Science desk
< December 21	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 23 >

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.

December 22

Contact lenses

hello. Can people who wear contact lenses go longer without blinking? Since the lens keeps the cornea, iris and pupil covered the film that forms on the eye usually does not form on these most sensitive parts, correct? I've never worn contacts, but this is something I've always been curious about. Thanks. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wear contacts and I've never noticed anything like this, fwiw. Also, removing film from the eye is only one function of blinking; according to our article, it's also important for spreading tears evenly across the surface of the eye. So there shouldn't be any less need for blinking among contact wearers. Meelar (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Since water evaporates just as quickly from contact lenses as from the eye, you need to blink just as often to replenish it. (I'm talking about soft contact lenses, which are water permeable. The old hard contacts might be different.) StuRat (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; I used to suffer from sore eyes after a day in an air-conditioned office. My optician advised me to increase my "blink rate". I just went back to glasses. Alansplodge (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nose blowing

Do children inherently know how to blow their nose when it is plugged or does the skill have to be taught? Thanks, CBHA (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR here, but my kids had to be taught to do it. --Jayron32 05:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instinct seems to favor wiping their nose of their sleeves or sucking it back in, for liquid snot, and picking their nose and wiping it on anything handy, for boogers. StuRat (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a tangent, I wonder if anyone has tried to explain why picking your nose is such a pleasure? After all, it can damage the mucous membranes and make you more susceptible to disease (or that's what they tell me). The same goes for picking at scabs.--Rallette (talk) 07:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trichotillomania. This isn't really an explanation, but it seems relevant. Oh wait, dermatillomania is more on target. It's all much the same thing, anyway. I like the second link better because it mentions it as (yet another thing) affected by dopamine. Delusional parasitosis is also related. On a more cheerful note, nose-picking mentions the theory that picking your nose and eating it is good for the immune system. Card Zero (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before the invention of handkerchiefs, there wouldn't really be any point to blowing your nose - it would just be even messier than the approaches StuRat mentions, and wiping your nose with the kind of coarse fabrics that used to be used wouldn't be pleasant. I doubt there's any nose-blowing instinct. Smurrayinchester 08:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading that blowing your nose forcefully when you have a cold may make the cold worse. The only evidence I can find for this now is a brief mention from the New Scientist [1] which has a broken link to an abstract. I seem to remember the research involved pumping fake snot into people's nasal passages, and won an Ig Nobel prize. Card Zero (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can blow your nose onto the ground if you're skilled. I've seen professional sportspeople do it.

(As an aside, I wonder if there is a human instinct to remove material stuck to the body, which would apply to scab picking and nose picking, as well as to getting rid of insects on your skin, washing, etc.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, define instinct. Since drugs can turn the urge on or off (see my links above), it looks pretty low-level. Then again, drugs can make you loquacious or silent, and it would be a mistake to conclude that languages are therefore instinctive, so I guess the specifics of skin-picking might be cultural too. I'd say there's an instinct that tends to manifest as picking at various things on the body. I never knew nose-blowing was a professional sport. People are so competitive. Card Zero (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're skilled, you can blow your nose into the trashcan. I can easily lean over and shoot snot out either nostril and right into the trashcan by my desk. As for skill, I've been doing it for over 30 years, so I've had a lot of practice. I prefer it to using a tissue because it doesn't cause irritation around the nose, but I avoid doing it if I'm not the only person in my office. -- kainaw ™ 18:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aussies call that technique the bushman's hanky. Vespine (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle etiquette. Alansplodge (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tend to say that nose blowing is a variation on the very natural phenomenon of sneezing, which is of course experienced by many species, not just humans. Regardless I'd say nose blowing in the sense of clearing your nose of blockages would be a natural thing to do, the actual mechanism we use in typical western societies today is probably learnt, as others have suggested. --jjron (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible calculation

This TED Talk is fun, but unfortunately the most interesting part where he's showing his thoughts is limited. His amazing performance does not show what "the trick" is. It seems to have to do with a representation of numbers in words but I don't understand what he's really doing to get the right result. (Btw I happen to relate numbers to words, 9 being "blue" is pretty obvious to me, but that wouldn't doesn't help me calculating!). Does anyone have a rational explanation on what's really going in his head? Joepnl (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Mental calculation, in particular the Squaring numbers section. For the day-of-week calculations, see Weekday determination and Doomsday rule. Red Act (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also, synesthesia. Grapheme-colour synesthesia seems to be the most common form, and a part of me doesn't really believe other people don't experience this. The one that really surprised me when I read that article is temporal-spatial synesthesia, because I simply cannot imagine how else people perceive time. (It does explain why time as the fourth dimension is treated as anything other than obvious by some). 86.163.212.160 (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always find color synesthesia hard to image because it so clearly conflicts with the actual color information of text. I believe I as a child (and perhaps my son now) have a type of Personification as described in that article. It was obvious that to me adding two "good" numbers could never yield a "bad" number which sped up addition problems, double checking answers, determining even and odd, etc. Faster than analyzing the problem or even evaluating the numbers. But this added "moral" dimension doesn't conflict with the black (or mimeo blue) color of the number on the page. I had a college music professor who would tune us up by having us sing laser-sharp green E flat, etc. I suspect he literally saw the colors and that it improved his speed at determining the pitch. Rmhermen (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mimeo blue? Sure you're not thinking of a pastel dark-purplish from a spirit duplicator? DMacks (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While purple was perhaps the most common, spirit duplicator waxes in a variety of colors were readily available—including blue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. But my point is that spirit ≠ mimeo. DMacks (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mimeograph duplicators usually had black ink, but any colour was possible, and several were available. Dbfirs 22:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my school days, before xeroxes were in wide usage, exams and such were typically printed with a mimeograph, and they were typically in that sort of light-purple-ish color, although I recall sometimes seeing them in black instead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you see E-flat as green, Rmhermen. Me too. Hence the association with forests, hunting horns and the like, and it's no coincidence that the "natural" key of the horn is E-flat. The name Richard is also green and in E-flat. No wonder Richard Greene was chosen for the title role in The Adventures of Robin Hood (TV series). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Scriabin would not have agreed.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ 86.163.212.160 About time: do you agree with me that "pushing back" an event, meaning to make it happen later should be "pushing forward" as it going to be further from you? Joepnl (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd say that you're pushing it forward in time, so yes, it has always confused me that people would call that pushing back. But at least it's pushing, which makes sense for moving something further away from you. I guess if the event is facing you, it is backing away from you? Merry Christmas! 86.164.77.59 (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found out what is meant by "pushing back" I guess. You have to imagine a football team, where the players are events. If one of them comes forward he's actually walking towards you. Joepnl (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the higgs boson go?

This is a three-part question (although the answer to one might answer the other two).

First question: Where does the higgs boson go on this diagram? Given that it's related to mass and mass is related to gravity, my guess is that it would go beside the gravitron, but from what I understand, the higgs boson is not a force carrier.

Second question: Why isn't the higgs boson a force carrier? From what I understand, charge is mediated by photons, so they are a force carrier, and colour is mediated by gluons, so they are a force carrier. So if mass is mediated by higgs bosons, why aren't they a force carrier?

Third question: If the answer to question #2 is that the higgs creates the mass and the gravitron mediates it, then why don't colour and charge and spin also require a seperate creator and mediator?

Thank you. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 08:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Higgs does not naturally fit into that diagram. I'd draw it as a side "leg" entering into "grand unified theory". Whether it is a force carrier or not, that depends on the point of view, normally we don't look at it as a force carrier.

You could, in principle, say that Higgs is the carrier of the coupling between left-handed and right-handed particles. You could think that there's not just one particle, "the electron", but "the left-handed electron" and "the right-handed electron", and each of these are naturally massless and travel at the speed of light. But there is a coupling between the two which makes it possible for a left-handed electron to emit a virtual Higgs and to turn into a right-handed electron travelling in the opposite direction. The net effect is that the whole thing looks like a single particle, which appears to be massive and travels in a zigzag pattern at a sub-light speed.

Graviton does not couple to mass. Graviton couples to energy. Even massless particles can couple to gravitons. Higgs prevents particles from always moving at the speed of light.

I know that I'm probably confusing things rather clarifying them.--Itinerant1 (talk) 09:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity couples to the Stress–energy tensor which includes energy density, momentum density, energy flux, pressure, and shear stress. Mass is related to energy and momentum through the dispersion relation

E^{2}=(mc^{2})^{2}+(pc)^{2}\,

. Dauto (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

area vector

my teacher told me that area is a vector. if so then adding the surface area of a 3D cube, the opposite sides get cancelled out and resultant becomes zero vector.but mathematics says that area of a cube is 6a2. what went wrong ? mathematics?? or physics?? or me?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokul cv india (talk • contribs) 08:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Area can be a vector (see bivector and exterior algebra), but when you are asked for the total surface area, the answer required is a scalar equal to the sum of the magnitudes of vector areas of the six faces. Dbfirs 09:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hypothyroid

homeopathy or allopathy what is the best way of treatment of hypothyroiodism ?Rikisupriyo (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article hypothyroidism discusses treatments, none of which involve homeopathy, so allopathy is your answer. Note that we are unable to advise you on specific treatments or offer any medical advice. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recommending any particular real treatment for any particular disease, such as recommending any particular one of the treatments listed in the hypothyroidism article, would be a clear-cut violation of the reference desk's "no medical advice" policy. But homeopathy isn't even real medicine; it's just bullshit. Asking whether homeopathy or allopathy will work better for treating hypothyroidism is effectively asking whether you should ask your doctor about what to do, or just independently choose to not treat the disease at all. The answer is to ask your doctor about what to do. Red Act (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well stated. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taste of pills

What substance makes pills taste like they taste? I suppose some specially bitter, but inert, component is added, and that placebos are not actually sugar pills. But options regarding flavor are there? 88.8.69.150 (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Pharmaceutical formulation doesn't directly answer your question, but I infer from it that because the inert ingredients have to be compatible with the drug itself, they will vary depending on what the actual medicine is... and by extension, some of those ingredients might taste more bitter for some medicines than for others. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The inert components of a pharmaceutical (excipients) are not bitter - they generally have little or no taste except that some have sweetness (some excipients are, in fact, sugars). As a broad generalization, the chemical properties that make a chemical compound "drug-like" often also cause a bitter taste, so it is typically the active pharmaceutical ingredient that is bitter. As a side note, the class of natural chemical compounds known as alkaloids have similar properties that make them both bitter in taste and the chemical inspiration for novel pharmaceuticals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.210 (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends a lot on what medication is involved. Capsules enclose the powdered or liquid medication in an inert material that dissolves or breaks up in water; these generally have a very neutral flavor, though in theory one could add any number of food-safe flavoring agents. Coated tablets could be similarly modified, provided that the flavoring didn't interact with the underlying drug. (In prinicple, I suppose one could manufacture a tablet with multiple layers – flavoring outside, protective coating, and active drug at the core – but this adds cost and complexity to the manufacturing process, would likely require additional safety and efficacy testing, and also makes the pill larger and therefore more difficult to swallow.)

In regular uncoated tablets, the taste will depend on the taste of the drug itself, along with the flavor of whatever binders and other agents have been added. Making drugs (especially over-the-counter drugs) less unpalatable to consumers can be an important marketing tool. To take one example, [Paracetamol]]/acetaminophen is a common drug that is inherently bitter. This paper examines modifications to the tablet manufacturing process to limit the rate at which the tablet releases paracetamol in the mouth, thereby reducing the perceived bitterness.

In preparations intended for children, flavorings are more common. By far the most common are probably children's multivitamins; the largest chunk of the market probably belongs to Flintstones Chewable Vitamins, which are available in fruit flavored chewable tablets and 'gummies'. This paper reports on taste-tests of various oral antibiotic liquids for children. Here's a grape-flavored chewable acetaminophen tablet in a children's dose. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

space balls!

In reference to these space balls reportedly falling for the past 20 years in Australia, Latin America, and Southern Africa, have they actually been reported? Can the reports be found? What are the theories as to the balls' origin? Do those locations on Earth line up in some special way? Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things fall out of orbit, or off of high-altitude aircraft and rockets. I'm a subscriber to Orbital Debris Quarterly, a free newsletter from NASA's Johnson Space Center; and (almost) every issue packs an exciting new discovery of space junk landing in unusual places. (There's also a lot of coverage of space-debris that does not re-enter the atmosphere). You can sign up at http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov and read archived issues. Nimur (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A helium pressure tank? They are often made of titanium (that might be a novel metal in those parts of the world) and of about that size--Aspro (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both; have subscribed to ODQ - what a great resource. Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]