Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2017 October 8

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 8

FLAT EARTHER speaks the truth

there is not anything resembling a question here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. This is the best argument I heard from a flat earther where every statement he made (with the exception of "the earth is flat") is the literal truth. “If you watch the trajectory of the Space Shuttle, it does not goes straight up, it always goes in a curve and out to sea (I think he meant the Atlantic Ocean). The point is, they actually goes horizontal. The Space Shuttle goes horizontal. It does not go any further up, it goes horizontal. This proves the earth is FLAT.” 110.22.20.252 (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Have you got a query for the reference desk? Dmcq (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Your title contradicts your post. 12.130.157.65 (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC). To answer the implicit question: The Shuttle typically only goes to low Earth orbit, a few hundred km up. In order to stay up, it needs to reach a horizontal speed of roughly 7.8km/s (or about 28000km/h). Going into orbit is not primarily about going up, it's about going fast. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Or in cartoon form, this. HenryFlower 14:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC) And if they acknowledge the existence of orbital spacecraft, how exactly do they propose it goes around a flat Earth ? Does it go over the "edge" at some point, fly past a bunch of tree roots hanging down, then over another edge and back to the top ? StuRat (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC) I think they would think it actually follows a circular path over a part of the flat Earth and does not reach the edge. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Then they would need to fire the engine continuously, to fight gravity, and would quickly run out of fuel. We have satellites which have been in orbit for decades, without refueling, and how about the Moon ? StuRat (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Thusly:[1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC) I have to protest against that outrageously unscientific and misleading picture! As we know, it's turtles all the way down! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC) The sun's orbit is so complex that one of the elephants has to cock its leg to allow the sun to continue on its orbit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC) I think my point is that EVEN IF FLAT EARTHERS speaks the truth, they draw the WRONG CONCLUSION. For example: They think that if the earth is a sphere then the space shuttle must goes straight up, the fact that the shuttle, goes up and then turns towards the horizontal direction must be a conspiracy to fool the public that the earth is sphere. They could not imagine why the shuttle does NOT GO STRAIGHT UP if the earth is a sphere, unless the shuttle may just hit the SUN or the MOON, after all the SUN and the MOON is actually very low in the sky (according to Flat Earth astronomy). 110.22.20.252 (talk) 06:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC) The reference desk is for asking questions, not for people to try and make some point or expound on their own thoughts. And please cut down on the capital letters, it is considered as a form of WP:SHOUTING. And personally, depending on your local idiom, I couldn't care less / I could care less about flat earthers sometimes saying the truth and getting things wrong. Dmcq (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Unless they pursue a career that threatens science in some way, why does it matter what they think? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC) I suppose if people can demand that schools give equal time to "Intelligent design", then they can also demand equal time for "flat Earth science", despite it being an extreme minority opinion held only by nut-jobs. StuRat (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The equations of dynamical systems in our physical theories

A dynamical system is basically a function that maps a point in time to a system's state; call this function $f:times\rightarrow states$. Sometimes, an equation places restrictions on the possible values of $f$. For example, Hamilton's equations in classical mechanics, Maxwell's equations in classical E&M, and the Schroedinger equation in quantum mechanics, all dictate that the state evolve in a certain way, and that you cannot have arbitrary $f$. Indeed, this is basically what makes a theory a theory. Our mainstream physical theories can be divided into the following, with corresponding equations:

Classical mechanics - Hamilton's equations

Classical E&M - Maxwell's equations

Quantum mechanics - Schroedinger equation

Special relativity - ??

General relativity - ??

Quantum field theory - ??

And maybe some theory of everything such as string theory - ??

My question comes from those question marks I have put above. I simply don't know what the equations are which govern the time evolution of the system for those theories. Can someone tell me?

Perhaps one complication is that the three theories I have filled out are nonrelativistic, whereas the remaining four are relativistic, and in relativity, the whole notion of "time" is unintuitive and perhaps not conducive to describing dynamical systems with equations like Hamilton's equations. However, one could still define an equation that describes the evolution of a system with respect to a particular observer... couldn't one? PeterPresent (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Special relativity: the Lorentz transformation. General relativity: the Einstein field equations. Quantum field theory is based on the Schrödinger equation, except that it uses a far more complex state space and Hamiltonian than ordinary quantum mechanics. Looie496 (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me tweaking some of your suggestions as well as filling out the blanks. In the examples you give, Maxwell's equations are the odd one out. Both Hamilton's and Schroedinger's equation(s) can be thought of as rules that allow you to derive differential equations for the time evolution of a system. They can arguably be seen as defining the theory, but cannot tell you anything about the dynamics of a given system without extra information: in both cases you need to know the Hamiltonian. For example, one classical mechanical Hamiltonian will correspond to a ball moving around ballistically under the influence of gravity, but there are infinitely more possibilities. Maxwell's equations are more specific than Hamilton's or Schroedinger's. They are more analogous to the specific differential equation which describes the ball than the master equations which could be taken to define the theories of classical mechanics or quantum mechanics. In fact, Maxwell's equations can be derived (if you posit the appropriate Hamiltonian) from a similar master equation for classical field theory. The Hamiltonian formulation of that is discussed a bit in: Hamiltonian field theory.

For special and general relativity (SR and GR), it is really just the same mechanism: you can use a variational principle to derive a differential equation governing the time evolution of the system. The conventional way to do this is to work in the Lagrangian formalism and simply ensure that your Lagrangian is symmetric under your new transformations. For SR, you end up with a very similar formalism to that used for classical mechanics called relativistic Lagrangian mechanics, while GR leads you to a (diffeomorphism covariant) type of classical field theory. Note that for GR, the equivalent of Maxwell's equations are the Einstein field equations, but that both of these are really just the Euler-Lagrange equations for their respective systems.

Quantum field theory is admittedly a bit more complicated, but at its heart it is just a blend of the classical field theory and quantum mechanics. As pointed out by Looie496, it has a Lagrangian density which governs the time evolution of states (for an example see e.g the Standard Model). Depending on what you're doing though, you might never work with a specific time evolution equation that needs to be solved (for example most calculations for the LHC are done via the S matrix formalism which only considers particles in the infinite past becoming different particles in the infinite future). However, you may be interested in reading about the effective action, which is a scarier QFT version of the familiar variational approach from the other theories. 92.18.79.227 (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers! So, the Euler-Lagrange equations could be seen as the "master" equation that governs the time evolution of systems in GR and more specific theories (classical mechanics, classical E&M, special relativity) and possibly QFT as well. One thing I've always been unsure about though is whether the theories in GR only describe the evolution of a system in an unchanging spacetime. Can the Einstein field equations be used to solve the two-body problem in general relativity, for example, where the evolution of the system both affects and is affected by the changing spacetime?

But perhaps a more important question is this: How do scientists derive these equations in the first place? For example, I have read the article Euler-Lagrange equation and it looks like a mathematical technique that relates to the physical world through the principle of least action. How did scientists derive this law, or our other equations describing the time evolution of physical systems? PeterPresent (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

You're basically correct: the Euler-Lagrange equations (or equivalently Hamilton's equations) are the dynamical equations for many systems which permit a Lagrangian formalism. This includes all of the non-quantum systems you discuss. For quantum systems it's a bit different, and the Euler-Lagrange equations themselves play a less central role (although, see the end of this reply), but its still the Lagrangian which drives the evolution via the Hamiltonian and the Schroedinger equation.

You ask about unchanging spacetimes. The quick answer is that Einstein's field equations describe exactly how spacetime evolves dynamically. You could make the assumption that spacetime is static (see for example, the articles on famous solutions in GR which usually make the assumption explicit), but you don't need to. However, Einstein's equations are very challenging to solve in general and you may have to work numerically to see exactly how spacetime evolves. See numerical relativity and the related section on computational approaches in the two-body article you cited.

Of course, you can assume a fixed background and study how small objects move around the spacetime. In this case, you don't really need to use Einstein's field equations, you just use a fixed form of the metric, and work in an analogous way to the SR lagrangian formalism mentioned in my previous message.

Finally, you ask about the history of the variational approaches and principle of least action. I think the articles you link to have the core history. The variational formulation is one of many equally good ways to deal with most classical systems, but it generalises very nicely to complicated systems and symmetries. The historical motivations for it are a mixed bag (as I recall), but it can be proven to be equivalent to more mundane methods, so it's an interesting (and useful) discovery all the same.

The only thing I'll add to this story is the claim that quantum mechanics provides an explanation of the principle of least action. It can be shown that the Schroedinger equation can be reformulated as a path integral. In this approach, each path through the system comes with a phase factor whose argument is the classical action. These paths add up constructively only near the stationary points of the action, and therefore the dominant contribution to a quantum amplitude comes from the classical configurations (which are minima of the action, as stated by the principle of least action). That's not to say that the configurations leading to the minimum action (which are the solutions of the Euler-Lagrange equation) are the only important ones in QM: all paths contribute to the path integral, but in the classical limit $\hbar \to 0$ they are increasingly negligible compared to the classical paths. 2.97.236.134 (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Nose blindness

Apparently, "Nose blindness" is a real thing (not just a marketing gimmick). See: [2] & [3]. Per the latter, Pamela Dalton of the Monell Chemical Senses Center is a primary researcher on the subject. Is there another term for the phenomenon? The closest I could find on WP is Anosmia, and the general term, sensory adaptation. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:CCE8:62C2:FF45:AE7B (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Hyposmia is a reduced ability to smell odors and might be a very early sign of Parkinson's disease, or rarely of Kallmann infertility syndrome and is arguably (no reference) among the health effects of smoking. Cultural Habituation plays a part; my only visit to India was a short stay downwind of Bombay whose scent(s) live on in memory. Blooteuth (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I assume I suffer this. I cannot smell farts, flowers, fruit, or anything else besides burning materials. I had nasal polyps removed at age 18, and have lost at least 98% of my sense of smell. I can smell burning objects and human pheromones. I do so miss the lovely smell of gasoline! μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe the appropriate article is Olfactory fatigue; would a redirect be WP:OR? — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:CCE8:62C2:FF45:AE7B (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that now that there is advertising attempting to popularize the phrase "nose blindness", a redirect should be added and the phrase should be mentioned in the article's lead section. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

That's just humor, not a real name for it. There was another ad campaign featuring a "Clarence sale" due to their fictional, incompetent employee Clarence, who kept over-ordering, denting merchandise, etc. This doesn't mean that "Clarence sale" is now an accepted alternative to "clearance sale". An even worse example is when some pharma company pays off a doctor to call some normal condition a "syndrome", and then use that term in their ads, to get people to become overly concerned and buy their drugs. (I'm surprised the makers of Beano haven't yet started calling farts "odiferous flatal syndrome".) StuRat (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I imagine that I'm not the only person who searched for "nose blindness", but doubt anybody would search for "Clarence sale" (unless they were interested in the ads). -- I recall a school field trip to a bread factory where I noticed upon arrival the overwhelming (and wonderful) smell of fresh baked bread, which soon disappeared. When I asked about it I was told that you "get used to it" after awhile. This explanation was unsatisfactory since "getting used to it" meant to me that the odor was still there, but you learn to ignore it (like muzac), which is not what I experienced; the odor was gone. OP:2606:A000:4C0C:E200:29AF:8B75:2D37:5BB4 (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The only reason you're likely to search under that term is that the ads are currently running. Once they've been off the air for a while, people will resume using the normal search terms, like "lack of sense of smell". StuRat (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Which will get results such as Anosmia & Hyposmia. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:29AF:8B75:2D37:5BB4 (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Did you go outside for a while and then come back in? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

And speaking of Clarence...[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

If I remember correctly (back in the '60s) you could smell the bakery before you got there, so the odor permeated the neighborhood. And...

If you ever come across a MMO player named "Roger That" -- its probably me! ;) —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:29AF:8B75:2D37:5BB4 (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Even now, as you approach a fast-food joint, you can often smell the grease. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, funny, don't care! I haven't smelt a flower for over 30 years. Treating an actual medical condition as a joke helps no one. And where are the refs? Maybe I should be to[ic banned for my poor sense of smell, including my erstwhile addiction to the smell of gasoline? μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Anosmia & Hyposmia are distinctly different from Olfactory fatigue (aka "nose blindness") -- medical conditions vs. sensory phenomenon. The post started with references (see above) -- with the hope of finding more from this purported Reference Desk. --OP:2606:A000:4C0C:E200:29AF:8B75:2D37:5BB4 (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

"Nose blindness" is poor choice of terms for olfactory fatigue, since blindness, without any qualifier, is a permanent condition, and OF is not. "Temporary nose blindness" would solve this, but just using the existing term OF is even better. StuRat (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Tell that to P&G. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:9C22:2C7C:65A6:B9DA (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

When we allow advertisers to define words, we get "free" no longer meaning "devoid of cost or obligation", but instead meaning "an additional item you get at no additional cost beyond shipping and handling, once you've paid the full price of the first item(s)". And now I've even seen infomercials which say "absolutely free, when you pay an additional fee !". Here's an example where you can buy 2 flashlights for $97, or buy 2 and get one "free" for $117 total, so apparently "free" now means "for $20 additional": [5]. Try to figure that one out. Their goal is to cause confusion, not clarity. (BTW, I get my 27-LED flashlights for 41 cents each, tax included.) StuRat (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

That's interesting, but how does that help me (OP) find references on the topic? 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:9C22:2C7C:65A6:B9DA (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

You already answered your own original post, the correct term is OF (and our article has references for you). Then you asked a 2nd Q, about whether a redirect from "nose blindness" to OF would be appropriate. My answer was no, it would not, because we should not accept definitions put forth in humorous ads, or, for that matter, in any ads. If, at some point in the future, that term does become a widely accepted synonym for OF, then a redirect would be appropriate. StuRat (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Toothache becoming pulmonary problems

I ran across this quote from a non-medical book published in 1888:

A few weeks preceeding [sic] his death, he contracted a cold resulting in a violent toothache, at the time occasioning no alarm; but the disease extended rapidly to the lungs, causing congestion, from which he died, at the residence of Mr. James Smith, in Baltimore, Maryland, September 3, 1856, and was buried in Philadelphia.

What kind of disease could do this? I assume that a toothache can lead to life-threatening bacteremia, but how would this be related to pulmonary problems? Do we have to assume that the toothache and congestion merely co-occurred, and the non-medical observers incorrectly attributed all the symptoms to the same disease? Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

My sister had strep throat and died of heart failure a week later. The Autopsy indicated cardiac lesions that would probably not have killed her, except that there is a history on my dad;s side (my cousin, two of his aunts) of women dying after a "cough." μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Nyttend, while it's possible for toothache owing to a local infection of the tooth, root canal or gums and infections of other parts of the body to co-exist without a common cause, infections of the tooth, root canal or gums, especially abcesses in that area can spread rapidly to the lungs, heart and other vital organs.

Those secondary infections can cause death if the heart, lungs or other vital organs fail after disease spreads from an infected tooth. Death can also occur if a infection causing a toothache enters the body's circulation and causes sepsis, in which an infection throughout the body damages many organs or impairs blood flow to them so that they no longer work. loupgarous (talk) 09:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Be careful. Someone developed a hacking cough which an observer thought might be tuberculosis. In fact it was pneumonia - a doctor was not called and sepsis developed. An ambulance was later called and broad spectrum antibiotics were administered, but this was unable to save the patient. With illnesses generally, if it gets worse, see a doctor. 82.14.24.95 (talk) 09:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't all microbe-caused illnesses get worse, before they get better ? For example, a cold may start out as an itchy throat, then becomes a sore throat, runny nose, blurry eyes, coughing, etc., then goes away. StuRat (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Sepsis (and septic shock) can result from infections and cause intense fever, low blood pressure, tachycardia, organ death and death. Many people used to die in their 30s from bacterial infections (including teeth) which can fortunately often be prevented with hygiene, or treated with antibiotics (and if necessary, parenteral fluid replacement and nutrition, blood transfusions, artificial ventilation, artificial coma, etc). —PaleoNeonate – 10:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding: when sepsis occurs, other organs can get infected including the lungs, the liver, the heart, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 10:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Colds are caused by viruses which are self - limiting. Microbes, alternatively known as "germs", such as bacteria, which cause pneumonia, are not. Before the invention of penicillin there were only the body's natural defences - the immune system (white blood cells) and increase in body temperature which might or might not kill the bacteria off. A patient would reach a crisis in about three days - he would either rapidly get better or die. 46.208.167.127 (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• The source is dated to 1888. But I'd still say SEE A DOCTOR ASAP if anyone told me this nowadays. Bejeezus! μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)