Talk:Bismuth-209
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bismuth-209 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 730 days  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Hypothetical decay
I attempted to remove the section as original research, but my action was reverted on the basis of WP:CALC. I do not believe that it is a "routine calculation" since it involves half-lives. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- ..which is a fairly routine calculation, if you ask me. Since we're not going to agree on that, a third opinion would be useful.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Will the real half-life value stand up please?
The article is confusing. The opening of the "Decay properties" section states that "Bismuth-209 was long thought to have the heaviest stable nucleus of any element, but in 2003, a research team [...] discovered [...] a half-life of approximately [...] 1.9×1019 ". Well there you have it, they discovered the approximate half life. But wait, in the last paragraph of the section it states that "The half-life value of Bismuth-209 was confirmed in 2012 [...] (to be) 2.01±0.08 ×1019 ". So, presumably this later confirmation is the actual correct value. But the info box states the earlier half life value - 1.9×1019 .
So which is it? Should the actual, confirmed half life be stated at the beginning of the section, or at least reword the opening part to clarify that they calculated an approximation, rather than a specific 'discovery'? And should the infobox be updated to the newer value?
I have zero expertise in the subject matter - which I think makes me reasonably qualified to review the content for its encyclopedic clarity for the layman! Anastrophe (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Anastrophe: I checked the more recent sources, specifically {{NUBASE2016}} which is the most recent compilation available, and verified that 2.01×1019 years is the correct half-life. I just updated the main infoboxes and articles with this information; if there are any I miss, feel free to follow suit. Sorry for not replying sooner, but thank you for pointing this out! ComplexRational (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Isn’t 2.01×1019 years by chance a “partial half-life”? These nonsensical quantities are beloved by some physicists, and the Chinese compilers might have confusion for the nuclide’s decay modes. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Incnis Mrsi: 209Bi only decays by α emission; this would only be a partial half-life if there were several observed decay modes. To clarify NUBASE (which I will agree is slightly ambiguous here), "IS" represents percentage of natural abundance; it is not another decay mode. ComplexRational (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- The article states it decays to both 205
Tl
and 205m
Tl
, the latter much rarer. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)- Indeed it does, so at least the measurement of 1.66×1021 years is a partial half-life. In any case, NUBASE doesn't differentiate these two decays and it never gives partial half-lives, and the other source already gives a total half-life of 2.01×1019 years, so I'm still taking 2.01×1019 years to be correct (unless a better/more recent source is found). ComplexRational (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- The article states it decays to both 205
- @Incnis Mrsi: 209Bi only decays by α emission; this would only be a partial half-life if there were several observed decay modes. To clarify NUBASE (which I will agree is slightly ambiguous here), "IS" represents percentage of natural abundance; it is not another decay mode. ComplexRational (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Isn’t 2.01×1019 years by chance a “partial half-life”? These nonsensical quantities are beloved by some physicists, and the Chinese compilers might have confusion for the nuclide’s decay modes. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Protons
While very long, the half-life of this isptope doesn't even begin to approach the estimated half-life of the proton, which is around 1.67 x 10^34 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)