Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2017 November 28

= November 28 =

Lava and Molten Rock
In its reports on the imminent eruption of Mt Agung, the BBC keeps referring to "lava and molten rock". Is there some technical distinction I'm not aware of? Rojomoke (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect they're just illiterate, but being generous, they might be thinking of lahar, which was mentioned in at least one report on their website. HenryFlower 11:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * In one of their reports they use "magma, a volatile mixture of molten rocks, fluids and gases", but those are the words of volcanologist Janine Krippner. Note that magma only becomes lava when it reaches the surface. Mikenorton (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There is a tendency in the UK to use lava when referring to the cooled and solidified form - I would happily say that I have a couple of lumps of lava in the cupboard (a souvenir of a visit to Iceland). The BBC phrasing may simply be designed to avoid that misunderstanding. Wymspen (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Technically, lava is defined as magma that has reached the surface, whereas molten simply means "melted". So rock that was solid but then heated by lava could potentially be molten rock.  (That quantities of such rock would be heated so much as to glow is doubtful.)  In this case I suspect the copywriter was padding his prose as either a hack writer with bad writing habits or due to a perverse incentive such per-word compensation or a deadline specifying a total word-count. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Or they just didn't know the difference. See Hanlon's law.  -- Jayron 32 16:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "Perverse" here "means self-defeating" / "inconveniencing" rather than dirty-old-mannish or malicious. μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "Malicious" means "doing wrong with foreknowledge it is wrong", that is knowing that padding one's word-count is not a good practice, and still doing it anyways. Hanlon's law applies because that assumes the writer was trying to pad their word-count artificially (which is a malicious practice); the more reasonable assumption was that the writer lacked the knowledge necessary to adequately distinguish between lava and melted rock (Hanlon's law being "assume stupidity before malice") -- Jayron 32 14:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * That implies a contradiction. If we assume that the writer thought lava and molten rock were the same thing (was unaware of the difference between them) why would he mention both as separate things?  Also, padding is a habit most writers I have worked with fall into.  I have done a lot of paid editting, and "redundant" is by far the most common problem I encounter.  In any case, I never did impute malice as a motive for the writer's action.  I simply mentioned perverse in a technical sense that in no way implies malice.  This is off topic, and I think we understand each other; I do generally agree with Hanlon's law. I just wouldn't invoke it as relevant here, but that's a matter of judgment. μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hanlon's Law is familiar here as WP:AGF.   This is a well - known literary device, used to good effect by Thomas Cranmer in the  Book of Common Prayer, . 82.13.208.70 (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The best university for Science
What is the Best university for science? For Physics Study? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danfarid133 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Define "best". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * While it depends on your criteria, I think a reasonable case can be made for a group of top universities, e.g. the University of Cambridge, the University of Chicago, the ETH Zürich, the California Institute of Technology, and so on. Among these top universities, it really depends on specific area of interest and personal preferences. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. See the guidelines at the top of the page. μηδείς (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Good thing we have several smart people here who know how to provide references, rather than constantly WP:BITE and push our patrons away. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There are many league tables of such. However I'd suggest that you define "physics" as a bit narrower. My own BSc is from a university with a strong reputation for Applied Physics (and lasers in particular) within the engineering faculty, but much more average for the general Physics course in another faculty. This is particularly so if you're considering cosmology or the most abstract of theoretical physics. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What does "league tables" mean, besides the standings of sports teams? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There are tons of rankings for universities, with various sets of criteria / methodology. Unexplicably, pretty much every time, the university doing or commissioning the study ends up in higher place than in the other ratings. Tigraan Click here to contact me 17:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In the UK, such league tables are generally commissioned by the heftier newspapers (read avidly by the parents of prospective students). Andy Dingley (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Do UK news magazines rank unis too? The U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking is a popular one. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The UK doesn't really have serious middlebrow news magazines to the same extent as the US. The presumed leader as a broadsheet newspaper would be the Times Ed., but for a long time The Guardian has been the more popular amongst parents, and of course The Independent would then want to do the same. New Scientist would be another place to look. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This may help the OP. There are several well-regarded ratings for universities based on their specific academics programs.  -- Jayron 32 17:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Be careful with the league tables. The best uni for an undergraduate may not be the best research university, etc. Greglocock (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)