Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2009 June 6

Science desk
< June 5	<< May | June | Jul >>	June 7 >

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.

June 6

Jellyfish as pets.

An IP recently asked me if Jellyfish could be kept in a houshold aquarium. I told him/her basically that I didn't know for sure. I offered some in depth, but basic, guidance on how to do it, while reinforcing that I think it is a very bad idea to try. The whole reply can be seen at my talk page. After replying, I realised that while I may not have the answers, someone else might. Basically I have to questions:

• Can jellyfish be kept in a household aquarium?

• Was my reply right, wrong, or a little of both?

Thanks for any guidance on this.Drew Smith What I've done 05:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this web site can help.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I recently was at an event where someone was selling jellyfish kits for several hundred dollars each. I'll offer some observations from what I saw. This doesn't mean that his "kit" was actually a good idea or the optimal solution. He also seemed to be offering only one species of jelly, so these observations may not apply generally.

1. The largest tank on display was not huge, perhaps only 80 gallons and held three large jellies and basically nothing else. No scenery, no reefs, no other fish, nada. Maybe this was an open water species and preferred that; I don't know.
2. The smallest tank was perhaps 15 gallons and held one small jelly, and nothing else.
3. The "ground" in his tanks seemed to be made of rounded plastic stones roughly the size of a thumb but somewhat fatter.
4. Most of his tanks were vertically oriented, i.e. they were taller than they were wide. At the largest scale this was perhaps 3:1. All of the tanks were rounded and had no sharp corners on their vertical face.
5. All of his tanks had heavy duty aerators. Noticeably stronger than I have ever seen on aquariums of similar size. These were mostly enclosed, presumably to prevent the jelly from swimming over the air flow.
6. The type of jelly in question had very short tentacles.

I wasn't interested enough to ask about care and feeding, so I don't know anything about the water quality or nutritional requirements. I did see some sort of food packs though, so presumably they can eat things other than live/recently caught food. Hope this helps. Dragons flight (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This helps, in that keeping jellies as pets is more common than I thought. On the other hand I have never seen a "kit" that actually keeps its intended inhabitants alive for even a fraction of its lifespan. Goldfish can live up to forty years in the wild, and seldom live more than a few months in "kits".Drew Smith What I've done 09:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Physical strength requirements of Formula 1

Not sure if this is more suited to the Entertainment or Science section, so please feel free to move it

During today's qualifying for the Turkish GP a commentator stated that 10kg of weight would add 0.3 seconds per lap. Obviously that is quite a lot of time (adding about 21 seconds in a 70 lap race). This has made be wonder about the impact of keeping down a driver's weight and the trade offs that might entail. As an example, according to this page Jenson button weighs about 68kg, whereas I weigh about 95kg (I shouldn't, but I do!). At 0.3 seconds per 10kg per lap, I would, with the same driving skill, be 0.81 seconds slower per lap, or 56.7 seconds slower for a 70 lap race. So it would seem that, no matter how skillful, somebody weighing 95kg could never be successful in F1. This makes me wonder why successful F1 drivers do not tend to weigh even less. The jockey Willie Carson, seems to have weighed about 49kg, which would give him roughly a 0.6 second per lap advantage, or 42 seconds per race - presumably a woman would have even greater potential weight wise. Obviously skill is the overriding factor, but I cannot see why a woman, or a much lighter male would not be capabale of the same level of skill. So, I wonder if it is about the physical demands of F1. Is it that a degree of strength is required, that would override the weight advantage of a woman or a lighter male? I would have thought that riding a horse required greater strength than driving a Formula 1 car, and that jockeys must have a very good strength to weight ratio, but obviously there are other factors at play here, because Formula 1 is not full of drivers with the stature of jockeys. I would appreciate any thoughts on this. Thanks Chuny Beetroot (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You do need to be very physically fit to withstand the g-forces. I'm not sure how strong jockeys need to be, but probably not as strong as a F1 driver - I can't see why they would need much strength. --Tango (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Formula1.com says "cars must weigh at least 605kg (including the driver), but traditionally teams build the car to be considerably lighter and then use up 70 kg of ballast to bring it up to weight." So that means the weight of the driver is mostly irrelevant (all it does is given the team less ballast to move around to change the balance of the car for specific tracks). This reply (I don't know how reliable it is) claims quite a diversity in F1 driver heights (and surely weights, as the tall ones listed aren't beanpoles and the shorter ones noticeably chunky). That said, this article claims KERS promotes smaller drivers. 87.112.85.8 (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

On the official Formula 1 site the Toyota team doctor says, among other things, There is no other sport in the world which compares to the demands Formula One puts on the heart. SpinningSpark 14:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Higgs boson

Might one find one or more Higgs bosons at the center of a Black Hole? ---- Taxa (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If our theories are correct, there are Higgs bosons everywhere, they are just difficult to see. We can't say what is at the centre of a black hole, it is a singularity, which is scientist-speak for "we haven't got a clue". --Tango (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

My thinking is somewhat askew from the thinking of others. I was trained specifically to think outside the box. I have no problem, for instance, with 10/zero(0)=10. Its logical to me that when you divide by zero nothing happens. I apply the same logic to the center of a Black Hole and to a Higgs boson . It may not be possible for anyone other than myself to consider that not having a clue is not an acceptable answer unless you explain why you do not have a clue. ---- Taxa (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that isn't "thinking outside the box", that is just being wrong. If 10/0=10 then we can multiply both sides by zero and get 10=10*0, but anything times zero is zero, so you have 10=0, a contradiction. Thinking which is unconventional can be a good thing, but it still has to be logically consistent. We don't have a clue about what happens at the centre of a black hole because the mathematical model we use to describe black holes breaks down at the centre and gives a result that doesn't make sense (ie. various infinite physical values, which aren't consistent with how those values are defined). Hopefully someone will come up with a theory that can explain the centre of a black hole, but they haven't yet. If you have a theory which explains black holes in terms of Higgs bosons, feel free to write it up and submit it to a peer reviewed journal, but I doubt it will be accepted because I suspect you don't actually understand what a Higgs boson is (I'm not clear on the details myself, but I fail to see any way that their presence in black holes could resolve the singularity, if they exist they will be there because they are everywhere, that doesn't help anything). --Tango (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. The problem is that you are still thinking inside the box. You still see the division sign (/) as operational. By outside the box I no longer see the division sign as operational when a zero value is below it. What you see is that 10 is the result of an arithmetic operation. What I see is that no arithmetic can or has taken place. Its as if I were screening the values with an "if, then" statement and if the value under the division sign is zero then no arithmetical operation can take place. You see the division sign instead as an arithmetical operator that is turned on not matter what the values are because you are still thinking inside the box. You are unable to recognize that the division sign itself, its use or operation is not always valid, that there is a chink in the division sign. -- Taxa (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If you open your mind to much... [1]. What you do by "thinking outside the box" is redefining the / sign to mean something different from what it usually means. I can just as well claim that 2+2 = 5 (by redefining "=" to mean "bigger than" and "+" to mean concatenation of the decimal representations of the arguments. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Taxa, you said "Its logical to me that when you divide by zero nothing happens." so don't come now with "By outside the box I no longer see the division sign as operational when a zero value is below it." Divide by zero means divide by zero. It is by definition operational. you cannot arbitrarily redefine the meaning of words like division and call if "thinking outside of the box". That's no different than saying that instead of deviding by rezo I will replace it with my favorite color, 10/0=blue=humpty dumpty=dejavu. Even when thinking outside of the box things still must make sense, otherwise it's just plain rubish. Dauto (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you observed that 2+2=5? My observation of the function of the division sign is based upon empirical evidence that the division sign is not operational dependent upon the value which is below the division sign or in other words that the division sign is turned off or no longer functional dependent entirely upon the value of the divisor. -- Taxa (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Mathematics is not an empirical subject. You can't "observe" 2, it is an abstract concept. You can define the "/" symbol in a different way to me if you like, but don't expect anyone else to use your definition because it isn't useful. Division is useful because it obeys certain rules (like a/b=c => a=bc) that let us work with it in useful ways, if you redefine it in a way that means those rules no longer hold, then it isn't useful any more. This isn't about being open minded, it is about pragmatism. There are all kinds of mathematical objects that can be defined (infinitely many, in fact, but don't ask me which infinity), some of them are useful, so get used, most aren't useful, though, so, for the most part, get ignored (pure mathematicians play around with things that aren't necessarily useful to the real world (until a scientist comes along and finds a use for them - scientists are amazingly good at that), but they are generally useful to something, even if they are just ascetically pleasing for are useful for making mathematicians happy). --Tango (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

My great great grandfather found that he could use a simple pan to fry fish, pan for gold, keep the rain off his head. Unfortunately he learned the hard way that his pan could not stop a bullet. Thanks to empirical evidence that his most valued multipurpose tool could not serve to save his life in the capacity of armor I now know that it is a function the pan is incapable of performing and not one which I would want to try. The division sign is merely a tool and its inability to function when the divisor is equal to zero is quite enough for me to reach the conclusion the division sign is not capable of this function. -- Taxa (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... there are some things best not tested by direct empirical observation! I don't see the relevance of that anecdote, though... We know the division operator isn't capable of functioning when the second parameter is zero, that's why we just say you can't do that. You're saying that it can function and functions as the identity, which isn't consistent with the rest of its behaviour. --Tango (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No you have it right now. "...the division operator isn't capable of functioning when the second parameter is zero..." What many people do not realize is that it is the function of the division sign that is the problem rather than the value of zero. -- Taxa (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

When did I have it wrong? Could you give an example of someone that doesn't realise that? I'm not sure it is appropriate to distinguish between a problem with one or the other, rather than saying it a problem with how they interact, but if you had to choose one or the other then the problem would be with division, simply because you define zero first. --Tango (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

By accepting that the function of division breaks down when zero is the divisor then you can accept 10/0=10. If you insist that the function of division does not break down then you will argue that 10 divided by zero can not equal 10 because 10 times zero does not equal 10. -- Taxa (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

When you accept that you can't use the regular definition of division to handle division by zero you have a choice. You can leave it undefined, or you can arbitrarily define it to equal something. Either gives you a valid mathematical function, but the former turns out to be more useful. You can define 10/0=10 if you want to, but there is just no reason to do so. It doesn't help you in solving any problems, which is what maths is all about. --Tango (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

When I am writing a workaround to deal with some practical division by zero problem in C, I find that MAX_INT (or something similar, the largest allowable value) is more commonly a useful answer than "nothing happens". Sometimes MAX_INT but keeping the sign of the number being divided. Sometimes applying a sign to the number from some other variable. Other times "nothing happens" might suit me, or zero. So if you're going to argue from practicality, there isn't a definite answer to be found there either. 81.131.14.50 (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Taxa, I think that rather than thinking outside a box, you may be still trapped inside one. When we learn mathematics, it is usually as an "operation" - an action. You start with two apples, you add three apples, and the result is five apples. That's the thought process you're applying when you state 10/0 = 10. "You start with 10, you divide by 0, which doesn't change anything, so you're left with what you started with, which is 10." When you really get into mathematics, however, you need to break out of this action-oriented box, and view mathematics as relationships, rather than actions. It's no longer "10 divided by 5 is 2", but also "5, when divided into 10 is 2", and "2 is related to 10 by the division with 5". It's this relationship view which fuels Tango's assertion that 10/0 = 10 implies 10 = 10*0. The relationship of 10, 5, and 2 in "10/5 = 2" is the same as the relationship of 10, 5 and 2 in "10 = 2*5", because of the relationship between division and multiplication. You could break that relationship, but then it's no longer multiplication and division, and furthermore, as Dauto mentions, you could just as easily say that "10/0 = blue" or "10/0 = a cup of weak tea" as "10/0 = 10", because the power, nay, the whole point of division as a concept is its relationship to multiplication and other mathematical constructs. Part of that relationship is that "X/Y = Z" implies that "X = Z*Y". You certainly are free to come up with a mathematical operation where "10 op 5 = 2" and "10 op 0 = 10". It wouldn't be division, though. (Mathematicians make up new mathematical operations all the time, though they usually call them functions. And again, although functions are usually taught as actions, they're more appropriately viewed as a relationship, as a mapping of a set of numbers onto another set of numbers.) -- 128.104.112.106 (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think using the apple analogy is fair when dividing by zero, as even dividing by fractions is counter-intuitive (10 apples divided by 0.5 people leads to 20 apples each). However, I would like to ask how this would apply to molecules, i.e. with the law of mass action, specifically chemical equilibria? For example, let's say we have HCl + H₂O → H₃O⁺ + Cl^-, the HCl has fully dissociated (in this case there is one of each molecule, not one mole of each molecule). Thus the acid dissociation constant would be: K_A = [H₃O⁺][Cl^-]⁄[H₂O][HCl], which leads to 1*1 / 0*0. How is this solved? (Sorry if this is too off-topic and should be a new thread). --Mark PEA (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The raction can temporarily reverse itself. [H₂O] and [HCl] should be seen as the (non-zero) probabilities that at any given time there will be a H₂O and/or a HCl present. Dauto (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay so I should have stated that I'm assuming that after the reaction, the two products will never collide again (I tried to state it by saying there was only one of each molecule). I guess you will argue that on the reactants side there was only two molecules, so if they are capable of colliding why not the products, let's assume there is something surrounding the molecules which will attract their charge (effectively "solvate" but in a heterogeneous situation, maybe some complex situation à la Maxwell's demon). Anyway 128.104's response below answers my question. --Mark PEA (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I used the operation on apples not to show intuitiveness, but to demonstrate how mathematics is usually taught. Your example of 10/0.5 = 20 uses the same "action oriented" viewpoint, illogical as the situation may be. "You start with 10 apples, divide them between 0.5 people, which results in 20 apples per person." The illogicality only points further to the fact that division has a broader life as a relational statement, rather than a procedural one. It's illogical because "dividing between 0.5 people" makes no physical sense. On the other hand, with division as a relationship, sense is restored "if there are 10 apples for every 0.5 people, then there is 20 apples for every 1 person." For your second point, you can only calculate equilibrium constants if the system is in equilibrium - you can't say that one hydronium and one chloride ion are "in equilibrium" with HCl and water. This is a similar situation to the original question! The fact that you are dividing by zero indicates that you've extended the mathematical models further than they are valid. If you just have two molecules, you can't derive an equilibrium constant, because it is not in equilibrium. Likewise, we can't say what happens at the singularity in the middle of a black hole, because our current models all break down. On the other hand, if we're happy saying (1*1)/(0*0) = 1, then we get a K_A = 1 for HCl, which will result in no end of trouble when you're back to dealing with liter solutions of HCl, as the true value is closer to 10 ^-7. -- 128.104.112.106 (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, my question really was... If we discover an acid that fully dissociates, what is its K_A value? (because you can't divide by zero) I guess you just don't give it one, or I am effectively asking what the K_A of a proton is. I completely agree on your final point that 1/0 doesn't = 1, or any x/0=x, it was the reason why I brought up equilibrium constants. --Mark PEA (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you (Tango) must have meant gravitational singularity but you linked to the dab page by mistake. As a mathematician, do you also think that mathematicians speaking of a mathematical singularity is also to be interpreted as "haven't got a clue"? SpinningSpark 13:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Not by mistake, just by laziness! In mathematics, singularities are well defined places where something goes wrong and are well understood. In physics, a singularity is somewhere where our mathematical model indicates there is a mathematical singularity, which generally means our model is flawed. --Tango (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The mathspeak for "haven't a clue" is indeterminate. Dmcq (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really, an indeterminate isn't something we don't know the value of, it's something that doesn't have a well defined value. I think "conjecture" would be the closest mathematicians have (basically it means "guess"). --Tango (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

See also independence (mathematical logic). A conjecture at least might be provable from existing axioms if someone clever enough comes along. Something independent can't be proved without new axioms. The continuum hypothesis was a conjecture for a long time, but proved independent in the 1960's, putting it closer to "haven't a clue" (or maybe "meaningless") territory. 67.122.209.126 (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Something which has been proven independent of an axiom system isn't something we don't know about. We know everything there is know, the result is just neither "true" or "false". I think conjecture is the better analogy. Conjectures could, in time, but proven or disproven (or proven independent), just as gaps in scientific theories could, in time, be filled. --Tango (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of imdeterminate as in indeterminate form. the limit of x/sin(x) as x goes to zero gives the indeterminate form 0/0. In this case one can find the value 1 by other means but anything is possible. But yes conjecture is very good. And independent and undecidable and uncomputable and incomplete too... I think maths is well on the way in developing a theory of types of "haven't the foggiest". Soon we'll have terms like meta-controversial for instance and know exactly what they mean. :) Dmcq (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

0/0 is indeterminate, which doesn't mean we don't know what it equals, it means it doesn't equal anything. $\lim _{x\to 0}{\frac {x}{\sin(x)}}$ isn't indeterminate, it is simply "1". If you solve it and get an indeterminate form as the answer that just means you've done it wrong and need to find a method which actually works. --Tango (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Pssst, you mean as it goes to 0. Dragons flight (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I was just testing to see if you were paying attention! (Fixed now.) --Tango (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I plugged $x/sin(x)$ into Wolfram|Alpha and got a nice graphical result. So 0/0 sorta converges to 1 with that equation but it doesn't equal 1. How weird. ~~ Ropata (talk) 07:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Electrical arc

Is an Electric arc related to electrical ionisation as described here [2]. Thank you. Clover345 (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --Dr Dima (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Unknown garden plants for identification

Can anyone help me identify these please, all found in an english garden? This rather elegant garden plant http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/liverpoollarry/unknownplant1.jpg also had a more or less flat group of flowers above the frame. Photo taken a few weeks ago.

The small plant above the ruler in this scan http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/liverpoollarry/unknownplants2.jpg is part of a rockery-type plant, probably perennial, that I saw growing in low spreading mats with numerous flowers, and also growing out of cracks in the side of walls. When fresh the ends of the petals on the flower bend out more. It may be a Camanula or Bellflower, but they differ considerably in appearance and I want to try to identify its species or variety.

The plant beneath the ruler may be just a weed - but lots of them have suddenly appeared grouped together. Thanks. 84.13.50.195 (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The first plant is an Aquilegia. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The second plants: Campanula is latin for Bellflower. I'd say it's one of the Campanula family. The plant below the ruler is one of the Vetches, hard to say which - could be a Black Medick or a Hop Trefoil. It's a weed! --TammyMoet (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. After searching around some more I think the middle one is probably Campanula portenschlagiana, variety Hoffman’s Blue, common name Dalmation bellflower. The final one seems to be, as you say, Hop Trefoil, Trifolium campestre. Edit: now I think the middle one is more likely to be Campanula muralis. The c. port... seems to be a much bigger plant - difficult to tell the size in photos. 78.149.117.117 (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

what kinds of companies use corporate astrologers?

Googling "corporate astrologer" (in quotes) shows some 22,000 results. So my question is about what kinds of companies use these servicse? Do any very large companies (market cap in the billions) use services like this? 94.27.141.190 (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If they do, I doubt they would admit to it! --Tango (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

While only superficially comparable with astrology the article on Feng_shui cites sources that mention Donald Trump, Walt Disney, Singapore Polytechnic and the New York College of Health Professions inter alia as taking the subject seriously. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Feng shui — as a decorating style — will generally produce an appealing aesthetic though, so even if you don't care for the mystical underpinnings, you might still choose to consult a feng shui designer. Dragons flight (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm kind of skeptical about this, if only because if you ask ten feng shui "experts", you're likely to get ten different aesthetics. (Bullshit!, as I recall, demonstrated this rather well.) I'd say the appeal of the final aesthetic depends more on the decoration sense of the individuals in question than the principles of feng shui. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This is more trivia than an answer to this question, but I'm sure I read somewhere about Microsoft and Apple competing in who had "the best" corporate astrologer. Tbh I think its no more than a psycological effect, but no one asked for my opinion.Alaphent (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft and Apple! Couldn't have asked for a better response. Cite, please! 94.27.141.190 (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I say, trivia only. It was read in on an online economics magazine, I've forgotten which, but it may have even been tongue in cheek. Sorry.... Alaphent (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that only companies that sell horoscopes, or have some motive for promoting astrology, would pay for astrology services, since there's no credible scientific basis for the "predictive" results generated. Perhaps it's useful public relations in some segments, but that's marketing and not Science. --Scray (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It is always good to cite sources on the refdesk. The above answer thinks too highly of people using logic, as can be illustrated by feng shui and Nancy Reagan#Influence in the White House. I have no sources to cite on corporate astrologers, but I am not going to sit and speculate on the refdesk that corporations make decisions based on "Science". Tempshill (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There's also a huge gap between corporate decisions and individual decisions made by people on corporate boards. It's possible that someone is able to make his/her way into a position of power and decision-making - such as a CEO or president - and once there, make decisions based on astrology or coin-toss or any other technique. However, I suspect that such decisions would be worse than informed, scientific decisions, and would thus yield in undesired results. The corporation would quickly decide to remove such an individual, who is free to believe what they want as long as they don't do it with shareholders' money. Nimur (talk) 04:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I notice that all the corporate astrologers on the first page are based in India. This seems excessive, even considering the possibility that India is renowned in corporate circles the world over for producing the best astrologers. So perhaps the answer is Indian ones. 81.131.14.50 (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm from India, and yes, you'll stumble upon an astrologer here whenever you trip. But most of these men like to advertise themselves as corporate astrologers. True, no company is started here without a bhoomi pooja under some astrologers and swamis, and yes, there are a couple of high profile people who give their ""expert guidance" to companies for large sums, but nevertheless, you don't see many companies recruiting astrologers for their services. Say if they're going to start a new business, they might consult a family astrologer, or when they are about to open a new building, they might ask when is the "good time". But i'm very doubtful about corporate astrologers. Rkr1991 (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The Mouse vs. Elephant Effect

I was watching a nature show, and a cheetah cub—the fearsome little devil—made a playful charge at a herd of wildebeest—which resulted in all of these 300+ pound animals fitted with horns making a run for it. I see this kind of embarrassing herd behavior all the time on nature shows. Obviously in some instances herd behavior has evolutionary advantages. But, when legions of gargantuan animals flee from some dogs—is this an example of a maladaptive behavior resulting from individuals evolving at the cost of the herd? i.e. it seems like it would make more sense for the prey to band together and confront the outmatched predator.

Alfonse Stompanato (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Running away is generally the best way to avoid coming off worse in a fight. Is there any real disadvantage to running away? --Tango (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is, but it's a small disadvantage really. You can't feed when you are running away, and you spend some energy on running away, too. You are right, it is still much better than to risk injury or death. That is actually the reason why mammalian sensory system is "tuned" to make much more False Positives than False Negatives on identification of predators or of threats in general. If you make a False Positive, you stop grazing for five minutes, and then resume. If you make a False Negative, your brain stem is in someone else's stomach. --Dr Dima (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

But wouldn't a cooperative defense be so effective as to both conserve energy and prevent one of the herd from being picked off? The herd runs—and the young ones get taken out. I have actually seen some footage of aggressive behavior coming from water buffalo—they encircled their young, stood their ground, and actually gored some lion cubs that the pride hid in the tall grass (the herd stumbled upon the pride in this case). But, I guess my problem is that flight seems over represented in situations where the prey is greater than the predator in both size and number. Alfonse Stompanato (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Alfonse, you are right. Cooperation works better than "every one save yourself", but cooperation requires coordenated actions which require comunication. That's alot to ask from volution. Meanwhile the one wilderbeast that thinks twice before running is the one that ends up eaten. Just because a behaviour is more eficient doesn't mean that evolution will find its way there. Nevertheless some species do evolve cooperation as a defense. Dauto (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It is faster to run, without thinking, than to take the time necessary to evaluate the situation, and perhaps conclude that flight is not necessary. There also may be advantages to running, such as exercise, and being physically prepared for the next time -- when flight may actually be very necessary. Also, the animals fleeing may be doing more than meets the eye. It may be akin to a training exercise, in which they practice their scattering techniques, and develop group dynamics that will be protective of the youngest or even the weakest. Bus stop (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure cheetahs raise their young as with most mammals. I'm guessing then if there was a cheetah cub, there would normally be cheetah parent/s close by. I don't know the details of what you were watching, perhaps the cheetah cub was being raised by humans or whatever but clearly it's unresonable to expect wildebeast to be able to appreciate such differences when such a thing is extremely abnormal. In other words, while it may seem odd for wildebeast to run away from a cheetah cub because of the risks from the cub, running away from a cheetah cub because cheetah cub usually means cheetah parent/s are close by makes far more sense Nil Einne (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The cheetah can outrun the wildebeest but must select a young or ill animal for attack and is quickly exhausted. The defensive strategy of the wildebeest includes stampeding as a herd. This puts a predator in danger of being trampled and keeps young animals inaccessible, and it is a well adapted behaviour. It makes better sense than banding together against predator(s) that could then gather and harry the herd indefinitely. What the OP calls a playful charge by a cheetah cub is a serious activity by which it learns how to get close to a herd and how the herd reacts when spooked. A cub is likely to get closer to the herd than an adult so the alarm to the herd is correspondingly greater. BTW Mice do not prey on elephants and a mouse vs. elephant effect is unsourced. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a matter of evolution: Suppose you are one of the Wildebeast - and suppose that the herd's instinctive strategy is to stand their ground and try to defeat the cheetah. By standing your ground - you run a small risk that the cheetah will kill you before the rest of the herd manage to bring it down. So a slightly better strategy for you, personally - would be to run away while the rest of the herd deals with the cheetah. This produces a small evolutionary benefit for those who possess the "run away" gene. Over hundreds or thousands of generations, evolution would ensure that sooner or later, the gene for the instinct to stand-your-ground would be out-evolved by the gene for running-away. Hence, Wildebeast evolve to run away. More notably, consider the opposite position: Suppose the whole herd has the gene for running-away (as real Wildebeast do)...what happens to the individual who gets the mutated "stand-your-ground" gene? Sadly, he dies the very first time a cheetah feels hungry. There is no way for that gene to get passed on. SteveBaker (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

See African Buffalo for an example of an animal that (sometimes) doesn't run. They aren't built for speed as wildebeest are. You can now argue whether wildebeest evolved to outrun cheetah or whether they survived because they could outrun them. Animals that flee from predators in a herd or flock have a higher survival rate than those that don't all act together, because most predators track motion and when there's too much going on they can get confused and become unable to track one individual. (Imagine you're in a crowd of waiters carrying trays of food and just when you've made up your mind to try some chocolate cake there's a juicy steak coming past. :-) Deciding "why" in animal behavior can usually be argued with some clever reason, but the likelihood of that being the actual cause is rather dubious. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

what would convince you of my ability to remote view?

I'm reading this article on "remote viewing" and I just wonder based on it why research universities the world over didn't either refute or verify the "paranormal" effect beyond a shadow of a doubt as soon as they learned Stanford was doing it? It is so easy to verify, isn't it? I mean, what would convince you of my ability to remote view? Isn't it enough if we pick a dictionary of ten thousand objects that are easy to draw (different colors, etc, to bring it up to 10k), you roll some dice and draw the one that comes up, while I tune into what you're drawing from thousands of miles away? I should get it right one time in ten thousand, getting it right 20% of the time should cinch the thing, shouldn't it? If not, what would convince you of my ability to remote view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.141.190 (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"Research universities" typically have serious research to do. But the James Randi Educational Foundation has debunked claims of PSI powers for ages - in fact, they will pay you ONE MILLION DOLLAR if you can prove, under reasonable experimental conditions, that you have any kind of paranormal abilities. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Stanford is a very serious research University! My quesiton is why don't Princeton, Harvard, Yale, MIT, Columbia, and Brown -- the other research Universities of the same calibre...there aren't that many of them! -- try to either definitively verify or refute the claims?

Sometimes they do. There isn't much point, though. The people making the claims never accept the results and people that would accept the results don't believe the claims in the first place. Unless there is some evidence to support the claims, there is no reason to refute them - you can't spend limited research funding refuting every random thing somebody claims. There have been studies done on various types of ESP, etc., and the results have always been the same. There is no reason to suspect the results of a new study would be any different and there are better things to spend the time and money on. --

Tango (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC) The onus is on the OP to define in advance what remote viewing ability s/he claims to have. After that we would need to agree on a test that A) the parties are willing and able (practically and economically) to carry out, B) can give a result with high statistical confidence and C) includes precautions to eliminate unintended influences. "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" is a subjective not an objective measure, and it may reflect ignorance as readily as evidence. If I roll ordinary 6-sided dice the OP should be able to guess the result 16-2/3% of the time. Getting that right 20% of the time doesn't cinch anything. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

What am I currently consuming? I'll give you a hint: it's not a crustacean. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Very funny. I'm no medium. 94.27.141.190 (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way if I told you "a starbucks coffee" with lots of whipped cream and chocolate shavings and other assorted crap, and it turned out to be wrong, that would not be very good evidence that against "remote viewing". I want to know why research universities don't refute or verify the claims of Stanford (isn't it an ivy leage school?) in a scientifically conclusive way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.141.190 (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we're quite proud of the fact that Stanford is NOT an Ivy League school. We're a bunch of west-coast types - we're much too scruffy to fit in at a place like Harvard. (I have personally been told that I was not permitted to enter the Harvard library!) Though we don't have four hundred years of legacy, our fine institution is perfectly content to have a particle accelerator, a functioning radar telescope, and a Republican Think Tank six blocks away from an enchanted broccoli forest commune. Take that, east-coast intellectual types! And yes, it is very important to point out that our sister institution, SRI International, was responsible for the research into parapsychology; this research took place after the two institutions diverged. Nimur (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The assertion that it hasn't been refuted is most likely wrong. This kind of crap has been proven to be exactly that over and over again, and yet people either come up with excuses that conveniently explain why it didn't work or simply ignore it. I mean, take homeopathy, for example -- there's no shortage of research that clearly shows it doesn't work, but that doesn't keep people from insisting that it does. The problem here is that people who want to believe in this kind of stuff really aren't swayed by reasonable arguments or scientific proof. One reason why universities don't waste time on researching this stuff is that there's no reason to assume it works, and plenty of evidence to indicate that it doesn't. If a really, really convincing remote viewer suddenly popped up, I'm sure that would be a different story. As it is, though, most scientists prefer to work on things that aren't completely ridiculous. (Or which, at least, are of interest to them, which may not be the same thing...) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Stanford Research Institute is not Stanford University It is an independent research group. As for the 1970's work on ESP, methodological failures can produce amazing results. There is a long and well documented history of poor methodology at various labs producing amazing ESP results. The article SRI International says "A lengthy exchange ensued, with the external researchers finally concluding that the failure of Puthoff and Targ to address their concerns meant that the claim of remote viewing "can no longer be regarded as falling within the scientific domain." Edison (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Stargate Project appears to have some related information, too. Tempshill (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Edison is right on on this. SRI is a well-known case of physicists being hood-winked, and is not really part of Stanford University. Randi got involved with SRI started appering to be taken in by people like Uri Geller if I recall. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is their paper, Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding, published in the journal Nature in 1974. Nimur (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I can recall a story in Snake Oil Science about the SRI. The anecdote was something about how the fellow in charge of some line of research (on remote viewing IIRC) presented that he had higher-than-chance results. When pressed, he admitted that there were some trials that didn't have that result, but because the people involved must have been intentionally screwing up the test, he stashed the data away and didn't count it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In direct response to the original question, "what would convince...", I think the starting point is to define remote viewing. In the paper I linked above, it was not really clear what "counted" as a successful remote viewing. For example, although I'm located in California, I can close my eyes and visualize a major landmark, say Eiffel Tower, in my mind. I can describe a lot of things about it. Because I'm pretty good with time-zones, I can guess the time of day, and because I check the international weather forecasts reasonably often, I can even tell you what kind of day it is in Paris. Have I "remotely viewed" anything? What level of correct information is necessary to count as a remote view? What level of incorrect information is necessary to throw out the "viewing" as unsuccessful? What information is necessarily provided or withheld? If you can develop a systematic framework for these questions, then you can run a double-blind experiment to test whether or not you have satisfied those criteria. What is fundamentally the limiting case is that you will not succeed at any such experiment if the criteria are sufficiently well defined. That is why the 1974 Uri Gellar research is discredited. The experimenters jumped right in and started counting P-norms, decibels of EEG attenuation, and so forth - without even defining what counted as a successful "view"! They did go to great lengths to preclude the possibility of Mr. Gellar knowing what the drawing should have been. But they forgot to define a valid judging criteria for the post-experiment comparison. So, they ended up with a bunch of line drawings, and they had some that really do look stunningly similar to the "target" image - but they never really stated "how similar" is an acceptable drawing. Even worse are the "descriptions of remote places" trials. In these experiments, the subject describes a remote place. Later, judges decide if the description matched the remote place. But the judgement criteria is not spelled out in gory scientific detail. If these details were present and explained in the experimental setup, the experiments would be repeatable and could be subject to scientific testing. As they stand right now, the experiments are subjective and not scientific. Nimur (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The onus is on the OP to define in advance what remote viewing ability s/he claims to have. After that we would need to agree on a test that A) the parties are willing and able (practically and economically) to carry out, B) can give a result with high statistical confidence and C) includes precautions to eliminate unintended influences. "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" is a subjective not an objective measure of confidence, and it may reflect ignorance as readily as evidence. If I roll ordinary 6-sided dice the OP should be able to guess the result 16-2/3% of the time. Getting that right 20% of the time doesn't cinch anything. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There are several things that have to be nailed down - but I think the OP's original statement would work pretty well. We have two identical books of (say) one hundred very diverse pictures, which are numbered - we agree that someone a suitable distance away uses a random number generator to pick a picture from the book and at 12 noon, GMT concentrates on it or stares at it or whatever the remote viewer claims is necessary. Meanwhile, the viewer has been kept alone in a windowless room with a clock from before the time that the random numbers were generated until they asserts that they have 'picked up the image', sketched what they saw and (since interpretation of that image is iffy) - we'll stipulate that the viewer must then look through their copy of the book and nominate between one and three photos that match what they saw. Once they have listed between one and three numbers, these will be communicated to the experimenters and that round of the experiment is over. The experiment will be repeated ten times. The results are then assessed with standard statistical tools to determine the probability of this happening by chance - and only if the result is that there is a less than 0.1% percent chance of this happening by chance alone do we give this effect any credance. I'm pretty sure that if someone were to agree to terms like this then the Randi institute folks would be happy to test that person and award them a million dollars for passing the test. SteveBaker (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, that would require them to get at least 4 out of 10 correct (assuming I can do basic probability, which is a big assumption... it took me two attempts!). --Tango (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not much of a statistician, but I'm not sure one set of 10 would be enough (unless they are claiming 100% reliability, which they rarely do, they just claim to be better than random chance). I think you need to do several sets of 10 and then do some fancy statistical analysis. Do we have a statistician in the room? --Tango (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Imagine if Maxwell's Equations only worked "better than random chance." You'd pick up your mobile telephone, and 3 out of 10 times, its batteries would undergo the statistical thermodynamic processes necessary for chemically induced voltage. Electrons would statistically drift down the conductors with a 1 in 5 outcome; and they would flow into a transistor amplifier and 1 out of 6 times, amplification would occur... more electrons would flow into an antenna and induce an electromagnetic perturbation on the surrounding air... depending on convection patterns, the air near the antenna would perturb the dielectric constant 1 in 2 times, allowing effective coupling between the antenna and the radio channel... oh wait, these things are already statistical. Using statistics is perfectly fine to describe physical laws, if there is a physical law to describe. We're able to build machines and cope with statistical chances because when we scale up the size, the law of large numbers kicks in and we have a nearly deterministic system. Scientists are perfectly happy to use statistics, but we don't like making crap up. That's why we don't believe in psychokinesis or remote viewing. Nimur (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's perfectly legit to be impressed by a result that's consistently "better than random chance". Even if Remote Viewing does not work with 100% reliability (there are human factors involved.), or even if it doesn't work by the same mechanism that its proponents put forth (Extraordinarily likely, even if RV is real!) it would still be an exciting discovery, well worth The Amazing Randi's million bucks.

If I could predict lotto numbers "better than random chance" the Lottery Commission would absolutely be interested in finding out how I was doing it, they wouldn't wait until I'd revised my method to 100% reliability. APL (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with APL and indeed I would be disturbed if any scientist completely ignored something that was statiscally shown to be not due to random chance simply because the result wasn't impressive enough. Generally speaking, in most science anything which is not due to random chance is usually considered worthy of further analysis (i.e. it is often the null hypothesis that a difference is simply due to random chance and it is only when it is not that the result is worth further investigation). I'm pretty sure that the JREF for example only requires someone to be able to do something good enough that it is not due to random chance. And I suspect many sceptics likewise. Of course, it's not possible to prove something wasn't due to random chance, you can just say it is highly unlikely so if the difference is minor, the result may be mostly ignored for reasons of timing, funding etc (and for something like the JREF they'd likely need many trials before they're convinced you are really capable of predicting something better then random chance if the percentage is small to avoid the risk you just got luck) but it doesn't mean the result isn't of potential significance. A good real example of course is with drugs. No drug testing agency I know of requires a drug to be 100% effective. Nor does any company not release a drug simply because it is not 100% effective. The primary thing they require/expect is that the drug must be better then a no drug or perhaps an existing drug. And indeed many patients are perfectly happy with drugs that are not even close to 100% effective when the alternative is worse. (Of course this depends on the condition and side effects, a drug which reduces chance of pregnancy by 10% and has serious common side effects like death will be of little interest, a drug which reduces chance of cancer metasasing by 10% and has few side effects is likely to be of great interest.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

1 in 2 times allowing effective coupling between the antenna and the radio channel...:: You just described AT&T cell service! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.225.206 (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)