Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2012 May 9

= May 9 =

"Center for Innovation, Technology and Testing"
Can anybody make any sense out of ? The article claims that this Potemkin village in the middle of nowhere is going to be funded for $1 billion - nearly as much as NIAID spends on HIV/AIDS research yearly, for example. We don't even have an article "Center for Innovation, Technology and Testing", nor on "Pegasus Holdings". The news article claims it's so they can test self-flushing toilets and automated washing machines (say what?) True, they also claim to test "self driving cars", but how do you test them meaningfully on a city-wide scale without pedestrians? I've never heard of such an absurdly high-budget low-yield research project. What's the story?


 * (To be clear, they actually have a web site at, but it doesn't make any more sense than anything else. True, they do mention the "homeland security", which is what would be my guess anyway --- I mean, what else are Americans capable of doing innovation on nowadays except ways to spy on and control and punish people? --- but it still doesn't make any sense they need a billion dollar project for that.  Any spying project on such a grandiose scale will never stay secret anyway.) Wnt (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Presumably you're including Google, Facebook and Twitter among those spying innovations. So, this thing is privately funded, right? Or it says it is. Although it sounds more like a cooperative effort. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "Pegasus is also a U.S. Government authorized prime vendor and manufacturer of defense equipment and technologies." You ever hear of private money funding Homeland Security?  Corporations may be stupid, but they don't fund that kind of a boondoggle except when they're being paid. Wnt (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And as far as I'm concerned Twitter and (especially) Facebook exemplify the sort of technology we'd be better off without. But I'm pretty sure that Pegasus/CITT is blameless for that. Wnt (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to add to the confusion, there seems to be 2 Pegasus Global Holdings. One of them is 'Pegasus Global Holdings (“Pegasus”)', the one involved in the project. Another one is 'Pegasus-Global Holdings, Inc' who appear unconnected. Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks - that "Global" made me find The Center, New Mexico, which is about this (though it still doesn't make it any clearer to me). Wnt (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the price versus the possible payoff, as stated, is goofy. I wonder what the government connection really is (other than "the government is expected to pay for this," which is obvious — it's the only way the dollars can add up). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure seems fishy to me, especially with no university involvement. Although it's early enough in the planning stages that maybe university partnerships will come along later. - Running On Brains (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * One possible project which might justify that investment is self-driving trucks that could deliver supplies to combat areas. They could drive across the desert, limiting interaction with people, and could then be driven manually, in a heavily armed convoy, the last bit through the city. StuRat (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe that the military is very interested in self-driving vehicles — DARPA doesn't sponsor big contests just for the fun of it — but I still don't see how that would justify a billion-dollar mock-town. The makers must be expecting hundreds of millions of dollars per year to make the investment worthwhile. That seems like an awful lot based on the description. There are certainly ways to test self-driving vehicles that don't involve paying millions of dollars — you could pave your own bare-bones test course for a small fraction of that price. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You might miss some potential problems that way. For example, the car might go off the road and follow a building's shadow, but only if there is a large shadow on the test course. StuRat (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree there seems to be a lot of unknowns here. As stated by others, the source of funding is unclear. It seems strange some random virtually unknown private company would spend $1 billion of their own money, presuming they even have that much, doing this. (Which highlights another issue, as the OP mentioned, there does seem to be rather limited info on them, they're only 10 years old and as a private company, we have no real idea how much money thay have. They seem to have a fairly low profile up to now, but given their apparent strong involvement with the US federal government particularly the military, perhaps they are a lot better off then the low profile would suggest.) The earlier source only claims they asked for no state funding, it doesn't say anything about federal funding. However as linked by Wnt does claim it will be privately funded. Perhaps the construction is privately financed but they have a contract with the government for using or for developing stuff in the facility.
 * Beyond the defence/homeland security stuff, it seems clear from they have good relations with the federal government. (Edit: The secondary source I provide later also mentions a several military bodies they worked with.) As Wnt noted the project page mention 'homeland security' and the description mentions 'which will include a secure testing area for first responder technology with the benefit of proximity to the civil and commercial infrastructure'. The pictures are also interesting but it's easily possible the web designer just used them randomly. I thought perhaps they're planning to destroy stuff, plant IEDs and stuff like that (you can stimulate some of this, but perhaps there are advantages to real world testing) to help test their first responder technology, but this earlier source  suggests there will be no destructive testing. (I wonder how far that goes though. Does it mean they won't burn buildings to test automated fire engines, for example?)
 * It also notes a lack of information on what they're planning to do there. Interesting it notes they did earlier seek some state funding for a feasibility study, but it was denied. The amount they plan to spend seems questionable to me. The above source says construction cost is estimated at $400 million. This one says $200 million. (Given this is a private venture apparently trying to win over the government and people in some fashion by emphasing how good it's going to be, I actually trust the lower figure more.)
 * Either way what's happening with the other $600-800 million they are allegedly going to spend and when are they going to spend it? Is this the amount they estimate they will invest in their own research using the town over its lifespan (which would potentially be decades)? If so, it makes the costs slighly more reasonable. Note that the older source also mentions $1 billion but in a different way 'But with research contracts, user fees, selling surplus utilities, and other methods of generating revenue, CITE's overall value could easily reach $1 billion.'
 * If we look at their other projects, beyond the commercial space launch thing, they also have and . Are they planning to make self reproducing military robots and want to keep them away from the general population in case things go wrong? ;-)
 * Nil Einne (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If they bother with maintenance costs the town should be in fine condition when they are done with it. Their plan might involve a substantial portion of their profits coming from the sale of the town. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but who wants to live in a town full of top-secret prototype spy devices? (Yeah, I know, I know ... the point of the research is that by the time the town is up for sale, those devices will be in every town, everywhere in the world) Wnt (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds like the plot of Eureka. StuRat (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Almost makes you wonder where that show got its funding. A substantial portion of entertainment shows is product placement, after all. Wnt (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Crude oil, 'condensate'
What exactly is 'condensate', used in reference to crude oil production, and more specifically to substance or product that can be stolen, as is done in the case of oil 'bunkering' in the Niger Delta? Thanks if you can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.219.135 (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this article is going to help. :) 16:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a start, but it refers specifically to natural gas. Maybe that's the answer I was looking for, but it isn't clear to me that bunkering and 'artisanal refining' processes referred to natural gas. Anybody else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.219.135 (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, oil will evaporate and recondense, just like water. This occurs at a much slower rate, at STP, than water, however.  But, at the high temperatures used in some refinery processes, the amount of condensate may be significant. StuRat (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Possible confusion could be that condensate, which is in gaseous form underground condenses out as it reaches the surface and is then treated as a liquid. Bunkering in this case just means illegally extracting the liquid hydrocarbons, including presumably condensate. 'Artisanal refining', however, would just be on crude oil I think. Mikenorton (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Historical rate of beta decay?
Have the light curves of distant supernova been studied to see if the beta decay rates have remained constant for the last several billion years? Hcobb (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think not. We can predict the general form of the energy spectrum of the (observable) beta particle, but not the absolute decay rate, from a simple theory proposed by Fermi. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

free space in atoms 2
Recently this was posted: yes, free space is being slowly added everywhere. The reason you don't notice your head slowly expanding is a combination of two things: A) the expansion is very slow, at a couple thousandths the diameter of a proton every second per meter; and B) "Space is expanding" means that things are getting farther apart, but the laws of physics are not changing. The nuclei of atoms and the atoms of molecules are still held together by the same forces as always, and they aren't going to go flying apart because a teeny force has been applied. -Someguy1221

My question is: It also implies that when we look at things extremely far from us they are actually smaller than their present state because we are seeing them so far in the past (when they were smaller). Does that make sense?165.212.189.187 (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Not if the light bringing you the image of those items is spreading apart at the same rate as the original object. StuRat (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No, Stu, photons are point particles.165.212.189.187 (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, the reason you don't notice the expansion of free space within your head isn't merely because of the rate of expansion. The expansion is only observable between objects which are not otherwise bound to each other by other forces, such as gravity or electromagnetism.  The forces holding the atoms and molecules inside of your head together is more than sufficient to overcome the expansion.  Even something as diffuse as a galaxy is not subject to the expansion of free space, as gravity is sufficient to hold a galaxy together.  See Metric expansion of space which explains some of the details of this oft-misunderstood concept.  So no, objects in the past were not smaller than they are today, its just that the space between the really BIG objects (like galactic superclusters was less.  Distantly in the past, even galaxies were the same size as they are today, and certainly anything smaller was.  -- Jayron  32  18:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've not studied cosmology anytime recently (in any case, my memory is fuzzy on what I did study on this), so I need to ask something about this explanation. You say that "...the space between the really BIG objects (like the space between the really BIG objects (like galactic superclusters was lesss was less." Same question as the OP's for these objects. Is there evidence that the more distant galactic superclusters were nearer to each other? Or is it that cosmological inflation conveniently explains away any lack of such evidence for this assertion? Update: Having now taken a glance at the cosmological inflation article, I see that it does answer the OP's (and mine) question! --Modocc (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The superclusters were once closer together. In principle this can be seen directly with telescopes. I don't know whether it can in practice. I think you're mistaken about the inflation article answering your question, though, because the superclusters didn't form until a very long time after the inflationary epoch. -- BenRG (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see I need to clarify my post, for I was not suggesting that the superclusters are thought to have been nearer due to the hypothesized cosmological inflation. Instead, I've always understood that the lack of direct observation of an expansion has been due to the overall homogeneity created by the initial hypothetical expansion. If it were not for this hypothesis, which the article details, we would be observing an expansion at much smaller scales and, in addition, even with the hypothesis in place, we have, apparently, not yet directly observed the left-over expansion at the largest scales either. --Modocc (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * None of this makes any sense to me. Are you talking about expansion during the inflationary epoch or subsequent expansion? Can you point to the part of the cosmic inflation article that you're using as a source? -- BenRG (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Inflation answers the classic conundrum of the Big Bang cosmology: why does the universe appear flat, homogeneous, and isotropic in accordance with the cosmological principle when one would expect, on the basis of the physics of the Big Bang, a highly curved, heterogeneous universe?" In other words, the universe is essentially a lot larger and appears more homogenous than it would be otherwise. --Modocc (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Inflation does provide the necessary initial conditions to end up with the universe we see now, and it does hide information about the nature of the universe before inflation, but it doesn't hide information about the subsequent expansion. If we didn't know about the expansion then we wouldn't know about the necessary initial conditions that inflation turns out to provide. It's always subjective what counts as direct evidence for something, but traditionally the most important piece of evidence for the expansion of the universe was the distance-dependent redshift of galaxies, and now it's probably the CMBR. In principle, if you plot all the superclusters at a given distance (or lookback time), there will be less empty space between them the larger the distance. I don't know whether the available data is good enough to detect that. -- BenRG (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "The forces holding [you] together [are] more than sufficient to overcome the expansion" is wrong. There is no expansion to overcome. Yes, the matter you're made of used to be uniformly expanding hydrogen gas, but it isn't any more. It doesn't retain any memory of its former expanding state. The superclusters are moving away from each other because of leftover momentum from the big bang, but the matter in your body doesn't have any leftover momentum relative to other matter in your body.


 * "Free space is being slowly added everywhere" is also wrong. There's no concept in general relativity of space being added somewhere. Space doesn't behave like a substance. The cosmological constant does act to stretch you apart (it behaves as a repulsive force). Likewise, ordinary self-gravitation acts to compress you. You don't change size for the same reason you don't shrink under the influence of air pressure. Even if the gravitational effect was very large, comparable to the effect of air pressure, you presumably wouldn't notice it for the same reason you don't notice air pressure. Being aware of it would not enhance your differential reproductive success. -- BenRG (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What you said seems to contradict the current cosmological theories. I guess I will link to metric expansion of space again.  The point is that distant objects aren't moving away from each other at constant relative velocity, they're actually accelerating away from one another.  The geometry of space-time apparently has some intrinsic curvature (even in the absence of gravitational fields).  You can view this as free space expanding in time.  But the effect is only noticeable on a large scale. Rckrone (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * When people talk about the expansion of the universe they're talking about the relative velocity of the superclusters. The velocity changes very slowly over time, but that acceleration isn't what people mean by "the expansion of the universe". The relative velocity of the superclusters is just inertia. It's not associated with spacetime curvature. People describe this as "space being added" between the superclusters. I think this is silly. I suppose it's not wrong as such, for the same reason that it's not right: it just has no meaning in any actual experimentally verified physical theory.


 * The acceleration is associated with spacetime curvature, whether it's attractive (ordinary gravitation) or repulsive (the dark energy). Spacetime curvature is not the same as adding or removing space either. Again, this concept just doesn't exist in general relativity.


 * You can't say that spacetime has intrinsic curvature in the absence of a gravitational field, because the gravitational field is spacetime. You probably mean in the absence of matter. But we don't know if empty space is "really empty" or filled with a dark energy field of some sort. -- BenRG (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The intrinsic curvature of space-time is what this thread is about, and that's also what the term "metric expansion" refers to. The original question is why this curvature of space-time doesn't cause a person's head to expand.  You wrote a post saying that such an effect doesn't exist and that the universe is only expanding because of inertia.  That's incorrect (at least according to current theories).  Metric expansion would cause the particles in your body to accelerate away from each other, but as others already explained this is easily overcome by the usual forces that hold your body together.  Actually I'm sort of confused by your answer since you later acknowledge that the cosmological constant acts as a repulsive force.
 * As for whether "space is being added," that obviously doesn't mean anything precise. There are various ways to intuitively understand the idea of metric expansion, and that one seems fine to me. Rckrone (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Whenever I talk about this I feel obliged to mention the cosmological constant because otherwise someone will follow up with "but what about...". What I was trying to make clear is that the cosmological constant doesn't deserve special mention because it's not fundamentally different from the attractive force of gravity. In the static (non-expanding) Einstein universe you could perfectly well ask "why don't I continually shrink under my own self-gravitation?" and the answer would be the same as in an expanding universe. Likewise you could ask why you don't continually expand under the influence of the positive cosmological constant (since the Einstein universe has that too, despite being static), and the answer would be the same as in an expanding universe.
 * The other thing I always say is that the expansion of the universe is velocity (inertia), not acceleration (force). A few times in the past I've mentioned the Milne universe, which is an exact solution to the Friedmann equations with Ω=0 (versus Ω≈1 in the real world). It is an eternally expanding universe (there being nothing to slow it down) with a scale factor that goes as a(t) ~ t. It's infinite in size and spatially hyperbolic. It follows Hubble's law, including the part where it says that sufficiently distant objects have a recession velocity larger than c. Despite all this, the spacetime curvature is zero everywhere, and in fact the spacetime is simply Minkowski spacetime. It's a nice counterexample to a lot of misconceptions in cosmology, including the idea that expansion is tied to curved spacetime.
 * Here are some previous threads where I talked about the Milne universe: Shape of the Universe, Light from just after the Big Bang, Infinite amount of mass in the universe?. -- BenRG (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Big rip. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's relevant... -- BenRG (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Maltose vs Lactose
Is there a simple test other than "Osazone test" to differentiate between Maltose and Lactose ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.202.92.186 (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If you are capable of purifying out the sugar, you could just test for its solubility in water or its melting point. Both are noticeably different between maltose and lactose. For a more hilarious test, you could feed large quantities to a lactose intolerant and see if they develop explosive diarrhea. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

lol this isn't a simple test ! Is there something easier than finding a lactose intolerant or testing the melting points ? I mean the osazone test sounds easier — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.202.92.74 (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, even easier, taste them. Maltose and lactose have distinctly different flavors. You'll have to consume a known quantity of each first so you know how to tell them apart. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.202.92.242 (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * They have quite different optical rotations. Use a polarimeter. Rmhermen (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One appears (according to their articles' infoboxes) to be 5x as soluble as the other in water near room temperature. DMacks (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

In so-called "99% ethanol", is this 99% by concentration or mass? --150.203.114.37 (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
It typically means 99% by volume. But you should be aware that "concentration" is a vague term. It could mean by volume, mass, moles, or even heterogenous measures, like mass per volume. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * With that many significant figures it is not going to make any difference, as the contaminant is probably water with a density not too far from ethanol. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 99% is a very strange concentration. 96% or 100% would be more normal. Perhaps this means around 99% alcohol plus 1% denaturing agent. Rmhermen (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am aware of so-called 99% alcohol liquors, 198-proof. The one reliable source I found was for illegal moonshine concentrated to an absurd degree, possibly with non-distilling drying methods as well as traditional distillation. HominidMachinae (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Alcohol, whether for consumption, medical or other purposes, usually has a percentage indicated by volume (v/v, ABV, etc). FiggyBee (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)