Talk:Unbibium

History note

• At 22:29, 3 November 2018‎ much text was added from Draft:Unbibium (which after that was moved to Unbibium (version 2)). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

eka-thorium

I think the name eka-thorium is incorrect, as this element (theoretically) is not under thorium. See Extended periodic table (detailed cells). Also, this name is not sourced. -DePiep (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: Several references refer to unbibium as eka-thorium: [1] [2] ComplexRational (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Then: A. add these sources to the article, and B. explain why an element can be eka without having an upper neighbour. (Ubb is *not* below Th) -DePiep (talk)

A) I am pasting a version I worked on in draftspace that includes those sources. B) The only reason I can concieve is the predicted chemistry of Ubb as a homologue to Th, but since I cannot find anything explicit regarding its position in the PT or the use of eka-, I will remove it from the lead section - at least until I find something clearer (even though Mendeleev predicted scandium as eka-boron, in our PT Sc is not below B). ComplexRational (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I feel like the name eka-thorium was only used as a way to relate Ubb and Th with their position on the periodic table in correlation with the noble gases. Eka-thorium is not all that correct. Technically, Eka-actinium wouldn't be correct for unbiunium either if the periodic table solely followed Aufbau's rules and it was the start of a new section of g-block superactinides (which it is) but without any upper neighbors. Still, the debate of whether Lanthanum/Lutetium or Actinium/Lawrencium should be shown beneath Yttrium is up for debate, but that isn't really an excuse for Ubb being eka-thorium. It has no upper neighbor no matter which way you slice it; eka-thorium is a references to 4 valence electrons, and doesn't mean that Ubb is below Th. I can see where you are coming from ComplexRational, and you do bring a fair point with it being used occasionally. What I would do personally is say in the lead, "Unbibium, Element 122...etc...the element is sometimes called eka-thorium. Something along those lines would be fine if for Uun, Ubn, and Ubu is says "also called eka-francium/barium/actinium". That would be the most accurate. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Element 122 has chemically active 6f, 7d, 8s, and 8p orbitals, but 5g does not collapse until element 125. There are thus some grounds for calling elements 122, 123, and 124 f-elements rather than g-elements, although in the 8th period the blocks are all mushed together and this is all of not much help. As f-elements, they really would be eka-thorium, eka-protactinium, and eka-uranium, and even if we do not draw them as such they should still have similar chemistry to Th, Pa, and U, which justifies the name already. Mendeleev was looking at chemistry, not electronic structure, so there is a precedent. ^_^ It is something like eka-boron for Sc indeed, which only makes sense in the 8-column form of the periodic table. Double sharp (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I would say this article could probably include talk about its similarity to thorium, as well as it being the first element that needs to be placed on a new row of superactinides, as well as what that the fact means for periodic trends, real and hypothetical. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

If we say it is also called "eka-thorium", that must be sourced (otherwise it would be OR). So some scientist must claim its eka-Th position (homologue, in same PT group). Still others may position Ubb elsewhere and not minding an eka-thing. Next issue: I thought the lanthanides and actinides do not have a group number because they do not behave like a group (oxidation states vary way beyond a group-character). If this is correct, talking about homologue or eka-position (i.e. definitely column/group-related) is not appropriate. -DePiep (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

For the most part, they don't, but Ce and Th are exceptionally not too far from each other because you can have Ce^IV. And you can say that E122, E123, and E124 are analogous to Th, Pa, and U without bringing the different Ce and very different Pr and Nd into it. Like I said, Mendeleev was looking at chemistry, not electronic structure. So E122 does not have to be under Th to be eka-Th. Indeed, whatever is under Th (maybe E144) could equally well be another eka-Th. Double sharp (talk) 07:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

My bad. Although g electrons have to wait a bit to appear in the ground state, that is not relevant at all for chemistry. Element 121 should have [Og]5g¹8s² already at 2.48 eV (Umemoto and Saito 1996), so 5g¹ should be lower still for 121²⁺. Thus just like La and Ac starting the f block, and Lr starting the d block, element 121 should correctly be taken as the start of the g block.

This being said, there will for sure be secondary analogies of elements 121 through 124 to Ac through U, just as Ac through U themselves have secondary analogies to Lu through W. That is: same number of valence electrons, even though symmetries of valence subshells differ. I guess though that since this loose sense of eka has not been needed for quite a while, it will look confusing and need explanation. Double sharp (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

P.S. In some sense the whole thing is a bit moot. The successes in getting up to element 118 came from the doubly magic lead (cold fusion) and calcium (warm fusion), modulo one odd proton for the bismuth targets. The problem is, cold fusion fizzled out with zinc beams because of the Coulomb repulsion, and warm fusion runs into the lack of einsteinium and fermium targets. Once you go to titanium instead of calcium, you lose the doubly-magic advantage and make the reaction less asymmetric, so everything becomes a lot harder. And even that only scotch-tapes the problem, because all it does is get you two elements further. (So would getting Es and Fm targets, incidentally.) Then you need chromium beams (much tougher). Then you get to iron, nickel, in which case, forget it. We may break into the g-block with supreme effort, but actually getting seriously deep in it will probably need revolutions.

Pessimistic me seriously wonders if the breakthrough for 119 will not have to be an Es target to use the magic Ca beam one last time, similar to what Folden said. I hope I am wrong. :( Double sharp (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Unbibium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Double sharp (talk · contribs) 08:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this. Double sharp (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I've looked at the article and fixed a few minor details. The article is very comprehensive and well-written. There's nothing serious enough to hold up the GA, so I'm passing it. Congratulations! Double sharp (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Thanks for your review! I guess it's time to work on something else (for now)... ComplexRational (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I also support as a Good Article. Nice work on Unbibium @ComplexRational:, you tidied it up very nice! Because you already received a pass from Double sharp, make sure you archive the nomination. If you really want to, you can always try to set up an AfC for Unbitrium, the next element in line, or Unbihexium, the only unsynthesized element that has had substantial work completed for synthesis. I personally think that Unbibium is a good stopping point, but an Unbihexium article has existed in the past, so that could be a possibility to try to make. Still, it's up to you. Nice job!

@UtopianPoyzin: Thank you for your support. I saw at other element talk pages that the GA review is automatically archived - is there something else that I must do? Also, I'm unsure about unbitrium and unbihexium because while there are predictions about decay properties and half-lives, no article is devoted solely to one of these elements, I haven't found any predictions about their chemistry other than electron configurations and oxidation states described in extended periodic table, and the former has not even had synthesis attempts. Furthermore, these articles have been recreated and re-redirected numerous times with the same reasoning. I suppose I could create userspace drafts, but there isn't very much to say exclusively about these elements, and it likely will not be easy to gain consensus for creation. That's just my take though. ComplexRational (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: You're right, I'm wrong. There isn't any archiving needed here. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Real?

If it doesn't exist, why should we even write an article? What do we even know about iit? We could be completely wrong about this! Porygon-Z 14:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)

The purpose of the article is to explain various predictions on chemical and nuclear properties (there are quite some) from reliable sources. We cannot say if we are right or wrong until the element is discovered and there is empirical data. ComplexRational (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Original source for 2000 GSI try for 122

Is in this paper (where Ds, Rg, and Cn were confirmed also). Double sharp (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)