Talk:Periodic table (extended)

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 January 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to g-block.

Elements

This redirect is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this redirect, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements articles

Chemistry

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles

Incorrect Electron Configuration

This extended periodic table is not correct. Lanthanum, for example, has one d electron, and zero f electrons, and lutetium has 14 f electrons. The correct extended periodic table has the f elements inserted after one family (vertical column) of the d elements, that is, the d block is split by the f elements, and similarly the g block inserts one family into the f elements, again splitting the f elements. The first element with a g orbital in its ground state is unbitrium, element 123. This table is way off. -Steiner

I think you'll find most theorists would disagree. Electron configurations are not static: electrons skip around through the levels all the time - at any instant, a sample of an element will present a "boltzmann distribution" of populated configurations. (What you are thinking of are ground state configurations for isolated gas phase atoms: I don't believe we find much monatomic gaseous lutecium in everyday life, do you? ;-) Moreover, the "orbital approximation", where we regard each electron as a discrete entity with its own personalized set of quantum numbers, is just that: an approximation. It is a good one for light elements, but increasingly breaks down as nuclear charge Z increases, with increased spin-orbit coupling. By the f-block (and particularly the actinides), spin-orbit coupling is the dominant factor. The very concept of a "g-block" is moot, as no-one has yet synthesized these elements, and their electron configurations can at present only be guessed at - but we would strongly suspect the orbital approximation would be in tatters by that stage.--feline1 10:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and I think I'm not alone. In the current configuration, the claim is that lanthanum has an f electron in its ground state and no d electron, when in fact the electron configuration of lanthanum has one d electron, and no f electrons. This is not speculation. Additionally, based on the current table's assumptions, ytterbium and nobelium have 14 f electrons, which they do not--they have 13. Furthermore if the concept of a "g-block" is a moot point, then why is it included in this periodic table? I encourage you to look up the work of Darleane Hoffman at Lawrence Berkeley. -Steiner —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.165.118.5 (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

To follow your point here is an image of how it should look.

This is the accurate representation of this as you will see in most short periodic tables Lanthanum and Actinium are shown in the same group as Scandium and Yttrium and 14 elements across f block ends with Lutetium, for lanthanides, and Lawrencium, for actinides, not Ytterbium and Nobelium as show on this page. I'll check and site my sources so that an official edit can be made to this effect. -->Bensrob 03:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the site which is noted as the source for this page and every version of the extended periodic table, on that site, has it layed out as the picture i created and posted before. This is also shown in the electron configurations to go with each proposed table. The links are to one propesed design on the site, but there are others to compair this too. --> Bensrob 03:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you check the wiki pages for Lanthanum and Actinium it has there electron configuration as ending with

Eg.

For Lanthanum:-1S²2S²2P⁶3S²3P⁶3D¹⁰4S²4P⁶4D¹⁰5S²5P⁶5D¹6S²

For Cerium:-1S²2S²2P⁶3S²3P⁶3D¹⁰4S²4P⁶4D¹⁰4F¹5S²5P⁶5D¹6S²

AS shown here there is no electrons in the 4F¹ sub-shell. If ive messed any of that up please feel free to correct it. ---> Bensrob 04:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why s-block is not in the right side (and one row upper)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.228.230.250 (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colour

What colour should I colour the blocks in? for Periodic table/extended - fonzy

I'VE BEEN WAITING AGES FOR A REPLY ON THIS. - FONZY

It's fine the way it is. Geez, get a grip. --Ed Poor

- at the moment some one them are colour s i did nto chaneg, and teh otehrs are nto tehblock colours tehy are the colours of the groups. - FONZY

Well, it looks fine to me. --Ed Poor

I really don't know what to color the blocks fonzy - just choose something that is not the same as any of the colors used for the chemical series. --mav 21:59 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC)

The current colours in the key all look rather similar to me; perhaps it would be nice to have them cover a bigger range. But thinking about it, I'm not sure that colouring by block is particularly useful; I find that the eye divides the table naturally into blocks as it is. I think a colour scheme by (different types of) metal/nonmetal/metalloid as we currently semi-have is actually more useful. --Bth

- the reason it has to be devided by blocks is that no-one knows what the G-block elements are (even where the start, only theories at the moment). - fonzy

Elements above 120

WHERE DID ELEMENT 118 go??

I've unlinked all the entries above 120 because, as several places have said, these are only temporary names. Until they've been discovered, we really don't have much to say and after they've been discovered, they'll be renamed - likely for the discoverer. Any article on the new element should be created at that new name. Creating a bunch of red links now will just mean a lot more maintenance later.

There are, of course, exceptions like 118 which was thought to be discovered and then retracted. For reference, here is the list of names and symbols that I touched. Rossami 23:26, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not really. The time between the discovery of an element and it's naming can be decades! For example, it took Rutherfordium THIRTY THREE years to be named. That's why it's important to maintain links to the temporary names (and they can't be named after their discovers because you aren't allowed to be alive and have an element named after you... though if you wait 33 years...). Since they will be used (if the element is discovered), and not renamed for some time, I think we should replace the links. Ctachme 16:30, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've replaced the link to 126, because it has a theoretical interest. I suggest that the simplest way to approach this is to leave the table as is, and only link in elements which someone has cause to write an article on. Stirling Newberry 19:55, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

121 unbiunium Ubu
122 unbibium Ubb
123 unbitrium Ubt
124 unbiquadium Ubq
125 unbipentium Ubp
126 unbihexium Ubh
127 unbiseptium Ubs
128 unbioctium Ubo
129 unbiennium Ube
130 untrinilium Utn
131 untriunium Utu
132 untribium Utb
133 untritrium Utt
134 untriquadium Utq
135 untripentium Utp
136 untrihexium Uth
137 untriseptium Uts
138 untrioctium Uto
139 untriennium Ute
140 unquadnilium Uqn
141 unquadunium Uqu
142 unquadbium Uqb
143 unquadtrium Uqt
144 unquadquadium Uqq
145 unquadpentium Uqp
146 unquadhexium Uqh
147 unquadseptium Uqs
148 unquadoctium Uqo
149 unquadennium Uqe
150 unpentnilium Upn
151 unpentunium Upu
152 unpentbium Upb
153 unpenttrium Upt
154 unpentquadium Upq
155 unpentpentium Upp
156 unpenthexium Uph
157 unpentseptium Ups
158 unpentoctium Upo
159 unpentennium Upe
160 unhexnilium Uhn
161 unhexunium Uhu
162 unhexbium Uhb
163 unhextrium Uht
164 unhexquadium Uhq
165 unhexpentium Uhp
166 unhexhexium Uhh
167 unhexseptium Uhs
168 unhexoctium Uho
169 unhexennium Uhe
170 unseptnilium Usn
171 unseptunium Usu
172 unseptbium Usb
173 unsepttrium Ust
174 unseptquadium Usq
175 unseptpentium Usp
176 unsepthexium Ush
177 unseptseptium Uss
178 unseptoctium Uso
179 unseptennium, Use
180 unoctnilium Uon
181 unoctunium Uou
182 unoctbium Uob
183 unocttrium Uot
184 unoctquadium Uoq
185 unoctpentium Uop
186 unocthexium Uoh
187 unoctseptium Uos
188 unoctoctium Uoo
189 unoctennium Uoe
190 unennilium Uen
191 unennunium Ueu
192 unennbium Ueb
193 unenntrium Uet
194 unennquadium Ueq
195 unennpentium Uep
196 unennhexium Ueh
197 unennseptium Ues
198 unennoctium Ueo
199 unennennium Uee
200 binilnilium Bnn
201 binilunium Bnu
202 binilbium Bnb
203 biniltrium Bnt
204 binilquadium Bnq
205 binilpentium Bnp
206 binilhexium Bnh
207 binilseptium Bns
208 biniloctium Bno
209 binilennium Bne
210 biunnilium Bun
211 biununium Buu
212 biunbium Bub
213 biuntrium But
214 biunquadium Buq
215 biunpentium Bup
216 biunhexium Buh
217 biunseptium Bus
218 biunoctium Buo

Poll

This going back and forth is tiring. I strongly support the recent delinking of uncreated articles. Until someone has something to say about it, leave it unlinked.

Content of the poll:

Element articles shall only be linked to this page if the article linked 1) exists 2) contains information other than boiler plate material. Elements may have articles even if they have not been detected, if there is information of encyclopediac relevance.

Stirling Newberry 05:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stirling Newberry 05:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There should be an "or" between 1 and 2 above. If there remains any article on a non-hypothetical element that's only boilerplate, slap a tag on it and recruit some knowledgable people to help. If there's an article that has legit non-half-assed-guess verifiable information on a not-yet-existent or only-briefly-existent element, it should be kept and improved. Anything in neither of those two categories, but widely used in theoretical discussions, should be redirected to Transactinide element. The ones that are nothing more than extensions of the naming system with no cited usage (disregarding Wikipedia mirrors) should be deleted. Barno 03:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discovered

This is probably a dumb question, but what is meant by "discovered" in this article? Any other elements that come along are ones that will have been "created" by scientists in a labratory, right? Generally, we don't "discover" things that we artificially make our selves. func (talk) 04:20, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The scientist did indeed create the particular atoms, but the notion of an atom with 116 protons already existed in the platonic sense. What the scientist discovered is that atoms of that element can exist in our universe. So while they "created" the atoms, they "discovered" the element. 140.180.149.219 14:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this table needed

I recently created an article on Untriseptium, which gives reasons why elements of atomic number above 138 are unstable. Basically the 1s electrons of elements with atomic numbers higher than this would have to be traveling faster than the speed of light.

Therefore is the table to element 218 needed, considering that one could never generate atoms or ions of them, even if one were able to create a stable central charge. --Neo 22:06, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

The table in that case should extend to atleast element 139... 132.205.64.91 01:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclei of atomic number 139 and above could exist entirely stripped of electrons. Just like H+ or He2+ which have no electrons, this ion would be Uto139+. Some people conjecture that their massive density along with an occasional proton would give neutron stars huge nuclei. Flying Jazz 05:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I find the addition of period 9 to be bonkers. Period 8 is bad enough...--feline1 12:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, even neutral atoms with Z>139 are possible, only we don't yet have the physics to describe them (there is no consistent theory combining quantum mechanics with general relativity). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table incorrect ?!

None of the references given shows the extended periodic table as it is given here. In fact, only the first reference mentions it at all, and it gives three different versions of the extended table (one by Seaborg and two by other scientists). Seaborg's version, as given there, puts the f1 column to the left (between s2 and g1). The other (more recent) suggestions for an extended table vary even more from the Wikipedia table. So is there any reference for the Wikipedia version at all?? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He (Helium) has been floating around lately

Can we get some consensus on whether to put good 'ol #2 over Be (beryllium) or Ne (neon)? ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 01:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put it on the right because a) the referenced table puts it there, b) chemically, it belongs to the noble gases, not to the Alkaline earths, c) all other Wikipedia tables have it there.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What in heck heck is the point?

Why? Why have a periodic table where nearly half are undiscovered and will remain that way far beyond any of our lives, and maybe are completely unable to exist?

It's folly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.254.168 (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove highest-numbered elements ?

According to http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/603220/transuranium-element, it is generally believed that the highest possible atomic number is between 170 and 210. The Rihani reference used for the table only numbers the element boxes until 173. Thus I suggest we remove the element names and numbers from the table for all numbers above a certain limit (e.g. all above 173, or all above 190 (the average of 170 and 210)). Any opinions? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did scientists studied that the maximum possible atomic number is believed to be between 170 and 210? I think that the highest atomic number should be at least 218 since element 218 is the last element of period 9 and the last in the extended periodic table. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 17:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how they calculated these numbers, but the Encyclopedia Britannica is surely a trustworthy source. Whereas the extended table with 218 elements, as currently shown on this page, seems to be a Wikipedia invention (the only reference with a 9th period stops numbering at 173).--Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A vague statement that "The maximum atomic number, according to current theories, lies somewhere between 170 and 210" is not a discussion of the depth or clarity that induces confidence. I do not consider the EB a sufficiently reliable source for contemporary science, as compared with actual scientific works, and I think we need better citations than that. Even if this is pure speculation, there may be as ource for the speculation being notable. DGG (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is vague about the statement? I'm happy if you can give other sources. But currently, we do not have a single source for a periodic table with more than 173 elements, other than the EB. Thus, the higher elements must be removed by WP:OR. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now deleted the elements above 210, since there is no reference for their inclusion in the extended table and they cannot exist (at the current state of knowledge) according to the EB reference given above. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I seen that the Extended Periodic Table in Apsidium shows all 218 elements, while the New Periodic Table pages shows elements up to 369 except for the incompleted h-block. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 22:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I cannot open your link ("connection time-out").--Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because this website is encountering problems that last for months. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 23:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super-extended periodic table

If we add two more periods to the extended periodic table, then there would be an another theoretical block called the h-block, which will have 22 elements in each row, and the total number of elements in periods 10 and 11 are 72. This periodic table would be called super-extended periodic table, which will contain 362 elements (72×2=144+218=362). BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 23:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... Not taking the Z=173 limit (or relativistic effects) into consideration, then we get Period 10 going from Biunennium (219) to Biennilium (290). Period 11 would then go from Biennunium (291) to Trihexbium (362). What after that? If we have no stopping point (which I think we should at least take into cosideration), then we can go on to Period 12, containing the j-block of 26 elements, which gives us a total of 98 elements per period. If this increases, we would eventually run out of space. Period 8: Uue (119) - Uho (168) [Introduction of g-block] Period 9: Uhe (169) - Buo (218) Period 10: Bue (219) - Bne (290) [Inroduction of h-block] Period 11: Beu (291) - Thb (362) Period 12: Tht (363) - Qhn (460) [Intoduction of j-block] Period 13: Qhu (461) - Ppo (558) Period 14: Ppe (559) - Hoh (686) [Introduction of k-block] Period 15: Hos (687) - Ouq (814) Period 16: Oup (815) - Esh (976) [Intoduction of l-block] Period 17: Ess (977) - Uuto (1,138) Period 18: Uute (1,139) - Utto (1,338) [Introduction of m-block] Period 19: Utte (1,339) - Upto (1,538) Period 20: Upte (1,539) - Uson (1,780) [Introduction of n-block] Period 21: Usou (1,781) - Bnbb (2,022) Period 22: Bnbt (2,023) - Btun (2,310) [Introduction of q-block] Period 23: Btuu (2,311) - Bpeo (2,598) Period 24: Bpee (2,599) - Beth (2,936) [Introduction of r-block] Period 25: Bets (2,937) - Tbsq (3,274) Period 26: Tbsp (3,275) - Thhh (3,666) [Introduction of t-block] Period 27: Thhs (3,667) - Qnpo (4,058) Period 28: Qnpe (4,059) - Qpno (4,508) [Introduction of v-block] Period 29: Qnpe (4,509) - Qepo (4,958) Period 30: Qepe (4,959) - Pqsn (5,470) [Introduction of w-block] Period 31: Pqsu (5,471) - Peob (5,982) Period 32: Peot (5,983) - Hphn (6,560) [Introduction of x-block] Period 33: Hphu (6,561) - Suto (7,138) Period 34: Sute (7,139) - Ssoh (7,786) [Introduction of y-block] Period 35: Ssos (7,787) - Oqtq (8,434) Period 36: Oqtp (8,435) - Euph (9,156) [Introduction of z-block] ... Period 38: Eose (9,879) - Unhso (10,678) [Introduction of b-block] ... Period 40: Uuqse (11,479) - Ubthn (12,360) [Introduction of c-block] ... Period 42: Utbqt (13,243) - Uqbun (14,210) [Introduction of a-block] ... Period 44: Upuse (15,179) - Uhbth (16,236) [Introduction of e-block] ... Period 46: Usbeq (17,294) - Uoqqp (18,445) [Introduction of i-block] ... Period 48: Uepeo (19,598) - Bnoqs (20,847) [Introduction of o-block] ... Period 50: Bbneo (22,098) - Btqqe (23,449) [Introduction of u-block]

And now we've run out of letters. Sure, we could talk about Period 52, containing 1,458 elements, along with the Alpha-block (α-block), containing 106, but is there really any point to attempting to predict the chemical properties of Bihexbihexnilium, the 26,260th element on the periodic table with symbol Bhbhn (which, by the way, woul be either a noble gas or a post-transition metal, depending on wheter or not the post-transition metal category will overcome the halogen and noble gas categories as it did with the pnictogens and chalogens)? That's not to say, of course, that I wouldn't like to see us try. I think that this is an idea that should be taken into some serious consideration... Why should we end at 173, anyway? Let's start be following Seaborg's 218 element model. Jacob S-589 (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]