Talk:Extended periodic table

message: Why is element 172 the only element whose chemical symbol (Usb) deserves a    template?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it would otherwise get "corrected" into USB. So far there does not seem to be such a collision for the other hypothetical elements mentioned. Double sharp (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: One could argue for E157 (Ups) vs. the United Parcel Service (UPS), but on Wikipedia UPS is a disambiguation page, and such examples would likely be subject to geographical biases of editors, unlike USB which is universal AFAIK. There could be others as well – this was just the first to come to mind – but if they aren't an active source of confusion, no need to make them into one. ComplexRational (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a typo 

message: The redirect Draft:Unbitrium has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Draft:Unbitrium]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: My main reasoning is because 126 being a magic neutron number makes isotopes with 128 neutrons extremely unstable (e.g. 212Po), 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)
replies: text: 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. Double sharp (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The same effect is also observed in the vicinity of 208Pb, 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. –a sock of ComplexRational (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also observed around 100Sn, with 104Te having the second shortest known alpha half life iirc (18 ns), behind only 8Be 24.115.255.37 (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  I just want to say that I think element 128 will be extremely radioactive 

message: 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)
replies: text: That seems very interesting. Can you send me the link? 24.115.255.37 (talk) 03:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. 91.190.161.160 (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: cool 24.115.255.37 (talk) 03:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyper-relativistic elements