User:DePiep/iso-t


 * NUBASE2020
 * AME2020 II

theoretical, notation

 * Neon-33

Our notation
Allow me to initiate a side question: how do we notate theoretical isotopes? For now, we could focus on the Big Table (and then spinoff into other places like articles, infoboxes). I myself have no knowledge about the physical backgrounds, so I'll follow your input in this.

The topic. NUBASE2020 notes 218+45=263 unobserved, estimated ones.

As research goes, after "2020" new research & isotopes appear (observated, theoretical), so we should accomodate such development. If there is a standard approach (in RL science) for isotope status, I'd like to learn. Say, level of theoretical status. And IIRC, there are also Trends in Neighboring Nuclei (TNN) § 3.1 and in AME is Trends from the Mass Surface (TMS). These are theoretical excercises to right? Note: on enwiki TNN and TMS have no entry not even a redirect target (-section).

I'll await your conclusions (above) on whether & when any theoretical isotope should be included at all in the big table.

Question: is a theoretical istope black/white? Or is there a grey area, tied to somewhat existing isotopes? See 31Ne: "Decay mode shown is energetically allowed, but has not been experimentally observed to occur in this nuclide."

References. always, IMO, non-NUBASE2020 data should be added in the big table, as a ref. Isotope-all data in column 1 (with the 123Xx ID); specific sources, say on half-life, can go in the specific column.

While refs NUBASE2020 and AME2020 can be added always (optionally as named). Can we adopt a standard in this? eg, "all data is from NUBASE2020, unless otherwise sourced"? (transition to 'NUBASE2024' data to be handled; experience says this happens at an isotope-by-isotope base, ie row by row). All sources appear as reference, not as table footnote.

In-table footnotes:

main isos

 * 2023.
 * User:ComplexRational/Isotopes

isos in MED

 * Radiopharmaceutical, ATC code V09, ATC code V10
 * Nuclear technology

Sections in Radiopharmaceutical