Talk:Ununennium

Ununennium has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Ununennium is part of the Alkali metals series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 4, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed
December 21, 2016	Good topic candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 17, 2015.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that ununennium is the element with the lowest atomic number that has not yet been synthesized?

Current status: Good article

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

the lightest element that has not yet been synthesized?

Have all lighter elements been synthesized? i mean, if it occurs in nature, why would we synthesize it? (Gold comes to mind, and i see from that article that it has been synthesized, but i'm not ambitious enough to look up whether every naturally occurring element has also been synthetically created.)

71.121.143.92 (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every known element (1-118) indeed does have at least one synthetic isotope. Since plutonium is the heaviest naturally occurring element (and in fact the vast majority of uses are derived from stable, naturally occurring isotopes of these elements), every subsequent element is entirely synthetic, and so would be ununennium (E119) when it is discovered - it almost certainly does not exist unnoticed somewhere. ComplexRational (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this discussion. Has every element been synthesized from a different element then? Because if an isotope was synthesized by adding a neutron to a different isotope of the same element, then the element wasn't synthesized, only the isotope of the element. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably yes. You could look in Michael Thoennessen's The Discovery of Isotopes: A Complete Compilation. Double sharp (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesized means created. And every element has at least 1 radioisotope so yes. Synthesized. UB Blacephalon (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible future name

According to Kit Chapman (author of Superheavy) on Twitter, the RIKEN team is considering nishinium (after Yoshio Nishina) if they discover E119. Double sharp (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Double sharp, is Twitter a reliable source?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usually no, but it's OK when the poster is a subject-matter expert (WP:SPS). Given that the author of the tweet wrote a book about the history of discovering superheavies, and was in contact with the RIKEN team for it, I think he qualifies. It also seems very plausible considering that the RIKEN team had previously contemplated naming E113 after Nishina as well, though that article gives ニシナニウム which would presumably rather be rendered in English as nishinanium. I put it only on the talk page rather than in the article for a different reason: it still has to be discovered first, and before that, it seems too speculative. Double sharp (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(I suspect the symbol would be Nm, as that's the best choice. Ni and Nh are taken, and Ns was nielsbohrium and can't be used again. Nu is theoretically permissible but annoyingly collides with the wildcard symbol for any nucleophile. Nn is an unprecedented repeated letter. But again, it still has to be discovered first – though since JINR has apparently not yet started anything with ions beyond ⁴⁸Ca, RIKEN certainly has a head start!) Double sharp (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The name nishinium is mentioned here on RIKEN's website as a possibility for a new element. Double sharp (talk) 03:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational: Based on the identity of the poster and the above link, I've added this to the article; but what do you think? Double sharp (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"if they discover" - so way too speculative for article space. So far, only "dis" part of the "discover". -DePiep (talk) 10:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with DePiep. I feel this is too speculative for inclusion in this article, especially because the source doesn't mention E119 explicitly, and there's a possibility of JINR discovering E119 and being awarded naming priority (in that case, what if the next element credited to RIKEN is E120 or E121?). ^Complex/_Rational 17:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree. It is WP:TOOSOON and not a reliable source. Polyamorph (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the opinions. Removed it again. Double sharp (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about the neutrons of the atom?

How many neutrons does Ununennium have? (predicted is okay with me BTW.) Mariomaker-4 (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ununennium hasn't been synthesized yet, and predictions vary considerably for which isotopes may be longest-lived. In practice, should the ongoing attempt to synthesize ununennium from curium-248 and vanadium-51 be successful, the resulting isotopes ²⁹⁵Uue and ²⁹⁶Uue would respectively have 176 and 177 neutrons. ^Complex/_Rational 20:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Mariomaker-4 (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Element 110-14

This citation is old. No island exists between those discovered elements 2601:5C0:C280:DB80:4CF4:74AB:9D73:4FC3 (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The pages for those elements state that some undiscovered isotopes of these elements with more neutrons may have relatively long half-lives. We don't have enough experimental evidence to firmly conclude where the island exists. ^Complex/_Rational 23:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]