This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
This article 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
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The first figure prominently shows several more-stable Copernicium nuclides (Z=112), but the text focuses heavily on Z=114 being a likely magic number. Is there reason to think that the island of stability should be centered around 112 rather than 114? Is this difference due to uncertainties in modelling the band structure of heavy atoms, or are there processes beyond shell closure that contribute to stability? Either way, it might be good to mention 112 more in the text to make it consistent with the figures. --Quantum7 12:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the occurrence of the island of stability is thought to be more a consequence of the neutron shell closure N = 184 than the proton shell closure (for which predictions vary, and which is widely thought to have a weaker influence anyway; see the KTUY chart). The neutron shell closure would provide additional stability towards alpha decay and spontaneous fission, but then one must also consider beta decay for nuclides off the beta-stability line, so the greatest stability exists for nuclides in the vicinity of N = 184 along the beta-stability line. Additionally, even near the shell closure, nucleon pairing influences alpha decay and SF half-lives (following the pattern for known nuclides), which would mean that the most stable nuclide in the region is probably not even-even.
Regarding 112, it's not thought to be a shell closure itself and it's not the only prediction mentioned in the article (110, 114, and others are theorized by some authors, and even these give a range of relatively long-lived nuclides), so mentioning it consistently elsewhere might give undue weight (the only consistency is N = 184, which is not specific to a single element). The figures illustrating the 112 predictions are some of the most accessible and illustrative of the general trends, even if predictions for the most stable nuclide vary. ComplexRational (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
