Talk:Moscovium/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ununpentium in "The Core"?

Is anyone absolutely sure that Ununpentium was mentioned in the movie "The Core"? The only exotic substance I remember from it is Unobtainium! Unless someone either points me to an external page that proves the reference to Uup in The Core, tells me exactly at what time Uup is mentioned, or provides me with a clip from the movie where Uup is mentioned, I am deleting the reference to The Core. Devil Master 10:06, 11 Nov 2005 (MET)

The screenplay would answer the question. Unlike most movies, I searched for the screenplay online and couldn't find it. Can anyone find the screenplay for "The Core"? Netdragon 03:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

---

For a November 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ununpentium

---

Elementbox converted 11:25, 15 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 20:37, 7 June 2005).

What's with the wrong IPA keys for all the elements?

That's not Latin! Those sounds aren't in the spelling. What's their source? -lysdexia 19:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It's some little Scientian, a creole between Greek and Latin related to Macaronian. Said: Rursus ☻ 22:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Name

Is there a proposed name for this element, like Element 113? --myselfalso 02:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Eka-bismuth. (or Elerium, of course) --NEMT 00:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Elerium has been used as a name for element 115 before in the context of Aliens UFOs. It is a name a lot of people would like. PolymerMan 13:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Where does the name Elerium originate from anyway? - Zelaron 23:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

From the awesome MicroProse game X-Com: UFO Defense (USA title), and also from other sources. That's the one I know. -:-  AlpinWolf   -:- 06:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that X-COM: UFO Defense is a remarkably awesome game, are there any sources that verify that the originators of the name were part of MicroProse? - Zelaron (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It's utterly unofficial, but Elerium is popular among science fiction fans, due to its place in UFO culture. An example is the game UFO: Enemy Unknown, where Elerium-115 is used as UFO fuel. --Jonathan Drain 15:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Baby with the bathwater

In the attempt to purge this article of pop culture references, it seems to have removed all references to E115 being in the island of stability. Right now that is mentioned in the lead, but not in the article, which is the exact opposite of what is supposed to happen. Serendi^podous 04:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

debatable discovery

I believe this section has merit. There is a large amount of credibility to the claims, including testimonies from educated, credible sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel E. Rowan (talk • contribs) 07:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

We usually request secondary scientific (high-energy physics is the appropriate science field in this case) sources to confirm such claims before inserting them into an article. Materialscientist (talk) 08:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The story is neurological, rather than about Ununpentium. A very smart guy with some extreme dyslexy, as a response for his efforts, gets all impressions put together in advanced ways by some other part of the brain than normal people use to use normally. We have heard such things about the brain. The article might be usable in the article dyslexia, if it can be backed by secondary commentors. Try there, the topic is notable enough if it can be backed. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 07:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Island of stability and isotopes

This article originally was biased towards there being no stable isotopes of 115, and too heavily on the assumption that all of the possible isotopes have been fabricated, which is not only fallicious (there are predicted isotopes up to Uup-291), but it's complete lunacy to make such assumptions without emperical evidence. A couple isotopes being fabricated within a couple years doesn't constitute sound emperical evidence. In fact, it's just as much pseudoscience as Bob Lazar's stuff, and you should try to keep the article unbiased -- don't overcompensate in the other direction. The definition of pseudoscience, in a nutshell, are things not emperically based, and whether it's belief in element 115 as antigravity or that there's no stable 115, it's still pseudoscience. I've therefore removed a lot of the Bob Lazar stuff since it doesn't belong here (I agree a brief mentioning is reasonable for cultural reasons). I'll try to merge it into the existing Bob Lazar article. I therefore tried to make this article as unbiased as I could -- not saying he's wrong, which we can't prove, but also keeping this article grounded in science. In fact, since element 115 is in the Bismuth group, it should have some unique diamagnetic properties. netdragon 29 July 2006

Don't trust periodic trends for elements with Z numbers this high. Relativistic spin-orbit coupling is expected to be much stronger for Uup than for bismuth, so I wouldn't be surprised if Uup displays very different properties from bismuth as a result. It could very well be diamagnetic; it might even be superconductive at room temperature for all we know; one thing for sure is that relativistic effects will cause it to have some unusual characteristics. But admittedly we don't know what those characteristics will be yet. And we may never know, unless by some miracle it ends up having (meta)stable isotopes. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Need longer half-life for chemical properties to make sense

I've deleted the following text:

It is expected to be a hard, low-melting metal (around 250 °C) possibly slightly coloured and to have diamagnetic properties like bismuth.

(in Elementbox) series: presumably poor metals

(in Elementbox) appearance: unknown, probably silvery white or metallic gray

(in Elementbox) phase: presumably a solid

Unless someone succeeds in producing an isotope with a half-life significantly longer than 87 ms, there is no hope of having enough of the stuff to have any chemical properties. Furthermore, no source is cited for the above speculations. I left in the section "Chemical properties" which cites a source and appears to stick closer to what is known. Kingdon 13:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Good! An eka-dvi-computation won't be enough, since the inner electron shells are expected to be relativistic. Unless we have a good source to guess like, all our guesses will be wrong, faulty and full of errors. Said: Rursus ☻ 14:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Plus there won't be such a source unless a stable-enough isotope exists and it is produced so that experiments can be done. mike4ty4 (talk) 05:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that it could be possible that this element may be a liquid at room temperature, based from the considerable decrease in melting point from antimony to bismuth by about 360 K. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 17:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Stable E115

Needs to be cleaned-up before going back in the article. Specifically, good sources need to be used and this needs to be NPOVd. --mav (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There is much debate regarding the possibility of a stable isotope of element 115. The element is expected to lie within the island of stability and recent results have confirmed its existence (see ununquadium). The recent synthesis of two isotopes of ununpentium has been taken to suggest that the existence of a stable isotope is unlikely. However, many critics fail to appreciate the nature of closed magic shells. In particular, most people focus solely on the much-talked-about N=184 shell. It should be pointed out that this is not the only closed magic neutron shell. Calculations have indicated a closed deformed magic shell at N=196 and a spherical closed shell at N=228.<ref name=05Den>"Magic numbers of ultraheavy nuclei", Denisov, V.., Phys. Atom Nucl., 68, 7, 2005. Retrieved on 2008-03-03</ref><ref>"Superheavy Hartree-Fock Calculations", Saunier et al., Phys. Rev. C., 1972, 6, 591-595. Retrieved on 2008-03-03</ref> These calculations in conjunction with expected trends<ref name=97Smo>"Properties of the hypothetical spherical superheavy nuclei", Smolanczuk, R., Phys. Rev. C 56, 812-824 (1997). Retrieved on 2008-03-03</ref> strongly imply that more stable isotopes of element 114 are possibly ³¹⁰114 (N=196) and most likely ³⁴²114 (N=228). Taking hindrance of fission by odd particles into account, the most stable isotope of element 115 is probably ³⁴⁵115 and definitely not ²⁹⁹115. Such nuclei also have much more favourable N/Z values and lie closer to the classical stability line.²⁹⁸114 is in fact relatively neutron deficient for a Z=114 nucleus (N/Z 2.61 c.f. 2.60 for ²⁴⁴Pu) using a classical liquid-drop approach. Using the trends in Q_alpha vs N from recent calculations,<ref name=97Smo/> extrapolations indicate that Q_alpha should fall on approach to the N=228 shell and Q_alpha may reach a value of ~5.8 MeV for ³⁴²114.<ref>see figure 4 in 9</ref> This provides a halflife of 1.83x10¹⁰ years (using Viola-Seaborg equation) and can be taken to be 'stable', like uranium. --mav (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that Uup-342 is very unlikely to have half-life that long, but Uup-299 can have half-life this long as the main article says that Uup-299 would be the most stable isotope of Uup. Uup-342 would very likely have extremely short half-life, decaying to Uuh-342 through beta-decay. It will keep beta-decaying until it ends probably at Ube-342. So how did you figure it out that the half-life of Uup-342 is 1.83 × 10¹⁰ years, which is the most stable isotope of Uup? Maybe you should start the article Viola-Seaborg equation about how to calculate probable half-lives. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 22:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think beta-decay for Uup-342 or other neutron-rich superheavy nuclides is likely; if it does happen it will likely have a longer half-life than one might expect. Remember, Uup (and other superheavy elements) have extremely high electron cloud density very close to the nucleus (partly because of relativistic effects, and partly just as a consequence of extremely high Z). Since beta decay involves the creation and emission of an electron, and electrons obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle, it seems like beta decay might be suppressed for superheavy elements as a result, since it would be partially forbidden by quantum mechanics. It should be noted that no isotope of any element from nobelium onward has been observed to undergo beta decay yet; this would seem to confirm my hypothesis that superheavy nuclei are at least somewhat more resistant to beta decay than lighter ones. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Elerium-115

Elerium-115 serves as the power source for alien technologies in the X-COM video game series.

This is a misinterpretation of the way elements are written. When a number follows the name of an element in this manner, it denotes a specific isotope of that element. The isotope of uranium which is used for nuclear fission is called uranium-235, but this does not mean that it is element number 235. Uranium is in fact element number 92, in this case with a mass number of 235. Those isotopes of ununpentium which are mentioned in the article include ununpentium-286, which more than twice the size of the fictional Elerium. Tin-115 is an example of a stable element with that mass number.

So Elerium is irrelevant in this context. If it existed and obeyed normal laws, it would be element 50 or so. I argue that it should be removed from the article 79.102.158.162 (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Pop Culture & Call of Duty

I'm surprised that pop culture hasn't been mentioned on this page since this element plays a vital role in the fiction of nazi zombies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.196.159 (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: write Element 115 in fiction. Be WP:BOLD! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

While it may seem like something vital to you, to most of the world (those who are not young, male, and American), this type of video game trivia is irrelevant and does not belong in an encyclopedia article. ChemNerd (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Although I have to largely agree with the young and male comments, I would disagree with the American part, believe it or not, we do have games consoles in other parts of the world. Going by the popularity of Call of Duty, I would say that it is the reason why a significant proportion of the people who have viewed this article came here, which would make it notable. It isn't really notable enough to warrant its own article though. Will Bradshaw (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It really doesn't belong. Ununpentium gets a reference in Call of Duty, but ununpentium itself isn't really significant to the game - the game would be no different if it was called something else - they just randomly picked ununpentium. Similarly, Call of Duty has no real relevance to a synthetic superheavy element in the periodic table. There is no significant connection in either direction, and therefore it is simply trivia that shouldn't be mentioned in the article. 148.177.1.210 (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Uhp?

The elementbox template on this page says "(Uhp)" is "below" ununpentium. I can't find the symbol Uhp anywhere. What is it? -- Mikeblas (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Look at the extended periodic table, the element unhexpentium (atomic number 165) is below ununpentium. PlanetStar 21:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

What about WP:BRD?

Instead of edit warring which can get everyone blocked, traditionally the talk page here is used to justify challenged new insertions to an article. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is happening at WT:ELEM#Ununpentium instead, because it would impact how popular culture references are treated in all articles on elements. Currently no elements have such sections. Double sharp (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Naming

Is all this talk about Latin quin, Greek pent, and flerovium even necessary??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.114.202.32 (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Suppose someone wants to know why it got the name "ununpentium". This would be a logical article for them to try to look for these facts. I don't see any harm in it. Why, is it bothering you? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Half of this information is covered in the systematic element naming article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.2.215.2 (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

New evidence given

http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/o.o.i.s?news_item=6082&id=24890

There you go, guys and gals. Looks official to me. Sweet! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.183.232.24 (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing "official" in it (yet), just more evidence. Still nice, of course. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

IUPAC will look into it. Double sharp (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Protonk (talk · contribs) 15:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

overview

Like flerovium this is generally a pretty great article. I have some concerns with the discovery section that I've detailed below, but otherwise I feel that with some relatively minor changes I should be able to pass this article.

Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

style/layout

• The lede is less complete here than it was for flerovium, failing to note the JWP comments on the discovery. I also think the way we describe the element's synthetic nature was done in a slightly more straightforward manner w/ flerovium. However these concerns are minor and need only be addressed at your discretion. Overall the lede is perfectly acceptable for a GA.
  • Addressed, I think. Double sharp (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Is there a better graphic for 115's place about the island of instability than this?
  • There are nicer ones, but this is the most up-to-date one I found. It's also created by an expert in the field, which I think is a good enough reason to sacrifice some niceness of the image. Double sharp (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Works for me. Protonk (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• We wikilink Isotopes of ununtrium twice in the reaction chain (via redirects). Is the intent here that these will be individual article as some point in the (possibly distant) future?
  • Yes. It will probably be a very distant future though. :-P Double sharp (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

content

• "The Dubna–Livermore collaboration has strengthened their claim for the discovery of ununtrium by conducting chemical experiments on the final decay product Db-268" I'm not sure about the placement of this sentence in concert with the rest of the section. I think we have a relatively straightforward series of claims to make in the article. The first synthesis reported that they produced ununpentium which alpha decayed to ununtrium. Follow-on experiments showed that the final decay product behaved in a chemically expected fashion, though later we mention that Db-268's nuclear characteristics were likewise what we expected. Why were the chemical properties of dubnium believed to be valuable (IUPAC disagreed, as we note)? What prompted the researchers to take this route and what evidence did the first experiment produce to show that ununpentium had been created? I'm curious because we presumably had some model for the decay chain giving us confidence that it would end in dubnium but it's not clear from the article why chemical analysis was used or why the team felt it would be dispositive.
  • The trouble is that ²⁶⁸Db had not been characterized before. In fact, none of the nuclides in the decay chain of ununpentium were known before the first synthesis of ununpentium. This is troublesome because it means that this doesn't confirm anyone's reported decay properties and hence another group has to come in and confirm things. For obvious reasons this can take some time. Hence, I imagine the Dubna team decided to go for chemical experimentation as well to identify the final, amazingly long-lived nucleus (²⁶⁸Db is the heaviest nuclide with a half-life over a day; this could well also have been a factor, but I cannot prove that). (Note; this isn't directly sourced, but they must know the JWP criteria, and chemical experiments would help them to fulfill them where they could not do so for the nuclear properties.) Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Got it. Protonk (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Like the above the last sentence in this section is somewhat unclear. We explain (nicely, in my mind) why IUPAC was skeptical about the chemical evidence but this part "...and the identification of the daughter dubnium isotope was the most important factor in confirming the discovery of ununpentium and ununtrium." doesn't seem to follow. At the very least the conjunction should be "but" unless I'm misreading it.
  • Changed to "but". Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• "In experiments in June 2004 and December 2005..." Awkwardly worded
• "Using Mendeleev's nomenclature for unnamed and undiscovered elements, ununpentium should be known as eka-bismuth." In the flerovium article we say "Using Mendeleev's nomenclature for unnamed and undiscovered elements, flerovium is sometimes called eka-lead." Why the difference?
  • You're right, there shouldn't be a difference. Regularized it in 115 to follow Fl. Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• "...IUPAC published recommendations according to which the element was to be called ununpentium..." awkwardly worded. How about "In 1979 IUPAC recommended ununpentium (with the corresponding symbol of Uup), a systematic element name as a placeholder..."? I'm not super sold on my alternate wording but it's worth another look
  • Better? Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• "The recommendations are largely ignored..." should be "These recommendations..."
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• The last paragraph in naming should probably proceed from the general to the specific. Noting first that the JWP offers naming rights in light of a confirmed discovery, then that the claim had been made by Dubna and found wanting by IUPAC (here folding the first sentence into the sentence that starts with "In 2011...") finally noting the likely re-evaluation in the future.
  • Better? Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• "This considerably enhances the chances for the discovery of ununpentium to soon become officially recognized by IUPAC" Could probably be reworded and shortened. That paragraph also starts with "...announced they had repeated the 2004 experiment and that its findings were confirmed." which could be "announced they had repeated the 2004 experiment, confirming Dubna's findings." (depending on how metonymic we'd like to be about the lab)
  • Better? (Generally very metonymic, I think.) Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• "...in addition to alpha decaying and also have a long enough half-life of several seconds." What is a "long enough half-life"?
  • I meant a "relatively long half-life"; changed. Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• "... thus affording the most likely hope of reaching the middle of the island using current technology" "thus" seems unecessary here
  • You're right, and thus (LOL)  Done. Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• "Other possibilities include quasifission (partial fusion followed by fission) of a massive nucleus." Coming on the heels of a sentence like "Possible drawbacks are..." leads me to believe this is also a drawback. Looking ahead it appears that this isn't a drawback but is instead (like multi-nuclei transfer reactions) is another path to synthesis. Maybe we can break out the later sentences into a new paragraph to make clear that we're talking about distinct paths forward and address the means and concerns distinctly. Otherwise it becomes tough for the reader to keep things straight.
  • Split the later sentences into a new paragraph. Double sharp (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• "...at velocities comparable to the speed of light, which is where the differences arise." I think I missed this in the flerovium review, but that's sort of an odd sentence. It's not bad (especially if the reader peruses the spin-orbit interaction article) but it's sort of unclear. I think we're trying to say that the spin orbit effect is more pronounced at relativistic speeds but "where the differences arise" isn't getting us that.
  • Removed that clause – I think it's clearer without it. Double sharp (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• "However, the Uup3+ cation would portray eka-bismuth properties." What does this mean? I'm assuming it's explained in the next sentence but I'm not 100% sure (and that assumption is mostly driven by noting that they're sourced to the same cite)
  • It means that it should behave like Bi³⁺, which is its lighter homologue. Changed it in the article to make it clearer. Double sharp (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Why are the characteristics of Bismuth and Polonium hydrides important here? The linked paper notes (in a section title) that they're models for the behavior of 115 and 116 but it's not immediately apparent in the article that this is why we discuss it. Rather the phrasing of "However, the targets included lead and bismuth impurities and hence some isotopes of bismuth and polonium..." makes it seem like these are shortcomings in those experiments. I may be misreading one or the other, but it isn't clear to me.
  • It was a shortcoming (the production of Bi and Po was not planned for), but it gave useful information about how their heavier homologs 115 and Lv ought to behave. Better? Double sharp (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm forcing you to give me a physics lesson on the cheap here. :) Protonk (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• No, it's perfectly fine. Your points are really good and make me take a close look at what I've written, only to find that I did not mean what I literally said. Got to improve on that still, I think. :-) Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Contradictory half-lifes

The half-lifes in the infobox for Uup-288 and 289 (changed without giving a reference by Drjezza in 2011) contradict those in the lede, and in the isotopes article. Which are the correct values? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted Drjezza's edits, as I could not find a source for them. Double sharp (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

pronunciation?

The in-line pronunciation in the first sentence of the article is different from that located on the right side bar. Which is correct, oon-oon-pentium or un-un-pentium (sorry, I don't know IPA - the difference is whether the u sound is short or long)? The incorrect one should be removed from here and probably the commons as well. The same problem exists with the ununtrium and ununquadium articles. FWIW, the article on ununhexium currently has only one pronunciation - the long-u "oon-oon-" one. Brianski (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity I checked Dictionary.com and one of its sources gives the pronunciation of the first two syllables as "uh-nun".__209.179.43.87 (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

About my alleged "possible vandalism"

I realize it's a standard message by a bot so I'm not overly offended. But is there some reason why beginning the article with " Ununpentium (literally "one-one-five") ... " should be considered vandalism? Is it unworthy of inclusion?__209.179.43.87 (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It was a Good Faith edit, not even "possible" vandalism. So I reverted it to make clear to you & to the bot that the bot was wrong (filed a report too; I think the bot is sitting in a corner now, crying).

Now about the edit itself. I think we should not write that. First it is not "literally', because IUPAC's systematic element name is not a true language. (later in the article this name is explained of course, with more text). But in general I think we do not need that info in the very first sentence. It is not essential for the element. So I will change it now, with you knowing that I took a serious look at it. Have nice edits, -DePiep (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. I had figured that the definition should be in the lede since most people don't bother studying the details in the body of the article and just read the lede (like the way people read just the beginning of a newspaper article). I also thought that the definition should be right after the word in question, since it's the common practice whenever an unusual or Fremdwort (foreign word) is used. But you guys are the science experts so I'll defer to your expertise. I also can't help but wonder that if the word "literally " isn't the proper word, what is?__209.179.44.186 (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a constructed language (by IUPAC, for these numbers only). So it is only literal within that language. More a mix of greek and latin associations, chosen to have 10 different initials (to make 'Ubt' unambiguous). Now because it is constructed for this purpose only, its mentioning is not that important (as an imported Fremdworter would be), and we prefer not to make it prominent. (In sources, the name "element 115" is used). It is in no dictionary. And no I am not a "science expert", but I am working to keep these elements a bit similar, for some time. Consistency, sound reasoning, pleasant reading. As you can see, your idea is not that far off. -DePiep (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Does this suggest...

A recent edit to the article says:

The IUPAC/IUPAP Joint Working Party (JWP) will decide which team officially discovered ununpentium and give that team the right to suggest a permanent name for it. In 2011, it evaluated the 2004 and 2007 Dubna experiments, and concluded that they did not meet the criteria for discovery. Another evaluation of more recent experiments will take place within the next few years, and a claim to the discovery of ununpentium has been again put forward by Dubna.[10] In August 2013, a team of researchers at Lund University and at the Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung (GSI) in Darmstadt, Germany announced they had repeated the 2004 experiment, confirming Dubna's findings.[12][13] Further confirmation was published by the team at Berkeley in 2015.[1]

This suggests that in 2016, I might hear that there's official info that a new name will be revealed for this element. Any corrections?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Based on reports I have read from minutes of meetings from IUPAC in August 2015, a report on the discovery of elements 113, 115 and 117 should be published soon (but they said that 12 months ago!). Drjezza (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Strange Patent

The patent number for element 115 is 3,626,605, dated 1971Intruder1670 (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This is incorrect. I looked and it turns out it's a "Method and apparatus for generating a secondary gravitational force field US 3626605 A". In fact a quick "Find" command turned up nothing involving Element 115. Feel free to check yourself. BTW, the second result on google is a strange site which i can only believe is made by a crank. 142.177.73.21 (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Element 115

I added a note "Redirect|Element 115|uses in fiction|List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles" but it was removed as "Notability?". Since element 115 is, and redirects to, Ununpentium, but it is referenced under that name in no fewer than four fictional works, Ben 10, Call of Duty: World at War, Seven Days (TV series) and in multiple DC Comics, it seems helpful to have the note pointing to its fictional uses described at List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles. Silver starfish (talk) 10:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really important --JWBE (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean that it is not really important whether or not the note appears, or that the fictional usages are not really important? Silver starfish (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I find that Wikipedians are opposed to interesting stuff just because they like to make people cry. I'm not talking about just the people here that remove cultural references. The cultural stuff about this element is in other articles and obviously should be linked to in a see also. I add the links in see also about once after 1-2 years and come back and some sadist or another removes it when I return years later. Typical scum... Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

In science, element 115 is distinctly different from element 100, not only by the number, but by all properties, whereas most cultural references simply pick up a nice number (115 because its not yet characterized in science) and do not give a hint why 115 but not, say, 114. Suggest lumping all such cultural references together in one article. Unobtainium is a good example. Materialscientist (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Element 115 is the narration device of choice in a lot of stories, NOT because "it's a nice number and it's not yet characterized in science", but because of the description of it given by Bob Lazar. All stories where element 115 is mentioned give it properties comparable to those described by Bob Lazar, which makes it distinct from other fictional materials like vibranium, adamantium, cavorite, kryptonite or unobtainium. Devil Master (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That just puts the problem back another step. Why did Lazar choose 115? Probably because "it's a nice number and it's not yet characterized in science". Double sharp (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Or because it's inside the island of stability, thus bound to have exotic properties because of its high atomic number. Devil Master (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I would not call long half-lives such an exotic property, as bismuth isn't really an exotic metal! Chemically it is expected to behave pretty much as predicted, though with more of an emphasis on the +1 state, which is not really so exotic. And somehow I doubt if Lazar knows anything about the island of stability... Double sharp (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

(P.S. While there is almost unanimous agreement that there is an island of stability, there does not seem to be agreement as to where exactly it is, other than that it is probably in the element 110–130 region, and that there might be another one in the element 156–172 region.) Double sharp (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Given the half-lives in the heavier elements, I would suggest that a long half life a la the island of stability would make for an exotic property given the context. That said, he probably did misunderstand what "island of stability" means given the duration the physicists suggest for such "stability". 142.177.73.21 (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Popculture references (elerium, XCOM, Lazar, etc.)

Can anyone find reliable references for the inclusion of a short "in popular culture" section? XCOM wikia has few good paragraphs, but they are likely OR: [1]. The best hit I am getting for connecting elerium with unupentium, reliable-source-wise, is [2], but even there it's an off-hand comment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The best I could find are sites like Physics Central and New Scientist that make oblique references to 115 in conspiracy theories and fiction. The New Scientist article name-drops the Tomb Raider game series, but that's about as specific as reputable sites seem to get. I do think that it's notable that an element that didn't exist until recently is actually somewhat pervasive in popular culture; that ought to merit at least a sentence or two on this page. It might require a few more links than I've found though. I don't think we need an exhaustive "In Popular Culture" section like the Wikipedia of olden days. Doktor Wunderbar (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Collapse list of unreliable sources peddling Lazar's nonsense. Double sharp (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9J9Bt6kjT0&t=08m13s - 70.189.251.205 (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAJHDOM--sA - 70.189.251.205 (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvDtK2rRcr8 - 70.189.251.205 (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-3ZmAba7xg - 70.189.251.205 (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Behold here four videos of utter pseudoscientific garbage. I need hardly mention that YouTube videos explaining Lazar's nonsense are not, in fact, reliable sources. Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC) from http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread33267/pg2#pid17692579 - 70.189.251.205 (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC) "The currently available isotopes of Ununpentium, 287, 288, 289, and 230 each have 172, 173, 174, and 175 neutrons. HOWEVER, since Ununpentium has 115 protons, which means Z=115, the neutron number, N, has to be equal to 184. Therefore, for Ununpentium to be stable, or at least to have a half-life over a day, it has to have the atomic mass of 115+184=299. Ununpentium-299 is too heavy to be created in cold fusion AND hot fusion laboratories today. So if we add a proton, p, to Uup-299, we get, Uuh-300. A proton breaks down via the inverse beta decay. P -> n + e+. P is proton, n is neutron, and e+ is a positron, an antimatter. Then, the free neutron, n, created from the previous reaction (decay) does a b- beta decay, turning back to a proton and releasing an anti electron neutrino and an electron. (n -> p + e- + (-ev)). Without furthur ado, we get: Uup-229+p -> Uuh-300 -> Uup-300 + e+ -> Uuh-300 + e+ e- + (-ve). 1. The e+, positron antimatter, crashes into e-, electron, 100% annihilating into energy. 2. The -ve, the anti electron neutrino, hits a proton in the uup nucleus, manually causing an inverse beta decay (p+(-ve) -> n + e+: the reaction that happened at the beginning of the process) 3. Since -ve is generated, the process is repeated until 100% of uup-299 is converted into energy" One would like to ask how you know all this when you yourself admit that 299115 is not known. Nor why there is no information about this in serious scientific sources. Especially since it doesn't make sense: if 300Lv was going to undergo β+ decay, it would decay to 300115, but this would not expel a free neutron. The proton that became a neutron remains in the nucleus. If what you say is true, it would work for any beta-plus-decaying nuclide. I wonder why nobody has discovered it for 22Na, which exists in trace amounts naturally (it's a cosmogenic nuclide)? Simple: because the universe does not work that way. Double sharp (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Why are you asking him? Go to the website it was quoted from, and ask the original person who posted that information. 64.145.94.96 (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC) It was intended as a rhetorical question. Double sharp (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC) from http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Element_115.htm - 70.189.251.205 (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC) "The maximum theoretical atomic mass isotope of Element 115 that could be produced in the reaction, above, 115UUP291, would only have 176 neutrons in its nucleus. This isotope of Element 115 is shy 8 neutrons from containing the magic number of 184 neutrons. The two actual isotopes of Element 115 produced by this reaction, 115UUP288 and 115UUP287 contain 173 neutrons, shy 11 neutrons from the magic number of 184, and 172 neutrons, shy 12 neutrons from the magic number of 184, respectively. This latest scientific breakthrough, however, provides significant credibility to Bob Lazar’s claims rather than discrediting his claims. Bob Lazar’s Element 115 discs used to make the wedge for the “Sport Model” Flying Disc Anti-Matter Reactor would have to have been the isotope of Element 115 containing the magic number of 184 neutrons, therefore, having an atomic mass of 299. The nuclear configuration of this isotope of Element 115 would be identical to the nuclear configuration of the only known stable isotope of Element 83, Bismuth, 83Bi209, containing the magic number of 126 neutrons, except that the Element 115 isotope would have one more energy level completely filled with protons and neutrons. 82 protons and 114 protons are magic numbers for protons because 82 protons completely fill 6 proton energy levels and 114 protons completely fill 7 proton energy levels. The 83rd proton for Bismuth is a lone proton in the 7th proton energy level and the 115th proton for Element 115 is the lone proton in the 8th proton energy level. 126 neutrons completely fill 7 neutron energy levels and 184 neutrons completely fill 8 neutron energy levels. Refer to the Nucleon Energy Level Table for Bismuth and Element 115, below, for the nuclear configurations of Bismuth and Element 115. This stable isotope of Bismuth, Element 83, has very unique gravitational characteristics. Refer to the Henry William Wallace Patent: U.S. Patent 3,626,605, “Method and Apparatus for Generating a Secondary Gravitational Force Field.” NOTE: Producing the theoretically stable super-heavy elements is very difficult because the reactant nuclei of these nuclear reactions do not have enough neutrons to result in a product nucleus with enough neutrons to obtain theoretical stability." Element 115 is (very briefly) mentioned here --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqyiab3vprw&t=04m40s 70.189.251.205 (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we should start a whole new article for cultural aspects on Ununpentium?

Element-115 is almost a cliche in sci-fi literature for the element that makes warp drives work. Even the new X-files season 10 has references to this notion, and ton of other movies/tv series's as well. There seems to be enough stuff to start an article on it's own without 'polluting' a scientific article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReinsOnChaos (talk • contribs) 09:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ununpentium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130828072747/http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/o.o.i.s?news_item=6082&id=24890 to http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/o.o.i.s?id=24890&news_item=6082

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I updated the link to original source. DMacks (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

IE (1st and 2nd) and EA (1st) of Bi, Po, At, 115, Lv, 117

Paper! Double sharp (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The Lazar thing

Lazar portraits this element to be stable and have unusual properties. A super heavy element which has the gravity A wave extend past the core of the atom. Hereby allowing some form of technology to access and amplify this gravity wave to circumnavigate the cosmos :) If you're going to ignore the Bob Lazar/UFO thing completely (I think it should be mentioned -- breifly) you should remove the otherwise cryptic link at the bottom of the page. Basesurge (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the Bob Lazar link - the article doesn't even mention ununpentium/ element 115. Thanks for noting. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-4_%28Sector_Four%29 article has information about his claims regarding Ununpentium. Also, I might point out that its a little beyond wikipedia's scope as NPOV to put his claim under a fictional heading. I'm not saying I believe it. I'm no scientist. But some people do ... and therefore the biased view are that it is fictional / non-fiction.--Senor Freebie (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a way to demostrate that Lazar's claim is actually fiction? 190.227.163.100 (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That isn't my point. I don't know anything about the science. But it is POV to claim that someones claim is fictional.--Senor Freebie (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that including the Lazar's claim under "Fictional Uses" probably violates NPOV. While I agree that it's fiction, it's not Wikipedia's place to make that judgment for it's readers. Would any object to simply renaming the section to something like "Cultural References"? YardsGreen (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the change, since no one has objected. YardsGreen (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC) (forgot to log-in the first time)

Collapse list of unreliable sources peddling Lazar's nonsense. Double sharp (talk) 05:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
While Bob Lazar's theories have never been proven, they have also never been disproven. His take on Element 115 is notable and there should be some mention of his claims in this article! Wiki ian 09:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9J9Bt6kjT0&t=08m13s - 70.189.251.205 (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAJHDOM--sA - 70.189.251.205 (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvDtK2rRcr8 - 70.189.251.205 (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-3ZmAba7xg - 70.189.251.205 (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC) from http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread33267/pg2#pid17692579 - 70.189.251.205 (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC) "The currently available isotopes of Ununpentium, 287, 288, 289, and 230 each have 172, 173, 174, and 175 neutrons. HOWEVER, since Ununpentium has 115 protons, which means Z=115, the neutron number, N, has to be equal to 184. Therefore, for Ununpentium to be stable, or at least to have a half-life over a day, it has to have the atomic mass of 115+184=299. Ununpentium-299 is too heavy to be created in cold fusion AND hot fusion laboratories today. So if we add a proton, p, to Uup-299, we get, Uuh-300. A proton breaks down via the inverse beta decay. P -> n + e+. P is proton, n is neutron, and e+ is a positron, an antimatter. Then, the free neutron, n, created from the previous reaction (decay) does a b- beta decay, turning back to a proton and releasing an anti electron neutrino and an electron. (n -> p + e- + (-ev)). Without furthur ado, we get: Uup-229+p -> Uuh-300 -> Uup-300 + e+ -> Uuh-300 + e+ e- + (-ve). 1. The e+, positron antimatter, crashes into e-, electron, 100% annihilating into energy. 2. The -ve, the anti electron neutrino, hits a proton in the uup nucleus, manually causing an inverse beta decay (p+(-ve) -> n + e+: the reaction that happened at the beginning of the process) 3. Since -ve is generated, the process is repeated until 100% of uup-299 is converted into energy"

Incorrect name

This article really needs to be fixed. This is not the proper name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4280:1050:C1D2:2B91:9605:84A1 (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes it still is, until around November. Double sharp (talk) 04:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Moscovium and the other new names are now official: https://iupac.org/iupac-announces-the-names-of-the-elements-113-115-117-and-118/ fluorogrol (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Motorhead

@Czolgolz: "irrelevant" -- I beg to differ. Not that I like the idea of some people who have no relationship with the element's discovery coming and saying, "thanks for making it, now hand it over and we'll name it," but this is notable enough to get in. This has gotten some media coverage, and this has attracted much attention at one time, getting 150k signatures in 11 days. The superheavies should also allowed to have their cultural impact. Even if it wouldn't last.--R8R (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@R8R:I'm not going to make a stand on this and I won't revert it again. But we've been through this with the super heavy elements and their mentions in video games, science fiction, and conspiracy theories. Just what makes a mention notable, and what makes it irrelevant? Czolgolz (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Czolgolz: The fact that unfortunately, reliable news outlets (one two three four) have stooped to cover this hopefully ephemeral trash. If it weren't for that, I'd be among the first to throw it out. Double sharp (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The main is that: UIPAC-naming process as PDF-file. No other nonsense! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

We'd mention that not because we actually think this will have some impact on the IUPAC or the discoverers. (For the record, I wouldn't want it to be different than that.) We'd mention that because it had some cultural impact, see the media.

As for notability, I'd say the difference with the previous non-scientific material and this lies in two important points: a) this one actually has to do with the element 115, and not just the concept of it, or even an even more generalized concept of unknown matter, and b) this one has its reliable sources and 150k people who signed this.

I'll get it back now, adding that IUPAC hasn't reacted to the petition.--R8R (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

IUPAC has, in fact, reacted to the petition. You just happen not to know about it since the response was not made public. User:J.meija —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@J.meija: Indeed; would you mind sharing the info with us?--R8R (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Isn't this just as silly as Bowie fans trying to get Mars or a constellation named after him [3]? What are we to expect when the next pop star passes on? AstroLynx (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I quite agree; they ought to stick to nameless insignificant asteroids. (Oh, where were all you reasonable people when this happened at Talk:Ununoctium?) My original argument was that neither IUPAC nor the discoverers care about this enough to comment, and they are the ones calling the shots on what the element finally gets named; therefore, it should not matter, and it can be revisited in the unlikely event that the discoverers decide against the symbolic name of moscovium they had been thinking about for a while in favour of this trash. However, the consensus there was against this (6–1). Now that another three people have shown up on the "don't put this rubbish in" side, we're now at 6–4 for its inclusion. So maybe it is worth looking at it again. Double sharp (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@AstroLynx: I think we can expect an initiative to name a month or a day of the week after them. By the ridiculous arguments that have been put up, they certainly qualify as gods worshipped by a minority of the population. (I'm not even making this up. Though I did make it more accurate by showing that as gods, they don't really have a sizeable market share.) They certainly act that way, after all. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion this kind of non-notable trivia (which hardly anyone will remember a month from now) does not belong here but could be added to Lemmy's page. AstroLynx (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Makes a lot of sense. After all, this event says a lot more about Lemmy than it does about element 115. Double sharp (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand why people may not want this to be here at all. But the thing is, while this is a clearly scientific topic, it doesn't mean it should be limited to science. The Large Hadron Collider article, for example, has its section "In popular culture"; we may establish on here as well, since it is not related to actual naming of the element.

I don't see why we should keep scoring how many say yea and how many say nay. We're having a discussion right now. We won't count votes anyway, because WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy. No other article is currently in question, so this is the best place for such a discussion. You may leave a note for anyone who could take part in any relevant place.--R8R (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it does serve as a rough way to gauge things. If things are at 6:1, then the result is obvious: there is clearly a consensus. If things are at 6:4, then obviously discussion needs to be reopened. Double sharp (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it important to know that Motorhead had a name proposal for ununpentium? My opinion ansolutely no. It is 101% irrelevant for our article Ununpentium. It is better to remove this irrelevant information from this article. My name proposal now: Alchemikium or Pniokium ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:TRIVIA can offer some guidelines on how to decide this issue. AstroLynx (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

My opinion would be yes, but only because the thing became so huge at one moment, and important for many people at once. You may say it's unimportant for you, but then you can't deny it is important for others, even if only at one point. Again, we have sources and stuff. I think we may add your proposals once they get similar resonance among the public.

I checked the guideline, and I think it unfortunately does not provide an unambiguous solution to our problem.--R8R (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It isn't important for the article about Ununpentium. Perhaps for Motörhead, but not for this article here. Motörhed has nothing to do with the element ununpentium. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

We're running in circles. I'll stop for now and wait if there will be any further reaction.--R8R (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

During the last two days, the "lemmium" proposal has been added twice to the article. While none has come to continue the discussion, it has not ended with a definitive result, and given the latest events, it may be the best time to restart it. The topic is important for others, and Wikipedia's main idea is to write about whatever is important for a reader. Nobody even suggested this could actually become the future name for element 115, and I haven't seen anyone write it in the article (and we should abstain from that). Nobody suggests a detailed coverage (which would be out of place here). My sincerest belief is that we may not exclude facts because we don't like them when writing Wikipedia.--R8R (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant is here still irrelevant and nonsense is here nonsense. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I also agree that the concept of naming a new chemical element after a recently deceased pop star sounds pretty daft. How do you think the project leader of the group who discovered this element will justify this? – "Yes, we spent millions of dollars/roubles/euros of taxpayers' money to make a few atoms of this element but rather than naming it after our country/research institute/famous national scientist we decided to name it after a foreign pop star." AstroLynx (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Only this here: Ununpentium#Naming has a valuable content. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

(Given the locations of the institutes involved, we probably need to add yen to that list of currencies for E113.)

Not only is it daft, but it is just not a possibility under the IUPAC criteria. Thus there are two massively improbable hurdles such a daft name would have to climb, and not one, squaring its unlikeliness. Double sharp (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

After I re-read the discussion, I have realized the reason the proposal is met with such rejection. Editors on this page mainly view Lemmium against the scientific criteria, which (of course) the proposal does not fulfill. However, the importance comes not from any scientific basis, but rather a cultural one, and the proposal needs to be viewed as a cultural event for ununpentium, not a scientific one. It has very little chance to ever succeed in adding Lemmy to the PT, of course; but this also has reasons to be mentioned in the article, as Sandbh pointed below. If the article had a "In popular culture" section, it would naturally belong there, I presume, but at the moment we don't (should we create one?), and in that case, "Naming" is the best place of what remains for choice.--R8R (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I've reinstated the footnote on the following grounds. The article has a naming section. The proposal has been mentioned in reliable sources. Although it is unlikely to succeed it is not in breach of the IUPAC naming conventions. As noted in this week's New Scientist it will be compliant provided there is astronomical object named after Lemmy. The proposal, at least in part, seeks to make chemistry have more "market appeal" to younger audiences—which is where the STEM disciplines, at least, in the West, have been suffering from declining university graduate numbers. It is supported by some reputable members of the scientific community. It is probably the biggest naming "controversy" since the argy-bargy about the early transactinides (I'm foggy on the details about the latter but Double Sharp will be familiar). I believe this proposal has prompted some further debate about the narrowness of IUPAC's naming conventions, which is a good effort by itself for an out of the box suggestion. Petitioners now exceed 150,000. Yes it will most likely fail but not for want of trying nor boldness nor potential cultural impact. Sandbh (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, given the current lack of an astronomical object named for him (no, buying star names from unofficial companies don't count), it actually doesn't meet the IUPAC criteria. This is absolutely not anywhere near as important as the Rf-Mt controversy. That one was between different discoverers: this one is from people who have no say officially. Double sharp (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

So, are you now inclined to delete or keep? As the first(?) attempted use of social media to influence the naming of an element I think it has some noteworthiness. Sandbh (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It is only an absolutely irrelevant for the element 115, it is a fan call for a popstar, similar to facebook lieks . We have here an article about the element 115. Put this info to his own article Lemmy and Motörhead. I'm still missing this there! I dislike this info in our article about the element 115. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I was always inclined against including such material, but would bow to whatever the consensus is. I do not think it has any noteworthiness unless IUPAC actually acknowledges the petition in any way. We do not (at least, I hope not) mention that even stranger proposal to rename Mars after David Bowie in the article on Mars. Double sharp (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Why I can't read something about the "petition" here Lemmy and here Motörhead, if it is soooooo important??? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It's there now, in the Lemmy article. Let's see, as per Double sharp, if IUPAC acks the petition in any way. Sandbh (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Or not. It's just been reverted (as trivia). Sandbh (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha, I can hardly believe it ;-) But it will be important for the Ununpentium article ... ??? It says to me much more: trivia and irrelevant for our Ununpentium article. Best regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

So, if it's trivia on Lemmy's own article, how can it magically be worth mentioning on element 115's article? Logically it ought to be even less notable! Double sharp (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

More about the namig "Lemmium" can be read here: Talk:Lemmy#Element_115. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

See, someone added a mention of lemmium back. I remember leaving the discussion after the proposal was disliked, which was an argument I didn't have enough stamina to overcome. But you see, people, too, find this can have some historical importance. This doesn't deserve a long discussion, and a brief mention would be enough here. Don't know (or care) about Lemmy or Motorhead: them are them and us are us.
Genuinely, I don't see why you guys resist a brief mention.--R8R (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Un-Ununpentium? Deleting popular culture

User DeltaT deleted this portion of the article. On what basis do we decide that "popular culture" issues do not properly belong in this or any article? But I would say it belongs particularly here as otherwise practically no one would ever come to this article.

To reply to "Aluminium is mentioned in popular culture, but does that matter to the enc. article?", I would say that if Aluminum was virtually unknown to the general public except where it was featured as a mysterious material in books and magazines, such a section should also be in an article on Aluminum.

Let's admit "Element 115" has been brought to popular attention by Science Fiction and restore the deleted material to this article. Headline the article as "Ununpentium in Science Fiction" if you like Carlw4514 (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If the popular culture is citeable, it should be here too because someone might wonder. We shouldn't trying to spoonfeed people what we might think is relevant according to a "serious" (narrow) world view, we should neither give popular culture undue weight. Some mention and some inwiki link could be relevant. I think an inlink to Stargate SG-1:s Naqahdah and an inlink to Bob Lazar's UFO allegations. At least SciFi is a great inspiration giver to Science, maybe some degree of UFOlogy too, although most UFO-like aircraft designs have failed. Inspirationstrangling positivism/cultism is not an entirely scientific nor philosophically sane concept. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 20:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Because popular culture is relevant to an encyclopedia (wherein the purpose is to contain a collective snapshot of information regarding a particular topic), and because ununpentium is so prevalent in Western sub-cultures, I move that the "Popular Culture" section be re-inserted into this article. The function of Wikipedia is not solely to provide scientific information. It is also to provide any significant cultural details about a certain topic, and ununpentium in popular culture is undeniably significant in both fiction and conspiracy literature. There is no reason to remove this section. Please re-insert it. Any discussion on this request is welcome and encouraged. 108.206.153.15 (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree this article should have full coverage of the popular culture subjects. The article on Gold has a large section on "Cultural History" which includes material on alchemy, numerous religious references and childrens fables. Gold also has a separate section on "Symbolism". The science fiction/UFO conspiracy references and specifically the Bob Lazar story are relevant to this element. In fact the only practical use for Moscovium today is through references in popular culture. Repeatedly whitewashing this from the article reeks of NPOV violation. Being a scientist offended by pop culture misappropriation of an element is not a valid reason to exclude those topics from the article. I am also disappointed that the Talk page has significantly more useful information (such as discussion of Mc-299 being the most likely stable isotope) than the article itself. Gravitium (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you consider that discussion to be useful information, despite it being totally uncited, I think speaks for itself with regard to the usefulness of this criticism. The idea that the symbolism associated with Au is in any way similar to that associated to "element 115" (which, given its purported properties, cannot possibly be Mc) is also quite silly. This belongs in Materials science in science fiction, not here. Double sharp (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's a credible source (from an APS website no less) http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/element-115.cfm (referencing a NOVA video http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/stability-elements.html interviewing scientists) which mentions the potential island of stability "with nucleons totaling slightly under 300" that could provide half lives of "Minutes to millions of years." The Element 115 in science fiction and UFO conspiracy theories unambiguously refers to an atom with 115 protons (i.e. Mc). The extent to which the predicted or fantasized properties match later observations does not affect their relevance as a cultural phenomenon. Even the APS page acknowledges Element 115 "pervades science fiction, video games, and some conspiracy theories" Gravitium (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

That source looks quite good, though from the chart given there it's hard to tell which element with ~ 300 nucleons will be in the most-stable zone. Yet we can tell we probably haven't found the most-stable isotope yet, since Mc-291 thru 299 have not yet been synthesized. We would have to see a trend toward the less-stable as nucleons are added, in order to doubt the claim. The stampede to discriminate against pop-culture references in the article really hints at there being a lot at stake here -- 135.23.66.249 (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add a hatnote for "Uup"

"Uup" redirects here. For other uses, see UUp.

{{redirect|Uup|other uses|UUp}}

-- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I think "Uup" shouldn't actually redirect here anymore, since now that the element has a permanent name it is no longer a primary use of "Uup". So I've redirected "Uup" to "UUp" and removed the hatnote. Double sharp (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

But Uup is another name for Moscovium. So shouldn't you at least put it in the article? Porygon-Z 16:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)  

Uup is already mentioned in the article (§ Naming), though it does not really need a longer explanation than that because it is (officially) out of use. ComplexRational (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Links to Bismuth and diamagnetism

Element 115 is in the Bismuth group, and therefore is expected to have unique diamagnetic properties. I mentioned this to some degree in the article. Keep in mind that this hasn't been confirmed emperically, but neither has its color or melting point :-) netdragon 29 July 2006

Ununpentium

Decumanus, if you don't restore the excision elsewhere, as your description led one to believe, I'm going to disagree strongly with your edit if not revert it. The discussion is germane to the thread, -- and it's not like it is not clearly identified as not widely accepted science at this time. In fact by virtue of its physics relevance, it's clearly topical to Uup and not to your proposed location. I don't see a valid objection. Chris Rodgers 10:31, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. The articles on chemical elements center on their physico-chemical properties. Kooky fantasies don't belong here. I second Decumanus' edit on this page, and wouldn't mind losing the excised text altogether.

—Herbee 12:22, 2004 Apr 3 (UTC)

I third Decumanus' suggestion.

Darrien 12:50, 2004 Apr 3 (UTC)

I disagree that articles must only contain their physical and chemical properties. (The article does already centre on these.) Historical and cultural information (this would count as cultural) is certainly relevant - David Gerard 13:11, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

You are right up to a point. But consider this: you don't have to stuff everything into one article! If tangentially related material starts to overshadow the original purpose of an article, it's better to start a new article. Quite possibly, Chris Rogers would enjoy writing UFO propulsion (or whatever) better than quarreling with a bunch of 'science types' here. Wikipedia has room for all!

—Herbee 23:31, 2004 Apr 3 (UTC)

I'd almost have considered it, but you failed to disprove my argument the discussion had legitimate place here (see David's culture point above), and your assumption the world neatly divides into conspiracyheads versus "science types" is hopelessly naive. My training is entirely intact, as are those of many beside me who, by arbitrary chance, happen to have observed these "nonexistent" craft flying around in their "impossible" instantaneous changes of directions in nothing more than my "kooky fantasy" imagination (weather balloons and Venus my a**feathers ;-) ).

You forget, a little arrogantly if I may note so, that science is about method, not dogma; once upon a time it was also fixed orthodoxy that the world is flat. Where phenomena may not be examined in a lab, science must employ holistic cross-dimensional techniques, and that's life. Herbee, the problem is, you -- and any who delete away articles without bothering to post so little as a defense or rationale -- are, like it or not, ideologues and fail, unscientifically, to discern that very defect. 90% of science was "kooky" and fringe and baseless at one time. Your failure at NPOV is that if an unorthodox position fairly acknowledges itself as such, yet remains NPOV, you believe you can still pretend it ceases to exist and presume to deny it a voice. Unfortunately for you, there exist literally tens of millions of the great unwashed masses in this country who are aware of the very element I wrote of (having probably never heard the names of commoner elements) even for no other reason than the one I very neutrally described. In fact I bet many more have heard of Lazar than Kuhn; would it kill you to live with a little honest, methodical treatment of the subject? You simply believe you can effectively dispose of views you disagree with by trying to preempt even discussion of them and pretending they don't exist, instead of discussing them so far as possible on their merits. Need I remind you that attitude really has no place on wikipedia? Oh, and did I mention the dishonesty of Decumanus' claiming something was just being "moved" instead of excised as it was? Er, yeah, stellar scientific method and ethics, guys -- not. -- Chris Rodgers 08:20, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You obviously didn't comprehend what Decumanus wrote. He said that he moved it to a different article. Also, your entire argument is awash with logical fallacies. You should read up on logic before you start claiming to understand it.

Darrien 11:37, 2004 Apr 4 (UTC)

You seem to not understand the term "obvious". I specifically mentioned the fact he had at that time not moved the full text to the article he claimed he was going to (and still appears not to have to date). As for logic and fallacies, I'm well enough versed in both to observe that, citing no examples, you are arguing from mere force of assertion. Perhaps a dose of your own advice? Chris Rodgers 06:58, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My apologies, I assumed that because of your belief in the paranormal that you wouldn't understand how to properly present an argument.

Now this, even concealed in a false humility, DOES reek of plain ad hominem.

Here you go:

"My training is entirely intact, as are those of many beside me who, by arbitrary chance, happen to have observed these "nonexistent" craft flying around..." - Faulty generalization.

Not at all. Neither of us can prove anything regarding the others' scientific qualification on the strength of assertions alone (though you appear to have tried just above). I just answered your (erroneous) assertion with a counterassertion. My suggestion for a dose of your own advice stands.

"You forget, a little arrogantly if I may note so, that science is about method, not dogma; once upon a time it was also fixed orthodoxy that the world is flat." - Red Herring.

Wrong again. The method versus dogma point is relevant scientific axiom; my historical example simply sustains it.

"Herbee, the problem is, you -- and any who delete away articles without bothering to post so little as a defense or rationale -- are, like it or not, ideologues and fail, unscientifically, to discern that very defect." - Argumentum ad hominem

Not per se. If I had simply impugned your person instead of the imho root of your objection, this might be true. Oddly, the reasoning itself was sound but the premise apparently invalid (you miss even the argument's real weakness). True, my assertion doesn't prove you an ideologue, but consistent with my preceding discussion, it's a necessary explanation of counterrationale. I can validly believe you are an ideologue; it simply remains unproven between us.

"90% of science was "kooky" and fringe and baseless at one time." - Red Herring

Untrue. It refutes your line of argument that appeals to say Occam's razor alone as proof rather than preliminary guide. See my point on the once dogmatic assumptions that a round earth was self-evidently lunacy.

"Unfortunately for you, there exist literally tens of millions of the great unwashed masses in this country who are aware of the very element I wrote of" - Argumentum ad populum

That would certainly be an ironic technique after my erring masses point preceding, but I simply suggested it to you as not evidence but useful illustration why even "fiction" bears note.

"In fact I bet many more have heard of Lazar than Kuhn" - Red Herring

Darrien 15:36, 2004 Apr 8 (UTC)

Same thing again. You keep missing my points; here, that even where you dismiss something, its prevalence alone may validate discussion in wiki. See my earlier argument that your disagreement alone would be insufficient ground to go deleting lengthy discussions of religion or fiction. And not that it matters, but eppur si muove: my sighting was real, something powered them, and wouldn't it be a kick if it proved something much more potent than kerosene ;-) Chris Rodgers 07:28, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who considers UFO-spotting to be largely a realm of crackpottery, I still don't see this small note, verging on trivia as it may be, as doing anything other than enhancing an otherwise desperately dry article - David Gerard 08:26, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

I've just made a section called "Ununpentium in popular culture" and put the UFO fuel bit in there. - David Gerard 08:35, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Two issues. First, I doubt you'll accept my say-so, but I assure you crackpottery they are not. I don't do drugs, I watched three of them fly around in daytime with the instant right-angle turns for easily fifteen seconds. Start getting yourself used to it, they are indeed real.

Second, for the popular culture fix, the "in popular culture" header is more than adequate to satisfy anyone put off by mere allusion to UFO's, but there is NO reason not to restore the text. If you want to dismiss it as fiction, I wrote it (as one quite versed in the skeptic angle) flawlessly NPOV and still plan to restore the original fuller text. If someone believes their disagreement alone is enough to justify excision, they thereby claim they can go deleting lengthy entries merely discussing conspiracy theory or religion or even discussion of literary figures who do not "exist". No one here has supplied any valid reason for it not to, under the useful pop culture header, be restored in full. Chris Rodgers 06:58, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your text was never deleted. It was moved to the Bob Lazar article.-- Decumanus | Talk 07:35, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the lead, the edit comment left me rechecking for it under UFO's. Chris Rodgers 07:28, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Chris Rodgers wrote above:

once upon a time it was also fixed orthodoxy that the world is flat.

No it wasn't. Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth as early as 240 BC. Only superstitious ignorants (like sailors) took kooky fantasies about "the edge of the world" seriously. We can hardly blame them—they had neither the scientific method nor Wikipedia.
    But I'm not comparing Chris to those sailors. I'm still inviting him to write about UFOs and Uup as their fuel. The fact that I don't believe in them is just that—a belief of mine. If Chris believes something else that is fine with me. As a science fiction fan, I would probably enjoy Chris' contributions.
    My point is just that the Ununpentium article is not the right place for UFO material, just as the carbon article is not the place to discuss petrol and automobiles. I'm not unhappy with the current article, by the way.
—Herbee 20:31, 2004 Apr 8 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with Eratosthenes and his technique, yet that fails to alter my point that large masses in Europe and elsewhere clung nevertheless to the flat earth for centuries beyond. Don't miss the point, which is both legitimate and illustrated by my example: what is "obvious" today may yet fall tomorrow. Ergo my reiteration that science is not dogma nor position, but method and tool. As for siting the text here, I still hold this is the apter location, since the subject is not Lazar but Uup itself, but fine, maybe at least the link can work. Chris Rodgers 07:28, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see—it's a joke. Silly me. Invoking the scientific method, yet insisting on taking Uup as UFO fuel seriously "because Lazar says so". Great sense of humor, Chris!

—Herbee 23:33, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)

Should I really be surprised you keep insistently misrepresenting my position? I already alluded to the reach of the guy's claims in popular subculture as the primary basis of my argument, not the fiction you twisted it into. You force me to question your commitment to presenting straightforward info from the NPOV. I suppose I could try to keep trying to explain that scarcity of evidence is not evidence of scarcity and that where you dismiss saucer craft out of hand, I and plenty of perfectly credible (and credentialed but mostly timid-of-peer-ridicule) people have observed them directly, at which point the implausibility barriers for explanations like Lazar's fall not completely but significantly. Just as it'd be wrong for some fundamentalist to go wiping every entry on evolution as illegitimate, your disagreement alone (didn't I say this like twice or thrice already?) does not alone constitute argument for wipe either. And it seems you either missed or keep ignoring even the cultural angle I discussed before too. You make it sound like you feel you could constructively wipe even the Lazar entry itself since it's all about "just one guy's claim". So no need for detailed discussion of counterclaims to e.g. research objections into his background, his Navy MJ W-2 etc., it's all nothing but allegation, end of story, kill it. Like your distortions of my argument, a neither terribly useful nor wiki attitude. Chris Rodgers 09:42, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What's an MJ W-2? Some kind of UFO engine part?

—Herbee 17:09, 2004 Apr 11 (UTC)

Herbee, you give the consistent impression in your posts to date here, the above being a passable example, of being vastly more interested in juvenile posturing and sounding clever than in any kind of serious exchange, but I'll answer your question anyway. W-2 refers to the standard United States Internal Revenue Service earnings statement, which Lazar provided as partial evidence of his work under the arm for the United States Navy (which has a counterintuitive connection to unusual craft). MJ, as any researcher in this area knows, alludes to the two letters' (for Majestic-12-related) appearance on the form as a classification.

Permit me to suggest however that rather than getting embroiled in lengthy debates over Lazar, which will likely alter neither of our views, we stick to considering the general epistemological points from each perspective above. Chris Rodgers 06:58, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I guess that the above exchange is an example of bad interaction between defense mechanisms. I find it impossible to discuss ufology or similar fringe belief systems seriously, and I don't feel bad about poking some fun at such subjects. It's just one of my defense mechanisms—but possibly (as Chris implies) out of place in an encyclopedia.

On reflection, I realize that people can react strongly when their belief system is under attack. Let's just say that I happen to think that science is the best belief system ever invented. I may react strongly when it is threatened.

—Herbee 00:24, 2004 Apr 18 (UTC)

Despite that, it's still a belief system, and empiricological positivism is inferior to ontological constructivism.. uh, metaphysics. I really wanted Chris to discuss what he learned about Element 115. lysdexia 09:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)