| Revision as of 16:55, 10 August 2019 editIncnis Mrsi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers11,646 edits →Some quotes from the Fricke papers on why we depart from their suggested periodic table layout: Can Double_sharp translate this IB/IIB/IA/IIA trash into the modern group (periodic table) notation?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:14, 12 December 2024 edit undoZokiZokias (talk | contribs)33 editsNo edit summary |
| (122 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Elements|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Elements|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Physics|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Physics|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Chemistry|class=B|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Chemistry|importance=Low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{afd-merged-from|Periodic table (extended)|Periodic table (extended)|02 February 2009}} |
|
{{afd-merged-from|Periodic table (extended)|Periodic table (extended)|02 February 2009}} |
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 3 |
|
|counter = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
| Line 24: |
Line 24: |
|
{{archives |bot=MiszaBot I |age=731 }} |
|
{{archives |bot=MiszaBot I |age=731 }} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== I just want to say that I think element 128 will be extremely radioactive == |
|
== Expert tag, December 2011 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My main reasoning is because 126 being a magic neutron number makes isotopes with 128 neutrons extremely unstable (e.g. <sup>212</sup>Po), shouldn't 126 also being a proton magic number make element 128 extremely radioactive? ] (]) 02:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
Over the past few weeks, I was brushing up and expanding this article, hoping to prepare it for a GAN. There is, however, a tag dated December 2011 requesting expert attention. This tag has lingered for seven years despite substantial growth and does not clearly refer to a specific problem in the article. I am unsure how to address it (or if it should still be here), and I am doubtful a GAN will succeed if whatever underlying issues remain unnoticed. ] (]) 00:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:We don't know that 126 is a magic proton number in the first place. It's quite possible, based on current models, that proton shell closures only give a weak effect here and that it's the neutron shell closure at 184 that really matters for SHE stability. OTOH, I agree with the general idea: we are probably going to have a hard time once ''N'' = 184 is passed. ] (]) 08:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Was added , section had one ref. Looks like section has been rebuild since. I think we can rejudge section quality today (that is, delete the tag when we think current version is OK). -] (]) 00:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::There are definitely more sources that clearly outline Pyykkö's predictions (that I don't think existed then or were perhaps not known within the WP community - the main one is dated 2011) and the rest of the article gives some implications as to why, and I am not left confused or longing for more information after reading that section. I still would like everyone's opinion before considering removal of the tag. ] (]) 01:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC) |
|
::The same effect is also observed in the vicinity of <sup>208</sup>Pb, where there are some reasonably long-lived polonium isotopes but alpha half-lives fall by many orders of magnitude at neutron number 128. And indeed, the stabilizing effect for a proton shell at 126, if it even is a magic number, is not agreed upon in different models. It'll be a long time anyway before we can synthesize these elements. –] of ComplexRational (]) 15:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It's also observed around <sup>100</sup>Sn, with <sup>104</sup>Te having the second shortest known alpha half life iirc (18 ns), behind only ] ] (]) 23:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::At the time the expert tag was added, there was another one which was removed by {{u|DePiep}} in ], saying that three sources was enough to remove the tag. This section now has two sources, one used twice. Do we think that is enough? ] (]) 02:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::To me, the two sources look adequate, as the main one (PT172) is quite complete and everything else I've found includes a reference to that original one, without providing further information on calculation or generic predictions not already explained. ] (]) 23:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Hyper-relativistic elements == |
|
:::::Counting sources of course is not exactly enough to remove the {{tlf|Expert needed}} tag. IMO, since the tag was added the section was rewritten (e.g., by editor {{U|Double sharp}}, do we need more 'expert'?). Also, the {{tl|Expert needed}} documentation is quite clear in its opening description: 1. don't add it as a blanket, but be specific (talkpage or add the reason); 2. may be removed when unexplained; 3. do not expect a response. In this case I conclude: we have taken a look, we can remove the tag for all these reasons, unless someone wants to explicitly ''keep it'' in here. -] (]) 08:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Very sound reasoning. After a couple more days with no objections, we can safely remove it. ] (]) 17:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Agreed with {{u|YBG}}, especially on point 1 per ]. ] (]) 21:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::{{aye}} done -] (]) 22:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, read an interesting article postulating a mechanism where the actual inner electrons themselves might add stability by radiating enough energy via the Cherenkov mechanism for unstable nuclei to in fact be meta-stable. This would be a mechanism where theoretically impossible (eg element 164) believed to be found in deep space could have very novel chemistry. |
|
== Proposed merge with ] == |
|
|
|
As of yet it is pretty strange stuff but gold and copper are a test case here as their colour is due to relativistic effects. |
|
|
In actual fact because electrons can be paired they can in fact appear to go faster than light but only a very small fraction of them (0.000001%) and this may in fact be evidence of physics beyond the Standard Model. ] (]) 17:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:That seems very interesting. Can you send me the link? ] (]) 03:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
Per AfD. Useless ] duplicate. <span style="background-color:#cee">]</span> ] 14:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::https://www.ncbj.gov.pl/en/aktualnosci/isomers-superheavy-elements-can-be-much-more-stable-assumed-so-far have a better one but need to find it. ] (]) 18:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
:{{U|Wumbolo}} could you link to that AfD discussion? -] (]) 14:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::cool ] (]) 03:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Here: ]. The closer recommended a merge proposal. <span style="background-color:#cee">]</span> ] 14:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{U|Wumbolo}} This is the full closing conclusion from 2012: |
|
|
{{quote|text=The result was '''keep'''. If someone wishes to merge it with any other article, please take it up on this article's talk page.|spource=]|style=background:#ddd}} |
|
|
:::So there is '''no''' merge "recommended"ation, as you wrote here. The AfD closing brings ''no argument'' for or against any merge(-proposal). -] (]) 14:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
: Seems like a good idea, but you should probably mention it on ] <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
*'''Support''' No brainer, the table should certainly be on that main article rather than a separate page. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Pyykkö's justification for putting E165 and E166 in the s-block rather than the d-block == |
|
== Elements 173 to 174 are in the ]! == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
]] 03:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
To quote : "As seen from Table 3, the dication E166<sup>2</sup> strongly prefers a 7d<sup>10</sup>9s<sup>0</sup> configuration to the alternatives 7d<sup>9</sup>9s<sup>1</sup> or 7d<sup>8</sup>9s<sup>2</sup>. We recall here that Rg (E111) prefers a 6d<sup>9</sup>8s<sup>2</sup> '''' ground state<sup>52</sup>. Due to this orbital order 7d < 9s, we therefore let E165 and E166 stay in Groups 1 and 2, as done by Fricke et al." So he is comparing the situation 7d < 9s in the 7d series with the situation 6d > 7s in the 6d series. OTOH, it seems to me at least that this makes the 7d series more analogous with the 3d, 4d, and 5d series, which have 3d < 4s, 4d < 5s, and 5d < 6s respectively as we learn in high-school chemistry. ^_^ Alas, Pyykkö does not tabulate ionisation energies of E165 and E166, which would be an interesting comparison to the Cu and Zn groups. ] (]) 16:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:I'd think so too. But so far there is no reliable source for that. ] (]) 10:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
:This statement by Pyykkö changes the principal setup of ''the'' periodic table: 1. increasing atomic numbers, 2. rows to point to periodicity (together I call these ''Mendeleevian''). Of course this is all right, it's only that we should not present this as just one more editorial variant periodic table (not). I am not disputing the scientific base, I want to note that this ''change of structure'' requires that we at least qualify the naming: "periodic table (by Pyykkö)". Similar, because of different structural setup: (or ]; truly 4D of course per QM), and especially when extended: ''by Aufbau'' (]?), ''by Fricke'', ''by Nefedov''. btw I think "periodic table (by Janet, aka left step)" is Mendeleevian. It is no small step when the periodic law ''leaves'' the original discovery of the principle, so a deviation should be added to the name. Regarding group 3: if new knowledge requires that the PT breaks Mendeleevian rules (so far, we at enwiki do not say so), then we need "periodic table (by electron configuration considerations)". -] (]) 19:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::]: ]{{dash}}]<br/>]: ]{{dash}}]<br/>]: ]{{dash}}] |
|
|
::]] 11:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Ah, now that I wouldn't be so sure of. With all the intruder levels dropping down like 9s and 9p<sub>1/2</sub> into period 8, the 8th and 9th periods could very well have different lengths. Assuming it makes sense to talk about elements that far up in the first place, which we also don't know. Better to wait for more computations. :) ] (]) 12:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I mean, the lanthanides and actinides have the same length, and I predict ] and ] will also have the same length. |
|
|
::::But I get what you're saying, we should wait for more computations for a more accurate extended periodic table. ]] 12:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Yeah, what I mean is that we don't know precisely what orbitals will drop down. It's not out of the question that 6h will fill alongside 10s, which would extend row 9. I don't dare to guess. :) ] (]) 12:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Discussion about periodic table topics? == |
|
== A few additions == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*I predict the pattern of the 8th period will not use Fricke and Pyykkö’s models, but rather follow the Aufbau principle, meaning the 6f subshell starts at Z = 139, not 143. |
|
I have added some material, with the help of Google Translate to understand the Russian, from ]'s "" (as he put it in the ]). As he is a subject-matter expert and has been published in the relevant field of computational chemistry (), I believe this may be considered reliable as such cases are an explicit exemption on ]. It is interesting to see that the part of period 8 covered by the islands of stability indeed looks pretty non-relativistic: 119 and 120 look analogous to Rb and Sr, with 157–172 being good analogues of Y through Xe indeed, and 173 finally grants us our wish for the greatest alkali metal explosion! Meanwhile 121–138 and 139–156 respectively mimic the lanthanides and actinides. ] (]) 15:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*I think the isotope <sup>356</sup>Uth, with a proton-to-neutron ratio of 1:1.618 (following the trend), might be somewhat stable, with a predicted half life of around 6 to 10 seconds. |
|
|
*I do not know what 2p<sup>3/2</sup> or 4f<sup>5/2</sup> mean. |
|
|
] (]) 18:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Do you have a ] (e.g., a scientific article published in a refereed journal) for these predictions? If not, Misplaced Pages cannot accept your predictions, as they would constitute ]. <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Some quotes from the Fricke papers on why we depart from their suggested periodic table layout == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Pseudo-eka-actinium?== |
|
So why do we put E164 in group VIII? Well, they also wanted to! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although element 121 is called ''eka-actinium'', doesn't it belong to the g-block? After all, it could refer to element 141 or 143. --] (]) 05:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
From the paper in ''Actinides Reviews'', '''1''' (1971) 433–485 (my commentary in brackets): |
|
|
|
:Yes, the name is not technically correct. It's not uncommon because there's nothing actually above 121, but really the relationship between Ac and 121 is only secondary: they both have 3 valence electrons, but the set of valence orbitals is not quite analogous (similar to the Al-Sc relationship). ] (]) 07:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I use the Scandium-Yttrium-Lanthanum-Actinium trend, not the Scandium-Yttrium-Lutetium-Lawrencium trend, so Unbiunium might be eka-actinium, and Unbibium...it will be something new. For example, In Period 6 and 7, there are the lanthanides and actinides, which are excluded in Period 5 and before. Period 4 and 5 includes the transition metals, which are excluded in Period 3 and before. Period 2 and 3 includes the boron elements, the crystallogens, the pnictogens, the chalogens, the halogens, and the alkaline earth metals, even though Period 1 does not (Hydrogen is said to have its own group since it is similar to the non-metals, the noble gases, and the alkali metals, which is very confusing). |
|
|
::What I am trying to say here is that every new column or some break in the periodic table like the lanthanides would end up having something new ] (]) 14:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Sc-Y-La-Ac doesn't really make any sense. It changes the rules between the two neighbouring elements Ac and Th, which both have no f-electrons as single atoms, but both can use f-orbitals when chemically bonded. Logically speaking one should be treating them the same way. |
|
|
:::121 is indeed calculated to be something new – the first time the g-orbitals can be used for chemistry. Though it would probably be a bit like La, Ac, Th, and Lr in failing to have the right orbital fill on time in a bare atom (it will probably fill when the atom is chemically bonded). With that said, 5g is probably going to be so deeply buried inside the atom that elements 124+ will probably not differ very much from uranium for a while, in about the same way rare earths mimic yttrium. ] (]) 15:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Also, we do not know where each element is or whst their properties are. Ununennium & Unbinilium are expected to be alkali metals and alkaline earth metals respectively, and Unbiunium, Unbibium, Unbiquadium, Unbipentium, Unbihexium, and Unbiseptium are expected superactinides. We may never know, Unbiseptium might be a pink liquid and act like a pnictogen, or Unbibium, which is a room-temperature plasma, and gives off Unbibium Vigintoxide. Or ununennium being added to group 19. |
|
|
::::We will never know due to short half-lives. ] (]) 18:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Also, is it true that spilling quark matter onto unstable elements like Bohrium makes them stable? ] (]) 18:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Dunno about "never". Mc was chemically investigated this year, and there are ideas on how even Lv and Ts could be in the future. It will be difficult for sure, but not physically impossible. |
|
|
:::::I have not heard of this. ] (]) 02:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Moscovium is predicted to act like a Group 15 element. (Yay!) |
|
|
::::::Livermorium is predicted to act like a Group 16 element. (Yay!). |
|
|
::::::Nihonium and Tennessine's properties are debatable: |
|
|
::::::Nihonium might act like a halogen (Nihonine) and Tennessine acting like a Icosagen/Group 13 Element (Tennessium), but it also might be switched. |
|
|
::::::As for Flerovium and Oganesson, Flerovium might be a liquid or a gas (Flerogen/Flerovigen), maybe even a noble gas! (Fleron/Flerovon). Then there is Oganesson, which would act like a Crystallogen/Group 14 Element. |
|
|
::::::Seaborgium might be the most refactory metal, Hassium being the densest, and Meitnerium being both refactory and dense. Roentgenium is under Copper, Silver, and Gold, so it might have a different color (Green Metal?). Fermium-Lawrencium act like regular actinides. Copernicium is predicted to be a solid or liquid or gas, but it might have a low ionizing point! |
|
|
::::::Ruthenium, Rhodium, Palladium, Osmium, Iridium, Platinum are all in the platinum group, so the new candidates might be Hassium, Meitnerium, and Darmstadium. All of the Platinum Group Metals are part of the noble metals, with Gold, and Silver is often used. Roentgenium would the in the noble metals and coinage metals, not the platinum group metals. Copper and Mercury is sometimes used. Technetium, Rhenium, Arsenic, Antimony, Bismuth, and Polonium is a noble metal, IN A LIMITED SENCE (all from ] and paraphrased). The Candidates for the limited sence noble metals would be Moscovium and Livermorium, which are under Bismuth and Polonium respectively, and Bohrium is under Rhenium, which is a metal in a limited sence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::::I do not know about Rutherfordium, Dubnium. You might know. ] (]) 17:06, 12 December 1024 (UTC) |
|
"Even for the neutral atom, a similarity can be seen between Pd where ten d electrons and no s electrons form the outer shel1 and element Z = 164." (We might add that the state of affairs in the 7d row, where at most only ''one'' electron is promoted to the 9s orbital, and often none are, is like an extended version of the trend that we can see happening in the 4d row, if relativistic effects had not intervened for the 5d and 6d rows.) "Pennemann et al. ... agree with Fricke et al. that the metallic form might be quite stable but they compare it more with Hg whereas Fricke et al predict E164 to be a noble metal which should be in the same chemical group as Pd and Pt." (This placement naturally fixes the position of the preceding d-elements.) |
|
|
|
|
|
"Here the trend becomes very obvious that the radii and ionization energies of alkaline and alkaline earth elements increase with Z whereas in the first part of the Periodic System they decrease. From this side E165 and E166 will be members of the groups Ia and IIa. From a more chemical point of view, they will be likely more members of the Ib and IIb groups because of the 7d shell which is more comparable to the elements Au and Hg (but also to the elements E119 and E120) as can be seen from Fig. 14. Therefore, higher oxidation states than 1 and 2 might readily occur." (It also seems to me that the placement of E165 and E166 in groups IA and IIA is a symptom of normalising relativistic effects and forgetting how things work in the normal part of the periodic system that we usually deal with, as I noted two sections ago. Not only is the 7d < 9s situation comparable to the normal 3d < 4s, 4d < 5s, and 5d < 6s situations rather than the odd 6d > 7s situation, but also one of the key points of chemistry is that there is a large energy gap between a closing p-shell and the s-shell of the next principal quantum number, so you cannot take electrons out of an earlier shell. We accept it, perhaps, for E119 and E120 because we then have no choice, but since E157–E164 and E167–E172 return to a non-relativistic-like situation, it makes sense to draw d-block analogies for E165 and E166. Thus it is reassuring to see that E165 and E166 continue the trend of falling ionisation energies for the non-relativistic Cu-Ag and Zn-Cd series, which had suffered an interruption at the relativistic Au-Rg and Hg-Cn.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Note that their table 10 of predicted properties gives as the most analogous group for E157–E164 the expected IIIB through VIII, and for E167–E172 the expected IIIA through 0; we follow these, only squeezing E165 and E166 instead into the gap of IB and IIB instead of IA and IIA. |
|
|
|
|
|
From the : |
|
|
|
|
|
Again, the same table with the group assignments is given. |
|
|
|
|
|
"In the periods before the 8th period, normally all d and p elements are influenced in their chemical behavior more or less by the outer s electrons. This is no longer true for the d transition elements 155 to 164, where the 8s and 8p<sub>1/2</sub> eleetrons are bound so strongly that they do not participate in the chemical bonding. Fig. 22 shows the outer electronic wave functions of element 164 with the deeply buried 8s and 8p<sub>1/2</sub> electrons. This electronic structure is quite similar to that of the d elements of the lower periods, where the outer s electrons are removed." (Well, in many chemical environments the configuration of such a d-element is indeed d<sup>''x''</sup>s<sup>0</sup>! And let's not forget what I said earlier about this continuing the trend towards disfavouring s-occupancy even in the gaseous atom that we already see in the 4d series.) One might therefore argue that, as a first guess, the aqueous and ionic behavior of an E<sup>m+2</sup> ion of the lower d elements is comparable to an E<sup>m</sup> ion of elements 155 to 164 after making allowance for the different ionic sizes and charge. But because the 9s and 9p<sub>1/2</sub> states are easily available in 164 for hybridization, the chemical behavior is expected not to be too different from that of the other d elements." (Therefore we see that we must mentally think of 9s rather than 8s as the covering s-shell here. And indeed we sometimes see promotions to there in the ground state: compare the 4d and 7d series! I here use the predictions in the table at the bottom of this article:) |
|
|
|
|
|
{| class="wikitable" |
|
|
! rowspan="2" | 4d |
|
|
! Y |
|
|
! Zr |
|
|
! Nb |
|
|
! Mo |
|
|
! Tc |
|
|
! Ru |
|
|
! Rh |
|
|
! Pd |
|
|
! Ag |
|
|
! Cd |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| 4d<sup>1</sup>5s<sup>2</sup> |
|
|
| 4d<sup>2</sup>5s<sup>2</sup> |
|
|
| 4d<sup>4</sup>5s<sup>1</sup> |
|
|
| 4d<sup>5</sup>5s<sup>1</sup> |
|
|
| 4d<sup>5</sup>5s<sup>2</sup> |
|
|
| 4d<sup>7</sup>5s<sup>1</sup> |
|
|
| 4d<sup>8</sup>5s<sup>1</sup> |
|
|
| 4d<sup>10</sup>5s<sup>0</sup> |
|
|
| 4d<sup>10</sup>5s<sup>1</sup> |
|
|
| 4d<sup>10</sup>5s<sup>2</sup> |
|
|
|- |
|
|
! rowspan="2" | 7d |
|
|
! 157 |
|
|
! 158 |
|
|
! 159 |
|
|
! 160 |
|
|
! 161 |
|
|
! 162 |
|
|
! 163 |
|
|
! 164 |
|
|
! 165 |
|
|
! 166 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| 7d<sup>3</sup>9s<sup>0</sup> |
|
|
| 7d<sup>4</sup>9s<sup>0</sup> |
|
|
| 7d<sup>4</sup>9s<sup>1</sup> |
|
|
| 7d<sup>5</sup>9s<sup>1</sup> |
|
|
| 7d<sup>6</sup>9s<sup>1</sup> |
|
|
| 7d<sup>7</sup>9s<sup>1</sup> |
|
|
| 7d<sup>8</sup>9s<sup>1</sup> |
|
|
| 7d<sup>10</sup>9s<sup>0</sup> |
|
|
| 7d<sup>10</sup>9s<sup>1</sup> |
|
|
| 7d<sup>10</sup>9s<sup>2</sup> |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
''Eccola!'' And if you will see in some reputable places slightly different predictions with regard to which are 9s<sup>0</sup> and 9s<sup>1</sup>, well, that just goes to show that 7d and 9s are nearly degenerate, doesn't it? Surely it is nice to see such nearly exact homology, though! ^_^) |
|
|
|
|
|
(This consideration is why I disagree with Fricke's argument for his placement of E165 and E166, which goes as follows:) |
|
|
|
|
|
"From the normal continuation of the periodic table one would expect that after the eompletion of a d shell (at element 164) two elements in the IB and IIB chemical groups should appear. In a very formal way this is true, because with the filling of the 9s electrons in elements 165 and 166 there are outer s electrons chemically available. On the other hand, these outer s electrons should be the ones which began with the onset of the period. The 8s electrons are already very strongly bound so that the two 9s electrons which are filled in have to be assumed to define the beginning of a new period." (But as we can see, already by the time we get out of the quagmire of superactinides, it ''is'' 7d and 9s which are running the show, as if 7d was a transition series in between 9s and the hybrid 9p<sub>1/2</sub>+8p<sub>3/2</sub> that are nearly degenerate and act like the 3p shell. So there is a slow transition between thinking of 8s as the outer s-shell and replacing it with 9s. Now, their comparisons of ionisation energies and atomic radii have some force. So let's draw a table:) |
|
|
|
|
|
{| class="wikitable" |
|
|
! Li |
|
|
! Na |
|
|
! K |
|
|
! Rb |
|
|
! Cs |
|
|
! Fr |
|
|
! 119 |
|
|
! 165 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| 152 |
|
|
| 186 |
|
|
| 227 |
|
|
| 248 |
|
|
| 265 |
|
|
| (~255?) |
|
|
| (240) |
|
|
| (210) |
|
|
|- |
|
|
! |
|
|
! |
|
|
! Cu |
|
|
! Ag |
|
|
! Au |
|
|
! Rg |
|
|
! 165 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 128 |
|
|
| 144 |
|
|
| 144 |
|
|
| (152 or 138) |
|
|
| (210) |
|
|
|- |
|
|
! Be |
|
|
! Mg |
|
|
! Ca |
|
|
! Sr |
|
|
! Ba |
|
|
! Ra |
|
|
! 120 |
|
|
! 166 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| 112 |
|
|
| 160 |
|
|
| 197 |
|
|
| 215 |
|
|
| 222 |
|
|
| (~225?) |
|
|
| (200) |
|
|
| (180) |
|
|
|- |
|
|
! |
|
|
! |
|
|
! Zn |
|
|
! Cd |
|
|
! Hg |
|
|
! Cn |
|
|
! 166 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 134 |
|
|
| 151 |
|
|
| 151 |
|
|
| (160 or 147) |
|
|
| (180) |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
(Metallic radii are in picometres for the stable elements from ], and from Fricke for Rg, Cn, and the undiscovered ones. Figures for francium and radium are shameless ] based on the ] supplemented by graphomancy from Fricke's Fig. 10 in this paper, suggesting Fr is around the average of those of Rb and Cs, and Ra is a bit larger than Ba, but they are not the point anyway *handwaves*.) ] (]) 16:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
: Can {{u|Double_sharp}} translate this obsolete IB/IIB/IA/IIA trash into the modern ] and block notation? ] (]) 16:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
(Now let's show ionisation energies, because if you've read till here you probably want me to:) |
|
|
|
|
|
{| class="wikitable" |
|
|
! Li |
|
|
! Na |
|
|
! K |
|
|
! Rb |
|
|
! Cs |
|
|
! Fr |
|
|
! 119 |
|
|
! 165 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| 520.2 |
|
|
| 495.8 |
|
|
| 418.8 |
|
|
| 403.0 |
|
|
| 375.7 |
|
|
| 380 |
|
|
| (462.0) |
|
|
| (520) |
|
|
|- |
|
|
! |
|
|
! |
|
|
! Cu |
|
|
! Ag |
|
|
! Au |
|
|
! Rg |
|
|
! 165 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 745.4 |
|
|
| 731.0 |
|
|
| 890.1 |
|
|
| (1020) |
|
|
| (520) |
|
|
|- |
|
|
! Be |
|
|
! Mg |
|
|
! Ca |
|
|
! Sr |
|
|
! Ba |
|
|
! Ra |
|
|
! 120 |
|
|
! 166 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| 899.5 |
|
|
| 737.7 |
|
|
| 589.8 |
|
|
| 549.5 |
|
|
| 502.9 |
|
|
| 509.3 |
|
|
| (563.3) |
|
|
| (630) |
|
|
|- |
|
|
! |
|
|
! |
|
|
! Zn |
|
|
! Cd |
|
|
! Hg |
|
|
! Cn |
|
|
! 166 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 906.4 |
|
|
| 867.8 |
|
|
| 1007.1 |
|
|
| (1155) |
|
|
| (630) |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
(Data from ] and this page. Neither trend looks all that great, as both demand some sort of about-face; but if we consider Au–E120 part of the "relativistic effects zone" that should be exceptional, against the trend of the other elements, it seems to me that putting E165 and E166 in groups 1 and 12 respectively makes more sense as then the trend goes back to normal once we go into the "pretending to be out of the relativistic effects zone" that includes E157–E173. If we can stomach E119 and E120 as A-group elements with B-group tendencies, then surely we can also stomach E165 and E166 as B-group elements with A-group tendencies.) ] (]) 16:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC) |
|
My main reasoning is because 126 being a magic neutron number makes isotopes with 128 neutrons extremely unstable (e.g. Po), shouldn't 126 also being a proton magic number make element 128 extremely radioactive? 24.115.255.37 (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, read an interesting article postulating a mechanism where the actual inner electrons themselves might add stability by radiating enough energy via the Cherenkov mechanism for unstable nuclei to in fact be meta-stable. This would be a mechanism where theoretically impossible (eg element 164) believed to be found in deep space could have very novel chemistry.
As of yet it is pretty strange stuff but gold and copper are a test case here as their colour is due to relativistic effects.
In actual fact because electrons can be paired they can in fact appear to go faster than light but only a very small fraction of them (0.000001%) and this may in fact be evidence of physics beyond the Standard Model. 91.190.161.160 (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
