Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2024 May 30
| Science desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < May 29 | << Apr | May | Jun >> | May 31 > |
| 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. |
May 30
[edit]Volume of honey in a bee nest
[edit]What is the average volume of honey in a bee nest in the wild? I was able to find information on the average volume of a bee nest, but I know that not all of that volume is honey, of course. Thank you! HeyArtemis (talk) 07:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- It varies alot. Honey#Production has a number for Apis mellifera. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Does light decay?
[edit]Let's say that an object, such as a star, emits a beam of light and it moves across the space. It goes at the speed of light and, unless it reaches an opaque object, it would keep going... for how much time? Forever? Or is there a point when light would simply dimish and disappear? Cambalachero (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- No.
- It may react with matter, if it encounters any. A flux of many photons will spread out to a larger volume and so the intensity (number of photons passing through an area) will diminish in accord with the inverse square law. But light passing through a vacuum does not 'decay' or have a limit on its range.
- BTW, this theory that light can only travel a few thousand miles before 'running out' is part of flat earther canon for some models, as an explanation of how nighttime happens. But then they're flat earthers. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- The idea of tired light used to be somewhat popular but has been entirely discarded by now. --Wrongfilter (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm afraid it is a zombie idea.[1] --Lambiam 05:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- The idea of tired light used to be somewhat popular but has been entirely discarded by now. --Wrongfilter (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I guess the apparent reality that things in motion continue in motion forever by default, if unperturbed, seems a bit unnatural when you live in a macroscopic world. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Correct. If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't be able to see stars that are too far away. We are currently seeing stars so far away that they aren't just stars. They are galaxy or similar objects so far away that they show up as one little blob of light. The limit is not how far light can travel before pooping out. It is how old the stars are. For example, a 100 year old star that is 90 light years away would not be visible becuase the original light hasn't reached us yet (ignoring the complication of direction of relative movement). So, the argument is that the night sky should be flooded with light from all directions. And, it is. It only looks black in a relative sense. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- I imagine it would be much worse than not being able to see stars. If excitations of quantum fields got tired we would be in big trouble. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Correct. If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't be able to see stars that are too far away. We are currently seeing stars so far away that they aren't just stars. They are galaxy or similar objects so far away that they show up as one little blob of light. The limit is not how far light can travel before pooping out. It is how old the stars are. For example, a 100 year old star that is 90 light years away would not be visible becuase the original light hasn't reached us yet (ignoring the complication of direction of relative movement). So, the argument is that the night sky should be flooded with light from all directions. And, it is. It only looks black in a relative sense. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)