Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 November 12

= November 12 =

Softening Hair with Electricity
Is it possible to soften hair with electricity. I want develop a electric razor that softens hair as you shave. I am trying to replicate the condition your hair is in after a hot shower. It is well established you get a better shave when the hair softened prior blade shaving. I am not sure if TENS technology would apply in this case. Any suggestion would be appreciated174.17.240.215 (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems unlikely - I think it's the heat and humidity that changes the nature of hair in the shower - which is (in part), the reason that some people have "bad hair days" in hot and humid weather (another reason is something to do with copper plumbing pipes!). You might (maybe) use mild electrical stimulation to the skin to induce the hairs to stand more upright...and I'm almost sure I recall someone selling such a thing back in the 1970's or so. SteveBaker (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Dr White's" was the main brand before the war - see this, for example - but I don't remember anything similar being available as recently as the 1970's. Tevildo (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Wind force as concrete design factor
How thick concrete is needed to withstand a 100 m/s wind? I assume the force is 1/2*density*speed²=1/2*1.242*100²=6210 N and the shear strength of cement to be 6000 MPa. I get the required thickness to be 0.26 mm.. which seems wrong. Electron9 (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that this Q can't be answered without asking what is supporting the concrete. If it's just a 0.26 mm thick, tall concrete wall with no rebar, then it will fall over at the slightest breeze. StuRat (talk) 06:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, think of a shed at 15 m² where human can stand. Moulded in solid concrete or cement. So it would be surrounded by other concrete to support it. And rebar is likely to be used. Electron9 (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If the OP hsa been triggered to ask this by Typhoon Haiyan or other similar recent events, it's worth pointing out that it's not the wind alone that causes damage. It's the objects the wind picks up along the way that cause more problems. These can include roofing materials, garden furniture, bicycles, and really, anything you can think of that could be outdoors and blown by wind. So a speed calculated for wind alone is of no practical use in storm damage planning. HiLo48 (talk) 07:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Something is wrong with your approach - your force seems to be independent of the area, and any sailor can tell you that's wrong. You need to take the relationship of load-bearing parts to total surface area (and indeed shape) into account. This becomes a highly non-trivial fluid dynamics problem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Concrete is usually used for its compressive strength while rebar (steel) has tensile strength. Complex and large structures have many different force relationships both static and dynamic.  For smaller structures (like houses), roof is often a lifting force in winds requiring many steel straps to the foundation through other tensile structures like wooden frames.  Any structure where the wind can lift it will need weight to counterbalance the lift and tensile connections to the weight to prevent it.   I suspect your calculation of the shear strength didn't included the weight of the concrete itself and is a compressive, not tensile number.  --DHeyward (talk) 08:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Stephan Schulz, I did a miss, 100 m/s wind should exert at force of 6210 N/m². It's easy to forget such things when measurements are evaluated at 1x1 m size and compared to each other. Electron9 (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Designing concrete walls is a heck of a lot more complicated than you have thought, Electron9. For a start, you need to start with the flexural strength, not the shear strength. In my country we have what is known as the Masonry Code of Australia, which from memory takes at least 20 pages to explain it.  To put boil it down as simple as possible, for any given thickness, for wind loading alone (and as others have said there are lots of other factors) there is a maximum area that must be surrounded by more rigid structure - eg built out pillars, walls at right angles, etc.   There'll be an equivalent industry Code or National Standard in your country. You should obtain a copy.  120.145.90.77 (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I would expect the weak point to be where the concrete attaches to the ground. The wind will exert a torque on the concrete there, causing it to crack at the foundation.  In the diagram below, the cracks would be expected at the plus sign:

->| ->|  ->|    +---


 * In this case, the height (but not the width) of the wall will determine the torque, along with the wind speed. Also, wind speed typically rises further above the ground, so height makes things even worse than you might think.  To counter this effect, you might want to make the concrete thicker at the bottom, and avoid a sharp corner, which can cause force concentration there.  Think of the shape of the bottom of cooling towers; you might want a less extreme version of that shape (it can be vertical at the top, though, unlike a cooling tower).  A circular foundation versus rectangular would also help to distribute the wind loading forces more evenly. StuRat (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Question about forces and slopes
Hi guys

Sorry if this is worded wrong.

If a certain amount of force can move a 30 kg object 20 feet along a horizontal plane, and the same force is used to move an object of the same weight, but this time up an inclined plane, is there a way to find out the angular degree in the slope that will mean that the object only moves half as far? So basicly, If a force can move a 30 kg object 20 feet, on a horizontal plane, and a 30 kg object 10 feet on an inclined plane, what is the degree of the incline? Is it possible to guess at this? Disregarding friction?

regards

Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.127.255 (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * See thread at RD/M here. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)If you disregard friction, then any amount of force can accelerate any object to a non-zero speed, after which it will just keep going. The question makes no sense without friction. If you include friction, you still need to talk about energy, not force - a given force will either move the object (if the force is larger than the friction) or not at all. For the horizontal plane, all your initial energy is lost to friction. You can compute the amount using the mass, the gravitational field, and the coefficient of friction. If you go up an inclined plane, you slightly decrease friction, but are also converting part of the energy to potential energy (by lifting the weight). There are too many variables to estimate this flat out - are you moving a granite block up a rubber surface, or are you moving polished steel on an ice surface? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of argument you are pushing a skate board with a 30 kg child on it, on a concrete horizontal strip, then up a concrete ramp. Does that help at all

Thanks

Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.127.255 (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, that makes it more difficult to estimate: skateboards have wheels, so the correct model for friction is complicated. Wheels lose energy to rolling friction between the axle and the bearing.  They can also slip as they roll, if traction is imperfect.  Both processes are difficult to accurately model as force terms.  This is even more justification for applying a method based on conservation of energy - not directly reckoning with a force.  We can add a correction factor for the non-conservative work that is lost to friction.  Nimur (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd say where the model is difficult to implement correctly, it's best to use a trial-and-error approach to get the answer. StuRat (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Overthinking it. It sounds like a homework problem involving force through a distance vs. potential energy on an incline.  A constant force through 20 feet that is stopped being applied at the ramp of 30 degree angle will travel a certain known distance up the ramp.  It's a straightforward homework problem and I don't do homework anymore. --DHeyward (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

How did addictive behaviors and procrastination evolve in families?
It is known that certain human behaviors are addictive and maladaptive. How did this behavior arise in the first place, and how come it perpetuates itself in families? Wouldn't addiction be a major turn-off during courtship? I am talking substance addiction and behavioral addiction: drug addiction, alcohol addiction, video game addiction, procrastination, etc. 140.254.229.115 (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * By and large drug addiction didn't evolve - not even opium predates agriculture to any significant degree. Other forms of addiction are beyond the ability of evolution to quantify: someone who spends days at the tribal dance or doing online gaming might find some kind of gain from that or not.  Procrastination may pass up opportunities, but it also passes up dangers; the caveman who waited longest before going out to investigate the lion's kill might have been the one who lived to tell the tale! Wnt (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It makes sense. Sometimes, the environment can change, causing certain behaviors to become malaptive in certain situations while other behaviors become more productive, and human tendencies to perform certain behaviors over others may lead offspring to do the same. 140.254.229.115 (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * For a different approach to the problem – Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is strongly correlated with both procrastination and addiction/substance (ab)use (possibly a form of self-therapy). A well-known attempt to explain ADD as having once conveyed an evolutionary advantage is the Hunter vs. farmer hypothesis by Thom Hartmann. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Is the tendency toward either ADD or substance abuse (or both) considered to be more caused by genetics, or by environment? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * ADD has at least partly genetic causes per current consensus, but it's hard to tell which is more important; I lean towards genetic factors being slightly more important at least (of course there are factors which are outside the strict genetic–environmental dichotomy, such as in embryonal development, which can be described as innate but not necessarily genetically caused, though possibly influenced by genetic factors, despite apparent environmental causes; consider that an alcohol-addicted mother can cause harm to her child's development, possibly resulting in mental issues, while her own addiction may have biological factors contributing to its rise, for example by developping a mental instability that makes her react considerably more sensitively to setbacks – this seriously complicates things: if the child develops ADD, this may seem to be caused by the mother's alcohol abuse, but in fact the tendency towards the development of ADD may simply, or additionally, be inherited from the mother, making cause and effect hard to disentangle). Opinions maintaining that ADD is exclusively caused by the environment and should not be treated with drugs at all (not even as part of a multimodal strategy involving behaviour therapy as well) can safely be described as fringe and not supported by research. They are often expressed by authors who believe in some sort of mind-body dualism, and do not agree that mental problems can have somatic causes, often associated with the anti-psychiatry movement. I suspect that biological factors are involved in some, but not necessarily all individuals highly predisposed to addictions as well. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Given the list of things one can become addicted to, it would seem to cover a significant portion of humanity. So maybe there is a natural tendency to become addicted to something. There was an old Cheech and Chong bit where they run into a guy who says, "I used to be all messed up on drugs; then I found the Lord; now I'm all messed up on the Lord." I could argue that defines Johnny Cash perfectly - when he sobered up, he embraced Christianity like a bear. Not that that was a bad thing, and I was a fan of his; but it's said that one addiction will tend to get substituted for another. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Not all addictions are bad, at least from an evolutionary POV. An addiction to food was a healthy thing when starvation was a concern, and eating any food you could find as quickly as possible made sense.  A sex addiction has the obvious evolutionary benefit of passing down more of your genes.  An exercise addiction can be healthy even today. StuRat (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A sex addiction can get you killed, or at least get you bad publicity (and sometimes cost you severely if you run for public office). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * However you define a sex addiction, it doesn't matter if it gets you killed if it leads toward leaving more and still successful children. There's also the estimate that approximately 10% of children result from rape.  See Before the Dawn for this. μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that most addictive substances aren't addictive in the natural form, it's only our ability to breed, refine, or distill them that has made them "strong" enough to become addictive and harmful. Alcohol, for example, occurs naturally in rotting fruit and vegetable matter, but not in quantities that would normally get someone drunk.  Therefore, during most of human evolution, there would be no advantage to evolving genes to resist these addictions. StuRat (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've heard of apes in the wild observed acting drunk after eating overripe fruit, so I'm not sure your assertion is quite correct. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The question would be whether they get addicted or not. That is, do they find that drunkenness so pleasurable that they become great-ape winos on a constant basis, or do they just like to get a buzz on from time to time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * And were humans involved in the process ? So, was the fruit bred to make more alcohol, or did the apes raid a warehouse full of over-ripe fruit, for example.  In nature, they are only likely to find small quantities of over-ripe fruit at a time.  StuRat (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Talking about addiction is like talking about diabetes or cancer. Those words apply to syndromes we see as similar, but which are suites of very different diseases with many different causes, united by one salient feature--malignant tumors or high blood sugar or self-destructive behavior.  That being said, things like thrill-seeking behavior might arise in a population of ice fisherman, some of whom are literally bored to death by the activity, and some of whom get a thrill when they catch a little fish every hour or so. Behaviors like that transplanted to a gambling casino might be maladaptive and called addiction.  That doesn't mean their "addiction" has the same explanation as, say, alcoholism, which might arise when people whose alcohol-tolerant ancestors survived on dilute beer as a safer and more nutritious alternative than unsanitized water when those people are then exposed to cheap hard liquor like gin. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The nature of fishing (as a recreation rather than a vocation) does not necessarily require catching fish. What it requires is a willingness to spend hours doing nothing, i.e. relaxing. I expect relaxation could be addictive too. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about fishing in a modern context, but as an example a tribe of (Arctic/subarctic) people who depend on ice fishing as a large part of their diet in the winter. (We think of arctic peoples as reindeer herders or sea-mammal hunters, but those are relatively recent developments.) In that case you do want both patient dedication and a strong feeling of reward when a fish is caught. Same with the diluted beer example, for which I had in mind Northern Europe during the Middle Ages and until the advent of modern sanitation and distillation. μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Not quite. Addiction is is cured through behavioral changes.  Cancer is not.  To the extent that society wishes not to stigmatize the uncontrollable nature of addiction and therefore quantify it as a disease does not change the variance of onset or treatment.  But ultimately, there will be no determinate reason as to why disease or addiction or any number of differences observed in human beings has not been eradicated by natural selection.  The problem is that either outcome could be rationally explained by the application of the simplistic "survival of the fittest" model.  If there was no addictions we would explain it as eradication through fitness and if there is, it's because certain addictions provided either an advantage or continues to evolve the species.  Therefore, using natural selection as the basis is too simplistic.  It's like like trying to determine if clouds will warm or cool the planet. Everyone feels the cooling effect when a cloud provides shade yet it also provides a blanket that prevents radiation at night.  Clouds are complex in climate modeling.  Human behavior is complex for natural selection.  Indeed, it becomes impossibly complex to identify whether one person is either/or supporting natural selection.  Natural selection is over many populations/generations/variables and it is pointless to identify current features/behaviors as aither an outcome of or input to future selection.  It certainly never applies to an individual person or animal.  The epitome of human evolution could be hit by a bus tomorrow through pure coincidence without having any meaning or input.  --DHeyward (talk) 05:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Assuming you are addressing me, DH, you are denying a bunch of points I haven't made. I didn't say addiction and diabetes are cured the same way, nor diabetes and cancer either.  I didn't address any form of "future selection".  If there were no addictions there would be nothing to explain, including their eradication. And in saying clouds may warm or cool the planet you seem to have missed I said the word addiction covers a suite of behaviors with various causes and effects, the same as the very general word cancer.  But perhaps I assume wrong, and you aren't addressing anything I said. μηδείς (talk) 06:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I was only directing a small part for you and the rest is in general. The only thing that was related to you was treating addiction as a "disease" akin to "cancer".  That's a sociological decision rooted in perception of uncontrollable vs. controllable afflictions.  There are sociological and psychological reasons for treating addiction as a disease similar to cancer but causation and underpinnings are very different.  The reasons to avoid stigmatizing conditions is well understood from a treatment perspective but the science that underpins a behavioral vs. physical condition are real disctinctions.  The broader point is that natural selection is often used to describe minority/majoruty behaviors or features in individual people and it's nonsense.  It simply cannot be applied in the timeline that describe human history, let alone behaviors in individuals or groups.  Even physical predispositions to certain conditions cannot be explained by natural selection in the timeframes of documented human history.  Basically we know the the genome narrowed a long time ago and has flourished since.  Attributing things like longevity or intelligence to different broad classes (let alone addiction in narrower classes) will just lead to an answer that the researcher wants to prove a hypothesis.  There is literally a logical reason for every behavior.  Whether it's something like "violent males" or "passive males", it's easy to make a "natural selection" hypothesis that explains why both would dominate and therefore it tells us nothing about it.  Heck, they use the same type of open solution to explain chimpanzees when they describe the ability of dominant and non-dominant males to reproduce.  The answer is that behavior and choices are too complex and too evolving to describe within the broad umbrella of natural selection.  Nature selects diversity and this is often overlooked.  --DHeyward (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay, thanks for answering. But you seem to have missed my initial point.  I wasn't comparing addiction to cancer in saying that the best treatment would be a specific drug regimen.  I was warning that like cancer, addiction is a blanket term that refers to a whole lot of different syndromes, each of which has to be understood separately and treated appropriately. It is just as wrong to think there is one cure for a monolithic thing called addiction as it is to think there could be one type of pill that could cure all kinds of cancer. μηδείς (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-economic meaning of "exchange rate"?
Deafness has made me aware that there is a meaning or usage of exchange rate apparently unrelated to the familiar economic term. However, while the term in question seems to belong to science, I cannot discern which scientific field exactly it originates from, or whether it even more properly belongs to some mathematical field, such as statistics. I would like to add a disambiguation notice to Exchange rate, but as long as I am unable to determine the exact meaning and context of the non-economic term, I am unable to do this as I have no idea where to send the reader for more information. Anyone able to help? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Read the "What is the exchange rate?" section of this article for more info: . As I understand it, to avoid hearing loss, you can trade off, or exchange, a high volume of noise over a short duration, or a lesser volume of noise over a longer duration. StuRat (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you will find that the term also refers to the rates of ionic exchange across a membrane, and to casualty rates in military conflicts, and there may be other uses as well. DES (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The idea is that for a constant amount of physical motion (+5 dB) or energy (+3 dB) the sound lasts half the duration. Note that this is an utterly absurd idea - it's like saying that dropping a lead weight on your foot is the same as pouring out a bag of lead shot of equal weight (or, at the other extreme, having a lead pellet dropped on your head once a minute for as long as you try to sleep).  I don't know how it was arranged, but the description of environmental noise is the most corrupt, deceitful "science" I've ever encountered.  The dBA scale is meant to ignore low-frequency sound, the exchange rate to ignore loud sound ... even something as basic as a television commercial, which any idiot watching the box knows is louder than the program, is maintained by experts to be at the same volume even when a congress resorts, in pathetic desperation, to passing laws about it! Wnt (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * To understand how loud sounds damage the ear, you need to understand how the ear works. Deafness mostly acrues by damage to the inner ear.  Sound is transmitted to the inner ear by an arrangement of three little bones that fuction as levers to match the low mechanical impedance of the ear drum to the high impedance of the inner ear.  The stapedius muscle acts on one of the three bones - the stapes.  The function of the stapedius muscle is as an automatic volume control.  When it is tensioned, it dampens movement of the bones, reducing the intensity of sound tranmitted to the inner ear.  Without it, our own voices would be deafening, just as your partner's voice is if she talks at normal loudness but with her mouth 3 inches from your ear.  In normal people, the brain tensions the stapedius on a syllable by syllable basis, so you can hear other talkers during the gaps in your own speech.  Ever noticed that when striking metal with a hammer, it doesn't bother you, but others nearby complain about the noise?  That's because your brain knows when the impact noise will occur and tensions your stapedius at just the right time.  The others don't have this happening, so they hear it louder, even if they are a little further away from the noise.
 * Damage to the inner ear occurs primarily when sudden loud sounds occur - guns fired by others being a particular problem. In such cases the inner ear gets the full intensity before the brain can react and tension the stapedius muscle.  In continuous loud noise, the brain tensions the stapedius and there isn't a problem - with a couple of caveats:  1) In the sound is loud enough, AND long enough, the muscle can get tired.  That's why teenagers, young and fit, with good stapedious muscles, can withstand loud music for a whole concert without problem, but a 60-year old may notice pain and/or ringing in the ears quite soon after a loud concert starts.  2)  If you are subjected to continuous loud noise, with occaisonal extra loud sounds as well, your stapedius muscle may be already partially tired and unable to react fully when the extra loud sounds occur.  Note that continous loud sounds (as frequent attendence of loud nightclubs) also results in acclimatisation - you get used to it, just as you get used to higher or lower temperatures eg.  Acclimatisation itself is reversible.
 * You can see from all this that the concept of exchange rate is an oversimplification and somewhat misleading. But it is a way of modelling the fact that the rate at which the stapedius gets tired and unable to control intensity for the inner ear is dependent on two things - the loudness of the sounds, and its duration.  The stapedius only has to tension a moderate amount for moderately loud sounds, so for those it can do its job for longer before it gets tired.  But it can really tension up and make the midlle ear bones just about lock up solid to control really loud sounds for a short period.
 * 120.145.90.77 (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Commercials can be more "insistent", with constant talking sped up to fit more in, so the annoyance factor is higher. StuRat (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm going by the usual standard that if you're in the toilet and you can't hear the television, you know you're missing the program. Wnt (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Then again, if you're in the toilet, your ears might be water-logged. :-) StuRat (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Question about quasi- spacetime?
Since matter, anti-matter and photon can also be associated with eons one one way or the other therefore does time amalgamate with matter (from quantum level to mammoth) besides space? If yes, then how it can be conceived? - I mean mass-time in a simple way162.157.235.1 (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)EEC


 * Unlike matter and energy, which can be converted to each other (converting matter to energy happens in nuclear power, for example), matter and time are not convertible. They do, however, affect each other, as in the case of the spacetime you mentioned. StuRat (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It is very difficult to make sense of what you're saying, i.e. I suspect it doesn't make sense, so you should clarify. I see little indication of "quasi-spacetime" as a term with established meaning.  One sense in which time associates with matter is that a black hole by most interpretations places a singularity in the future of infalling matter, leading to the question, I suppose, of where the time "goes" when it gets there, whether the matter "stops in time" at the singularity, etc.  But a singularity is typically a flaw in a physics model, not a state of being.  Another sense is that during the timeline of the Big Bang different phases predominated during specific times, but in that case there is no real equivalence: time correlated with temperature, temperature correlated with a range of possible particles encountered under those conditions.  Do you mean either of these? Wnt (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you perhaps asking about space-time-matter theory, in which matter in four dimensions is viewed as being induced by geometry in a five-dimensional spacetime? Red Act (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Its just a question came into my mind while thinking if both time and space have raison d'etre innately then why not time has with matter, antimatter, photon, temperature when all born to-gather/ simultaneously?

Matter distorted space-time. The time that appeared with space is also included with the matter by birth too therefore why time is related with space only during the distortion of space-time by matter?

Although, space-time-matter theory might be one of the close answers but is it possible to relate time with matter/ mass separately just like space-time (might not make sense) or all to-gather?162.157.235.1 (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)EEC


 * I think I kind of understand so I will offer an opinion. In my understanding, on of the reasons for the existence of time is the "handedness" Chirality of the universe.  There is not an equal balance of matter and anti-matter (electron, positrons are not equal and the universe has a preference).  My personal interpretation is that this imbalance gives rise to existence and our perception.  Had the universe lacked this asymmetry, there would be no time.  Or possibly the resolution of this imbalance may have consequences regarding time in the future.  --DHeyward (talk) 06:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you're asking, but you might be interested in: Quantum gravity, General relativity, CP violation, CPT theorem, Baryogenesis, Theory of everything, Grand unified theory, Entropy, and Arrow of time. If you'd be willing to elaborate a little more, I'm sure someone would be able to give you a good answer (or, at least, point you in the right direction). :-)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Phoenixia1177

Here is what i am asking http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqZtsueApXI0Kxvz6q3tLEfBFQx.;_ylv=3?qid=20131112223511AAwEUss