Talk:Synthetic element

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Elements Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

   I'm kin'a spitballing (spitballing? spitballing?) here, but "synthetic element" is (tho IMO a standard term,) a metaphorical usage of the adjective — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzy (talk • contribs) 20:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, the introductory section uses the term "creation" exclusively when describing new synthetic elements, while the History section uses the term "discovery" exclusively. It seems to me that one or the other should be changed so that a consistent term is used throughout the article. Specifically, I think that we should use the term "creation", because the new elements simply did not exist until that point. "Discovery" incorrectly implies that the element existed but people were unaware of it. I know that I could simply "be bold!" and make the change right now, but I'd prefer to wait a few days to see if anyone comments. --Keeves (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Keeves: Well at least the lighter ones probably did exist before thanks to the r-process: curium we know did. So it's more that they did not exist on Earth by the time humans were on the scene. But "creation" seems definitely fine anyway, so I've changed the "discovery" and related words in History to derivatives of "creation" and "synthesis". Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article claims that "fundamental particles" can be "manipulated" to produce the synthetics. We cannot "manipulate" fundamental (fermionic) particles (directly), the electron (and bosons) excepted. The article seems to misleadingly suggest we "manipulate" quarks, neutrinos, etc. The only "fundamental particle" we can "manipulate" is the electron. Also, isn't it true that we can get certain synthetics by sitting their precursors on a shelf? Certainly, cosmic rays can create them. But just sitting their precursors near certain radioactive *natural* elements can create them, I'd guess. So, unless you view your bookshelf as a "nuclear reactor", the lead needs a rewrite, imho98.17.180.146 (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]