merge from untriseptium. kwami (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ion limit
Since the claim

while similar considerations of the nucleus limit ions to a Z of approximately 210.

has been unreferenced for 4 months, I will remove it (and the corresponding grey "ion" boxes in the periodic table) if no one disagrees.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But now we claim that elements will end at ~ 173, when the ref only states that neutral atoms do. So it's still unref'd. kwami (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything unreferenced. We don't claim that elements will end at ~ 173 just by stopping the table there - we only say that 173 is the last atomic number we know exists. (BTW, I hesitate to call nuclei only possible as ions "elements" at all...) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should at least mention in the text somewhere that "the Nuclear shell model restricts possible ion nuclei to a maximum Z similarly to the possible atoms restriction of Z = 173 by the electron shell model." In addition - if somebody finds a source about this nuclei Z limit (is it above 173 or below 173? maybe nuclei restriction will come before the electron shell restriction?) - we will add it. Alinor (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll try. I never responded to R's previous response: we don't know that 173 exists. Some think the highest element might be under 130. It's only the electron-shell modeling that breaks down around 173. — kwami (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, e.g. the Encyclopaedia Britannica says that "The maximum atomic number, according to current theories, lies somewhere between 170 and 210." I.e. all elements below this range are theoretically possible, both nucleus and electron shell. So the nucleus limit must lie somewhere above 170, probably somewhere above the electron shell limit. Of course it is dubious if we ever actually manage to create them all. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should place too much credence in the EB. Which "current theories" are they talking about? I've seen elsewhere that it may be much lower. It would be nice to get the ref mentioned below and see if they have anything to say about this. I don't have access. — kwami (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge here of Period 8 element
This article is unsourced and entirely speculation, essentially repeating the speculation here. It should be merged here. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  06:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose with "This article" you mean "Period 8 element"? I have no strong opinion on merging them or not, but note that the articles Period 5 element and Period 6 element contain even less information than the period 8 article, and have no merger request.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Period 5 element and Period 6 element are about elements that we know something about. Period 8 is speculative and fits in well with the speculation about extending the periodic table. I still support merge, but this discussion is not attracting many editors. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd support merging all the periods. I don't see any point to any of them. Even period 3: what use is there in summarizing the elements that happen to be there, with a bunch of main-article links? Why not just use the periodic table and link from there? Is anyone actually going to use any of these articles? kwami (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we should combine them all... It's harder to find all the information you want because it's spread out. --BrandiAlwaysSmiles (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that only Period 8 element should be redirected or merged to here, as all the others are about things that are already known to exist, and they don't really fit with an extended periodic table. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I meant merge them w the regular per. table, not here. kwami (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 'The maximum atomic number, according to current theories, lies somewhere between 170 and 210.' This is because 210 is the forth pimorial. Robo37 (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know this reference (which is probably outdated with people now knowing that the maximum is exactly 173 - see the more recent reference given in the article). But it's absurd to claim any connection with primorials out of that numerical coincidence.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not merge, but also move to that title? No-one knows if there is a 9th period, so w current knowledge this article and 'period 8 element' are largely synonymous, whereas the name 'extension of the per. table beyond the 7th period' is unwieldy. Or maybe to extended periodic table. kwami (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would oppose a move of this article to "period 8 element" as this article currently includes both part of a ninth period and the lower periods. I'm happy with your move to "Extended periodic table" and the redirect from "period 8" to this article, however. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with Roentgenium111. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  22:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Problems of discovering elements
Element made our world, so there is a number of elements. Elements is limitless, so we can stop discovered element when we discovered a number of element.58.187.48.88 (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Elements are a categorical listing of the material particles created by nuclear's physical accumulation processes. And the chemical properties of the elements had very little to do with these processes. However, chemical processes may have to with the subsequent accumulation of the native elements and/or ores of these elements due to their chemical (and physical) properties.WFPM (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Put Back Ions?
Guys, I really agree that Ions should be put back. It does not look "complete" Marioman798 (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * After 173 edit

Okay, okay. After all that bickering, lets fix it. Roentgenium111, please bring back bduke's edit. 58. 187. 48. 888., Please get refrences Other people (feline1, kwami, etc.) i will post more. I think the PT should ends much earlier, at Uuo. 58.187.51.135 (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Marioman798 (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The ion section was "my" baby. If Roentgenium111 says it's not supported by the refs, I take him at his word. kwami (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Vote!

FINE. We will vote for the ion section.

Agree: kwami    Disagree:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marioman798 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A vote doesn't mean anything. This isn't a democracy, and neither is science. What do the refs say? Are they reliable sources? That's all that matters. kwami (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks to kwami for backing me up and informing Marioman798 on Wikipedia rules. I would be happy to put back the ions if there was a reference for them, but the one Robo37 gave above (Encyclopedia Britannica 1999, it was already discussed by us last year IIRC) does not even mention ions, they only speak of a "maximum atomic number" somewhere between 170 and 210. Since we have a newer (2008) reference giving an exact value of Z=173 as maximal number, I suspect the EB article is just outdated. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I was never happy with using the EB as a ref: they can't even get the simple stuff right. (Have you seen their maps?) And 1999 (or more likely <1999) is rather old for this topic. But could you post or quote the relevant bit in your ref, for those of us who don't have access to it? kwami (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that almost all of this article is speculation, I think we should be extra careful about sources that make the speculation. Given that most likely very few of these elements will ever see the light of day, we should be conservative on the upper limit. Given the information above, it looks like we should stop at 173. We would need a very strong source to go beyond that. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I expect that we will eventually produce all elements which are physically possible, if only for the renown of doing it. But unless there's a breakthrough in producing higher elements, it's gonna be a while. kwami (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @kwami: I can't seem to access the EB article directly either at present, but it's quoted in http://jeries.rihani.com/ :


 * "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)." Transuranium Elements, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1999-2000, (Britannica.com).


 * (The linked page is not really reliable in my opinion, but I think they have the quotation from EB correct.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Refs

Talk to me if anyone finds refs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.143.66 (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Combine G-Block and Ions?

Even if we put back the ions section, why aren't we combining it with the g block? Why should elements 174 and 175 be called ions? I think they should be part of the G block. Kwami, I don't know why it should be classified as "ion". 72.83.143.66 (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocks are defined by the orbital of the outer electron. If there is no outer electron, the defining characteristic of the block is missing. It's not clear that we can simply extrapolate the block from the atomic number even for elements which allow neutral atoms. kwami (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Position of Helium
Of course Helium does not contain 6 p electrons, but it is normal to include it with the other noble gases. Putting it above Be has been proposed but has not been generally accepted. We should use a form of the table that is generally accepted. We should remove the s1, s2, p1, etc tags. The naming as s-block, p-block is quite sufficient. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  23:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * At this point we're talking about orbitals more than we are about chemical properties. For physicists, He belongs in group 2, and often groups 1 and 2 are placed on the right side of the table. (That may be too drastic, though, as it would disrupt the periods.) kwami (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The very first line of the article has a link to Periodic table. I think you have to strongly justify having a different form for the periodic table than the form in that main article on the periodic table. As to orbitals, it is just silly to talk about orbitals for elements above atomic number around 100 or even lower, as the orbital approximation to atoms has completely broken down by that point. However that is just saying that this whole article is both silly and pure speculation. So, you think we are not talking about chemical properties and I think we can hardly be talking about orbitals. What are we talking about? What do others think about the position of Helium? -- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bduke. Unless otherwise explained, the lay meaning of "periodic table" is the standard layout, with He as a noble gas. One could have an interesting discussion about whether He should be in Group 2 and maybe an article could be written about "Periodic table by atomic orbital/energy-level" with that alternative (probably wouldn't even need to go into the wide/included-f-block form to illustrate that point). But that doesn't seem to be this article. Here, a key point seems to be illustrating how the g block fits into the larger picture, so any other changes (for example, switching from common-layout by group to atomic-orbital concerns) are a distraction from that point. Heck, the atomic-orbital labels are already confusingly used in the d block: Cr is in a column labeled d4 but its ground-state configuration is d5 or so. DMacks (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Eric Scerri has discussed having He above Be, so it could be discussed somewhere, but not here of course. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  03:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. Labeling columns as if they corresponded to orbitals doesn't make any sense. kwami (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for accepting my point. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  03:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Right now the description of an atom is like it is a closely packed group of nucleons but the concept is that its kind of like a cloud of nucleons, because nobody wants to consider any kind of an organized structure. So we've changed the problem to that of printing an organized system of data on a piece of paper. But we're dealing with a composite real physical entity that exists in 3 dimensional space and which can be modeled so why not think about that? see Talk:Nuclear model.WFPM (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a good reason to not use that model and that is that it is wrong. The physical reason why the number of neutrons increases faster than the number of protons as the atomic number increases is that they "dilute" the electrostatic repulsion against the nuclear force attraction. Yet that model is a set of deuterons with the extra neutrons on the surface. Apart from just being wrong for being overly simplistic, it is just obviously wrong. It also of course has no reliable independent sources. Please stop spamming other pages with that theory. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  03:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I appreciate your attention to my contribution, and of course we can disagree on the significance of ideas. I was hoping that the similarity of the indications of my models to that of the referred Janet Periodic table might lead you to a favorable opinion on where to locate the 2He data, based on physical indications.WFPM (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

In reading the present article I can see how my comments crop up too many times due to the merger situation. But I would think that the article ought to include a discussion on why you start out with with 1 element, then 2, then 8, then 18 etc. That's why I referred the Janet Table which appears much better organized in this respect. And when you need an explanation as to why you first have 2 and then 6 and then 10 etc, I note that each sequential series is 4 greater than the previous and might have a physical explanation, as indicated in my models.WFPM (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)See Talk:Periodic table.WFPM (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The place for that would be the main article, or at the one on orbitals. This one assumes you already know that, or will look there if you're interested. kwami (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

But that's the main difference feature between the standard and the Janet tables and consider the present day controversy situation. And since they are both supposed to be providing information about the real thing, information leading to an informed judgement would be pertinent.WFPM (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ions
If I remember correctly, this page used to have "elements" (meaning undiscovered ions) 174-210. Where did they go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elium2 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Inadequate references. — kwami (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Move to Periodic table (extended)
Does anyone besides me think that this article should be moved from Extended periodic table to Periodic table (extended). I think that people are more likely to type that in, and as all other periodic table articles have this naming format, I think this one should too. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This would certainly make some sense. But note that it was under this title until a deletion request in 2009, discussion of which led to a renaming to a title sounding "less official". Though that title was again changed some time ago (April 18, 2010).--Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The will periodic table

 * This is incredibly confusing. When I looked at it, I couldn't understand a think past Unbinilium. If this table were to be inserted into an article, it would need very serious modifications. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I assumed it was a work in progress. — kwami (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

Compact extended periodic table?
Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Improved Table 1
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.


 * 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)

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