Science desk
< March 7	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 9 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 8

Scientific journals

I went investigating today to see about subscribing to a meteorological journal. Upon seeing the prices, I quickly reconsidered the wisdom of that idea. Am I interpreting it correct that these prices are up to around $110 an issue?! If so, what on earth causes such massive prices for an academic journal of all things?! Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The usual problem is very low circulation, meaning they have to charge each subscriber a lot. A lack of advertising can also be a factor. StuRat (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Price is determined more by what people are willing to pay than by cost. Cost sets a lower limit on price, but that is all. People (well, institutions, more often) are willing to pay that much for the journal, so the journal charges that much. Presumably, the publishers have determined that charging less wouldn't result in sufficiently more sales to get a higher total revenue. --Tango (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except not really, because most academic journals are actually sold to libraries and institutions in subscription bundles with various other journals from the same publisher. The cost of the bundle is generally much less than the sum of the face value prices on the individual components, so the institution generally ends up paying much less per work than the apparent price anyway. Dragons flight (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The principal purchasers are institutional libraries, as they have priced themselves out of the individual market. alteripse (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in reading papers from a meteorological journal without having to subscribe, you should look into universities in your area. I see you're from Kansas. I don't exactly know how things work in Kansas, but in Nebraska, since UNL is a state school, the library offers library cards to Nebraska residents [1], and also has a high school students program [2]. Perhaps the universities in Kansas have similar policies. —Bkell (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check my local universities, but I don't know if they will have them since neither of them have a meteorology program. I might have to discuss this with a student at one of them who started a weather club. Thanks. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 14:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if your local university libraries don't have this particular journal, they can probably get it through interlibrary loan. Anyway, it's worth investigating. —Bkell (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally, academic journals provided important services - organization of peer-review, proof-reading, typesetting, printing, and dissemination. Due to the low circulation, prices had to be high - and, in fact, library subscriptions are often much more expensive than individual subscriptions. Within the last 20 years or so, this role of publishers has gone down. Authors are now expected to submit camera-ready manuscripts in many fields, and dissemination is increasingly electronic. Peer review is cheaper and easier too, thanks to electronic communication. As a result, scientific publishing is undergoing massive changes, and its hard to predict what will happen over the next 10-20 years. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which journals you're looking at, but the link you provide above seems to say that the online addition of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS) is free to non-AMS members. It looks like they have open access to all articles after 1970.[3] I'd suggest starting there. :-) -Atmoz (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics is also an open access journal. -Atmoz (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colour of glass

How is colour added to glass? I especially want to know for 'blue'. -- Extra999 (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colour is added to glass by adding certain metal salts to the molten glass (see Glass colouring and colour marking). Blue is made with Cobalt salts, I believe. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Substances Used in the Making of Coloured Glass may be your friend. Cobalt seems to be the key to blue glass. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Extra999 (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lions

Hello, I live in Langley, BC, and I was wondering if you can see The Lions from here. I did see one mountain that looked a bit like them, but it was tiny and off in the distance. So can you see them from Langley? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming clear air. the old-fashioned pre-metric rule for how far away the horizon is when you are at h feet above sea level is: distance (miles) = sqrt(h x 7/4). So if you stood on top of the taller of the two peaks (5,400 feet) - then the horizon would be about 97 miles away. So you should be able to see the peak from sea-level locations within 97 miles. Google maps says that the center of Langley is about 45 miles away. So the curvature of the earth certainly isn't an obstacle. Whether there are intervening obstacles...I'm not sure. Whether the atmosphere is clear enough...I don't know. But if I had to guess, I'd say you'd be able to see the peaks on a clear day. SteveBaker (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a neat formula. A back-of-the-envelope calculation (starting with the formula Steve provided) yields a metric approximation: distance (km) = sqrt(h[meters] x 15). This metric version is gives answers that are 0.5% greater (about a km for most peaks) than the formula SB gave above. In this specific case, 5400 ft is about 1646 m, yielding a visibility estimate of 157 km, or 97.6 miles (pretty close). The error (relative to the original formula) drops to 1.2% if you use 14.9 instead of 15 in the square root - but I am not sure that's worth it -- Scray (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I could see them, would they be quite small? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at this using Google Earth -- I don't think you'll be able to see The Lions from Langley; it looks like Grouse Mountain is directly in between, and high enough that you won't be able to see over it. Looie496 (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps shows the peak of Grouse is about 10 miles from the Lions and at 1200' it's only a quarter the height of the Lions - the geometry doesn't seem enough for it to block the view. Using the magic equation again says that you can see Grouse Mountain from 46 miles away and The Lions from 96 miles away. So at 46 miles away from Grouse (which would be 56 miles from The Lions), Grouse would be below the horizon - and the Lions would still be in your line of sight. Langley is only about 30-ish miles from Grouse Mountain - I don't see how it could possibly block the further peaks. I'm skeptical about your Google Earth results - the numbers just don't work. SteveBaker (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grouse Mountain is actually 1200+ meters high, not 1200 feet. It might still fail to block the view, but it's a close call. (Our article seems to have some confusion on the numbers, but it definitely should be meters.) Looie496 (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bombardment of hydrogen isotopes with neutrons

What happens when a plasma made up of all the different isotopes of hydrogen is bombarded with neutrons? 71.100.11.118 (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then it would become heavier isotopes, first deuterium then radioactive tritium. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and thereafter (in the presence of all three isotopes)? 71.100.11.118 (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that if tritium was bombarded with neutrons, a neutron would decay into a proton and electron, forming helium. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence for this say at higher densities and lower temperatures as close to absolute zero as possible and under maximum pressure or in high temperature, high pressure plasma? 71.100.11.118 (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that Hydrogen-4 and Hydrogen-5 and Hydrogen-6 will not be produced, since they actually decay back to tritium in sub attosecond timescale by giving off neutrons. (actually in a zeptosecond which apparently is well below the measurable time scale). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can persistent high blood pressure be someone's fault?

(1) Is it possible for someone (annoying and clingy and argumentative and stubborn, but never really cruel - just basically someone immature who doesn't play well with others) to drive someone's blood pressure up so high that they would be in medical danger and possibly even suffer long-term damage after being stabilized? (2) Or is it more likely that the hypertensive crisis would cause the person with high blood pressure to perceive the immature individual as more of a problem than s/he actually is? (3) And if the latter is the case, is it likely that the animosity the person with high blood pressure felt would pass when the blood pressure returned to a normal range? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.171.138 (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a tested and proven correlation between stress and hypertension. The statement "stress causes hypertension" is not the same as "stress is correlated with hypertension." Therefore, you are making two jumps: annoying person causes stress and stress causes hypertension. As such, it is unlikely to find many references that justify that double-claim. -- kainaw ™ 03:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(4) Does that mean it's unlikely that one person's faults could singlehandedly drive another person into hypertensive crisis? (5) And more importantly, could high blood pressure cause a person to think or behave irrationally, particularly to prompt feelings of anger or paranoia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.171.138 (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to prove a negative, but all evidence suggests the answers are 1 No, 2 No, 3 No, 4 Yes, and 5 No respectively. alteripse (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm . . . if I follow your answers correctly, you're saying that high blood pressure can prompt or exaggerate angry feelings (which is all I meant by "irrational thinking," by the way . . . such as blaming someone for something that really isn't his or her fault, and no clear-headed person would truly think it was . . . but ira est furor brevis)?

No. Ira sit furor brevis, sed non hypertensio. I went back and numbered your questions so you can match up the answers correctly. Hypertension is dangerous because it is asymptomatic (silent). The fluctuation with emotional upset results from adrenaline, and adrenaline elevations from emotions may be perceptible because of other adrenaline effects, but tend to be too brief to represent a long term health risk. There is a less well understood epidemiologic relationship between chronic life stress and hypertension but the mediating factors are not known and may include other things associated with poverty rather more than simply prolonged emotional stress. alteripse (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And Alteripse, you rock. Okay, let me try to sign this one properly, because I'm not one of those idiots out to destroy Wikipedia. 71.108.171.138 (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stress is a contributing factor to hypertension, and perceived annoyance may contribute to stress. For your other questions, see insomnia#Causes, panic attack and psychosis. ~A H 1^(TCU) 02:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

menstrual period information

menstrual period information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorir7 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asking or offering? You know, I'm sure Wikipedia has an article on this. At least one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.171.138 (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you start at Menstruation, and go from there. Dolphin51 (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See below a question "menstrual period correlation with Metonic and other lunar cycles". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orbit

The moon orbits around the Earth and the Earth orbits around the Sun and the Sun orbits around the center of the Milky Way. What does the Milky Way orbit around? 71.100.11.118 (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the Milky Way follows a periodic orbit. They usually only exist when there are just two bodies of significant mass to consider (eg. when considering the Earth and the Sun, you can ignore the Moon and other planets as being too small or too far away to do much, or when considering the Earth and Moon, the Sun and everything else is too far away to worry about). For the Milky Way, that doesn't really work. The Local Group contains a large number of galaxies, several of which are too large or close to ignore. Over a short period of time, the Milky Way will act as though it is orbiting the centre of mass of the Local Group, which is somewhere roughly in the middle of the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy (which, between them, make up most of the mass of the Group). Over longer time periods, it is much more complicated. --Tango (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...humm. Thinking in terms of center of mass and the fact the that whole Universe is suppose to be related or connected by gravity what center of mass would the center of mass of the local group be attacted to? 71.100.11.118 (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no center of mass for whole universe. See Cosmological Principle. manya (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But nearby us, Great Attractor plays some role. - manya (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The centre of mass of the Virgo Supercluster, I guess. I don't know where that is, but I would guess it is somewhere fairly near the Virgo Cluster, which is near the geometric centre of the Virgo Supercluster. Beyond the scale of superclusters, objects aren't usually gravitationally bound to each other, so it doesn't really make sense to talk about what they are attracted to. The Hubble Flow is far more important on those scales. --Tango (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ISS orbits the earth every 90 minutes or so. The moon orbits the earth once a month. The earth orbits the sun once a year. The sun orbits the galactic core every 250 million years. If our galaxy did orbit something, the orbital period would be so long that it could easily be longer than the age of the galaxy. Put another way, the objects involved would be changing so much over the period of any possible orbit that this couldn't be anything really stable. SteveBaker (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is hunger so mild?

Is there a biological reason for why starvation is not intensely painful? It seems to be one of the most painless ways to die naturally, excluding instantaneous deaths, and is nothing like having cancer or dehydrating. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've never had cancer or dehydrated, so I can't compare them . . . and I've never starved either for that matter. But I've skipped enough meals to wonder what on earth makes you think that starvation isn't intensely painful. That clawing sensation of your empty stomach cramping up begging for food? Ouch. Really, I think I'd prefer dehydration . . . I've never heard what it feels like, beyond that you'd be really really thirsty, which I imagine would be terribly unpleasant but much less painful than starvation. To try to take your question seriously, though, starvation is less acute a condition than dehydration. When you need water, you need it within a day or two at most to keep functioning. In the wild, animals often have to go for many days, longer at times, without food, and they need to be able to focus on other things and function in spite of the discomfort in order to keep up the search for food and other necessities and survive. In time of dehydration water is almost always going to be the first priority, but in starving times there are likely going to be many intervening priorities, as it may be quite some time before food can be found. So it wouldn't do to have hunger be as keen a drive. But in the final stages, of course it's intensely painful. And it's not terribly pleasant up to that point either . . . especially since it's drawn out over several weeks.

One major symptom of dehydration is extreme headaches - not pleasant at all. It is far quicker than starvation, though (about 3 days, rather than 3 months). --Tango (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dying of starvation is not at all pleasant and takes a very long time. The reason hunger is usually a very mild sensation is because you rarely get very hungry. Most people eat several times a day but they could go months without food, so clearly they are eating when hunger is still at a very early stage. See Starvation#Signs and symptoms for a description of some of the things that happen to your body when you don't eat. One part that jumps out at me is "All movements become painful due to muscle atrophy". --Tango (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, headaches. True enough. I've wondered often enough when I've downed a couple of Tylenol with a glass of water if it wasn't the water that relieved the headache at least as much as the medicine.

I've heard that for about the first three days of not having anything to eat, it is painful because your stomach starts to shrink and cramp, thus causing pain. Then, for the next 40 days, it stops hurting and your body starts to digest fat reserves. After that, it starts to hurt again, because your body starts digesting the muscles. Your eyes are one of the first to go. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have fasted for seven days at a stretch, water only, many times. It's not painful. Climbing stairs gets more tiring after 5 days or so. The hunger seems more psychologically strong in the first 3 days, then it gets weaker. Your sense of smell gets quite acute - it becomes disgusting to be near a fast food place or anywhere where there has been poison used recently. At 7 days, there are no problems with sight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marklawrence17 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes aren't muscles. And look at that link . . . there's a lot more to the pain of starvation than the initial stomach cramps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.171.138 (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The eyes do have & need muscles however and if these go your vision will almost definitely go, see Extraocular muscles, Muscles of orbit, Ciliary muscle, Iris dilator muscle & Iris sphincter muscle for example. Whether there are really the first to go, I don't know but it's probably your vision will be strongly negatively affected if they start to atrophy whereas movement might be incredibly painful but possible even after your limb muscles have partially atrophied. Since headaches came up, I'm surprised no one mentioned hunger or fasting can cause headaches as well I presume due to mild hypoglycemia. However when it comes to real starvation, I don't know if this will persist since it seems likely when your body adapts it shouldn't be a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hypoglycemia is a very short term problem - your body will switch to reserves within hours, at most. --Tango (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm starting to wonder if it's so simple. [4] for example reports headaches as a problem in a semi-starvation diet. Similar reports with anorexia nervosa [5] and other starvation diets. I can't find any great source (lots of naturopath and similar websites and most stuff are discussing 'starvation' as in a few hours or an inadequate/semi-starvation diet rather then full starvation per se) but my impression is that it's likely to be a persistent problem for real starvation. Definitely from personal experience as well as from other people I know, I can say fasting for 12-24 hours or so can causeheadaches although it likely varies from person to person. Of course in the long term hypoglycemia may not be the primary cause but other things like inadequate electrolytes, dehydration (which can be a problem during starvation) and lacking essential vitamins and minerals. Of course, if you starving yourself by choice rather then by necessity, e.g. as part of a hunger strike you may consume drinks with sufficient electrolytes etc which would I presume change things. But for example, headaches are listed as a symptom of rabbit starvation which isn't starvation per se but it would seem likely whatever causes headaches there would happen in real starvation. Of course headaches may not be the worse symptom by a long shot over the long term but over the short term, I'm not convinced headaches due to dehydration are necessarily worse then due to fasting or starvation. In the 1+ day window where you're starting to become at risk at death and in the same time frame for dehydration things would be different I expect. Of course it almost definitely varies from person to person and as I hinted at above those adapted to it would probably fare better then the average person in the developed world Nil Einne (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of people who have voluntarily starved to death (See Hunger strike for some examples). To my mind, that sets limits on just how bad the symptoms could be. SteveBaker (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it means that, by definition, the symptoms can't be unendurable. Sufficiently motivated people can endure a hell of a lot, though. --Tango (talk) 04:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are also people who burned themselves to death as protest. This is a very high upper limit. — DanielLC 21:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's nothing like a comparable example though. You can pour gasoline over yourself and light the match without pain. Once you've done that, the pain - however bad - can't cause you to change your mind...you're committed. When starving yourself to death in a hunger strike - you can give up and eat at any time if the pain gets to be too much. Some people have gone without eating for more than two months with the opportunity to give up and eat any time it became unbearable. That's a very different thing from an initially painless "impulse" act where the pain comes after the point of no return. SteveBaker (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a destructive process of "Ketosis" which sets in after a day or two of starvation, so that the breath smells a bit like acetone or fruit, due to the body metabolizing fat rather than carbohydrates? Could the headache come from the brain having to use ketones as fuel? Edison (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fixed your ketosis link--Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the amount of fat an average western person has available, I don't think you can call ketosis destructive. The brain practically always has glucose on which to run, which is a good thing because it can't run on anything else (can't be bothered providing citation - don't know if such exists). If you don't have sugar, your body can convert protein to glucose. If you have neither sugar nor protein, I think you're in trouble. In any case everyone one on (the first stages of) an atkins diet is in ketosis. Ketosis sets in within about 3 days of not eating carbohydrates (sugars), you don't have to be starving. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking another side to the question, one thing that strikes me is that painful hunger is not conducive to the body getting more food. If it complains too much, it hinders you ability to help it. I am, however, not an expert on the subject, and am clearly applying personification to evolution. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was thinking that if hunger was as unendurable as not being able to breathe, people would probably end up killing themselves trying to eat rocks or ashes or sticks. Googlemeister (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting website

Resolved

– Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no sure if this is the right desk to ask this on, but I'm having trouble finding a website that i once visited. It was someone's personal website and he/she discussed topics including what a Neanderthal language might have been like, including a translation of genesis into his hypothetical neanderthal, and a list of scientific inaccuracies in Star Trek. There was also a fictional account of how civilization in the future was destroyed by people wanting to learn new words constantly to fit in with the latest dialect, so they overused neuroplasticisers and gave themselves brain damage. Does anyone know of anything like this? 74.14.109.146 (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps http://adamjamesnall.blogspot.com/ ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs) 07:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're thinking of http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/index.html. Coincidentally I just discovered this page two days ago, at the end of a chain of link-following starting with a random Wikipedia image which turned out to be one of the Sammarinese euro coins, which led me to San Marino, which led to Akademio Internacia de la Sciencoj San Marino, which got me curious about Esperanto, so I did a Google search for learn esperanto, and the fourth result was Learn Not to Speak Esperanto. (Now why in the world can I remember all of that?) —Bkell (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, it's that one. As I believe is customary, I hereby grant you one (1) internet. 74.14.109.146 (talk) 08:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! I have an Internet!

—Bkell (talk) 08:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

menstrual period correlation with Metonic and other lunar cycles

How does the human female menstrual period compare with all of the various lunar cycle and with which one does it correlate best? 71.100.11.118 (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THe Wikipedia article Menstrual cycle notes that the menstrual cycle varies from woman to woman and the average is 28 days. The moon takes 27.32 days to revolve around the Earth; the period between full moons is 29.53 days. Opinions differ on whether moonlight influences menstruation (see Lunaception) or the similarity of cysles is a coincidence. See also the article on the McClintock effect supposed to synchronise the menstrual cycles of women who live together.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the lunar cycle influenced periods then all women in the world would have their periods on the same day... 195.35.160.133 (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

scientists

Do all scientists keep notes? What are some famous scientists who never kept any notes and worked in a very haphazard way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milticcason (talk • contribs) 09:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that every scientist would want to keep notes, if they could. Perhaps there were some illiterate scientists (particularly in societies that hadn't yet developed a written language). Also, some might not want to take notes as that might provide proof that they were engaged in an illegal activity. Those studying anatomy, for example, often illegally obtained bodies for dissection. StuRat (talk) 09:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To your first question, the short answer is "no". Just as there are different learners out there (some learn from lectures, some from reading, some from copious note-taking, etc) there are different researchers - and I've seen the full range of laboratory records, from none to compulsive. As indirect evidence, I cite the plethora of guidelines like this that admonish lab personnel to document what they do - because these would be superfluous if people weren't "haphazard". Certainly, there may be some who keep no records to hide malfeasance, but there are others who just don't keep anything we'd recognize as useful records (except when they publish - but that's not "notes"). -- Scray (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a scientist, but Srinivasa Ramanujan (possibly one of the greatest mathematicians of the last century) kept very few notes for at least some time. See 'Ramanujan's notebooks' on that page. 131.111.248.99 (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually scientists are now taught that good laboratory practice requires the maintenance of a laboratory notebook. While I'm sure there might have been famous scientists who succeeded despite their lack of note keeping (though I'm sorry that I can't think of any examples), this would make replicating experiments (one of the key points of the scientific method) difficult, and would limit the ability of the scientist to review past experiments to draw inferences on what might have caused things to turn out in an unexpected fashion. (It has been said that great science isn't heralded by "Eureka!", but by "Hmm, that's curious".) -- 174.21.235.250 (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I was an engineer, not a scientist, I always found that how ever many notes I made in my lab book, they were never enough and I had to re-perform at least some tests!--79.76.188.14 (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gravity versus electromagnetic forces

What is the formula that shows the point of balance between the electromagnetic repelling force of orbiting electrons and the pull of gravity between two atoms of hydrogen such that it can be applied to multiple atoms of hydrogen right up to the size of a star? Also, what is the formula for the density of hydrogen atoms due to gravity and the diameter of the whole? 71.100.11.118 (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The high temperatures in a star mean that most of the hydrogen atoms are ionised - their electrons are stripped away, and the free electrons and protons form a plasma. The main force opposing gravitational collapse in a main sequence star, in which fusion is still active, is not electromagnetic repulsion - it is the thermal pressure arising from the energy released in the fusion reactions, which appears as kinetic energy in electrons and protons plus radiation pressure from photons. When a star has insufficient fuel to continue fusion, other forces such as electron degeneracy pressure become important. See our article on stellar evolution for more details. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, is there a thermal versus gravitational formula and a formula to show the rate of fusion versus the amount of hydrogen (star mass, diameter or size)? 71.100.11.118 (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lorentz transformations

If the velocities between two reference frames were such that the relative motion were not parallel to one of the axes, what would the lorentz transformations look like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.179.59.66 (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a combination of a rotation and a normal Lorentz transformation, see Lorentz group and Poincaré group 157.193.173.205 (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read Lorentz Transformation#Matrix form. 174.58.105.234 (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so how would you be able to derive this formula? 173.179.59.66 (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, like this. DVdm (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

about thrusters used in the spacecrafts

hey.. please someone let me know about the working of the thrusters in the vaccum(space) in the absence of any medium which would provide a reaction to the craft's linear motion.. e-mail address deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.73.242.109 (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the article about the Rocket engine which obtains thrust in accordance with Newton's third law that says "For every action force there is an equal, but opposite, reaction force". It needs no external material to form its jet and therefore it can drive a spacecraft. See the article Spacecraft propulsion. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To help to visualize this, think of a ship as having forward thrust if it can eject material out the back faster than any material hits the front. In the case of boats and planes, water or air hits it at the front of the propeller or jet, at a low speed, and is then accelerated and leaves the end at a higher speed. In the case of a space ship in a vacuum, nothing (or very little) hits the front end, so ejecting anything from the end will give it forward thrust. Obviously, the faster you can eject material, such as burning rocket fuel, the more thrust is provided. StuRat (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think about it like this: Suppose there were two bowling balls out there in space with a big compressed spring between them. When the spring un-springs, the two balls both fly off in opposite directions - right? It wouldn't make sense for one ball to stay still and the other one to fly off into the distance. Well, in a rocket engine, the exhaust gasses are one bowling ball, the rocketship is the other and the hot expanding gasses inside the motor are the spring. The fuel acts both as the "reaction mass" (the second bowling ball) and the force that causes that mass to fly off in one direction and the rocketship to head off in the other. SteveBaker (talk) 03:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice analogy Steve Stanstaple (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite analogy for understanding this idea: let's say you're on a little rowboat, and you're holding a brick, and you throw the brick out the back of the boat as far as you can.

What happens to the boat? It goes forward a little. Is it because the brick has something to push against (the air)? No, it's because *you* -- and the boat, which you're attached to through your butt -- were pushing against the brick!

Now keep a pile of bricks on your boat, and throw them all out the back, and that's your thruster. You can now boldly go to the other side of the lake. --Sean 19:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's something I puzzled over as a child. I used to imagine sitting in the back of a van and trying to propel myself be throwing stones out the back. I wondered whether I needed to hit the stones of the ground to get the 'push', and if so, how did the van know whether I hit the ground? The spring bound bowling balls released idea is really satisfying for some reason. Stanstaple (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happiness

I was watching the simpsons and there was a chart which showed that less intelligent people are happier. Is there any evidence to support this claim? Any studies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorelore (talk • contribs) 11:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you search Pubmed there are plenty of studies which correlate intelligence with suicide rates and similar ideas, which may be relevant. Unfortunately, I don't have access to these. Perhaps someone else will :) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 12:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone once said 'Ignorance is bliss'. Is ignorance the same as lack of intelligence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.232.131 (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say ignorance was the lack of knowledge, rather than the lack of intelligence. --Tango (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect the correlation between intelligence and happiness to depend greatly on the culture and time period. That is, do we reward or punish stupidity and intelligence ? In a primitive society, the stupid aren't likely to survive, or, if they do, barely get by. In more developed societies they may have all their basic needs met and may also be legally protected from those who would cheat them. As for intelligence, this was far more valued by the US, during the Space Race, when engineers and scientists were needed to beat the Soviet Union. Now the intelligent are often ridiculed as "nerds", as in the TV show The Big Bang Theory. There have even been cultures in which the intelligent have been exterminated, as in Cambodia under Pol Pot. StuRat (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Groening, in addition to creating The Simpsons, touched upon this topic several times in Life In Hell. I can't find it online, but one strip featured — and I'm sure I've piled on inaccurate details, but you'll get the idea — one relatively happy guy watching TV, compared with a morose grad student, speaking about Nietzsche and the futility of existence and the inexorable approach of death, followed by total nothingness until the heat death of the universe; and the caption was, "Which one had too much education?" Anyway, sorry, I don't have a reference to a study about this. It is WP:OR on the part of Matt Groening. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would be much happier if I grew up stupid in some working class family, than I am now. I would never have questioned and left my religion, I would never suddenly descend into worries about how meaningless life is, I would never suddenly start wondering about how did the universe get here in the first place, if not by supernatural powers, etc. And StuRat, nerds are ridiculued as nerds, but most intelligent people aren't regarded as nerds. If you I guess it's because you work in a computer proffession and wear glasses. Well that's sickening, maybe get contacts?--92.251.221.135 (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be hard-pressed to find a current US TV show where physicists are shown to be cool. And, incidentally, I do wear contacts. StuRat (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, over here (Ireland) there are lots of programs advocating science. Most of them seem to be BBC though.--92.251.221.135 (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have science documentaries here, mainly on PBS, but a sitcom portraying math and science experts in a positive way ? No. StuRat (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that they aren't just physicists on The Big Bang Theory, they are nerds. They speak Klingon, go to Comicon and spend probably thousands of dollars on comic books. Those traits seem to be more coupled with social ineptness, not intelligence per se (which many real people seem to appreciate). --Mark PEA (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that when the intelligent are portrayed on US sitcoms, it's almost always as nerds (meaning having those traits you listed). For another example, on Frasier, while perhaps not the typical nerds, Frasier and especially Niles were often portrayed as objects of ridicule, such as Niles' obsessive cleanliness and inability to tell Daphne he liked her. StuRat (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a sitcom and she is female, which makes a difference, but Samantha Carter is pretty cool. Daniel only gets cool later on and McKay is not cool, but at least there is one! --Tango (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is most likely going to vary between time and place, as StuRat stated. However, it would seem that if one were more intelligent, they would more effectively deal with problems in their life, and thus more likely than not be happier. 66.69.254.68 (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happiness is a cigar called Hamlet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.188.14 (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that intelligence test scores (which are not the same thing as intelligence) are correlated with introversion, which in turn is correlated with depression. —Tamfang (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial diamond

How is artificial diamond made? -- Extra999 (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_diamond#Manufacturing_technologies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.173.205 (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also seen a method constructing diamonds from peanut butter and charcoal in a microwave. However it is also said to be very dangerous. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is meant by decreasing the "vacuum"???

What is meant by decreasing the vacuum?? Is it increasing the vacuum pressure hence decreasing the quality of it?? Or decreasing the emptiness??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.54.67 (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends entirely on the speaker who makes that comment. This is identical to the vagueness over "decrease the air conditioning." It could mean "decrease the amount of cold air produced by the air conditioner to make it warmer" or it could mean "decrease the temperature setting on the air conditioner to make it colder." -- kainaw ™ 13:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal fruits

Is it possible to fool plants into growing and fruiting at the wrong time of year, using environmental control and temperature etc? Or do plants somehow know if it's the wrong time of year even if the conditions are perfect for growth in their artificial environment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Techcolis (talk • contribs) 13:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly trick the plants. Mostly it takes the right temperatures, lighting and water. If the plant has that, it will be quite happy. For fruiting, you might need to artificially pollinate since the natural pollinators (usually wind or insects) might not be present in the artificial environment. Googlemeister (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe polytunnels are used for this purpose to grow strawberries year-round. They don't taste as nice, though. Vimescarrot (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be pedantic, I don't think that's much of a trick at all. Seasonal could be taken to refer to seasonal conditions. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I was told years ago, this is done all the time with poinsettia plants to make them blossom near Christmas. Dismas|^(talk) 00:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is definetly possible, as it is how greenhouses work all over the world. I'm sure there are many mechanisms that will cause a plant to bud, flower, and later bear fruit, one of these being growing degree days (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Growing_degree_day&redirect=no ). Other factors include the amount of light, nutrient levels, soil moisture, etc. Different plants respond to different environmental cues, of course, so you would have to consult a gardening or horticulture text if you have a specific species in mind. Most likely, plants don't know what "time of the year" it is, per se, but these mechanisms make seasonal variation in light and temperature a strong predictor for growth (This is all from a dendrology course, sorry I haven't cited all this) 68.153.29.23 (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Joseph[reply]

English name of an object

What is the English name of the green object that you see here? It need to put fuel on the vehicles. Do you know if there is a similar image on Commons? --Aushulz (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be a better word, but the only thing coming to mind at the moment is "nozzle". Falconus^{p t c} 15:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to gas pump it is indeed called a "nozzle." Falconus^{p t c} 15:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Agree with "nozzle" or "fuel nozzle" - most would understand this. U.S. fuel pump labeling generally refers to it as the "handle" (as in "Remove handle and begin fueling"), but that's not specific enough out of context to be useful. -- Scray (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(UK) I've never heard it referred to as anything other than the (fuel) nozzle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.248.99 (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UNLESS, of course, the OP is referring specifically to only the green plastic part of the handle assembly, and not all the metal parts? DaHorsesMouth (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On commons there is an image for the hydrogen fueling nozzle, but I am searching one image of gasoline one.

@DaHorsesMouth: I am referring to the green part and the metal part, too, so the object to take fuel except the tube. --Aushulz (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added my request here. Thank you everybody. :) --Aushulz (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charting unknown part of space

In this video, at 3:08, why is it unknown part of the universe in a Bow tie shape? --Reticuli88 (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because it's blocked by something with a bow tie shape, from Earth's POV, such as the most dense portion of the Milky Way galaxy. StuRat (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear from the picture but I'd bet that the "charted" region is two cones, whose axis is perpendicular to the plane of our galaxy — though I'd expect the cones to be wider than that. —Tamfang (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

adaptaion of bones to our environment

how do bones adapt to our environment —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chibu86 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They don't really. Bones are essentially the same in all humans, whatever environment they grew up/live in. Do you mean how have bones adapted to our environment, as the human race evolved? --Tango (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will fail if you turn in that answer. Bones vary greatly according to the environment, lifestyles, and diet of all humans. Bones remodel constantly and adapt to the environment in several important ways. Some examples: 1. One of the most obvious, if exotic, is the steady loss of bone mass in a weightless environment. This is currently a substantial limit to the time humans can spend in space. 2. Bones remodel in response to stress and use. The bones of a person who gets little exercise or physical work are lighter and weaker. Muscular activity is an important factor in maintenance of bone mineralization. 3. A new scientific frontier is the role of bones in regulating energy metabolism (i.e., calorie intake, expenditure, and adiposity). Here is an example [6] 4. Bones change shape in response to environmental shortages of minerals or vitamin D. This reshaping is called rickets. How many more do you need, or have i just done your homework for you? alteripse (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more precise in your question?

If you carry out heavy labour ( or weight-lifting/training etc.) then those bone that carry the load will thicken to compensate or in zero gravity de- mineralize. Is that what you mean? --Aspro (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In concert with the above stated answers save for the first, bones certainly adapt -- see functional matrix hypothesis and wolff's law. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your second point is good, although I'm not sure I would count behaviour as environmental (although I suppose it is affected by environment). Your other points don't sound like adaptations to me, just changes. A change needs to be beneficial in some way to count as an adaptation, in my book. --Tango (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An adaptation is a controlled, "active" response to an environmental change. All 4 examples are such; none is simply "damage suffered passively". Whether in some combination of circumstances the adaptation has more negative than positive questions does not make it not an adaptation. Broaden your understanding of the word. alteripse (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one definition in wikt:adaptation that doesn't just reference another word concurs with my understanding of the word. --Tango (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adjustment to extant conditions: as, adjustment of a sense organ to the intensity or quality of stimulation; modification of some thing or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its current environment Thanks for the link. I assume this is the def you were using. I agree completely. It was the only def that made any sense in the context. I provided 4 examples of adjustment by bone to conditions. Not sure I understand your difficulty with this concept. alteripse (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's perhaps worth remembering that if we're discussing biology here, acclimatisation is probably the better term to use since it sounds like were discussing changes in an individual in response to the environment, not adaptation by natural selection of populations Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is with the "more fit for existence" bit. How does rickets make you more fit to exist in a environment with scarce vitamin D? It is caused by the deficiency, but I don't think it something the body does in order to cope better, the body just has no choice. --Tango (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we're getting into a semantic argument here. FWIW, the use of the term "adaptation" to describe physiologic changes to environmental conditions is perfectly valid (see light adaptation for a widely accepted example). I think Alteripse gave a good answer in terms of examples of how bones can be altered by environmental influences. However, if the OP is interested in the mechanistic "how", as in "how is bone remodeling accomplished?" then the articles on osteoclast and osteoblast will provide some insight. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I wasn't saying the term is invalid but that (in my experience which is primarily in molecular biology and genetics area) the use of the term in the not evolutionary context is often avoided in biology for clarity and because of the confusion it can cause. In medicine and physiology, things may be different, I can't speak to those areas (hence why I specifically mentioned biology). Light adaptation is perhaps not the best example, since you're discussing something that occurs primarily in minutes (human adaptation to spaceflight which is partially relevant here would be a better example). I would note adaptive system says something similar although it's unsourced and the whole article is in a rather poor state. Of course asking how something adapts, is different from calling it an adaptation, the later is the only one I would avoid. Of course acclimitisation isn't perfect either since it seems to suggest climate rather then generic environmental changes and adaptation is widely used when it comes to bones Nil Einne (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truth or myth about rebuilding the brain?

«we are learning that hard exercise also stimulates increases in neurotransmitters, like serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine, all of which we worry about in all of the above maladies. But the research he details in Spark shows further effects on the whole range of biochemistry beneficial to well-being and behavior. Some of these chemicals literally rebuild the brain.»

is that that easy?--Mr.K. (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Analogy is the core of cognition," but this is an example of a relatively simplistic description of the process of brain remodelling that occurs continuously throughout life. Not sure what you are asking. alteripse (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There is certainly some rebuilding of the brain, as in all our other organs, but it's not 100% in all cases, of course. StuRat (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is some science behind this, but most popular accounts way overstate the story. We have an article, brain fitness, that's supposed to be about this topic, but unfortunately it's a sucky article. Looie496 (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they can't "literally" rebuild the brain. They might improve it's functioning or something - but they could only possibly "figuratively" rebuild it. But think about this - would you really want your brain "literally" rebuilt? Doing that would erase all of your memories, wipe your personality, delete all of your learned skills. You might as well die! SteveBaker (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "literally", here. There is often partial physical rebuilding, as in forming new connections, after something like a minor stroke, as well as just with normal learning. We could even think of problems like senility being an "inability of the brain to rebuild itself". StuRat (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So how did we all get here in the first place?

Why did the big bang happen? What caused it? Why did that exist? Why doesn't nothing exist? Doesn't this pretty much discredit atheists?--92.251.221.135 (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how questions can discredit a philosophical statement. Normally evidence is required to discredit something. that being said we can address the earlier questions :

Why did it happen? - Why not?
What caused it? - Big Bang has a fairly decent description, but the short answer is either "we don't know" or that question might not have meaning.
Why did that exist? - This seems to be a statement saying that teh creator of the creator (big bang) had to exist. The counter-argument athesists would present is, if everything needs to have been made by something, then what made "God"?
Why doesn't nothing exist? - Maybe it did at some point, but noone was there to ask that.

Chris M. (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) We don't know, we don't know, we don't know, we don't know, and no. Why would it discredit atheists? I've always seen it as more of an argument for discrediting theists, since it doesn't match up with any creation story in anything much more than a metaphorical sense. Vimescarrot (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that it would very much discredit atheists, because, is it the First law of thermodynamics, that states that matter and energy cannot be taken out of nowhere. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one said anything about anything coming out of nowhere. Beach drifter (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A) Not knowing where the Bigbang came from doesn't mean it came from nowhere.
B) Conservation of energy is a consequence of time homogeneity. If time started at the Bigbang than there cannot be time homogeneity at the instant of the Bigbang because it is a boundary. Therefore the Bigbang is not required to obey conservation of energy.
C) As far as we know the total energy of the universe might be exactly zero.
D) Within the framework of general relativity time homogeneity is not really required at the scale of the universe as a whole.
E) God coming from nowhere is a problem for theists as well.

Any of the answers above make your point moot. Dauto (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Fist Law of Thermodynamics really only makes sense in very few possible spacetimes. It is meaningless in a space that is expanding or contracting (see ADM mass, General Theory of Relativity). 74.14.109.18 (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have the exact same questions with or without God. That is "Who created God ?", or, if you assume that God always existed, why not skip the middleman and assume that the universe always existed (maybe in the oscillating universe mode). StuRat (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except God would be spiritual, not physical, so laws of physics would not apply. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If God does not have a physical component, then how can he interact with the physical universe? If he does have a physical component, then how did that physical component arise? —Bkell (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And there isn't a law of physics that says "the universe must have started from nothing". All the mass of the universe always having existed doesn't violate any laws of science, AFAIK. However, there is an intuition that everything must come from somewhere, and that includes gods just as much as matter, leading to the turtles all the way down concept. StuRat (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe in God. Just sayin you know, how did we get here. Nothing can just come from nowhere, so how did we come from nowhere?--92.251.221.135 (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Beach drifter and Dauto wrote above, the Big Bang theory doesn't say it "came from nowhere". The little dense point of matter and energy may have been around for 92842049820958 quadrillion years, or infinite years, or there may have been no movement of time at all before the Big Bang — we do not know. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but why did it exist?--92.251.221.135 (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that we don't know. However, the other side as long as you are making comparisons to atheists is that the same problem exists for any other notion (such as a deity) just as much. An eternal chain of causation going backwards is logically consistent if a bit counterintuitive. No matter how far you go back you will always be able to ask "so why that?" JoshuaZ (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I mentioned atheists and not theists is because theists can argue that well their God is supernatural why does he have to have a begining?--92.251.221.135 (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But did you honestly expect an answer to any of this? Beach drifter (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not==92.251.221.135 (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created the world. Bus stop (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May be you didn't expect an answer, but I gave you five answers. Dauto (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one of the attractive things about the Big Bang as an explanation is that it offers the possibility to cut off that eternal regress of "What created the thing that created the thing that created the Big Bang?" - the idea that time itself was also created in the Big Bang would means that there was no "Before" - problem solved. Or the idea that two universes were created - one with time running backwards - and ours with time running forwards...again, no "before". We don't (yet) know that either of those things are true - but if they are then that's it. Origins problem solved! Any "God" explanation really begs the question "Where did God come from?" and if you answer "He just is" or "He always was" we have to slap you! When science says that the big ban "Just is" or "Always was" - we're told it's an inadequate answer - but when cross out "Big Bang" and write "God" instead - suddenly that's an OK answer for the religious guys. I don't get it! SteveBaker (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There was no before" doesn't solve the problem "why was there an after?". Is there a theoretical difficulty with nothing at all ever existing? It doesn't sound very problematic, on the face of it. 81.131.20.244 (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your original question was how can everything come from nothing. That question was answered. Now you are asking a slightly different question which could be paraphrased as "Why does the universe exist at all?". That one is even easier to answer. Five words: It exists because it can. Dauto (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't actually my original question, and "because it can" is not actually an answer in this case. Why can it? It shouldn't be able to. 81.131.52.202 (talk) 11:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"We don't know - so it must be God." is a deeply unsatisfying answer. Why not "We don't know - so it must have been created by a mad scientist from the year 3010 who had a terrible accident with his time machine" ? Or "We don't know - so it must have been Harry Potter who magiked into existance because HE'S REAL!!!", or "We don't know - but we strongly suspect it has to do with the nature of singularities." - all of those are every bit as valid as "...it must be God". So long as we don't know - it's really better not to make any assumptions whatever about what that means. It would be different if there was evidence of God or Gods doing other things in other parts of the physical world - but there isn't...not a scrap. Since there are a literal infinity of other possible explanations - we have to say "We don't know." and mean it. SteveBaker (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry no one else here has given you the correct answer. It all happened Last Thursday, actually, although some will try to convince you that it was just five minutes ago. Imagine Reason (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing existed, then it would continue to be nothing until something came along. Something came along (you're reading this), and being a stable something, it now it remains. The most relevant article I know of is Many worlds hypothesis, but it's rather bunged up with scientific abstractions. The final episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, All Good Things... explores the concepts of being and non-being rather more accessibly. Vranak (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where do photons come from after spontaneous emission? Also, don't virtual particles spontaneously appear in vacuum without any prior cause? --Mark PEA (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is addressed to me, I have no idea. Although I believe there are allowances made for the spontaneous creation of matter (or was it energy) on the rim of black hole. Little help? :) Vranak (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Hey cool, two days (nearly three) late. Everything's already said. Wish I was here earlier so I could say "what makes your god (which you can't perceive, touch or demonstrate the existance of) so special that it can exist from nothingness while the universe (which you can perceive, touch and prove the existance of to yourself, at least) can't?" and then answer "Nuffin". If your god can exist from nothing, or forever, so can my universe. God's spiritual? So? Spiritual can't affect (or effect, for that matter) the physical - evidence: Efficacy of prayer. You may keep your god so long as its role is limited to pressing the big red "start universe" button. But I, personally, won't believe such a pathetic deity. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and as a postscript, how can a theory of origin discredit atheists? Do you think the only alternative is theism? Do not the inconsistencies in the Christian bible discredit Christians? Does not the lack of evidence for any interventionist god discredit practically all theists? Does not the Invisible Pink Unicorn discredit any remaining theists? I am of the belief that the only people left arguing are:

those profiting from deluding the susceptible
those too poorly educated to have the ability to analyse the claims of the above profiteers
those too stupid to know better
those who argue for fun

I tend to think that those who bring such arguments to the science ref desk are simply doing it for fun, though I can't see where one can find fun in a loosing argument, especially where those responding enjoy doing so as much as I do. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Don't start in on the IPU (mhhbb)! The IPU discredits those she feels like discrediting (and those who don't put pinapple and ham on their pizzas - but that's a religious debate for another day). SteveBaker (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, really, it's fun feeding this troll. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What, no one has mentioned the anthropic principle yet? —Tamfang (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, AGF. Posing a question about the universe that suggests the existance of God is not trolling. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

White Sussex hen

[Query moved from Talk:Chicken#White Sussex]

I have a couple of White Sussex and one sits in her coup. She use to lay daily, now she has stopped and sits in her nest. I think she thinks she has chickens —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.45.250 (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She could be broody (wanting to sit on eggs to hatch them). If so, she'll flop back onto the nest when you lift her up, often making a long, low squawk, fluffing her feathers and pecking at your hand. If taken off the nest she'll cluck about low to the ground and fluff her feathers, or even flop onto the ground and brood there.

You could give her a dozen eggs and let her hatch them. They must of course be fertile, so you need eggs from hens who've been with a male, or if you don't have a male, you'll have to buy hatching eggs. All the eggs must go under her at once, so they hatch together (if she's sat on eggs for different lengths of time, it may be best to discard them and start again). If it takes you a week or so to get a clutch together you can keep her sitting by giving her golf balls. Usually broodies will only sit in the nest they have chosen, but sometimes you can move them to a more convenient place – if you do, put her in a dark, secluded place where she can't easily get out (I use a large bucket with hay in, and a board over the top). If other hens can get at the nest, mark her hatching eggs and keep collecting any new ones from the other hens, or they'll start to develop too. Put her off the nest every couple of days for ten minutes or so to eat and drink and do a dropping, or she may foul the nest. If she does, or if a broken egg contaminates the others, wash the dirty eggs in quite hot (not warm) clean water and dry them carefully, and some may survive if you're lucky (a bit grubby is OK: they only need cleaning if coated with muck). If you smell bad egg in the nest, sniff each egg carefully until you find the off one, then remove it, or it will burst and spoil everything.

The eggs will take 21 days to hatch from when they go under her. When they do hatch, let her brood the chicks on the nest, then after a couple of days remove any unhatched eggs, or move her and the chicks elsewhere (once they're cheeping she'll stick with them wherever they are). Feed them moistened poultry feed, which she will show to the chicks, and water of course; the food only has to be moistened for the first few days. Best not to feed layers' feed to chicks for any length of time, as it has too much calcium which can mess up the development of their joints; you don't however need the special chick food they sell, just ordinary growers' feed. Once running about they can go outside – she'll brood them to keep them warm, shelter them from rain and sun, and defend them valiantly from cats, dogs and any other passers-by. Keep them separate from the other hens at night in a safe corner or hutch until they're well feathered. The hen will keep the chicks together, but she will not always notice the one at the back, so don't let her explore long grass or piles of junk, as a lost chick will get cold or be eaten.

Alternatively if you don't want her to sit or can't get any fertile eggs, put her in an airy, well-lit, wire-floored cage off the ground until she goes off the idea (it may take a week or so).

Good luck! Richard New Forest (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be a good idea to move this back to the article talk page - we're not allowed to give medical (including veterinary) advice here. Tevildo (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a medical advice question. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime you can eat your mistakes, it's just dietary advice. :) Franamax (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is an excellent answer and corresponds to my experience. It is animal husbandry, and not "veterinary advice." It is akin to advising how to grow tomatoes. My significant other says "It sounds like poetry." Edison (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]