Science desk
< April 6	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 8 >

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 7

"Death by old age"

1. Did humans of earlier times die because they appeared very old? 2. Did they attribute "old age" as the cause of death? 3. Why do humans want to live a long life, and at the same time, reproduce a lot of offspring that survive? 4. How can both desires (the desire to have viable and fertile offspring and the desire to live long) be sustainable? 5. Why can't humans let themselves die so that will make room for their descendants or relatives' descendants? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum for debating opinions

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It always seemed sloppy to me to attribute any death to old age alone. There is always a specific cause of death, they are just too lazy to bother to determine what it is. StuRat (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is taking a rather fascistic view of the world. Be that as it may, if the deceased is old, and there is no indication of foul play, then it is unlikely an autopsy will be done. Hence it remains "old age". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Unknown" would be more honest, as they have no idea if the person was poisoned, etc. StuRat (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If foul play is suspected, they would do an autopsy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it's unlikely to be suspected if somebody is elderly, isn't it ? StuRat (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. When someone is elderly and very rich and the only other person present at the time of death becomes very rich because of it, the police definitely take a closer look. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Humans want to live long and to reproduce as much as possible because these are inherent properties of all life (as we know it, Jim), although probably only humans are sufficiently self aware to want them consciously – have you ever met anyone who genuinely wants to have a shorter life merely for the benefit of others?

In a finite world, these two drives are indeed not sustainable if unchecked, but until very recently in our evolutionary history, there were very few of us (or our ancestors) on a large planet, so there was room for expansion – migration served to lessen problems of overpopulation until recent times, only now are we bumping up against the limits.

In most societies for most of history and prehistory, older people (where they survived, as some always did and all hoped to) were only supported by their own families, and with high rates of child and general mortality they had to consciously choose to have as many children as possible to ensure this happened. However, in modern times societies are becoming sufficiently rich, well-organised and humane to begin to support old people on a society-wide basis by such mechanisms as occupational and state pensions.

Societies have also greatly reduced mortality through sanitation, health services etc, so initially a continuingly high birth rate can lead to a local excess of population. However, it is observable fact that as people in such societies become richer, the average number of children born to each couple drops towards or below the number necessary to merely sustain the population (which is about 2.1, given that some people do not pair up and/or reproduce at all): this leads to a demographic problem of increasing numbers of old retired persons (who do not create more wealth) being supported by a decreasing number of younger, working and wealth-producing persons.

Currently the populations and wealth of several rich Western countries are sustained (or are increasing) only because of migration from other parts of the world. If we could manage to distribute wealth throughout the world so as to make everyone sufficiently rich, the problem of overpopulation would likely disappear and be replaced by one of a potential shortage of people in general, and younger (economically productive) people in particular. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I numbered the OP's questions.

1. No, one's appearance alone cannot cause one to die.

2. Unanswerable because anything might be attributed as a cause of death. However "old age" has always been conceived as approximately the last say 33 to 25 % of the prevailing Longevity which was shorter in the past. Thus in using modern standards we can say that in preindustrial times, due to untreatable disease, accidents and malnutrition, many people died without reaching old age.

3a. Not all humans want to live a long life. The issue arises most in life-and-death situations where The will to live often separates those that live and those that do not.

3b. Not all humans want a lot of offspring. Children can be the desired or accidental result of informal or formal heterosexual partnership and are conventionally expected to support continued survival of the Nuclear family. Male heirs, especially the firstborn, are favoured in many inheritance systems for their earning and fighting potential, even to the extent of abandoning female babes.

4. It requires Luck one supposes and industriousness to sustain long life with many offspring.

5. Natural attrition handles this issue which sounds like a question of impatience. Blooteuth (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People who live outdoor lives tend do darken and wrinkle by their 40's, looking 60, while people who use parasols stay pale and supple. The term "redneck" began as an insult, since day laborers had red necks.

See also tha aging here from 1984 to 2002. μηδείς (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Old age" is not a single cause of death; there are many aging-associated diseases - see death by natural causes. Though yes, people both ancient and modern often assume dying when one is old is inevitable or inherent, and incorrectly attribute death to it directly. Certainly lucky individuals in ancient civilizations died in their 70s and 80s as modern people do, but not very many of them. I expect hardly any or none of our ancestors pre-agriculture lived that long, but no records were kept in pre-historic times, by definition, so it's difficult to know for sure. Human instincts about reproduction and self-preservation are due to the environment we evolved in, but we layer on top of that our emotional and intellectual desires, which depend on personality and culture, so not all people make the same choices with regard to their own interests vs. the interests of their children. Some animals have lots of offspring and some have very few; some die when reproducing, and some try to live a long time and reproduce multiple times. The strategy of few offspring at multiple times has worked well for humans because of our big brains that need to be trained but are very good at obtaining food, shelter, and security from predators and competitors. Menopause is very rare among animals because living beyond fertile years is not of evolutionary benefit. Over most of the time we have evolved as a species, humans didn't live beyond their fertile years. Only in recent times have there been enough humans to worry about exhausting the planet's resources, so our instinctual desires don't take that into account. However, I will point out that before modern health care, economic prosperity, and birth control, very large families were typical. Now in developed countries, most people choose to have far fewer children, mostly because they are no longer needed as agricultural labor, and the chances of a small number surviving long enough to have grandchildren is very high. People's desire to have sex seems to be pretty much the same, so one way to make the desire to have children sustainable is to use birth control and only have children at about the rate of replacement. If everyone did that, the human population would stop growing and it's likely we could maintain that level despite increasing worldwide prosperity (and thus use of resources) through technological advancement or reallocation of resources. -- Beland (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schwarzschild geodesics - references

The Schwarzschild Geodesics page gives formulae for the effective potential and the perihelion shift which apply when the orbiting body is not an infinitesimal mass. The formulae look right. However, I have been through virtually all of the references on the page and all give the corresponding formulae for the case of an infinitesimal mass, only. For my own investigations, I need a reference for/ more information about the formulae as they are presented on this page. I - and presumably other readers - would be grateful if the authors could provide such a reference. Could they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieFinn (talk • contribs) 06:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wikilinked the page reference. Blooteuth (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What other cities and highway lighting authorities are eliminating/eliminated HPS streetlights?

New York City's switching to kindof white LEDs. Too purple. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fremont, California is just completing a shift from HPS to LED. Much bluer, but much closer to actual "white" than the hideous orange HPS color. -Arch dude (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HPS isn't hideous, mercury vapor lights that make people look like cadavers are hideous. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Arch dude, high-pressure sodium is hideous, though I'd describe it as "pink" rather than "orange". Seeing the clouds all lit up pink is really disturbing. Low-pressure sodium (yellow) is better; aesthetically there's not that much to choose, but at least the astronomers can filter it out, given its narrow wavelength band. --Trovatore (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think green mercury vapor clouds would be even more hideous and unnatural looking. Maybe it's just what I'm used to. Also pinkish-orange light causes low dark adaption loss for its brightness and disappears at a relatively high brightness since rod cells are about as sensitive to it as to the borderline ultraviolet. Red light affects rod cells even less but who would want blood-red clouds and red streets with horrible ability to distinguish colors? At a location dark enough to be a Californian amateur astronomer's dark sky site the clouds are probably too dark to show color anyway. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Fremont, they used "yellower" 3000K LEDs on the residential streets and "bluer" 4000K LEDs on the main arteries. They say that the 3000K has less glare but the 4000K provide better visual discrimination, whatever that's supposed to mean. -Arch dude (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think it is practical to ask for a list. All around the world, HPS is gradually being replaced by LED because they are more economical. Just as HPS replaced electric incandescent street lights, and incandescent replaced gaslight that came before it.--Aspro (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So it's more like candles, horses and steam trains going away than something still speculative? Dirigibles were supposed to replace ships weren't they? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aside: Might be worth asking you local lighting authority what LED's they use if your that curious (as a tax-payer you are entitled to this as a right). US authorities are well know for going for the very cheapest. If their using cheap LED's with a big spectral gap between red and blue wavelengths then you will 'perceive' purple. This isn't a spectral colour like violet. Instead it it a mixture of red and blue. I'm in the UK and so our LED street lights are now on. Can not perceive any purple in them what so ever ! So it can't be down to the technology but down to what brand of lumière your local authority is using.--Aspro (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The big issue is that blue light messes a lot more with nightime circadian rhythms than do red/orange. μηδείς (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debate irrelevant to the question

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Then close the curtains when you to go to bed! Do you want other drivers to be alert when your on the road? Speaking this, as someone that has has what is known as SAD. It is the intensity that throws me off kilter. Once indoors there is little blue. That is not exactly right because I have a colour-match florescent (6400 K) tube in my kitchen to give good colour rendition when preparing food. But come night time, all the foods has been prepared and I just use the worktop lighting – which has a warm colour. Found this out' when I found, if I drove home from work in the summer with sunglasses on and closed the blinds on arriving home, I had no problem going to sleep. Whilst getting home late at night after being in a television studio, I was wreaked the next day because it took so long to get off to sleep the night before, due to the intensity of studio lighting. Proved this to my satisfaction because I also do photography with photofloods. The eye does have these blue sensors that promote the hormone responsible. Yet if this hormone level is keep low, then as soon as one gets indoors one starts feel dog-tired and after some 20 mins one want to go to sleep. Would you believe it. More than one doctors early solution was to prescribe me sleeping tablets ( because I have a server form of SAD) when a pair of Ray-bran’s worked out better. Close the curtains and wait 20 minute, during which time you can get all your clothes ready for the next day. --Aspro (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rome [1]. Why the love affair with sodium lighting? The residents of Hackney, blessed with its beautiful clear white lights, would complain when they had to go into neighbouring Islington with its dingy cost - cutting sodium lamps. Anyway, white light is good for you [2]. 86.147.208.18 (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Engineers and project managers

Do engineers and project managers generally tend to stay in one industry for their career or do they change? Clover345 (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how easy it will be to find a reference for that. Switching industries requires a change in specialization. In my experience, engineers become more specialized the longer they work in a specific field. Project managers do not. So, I would expect engineers to be less likely to move away from their field of specialization and to a field that is new. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my dad's a project manager, and he has done everything from built hotels at the Jersey shore, a mental hospital in Harlem, shut down a state's (I won't name which state) nuclear program, while also building other nuclear plants, built oil pipelines and a luxury hotel in Seoul. Hope that helps.

Oh, and, basically, the essence of his job is supply chain management although he's also done on-site inspections, and testified in many lawsuits as a witness or expert witness. μηδείς (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When a battery has 10000 mAh

Does the 10000 mAh relate to a standard benchmark voltage? Or, to a concrete voltage a battery is made for? But some batteries can output different voltages, what does it mean to have 10000 mAh then? And why the m, and not just say 10 Ah? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hofhof (talk • contribs) 23:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It relates to the nominal voltage of the battery. For NiMh it's 1.2 V per cell and LiPo may be 3.7 V but will otherwise be specified by the manufacturer. ----Seans Potato Business 04:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, remember that a "cell" is one unit and a "battery" is one or more connected together - usually in series. The nominal cell voltage is fixed by its chemistry, but multiple cells connected in series will multiply this voltage.

Capacity relates to a couple of voltages: the initial voltage for a well-charged cell and then the minimum voltage that the cell should be discharged to. As the cell is discharged, the terminal voltage falls (actually the internal EMF stays constant but the internal resistance increases, so a lesser proportion of the voltage is apparent on the external terminals). Some cell types are known for gradually dropping their voltage, others stay mostly constant but then fall sharply once "flat". Old zinc-carbon flashlights were dim, but usable, for much of their life - rechargeable NiCd packs for cycling had a reputation for needing a spare, as they would give bright light, then suddenly cut out altogether. For Li-po this discharge voltage limit is an important limit - the cell may be permanently damaged if over-discharged. Some Li-pos (better cells, large batteries) have an inbuilt protection circuit to prevent this.

The current at which the cell is used also depends on the cell size - large cells may supply a greater current, small cells either cannot supply this much, or may perform poorly if a large current is drawn and may only offer a reduced capacity. It may also be harsh on the cell and reduce its overall working life. Assuming the same technology, the capacity of a cell is related to its mass of reagents (comparable to the volume), the current to the area of its electrodes. So a "wide, shallow" cell may give a greater current than a "narrow" cell, even when it has less total volume - for an extreme example of this, see the Polapulse battery [3], which was developed to be extremely thin, yet give a high current in short bursts.

This capacity is the "useful" energy within the cell. Not all of it, but the part that can be accessed and turned to use.

Another aspect to note is that "claimed" capacities printed on the cells is often simply a lie. Li-pos at present are over-rated by factors of 3× to 10×! Those .99c cells on eBay from China are not a good bargain, and usually have less capacity than a modern AA NiMH. A chemical argument shows the minimum mass and volume for any possible Li-po cell and that shows around 3600mAh as the maximum for a 18650 format cell. Good cells, mostly from Japan, might have 2/3rd of this capacity. The Chinese ones regularly claim 3× as much as possible, and about 10× their actual. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of measurement units there is no difference between 10000 mAH and 10 Ah. However the actual measurement of battery capacity must be done at an appropriate discharge rate for the battery, typically chosen for 20 hours discharge time. For lead acid batteries Peukert's law predicts that a higher discharge rate will yield a lower capacity. Quoting capacities of small batteries in mAH avoids suggesting that the battery is intended for amp-sized continuous current, while car starter batteries that are rated for much larger currents have their capacities quoted in Ah. Blooteuth (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]