Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2009 December 9

= December 9 =

mathematica model of diffusion
I don't know if my problem is how I implemented the code. I am simulating diffusion of nitrogen into a metal with a constant surface concentration to contrast with an analytic solution to diffusion. The system is 20 micrometres deep (to evaluate how the concentration at 10 micrometres changes over time) -- there is no mass transfer through the end node.

(* Calculating the Constants *) Dlt = 0.144816767 Dif = 1.381 * 10^-9 Dlx = 2 * 10^-5 Const = Dlt*Dif /((Dlx)^2 )

(* Initialising the Array *) s = Array[0, {24859, 101} ] s1 = Table[0, {i, 101}]

(* Setting up constant surface concentration for All t *) sAll, 1 = 0.0002

(* setting up general concentration-calculating algorithm for each \ position in a row t*)

c[t_, n_] := st - 1, n + Const *( st - 1, n + 1 - 2*st - 1, n + st - 1, n - 1)

(* Assembling a data row of iteratively -  calculated positions for each array row t) f[t_] := Table[c[t, i], {i, 2, 100}]

(* calculating the end node at the end of each row t *) g[t_] := st - 1, 101 - 2* Const * (st - 1, 101 - st - 1, 100)

For[i = 2, i < 24859, i = i + 1, si, 2 ;; 100 = f[i]; si, 101 = g[i]]

(This gives me an array that I can then evaluate and present through various Manipulate[] and ListLinePlot[] functions.)

The problem is that I know from my analytical solution that the concentration at 10 micrometres is supposed to go to 1.5 * 10^-4 g/cm^3 in about an hour, but my simulation has it reach that in around a quarter of an hour. I don't think it's my constants. The activation energy per atom is 0.879 eV, and the temperature is 500K. The temperature-independent diffusion constant (D_0) is 1 cm^2 / s (hence D = 1 cm^2/s * e^(-0.879 eV / (500 K * k_B) = 1.381 * 10^-9 cm^2/s). I'm sure I've satisfied the Von Neumann stability criterion -- I'm trying to do this in about 100 steps, so dx = 20 micrometres / 100 = 2 * 10^-5 cm, and based on the stability criterion the largest possible time interval to prevent residual error buildup is approx 0.14482 seconds per "step". (Hence 24859 time nodes to make roughly an hour.)

My attack so far is to define each new cell's concentration (at a particular time t) from known cells' concentrations at time t-1, based on the concentrations at that time at the node before, at and after. (This is function c[t,n].) Then I find an entire row for that time t to feed data into the array (function f[t]), as well as calculating the end node {function g[t]). Then I have an iterative loop to calculate new rows based off of the row before already calculated. I define my initial conditions (surface concentration = 2 * 10-4 g/cm^3 + no nitrogen in the metal initially) and let it run. What's my problem? John Riemann Soong (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Help, anyone? This is basically like Fick's laws of diffusion and stuff, but used discretely. John Riemann Soong (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything immediately wrong with your algorithm, although the code doesn't look very idiomatic to me (I would write


 * where the  chooses a fixed number of steps and the   waits instead for the 1.5×10-4 to be reached).  From the latter I get i=10258 (24.4 minutes).  That's probably not what you get: it's not "around a quarter of an hour".  Maybe you should post your analytical solution here for more detailed comparison?  Perhaps your actual code too; what you've written doesn't work (surely you want   instead of , one comment is unterminated, and   is unused).  I tried to fix it, and got the same result of 10258 steps.  --Tardis (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Does using  make it run faster/cleaner? I also don't know where I refer to  . (The commenting error is a residual thing from copy/paste issues whoops.) Hold on about to post my analytic solution. John Riemann Soong (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem I solved analytically was here. I know I did it correctly, because I got 10/10 for the analytic part. Basically, we know D_0 = 1 cm^2/s (a given value), T=500K, surface concentration = 0.0002 g/cm^3 (like above). I used an analytic solution to solve for activation energy, knowing that at a depth of 10 micrometres the concentration is 0.0015 g/cm^3 after 1 hour.


 * C = C_s - (C_s - C_0) * erf(x / (2*sqrt(D*t)) = 0.0002 g/cm^3 * (1 - erf (x/(2 * sqrt (D_0 * exp(-E_a/(Boltzmann constant * T))*3600s)))
 * = 0.00015 g/cm^3
 * = 0.0002 g/cm^3 * (1 - erf (0.001 cm### / (2*sqrt (1 cm^2/s * exp (-E_a / (Boltzmann constant * 500K))*3600s)))
 * 0.00005 g/cm^3 = 0.0002 g/cm^3 * (0.001 cm / 2*sqrt (1 cm^2/s * exp (-E_a / (Boltzmann constant * 500K))*3600s))


 * 2 * erfinv(0.00005 g/cm^3 / 0.0002 g/cm^3) / 0.001 cm = 1 / sqrt (1 cm^2/s * exp (-E_a / (Boltzmann constant * 500K))*3600s)
 * (1 cm^2 /s (2 * erfinv(0.25) / 0.001 cm)^2 * 3600s) = exp (-E_a / (500K * Boltzmann constant))


 * ln 1 - 2 ln (2 erfinv(0.25) / 0.001 cm) - ln 3600 = E_a / (500K * Boltzmann constant)
 * 500K * Boltzmann constant * -20.41 = E_a = 1.41 * 10^-19 J = -0.879 eV John Riemann Soong (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 0.001 cm is for the depth of 10 microns
 * is certainly cleaner: just evaluate  to see what I mean.    is the last element of s; I just meant that your loop stopped one short of filling your array.  As far as verifying the analytical solution goes, we don't need $$E_a$$; D(500 K) will do, and I get $$D=1.368\times10^{-9}\text{ cm}^2/\text{s}$$.  That differs from your reconstituted value by 0.95%, so it affects the answer just noticeably.
 * What is important is that you simulate to only twice the depth at which you want to test the concentration, and you have a boundary condition on the inside that significantly affects (increases) the concentration of gas in the simulation. Realize that by symmetry you are effectively simulating a very thin (40 micron) film of metal exposed to the gas on both sides, which obviously will take up gas better than a thick slab exposed only on one side (as in your analytical solution).
 * I don't have Mathematica available at this instant, and my reimplementation in Python apparently rounds things differently (it gets 10386 steps (instead of 10258) with your D and 10485 with mine), but if I increase the simulated depth to 100 microns (501 sample points) and use my D I get 24858 steps, which should look familiar. (With your D I get 24624 steps, which is 34 seconds too fast.)  --Tardis (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! My current limiting factor is computer memory 0_o. Who knew that modelling such a simple system could be so memory-consuming. How did they even do this with the first supercomputers? John Riemann Soong (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Green lightning?
I'm in Milwaukee, WI, and we're getting quite a bit of snow here. I looked out of the window as I was doing my homework on my computer and I saw two bright bluish-green flashes outside (coming from the sky) within 5 secs of each other. They were accompanied by quiet vibrating sounds. I'm not in the city, so I don't think it's light pollution or anything. Any idea what this might be? 76.230.148.207 (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It was probably a Navigation light on an airplane. Ariel. (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No way; it was way too close and big! It was like it was coming right from the eaves of my roof! 76.230.148.207 (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * St Elmo's fire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.110.200 (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * thundersnow? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A power transformer shorting out is usually accompanied with a brilliant bluish-green flash. I guess green is from copper in the wires or terminals. Could be a transformer on a utility pole close by. --Dr Dima (talk) 05:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Aren't transformer explosions are usually accompanied by more than quiet vibrations (if you are close enough to see it in a snowstorm)? Unless the snow dampened the effect, which is very possible. Falconus p t   c 12:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not an explosion, a short. A short makes a bright (usually blue/white - but so bright it's hard to see, plus dangerous to look at - full of UV) flash, with a loud humming sound, then a bang or a crackle. Was it very windy that day? Ariel. (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It could have been a meteor burning up. Some meteors burn with a green light (I've seen one myself over Barnsley, Yorkshire about 10 years ago), and in a few days the Geminids will be in full flow. The one I saw also "sang" as it went overhead. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sound from meteors is widely reported but it is not well understood. The "meteorgenic radio-wave induced vibrating eyeglasses" theory is the most plausible of many implausible explanations.  Nimur (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Science Question
When you move or crumple a sheet of paper you cause a change in a. state b. mass or weight c. position or texture or d. size or position? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.12.225 (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I bet you do. DMacks (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If I were you, I'd look up all of the aforementioned Wiki articles and see for yourself (I linked them for your convenience).  DRosenbach  ( Talk 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Links added to original post by second editor removed. They included: state, mass, weight, position, texture, and size   -- Scray (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Friendly reminder: Don't edit other editors' posts, even if it's just to add wikilinks - the RefDesk guidelines are quite clear on this. -- Scray (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Veterinary anesthesia
Does anyone know what is used for induction in veterinary anesthesia?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Forget I even asked.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 03:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the reference desk. We can't forget you even asked.  Here's your obligatory reference.  Induction of Anesthesia with Diazepam-Ketamine and Midazolam-Ketamine in Greyhounds (2008).  Different animals and different medical needs will require different chemicals.  If you need veterinary care, see the usual reference desk medical/veterinary disclaimer.  Nimur (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If DRosenbach needs veterinary care, then our disclaimer will be one of his smaller problems! SteveBaker (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can only speak for myself, but I have completely forgotten that he asked. Bus stop (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Asked what? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Freezing rain affected by a lake?
As I watched the television news about the major winter storms in the Great Lakes region of the USA, I noticed that most of Lake Michigan was receiving freezing rain. Although the northern and eastern boundaries of the freezing rain area (past which it was snow) was in the middle of the lake, the southern and western boundaries (past which it was rain) followed the lake's shoreline almost exactly. Can the lake really affect the type of precipitation, or is this more likely an error with the Doppler radar? Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe these articles will answer your question: Lake effect snow, Great Salt Lake effect. Ariel. (talk) 07:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Freezing rain is critically dependent on temperature, and large lakes certainly affect the temperature noticeably. That said, it doesn't make sense to say that the boundary of the freezing-rain area was in the middle of Lake Michigan.  Freezing rain is possibly only when the rain falls onto ground that is below the freezing point, not onto liquid water in a lake!  (It would be different if the lake was frozen over, of course.)  --Anonymous, 09:35 UTC, December 8, 2009.


 * Freezing rain is possible on a boat of course, and can cause a lot of problems. Looie496 (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, good point! --Anon, 21:22 UTC, December 9, 2009.

Rhodonite oxidation
Rhodonite, the pink/red coloured gem material will oxidise on the surface. This may take a couple of days to a couple of years. Not sure why there is a big time difference, but that is another topc. Polished rhodonite does not oxidise. I wish to find out the best way to prevent oxidation of unpolished rhodonite. I am using some (15kg piece) as a memorial stone and do not want a pink rock turning black in the future. I don't want to use epoxy coatings, or polish it. At this time Im considering an oil coating, such as vegetable oil or new mineral oil to prevent air contact causing oxidisation.Yarraford (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? I don't think Rhodonite can oxidize - it's already fully oxidized. The different colors are from different minerals in it. Maybe it turns black for some other reason? (If in fact it does turn black - you should double check.) Ariel. (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * de-WP states that black streaks are from MnO2. --Ayacop (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The info re oxidation came direct from the miner, while I was at his mine. Tamworth, NSW Australia. He took me to a spot and the rocks were black. No rhodonite in sight. He said, this is the best rhodonite, fine grained and dark coloured. On breaking these rocks with a hammer, what was revealed was pure pink rhodonite without any of the typical black banding often seen in rhodonite. He said this must be polished immediatly to stop colour change to black which will happen in days. Maybe some other process is happening, I don,t know. Courser grained rhodonite intersected with black banding about 40 metres distant in the same seam was also evidently turning black at a much slower rate as different stages of the change could be seen on the rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yarraford (talk • contribs) 00:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be some sort of weathering process. Some materials are more soluable and wash away with water.  Over the long term silica will  dissolve, and so will ions like sodium and potassium.  Leaving MnO2 or iron oxides behind, that are dark in colour. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wind power from tightly stretched band
The other night on TV (Canada, West coast) I saw a company who was using a principle of vibration (flapping, sorta) from a tightly stretched band with magnets and coils and air from a desk fan blowing across it. They didn't, as far as I could tell, have a "production" level product. I'm trying to figure out what scientific/physical principle this was using, and if possible who this was. Help? -- Kickstart70 T C 05:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops...found it: Windbelt, which is a horrendous article, FWIW. -- Kickstart70 T C 05:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The third link to the YouTube video, assuming it's the same one (an interview with the developer) I saw last year when researching this for a lecture, will tell you all you really need to know. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

DNA data bases
Are DNA databases good enough to allow someone to state in their will that they want to leave their estate to the person(s) whose DNA is the closest to match to their own as apposed to leaving their estate to the person(s) with the greatest legal status? 71.100.160.161 (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's more a question of what (local) law allows than a question about quality of databases. Clearly regardless of the quality (or really, size) of the database, one could always define "closest" in such a way that there's an heir; the question is will the law allow such a capricious distribution of an estate. If there are heirs otherwise entitled to inherit, such a provision would certainly result in prolonged legal battles and make many lawyers and few heirs rich. - Nunh-huh 06:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The person whose DNA was most similar to theirs would undoubtably be a close family member, so a huge database is really not required, just to sequence/genotype siblings and children. BTW, only a very few number of people have had their DNA sequenced for a genome. The commercial companies only sequence small, variable regions or look for SNPs on a chip. A few now offer full genomes, but still generally that's really only about 90% of a genome. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea of the OP was possibly to find unknown relatives that are not part of the family -- which wouldn't be allowed if one did it just for the sake of knowledge, but could be in case of heritage. --Ayacop (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, possibly. If so, he/she should have a look at 23andMe, which can identify relatives and classify them with regard to closeness of relationship (e.g., 4th cousin). This is because the genetic testing at that database includes autosomal markers as well as mtDNA and Y-DNA markers. - Nunh-huh 00:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Could the Hubble Space Telescope have imaged damage to the Space Shuttle Columbia?
The Columbia Accident Investigation Board report discusses multiple requests for DoD imagery (both ground-based and space-based) submitted by engineers who were concerned about possible damage from the foam strike during Space Shuttle Columbia's final launch. (The requests were quashed by NASA management who erroneously believed both that the strike was unlikely to have caused significant damage, and that there was nothing that could be done to help if significant damage had occurred.) Could the Hubble Space Telescope have imaged the orbiter? (Potential problems could include orbital alignment, focus, exposure times, and tracking ability.) Has the HST ever imaged an artifact in earth orbit? -- 58.147.52.66 (talk) 08:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ignoring everything else, focus would be a problem. An astronomical telescope are not constructed to focus on objects closer than "infinity"; therefore it cannot resolve details smaller than its main mirror (2.4 m for Hubble) at any distance. Even apart from this, the best-resolving camera aboard Hubble has a resolution of 40 pixels per arcsecond. Imaging the orbiter from a distance of 1000 km (which would be a rather lucky break, and probably demand faster tracking than the on-board software is written to provide), this translates to some 12 cm per pixel. A hole of the size estimated by the CAIB would not have been visible on such fuzzy an image. –Henning Makholm (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is some data about on the HST's tracking capabilities in the context of observing the Moon. It is a few orders of magnitude too slow to follow any object at or below its own height, which will be moving at orbital speed and be at most several thousand kilometers away, or would be behind the horizon. –Henning Makholm (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * All very true. There were, however, other cameras in orbit (some military satellites) that could have photographed the shuttle and resolved the damage - and those devices have indeed been used for this purpose subsequently.  We were not provided with details because these are secret spy satellites - but they could do the job because they are designed to focus at distances comparable to their orbital height and resolve down to centimeters. SteveBaker (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This LIDAR image from Air Force Starfire Optical Range, imaged Columbia at a range of probably under 100 km. I doubt a spacecraft could have done better, or could have plausibly been at closer range.  Nimur (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I cannot understand the reasoning here. Focussing to infinity means that the light coming from one direction is focussed at one point on the sensor and light from another direction is directed to another specific point. Assuming we can make arbitrarily small pixels, I cannot see where the size of the mirror enters in the ray optics approximation. In wave optics, diffraction on the aperture (effectively the mirror) really puts a limit quantified somewhat by the Rayleigh criterion. However, the resolution limits are never rigid (even quantum indeterminacy is correctly expressed by variances, which are natural, but still arbitrary measures of the widths of statistical distributions) and can often be improved by deconvolution, which is really frequently used for Hubble.undefined&mdash;undefinedPt(T) 21:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot understand the reasoning here. Focussing to infinity means that the light coming from one direction is focussed at one point on the sensor and light from another direction is directed to another specific point. Assuming we can make arbitrarily small pixels, I cannot see where the size of the mirror enters in the ray optics approximation. In wave optics, diffraction on the aperture (effectively the mirror) really puts a limit quantified somewhat by the Rayleigh criterion. However, the resolution limits are never rigid (even quantum indeterminacy is correctly expressed by variances, which are natural, but still arbitrary measures of the widths of statistical distributions) and can often be improved by deconvolution, which is really frequently used for Hubble.undefined&mdash;undefinedPt(T) 21:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Focusing on infinity means that a set of parallel light rays that hit the mirror will end up on the same point (pixel) on the detector plate. Follow those rays back to the object being imaged -- they'll have been emitted everywhere on a section of the object that has the same shape and size as the mirror. Conversely any single point of the object emits rays towards every part of the mirror; but those rays must have slightly different directions (if not they'd all hit the same spot on the mirror), and therefore they're going to end up at different points on the detector. This is independently of how fine pixels the detector is made of.
 * Usually this is not a relevant effect in astronomy, because the things one wants observe (stars, planets) are much, much larger than the aperture size anyway. –Henning Makholm (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, this clarifies the matters for me! Nevertheless, while the point spread function of a point at distance d would thus be (approximately) a circle with such a diameter that it exactly covers the image of an object at distance d with the same diameter as the mirror (am I correct here?), (most of) the information about the original object would still be encoded in the blurred image. If the shape of the PSF didn't depend on the observation angle w.r.t the mirror, we could simply deconvolute the blurred image with the PSF. And even if it does change with angle, but in a way we know or have calculated in advance, the "software refocussing" is still doable by solving a linear Fredholm integral equation of the first kind, which can be easily done using a Fourier transform some numerical linear algebra (after discretizing, you'll have a system of linear equations). Ah, if the world were actually so ideal... In reality, the PSF is sensitive to every little detail in the optics and the sensor and we either don't know those contributions exactly enough or we make errors in image acquisition, so that the resolution is still limited. But that limit is more a matter of engineering, not fundamental physics!undefined&mdash;undefinedPt(T) 01:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC) and 01:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

IPCC models
The CO2 in the atmosphere constantly interacts with the earth/plants and the sea. So an increase in atmospheric CO2 leads to increase CO2 in the oceans. How do the IPCC climate models allow for this effect?--Samweller1 (talk) 12:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I understand it (and I don't do so very well), normal Global climate models do not model the carbon cycle, i.e. the change in atmospheric CO2 is provided as an input, based on assumptions about human emissions and estimated other carbon sources and sinks. CO2 in the ocean has essentially no direct influence on the climate. The main effect is that atmospheric concentrations are lower than they would otherwise be. Understanding more indirect effects (e.g. the limits of the oceans ability to act as a sink, or the influence on oceanic food chains) is ongoing work, and effects are modeled independently. Our article on transient climate simulation might also be of interest. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

if global warming is a problem why don't we put up a thermostat
why don't we just put a sliver of something reflective in orbit around the sun in lockstep with Earth, but closer to the sun (that way you don't need a lot of this thing) and then adjust it to block as much/little light as we need for optimum temperature/to counteract any global warming occurring? note: this is not a request for medical advice. And saying that saying this is not a request for medical advice does not not make it a request for medical advice does not make it a request for medical advice. 92.230.65.75 (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We have an article on this: Space sunshade- Fribbler (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea has been proposed, but you can't put something in "lockstep with Earth, but closer to the sun" - orbital period is determined by the size of the orbit. The only real option is L1, which isn't that much closer to the Sun than the Earth. That means it has to be very big, which makes it very difficult and expensive to make. --Tango (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds to me like space elevator inventor Jerome Pearsons suggestion of forming a ring around the Earth. Nanonic (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A ring around the Earth, rather than just at L1, is an option, but probably not a good one. It would probably have to be bigger overall and it would get in the way of near-Earth space travel. --Tango (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of problems, both technical, political, economical and ecological. Technically, we don't know how to build such a thing right now. Mathematically, since the sun is larger than the Earth, the closer you move it to the sun, the less sunlight it would block. So the best you can do is indeed putting it into orbit or at L1 (which is unstable). Politically, whom would you trust to control it? Assuming its me, having Austin, Texas, in perpetual darkness might be a nice idea, but what if I get bored with that and shadow (or, better, light) something else? Economically, it's likely to be much more expensive to build and maintain than it would be to fix our CO2 habit here on Earth. And ecologically, we would receive not only less energy, but less light. Nobody knows what effect that would have. And it would still cause significant local climate change, as not only the total energy budget, but also local distribution of energy is affected by greenhouse gases. We do not know enough to predict the overall effects of such a thing, even assuming it technically works flawless. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

couldn't it remain in lockstep with Earth, but closer to the sun by expending energy (as opposed to just passively orbiting on its inertial momentum) -- if it were much closer to the sun it could be much, much smaller... Also: coudn't it get some of the energy just mentioned directly from the sun? Is there a way to turn solar energy into thrust in space? Thanks. Still not asking for medical advice, by the way. 92.230.65.75 (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I just read the second comment, mentioning that as you get closer to the sun you block less and less light from Earth. Like some bad math joke, my logic went: assume the sun is a point-source... 92.230.65.75 (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Assume a spherical cow... Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikilinked, just because we have an article on everything (EC x 4!!) -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and here is my ec'ed comment, about half of which is still relevant ;-): As pointed out above, since the sun is larger than the Earth, the farther you move something towards the sun, the less light it will block. Note that solar shadows (as opposed to shadows cast by an approximate point source) do not get larger as the distance between object and screen increases. They just get more diffuse until they vanish. Apart from that, you can use solar panels and a ion drive for station keeping (but you still need reaction mass), or possibly use solar sails, although this will be far from trivial to figure out and will certainly need active control. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Scientists now believe that the principle whose name is derived from the Latin para- "defense against" (from verb parere "to ward off") + sole "sun" can be implemented to create human-deployable collapsible sources of shade. Wikipedia has an article on parasol technology. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * @Stephan Schulz: I think your distance argument is wrong. The shadow cast by an object would indeed become smaller when it is moved closer to the Sun, but the radiation it receives does increase: The closer an object of a given size moves to the Sun, the more radiation it will get (since radiation density decreases with the square of the distance from the Sun). An object at 1/109 AU from Earth (or less, e.g. Moon's distance) from Earth will thus get more radiation than the same object closer to the Earth, and if placed directly on the line connecting Sun's and Earth's centres all of the radiation it gets would otherwise reach the Earth (because 109=diameter of Sun/diameter of Earth- use the Intercept theorem). There wouldn't be any point on Earth experiencing a Solar eclipse by it, but the whole Earth would get a higher reduction of radiation. An interesting question would be what happens when one increases the distance above 1/109 AU - what is the optimal distance for a Sun shade?--Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If we make the assumptions that the Sun and Earth are two flat disks with radii R and r separated by a much larger distance D (and that the Sun's disk is equally luminous everywhere), and place a third disk with radius ρ at a distance d from Earth, I calculate that the light denied Earth is (proportional to) $$\int_0^r I\left(R,\frac{\rho D}d,r'(D/d-1)\right)r'\,dr'$$, where $$I(r_1,r_2,s)$$ is the overlap between two circles whose centers are separated by s. (The formula at MathWorld assumes that the circles do intersect and that neither circle contains the other, but it seems that its error otherwise is purely imaginary.)  The integrand is 0 for $$r'\ge\rho+d\frac{R+\rho}{D-d}$$, which may be useful for numerical integration.
 * Doing that integration for small ρ (I used 1 km) suggests that your argument about similar triangles is the right idea: the radiation reduction increases until the shade reaches the point where the Sun's light focused onto each point of it would illuminate the whole Earth if the shade were absent, and then falls off rapidly as the shade continues toward the sun. This makes sense: once all of the Earth sees the disk as a subset of the Sun's disk, you're blocking as much light as you can.  Moving the shade further from Earth reduces the amount of the Sun it blocks at each point, and moving it closer to Earth causes the areas in twilight to see part of the shade uselessly occluding the sky beside the Sun.  The only non-trivial thing to discover is that bringing it towards Earth loses in the twilight regions more than it gains by occluding more of the Sun in the center.  The weird thing is that I see a local minimum around d=179 Mm; I don't know if I trust the numerics for d that small, though.  The limit for small d should be $$\pi R^2\rho^2/2$$, which is 0.5% smaller than that local minimum.
 * With larger shades, the optimum is closer to Earth: 1.154 Gm (instead of 1.355 Gm) for ρ=1 Mm, 945 Mm for twice that, and 738 Mm for twice it again. This also makes sense: as the disk approaches Earth's size, the optimal strategy is to set it on Earth like a lampshade.  --Tardis (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it currently costs on the order of $5,000 per lb to get things into low earth orbit. Probably a lot cheaper to convert all our current power plants to solar and wind power plants for the amount it would cost to put up a lasting shade of a size large enough to accomplish the required amount of solar energy deflection, not to mention that building the shade would be a monumental engineering project that would make building the pyramids seem trivial.  Googlemeister (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Worth noting is that our article on a space sunshade describes the cost as 'in excess of' 5 trillion USD &mdash; and that assumes the successful development of a suitable rail- or coil-gun technology to carry out the launches. (And heaven only knows how much in excess the 'in excess' actually would turn out to be....)  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Health clinic in Sevilla, Spain
where can I find a health clinic in Sevilla, Spain that deals in STD's? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.49 (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears there may have once been a STD clinic/diagnostic centre at the University of Seville School of Medicine but I don't know if it still exists. If you speak Spanish perhaps you can work out from their website . I can't offer much more help, perhaps someone else could, except to say you should be able to go to any Sevilla general practitioner (according to our article, in Spain probably based at a primary care centre) and they'll be able to direct you to an appropriate clinic if it's not something they can deal with themselves, while protecting your confidentiality & privacy as they should always do. Nil Einne (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Is nonhuman skin color a result of melanin levels or something different?
I understand that melanin is the primary determinant of the variance in skin color among humans, but I was wondering if it is also what makes elephants, rhinoceroses, and hippopotamuses gray and gorillas black, or if these are differences of a fundamentally different type. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, skin color redirects to human skin color. From that article, there is a link to biological pigment which discusses coloration in animals.  The article has a list of biological chemicals that are common; exotic animals also have other biochemicals, see for example bioluminescence.  Chromatophore also has lots of good information about coloration in animals like fish, amphibians, and reptiles.  Mammals and birds do not have chromatophores, only melanocytes.  Nimur (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There may be additional development but the pathway for melatonin synthesis exists in all living things. For example, the browning of an apple when cut uses some of the same enzymes. --Ayacop (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PS:No stop, I was wrong: the dopachrome tautomerase (DCT) enzyme only developed with the chordata, so the forking of the pathway is an animal thing, ie, DCT is only one way to get melatonin in animals, while plants need absolutely tyrosinase/polyphenol oxidase for that. --Ayacop (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Caring for surfaces while removing snow from them
The Internet has information about how to remove snow while caring for one's own health, that is, the health of whoever is doing that work. However, I am seeking information about how to remove snow while caring for the durability of artificial surfaces, such as asphalt and concrete. I am thinking of the possibility of cracks in the surface being started or enlarged by expansion and contraction caused by changes in temperature. With this in mind, is it better to clear an entire surface at one time, avoiding borderlines between cleared and uncleared parts of a surface? Is it better (when practical) to postpone snow removal until new snow has stopped falling? Where is it best to put snow which has been removed? Are grassy areas suitable? Are ditches suitable? I would like someone with expertise in the appropriate field(s) to answer these questions and any closely related ones which come to mind. (A related article is frost heaving.) -- Wavelength (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * When or in what way you remove snow shouldn't affect whether cracking appears on it. Cracks appear in asphalt and concrete primarily because of thermal expansion (or contraction), but removing the snow should not have a significant effect on the temperature of the surface.  While snow is a good insulator (that's why igloos work), the fact that there is snow accumulated on the surface means that it is already cold enough to not melt snow that falls on it.  So, removing the snow will only expose the surface to air that is approximately the same temperature as the snow.  Removing the snow all at once when it's done snowing is mainly a practical matter--who wants to go out and shovel twice for the same snowstorm?  It's perfectly fine to pile snow on grassy areas, as long as you're OK with the pile being there longer than the rest of the snow that fell naturally. Mildly MadTC 20:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer. I am correcting the grammar of the heading. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking for molecules with large huang rhys factor
I am looking for molecules with large huang-rhys factors, that also absorb in the visible part of the spectrum. The huang rhys factor is a measure of the displacement of the nuclear potential minimum upon electronic excitation, as described here. The result of this would be that in the absorption spectrum, the first overtone for a particular vibrational mode is a larger peak than the fundamental (the 0-0 pure electronic transition). I know this question is pretty obscure, but I am unsure about how to proceed with this search. misli h  17:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you tried searching Google Scholar for huang rhys factor? The Huang-Rhys factor S(a1g) for transition-metal impurities: a microscopic insight (1992), discusses transition metal ligands and compares specific molecules.  Nimur (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Echoes
If I am standing in a large room and I yell, how many times does my voice echo? It typically sounds like 3 or 4 times but I imagine that's just the threshold of what I can hear. Does my voice actually echo forever? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * An "echo" as you are apparently interpreting it is a distinct, undistorted return of the original sound of your voice. In reality, what happens is that as the wavefront reverberates, many echoes "combine" and distort, eventually decaying in amplitude until you can not hear them (and the wavefront settles down below the ambient noise level].  See reverberation for a more thorough explanation of this effect.  Depending on the size, shape, and material of the room walls, the number of "distinct" echoes can vary from zero to "too many to count."  Also see Multipath interference for information about echos that bounce off of different walls and recombine.  Nimur (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I uniformly prefer white
I've noticed that nurses uniforms are no longer white. I thought being white was important for preventing infection for a couple of reasons:

1) Any stains are easy to spot, which hopefully means a clean uniform will be put on. Patterns are perhaps the worst, in this respect, as they can disguise a soiled uniform.

2) Bleach can be used liberally when washing whites, without fear of them fading. Not so with coloreds.  More bleach means fewer surviving microbes.

So, with this in mind, why have they gone away from white uniforms ? StuRat (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Scrubs (clothing) is somewhat informative... apparently white induces eyestrain, and the colors are used to differentiate departments and to keep people from stealing them. I am sure that they are able to sterilize the clothing regardless of the color. I'm not sure any uniforms are patterns. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that the actor's nurses uniforms in an early British black and white TV series Emergency - Ward 10 were yellow because this appeared better on camera. Nostalgiatrip starts here. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The old nursing auxiliary uniforms in the UK used to be a sort of beige check. Yuk!--TammyMoet (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Some scrubs are patterned. I think those sometimes worn in paediatrics, in particular. --Tango (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nurses still wear white tunics in the UK, with some wards wearing blue or green scrubs instead. One of the drawbacks with white is that whilst it will show coloured stains such as blood, it won't show clear fluid stains which are easily observed on blue or green clothing. Nanonic (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And there's always color-safe bleach.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 00:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is fashion more than anything else. Fashion in this case is not individual but generally held concepts by medical institutions and apparel suppliers. White is consistent with outmoded concepts, largely concerned with how the individual is perceived in society. The colors and patterns are probably an expression of the pluralistic society that is now embraced by most establishments. I think it is a good question. I think it goes to the heart of fashion megatrends. Bus stop (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Different roles are shown in the UK by different colours. These colours are decided by the individual hospitals rather than the NHS, so I can't give a definitive answer as to what colour means which role. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Where I'm from most doctors in the OR room wear green scrubs, making blood appear close to black, though I don't know if this is the intention. 219.102.221.182 (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

moment of Big Bang
Can the moment of the Big Bang be characterized as the moment of the greatest unrest? 71.100.160.161 (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Unrest" doesn't have a well-defined scientific meaning. Do you interpret entropy to mean unrest?  In that case, the answer is no, the universe had less entropy during its early stages than it will in its later stages, because of the second law of thermodynamics.  Nimur (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Except that at the moment of the BB, the laws of physics all had to be different. Otherwise the universe would have just collapsed into the grand-daddy of all black holes, and that would have been that. StuRat (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I defer to one of the more expert physicists on the reference desk to clarify current scientific thought on the validity of thermodynamic laws during the early big bang. My understanding was that these were always valid.  Nimur (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The laws of physics are valid at any positive time after the Big Bang. We don't have any laws of physics to describe the Big Bang itself. Naive extrapolation says the universe was infinitely dense at the moment of the Big Bang, which most likely means we can't be that naive. --Tango (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, but as I understand it, even changing parameters of fundamental forces, or unifying them, or changing symmetry relationships, do not change fundamental thermodynamic properties in a quantum mechanics treatment. Nimur (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is only one parameter which affects the 2nd law, as far as I know - initial entropy. The mathematical derivation of the 2nd law is time reversal symmetric, so entropy ought to increase both towards the future and the past (which is rather difficult, since it would seem to make the present special). It is the very low entropy at the beginning that causes it to increase towards the future. So if you change the initial entropy, you change the 2nd law (and all the arrows of time that follow from it). The other parameters shouldn't make any difference, the 2nd law is a pretty elementary mathematical theorem. --Tango (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Zombie Plan
i was reading about mad cow disease and how that if there was a stronger form of it, like a Super mad cow or madder cow disease, that was transferd by blood or saliva, it would be almost like a Zombie outbreak. this made me wander.... what are the chances of a virus, or infection of any kind that would cause a "zombie like" outbreak if any? just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielTrox (talk • contribs) 18:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Plan????? Your title gives you away you evil mastermind Daniel Trox! 92.224.205.128 (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Venereal disease? Sufferers may not like to be called zombies. Nimur (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Would Kuru (disease) fit the bill here? --TammyMoet (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I wonder where you wandered, to "psychotic cow disease", perhaps ? But anyway, I believe rabies can be spread directly from human to human, if you can just convince them to bite each other. StuRat (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That would have been my vote. Rabies is usually mentioned as among the most zombie-like disease - it affects the brain, often causing mania and increased agitation, and can increase saliva production while eliminating the ability to speak. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 19:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And to answer the specific question, the chances would be pretty low. Anything zombie-like would kill the infected too quickly while being too obvious, allowing the uninfected to take necessary precautions.  The only effective spread (for rabies anyway) seems to be through the various animal reservoirs which, aside from bats, is usually pretty obvious. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 19:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * For me the defining characteristic of a zombie is something that is tenacious (maybe to the point of being manic) AND can only be killed by dismemberment or other severe injury, making them formidable foes. If you are afraid of salivating, nonsensical humans that are agitated and manic then your worst nightmare might be something called Ozzfest... --66.195.232.121 (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a human analog of Mad Cow - and a bunch of people in the UK caught it by eating infected meat products. It's called Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease (CJD for short).  Our article says "The first symptom of CJD is rapidly progressive dementia, leading to memory loss, personality changes and hallucinations. This is accompanied by physical problems such as speech impairment, jerky movements (myoclonus), balance and coordination dysfunction (ataxia), changes in gait, rigid posture, and seizures. The duration of the disease varies greatly, but sporadic (non-inherited) CJD can be fatal within months or even weeks (Johnson, 1998). In some people, the symptoms can continue for years." - so not really Zombieism per-se.  It doesn't spread human-to-human very well - unless there are cannibals around - but eating brains certainly would be a reasonable cause. SteveBaker (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

well see thats what i was getting at, that madcow disease would make someone seem almost zombie like, and if it altered to make people extreamly agressive and tranfer through blood or saliva, i think it could make a "infected" like epidemic --Talk Shugoːː 18:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Smallpox eradication
In 1979 WHO declared the complete eradication of smallpox, but I caught it while in kindergarten (late 1980s) and infected my sister in early 1990s, who had blister traces for several years. How it could be? 85.132.99.18 (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You did not catch smallpox while in kindergarten. Perhaps you had some other disease such as chickenpox. Algebraist 19:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you had smallpox and your doctor ever saw or treated you for it, then it would have been a major international incident. Nimur (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And listed in our article Smallpox which currently says the last known cases were among reseachers in 1978 Nil Einne (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're almost certainly thinking of chickenpox. If you had gotten Smallpox in 1989 it would have been in newspapers worldwide. APL (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What are wastes of different industries and what are their usages?
What are wastes of different industries and what are their usages?

Examples are:

From rice mills we get rice dusk as waste. We can use that dusk in producing energy in biomass plant or we can use that dusk to feed animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anirbannaskar (talk • contribs) 20:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This sounds like a homework question, which we won't help with. You need to do your own work if you are going to learn anything from it. --Tango (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Compare energy released by automobiles vs. nuclear warheads
Most of the information used here comes from WP articles. Is the conclusion correct?

One W89 nuclear warhead has a yield of approximately 475 Kilotons of TNT.

475 Kt converts to approximately 1987 Terajoules of energy.

One gallon of gasoline contains approximately 132 Megajoules of energy.

So, 15,053,030 gallons of gasoline contain the energy released by a single W89 nuclear warhead.

Americans alone drive 2,208 billion miles per year (per Dept of Transportation).

At 20 MPG, that is 110.4 billion gallons of gasoline converted to energy.

Thus, American driving alone releases the energy equivalent of 7,334 modern nuclear warheads annually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfrodull (talk • contribs) 20:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't checked your numbers or arithmetic (you can double check that yourself), but the conclusion is certainly plausible. There is a very big difference between energy released over a lot of time and space and energy released in an instant in one place. --Tango (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the energy released in a nuclear explosion is largely thermal energy (heating the air and the solid objects in the target area), and kinetic (moving huge quantities of air, debris) and potential energy, in the form of deforming and destroying the target; and nuclear, in the form of irradiating energy both in the form of a quick blast ("pulse", commonly called an EMP as the liberated nuclear energy takes electromagnetic form through a variety of processes), and in the form of long-lasting decaying nuclear particles. The energy released in an automobile is about 60% thermal and 40% kinetic, which is converted to the controlled vehicle motions that the engine is connected to.  As such, an equivalent amount of energy released is much safer in the controlled, normal operation of motor vehicles.  So if you want to carry this thought-experiment farther, you'll need to brush up the numbers and check the details of those figures more carefully.  Nimur (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, check your "20 mpg" figure. I would not be surprised if the average fuel efficiency over 2.2 trillion miles (which probably includes freight and trucking) is actually much worse.  Trucks make a huge percentage of the total vehicle-miles travelled in the U.S., and when loaded, they do not usually get 20 mpg (and they do not run on gasoline).  Nimur (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The energy released in an automobile is almost 100% thermal. There is only kinetic energy temporarily. Likewise, most of the energy from a nuclear weapon gets converted to heat pretty quickly. --Tango (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're counting braking (and friction), which is a can of worms. But, you are right, technically.  My point was that the energy in a car flows through controllable pathways, rather than uncontrolled destructive release.  Nimur (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with comparing energy like this is that raw energy is not that interesting. Compared to, say, the energy that the sun imparts to the earth, the amount of energy released by nuclear warheads is trivial. Ditto things like earthquakes (the other place where they love to use kiloton/megaton/gigaton measurements). The trick is that nuclear warheads release that energy quickly and in a very limited space. If you release a megaton of energy in tiny, diffuse intervals, it's not that impressive. If you release it all at once, over a city, that's impressive. (Additionally, as has been noticed, the effects of nuclear weapons are more diverse than just energy release. You do not get the same results at all from automobile emissions.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Factual thing—I think you mean the W88, not the W89. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

absolute zero
Would an area of space at a temperature of absolute zero have a greater permittivity than an area of space characterized only as a perfect vacuum? 71.100.160.161 (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Space doesn't really have a temperature. Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of particles - no particles - no temperature.  You could perhaps measure the speed of the very few stray molecules zipping around in space and come up with a number for temperature - but I'm not sure it really means much! SteveBaker (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Temperature is not really a measurement of kinetic energy. For example a single particle has kinetic energy, but no temperature. Temperature needs to be understood in the context of statistical mechanics, in terms of the relationship between entropy and internal energy. --Trovatore (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Even in the absence of 'matter' (which is what is really meant by vacuum) there is still the presence of electromagnetic radiation that allows for a definition of the temperature of an 'empty' region of space. As far as I know that has no effect on the vacuum permittivity. Dauto (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * True; I thought about saying something about that (references, as in reference desk: black-body law, Boltzmann distribution) but decided to make just one point. It seems to me that this bit about temperature v kinetic energy is widely misunderstood even among editors with good general science backgrounds.  A definition in terms of kinetic energy per particle works for monatomic ideal gases and that's about it.  (Even for them, you have to be talking about chunks of gas whose center of mass is at rest, not rotating, etc).  Once you have any interaction among the particles beyond elastic collision, there is no simple relationship between temperature and energy per particle. --Trovatore (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is also very true, but pedagogically speaking, you cannot start from that principle. When people have questions here about these concepts, they often lack the background to start from the real definition of these things.  It is more helpful to start from the simpler models and build up to the more accurate definitions later.  For example, you can't take someone who has never taken a chemistry class, and drop the Schroedinger equations on them and say "this is how electrons work".  Its the same thing here.  We start with the basic, oversimplified model (temperature is the average kinetic energy of a large number of particles) and then if their level of understanding needs to be deeper, we provide it.  But starting at the sort of understanding someone with an advanced degree in physics would understand, well, that isn't exactly helpful for the average layperson.  -- Jayron  32  02:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never been a big fan of lies to children. Temperature is hard to understand; that fact should not be concealed.  Once that's established, yes, you can go on to explain approximations to the concept.
 * But really my point was another &mdash; I've observed that people editing articles like absolute zero often really don't get the idea that temperature is not about kinetic energy per se. And I've seen such comments from people I'd expect to know better.  --Trovatore (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if you don't want to teach the simplified model, how many months are you going to spend teaching someone the finer details of statistical mechanics so they can "get" what temperature really means? The average person has no use for that level of detail in their day-to-day lives.   Of course, the most "elegent" definition of temperature is the Zeroth law of thermodynamics, which merely states that if two systems are in thermal equilibrium (i.e. no exchange of heat between them) their temperature must be identical, in other words temperature is that property which is shared between two arbitrary systems in thermal equilibrium.  The zeroth law definition is elegent also in the sense that it does not care about the type of organization in the systems, and even allows for a meaningful definition of temperature of a vacuum; the temperature of a vacuum is the same as the temperature of a non-vacuum whereby the vacuum system and the non-vacuum system are in thermal equilibrium, and this temperature is not absolute zero, rather it is the temperature of Zero-point energy, which even in a perfect vacuum isolated from all radiation sources, would be the temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is about 2.7 K.  I've always liked the zeroth-law definition of temperature for precisely the reasons you describe temperature as being "hard".  It's not temperature that's hard to understand, it's molecular motion which is hard to understand.  -- Jayron  32  04:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Molecular motion is not the hard concept here. Oh, it's hard enough, certainly, but it's a red herring when discussing conceptual approaches to temperature.  The hard concepts are the statistical ones, such as, appunto, "thermodynamic equilibrium".  What does thermodynamic equilibrium mean, really?  I don't think it's even well-defined, in the final analysis.  What it means depends on the system you're examining, and what particular things you want to know about that system. --Trovatore (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you like, you can define it by the ability to do work; two systems in thermodynamic equilibrium cannot do work on a third system. Two systems which are not in thermodynamic equilibrium will be able to do work on a third system until such time as they reach thermodynamic equilibrium.  That provides one with the "free energy" definition of temperature (the second law of thermodynamics, if you prefer).  -- Jayron  32  05:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What if the first two systems are moving with respect to the third system, and they do work on it just by crashing into it? What if they have coherent pressure waves running through them?  Are you going to say we can't define temperature in these cases?  I have never seen a satisfactory demarcation of what parts of the motion/energy of the system are "thermal" and which are not.  I don't believe a truly philosophically adequate one exists.  I suspect that the demarcation really belongs to pragmatics and not physics.  Not that there's anything wrong with that, provided it's acknowledged. --Trovatore (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * HOWEVER, even you admit that the statistical approach to understanding temperature is unreachable to the average lay person, and yet the average lay person still needs to have some understanding of what temperature is and how it works. Again, do we spend time teaching concepts to someone who has no use for them simply so they "get" the higher implications of temperature?  Or do we teach them a simpler model of temperature, if it works in their day-to-day lives to work within the simpler model?  -- Jayron  32  05:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just don't lie. There's nothing wrong with providing simplified accounts, provided they're labeled as what they are. --Trovatore (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't this have been more suitable if taken to the talk page? Vimescarrot (talk) 09:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this discussion whether more appropriate for the talk page or not. To clarify I do have a bit better an understanding of temperature and entropy the the average person since I repaired AC and refrigeration units and got curious about latent versus sensible heat. As a side note it is fascinating to see two Wikipedia "librarians" hone in on the best way to respond. Now here is what I am going for... was the environment the Big Bang happened in at absolute zero, which the cosmic background radiation hovers above (won't ask if that temperature have ever changed, yet)? 71.100.160.161 (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * At the earliest moments for which known physics is believed to work, the universe was fantastically hot. Greater than 1028 K.  See Timeline of the Big Bang for some details.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If, by "the environment the Big Bang happened in", you mean the "something" (though I prefer to say "nothing") that the early universe expanded "into", then "it" could not have had a temperature defined because it was not matter or even space-time. The temperature of the Cosmic microwave background radiation is gradually cooling towards absolute zero, but extremely slowly.   D b f i r s   09:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

How much warning do we get before a supernova will become detectable by naked eye?
Let us assume light from a supernova reaches us in the next few months or years. Betelgeuse is one of the best candidates, even if the chances that it would happen exactly in this timeframe are very slim (but still realistically above zero). As it will outshine the full Moon and be visible even in the daylight, it could lead to serious problems, thousands or even millions cold die if a panic strikes and people will start fleeing the big cities or start looting and plundering, thinking the world will soon end. Especially if it happened in December 2012. So it is reasonable to be important to inform political leaders, and leaders of mainstream religions to prepare their people and explain what exactly is bound to happen. So, how much time will we have between astronomers detecting and reliably predicting it and the event becoming obviously visible? Few hours? Days? Weeks? Months? --131.188.3.20 (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The Supernova Early Warning System could perhaps detect neutrino's a few hours before the main explosion...but it's not really certain that this is true. Aside from that - nothing goes faster than the speed of light - so the light gets here years to centuries before the particulate material. SteveBaker (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nitpick: the neutrinos are the main explosion. Everything else (such as electromagnetic radiation and the kinetic energy of the expanding gases) comprises less than 1% of the energy released. Algebraist 00:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks, I didn't knew we had an article about that. Or even that neutrino detectors are constructed and maintained especially for this purpose. However, these 3 hours seem frighteningly low, lot smaller than required to inform a significant percentage of the population. Especially those who would be more prone to panic. Are there no other ways to detect a supernova from a star fairly big and close enough? Measure extreme size fluctuation, spectrum of emitted light, or other symptoms of an impending supernova? --131.188.3.21 (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I take it the name is a bit tongue-in-cheek. I gather that its purpose is not so much to provide a warning as a notice, so that the astronomers can get their telescopes pointed in the right direction. --Trovatore (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Why would anybody panic? Dauto (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) and my question as well. You seem awfully certain that everything would go to hell - why? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, not everyone. Pretty sure if you walk down the street in an evening and see a big flash of light in the sky, growing bigger and bigger until it's brighter than the Moon, you will know in an instant, that "wow, that's a supernova, cool" and go on. I'm not sure everyone will be like this. Look at people committing suicide because of some freaking comets. And comets are seen frequently enough that people should be accustomed to them. --131.188.3.20 (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And of course it's only a 50/50 chance that you'll see it first hand - you might be on the opposite side of the planet at the time and only hear about it on the news.  That'll give you plenty of time to update supernova and get a head start on Supernova mass panic of 2009 and List of supernovea in 2009. SteveBaker (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Be sure to re-direct List of supernovea in 2009 to the correct spelling, List of supernovae in 2009. Nimur (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on, if you're creating the thing you don't want to miss the chance of List of supernovæ in 2009. Algebraist 02:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you overestimate the panic effect. Some people will panic, because some people will panic at anything, but most will turn on the news, or go on to Google, or whatever, and find out what it is. Those who cannot do any of these things will probably just wonder. Maybe fear. But full-blown, mobs-and-suicide panic? Show me the precedent for it in modern times. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised there isn't more panic over this. Originally thought to be a hoax, it has been circulating in many "well-reputed" newspapers, Daily Mail and Dagens Nyheter, and Fox News for example.  Frankly, whether it is natural or the result of a rocket misfire, it's fairly frightening.  And if it turns out to be a hoax, that is also frightening - one would hope that a giant apparition in the sky would be easily verifiable or refuted by major regional news outlets.  ... So, do we have 2009 Norwegian sky apparition yet? Nimur (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Spaceweather.com has a lot of info about this -- apparently it was a Russian ICBM test that went awry. Looie496 (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that makes me feel much better.... --Trovatore (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We have 2009 Norwegian spiral anomaly. FWIW.  Acroterion  (talk)  03:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not everyone is as well educated as you guys, and not everyone is even literate on this planet. However, I don't want to push this further, because the point of the question was not how big or small the panic would be, but how soon can we reliably predict the event, which still has no meaningful answer except for the 3 hours given by neutrino detection. --131.188.3.20 (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone thinks it is about being educated and literate. The question is whether people react with panic to such things to any significant degree. I think the vast majority of people, anywhere, are more likely to just hunker down and wait (or assimilate it into their world-view, which people do pretty well), rather than panic. I am no expert on mob psychology but strange things in the sky don't seem like serious triggers to me, compared to, say, accusations of rape by people of another race and things that really push human psychological buttons. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I will note that SN 1054, the supernova which created the Crab Nebula, was widely observed. In 1054 AD, it remained visible during daylight for more than three weeks, and yet was not linked to mass suicides, rioting, or other chaos.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the OP's belief that "leaders of mainstream religions" when given astronomical facts will explain to "their people" exactly what is bound to happen. Think of Pope Urban VII getting facts from Galileo or Marshall Applewhite explaining Comet Hale-Bopp. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed - there is a long history of political, military and religious leaders gaining the capability to calculate solar eclipses and using that knowledge to scare the populace into bending to their will. Far from carefully explaining and calming the populace - they have often used this knowledge to make some dire proclamation at the moment of the eclipse and scare the bejeezus out of the poor, math/astronomy-deprived masses.  There have been a few cases (Thales of Miletus for example) where this knowledge has been used for good...but it's not typical! SteveBaker (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We've heard yet another ranting about how absolutely evil and primitive every society was except from a libertarian one. Thanks :P But this still does not answer the question: How early can we reliably detect a supernova of a similar scale to what we can except from Betelgeuse, for example? --131.188.3.21 (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Currently, we don't know how to do this, other than by detecting the neutrino flux, which as previously said arrives at best a couple or so hours before the visible photons ramp up (not because neutrinos are faster, but because they're the first thing to be produced when the star actually blows) - consider SN 1987A, where the gap was about 3 hours, and this for a star not actually in our own Galaxy, though close to it in a nearby satellite galaxy.
 * There are two problems. One is that nearby (actually in or very near our own Galaxy) and observable supernovae, bright enough to be easily visible to the naked eye, are very infrequent - SN 1987A was the first in several hundred years (the previous being SN 1604); because of this we haven't had much chance to work out any 'warning signs', bearing in mind that there are more than one type, and cause, of supernovae. The other is that what warning signs there might be may well be detectable only with considerably better telescopes (or other instruments) than we currently have. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)