SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
from the elementy-mcelementface dept.
Nature reports (doi:10.1038/nature.2016.20069) that the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry has taken proposals from the discoverers of four new chemical elements:
- Nihonium and symbol Nh, for the element with Z =113,
- Moscovium with the symbol Mc, for the element with Z = 115,
- Tennessine with the symbol Ts, for the element with Z = 117, and
- Oganesson with the symbol Og, for the element with Z = 118.
The proposed names honour Japan, Moscow, Tennessee and the Russian nuclear physicist Yuri Oganessian. Before the names become official, there is to be a five-month period during which the public may comment upon them. The symbol Ts was chosen because Tn is already in use for 220Rn, known as thoron (probably because it results from the decay of thorium).
Further Information:
provisional recommendations
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Names Mooted for Four New Chemical Elements
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 25 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
We lie loudest when we lie to ourselves.
-- Eric Hoffer
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 09 2016, @10:49AM
I read in a book somewhere about a future Knowledge Crash when any field of study would take so many years to master that students would graduate directly into retirement. I forget the name of the book. Actually I'm lying and I remember the name, but I refuse to mention it. The point is moot anyway because regardless of which field of study one chooses, there aren't any jobs in Obamaland.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Thursday June 09 2016, @11:32AM
Of course in the real world, if a field gets too large, the result is simply specialization. For example, there's no way anyone could learn all of physics these days, therefore people specialize to different fields of physics. There is a set of basic knowledge you should have regardless of your specialization, but beyond that, you essentially only need to learn stuff relevant for your specialization.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 09 2016, @11:42AM
Now you've done it. You've ruined a perfectly sensational sci-fi premise by applying real-world logic to the situation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 09 2016, @01:02PM
And anyway, it's still Obama's fault.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday June 09 2016, @06:10PM
Yup! Praise the Republicans for fighting Science at every turn!
(except geologists, donors need them)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 09 2016, @06:30PM
Yup! Praise the Republicans for fighting Science at every turn!
(except geologists, donors need them)
Unless of course, they're digging up dinosaur bones or similar evolution propagada...
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Thursday June 09 2016, @02:57PM
There's no specializing out of core requirements. If a master of engineering can't read their own field's academic papers, then no one can translate academic discoveries to products and the practice stops developing. Basic physics, medicine, NASA, operating system research and integrated circuit manufacturing all hit that good-enough wall where they just can't afford the next step in progress since it takes such rare talents with such prolonged training that the conditions can't be made in real life.
At best, you can argue it's a market failure not to produce them. At worst, you'd need to consider it takes too much for even the most talented people to remember it all seeing as no amount of money can make people smarter.
compiling...