Jump to content

Talk:Island of stability

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleIsland of stability is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 21, 2020.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 15, 2019Good article nomineeListed
November 8, 2019Peer reviewReviewed
January 22, 2020Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 10, 2019.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that there may be an island of stability with so-called magic numbers of protons and neutrons?
Current status: Featured article

Intriguing research

[edit]

Hi, it seems that though the work of the late Amnon Marinov hasn't been completely verified it appears his incidental observations of super-heavy elements in nature may one day be confirmed. Specifically the observation of an unknown element with Z of 122 in thorium possibly kept meta-stable by surrounding atoms. If the nuclear shell model is correct then a proposed extension taking into account near relativistic outer electrons exchanging virtual particles with the nucleus, then its possible this by itself could explain some of the observed anomalies. Incidentally some natural gold is *theorized* to be a decay product of an even heavier element possibly berkelium or one of the actinides so this isn't entirely based on supposition.

We'll see what happens, but as mentioned in the unbibium article, it is quite unlikely to be correct given our current understanding and theories of the stability of superheavy elements. 292122 will most likely undergo alpha decay or spontaneous fission with a half-life of at most one microsecond, as will many other nuclides in this region (as well as 261Rg, also suggested by Marniov et al.), but we'll have to wait until if and when they are discovered to know for sure. If you have any other sources or predictions, though, feel free to suggest them. ComplexRational (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A rather colourful snippet from Kit Chapman's book Superheavy: "The only claims were coming from an Israeli–British team at CERN headed by Amnon Marinov, who were churning out a seemingly endless ream of papers claiming they had discovered element 112. To quote one superheavy researcher: ‘Everyone knew it was bullshit.’" The TWG and later JWP was, indeed, unconvinced; but at least they mentioned his 112 claim. His later claim for 122 was not even considered by them. Double sharp (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

High-spin nuclear isomers?

[edit]

Have there been any attempts to determine whether metastable nuclear isomers, similar to tantalum-180m, may exist in the superheavy region of the periodic table? If something like that exists, it would constitute a different type of island of stability. Ta-180m is observationally stable despite being an excited state, this is because it has spin 9 and thus its decay is highly forbidden. There might be others out there, but actually synthesizing such a nuclide might be extraordinarily difficult (as would locating them, since even if they occur naturally they would be extremely rare, just as Ta-180m is). The Yrast article seems to hint at such a possibility, FWIW.174.213.246.193 (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think 310126 is part of the island of stability

[edit]

This image shows that 310126 is not proton-bound. As a result, I think it should be mentioned somewhere on this article. 24.115.255.37 (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should also be mentioned on Extended periodic table 24.115.255.37 (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of narrow gaps instead of commas as thousand separators in science articles

[edit]

According to the Manual of Style, you may use as a thousand separator either a comma or a narrow gap (obtained by using the template {{gaps}}).

Nonetheless, the Manual of Style also states that grouping of digits using narrow gaps is “especially recommended for articles related to science, technology, engineering or mathematics”. This is due to the fact that it's the normalized way in the international standards (ISO/IEC 80000 and International System of Units), and also it's the recommended style by ANSI and NIST.

Proposal: Change to format numbers with gaps (i.e. "1000000" instead of "1,000,000").

Note: I do the proposal instead of changing it myself because, since it's a featured article, I believe it's better to gain consensus beforehand.

Thanks. RGLago (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]