Science desk
< August 17	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 19 >

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.

August 18

Animal mates

Animal mates are similar to human spouses. Could a male mate be called a "husband" and a female mate a "wife"? If so, then we could also use "in-law" terms for animals. For example, a mate's mother could be called a "mother-in-law" and a mate's father a "father-in-law". GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to name things whatever you want, but assigning such terms implies they have meanings that only hold true for humans, so far as we know. See anthropomorphism. Matt Deres (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Such as the preposterous notion of dogs "falling in love" as per Lady and the Tramp. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to encourage the WP:NOTAFORUM opining further, but in response to that unsourced statement of opinion, I do feel compelled to note as a factual matter that neither "love" nor any other label for abstract emotional states (transient or persistent) has ever been defined with empirical rigour. Humans included, the best we can do is correlate beahviours with particular neurological states. Further, both those who study animal cognition in social species and those who are simply familiar with their social behaviours might question your assumption that pair-matings in another such species lack some intrinsic feature to their affection such that it cannot be called "love". Point in fact, the lack of concrete meaning to the term makes it feel "preposterous" to me to suggest that we can claim as a firm empirical assertion that other sentient species cannot experience it. Now, for a certainty, there are many things we can say about non-human animals regarding cognition and social dynamics. But that's not one of them. Matt, by comparison, is correct in his more reserved statement: marriage has abstract cultural dimensions which animals certainly do not experience, no matter how deeply they might feel for their partners. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Unsourced statement of opinion..." Well, if you ever find an example of two animals falling in love, let us know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever find "proof" of two human beings falling in love, let us know. Or even so much as a concrete empirical definition of love that can be supported or falsified as a scientific matter and thus be contrasted with features of animal cognition. The point is, you are forwarding your random personal impressions, which are functionless with regard to the OP's inquiry, rather than relevant facts or, goodness forbid, a useful reference. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you've never been in love, I feel sorry for you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good grief, I didn't say I didn't believe in love, I said you cannot define it as a scientific matter such that your assertion can be tested or even makes any kind of sense; you can't say that anyone's definition of an emotion is flawed when the underlying phenomena being discussed is subjective (and there can be no more subjective topic or experience than the existence or quality of love). There are no metrics for affection and therefore, as an empirical, factual matter, nobody's idea about whether the affection between any two conscious beings arises to the level of "love" is one whit more "accurate" than anyone else's--and anyone who presumes to set the standard (even when talking about non-human animals) can only assert their own impressionistic feelings about such things, not anything that looks remotely like proof as an empirical or factual matter.

Which is why such subjective opining ought to be left out of responses to questions here; we don't need to hear your opinions on whether the affection between a pair of dogs qualifies for this or that subjective label. Conclusions to such questions can only be expressed as abstract, intuitive "gut" feelings, not facts or sources, and therefore constitute a manifestly WP:NOTAFORUM divergence (especially when stated in a strong affirmative or negative assertions). And no, neither I nor anyone else bears the philosophical burden of proof for disproving your assertion. In this case, neither of us (nor anyone else here) can provide proof or disproof of your theory, so its just not a fruitful line of discussion. And let us not lose sight of the fact that nothing about your speculation would be meaningful to the OPs question, even if you could prove it one way or the other (which you certainly can't) since love is not by any means an essential feature of marriage as a historical or factual matter and therefore this rabbit hole takes us nowhere near an answer to the OP's (admittedly confused) question about whether the social roles of pair-bonded animals can be analogized to marital relationships--a question that's actually pretty easy to respond to and which Matt hit directly on the head before you responded, and upon which Khajidha has expanded below in a manner which tackles the OP's direct inquiry. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, even if we could refer to a mating pair of animals as "husband and wife", that would not extend to the use of "in-law" terms, as there is no legal dimension to such a relationship. Even in human relationships, the legal status of a marriage is required for "in-law" status. No matter how long I date my girlfriend, her mother is not my mother-in-law until the marriage is legally established. -Khajidha (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm My Own Grandpa (novel joke song). Guy Lombardo version. Akld guy (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Animals can be as monogamous as humans [1]. 86.133.26.174 (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In animal breeding, the terms dam and sire are used for mother and father. Terms may be combined, such as dam's sire or damsire for maternal grandfather. Your "in-law" would be a mate's sire or mate's dam. -- ToE 12:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could the Universe have been different?

After a snooker player hits the ball in a particular direction with a particular force, the balls simply and unconsciously follow the laws of physics. Nobody and nothing has any control over what the balls do and where they settle eventually. It's all predetermined and predictable.

In the Universe, from the Big Bang until the appearance of the simplest lifeforms capable of making the simplest choices (such as where to go or what to eat), is there ANYTHING that could have gone differently than it did? --Qnowledge (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe the commonly-held Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, or other similar interpretations, then the university could have been quite different ... and the distant future is unknowable even with perfect knowledge of the universe's current state. Klbrain (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The universe has rails? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't believe in the Big Bang Theory. The Hubble Space Telescope made images of Spiral Galaxies from light traveled so long, it must have looked that way 13 billion years ago, just maybe 300 million years after, according Theory, the universe "cooled down" far enough to start to form atoms. The odd thing is that our home spiral galaxy takes a whopping 230 million years to turn just once. Now spirals, like a Water vortex don't form up like "plop, there" in some milliseconds - contrary they take some seconds/turns to start. Same is estimated even more of the supermassive black holes believed to be in the core area of every spiral galaxy. This doesn't add up at all in my view. I am not an Astronomer or studied Astrophysics - just an bloody amateur actually, but i learned a fair amount of essentials over the years.

Coming to your Question, i learned and believe EVERYTHING ALWAYS adds up in physics, thus in reality and in our universe. Just like Scale invariance shows us some universal logic at the core of to many things to assume it could be another way. We watch the stars with fairly good tools for just a few decades. Even the hubble telescope still has huge limits. Just compare it with the James Webb Space Telescope that hopefully starts to offer much deeper insight soon. So i would answer: A: sorry for the mass of words, B: much to early for science to definitely answer your question but it seems like a fractal - it was expected to be real chaos, yet we actually found a sight of beautiful patterns in a very determined, even tidy order. --Kharon (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly entitled to "learn and believe" anything you wish, but the reader should be aware that well over 99% of scientists working in this field completely disagree with you. That doesn't prove that you are wrong and they are right, but that's the way to bet. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

99% of the experts wrong? Now, that never ever happened in human history befor, has it?! --Kharon (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Galileo gambit. If you can provide convincing evidence against the Big Bang theory there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you, but you also have to explain all the observed evidence that supports the theory. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but @Kharon: should be wondering why cosmologists are not up in arms about "the spiral galaxy problem". One might also wonder why Kharon thinks the existence of spiral galaxies 13 billion years ago is a problem, given that the oldest spiral galaxy known is 11 billion years old. One might concluded that Kharon's opinions are not adequately informed by facts. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The spirals observed in spiral galaxies aren't "fixed" things that always contain the same stars. This is a common and understandable misconception. They're density waves, like the ones found in a traffic jam. Individual stars move in and out of them. As for the later point, at the scale of the entire observable universe we see no order. Things are distributed evenly in all directions; in fancy science-speak, the observable universe is "homogeneous and isotropic". --47.146.63.87 (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Important here as well is the Olbers' paradox, which states that for a homogeneous, isotropic universe which has existed forever, the night sky should be uniformly bright, since there should be an infinite amount of time for every star's light to reach us eventually. The fact that the sky is mostly black is a good, qualitative proof that the universe had to be limited in either space or time; by the cosmological principle no point in the universe is privileged in space, since we have no evidence that there is an edge, the better explanation for avoiding Olbers' paradox is to assume that the universe has an edge in time, that is a beginning moment. --Jayron 32 18:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, one of the standard examples of chaos theory in practice is a billiard ball whose long-term position cannot be determined because of minute imperfections in the table surface. I'm not saying chaos theory itself has any bearing on your question; I just thought it was an interesting aside given the example you chose. OldTimeNESter (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Billiard is a very bad sample to reflect on predetermination. The only one natural scenario of an near perfect flat surface would be a frozen lake. But lakes have no straight rails which make up near perfect rectangles with rubber bumpers that allow near perfect rebounds, or all the perfectly round, perfectly similar size, same material balls in one place. Its much more a sample of a very simplistic model theory.

A much better "real" case to reflect on predetermination would be the weather, which actually seems surprisingly predictable given all its parameters and the fact that even the most primitive, native civilizations somehow all learned to predict quite well. --Kharon (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

even the most primitive, native civilizations somehow all learned to predict [weather] quite well - ^{[citation needed]}. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the universe could have turned out much different than it is and one of the big questions is why it turned out the way it did, as it appears to be fine tuned to allow life to evolve - see Anthropic principle. Richerman (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is where the possibility of multiple universes was hypothesized: many universes may not be suitable for enough matter, adequate elements, gravity and abiogenesis to eventually occur. If there were/are many universes, then some may allow it (also discussed in that article). —Paleo Neonate – 12:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To say that it is tuned implies a tuner. That makes assumptions that aren't needed. Instead, we only need to recognize that, while the Universe could have turned out differently, the Universe we are in had to produce us, which means it just didn't. Not that it couldn't, but that it didn't. That's basically the weak Anthropic principle, which doesn't have to account for purpose, only for what did happen. --Jayron 32 18:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is also nothing in the established laws of physics to suggest that the allegedly fine-tuned parameters could have had other values. It is indeed a mystery to this day why the various constants of nature are what they are, as these values generally do not fall directly out from first principles. It leads people to wonder if these parameters have fixed values and could not have been anything else, or alternatively, whether these parameters are drawn from a distribution and fixed in the early universe. Or some explanation even more exotic. But right now we simply don't know, and the known laws of physics do not provide the needed insight. So the statement, "the universe could have turned out much different... it appears to be fine tuned..." is based on an unproven assumption. I counter with an assumption that the universe could not have turned out any other way - an assumption that has at least as much empirical support. In which case the formation of stars, planets and galaxies would have been statistically inevitable, and so too might have been life. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the

"99% of the experts wrong? Now, that never ever happened in human history before, has it?!"

comment above:

"If Wikipedia had been available around the fourth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification. And it would have reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the earth's circumference in 240BC) either as controversial, or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the sun goes round the earth as a fact, and Galileo's view would have been rejected as 'original research'. Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. Which is a Good Thing." --WP:FLAT

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Science still claims Nuclear power is save, even after Chernobyl and Fukushima, and the majority of the economic mainstream is sure there wont be a next world economic crisis. Monsanto and an army of connected scientists still claims Glyphosate does no harm and even its "2018 AC" Wikipedia article seems surprisingly restricted regarding any attempt to add any other POV, even if its well sourced. Flat earth theory in 240BC was not what my irony was meant to pick on. Science seems surprisingly careless in history, up till today. Therefor my strong doubts against mainstream science - especially regarding Cosmology, which seems more like a fairy-tale-fan-community to me given the actual very early grade scientific base/stage in Astronomy and Astrophysics.

Just keep in mind, the little Kepler telescope was our first seriouse start to look for planets orbiting other stars, 9 years ago. We know almost nothing about our universe yet. --Kharon (talk) 03:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Science still claims Nuclear power is save, even after Chernobyl and Fukushima, and the majority of the economic mainstream is sure there wont be a next world economic crisis. That's of course not necessarily only "science". But we're likely quite off-topic at this point... But I see you come back on topic after further editing: Yes our knowledge is still very seminal, but still based on strong data. It's incredible the amount of predicted theoretical physics that is being discovered/confirmed over time. So far none of the recent discoveries made the big bang theory untenable; if/when it does, the models will be adapted. —Paleo Neonate – 03:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More likely its going to be purged like Creationism was, by the concept of natural evolution. I think its royally hilarious that we accept the concept of an infinite universe for space but not for time. No, space has always been here and infinite but time started just recently - with a big bang! Is it a compromise to stay in tune with religions? Was god here befor the "big bang"? In empty, timeless space? Nomatter, lets not make it to complicated and just throw together infinite space and just recently "added" time, call it Spacetime and claim its science with some evidence nobody can prove right or wrong yet! --Kharon (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your statements do not appear consistent with the articles you linked to. Neither Big Bang nor spacetime) mention infinite space, for instance. Rmhermen (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Bang is consistent with infinite space, but does not require it. I think most expositions give the finite-space version, just because it's easier to explain, using the balloon analogy one dimension down. If space has infinite volume, then the Big Bang means that at any positive time after the Big Bang, the universe is infinite, but at the instant of the Big Bang itself, it's only a single point. This works fine mathematically but is a little hard to visualize. --Trovatore (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Something I don't understand is how 99% of scientists (and probably the general non-scientific population) have little to no difficulty accepting that all of the matter that exists in our universe (all stones, all continents, all planets, all solar systems, all galaxies, etc) could exist as an extremely small point (then goes bang) but reject the possibility of a Creator (or some other Intelligent Designer). To me, both are just as plausible. The difference is that one (Big Bang) is supported by very complicated mathematical formulas and theories (aren't theories just a form of "faith"?) while the other is measured in a very different way. Personally, I don't think that one automatically excludes the other and both perspectives can co-exist. 76.71.157.49 (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge difference between scientific method and scientific theory and hypothesis, colloquial theory, or faith statements (that usually start with a conclusion). Inferences in science are informed, hypotheses should be falsifiable (not retained when disproven, although a working model can be kept in its field), etc. Sciences tend to converge rather than sectarize (i.e. the age of the earth, evolution, astrophysics, etc. are studied using various sciences that didn't necessarily develop together, examples being the modern evolutionary synthesis, biogeography, geology, astrophysics, etc). It doesn't mean that we know everything but it's evidence of working models that can make predictions. Many transitional fossils were discovered by inference: we had a good idea where to dig and what to look for (that, despite the rarity of preserved specimens). —Paleo Neonate – 03:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: We keep confirming the discovery of particles in physics that have long been predicted to exist. We even recently confirmed the existence of gravitational waves which were long hypothesized. —Paleo Neonate – 03:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finally: there could be an engineer but there are many problems that were never satisfactorily solved: lack evidence of intervention in the world or human affairs (and why they would care about humans more than animals if they don't originate from our imagination), the problem of suffering, what/who this entity/force would be (oldest religious artifacts are cave drawings and venus figurines, entheogen-supported animism and shamanism, worship of non-understood natural phenomena, etc). We can still insert the divine anywhere we want in areas that we don't understand (god of the gaps). In social sciences we can acknowledge useful points of religion like group support, passing and funeral rites, etc. It's a very personal thing and very different to natural sciences. I'm personally an agnostic with naturalistic pantheism tendencies (and I can't explain or justify that properly).

—Paleo Neonate – 03:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was in haste when I wrote the above then interrupted, but more relevant links: evidence of common descent, problem of evil, theodicy, age of the earth, evolution of the solar system, baryogenesis, chronology of the universe, transitional fossil, list of transitional fossils, consilience, psychology of religion, evolutionary origin of religions, entheogen, timeline of religion. —Paleo Neonate – 07:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

um, yeah, what PN said. The most general difference between science and faith is that scientific hypotheses can be tested. We don't just take it on faith that quantum mechanics and general relativity are an accurate description of reality within certain limits - anyone can, in principle, repeat the various tests of their predictions. You can't do that with typical religions, and that's why they involve faith. You can't personally verify that Jesus rose on the third day. So this is normally where you assert, "but no one can verify that the big bang happened, so obviously that's just faith." And, well, not really. Scientists didn't simply come up with the big bang because they liked the idea. We have observations of the universe, and we have proposed and well tested theories to describe how the universe behaves. Those theories can not only predict future events from present observations, but they also work backwards - we can derive what happened in the past by looking at the present. And a major prediction is that the universe was once an incredibly hot and dense place. If this was not the case, then we are very wrong about the laws of physics, even aspects of those laws that are already well tested. These theories have been tested in particle accelerators that generate (briefly and for small samples) conditions similar to those of the proposed early universe, and we find that the laws of physics behave as expected. Basically there is no reason to expect the laws of physics we have now to be a particularly poor description of the universe at any point in history after it stopped being a hot dense plasma of exotic particles. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]