Skip navigation

Tag Archives: erratum

Four elements have new names announced following their recognition last December.

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry officially recognized elements 113, 115, 117, and 118, filling out the seventh row of the periodic table. As is the traditional in chemistry, the naming rights go to the discoverers: scientists at RIKEN in Wako, Japan, named element 113, and a Russian-U.S. collaboration named the others.

These elements are not found in nature as they are all short-lived and highly radioactive. They were all created in high-energy physics laboratories where lighter nuclei were smashed into one another and scientists looked for signature radioactive decays that should come from the new elements.

0608176_ec_periodictable

Credit: E. Otwell

 

Element 113 is “nihonium”, chemical symbol Nh. Its name comes from the Japanese word “Nihon,” (tr: Land of the Rising Sun), a name for Japan.

Element 115 is “moscovium,” chemical symbol Mc, after the Moscow region, home to the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, where the element was discovered in collaboration with researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.

Element 117 is “tennessine,” chemical symbol Ts, after the home state of Oak Ridge, Vanderbilt University and the University of Tennessee. (Livermorium, Lv, is already element 116.)

Element 118 is “oganesson,” chemical symbol Og, after the Russian physicist Yuri Oganessian, who contributed to the discovery of several superheavy elements.

The proposed names are expected to be confirmed in November, following a period of public consultation.

Links: IUPAC press release; NY Times coverage; Nature news.

Advertisements

Here is a consolidated list of errors from the text’s first printing. Many of these have already been posted here as separate chapter updates. (Our publisher will make the necessary corrections to the printed book at the earliest opportunity.):

p. 25, Figure It Out 2.3: The last paragraph (about Fraunhofer) shouldn’t be there. Instead, it should be at the end of the caption of Figure 2-4 on p. 26.

p. 64, Q34: 1 Angstrom should be listed as 1010 m, not 108 m.

p. 64, Q41: Ditto

p. 78: There is an error in the equation relating the apparent magnitude and brightness of stars in Figure It Out 4.1.  In this equation, 2.512 should be raised to a power equal to (mB−mA).

p. 92, Q1: We could more clearly say “On the top picture” instead of just “On the picture” – since there are now two pictures on the opening page of the chapter (and the stars are somewhat too dense for individual clarity in the bottom picture).

p. 190: First sentence of Section 7.4d: “a little larger” should be “a little smaller” for the relative sizes of Triton and the Moon.

p. 309, Q53, there is a printing error when going from the bottom of column 1 to the top of column 2. At the top of column 2, the “(e)” should be boldface, there should be a period after “1/16”, and the remainder of the text should be deleted.

p. 363, column 1, second line from the bottom: When referring to the event horizon: “1/3” should be “2/3”, i.e. the sentence should read “Its radius is exactly 2/3 times that of the photon sphere…”

p. 391, column 2, second line from the bottom: for Spitzer, “Section 3.8c, Figure 3-32a).” should say simply “Section 3.8c).”

p. 392, column 1, line 5: At the end, add “(See Section 3.8c, Figure 3-32a.)”

Appendix 3C, column 3 header: “105 km” should be “106 km”

In Questions 34 and 41, on p. 64, the angstrom unit, Å, is given incorrectly.

1 angstrom, Å = 10–10 m  (so, 1 Å = 10–8 cm).

A reference to a photo of the Spitzer Space Telescope now goes to an updated photo showing the Herschel Space Telescope, so:
on p. 391, column 2, line –2, “(Section 3.8c, Figure 3–32a)” for Spitzer should say simply “(Section 3.8c)”;
on p. 392, column 1, line 5, add: “(See Section 3.8c, Figure 3–32a.)”.

Clarification of Figure 15-11 on p. 392:
Note that strips (a) through (m) are organized top to bottom.

There is a typographical error on p. 363, column 1, second line from the bottom, when referring to the event horizon: ‘1/3’ should be ‘2/3’ in the sentence:
“Its radius is exactly 2/3 times that of the photon sphere, or 3 km for each solar mass.”

p. 563, Appendix 3C Our Solar System: Orbital Properties of Planets

The units of the ‘Semimajor Axis’ second column are out by a factor of 10; they should be 10^6 km, i.e. millions of kilometers. (The equivalent column is shown correctly in Appendix 3D.)

The opening sentence misstates the size of Triton relative to our Moon. The sentence should read:

“Neptune’s largest moon, Triton, is slightly smaller than our Moon and has a retrograde (backward) orbit.”

The pictorial chart on pp. 228-229 and the accompanying table on p. 230 give the correct size order.

There is an error in the equation in the right-hand column relating the apparent magnitude and brightness of stars. In this equation, 2.512 should be raised to a power equal to (mB–mA), not merely multiplied by it. The formula should read:

bA = 2.512(mB-mA) × bB

There is a printing error when going from the bottom of column 1 to the top of column 2. At the top of column 2, answer choice “(e)” should be in bold type and there should be a period after “1/16.”  The remainder of the text should be deleted because it repeats the previous sentence.
On p. 25, Figure It Out 2.3, the last paragraph (about Joseph Fraunhofer) belongs at the end of the caption of Figure 2-4 on p. 26.
The paragraph says: “Note that Fraunhofer labelled lines with letters from A through H and then used I for the end of the spectrum.  Though most scientists don’t realize it, the K line of ionized calcium so often referred to in astronomy as a Fraunhofer line wasn’t given its notation until the mid-nineteenth century.”