Science desk
< April 22	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 24 >

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.

April 23

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate

Can someone more knowledgeable about climate change than me please take a look at this article and confirm/debunk it? Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to debunk it. It is a fake news, garbage. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an actual Forbes article but a blog hosted on Forbes. The author is "the president of the Spark of Freedom Foundation," which is first and foremost concerned with "promoting free markets" -- i.e. corporate profit. The author "promotes affordable, abundant energy founded in conservative economic principles" -- i.e. he's more concerned with corporate profit and right-wing politics than science. The incident he refers to is covered here. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The story is published in Forbes Magazine, quite a respected source, and specifically quotes known entities, opening it up to a libel suit if the claims, such as this one

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

are false. But of course one can simply say it is fake news without proof. Of course, since no proof of that is offered, the fake news claim can be dismissed without any need to disprove it. The fact that it is a blog does not legally relieve Forbes of liability for the claim. When it is retracted, then you can bring forth the "fake news" claim. μηδείς (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not actually published, it's hosted. The Forbes Contributors articles are generally regarded as user generated content -- they are neither edited nor fact-checked. At most, they can be used to source the author's opinions on a subject but are useless for facts beyond that. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, you've retreated from this being fake news to being a statement of opinion. But it is clearly a statement of fact. When it is withdrawn or denied, then get back to us. Otherwise, it is what it is, a recommendation of how to hide from the public by circumventing the FOIA. μηδείς (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to where I actually called it "fake news." You have me confused with AboutFace 22. I said that it's biased and unreliable for anything beyond Taylor's opinions. Per the article I linked to earlier, there was a second release of emails, but the assessment of the situation in reliable sources was that the material, or rather the out-of-context misquotations cherry-picked by conspiracy theorists, was just a stunt and not worth looking over. The most that the Forbes blog could be used for (if there were secondary sources covering it) would be "this one lobbyist whose job focuses more on profit than the environment disagrees and uses it to rehash the same old ClimateGate conspiracy theory." Ian.thomson (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this story was published in 2011. Do you remember a big Climategate 2.0 scandal then? Me neither. A few people aimed to stir up trouble. It got a small amount of traction, but lacked the impact of the original Climategate and was quickly forgotten. Dragons flight (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading title, failure of refdesk regulars to do basic research: The "New E-Mails" were leaked (and the Forbes article published) in 2011.[1][2][3][4] Yes they were really leaked (see the last ref I just supplied) and we already have an article on it: Climatic Research Unit email controversy. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A number of them did but yes I would prefer more checking rather than trying to be first to reply like slashdot. And personally I wish people would stop referring to what lobbyists like James Taylor write as 'opinion' or that they 'disagree'. That is implying a feeling or thought on their part. The deliberate taking out of context of quotes is too extreme to have any doubt except that it is simply part of a propaganda campaign with no consideration for the facts. We do not know whether he actually disagrees with the facts or not only that they are not as important to him as his agenda. Dmcq (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that at the very top of that article is says "Opinion". This is the indication they give us that it's just one guy's opinion, and not a fact-checked and peer-reviewed article. As such, it should be treated as authoritatively as if I said "garlic is icky". StuRat (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the only demonstrable fact is that it's the writer's opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, you put that straight after I give reasons why it should not be called an opinion. 'Opinion' is just something written at the top by Forbes so they can claim deniability and does not make it an opinion. It is propaganda. Dmcq (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fine line between opinion and propaganda. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is pretty clear here. It is the difference between a witness identifying someone he thinks was guilty of a crime, and them planting evidence on them that they committed a crime. One helps the law and the other perverts it. In this case a thought out opinion one way or the other would be something for people to consider. Taking bits out of context and knowingly misusing them to further his aims as a lobbyist is propaganda. Dmcq (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of propaganda to go around. Al Gore for instance is not a scientist but he is a propagandist. The same motivation that discredits corporate positions also discredits political positions. There is nary a difference between ignoring climate change for oil profits and promoting climate change for social justice. Neither are science. Science doesn't need protest marches. --DHeyward (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are talking about the March for Science. I certainly agree with what it says about policy in the Scientific opinion on climate change "The natural and social sciences can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. However, policy decisions may require value judgments". However what Trump tries to do is suppress the message and research to find out the facts. I think scientists are entitled to present the results of their research rather than be suppressed and gagged and unfortunately that now requires them to fight to support the integrity of their profession. By the way I don't see what climate change has got to do with social justice but yes I would consider a scientist who went about crusading about it as no longer a climate scientist but someone with a crusade. And there is a dark line a crusader can go across where they start twisting the facts rather than keeping to them and the person who wrote this bit went past there long ago. Dmcq (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you imagine Trump has any power to suppress climate science? He can influence policy but he does not sit on any peer review boards. It is certainly not clear what constitutes an "effective response" to climate change or that there is any scientific consensus for any particular measure. Those strongly advocating for specific political solutions (taxes, credits, subsidies, etc) are not basing their arguments on scientific consensus because no such thing exists for any particular solution. Whether the EPA or NASA funds research is again a political decision, not a decision on the merits of the science. Politicians that use contemporary science to justify policies enacted to resolve projected outcomes don't have a particularly inspiring track record. --DHeyward (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that is about how it is up to the administration to set policy and I agree with that. It is sad I think that they are doing stupid things but it is a democracy and they were elected to do that. However on the initial question of what Trump can do to stop the science and gag researchers how about reading the section on that article at March for Science#Donald Trump and you'll see he has taken very effective measures. Canada did this sort of suppression under its previous administration, see [5] for instance, but of course Canada isn't anywhere near as important as the US in science. Dmcq (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March for Science#Donald Trump is a prime example of synth. Opposition or support of Keystone XL is nor scientific. It is a political position. Scientists don't make infrastructure decisions. That whole section is filled with a synthesis that politically motivated environmentalists are backed exclusively by science and that is false. Supporters and detractors of Keystone are generally motivated by emotion, not science. If Keystone was a key platform for the March for Science, I'm afraid that they have been duped into marching for a political cause, not science. --DHeyward (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about gagging scientists and suppressing research. That section does cover the sort of thing I was talking about. That it covers some irrelevancies is not to the point here, if you want to point that out there then please do as the march isn't something I have taken any interest in. Do you dispute that it points out that Trump is gagging scientists and is suppressing research? Do you deny that it was very effective in Canada and Trump is heading towards being successful in doing it in America as opposed to your supposition that there is no way he could do it? Dmcq (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a difference between setting a political tone and "gagging." The EPA is fundamentally a regulatory entity. If it has funded research, there is nothing they can do to suppress information. It's not scientific suppression, however, to say the EPA cannot speak using the Governments voice. I've not seen where scientists say they cannot publish other than they cannot say it with the voice of a federal agency. Trump's biggest influence will be money allocated for research but not direct intervention. Saying he is suppressing scientific voices would imply there is a lack of integrity among those scientists as they choose to go along with it. Are you saying scientists don't have the courage or integrity to report their findings? --DHeyward (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In an environment where research funding is halved it will not be easy for an EPA scientist to get a job in a related area. And yes in Canada most scientists did buckle under at least overtly. Scientists are not superhuman. Perhaps you are thinking about the marines when you talk about courage and integrity. Have a read of [6] for an idea of what federally funded scientists see as in store for them. It lasted nine years in Canada and Trump is much more up front and brazen about doing things like that. Dmcq (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think climate change research funding will be halved as a lot of funding is private or tied to other research. You are also overstating the conditions imposed by Trump. It didn't affect or silence a single scientist. It did set limits on what official twitter and social media could put out in the name of the Administration. That's neither new nor controversial. Scientists are free to publish their work in peer-reviewed journals which is the proper outlet for science. If they are not able to do their job (and their job isn't to attack policy or being lobbyists), I'd expect they would be laid off or quit in much the same way private sector employees are made redundant if there job is eliminated. And Marines are a good analogy for government scientists that can still do EPA work. Obama might have reduced the Marines size, training and overseas engagements against the Matines wishes and beliefs. They may disagree with Obama's (or Trump's) policies but they cannot speak out against the President or administration. They are free to leave the military if they think publicly attacking policy is something they need to do. As for scientists, if Trump cuts funding and EPA scientists no longer have research money to investigate Climate Change, what would you expect them to do? If they believe Climate Change is the most pressing scientific challenge to human beings, should they stay at the EPA? If canadian scientists chose economic security over researching climate science, it sounds an awful lot like the criticism laid at the feet of sceptics and corporations that choose "profit over science." If scientists do stay employed with the government, they can still publish all the research they have done. Nothing Trump has done so far has silenced scientist' voices about science and I hope we don't pay scientists to run twitter accounts. How much the government spends on research, welfare and defense are policy issues not scientific questions. --DHeyward (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see the main aim of the march was to try to raise awareness of the problem of the anti science mentality gaining ground at the moment of which Trump's actions are just one indication. Your attitude is the sort of thing that they are trying to change. They are not in science to be warriors and yet you talk as if they are supposed to have far greater integrity and suffer for their profession. And you seem to think that climate change scientists are trying to prove it for some reason. Most are in it just to do a good job of science. They would be only too happy if what they said was more palatable to the public. Science is a job like other jobs. It does have its own requirements but being able to stand up to government pressure is not one of the basic requirements. At least it should not be. In Russia Lysenkoism stayed around quite a while with state support - I only hope that sort of thing is not what is going to happen in America. Dmcq (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Ian, for possibly conflating you with About Face, who simply makes an unfounded statement. I did take you as defending that position. But I think the attributed quoted email speaks for itself. I am not interested in debate, so I'll sign off on this topic. μηδείς (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP asked us to confirm or debunk the "Climategate 2.0 Emails". Here goes. Jeff Sonderman at the Poynter Institute "What the Forbes model of contributed content means for journalism" interviewed Forbes's chief product officer Lewis DVorkin about how Forbes runs their blogs. I've indented major points with a bullet to make sure they stand out. The article says:

"When you practice incentive-based entrepreneurial journalism, you have to decide what to incent.
Stock market news and analysis site Seeking Alpha, which gets its content from contributors as well, pays them each a very straightforward $10 per thousand pageviews. You could also pay contributors based on the volume of productivity (per article, per word, etc.) or based on a subjective notion of quality.

Forbes has chosen to pay contributors based on unique visitors -- specifically, loyal unique visitors. An author is paid a certain amount (which varies and DVorkin would not disclose, citing privacy of individuals’ contracts) for each first-time unique visitor, but 10 times more for each return visit from that person during the same month.

Why is that good? It’s an all-in-one incentive to write well, to write often, to distribute and promote content and to build community. You don’t get a large number of unique people to come, and then come back again, without doing all of that well.

It also lets each contributor choose the most appropriate way to build her audience. One contributor might write a few deeply researched pieces; another might hammer out a ton of quick, timely pieces. Both can succeed.

HOW DO YOU ORGANIZE IT ALL? There are no centralized editors assigning the Forbes.com stories. There’s not even an editor aware at any given time what all the contributors are working on. How do you keep that from becoming a tangled mess?

Forbes hires each contributor to write about a specific subject, and requires them to stay in their lanes, DVorkin said. And Forbes won’t take on a new contributor if her proposed subject area isn’t desirable (read: relevant and/or profitable), or if the contributor pool on that topic is already saturated.

Another strategy that keeps the site focused is applying “the Forbes prism” across every topic.

“The beautiful thing about Forbes is, you can put almost anything through a Forbes prism,” DVorkin said. “The Forbes prism is about free enterprise, entrepreneurship and smart investing. Most business stories, and dare I say many cultural events, you can put through that Forbes prism. Because it’s always, at the end, about money.”"

The difference, at the end of the day, between Forbes's blog space and wikipedia (to give a handy example) is ethos. They sum their editorial policy up as "It's always, at the end, about money." We, on the other hand, are here to write an encyclopedia (not that this means the same thing to everyone, it doesn't). We have several core pillars telling us how to write an encyclopedia, but "Neutral point of view" is the one that keeps me here. If I were convinced that there was a successful overall slant to wikipedia, I'd leave, and I'd blow my whistle loudly. I've been tempted to do just that, but realized that I was being naïve about the same sort of internal politics I've seen everywhere - it's not just wikipedia that suffers from counter-productive agenda-driven behavior and power gaming. Even monasteries and convents have that, beacuse they're full of people, too.

So, Mr. Taylor can present these Emails on his Forbes blog with no oversight prior to publication. The New Yorker uses fact-checkers, which puts them in a minority among news outlets today. The fact checkers' job is to read an article submitted for publication, call up the folks the writer says he spoke with, and confirm that they told him what he says they told him (according to Richard Preston. a veteran contributor to the New Yorker).

Forbes candidly admits (a) there's no one watching their bloggers and (b) they're mainly concerned about who brings loyal visitors to their Web site, and they pay people, whey they pay them at all, on this basis.

The article in question doesn't show the actual Emails, it paraphrases them. The article doesn't show the Emails' headings with "bang paths" we can use to confirm that people named in the article actually said what the article says they did in Emails.

We do know the author runs an organization opposed to the concept of global warming, and writes for another such organization. We know he's paid by the number of loyal, unique visitors to the Forbes Web site and gets paid ten times as much if they visit the Forbes Web site to read what he has to say more than once. So he has an incentive to write articles that attract attention and get the people who read them to get their friends and acquaintances to read them, and come back to the Forbes Web site to read more of what he has to say.

Unfortunately, one reliable way to do that is to write what people want to hear - to confirm their cherished beliefs. It doesn't just work for Forbes, it works at the Huffington Post, at Breitbart News, and pretty much every major news outlet in the United States. We don't see much balanced reporting of news in this country any longer because it bores people, but if you tell people what they want to hear, they won't be as bored, and they'll read or watch the advertising on your programs, and you'll make more money. So, even if you'd seen this on CNN, Time, The Weekly Standard, Fox News or MSNBC, the same pressures to tell the audience what they want to hear apply.

I can't tell you this article is false, but I can tell you it doesn't prove any of the points the author makes, either. Even if it's not provably false, it wouldn't stand a chance of being considered reliable enough to serve as a source for a fact in one of our articles by itself. loupgarous (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A fish like this

Sorry about the bad drawing. I made it it two secs just to give you an idea.

So, would such a fish swim well? Is there any animal in nature with a similar body plan? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're referring to the plus-shaped cross section, it wouldn't work very well due to the vertical plane limiting flex in the horizontal plane and visa-versa (cf: Shear modulus). Note that many fish have a vertical body-shape and flex back-and-forth, and a few (e.g.: flounder) have a horizontal body-shape and flex up-and-down. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:984A:CA94:A2BD:E53B (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of fish in the Tetraodontidae (puffer fish) family have a boxlike form, especially the boxfish. The Articles have pictures of many different species. These animals are mostly grazing coral eaters, and are built defensively, not for speed, but close in manoeuverability. μηδείς (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine answers. Many, many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: To address 2606's comment on swimming, these animals, like the horsefish, and Mola mola, all depend on fins, and not body flexure for propulsion. μηδείς (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, μηδείς. Yes, they don't look very bendy. Cheers. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are actually a little more flexible than they appear, but it doesn't play a large role in their locomotion. However, note that, using the terminology of your original inquiry, I would not say that they "swim (particularly) well"; of course, in an ecological context, "well" is whatever serves the organism in its survival, but I took your question to be looking for insight as to the biomechanical limitations on speed and maneuverability; the sun fish is rather noted for lacking both. It's really hard to say without at least a little speculation, but my presumption is that your hypothetical fish with a body design incorporating two perpendicularly intersecting planes would be similarly limited in mobility. Unless one or the other planes was characterized by non-skeltalized tissue that in no way leveraged off of the other, then each plane would incumber the other from flexing as it does in most fish species to generate forward momentum--making it, like the sunfish, mostly dependent upon fins or some other extremity or locomotive mechanism. Also, insofar as it has greatly increased surface area, it is generating more drag with each motion. Note also that the absence of this kind of body design in any known species (despite a mind-dazzlingly complex array of variations "experimented with" by various species), speaks volumes to it's probable non-viability. Such a combination of features would have to have some kind of selective benefit, and I can't think of any--or at least none that aren't already better met by other adaptive traits realized in known species. Snow ^{let's rap} 18:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anna, I think I might have spotted a fundamental flaw in your fish design. The poor thing would have trouble moving up and down in the water. The dorsal fin could push the fish downward, but plus-fish does not have fins that could move it back upward! To achieve this, it would need a swim bladder, but I am wondering if the unusual body shape would allow for this, and even so, it would be a very slow method and not really suited for e.g. escape behaviour. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DrChrissy. I didn't even know that a dorsal fin could push a fish downward. I always thought that fin was to keep it going in a straight line. Anyhow, I always wonder what other lifefoms are like on other planets. I guess poor plusfish doesn't exist anywhere in the universe. That's probably best for it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually know whether the dorsal fin can be used to push a fish downward. I was imagining if it was held stiff and fanned from side-to-side, it would create a downward force. If you look at photos of sunfish, they appear to have only two fins, one on the dorsal surface and one on the ventral surface. I am envisaging that the dorsal fin can push the sunfish down and the anal fin push the sunfish up. Interestingly, the sunfish lacks a swimbladder. Unless plusfish can solve this problem, I think it will be destined for a life of swimming in straight lines at the same depth! - not much of a plus! DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. And its name really is an oxymoron. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I must correct myself. Sunfish do have small pectoral fins. These would allow the fish to control their depth with simple forward propulsion from the other much larger fins and the tail. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not so much, actually, at least not given the environmental context of most fish; insofar as the ocean and most waterways have currents of one variety or another, it wouldn't be moving in anything like a forward only/all at one depth path. It's merely that it could only influence its path in one way (and not very well at that). But this actually emphasizes the one ecological condition which such a shape may suit in an organism; drifting. Plus fish is decently (though not ideally) designed to catch currents. I should not be surprised if something like this general shape exists amongst the myriad morphologies of plankton, for example. Such a high dependence on drifting just doesn't happen to be a part of the ecological niche which fish generally inhabit though, owing to their size, amongst other factors. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Underestimated Mother Nature! This design actually gave some engineers in fluid dynamics a huge supprise. See Mercedes-Benz Bionic with an drag coefficient of only 0.19 ! --Kharon (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean that I'm underestimating mother nature with my reference to drag? If so, I think you may have not understood my observation. I wasn't stating that fish generally are constructed poorly with regard to decreasing drag; the truth very self-evidently runs in the other direction. In fact, I was specifically contrasting this sleek design of the archetypical fish with the proposed body design of Anna's plusfish and noting that there would be a lot of extra surface area (almost twice as much, in fact, relative to "one-plane" fish of a similar mass) that would create a lot of drag relative to the standard body design of most fish.

Or maybe you just meant that the engineers underestimated the efficiency of the design? If so, I tend to agree with you; I can't imagine why anyone, let alone an engineer, would be be surprised by that--if in fact they were. Aside from the fact that the efficiency of similar designs is well understood as a matter of basic fluid dynamics, of course a branch of life that is the product of billions of years of evolution in the niche of propelled aquatic locomotion has tended towards designs favouring very low drag coefficients. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This source from the ~~Benz 'Bionic'~~→Yellow boxfish article has a pithy description of the "boxfish swimming paradox" -- worth a read for those interested: [7] --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:984A:CA94:A2BD:E53B (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC) Modified:01:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Rise: I was only trying to answer Anna Frodesiak's initial question if such a fish would swim well. I bet everyone underestimating mother nature. This seemingly "boxfish swimming paradox" additionally implies that this lovely, chunky, little fish was underestimated by everyone. --Kharon (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there two types of oxygen based on the agreement of spins in different orbitals?

According to our article on singlet oxygen, there are two different kinds: ¹Σ⁺
_g and ¹Δ_g. The first kind is distinguished from triplet oxygen, which is ³Σ⁻
_g, based only on whether the spins of two electrons in two different orbitals are the same or not. But ... I thought orbitals (at least p orbitals...) were supposed to be orthogonal: p_x and p_y; pi bonds in one plane or in the perpendicular plane. Yes, the electron also has intrinsic spin, but ... I thought it was called a triplet because your observation might find each of the two electrons spinning one way or the other! What am I missing here? Wnt (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spin isn't a physical thing, or at least to a first approximation its angular momentum "direction" is a different sort of meaning than the coordinate sense of which way a p orbital is pointing. The p_x and p_y orbitals are orthogonal, but that doesn't mean the electrons in them have their spin axes defined as ±x vs ±y. So an electron in one orbital vs an electron in a different orbital are strictly limited to being "same spin state" or "opposite spin states" regardless of the geometric relationship between those orbitals. DMacks (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put it another way then: Why do two electrons in different orbitals with "up" spins have the ability to form a triplet, representing that their measured spins may either agree or disagree in a given measurement, but when one has an "up" and one has a "down" spin, they form a singlet? I would have thought that if an isolated "up" electron can have either a positive or negative effect on the observed energy of some interaction, the same would be true of a "down". Wnt (talk) 10:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The state has to change sign under interchange of the two electrons, triplet states are symmetric while the singlet state is anti-symmetric. If you have two different orbitals, then you construct an anti-symmetric spatial part of the wavefunction, the spin part is then a symmetric triplet state, but you can also also have a symmetric spatial part and a singlet spin part. If you put two electrons in the same orbital, then the spatial part of the wavefunction has to be symmetric, the spin part will then be the singlet state. Count Iblis (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't quite follow that but then again it isn't my field. I think what was really being asked is why the singlet state is a higher energy state and so more liable to engage in reactions. And that leads I think to the question of why Hund's rule of maximum multiplicity holds, and in particular why parallel spins are preferred over opposite spins which seems a bit odd given the way shells are finally filled according to the Pauli exclusion principle. The article says something about that but really it seems to just come out of the calculations. Dmcq (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely a clue, though I could use a reexplanation anyway.... The problem basically is that you're assuming it makes sense to me that symmetric and antisymmetric come out as singlet and triplet, and we're not there yet. Your explanation reminds me of how a meso compound with a plane of symmetry will not rotate light, while d- and l- enantiomers will. But still... it's not really the same thing. I can kind of gather how an anti-symmetric molecule, rotated 180 degrees, resembles itself and has the same observed spin. Are the two electrons are positioned in such a way that the magnetic effects of the spins necessarily cancel out? But if the molecule were symmetric like the enantiomers, I'd kind of expect it to be a doublet (like chiral molecules rotate light one way or the other). Instead the spins can cancel out or not cancel out in either direction, I take it. Is this on the right track? Wnt (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that, since charged particles in the Standard Model (in this case, electrons) can't have zero spin, the mutual cancellation of their magnetic effects is impossible, so invariance comes at play here - otherwise they would lose their electromagnetic properties (so maybe there's fine tuning to it as well). Brandmeister^talk 08:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what you mean there. I feel relatively sure that when you have two electrons in an orbital their spins do mutually cancel out (I mean, they keep their spins, but the effect of them on anything else cancels out). Which is why we look at the effect of two unpaired electrons in the oxygen rather than, say, the 1s shell. But maybe I misunderstand what you mean.

There are forums that cover this, and the math involved: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-is-the-singlet-configuration-anti-symmetric.391652/ But they could be a lot more explicit about the direction of things. I mean, we have a well nigh unique resource at Wikipedia showing the complex Schroedinger solutions as rings of color [8]. It's possible to see, when the magnetic quantum number is maximal and takes the entire angular momentum from the azimuthal quantum number, how this angular momentum is pointed -- we can literally see the little bands of complex angular momentum laid out end to end to add up to however many Planck units of it are present. The electron orbits (blurrily) at distance n^2 and speed n, for a net increase of angular momentum per n, and in these maximal-m orbits we see those quantized units meet up around the ring neatly. It really seems almost classical, except for whatever "phase" is, a waveform. Things get more complicated when m is not maximal because the other momentum is in an unspecified direction, so it is shared between two axes. But for example you can see that if l=1, m=0 there are opposite lobes because that component of angular momentum tumbles just once around the center, while if l=2, m=0 the lobes on either side are the same because it goes through a whole cycle on the first 180 degree flip and another on the second. I feel like intuition could make all those shapes seem obvious with just a little more thought. But I don't know how to apply this to a molecular orbital. Wnt (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised no one has yet linked to Angular momentum coupling. --Jayron 32 12:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The science of making vegetables taste like meat

I once soaked dried split peas in water and boiled it and drained it. The liquid was drunk. The solid was formed into a patty and sandwiched between two pieces of bread with mayonnaise spread on one side of bread. If it weren't for the obviously green color, that tasted like meat. If I were blindfolded, then I would have thought I was eating a real hamburger. Then, I soaked soybeans in water and boiled it and drank the liquid and kept the solid. The okara was formed into balls and placed into the oven. The balls tasted like grainy tofu. The closest non-animal product that tastes like meat to my knowledge is the shiitake mushroom, but I still can distinguish that and real meat. I once tried the Beyond Meat chicken strips. It did not smell like chicken, but it surely tasted like chicken! What is the cause of the poultry's distinctive aroma? What makes red meat taste like red meat? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's because the liquid was drunk. If you'd waited for it to sober up, you wouldn't have been able to reproduce the effect. --Trovatore (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Do you smoke tobacco heavily? Is your local beef that bad? You at least have found a cheap way of eating food that seems satisfactory to you, and may be healthier than eyelids and arseholes. Me, I make my burgers from the cows next door, grass fed, lean mince with 10% of the fat from the animal added back in. They bear no resemblance to peas or the rubbish you get in supermarkets or Maccas.Greglocock (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not smoke. I have never smoked in my life. I may have secondhand-smoked before, because some people smoke too much indoors. Fortunately, those situations are rare. I'm just hoping that I won't get cancer from breathing in secondhand smoke. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to hamburger? Are you really shure there is real meat in them?

Just kidding. Most industrial Meat is actually rather tasteless, very contrary to meat from wild animals btw., and the commonly known taste of meat is actually just fat and salt. --Kharon (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cashews contain a lot of fat relative to protein and carbohydrate content. Salted cashews would be high in fat and salt. No... they don't taste like meat. Neither do avocados. They taste like butter with a distinctive avocado taste. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The umami taste receptors on your tongue are responsible for "savory" taste, which is typical of meat and meat dishes. According to our article Umami#Foods_rich_in_umami_components, "Many foods that may be consumed daily are rich in umami components. Naturally occurring glutamate can be found in meats and vegetables, whereas inosinate comes primarily from meats and guanylate from vegetables. For example, mushrooms, particularly dried shiitake mushrooms, are rich sources of guanylate; smoked, fermented fish are high in inosinate, and shellfish in adenylate."

Foods other than meat which tickle the umami receptors include mushrooms, vegetables such as ripe tomatoes, Chinese cabbage, spinach, and celery and fermented and aged products like cheeses, shrimp pastes, fish sauce, soy sauce, nutritional yeast, and yeast extracts such as Vegemite and Marmite. loupgarous (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of them taste like meat. I still want to know what makes meat meat. Umami just provides one characteristic of meat, though. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umami detectors on your tongue detect glutamate. Taste itself is only regulated by about 5 or so taste receptors (sweet, sour/acidic, bitter/alkaline, salty, and umami/protein). Of those, the one which is most prevalent in meat flavors is umami. --Jayron 32 15:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the texture, smell, and even psychology (if you think you are eating meat it will taste more like meat). But, to me, it's not necessary to fool myself into thinking I am eating meat. After a while, you don't crave meat specifically, although you may have cravings for protein, which can be satisfied with beans, nuts, etc. StuRat (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that texture and smell have to do with taste. But what are the chemical compounds? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(multiple EC) It depends what you mean by "meat". Impossible Foods claims that heme is a significant factor for ground beef is heme although there are obviously other important factors and in any case, since they have a commercial interest their claims need to be taken with care. I don't think our level of understanding is sufficient that we could list all the factors anyway, and it's likely to vary at least to some extent, from individual to individual (and of course from type of meat) Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The dish you made with dried peas is a traditional classic - Pease pudding (or porridge, or pottage) - and has never been considered a meat substitute. It is usually made with yellow split peas, rather than green. Wymspen (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Umami specifically mentions the amino acid L-glutamate and 5’-ribonucleotides such as guanosine monophosphate (GMP) and inosine monophosphate (IMP) as being important to the brothy/savory taste associated with meat. Monosodium glutamate has been used widely in cooking as a flavor enhancer, although reports of sensitivity reactions to the chemical led to its being stigmatized and used less often than it was before. There are other taste receptors triggered by other compounds in some meats. Fats and oils tend to increase the motility of other molecules across taste receptors, accounting in part for their popularity. Salt and various acid seasonings (lemon juice, for example) also enhance the taste of various foods.

Horsemeat has been reported to have sweet and metallic undertones - considering horses have been bred to have unusually well-perfused and powerful skeletal muscles (important for sustained rapid motion), it's reasonable to assume the blood in horsemeat has more glucose and hemoglobin in it. Aged meats also have products of microbial fermentation in them (the "gamy taste" of hung meats) - "aging" or "hanging" meats allows microbes, usually bacteria, to consume some of the integument of the meat and make it more tender and easy to cut and chew.

Cooking imparts the flavor of the marinade (if one is used to tenderize and flavor the meat), the oil or other fluids the meat's cooked in, and the fuel of the fire over which the meat is cooked. Smoking is a process to add combustion byproducts to meat as a seasoning and preservative (along with salt curing). loupgarous (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in meat analogs, you might like to try seitan. It's very easy and inexpensive to make at home (e.g. [9]), and to many people has a very meaty mouthfeel, e.g. [10]. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]