Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 August 5

= August 5 =

history of skin cancer?
The cancer article has a pretty good overview of the history of awareness of the disease, but focuses mainly on breast cancer. The skin cancer article has no history section whatsoever. I'm very curious about the history of awareness of skin cancer. My guess is that before long distance transportation became feasible, skin cancer acted on geographically fixed (more or less) populations such that after X (or XX) generations the survivors didn't contract skin cancer in noticeable numbers. Following that, it was only once people began to really move around (primarily latitudinally, I suppose) that you end up with humans living in latitudes with amounts of sunlight exceeding that which their bodies' can naturally protect against? I can't recall ever reading about a historical figure dying of skin cancer... though I suppose contemporary historians simply may not have known what it was that killed the person... 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Famous historical figures didn't spend much time outside. Poor (not-famous) people did that.  So it seems unlikely that anyone from more than 100 years ago who was notable for anything would have had enough sun exposure to have skin cancer.  Its likely lots of people had it, and some may have died from it, but those people didn't make the history books as individuals.  -- Jayron  32  05:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Caesar Rodney was plenty famous in the 1700s and he had skin cancer. Dragons flight (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm sure if you dig far enough, you'll find someone. It's entirely possible to get skin cancer even if you don't spend any time in the sun.  It's just that in general, sun exposure is a major risk factor for skin cancer, and most people who did something to get famous weren't out picking turnips in the field 12 hours a day... -- Jayron  32  06:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you're probably over-exaggerating the lack of being in the sun. Whether or not it was fashionable (across very different periods and cultures) to be in the sun, plenty of important people have had to spent their time in the sun. And whether people are famous or not has nothing to do with whether doctors would have discussed the ailment, or would have discussed notable cases. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This page does not exactly beam "reliability", but contains a plausible history of Western medical discussions of skin cancer. Apparently René Laennec first discussed it explicitly in a lecture in 1804, and gave it the name Melanoma. John Hunter operated on a melanoma in 1787 but apparently wasn't aware of what it was. He called it a "cancerous fungus". A certain Samuel Cooper (who does not seem to be any of the Wikipedia "Samuel Cooper"s) reported in 1840 that melanoma was basically untreatable in its advanced stages. It's not much but it's a start. In any case, it seems that awareness of it as a distinct health entity, much less a form of cancer, is pretty recent (i.e. 19th century). The understanding of the link been skin cancer and UV exposure is probably even more recent. If you don't know what causes something, it's hard to have much of a public health campaign about it. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Skin cancer awareness probably increased following the discovery of the ozone hole. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 00:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

what is the difference between cytonemes and filopodia?
Filopodia can fuse their membranes to make large pseudopodal or epithelial bridges between cells, right? But not traditional cytonemes? I just read this Nature paper that declared in their abstract: ''Hereafter, we refer to these filopodial bridges as viral cytonemes (neme meaning thread), because they share features with long-lived filopodia previously observed in the imaginal disc of Drosophil. Cytonemes constitute stable cell–cell bridges thought to mediate the long-range transport of signalling molecules between cells.''

This confuses the hell out of me! Much thanks and gratitude to anyone who can explain this to me, because my current internship (which ends in 2 days) depends on this question. John Riemann Soong (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My "simple" definition: Filopodia are thin, finger-like, dynamic actin-filled extensions of the plasma membrane that play roles in sensing the extracellular environment, cell-cell adhesion, and cell-substrate adhesion.
 * There are a whole lot of words that describe long thin protrusions of the plasma membrane, many of which probably have different functions than traditional filopodia (such as long-range cell-cell contact, intracellular communication, etc.) and I'm sure you will find experts who disagree on how to use the terms -- you're not the only one who is confused! One distinction might be whether the structure is short-lived and dynamic (filopodia) versus long-lived and stable (cytoneme).  However, your best bet is to describe the structures you are observing as clearly as possible, without worrying excessively about what to call them.  If you have time-lapse imaging that shows the protrusions extending, retracting, making cell-cell contacts, etc. it's probably safe to call them filopodia.  If you can demonstrate that your filopodia fuse together or somehow allow intracellular movement of cytoplasm, it's probably safe to call them filopodial bridges.  I can't say why the authors of the Nature paper decided to use the term "viral cytoneme," but from quickly skimming it, they seem to be suggesting that the viral envelope proteins are somehow facilitating the generation of filopodial bridges that allow the viruses to pass from one cell to the next.  If you have a similar context where a treatment seems to facilitate the generation of long-term filopodial bridges allowing cell-cell transport, perhaps you could use a similar term.  Keep in mind, however, that cell culture is a pretty abnormal situation for cells and some of the things we observe in a dish work a little differently in a three-dimensional organism.  I'm not sure that was helpful, but the take home message should be to clearly define the structures you are talking about, and then use that term consistently. Good luck! --- Medical geneticist (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That gave me some confidence. Thanks! John Riemann Soong (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Does anybody have any clue about the different behaviours of filopodia and lamellipodia? I wonder if lamellipodia are in fact responsible for "trapping" my gold particle (in that animated gif) and bringing it in, since lamellipodia are found between filopodia? (According to the literature on growth cones in neurons...) I am also wondering if lamellipodia are responsible for the "bridge widening" I have seen. John Riemann Soong (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Chimney
Here's the question I was given: Suppose a chimney of length L started to tip and fall. Where would it break?

Here's my attempt at a solution: The angular acceleration of the chimney should be (3/2)(g/L)cosθ (θ being the angle between the chimney and the ground). Consider a small portion of the chimney a distance x from the base. If just gravity were acting on this small portion, it would have an angular acceleration of (g/x)cosθ, so parts of the chimney near the top are rotating "faster than they should" were only gravity acting on it. Thus there must be internal torques, and thus internal forces, acting on within the chimney. Wherever the internal forces are greatest, that's where the chimney will break. For a small portion of the chimney, τint + τext = τint + mgxcosθ =(mx2)(3/2)(g/L)cosθ. Using this, the force becomes greatest at the very top of the chimney, which doesn't seem to make much sense. Can someone point out where I've gone wrong? Thanks. 76.69.241.253 (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well - do you trust your math or your instincts? Watch this (the interesting bit starts about a minute into the movie) - I'm pretty sure those two chimneys are both of length 'L' :-)  SteveBaker (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the other internal forces, the ones due to the weight of the chimney. Gdr 17:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Also don't forget that the inertia of the chimney is not the same along it's length. Your math does not seem to take this into account, lower down when it accelerates the top there is a ton of inertia against do so, in the middle it not only has to accelerate the top, in needs to decelerate the bottom, so you have double force. At the top there is little inertia to fight. Ariel. (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Does your chimney have an strength at all, or is it just stacked bricks? If it has any strength at all your math will not be right, since it will break wherever the force is greater than the strength (so at multiple locations). If it has no strength then it will break everywhere at once, and it will impart no force to the top, since it broke and it can't. Ariel. (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The forces and breaking of a falling chimney is a common intro-physics topic. physics falling chimney has tons of hits with pictures and the math details. DMacks (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay I see where I went wrong, thanks. 76.69.241.253 (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, the size and number of bricks, as well as the width, hardness and cohesive strength (?) of the coglomerate holding them together may affect your solution by small degrees. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 00:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

gas central heating
can someone draw a diagram of how gas central heating works? and how it vents?--Tomjohnson357 (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Central_heating has a very brief description. Air handler contains more.  -- Jayron  32  05:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In words, a description of the gas central heating system in my house: There is a large square vent in the ceiling, air goes in there, through a wide hose to a box in the ceiling space. A gas pipe also feeds that box. The box burns gas to heat air. It vents its exhaust through a chimney to outiside. A fan in the box pushes the heated air out of another wide hose which splits into about eight narrower hoses which connect to vents in the ceiling around the house. So air is sucked into the heater from inside the house; it's heated by burning gas; the hot air is pumped into the house through one hose which splits into several. --203.202.43.53 (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * See also Furnace. DMacks (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This schematic show the kind of set up in many UK homes. The boiler is a closed system heating water and pumping it round the radiators and through the heat exchanger coils in the hot water tank.  Cold water is supplied to the cold taps around the house and the storage tank(s) in the loft space.  Cold water is then gravity fed from the loft tank to the hot water tank (where it is heated by the heat exchanger coils) and then supplied to hot water taps around the house.  There are a few variations using on-demand heating or pressurised systems.  Astronaut (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Fuss about Blackberrys and National Security
Im not a blackberry fan, find it to be quite an eyesore in the aesthetics department and I havent used it ever,so technically I wouldnt know whats this security risk stuff everyone is talking about. Saudi and UAE Govt. have banned blackberry services from yesterday. Whats with the Blackberrys that make them a security threat? Im not asking a political question here but whats the scientific reason that makes these handheld devices a risk? Is it restricted only to a blackberry or is an IPhone too capable of such a risque behaviour? And have these risks been a fall out of a new (recently introduced) feature or has the risk been there since blackberry launched? Why this sudden brouhaha?Im sorry for asking too many questions but I feel they are all inter related. Thanks for the answers in advance--Fragrantforever 06:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fragrantforever (talk • contribs)


 * I can't see any risk that blackberry devices present that other smartphones don't (although I do know someone who suffered a repetitive strain injury due to heavy use of his blackberry's scrollwheel). One risk of such devices in a secure environment is that they can connect to computers, take photographs, record voice, store huge amounts of data and smuggle that data out of the secure environment. Another is a risk shared by laptop computers -- they're easy to steal. A stolen blackberry could be full of confidential e-mails. --203.202.43.53 (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But it's not that at all. I just looked up news reports and found this. At a quick reading suggests to me that they are banning the messenger function on blackberrys because it provides secure communications and so it's hard for the government to monitor what people are saying when using it. And worse, Research in Motion (the company that makes Blackberrys) refuse to decrypt messages, even when governments ask nicely... unless the government in question has a US court order unless the government in question has gone through proper processes. Both UAE and Saudi Arabia say they don't want evil terrorists having easy access to secure communications. My take on it is that those countries are unhappy about having to go after specific messages one at a time and through their courts, they'd much rather be able to simply monitor all communications to track down "naughty" people before they know they're naughty. --203.202.43.53 (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC) (edited a couple of times before 08:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC))
 * Of course, what the ruling regimes of the UAE and Saudi Arabia consider 'naughty' might not be restricted to terrorism and might not be entirely congruent with definitions prevalent in more, shall we say, liberal societies. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * From the reference you provide along with, it's entirely unclear under what circumstances ('proper processes' as you called them) RIM would decrypt messages and whether RIM would do it in the same circumstances in the UAE and Saudi Arabia that they would in China, Russia or even the US or Canada. I don't even see any evidence they would let them 'go after specific messages one at a time and through their courts'. In any case, I have strong doubts they've been willing to compromise with the UAE or Saudi Arabian governments as much as they have been with the Russian or Chinese ones and from the sources I'm not alone in this view.
 * If I was a cynic, I would say RIM is playing this for all it's worth since they don't consider UAE or Saudi Arabia that important so are willing to give up those markets if necessery in exchange for the good publicity about protecting their customers. They're perhaps hoping that they can come to some kind of deal with the UAE or Saudi Arabian governments which said governments would let them spin as a backdown on their part (even if it was something said governments would have agreed to all along). On the flipside, the UAE and SA are I think resonably friendly so may have been in contact and decided to apply mutual pressure.
 * I've heard of India having similar concerns recently also mentioned in your ref, I'm hardly surprised the suggestions are that a deal is close. Who knows, perhaps news of a Indian deal reached the UAE and SA governments and having perhaps negotiated as long as the Indian government they got rather pissed that RIM was happily playing ball with the Indian government, as they may have already done with the Russian and Chinese governments so decided there was no point negotiating any further. Or perhaps RIM decided to play hardball with UAE and SA knowing they'll be cut off so they could use it as part of their negotiations with India (if you want to cut us off, then so be it).
 * The simple truth as in all of these sort of secretive corporate-goverment negotiations, it's hard on the outside to really know what's going on, or why, behind the scenes. It's almost definitely incredibly complex, and the power of each side generally plays a big part. Trying to paint either side as 'bad guys' or the one causing problems is usually way too simplistic. And as much as anything the lack of knowledge or imperfect knowledge about what's going on most likely doesn't help matters. It may be the Russian, Chinese and US deals are not that great, but as long as the UAE and SA governments think it's better then what they're getting they're likely to be reluctant to agree to something less.
 * BTW it seems Indonesia has similar issues it would be interesting to see what happens there. Of note, a common thread is many countries don't like the servers being in Canada I wouldn't say this is that surprising or unusual, I think it's a common concern for some countries. While it's true that e-mail servers are commonly in another country one of the things is that for the Blackberry the e-mail is AFAIK strongly integrated with the phone and also it seems usually encrypted. Compare that to MMS or SMS or phone calls where they are not encrypted and go thorough the local service provider.
 * While I mentioned RIM's possible publicity advantage for their consumers, as somewhat shown by the Indonesian case, these sort of things do have a risk of cascading since when other governments see what's going they start to take notice too. This is of course likely to be a concern to RIM, and I saw a news report saying a similar thing.
 * It's also worth remembering that some of the people involved, particularly the people in high levels of government may have limited understanding of the technical details yet they will often be the people with the real say and may not always listen to what their more technically inclined advisors or civil service are telling them (if they even dare).
 * Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

According to CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/mobile/08/04/blackberry.fans/index.html?hpt=Sbin the Saudi and UAE governments like to spy on people's texts and e-mails. But the blackberry's encription is so good that they don't know how to crack it, so they just banned the thing entirely. 148.168.127.10 (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Right. The security threat is that the Blackberry is too secure, as far as these governments are concerned.  RIM is reluctant to "fix" the problem for obvious reasons. Looie496 (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course any programmable phone could be provided with an 'app' that would encrypt your data with some ungodly good encryption and send it to someone with a similarly equipped device - any halfway decent programmer could toss that together in a day or two. Even if such applications were banned from phones (and I have no idea how you'd make that kind of a ban enforceable), it would still be possible to encrypt a message on a regular computer (or even on paper with a pencil) and key the resulting gobbledygook message into a completely dumb phone.  Heck, you can use a one-time pad or a 'code book' and send a heavily encrypted message in what seems like plain text or speech:  "Shall we meet tomorrow at around 2:15?"...look up number 215 in your code book...it says "Blow up the parliament building tomorrow at noon".  Encryption is childishly easy.  When I was a kid, my parents had me learn a bunch of fake names so that (in an era before cellphones) I could make a 'reverse charge call' (aka 'collect call') from a callbox and when the operator asked who I was, I'd give the fake name appropriate to the message I wanted to send.  My parents would then refuse to accept the call and look up the name to discover that "Henry Plantagenet" really meant "Please pick me up from soccer practice"...or whatever.


 * The iniquitous thing about all of this is that the 'bad guys' can always do good encryption if they need to. But people who merely wish to prevent rivals from stealing industrial secrets, or to avoid telling the papparazzi where they're going to dinner, find it much harder to do so without the convenience of a securely encrypted data service like the Blackberry. SteveBaker (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow Steve, your parents were incredibly cheap. Googlemeister (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On a related note, China Telecom started to screen cell phone text messages last year so the police could enforce a ban on solicited public demonstrations after the July 2009 Ürümqi riots. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 00:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Reason for adding synthetic colors in medicines
Hi,

The use of synthetic colors in food and other edible substances is an area for concern. I understand that the addition of colors to foods such as candies, chocolates, shakes etc, is to increase the product appeal.

But then what is the main reason for adding colors to medicines such as cough syrups, capsule shells etc. After all, medicines are not generally marketed based on their visual appeal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanwar rajan (talk • contribs) 09:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Having a distinct shape, size and colour would most likely help people recognise a pill so they are less likely to take the wrong thing. It may also be a help to pharmacists. Also most people already don't like taking medicines, so the manufacturers doesn't want them to look too revolting. Particularly true I suspect for anything children are likely to take. (Although I've heard that nowadays many children medicines have been sweetened and flavoured enough that children actually want to take them.) Marketing may sometimes come in to it, for example most everyone knows what the little blue pill is (well apparently not wikipedia until I made the redirect). It may also be a useful way to distinguish your product from other generics and similar products.
 * Note that if you are taking medicines, even something like an OTC cough syrup I would say any alleged or real potential effects of the tiny amount of colours you consume in what one would hope is the tiny amount of medicine you consume pales in comparison to the side effects and other concerns of taking the medicine and the circumstances that require taking the medicine. Even if you actively avoid colours as much as possible, it's unlikely the amount you consume from medicines while sick is going to be a big proportion of the colours you do consume.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I still have a real urge to go buy some Calpol (a child's, liquid paracetamol... tastes very good). I'm now 19, haven't had it in about 16 years, but still remember it being very, very nice. Just a random comment. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 11:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually had the same urge a few months ago and bought some - it's just as nice as I remember it. Someone at that medicine company really knows what they're doing. ~ mazca  talk 13:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I don't really have any fond memories of taking medicines when I was young. Cough syrup were one of the most horrible. I'm 28 so not much older then Mazca, I don't think my younger brother has any different experience. However I grew up in Malaysia and most of my medicines came from my family doctor (there is no dispensing separation in Malaysia ). I would guess calpol is available now, I don't know if doctors commonly offer it or it's only from pharmacies or supermarkets or when it became available but it's not something I ever had AFAIK. Nil Einne (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly suspect that is part of the reason my mother never gave us Calpol, to the extent that I only learnt it existed when I was about 17. Having babysat several children whose parents assure me they shouldn't be any trouble since "they've had their Calpol", I find myself siding with my mother. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Studies show that the placebo effect is affected by the shape and colour of the pills. . It is also useful in telling pills apart, there are drug identification programs that work with the color, shape and text on the pills for instance. EverGreg (talk) 11:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For a while, I was taking two different medicines regularly; the bottles always described the capsules' appearances, so even if I'd somehow forgotten which pill was which, I could have re-learned quite easily. Nyttend (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In the case of cough syrups, adding food coloring to them makes the artificial flavoring (a little) more convincing. Imagine taking a colorless, orange-flavored cough syrup. It still tastes like (artificial) orange flavor, but it feels weird because you've been conditioned to expect orange-flavored food to have an orange color. --173.49.16.4 (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, I'd have to tag the original basis of the question as false assumption: "After all, medicines are not generally marketed based on their visual appeal." Companies spend huge amounts of money on marketing and consumer analysis. If a company thought it could do better with a different approach, for example, lower production cost (leading to lower consumer cost (== higher sales)) or higher profit margin) or improved consumer appeal (leading to increased sales or ability to raise price (==increased profit margin), they would do so. Heck, even increased acceptability by consumers of "now with no artificial colors" is a potential corporate boost that is not done too often in this industry...it's just not what consumers seem to want (enough to justify cost of changing their product-image and its manufacturing, and other potential offsetting loss of sales for reasons others have mentioned). DMacks (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I have seen some infant's medication marketed as "Dye-free!" Here's an example from a googled website.  Interestingly, before Kanwar rajan's question, I never thought this was a scheme to market to parents who are concerned about the health effects of synthetic dye; I had always thought it was meant to tell the parents: "When you spill this damn stuff onto your clothes because your kid shakes his or her head around while taking this damn stuff, the clothes won't get permanently stained with hot pink and orange dye."  Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll note that when pouring measured volumes of a liquid, a bit of color can make the medicine easier to see. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a dark and stormy night to take a red pill or a blue pill. Morpheus explains. (video) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sides of leather
What is a side of leather? A source that I've used at Charles Wintzer Building says that this building, a former tannery, processed 2,500 sides of leather in a year, but it doesn't explain what it is. Perhaps a complete animal hide? Nyttend (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Half an animal hide. Oxford English Dictionary sense 9.b. gives this quote: 1885 Harper's Mag. Jan. 274/2 After soaking, the hides are..cut through the middle of the back to separate them into ‘sides’." Gdr 14:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Mathematical Tools for General Relativity
I am currently in eleventh grade, and I wish to learn general relativity right from the basics to the derivation of equations, tensors, so on.. What mathematical knowledge is needed for this? Can you please recommend books for learning the mathematics needed for General Relativity? Currently, I am well versed with Differential Calculus and Basic integration, complex numbers, trigonometry, and some other basic mathematics. What further topics do i need to know in mathematics for General Relativity? harish (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You can try to study General Relativity any time you like. You'll probably find that it uses techniques you aren't familiar with until you've mostly completed a core curriculum of advanced math and physics.  It would be possible to try to learn each concept, piecemeal, but normally in an undergraduate physics or math program, you wait until your junior or senior year of university before even bothering with a GR course, so that you've had the time to build up the necessary classes.  Many programs have a sort of "teaser" course in "modern physics" taught at the freshman or sophomore level, covering the basic conceptual ideas of relativity, but it's impossible to expect enough freshmans and sophomores to have finished the requisite math for full-blown GR at such an early stage.
 * In the United States, a typical undergraduate course for you will follow something along the lines of:
 * two to three more courses in calculus, culminating in multivariable calculus
 * a solid course in advanced linear algebra, (more advanced linear algebra will help, too)
 * a course in differential equations
 * after completing your basic physics run, you will need an advanced mechanics course to learn about coordinate-independent representations of physical laws; and an advanced electromagnetics course
 * finally, you will have the tools necessary for a course in general relativity, suitable to describe spatial coordinates as they relate to mass, energy, and momentum; and the ability to describe how those things affect particles' and electromagnetic waves' energies and trajectories.
 * You might consider looking at your preferred university's physics curriculum to see what courses they offer. Many universities offer a specific course in General Relativity, but others lump this in to an advanced math course or cover it during a classical mechanics or electrodynamics course.  Ultimately, consider what your objective in learning GR is, and use that objective to guide your coursework.  Nimur (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * While I'd agree that all of the above could be useful, I don't think all of it is strictly necessary before tackling a mathematically rigorous treatment of GR as some of it will be included in introductory GR texts. I'd say the fundamental prerequisites are multivariable calculus, partial differential equations, basic linear algebra, and an understanding of how classical mechanics and electromagnetism are handled through partial differential equations.  That said, in many places a true course in GR isn't even offered before graduate school.  And it certainly true that building up a deeper understanding of math and physics will be genuinely helpful to understanding GR.  Since the poster asked about texts, I'd suggest starting with the chapters on multivariable calculus in an introductory text, such as Ellis and Gulick's Calculus with Analytic Geometry.  That could be followed by looking at the vector analysis, linear algebra, and differential equations chapters of an intermediate text like Arfken and Weber's Mathematical Methods for Physicists (if your goal is only GR, you can probably skip the half of the book on special functions, as that is more a quantum mechanics thing).  That might be followed with an advanced undergrad book on electromagnetism, such as Griffith's Introduction to Electrodynamics.  This would probably get you to a point where you could look at a rigorous GR text without your head exploding, though you'd undoubtedly need to consult works on mechanics, linear algebra, and differential equations to fill in gaps as you go.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You can get books on GR that teach you a lot of the maths as you go along (you don't need to know anything about tensors, for instance). You might need a bit more calculus (particularly vector calculus/multivariate calculus (they're the same thing)) and you'll need at least some basic linear algebra. You'll need to have taken a basic course in mechanics as well. There is harm in starting on GR now and if you find something you don't understand going back and learning it before carrying on. --Tango (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The first proper book on it I read was Einstein's own book 'Relativity: The Special and General Theory' which I read when I was sixteen I think. It may be a bit out of date in places but I thought it was very good. It can be better to see things from near the beginning by the original person. Dmcq (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A book that old won't include things like Penrose diagrams, which I found extremely useful for getting a feel for a solution to the EFE. --Tango (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you restrict yourself to special relativity (no gravity) it's easy to find books that will teach it. The math isn't that hard at that level.
 * If you want to press on to general relativity, I would strongly recommend the book "Introducing Einstein's Relativity" by Ray d'Inverno which cover both special and general relativity. It introduces the tensor math as you go along and is an easy read. As in any curriculum involving some math, it's essential that you do the exercises in the book. EverGreg (talk) 07:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I understood Special Relativity when I was 14, from Einstein's own Book. But the book has very little on the mathematics of general relativity. Thats why I need good books for learning GR from the roots. harish (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Roger Penrose's book The Road to Reality contains a semi-popular introduction to general relativity, including the mathematical background. Gdr 17:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My favorite book on the mathematics of relativity that is accessible to a high school student (at least it was accessible to me when I was in high school) is Lillian Lieber's The Einstein Theory of Relativity. Looie496 (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

chemistry
the question is that our chemistry teacher normally say when a tree has been more than 35 years it will form the sumation of coal that is it will change to charcoal is it true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhay4life (talk • contribs) 17:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. What has the tree been for 35 years? What does "sumation of coal" mean? --Tango (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Any translation of this question that I can make still produces nonsense. A tree that is living is not coal and never will be.  Once a tree dies, it will take far longer than 35 years to become coal - and then only if it is in just the right conditions. --  k a i n a w &trade; 17:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For "changing trees to charcoal", on the other hand, see our article Charcoal. Deor (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)You can change wood from a tree to Charcoal whenever you want; just heat it out of contact with the air for a few hours. Coal is a sedimentary rock that began as layers of plant matter that have been covered by other strata for millenia, typically since the Carboniferous period about 330 million years ago. A visitor to a geologic museum asked an attendant how old was the specimen of coal on display, The attendant answered "It's 330 000 004 years old." The visitor said "Are you sure one can know the age so accurately?" The attendant said "Yes, I know because I was here when they brought in that specimen 4 years ago." Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing there was supposed to be a 'dead' in the OP's question (when a tree has been dead more than 35 years) even if it's still rather confused. Nil Einne (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, peat, (which is basically "fresh coal") doesn't necessarily have to be millions of years old. It makes a pretty decent fuel.  -- Jayron  32  03:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not when I tried it! Even when properly dried, as my grandfather used to do, it is still very much inferior as a fuel.  I suppose if you have nothing else ....    D b f i r s   09:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Why can't Quantum Teleportation transmit information faster than light?
In easy to understand terms please. Tried to read the articles, but didn't really find anything that explains why QT doesn't transmit information. I do understand entanglement though. 148.168.127.10 (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nutshell version: Alice and Bob separate entangled particles. Bob watches his particle change state and knows that Alice's changed state right then, too!  Instant FTL knowledge!  However, Bob doesn't know what that means -- did the state change because Alice triggered it (a message) or because of natural processes (quantum mechanical noise)?  There's no way to know until Alice sends a separate message, one way or another, by standard speed-of-light-limited means.  Thus, no true information can be passed FTL via this method. &mdash; Lomn 21:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually bob can not watch his particle change state. He can only measure it once, and you can't tell if alice measures it! Probably the easiest way to think of it is to imagine there are hidden variables. Your particle already knows if it's in one state or the other, and the other particle is guaranteed to be in the opposite state. But those states are already there - measuring them tells you nothing that was not already known. You are simply revealing the information to yourself, but transmitting nothing. Big caveat: hidden variables might not be a description of reality, it's much more complicated than that. But for an initial understanding it's a good start. Ariel. (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Quantum teleportation works like this: Alice and Bob generate two qubits in a Bell state and each take one. Alice does a certain calculation with her half of the Bell pair and the qubit to be transmitted (the "message qubit"), obtaining two classical bits, which she sends to Bob. Bob does a certain calcuation with his half of the Bell pair and the two bits from Alice, and obtains the message qubit. Here's the classical equivalent of that: Alice and Bob generate a pair of equal bits (both zero or both one) and each keep one. Alice does a certain calculation with her half of that pair and the message bit (namely, an exclusive-or of the two), obtaining one bit, which she sends to Bob. Bob does a certain calcuation with his half of the pair and the bit from Alice (namely, another exclusive-or) and recovers the message bit. This protocol is simply encryption with a one-time pad. The bit that Alice sends to Bob contains no information about the message bit (that is, an eavesdropper learns nothing by observing it). Bob's original bit also contains no information about the message bit. Nevertheless, the message bit can be recovered by combining the two. This is also true of quantum teleportation. Bob needs both his half of the Bell pair and the two bits from Alice in order to learn anything about the message qubit. -- BenRG (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Bob, alice , what ever , thay teleport statistic informaition , if you want it faster then light ,you have to do statistic fast . then you get the information . thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.199.175.104 (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * / Nil Einne (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If there was some way to predict the true random bit, and Bob and Alice had all the keys in advance, it might be possible to do this. The trouble is predicting the random encrypted bit is a bit-erm...challenging. But I'm still working on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.88.20 (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Might the Quantum zeno effect be relavent? ~ A H  1 (TCU) 00:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

lunar eclipses and "blood red moons"
Is every total lunar eclipse a "blood red moon?"

If not, what are the differences?

Thank you!Trntcntysongbird (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No. The colour and brightness can vary quite widely depending on what is going on in the upper atmosphere (where the sunlight has to go through to hit the moon during an eclipse). If there is lots of dust in the atmosphere (eg. following a volcanic eruption), you can get very dramatic lunar eclipses. --Tango (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What's happening during the eclipse is that the only light that's reaching the moon has to pass through the earth's atmosphere. If you imagine the light from the sun just skimming the edge of the planet - you realize that the sunlight that makes it to the moon is light from a sunset - so it's always orangy-red but whether it's really that bloody red depends on which parts of the earth are in the way - what the atmosphere is doing.  If it's passing mostly over the oceans then there probably isn't much dust or pollution filtering out the yellows and oranges...if it's passing over polluted areas or dusty deserts - then only the red light makes it through the air to the moon. SteveBaker (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)