Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2020 December 21

= December 21 =

Where does a man's sperm go after a bilateral epididymectomy?
Where does a man's sperm go after a bilateral epididymectomy? Does it permanently remain inside of his testicles or is there some sort of hole at the top of his testicles through which his sperm can flow out of? Futurist110 (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In case of an obstruction to sperm exiting the epididymis, which also occurs after vasectomy, the sperm is reabsorbed. --Lambiam 10:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Does obstruction of sperm usually occur after a bilateral epididymectomy? Futurist110 (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There comes a point where you just have to look up "monomania" and get help. - Nunh-huh 23:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Will discovery of "anyons" bag Nobel prize?
Will discovery of "anyons" bag Nobel prize? Source Rizosome (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * An Anion Anyon is a hypothetical particle proposed by Alexei Kitaev to allow construction of a Topological quantum computer. The annual Nobel Prize in Physics is awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences who interpret Alfred Nobel's testament intended to recognize living persons whose conferring "greatest benefit on mankind" has been "tested by time". You are always free to nominate a winner to the Nobel Committee for Physics. However the OP's question calls for a prize prediction that this Ref. Desk will not give. 84.209.119.241 (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you may have intended to target Anyon with your first link, rather than Anion. Apparently, Abelian anyons have just been discovered (probably prompting the OP's query), but the existence of non-Abelian anyons as postulated by Kitaev await future confirmation. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.56.237 (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC) Thanks, I have corrected. 84.209.119.241 (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to point out that you would need to be at least a university professor to put forward such a nomination.--Shantavira|feed me 15:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC) Says who? 84.209.119.241 (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If I understand this correctly [//www.nobelprize.org/prizes/uncategorized/nomination-and-selection-of-physics-laureates/], you need to be at least an assistant professor of Physics (or similar) to qualify to nominate someone by merit of your position at a university. However, you can also be a Nobel laureate in Physics, member of the Nobel Committee for Physics or member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. But also, you can be any scientist invited to nominate. That said, the total number of nominators is about 3000 and I assume there are at least 800+ who qualify via other means (470+175 from the Royal Swedish Academy [//www.nobelprize.org/about/the-royal-swedish-academy-of-sciences/]), so I wonder how many there are who aren't at least associate professor or similar. Note if you are able to nominate you should have already received your nomination form, so if you have none well I guess you'll have to wait for next year. Nil Einne (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there an actual nomination form sent out to all eligible nominators? Maybe that's feasible with physics but the number of people allowed to nominate others for the Peace prize is probably quite a bit larger, e.g. any member of any national parliament can nominate.  Do you happen to know if self-nominations are allowed?  Asking in case I make an exceptionally good edit one of these days. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The peace prize is selected by the Norwegian Nobel Committee rather than the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences so may use different procedures. As for self-nominations the answer is no "No one can nominate himself or herself." Nil Einne (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Scientifically proving the multiverse theory
Is there any scientific way of proving the multiverse theory? Or is it doomed and condemned to forever remain unfalsifiable? Futurist110 (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no the multiverse theory. There are multiple different multiverse theories, some of which have nothing to do with each other.  For example, the Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is one such multiverse theory, but it is essentially unrelated to Eternal inflation theory, in the sense that neither theory was influenced by, nor contains any overlapping phenomena, between each other.  The Everett many-worlds interpretation, like all of the interpretations of quantum mechanics are essentially unfalsifiable since they don't make testable predictions; they essentially provide people with philosophical frameworks to understand quantum mechanical behavior, but quantum theory itself is sufficient: it makes predictions which have been verified to exceeding precision, prompting some physicists to exhort their colleagues (who were preoccupied with their own particular favorite interpretation) to shut up and calculate.  On the other hand, other theories may contain and testable and falsifiable statements, for example some versions of string theory (especially as proposed by Leonard Susskind, though not uncontroversially) have within them concepts that could be described as a multiverse, as does Eternal inflation with its various "bubble universes" that grow out of the false vacuum.  It's important, however, to reiterate that these various multiverse concepts do not always indicate the same thing, and that "proving" or "disproving" one of them does not necessarily have any impact on the others. -- Jayron 32 18:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Understood. Anyway, when I wrote this, I was specifically thinking of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Is this specific multiverse theory actually falsifiable? Futurist110 (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What evidence is there, if any, to indicate the detection of a parallel universe? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * CMB cold spot describes the interpretation of one piece of observed physical evidence (the cold spot) as being the result of our universe's interaction with a parallel universe. This interpretation is not, of course, uncontroversial. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.2301.95} 2.122.56.237 (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Futurist110: I suggest you read the already linked article Many-worlds interpretation, which directly answers your question, with references you can explore further. The "reception" section you may find particularly elucidating for your research.  If you want to get into the modern understanding of multiverses in a somewhat accessible manner, let me suggest the work of physicist and science communicator Sean M. Carroll, who while also being the greatest modern water carrier for Everett's Many Worlds interpretation in its purest form, is also a strong proponent of the other type of multiverse (the multiple "Big Bang"-type of multiverse predicted by the Eternal Inflation theory).  His public lectures on physics are quite accessible, and he's published a number of theoretical papers in the field as well.  -- Jayron 32 13:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The world as it "existed" yesterday can be considered a parallel universe if you assume eternalism. It's entirely natural to make this assumption in the context of special relativity, see here and also quantum mechanics see here. Count Iblis (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Falsifiability is less important than some people seem to imagine. Like if you shoot a rocket into a black hole, GR still lets you calculate the rocket's motion after it crosses the event horizon, but there is no way to ever observe it. GR is still a perfectly good scientific theory whose predictions of the rocket's motion are considered to be accurate except where GR itself possibly breaks down at the center of the BH. QM also makes various unfalsifiable predictions. As for confirming a multiverse theory, yeah, there was something about that in the pop-science a few days ago, and a while back somebody interpreted BICEP2 data as having done that, until the data of interest turned out to be some kind of measurement noise IIRC. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The idea that there is anything outside the observable universe is not falsifiable. Same for the idea that reality is really real, like that we are not artificial constructs in a gigantic simulation, or that the universe did not pop into existence until it did just a fraction of a second ago. The denial of solipsism is as unfalsifiable as solipsism itself. --Lambiam 14:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All we know, or think we know, is what we can observe. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you observe this precious nugget of wisdom? --Lambiam 21:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm reminded of what one of my college professors once said, in response to the famous, "I think, therefore I am." The professor rebutted, that "Maybe he only thinks that he thinks." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)