Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2024 July 19
| Science desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < July 18 | << Jun | July | Aug >> | July 20 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
July 19
editVirgo Cluster in Observable Universe
editSo I get that in around 100 billion years, our observable universe will be limited to the Local Group due to Hubble expansion (bummer), but would that include the Virgo Cluster? Some sources say that they would join due to gravity (https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/V/Virgo+Cluster, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe) but I'm also reading responses saying the Hubble expansion is more powerful and therefore Virgo would end up outside of the observable universe. I realize there a lot of variables that we don't know or could change. 184.96.249.124 (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Virgo cluster is receding from us unfortunately. In 100 billion years it would be more than 300 million light years away. Ruslik_Zero 19:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- The fact that it is receding now does not necessarily imply that it will continue to recede forever. The Andromeda galaxy and the Milky Way once receded from each other but have by now turned around and are approaching each other. Every bound object (more exactly, "virialised object"), say a cluster or group of galaxies, has formed out of an initially expanding, but overdense region of the Universe that through the action of gravity has by now recollapsed (a "little crunch", if you will). Throwing a stone up in the air is a pretty good analogy: When I do that on earth, the stone will first move upwards (recede from me) but then it will invariably turn around and fall back down. When I do it on a sufficiently small asteroid, throwing the stone with the exact same force, it may well escape to infinity and never come back. What the analogy does not capture is the effect of Dark Energy, which prevents structures on very large scales from recollapsing, and, as I wrote in another recent thread, I do not know where the limit is. The article Laniakea Supercluster suggests that this structure is not bound, i.e. will not recollapse. You may want to have a look at the references therein. --Wrongfilter (talk) 08:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you but I know all of these. However it is well known that Virgo supercluster (as any supercluster) is not gravitationally bound. The present recessional velocity of the Virgo cluster is more that 1000 km/s. There is not nearly enough mass to even slow this expansion rate. If fact this velocity is already increasing due to the cosmic repulsion. Ruslik_Zero 21:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- The fact that it is receding now does not necessarily imply that it will continue to recede forever. The Andromeda galaxy and the Milky Way once receded from each other but have by now turned around and are approaching each other. Every bound object (more exactly, "virialised object"), say a cluster or group of galaxies, has formed out of an initially expanding, but overdense region of the Universe that through the action of gravity has by now recollapsed (a "little crunch", if you will). Throwing a stone up in the air is a pretty good analogy: When I do that on earth, the stone will first move upwards (recede from me) but then it will invariably turn around and fall back down. When I do it on a sufficiently small asteroid, throwing the stone with the exact same force, it may well escape to infinity and never come back. What the analogy does not capture is the effect of Dark Energy, which prevents structures on very large scales from recollapsing, and, as I wrote in another recent thread, I do not know where the limit is. The article Laniakea Supercluster suggests that this structure is not bound, i.e. will not recollapse. You may want to have a look at the references therein. --Wrongfilter (talk) 08:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
COVID - Natural Immunity vs Vaccination
editI thought that natural immunity via infection from COVID was roughly comparable to immunity via vaccination. However, I just read this article, Study suggests reinfections from the virus that causes COVID-19 likely have similar severity as original infection, which seems to suggest that natural immunity via infection doesn't provide much protection - at least in regard to severe infections. Am I understanding the article correctly? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- That would match the experience of people I know who've caught it twice. HiLo48 (talk) 06:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the results of the study support a statement like "immunity via infection doesn't provide much protection - at least in regard to severe infections" given that only about "a quarter of individuals with either a moderate or severe first infection coinciding with hospitalization also were hospitalized at the time of reinfection", although the difference might not be due to their immune responses. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- The unpredictability of viral infection and immune response at the individual level is quite impressive. I got an AstraZeneca shot, a Moderna shot about 6 months later and a Moderna booster 6 months after that or thereabouts and I didn't experience any symptomatic Covid infections, despite being surrounded by people with active infections quite often. Then finally, a couple of months ago, I had my first symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. And despite having lived through decades of dengue seasons and thousands of mosquito bites in various places during dengue outbreaks without any symptomatic dengue infections, I had my first dengue infection a month after Covid. Hats off to scientists trying to make sense of these immensely complex systems. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- SARS-CoV-2 is a quickly mutating virus with many variants. The immunity provided after infection by one variant is strongest for that specific variant. Evading immunity is a driving factor in the evolution of the virus, which is why we may expect recurring waves, as we are used to for influenza. Next to reinfection with a different variant, the immunity after infection or after vaccination wears off after a couple of months. I have taken all shots and booster shots as soon as they were made available, yet I have been symptomatic twice. Since the vaccines are developed mostly for specific variants, and one usually does not determine the specific variant responsible for the infection of a symptomatic patient, I doubt that there are studies that have determined whether vaccination provides the same level of protection as that after infection. I'm not sure, but so many factors play a role that I think it will be very difficult to collect the data necessary for drawing a conclusion. --Lambiam 09:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- The immune system having a sort of predictive system via somatic hypermutation complicates matters. I think labs at La Jolla Institute for Immunology have done some work on comparing the immune responses to infection vs vaccination, immune memory etc. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- SARS-CoV-2 is a quickly mutating virus with many variants. The immunity provided after infection by one variant is strongest for that specific variant. Evading immunity is a driving factor in the evolution of the virus, which is why we may expect recurring waves, as we are used to for influenza. Next to reinfection with a different variant, the immunity after infection or after vaccination wears off after a couple of months. I have taken all shots and booster shots as soon as they were made available, yet I have been symptomatic twice. Since the vaccines are developed mostly for specific variants, and one usually does not determine the specific variant responsible for the infection of a symptomatic patient, I doubt that there are studies that have determined whether vaccination provides the same level of protection as that after infection. I'm not sure, but so many factors play a role that I think it will be very difficult to collect the data necessary for drawing a conclusion. --Lambiam 09:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Is the relativistic transformation, between two non-rotating non-inertial reference frames, linear?
editHOTmag (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is locally linear but coefficients will depend on coordinates. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Locally linear, so it's not linear. Thank you. HOTmag (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation says Frames of reference can be divided into two groups: inertial (relative motion with constant velocity) and non-inertial (accelerating, moving in curved paths, rotational motion with constant angular velocity, etc.). The term "Lorentz transformations" only refers to transformations between inertial frames, usually in the context of special relativity. Greglocock (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not asking about the Lorentz transformations. HOTmag (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)