Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2017 October 12

= October 12 =

Detecting a primitive alien civilization
Is it possible to detect an alien civilization which has not yet entered its industrial revolution? I know that a civilization which has invented radio communications can be detected by its radio transmissions (that's the most well-known way of detecting alien civilizations, and it's also how our own civilization will most likely be detected); one which has harnessed electricity, but not yet radio waves, can be detected by lights on the ground (i.e. a glow from the planet's dark side which is over and above that caused by atmospheric refraction of the star's light); one which makes use of heat engines, but not yet electricity, can be detected by industrial pollutants in the atmosphere (although it could be hard to tell them apart from volcanic gases, especially from several light-years away); but I don't know how it would be possible to detect a civilization which hasn't yet invented heat engines! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:756C:F81D:F1A7:3FB4 (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably not. How could you detect them? They're not transmitting. They're not producing an anthropocene effect on their planet (if they are, I think they've "industrialised"). There aren't even that many of them yet, because that relies on industrialisation of food production. Nazca lines aren't really that big, or likely to be visible off-planet. Perhaps damming a large watercourse would be the most visible, but how big a dam can a pre-industrial society make?
 * There have been animal extinctions achieved by pre-industrial societies developing powerful hunting techniques. But those are unlikely to be evident off-planet. Some, such as the Moa, leave little trace, but removing a large herd grazer like the bison might change vegetation enough to be visible. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And besides, even if you saw the changes in vegetation from several light-years away, how would you tell whether these are natural or anthropogenic? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:756C:F81D:F1A7:3FB4 (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking long straight tracks are the best bet. It seems like ancient civilizations all over the world would get it into their heads to make really long, really straight "ceremonial" roadways.  I wonder if there is some extraordinary astronomical witchery that would allow you to wring the representation of long straight features out of a planet's light without actually resolving an image at anywhere near that resolution... (I highly doubt it, but they've surprised me before). Wnt (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Beware a "canals of Mars" situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. Using straight lines or near-perfect shapes as an indicator of intelligent design is dangerous. Also, if you have the viewing power to see, say, Roman roads in Britain, you could probably see campfires and other forms of controlled illumination, which would be much better indicators. Matt Deres (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And also, it's unlikely that we would be able to see roads from several light-years away -- we can barely see the Great Wall of China from the Moon with a spyglass, so seeing such things from light-years away would take a resolution thousands of times greater than what we have now! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:756C:F81D:F1A7:3FB4 (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * That resolution may be possible, you just need a much larger telescope. StuRat (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The Old Straight Track managed to see lines close-up when they may not have been any. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe you assume they would be detected in the near future or from the Solar System but it seems unlikely to happen soon. If we discuss future discoveries then we may send unmanned probes to promising planets, probably fast flybys at first to not carry fuel for breaking. It's also possible we establish radio contact with an advanced civilization which sends us some nice closeups of simpler civilizations but I guess that's cheating (and they could be cheating us). PrimeHunter (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is some evidence (William Ruddiman was an early champion) that even in pre-industrial times humans did influence the composition of the atmosphere via agriculture. With a sample size of one (and incomplete observations of that one sample) it's hard to determine if this signal can be isolated spectroscopically, but it is not out of the question. We are quite certain that we could find good evidence for life by observing exoplanets when they transition in fron of their sun this way. It needs some upgrades to our observing equipment, but we will get there, unless some moron manages to arrest our development. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey, President Trump is NOT a moron, and you keep your politics OUT of this! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:756C:F81D:F1A7:3FB4 (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe not. But according reports, the Secretary of State of the United States of America called him (and so we can assume thinks he is) a fucking moron [//www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/16/rex-tillerson-at-the-breaking-point] [//newrepublic.com/minutes/145177/rex-tillerson-just-called-president-smart-not-deny-called-moron] [//www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.815879] [//reason.com/blog/2017/10/04/2014-moron-tweet-by-donald-trump-kinda-p], something the Secretary of State didn't deny. So maybe StS wasn't far off. Nil Einne (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That is an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY, which is a LOGICAL FALLACY! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:756C:F81D:F1A7:3FB4 (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Um no it's not. The Secretary of State works very closely with the president, so is likely to have a far better idea of what sort of person Trump is. Definitely a far better idea than either me, you or StS. The Secretary of State also seems to have had a fair experience with all sorts of people, including all sorts of leaders, so again, has a vast array of experience to judge such things. Note that "moron" nowadays is generally used widely to refer to a variety of different character traits so there's actually no way someone's moroness can be proven either way. So ultimately the opinions of people with sufficient experience is the only real evidence that exists. In any case, my comment does not say Trump was definitely a moron, instead simply that according to various reports, he was described as a fucking moron by someone who knows him, as I've said, far better than anyone on the RD. While this person has not confirmed that description, many sources have noted a non-denial denial was given. Again, this doesn't mean that description was definitely correct, but so far as I said below, the evidence presented in this thread he is not was not is basically zero. Some random dude who says they want to leave the RD, but then hangs around, isn't exactly a good source. And irrelevant stuff on other issues are, well irrelevant to the question. Nil Einne (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Its amazing how much time and effort is spent by sufferers of Trump Derangement Syndrome[ http://www.wnd.com/2017/06/understanding-trump-derangement-syndrome/ ] on such pedantic ephemera. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:9480:46FD:87 25:3114 (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it's funny to watch how post-industrial humans react when you take away the health care that they assumed they would be able to use to prolong their lives. Eventually they will come to understand that medicine is a dark witchcraft for the rich and that God allows only rest and prayer for healing, and that those who edit medical articles on Wikipedia ought to be burnt at the stake, but it may take one or two generations. Wnt (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right, Obamacare took away health care from 28% of those whose income falls below the poverty level (health insurance does not equal health care) since they either cannot afford deductibles or pay the fine since they can't afford the premiums. But once TDS becomes a medically recognized mental health condition, the elites can get treatment. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:9480:46FD:8725:3114 (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well you seem to be spending more time defending Trump so..... In any case, that's has zero to do with the point at hand, namely whether the description of Trump as a moron is supported by anything and the answer to that appears to be it is. Funnily enough instead of at least providing evidence that Trump is not a moron, all we've received are unrelated boring other comments. Nil Einne (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * DO NOT strike out another editors comments unless you have their permission or the editor is a sock. It serves zero purpose and is confusing. If your regard something as a BLP-vio sufficient for removal then remove it and make sure you note you have done so. Nil Einne (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Something else visible from space is slash and burn agriculture. Distinguishing those fires from naturally occurring fires could be tricky, but some type of statistical analysis might shed some light on this hot topic.  StuRat (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * If the fields are rectangular in shape and large enough in size, they can be recognized as artificial. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:756C:F81D:F1A7:3FB4 (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It's difficult to precisely control the shape of this type of fire, but they might be closer to rectangular than wildfires. StuRat (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Understanding physics formula intuitively
When I see:

$$v = v_0 + at$$,

it's intuitively clear to me that you pick the initial velocity and add the acceleration multiplied by the amount of time. So you obtain the end velocity.

However, when I see:

$$x - x_0 = v_0t + \frac{a t^2}{2}$$

or

$$v^2 = v_0^2 + 2a(x - x_0)$$,

things start to get muddier. I obviously can calculate $$v^2$$, but how can $$v^2$$ and similar stuff be intuitively understood? Is any element of the formula meant to have meaning, in the same way that $$at$$ means 'how long you applied acceleration'?Hofhof (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You could try looking at the derivation of the formulas, which goes back to the "what it really means" idea. Sometimes the way they are standardly written is the result of lots of algebraic/arithmatic simplification, which loses the "obviousness". For example:
 * $$x - x_0 = v_0t + \frac{a t^2}{2}$$
 * means that a change of position is due to the initial speed for a certain length of time plus the added speed due to acceleration for that time. The difference of speed after acceleration is &Delta;vt=at. But you don't want the final, you want the average over the time; the average of a linear series is halfway between the endpoints, so there's a factor of 1/2 for the constant acceleration. In both terms (initial speed for time and accelerated speed for time), the change of position is speed•time, so v0•t and (1/2)(at)•t. DMacks (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * When you see velocity squared, it is logical to think of kinetic energy, and one way of viewing the second equation is via conservation of energy. Suppose a constant force F is applied to a mass m which was initially traveling velocity v0 when at position x0, and eventually traveling velocity v when at position x.  Work done on the mass is equal to force times displacement, and the final kinetic energy will be the initial kinetic energy plus that work, so:
 * 0.5 m v2 = 0.5 m v02 + F(x - x0)
 * Divide both sides by 0.5 m:
 * v2 = v02 + 2(F/m)(x - x0)
 * Since force is equal to mass times acceleration, F/m = a, giving you your equation.
 * In words, twice the final specific kinetic energy is equal to twice the initial specific kinetic energy plus twice the acceleration (or specific force) times the displacement. (All those twices seem redundant when you say it, but that comes from simplifying the equation so that you have a 2 in a single term instead of a 1/2 in two terms.)
 * Congratulations for seeking the intuitive meaning in equations, and not just accepting and memorizing them. (Although learning an equation by rote, or perhaps learning how to derive it by rote, is not necessarily a bad thing as long as you also make sure you understand the meaning.) -- ToE 18:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's probably worth adding that conservation of energy is not necessary to derive this equation, but that the laws of motion give rise to this particular conservation equation.
 * v2 = (v0+at)2 = v02 + 2v0at + a2t2 = v02 + 2a(v0t + at2/2) = v02 + 2a(x-x0)
 * with the last step utilizing your first equation. But it's much harder to remember some random equation with velocity squares without understanding what it is saying about conservation of energy.
 * Also note that, with a knowledge of calculus, physics becomes much easier. Without it, a lot of formula are derived via what can look like algebraic trickery.  With calculus, derivation is much more straight forward and the resulting equations look much more familiar. -- ToE 14:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I would say
 * $$x - x_0 = \Delta x = \frac{v_0 + (v_0 + at)}{2} t$$

In other words, the change in velocity occurs at a constant rate, so overall the average velocity is the average of v0 and v0 + at. Take that times t and you get your delta x. Wnt (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Vertebral column in the center
I've read that because the human vertebral column is located closer to the back, the head's center of mass is accordingly shifted backwards. As such, neck muscles experience a greater strain to support the head (which reportedly causes those cracking joints in the neck when we flex it). What if the vertebral column were located just below the head's center, so that its weight on the spine and muscles would be distributed more evenly? Is it anatomically/physiologically possible in theory? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, assuming you want the rib cage to touch the vertebral column, the latter has to be on the edge of the cage's approximate cylinder. Maybe you could design it some other way, but that seems like the obvious constraint in what you describe. Tigraan Click here to contact me 17:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Natural selection has generated ways to offset the centre of gravity problem to some degree, e.g. ligamentum nuchae, which helps steady the head when running. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuchal_ligament RichYPE (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Evolution
I don't understand something about evolution. Evolution is the survival of the fittest to pass on his genes. However, fate can strike at any time. Say the biggest and strongest lion is randomly stuck by a small meteorite from space. Evolution wouldn't seem to work in that case? He was the fittest but he didn't pass on his genes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.77.232.163 (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2017‎ (UTC)
 * What is the basis for "biggest and strongest" being the (or even the most important part of the) definition of "fittest"? The event you propose selects for "stay in a cave unless you need to be out hunting" behavior, which seems like a generally advantageous idea to reduce risk of injury/death from all sorts of external causes. DMacks (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * He wasn't suddenly the biggest and strongest lion, he grew up. During that phase of his life he probably passed on his genes:-)
 * He must have been a cheeky monkey. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:852E:7393:15B7:B79E (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The unlucky lion struck down by a meteorite doesn't get to contribute to the gene pool; but, in the long run, those who manage to survive long enough to reproduce, will. And, on the evolutionary timescale, the gene pool is more like a gene ocean. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:852E:7393:15B7:B79E (talk)


 * You need to use more lions. "The one strongest lion will survive" isn't evolution, it's Ayn Rand. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Success breeds success" -- literally, in this case. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:852E:7393:15B7:B79E (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Or to put it in more words: evolution by differential survival is a statistical process. As long as meteorite falls are rare enough compared to other causes of death or inability to reproduce (e.g. failing to catch one's meal or to correctly breathe), evolutionary pressure will still favor the later. Tigraan Click here to contact me 17:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Evolution works when you consider the average of a large population. Individual fit animals are only a little more likely to survive and pass on their genes. And note that fit in evolution means well-adapted to the environment and not physically strong. You are often more fit if you are stronger but strength usually requires more food and may end up being a disadvantage. "Fate" like random events and changes in the enviroment can have a big influence both on individuals and whole populations. Fit today may be unfit tomorrow. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * More to the point, evolution is something that happens at the level of populations, not on the level of individuals. What happens to one individual lion is meaningless; what happens to thousands of lions over thousands of generations is what drives evolution.  It's a statistical process, not an individually deterministic process.  -- Jayron 32
 * Minor Quibble : What happens to the individual is not strictly meaningless. A beneficial mutation may start with a single individual. I'm sure countless billions of beneficial mutations have been lost to bad luck like the question-asker supposes.
 * It's just that since most evolutionary changes are minor, (say +0.5% to hunting ability), its advantage can only be really appreciated statistically by the effect it has on large groups. ApLundell (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In addition to what everyone else has said: that lion will likely have relatives, who will share some of his genes. He may be killed, but unless his advantage(s) are due to new mutations, his relatives will still be able to pass on those genes.  Also note that "fitness" really means "fit for purpose" (specifically, the "purpose" of having surviving offspring) rather than being the biggest/ strongest/ fastest/ toughest.  ( And if meteorite strikes are common, then being smaller and so less likely to be hit will be an advantage ). Iapetus (talk) 09:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The biggest and strongest dinosaurs still went extinct. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, so did much megafauna at the quaternary extinction event. — Paleo  Neonate  – 09:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Per Iapetus: Also something people commonly miss, ignore, or misunderstand is the evolutionary processes operate on a continuous feedback loop; the environment itself consists of living things which themselves are changing; so changes to the environment generate more changes in other things, and that is laregly why there is no fixed meaning for "fittest"; indeed any trait which makes one species more "fit" will encourage other species to change to adapt to that new trait, reducing it's fitness. Evolution is thus a system of Dynamic equilibrium, which is akin to the chemical concept, and at a broad view, living systems obey Le Chatelier's principle: perterbations to a system at equilibrium cause the system to respond to reduce the effect of the perturbation in the long term, thus any advantageous mutation to one species in an ecosystem encourages other species in the system to change in such a way as to minimize the advantage of such a change.  -- Jayron 32 10:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In other words: "Evolutionary arms race" — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:9480:46FD:8725:3114 (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC) (Jayron didn't have the time to write a shorter answer)


 * Also note that "biggest and strongest" doesn't always win the evolutionary race. If it did, every species of animal would steadily get bigger and stronger, up to whatever maximum size is possible, in the range of the sizes of dinosaurs on land and whales in the water.  Why doesn't biggest and strongest always win ?  Some reasons:


 * 1) It requires more calories to support a bigger and stronger animal. Thus, during periods of starvation, they may be the first to die out.  (They could live off their fat, but "strong" implies lots of muscle and little fat.)  Also, to feed itself, a larger animal would need a larger range, which implies more dangers.


 * 2) Similarly, they require more water, and may be the first to die of dehydration in droughts.


 * 3) Large animals also would tend to overheat more quickly in hot climates, like Africa, due to the square-cube law.


 * 4) Larger animals may take longer to turn, and be outmaneuvered by smaller animals.


 * 5) In the case of prey animals, fewer hiding places may be large enough to conceal them, and their odor may be more noticeable by predators.


 * 6) In the case of tree-dwelling species, smaller branches become unable to support their weight. A similar problem occurs for insects that walk on the surface of water.


 * 7) In the case of flying birds, take-off and landing becomes more problematic, and flapping is a less useful method to gain altitude and speed.


 * 8) When we add human hunters to the mix, hunting preferentially the largest and strongest specimens, that will have an obvious effect. StuRat (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 9) → 1.1) An earth-shattering cataclysm messes things up; big critters can't find enough food. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:198D:93E0:4AF4:F57D (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * That seems to mainly be a proper subset of my item 1, although there's also a possibility that oxygen concentration in the air must be higher to support larger animals, and that these large-scale extinction events correspond with drops in the oxygen level. StuRat (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1.2) An earth-shattering cataclysm messes things up even more; destruction of habitat suitable for vegetation reduces oxygen required by big critters. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:198D:93E0:4AF4:F57D (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Protein
According to this article;


 * "the thermic effect of food increases ≈ 29 kJ/4184 kJ of ingested food for each increase of 10 percentage points in the percentage of energy from protein. In other words, if a subject therefore consumes an 8368 kJ/d diet with 30% energy from protein, then the thermic effect of food will be 58 kJ/d higher than if protein contributes only 20% of the dietary energy."

I have two requests;


 * 1) ) Firstly, I'm a little confused by what the above quote is actually saying. Is it saying that the thermic effect of protein actually increases when a diet contains more protein, ie digestion becomes more inefficient the more protein a diet contains? Or just that protein has a set thermic effect?
 * 2) ) I'm interested in more studies regarding the thermic effect of protein, especially very high or 100% protein diets.

Thanks for your time. 118.174.164.32 (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you read Specific dynamic action (aka: Thermic effect of food) yet?
 * Re: #1, the author probably didn't have the time to write a shorter article. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:852E:7393:15B7:B79E (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)