Science desk
< March 19	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 21 >

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.

March 20[edit]

what is solar eclipse?[edit]

what is solar eclipse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.64.27 (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried looking at the article Solar eclipse? --David Biddulph (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...And the more topical Solar eclipse of March 20, 2015? Nimur (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

electrical resistivity of scandium[edit]

[Question from banned user and responses deleted] Tevildo (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A good math text book that covers all high school?[edit]

Can someone recommend a book (a real one, not something like Khan Academy) for reviewing all math that you are supposed to know at the end of high school? Something that serves for those wishing to study some science. --Fend 83 (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which high school? My high school only required basic algebra. Basic geometry was elective. Advanced algebra was elective. Calculus was unavailable. Another high school down the road required algebra and geometry. They strongly advised introduction to calculus. I assume that this variance I had in my little neighborhood is greater as you go worldwide. 209.149.113.207 (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can. Bostock & Chandler - Core Maths for Advanced Level. Seems to be a UKian book, but rest assured that maths - math - is not very country specific. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Bostock & Chandler is excellent, but Schaum's Outlines might match the US syllabus better. Dbfirs 21:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this Schaum's Outlines series, but got the impression that it was more for basic texts for college. They also caught my attention, but right now I need a comprehensive review. Thanks you both for the Bostock & Chandler's tip though. --Fend 83 (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neodymium magnets[edit]

Do neodymium magnets have any effect on human brainwaves? My Little Question Can't be This Interesting (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In general, static magnetic fields, whether produced by neodymium magnets or any other source, have not been shown to produce any functional or cognitive effects in human brains (even upto 9.4 Tesla; see Atkinson et al). However, a theta rhythm variation was observed in a study on exposure to 1.5 T static magnetic fields, which would be (well) beyond the upper reaches of what a Neodymium magnet could sustain across a human brain; note that there is no indication that this variation has a functional effect. Abecedare (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note transcranial magnetic stimulation, but yes, it's not done with permanent magnets. Wnt (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, it is not a static magnetic field. Dynamic (ie time-varying) magnetic fields can undoubtedly have effects on brain waves and brain function. Also, moving ones head in a static but spatially non-homogenous magnetic field, is equivalent to impinging a dynamic magnetic field. And sensory effects of head-movement in such fields have been observed, but again we are talking of higher magnetic field intensity/variation than would be created by a holding or moving a typical Neodymium magnet around ones head. Abecedare (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]