Science desk
< November 22	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 24 >

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

November 23

Rescue Request

🆘 Please excuse me, I really need to ask this question to several Wikipedia Oracles so I have to use an automatic translator, sorry... By the way, there are links leading to texts, I think you will only need an automatic translator to understand...

[==]Request for rescue[==]

🆘 Hello dear pythias, (by the way I'm impressed with the volunteering! , anyway: ) having made a summary I put below, I don't know what to do. What should I ask/implement/recommend to the authorities or public services: one of the items in particular from the list in my final message to Bertrouf? To choose between them? And which authorities or public services should I ask? I'm not going to dial 112 / 911 ... 2A01:CB0C:38C:9F00:8886:DD15:2880:78CB (discuss) November 20, 2021 at 03:05 (CET)

"

[==] disassembling the brain [==]

Hello, I would like to have your opinion on this text, please https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ieuc3ABCMMA? If you agree, which authority should I contact? 2A01:CB0C:38C:9F00:3995:A59E:126B:3055 (discuss) October 19, 2020 at 07:36 (CEST)

Sorry, usually a question that starts with "what is your opinion" or "what do you think" is not answered on the oracle. And furthermore: {{SAV|Youtube}} We invite you to rephrase your question (at worst, there is the "Report" button below the video). _Bertrouf October 19, 2020 at 09:36 (CEST)

And to which authority should I apply for a judgment in order, in case of a favorable opinion, to realize, please? 2A01:CB0C:38C:9F00:3995:A59E:126B:3055 (discussion) October 19, 2020 at 1:38 PM (CEST)

Sorry, but I still don't understand your question. What do you want to achieve? Do you want to have the YouTube video removed? Do you want to do a medical analysis? Do you want to dissect or freeze a child (huh {{surprise}}?)? Want to appeal to a judge in court? Do you want to create an article about cryonics? In short, your question is unclear. _Bertrouf October 19, 2020 at 5:37 PM (CEST)

(Actually I had adapted the text of my video for children) I would like to get the process I described done, please. 81.254.12.248 (discuss) October 19, 2020 at 6:38 PM (CEST)

Hello, I don't think your process is feasible in the current state of science. Moreover if it is to transfer consciousness/mind into a machine, I don't think that knowing the completeness of all the neuronal connections can reproduce a consciousness. Eystein (discussion) October 20, 2020 at 14:56 (CEST)

Actually, I wanted to excite each of the neurons individually by a neuron exciter once the impulse it should make has been calculated by a computer using a simulation of the brain known from disassembly. 81.254.12.248 (discuss) October 21, 2020 at 2:20 PM (CEST)

Exactly: the current 'exciters' are the arrays of microelectrodes able to contact up to a thousand neurons at the same time. To measure or excite the 100 billion neurons of a brain you will have to use 100 million of these arrays and of course in three dimensions. Moreover it is likely that the state of excitation of the neurons at a certain moment has very little to do with the function of the brain, which is determined rather by the individual threshold of excitability stored in each synapse. As there are well within 10 thousand synapses on a single neuron you can see that there will not be so many authorities ready to spend all this money. But in any case you can look in Scientific_Research#Financing_of_Research, the chapter on the financing of scientific research. The tendency being towards private funding, it would be advisable for you to emphasize to potential investors all the money that will be made with your invention the day it will be put on the market. 2003:F5:6F03:6D00:D025:35D7:937:D52F (discussion) October 21, 2020 at 20:24 (CEST) Marco PB

In fact, since the brain is demonstrated, one can only have to use exciters in two dimensions.2A01:CB0C:C45:E000:CDE2:B43:D65D:2173 (discussion) October 21, 2020 at 22:44 (CEST)

[==]High tech, neurons [==]

Sorry for the inconvenience, I would like to know if my essay posted here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ieuc3ABCMMA can work, please? 2A01:CB0C:38C:9F00:353A:F859:81D1:E460 (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, it's not clear what you are proposing and what you are trying to achieve. Reconstructing the connections of a (human?) brain in a computer simulation in order to obtain (or inflict) consciousness, similar to the notion of brain in a tank? What does this have to do with children? Should they understand the trial? Or do the brains to be dismantled have to be children's brains? Do you know that "nerve cell" and "neuron" mean the same thing? Removing the outer membrane is an effective way to destroy it. Connections are made through synapses; they are not like electrical connections; knowing which neurons connect to which neurons does not give enough information to simulate the activity of the network formed by the neurons. --Lambiam 23:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2A01:CB0C:38C:9F00:353A:F859:81D1:E460-Why are you posting on YouTube? Can't you ask a question directly to the reference/science desk? Is it important for YouTube to serve as a conduit? Bus stop (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:

Actually, I was hoping that my essay could be read by everyone, including children. I would like to use the simulation to inject the consciousness function back into the real original set of neurons, please?2A01:CB0C:38C:9F00:E450:3436:FE14:781F. (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd like to know if there is a way to extract the entire data set?

Not with the current technology. --Lambiam 11:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And what do we do about my process? Do we tell the authorities about it? - Previous comment unsigned added by 37.166.33.181 (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To this same question I told you a few weeks ago on the French oracle that in order to emulate the functioning of a specific brain it is necessary not only to know which of the 100 billion neurons is connected to which other, but also to know the specific excitability threshold of each of the 10,000 or so synapses belonging to each neuron. And it is quite possible that the excitability state of the synapses is lost at death.

Even if you can measure every neuron in a frozen brain to see how they are connected, it will not help you reconstruct, restore or even emulate the consciousness of the deceased, no matter what technology you use. And as long as no authority is interested in realizing your idea.

But if you can first develop a concrete process and show that 1) it is feasible and 2) that it works, you will find here some suggestions concerning the financial aspect: Funding of science. 2003:F5:6F0B:1E00:C990:B89E:5A87:5709 (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Marco PB[reply]

[deterioration of neurons during embalming, cryonics, Sokushinbutsu, plastination, brain under BrainEx machine: pictures please? (sorry for my English) [==]

Hello, sorry to bother you, I have an urgent need, but I don't speak English very well, can I speak in Esperanto please? (eo) Per kon'i la teknik'o'n la mal'plej difekt'ant'a'n (vid'i on Bild'o'j), oni pov'os aplik'i unu'n de la strategi'o'j kiu'j est'as teori'it'a'j pri Cryonics? 2A01:CB0C:C45:E000:B879:DC16:6186:289E (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Estas neniu ligo al la Bild'o'j. Kial ĉi tio estas tiel urĝa? Ĉu vi ankaŭ afiŝis la demandojn "High technology, neurons" ĉi tie kaj ĉi tie? Via obseda serĉo kondukos nenien. --Lambiam 09:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[==] Cryonics / Embalming [==]

Hi, I hope I'm not interrupting, I would have liked to have a list of leads for cryonics that (leads) are not prevented from working for embalmed people, please? You'd be pulling a hell of a thorn out of my side...37.170.29.222 (discuss) June 23, 2021 at 4:05 pm (CEST)

Hello. No, you are not disturbing anyone, only volunteers answer here. On the other hand I am not sure I understood the question. We agree that you want to know the difference between cryonics and embalming? Cryonics freezes, embalming dries (desiccation). For the result, in both cases the cells are destroyed. Whether the future will offer technologies to revive the spirit depends on who believes in it. _Bertrouf June 24, 2021 at 10:06 am (CEST)

[==]Embalming?[==] (Sorry for the repost, last time I forgot something)

Hi, I hope I'm not disturbing you, could I have your opinion on the text I posted here https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8343fi (password: a single space) please? 37.172.223.200 (discussion) August 2, 2021 at 5:17 PM (CEST) Should we call the H.A.S. and ask them to request final embalming for people dying in France please? 37.172.223.200 (discuss) August 2, 2021 at 7:08 pm (CEST)

Hello, I believe we tried to bring you answers in week 42 2020 [1], but the conclusion was that your text made no sense. Eystein (discussion) August 3, 2021 at 10:39 (CEST)

Actually, I went into more detail right after the original text. 37.164.150.43 (discuss) August 3, 2021 at 14:05 (CEST)

That question there, is that you too? _Bertrouf August 3, 2021 at 14:59 (CEST)

I quote from the article the Human Brain, "consisting of about 170 billion cells including 86 billion neurons on average that can each form 5-60,000 synapses. In order to measure the number, to count them by hand, one by one, at the speed of one neuron per second, it would take about 2700 years. This is what makes me say that your idea is unrealistic. Eystein (discussion) August 3, 2021 at 3:29 PM (CEST)

Hello, I had actually hoped for a robot. And I had resigned myself to the 3,000 year duration. 37.165.145.24 (discuss) August 3, 2021 at 20:36 (CEST)

P.S.: I just saw the answer to the question I forgot about on That question from "That question, is that you too?" (Bertrouf). I would have to go and see an image of neurons after embalming to see their state ... By the way, among the different embalming techniques, isn't there one that doesn't destroy neurons? Like a substance eliminating putrefactive agents? What about plastination or sokushinbutsu, please? Maybe it could be performed post-mortem, possibly on the brain alone ... 37.165.145.24 (discuss) August 3, 2021 at 9:01 pm (CEST)

P.S.2 Would you mind if I asked about techniques to preserve neurons without too much deterioration after death, please? Remark: I have already seen a photograph of a preserved elephant brain, it seems to me that it must have been in a jar, among other animal brains I believe preserved in a jar, and from this I draw the conclusion that they were embalmed. And it didn't look disintegrated.

37.165.145.24 (discuss) August 4, 2021 at 02:19 (CEST)

Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, I don't think there are any reliable techniques for keeping anything for these kinds of durations without damaging what you want to measure. And more generally, even if it were possible, even if you had a complete map of the synaptic connections and their electrical potential at a given time, it would not allow you to reconstruct memory, consciousness etc. Eystein (discussion) August 5, 2021 at 11:30 (CEST)

[==] embalming, cells, neurons [==]

Hello, you had told me once that embalmed neurons were deteriorated. Could you ask someone in the field to provide me with images so that I can see the extent of the damage, please? 92.148.82.16 (discuss) October 14, 2021 at 01:19 (CEST)

I invite you to go to a funeral home or hospital with a morgue, ask to speak to a fr:thanatopractor and see how he or she can answer your questions. He or she may have some reference books to suggest. I have no particular knowledge of medicine. _Bertrouf October 14, 2021 at 10:56 (CEST)

[==] Embalming continued [==] Hello, excuse me for bothering you, in fact, after I typed "embalmed cells" [sic] (I made a mistake because just before I had typed "embalmed neurons"), in short, on Google, I saw in 17th position a result containing "[...]cell structure remain intact", under a heading Good bye, Lenin: how Russian specialists have at en.rbth.com: I clicked on it and then I saw, at https://fr.rbth.com/histoire/79513-corps-lenine-comment-embaumer , in the 7th post-introduction paragraph "embalm the body so that the shapes and cell structure remain intact" but just after I read that this was the Challenge -so I don't know if they really succeeded in embalming without destroying the cells- Conclusion: hopefully I have scrambled here https://www. dailymotion.com/video/x853ycf (put a space at the request of the password) [Inserting, in the discussion, an Addition for Wikipedia Oracles: select the text next to or at the bottom and drag the selection down to see all the text], I said to myself do we have to call immediately the authorities to ask them to practice a definitive embalming preserving the cellular structure on each deceased person, please? 81.49.93.152 (discuss) October 29, 2021 at 22:21 (CEST)

But I don't know! Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2021 November 23/ _Bertrouf November 8, 2021 at 11:01 (CET)

Hello, excuse me for rearranging, I'm contacting you because I can't figure out what the urgency is right now among :

-asking the authorities to prevent the putrefaction of the deceased by a means leaving not too much deterioration of the neurons as the Russians claimed they did for Lenin (if such a means is indeed known)

-determine the known means of preventing putrefaction that deteriorates the neurons the least if it is sufficient among cryonics with a cryopreserver, final embalming, sokushinbutsu, plastination, (BrainEx related to the immune system)? )

-searching for a way to prevent putrefaction leaving the neurons not too deteriorated (new cryopreservative, new embalming technique, or a technique other than those known)

- Can you not take me for a madman please, but while I was in the anguish that neither cryonics nor embalming could not deteriorate too much the neurons, it passed through my head while I needed a plan B the idea of a dismantling of the brain carried out on a voluntary person or in coma without hope of awakening, but I have just remembered that we were not yet able to do it.

- By the way, if we put the BrainEx on for example the whole body of a living person, I don't know what happens in case of cardiac arrest ...

(to the line)

By the way, I sent a letter at the beginning of October to the Ministry of Health, to the Ministry of Defense, and to the SDIS 59 and 62 in which I asked for a vision-conference to discuss all together what to do, but the Ministry of Defense and the 2 SDIS did not answer me ... 92.148.81.56 (discuss) November 18, 2021 at 02:23 (CET)

[Amendment to the last message I sent to Bertrouf: there is a new Canadian-Quebec embalming technique described here https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1068136/nouvelle-technique-uqtr-medecine-embaumement-sel ] "

2A01:CB0C:38C:9F00:8886:DD15:2880:78CB (discuss) November 20, 2021 at 03:05 (CET)

I don't know about the French side, but here on en.wp it is customary NOT to post the same question to two branches of the Reference Desk. Since this is (at least primarily) a Science question, I'll remove it from the Miscellaneous desk. —Tamfang (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that you may be approaching this whole process at too crude a level. There is a hypothesis which proposes that thoughts and consciousness are emergent not from the network of brain cells (neurons) and their connections (synapses), but at the much more microscopic level of the complex frameworks of microtubules within all of those cells, see the article Orchestrated objective reduction.

If this is the case, then the approach you suggest is like trying to replicate all the texts of all the books in a library merely by reproducing their titles, Dewy decimal codes and shelf positions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.225.31 (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added ":fr:" to some of the links here, but I suspect the auto-translation wrecked some of them even so. —Tamfang (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hollow planet?

Hi all. Not a scientist, so go easy on me. If volcanoes having been belching out material onto the Earth's crust since the planet came to exist, does that mean the sphere of the planet is growing and conversely, some of its lower strata are becoming less densely packed with material? --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 13:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Earth's mantle is, effectively, a liquid. If you were to suck water from the bottom of your bathtub and spray it on the top, it wouldn't leave a hollow layer at the bottom of the tub - the water would fall down under gravity. So it is with the mantle - material is always rising and falling, driven by the heat of the core and the cooling effect of the surface - but it can't sustain voids (larger than the microscopic) - see mantle convection. This is the downfall of any kind of hollow Earth theory - rock seems solid on a human scale and human timescale, but on geological scales, it's treacle. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 14:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, for a couple of reasons 1) The material that comes to the surface through volcanos is basically all fairly close to the surface anyways. It's from the Asthenosphere, which only goes down about 200 km below the surface, a very small fraction of the earth's radius of 6,350ish km. 2) The asthenosphere-lithosphere system is basically a closed system whereby the earth's crust is recycled via the process of plate tectonics. Wherever volcanoes are erupting magma, somewhere else on earth subduction is consuming the earth's crust into the asthenosphere and producing more magma. There are going to be some local variations due to the differences between continental (granitic) and oceanic (basaltic) crusts, but that's a level of complexity we don't need to answer your question. The entire system is in dynamic equilibrium, roughly speaking, so that for each bit of magma erupting on the surface, there's a commensurate amount of crust being recycled via subduction. --Jayron 32 14:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic answers, both of you. Completely intelligible, even by an ignoramus. Thank you, Jayron32 and Finlay McWalter --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 14:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have we actually checked that there's nothing at Sun–Earth L3 Lagrange point?

It is a common science fiction trope that Sun–Earth L3 Lagrange point would be the perfect place to stash away a hostile alien base or spaceship since it is always hidden from us by the sun.

Now, I don't actually believe there are hostile aliens hiding behind the sun, but a question occurs... have we actually checked?
If yes, when and how? If not, do we have the means to check (even if inadvertently through other scientific work) without launching a purpose built mission? Melmann 22:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to Lagrange point, yes, we've checked. It shouldn't be that hard anyway, given all the space probes that have already been launched. Also, the L3 point is unstable, so anything parked there would not stay there for very long unless it was artificially kept there. Double sharp (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Counter-Earth there, but a teapot may escape detection. --Lambiam 22:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A deadly alien teapot bristling with instruments of mass pouring. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Sooner or later, some wag will put a china teapot in elliptical orbit between Earth and Mars, and then where will we be? —Tamfang (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly nothing planetary-sized there; anything really big would have given itself away through its gravitational effects on other more-easily-observable bodies.

There's also nothing there that's really electromagnetically 'loud'; we would have incidentally caught something like that as the Sun wobbles back and forth a bit and occasionally gives a reasonable clear line-of-sight to L3.

Finally, certain space-based observing missions would have seen any moderately large objects hanging out at L3. The STEREO observing mission, during its early months, would have been able to see objects down to about 100 miles in diameter lurking at L3.

As Lambiam says, though, it's well-nigh impossible to prove a negative, and as far as I can tell, this is one that we haven't had any need to expend a lot of effort on. If the starship Enterprise were sitting at L3 right now, we wouldn't have any easy way to know. If it helps you sleep at night, though, we probably would have been able to see the Death Star. So there's that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the early days of the Superman saga, the planet Krypton was on the opposite side of the sun from us, hence we couldn't see it, hence its name "Krypton" (as in "hidden"). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey look, Category:Counter-Earths. —Tamfang (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]