Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2009 January 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Science desk
< January 15 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 17 >
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.


January 16

[edit]

Saving money by freezing water

[edit]

Every couple months, I buy raw chicken for my dogs for their daily meals. As time goes by, the freezer empties. To save money on electricity, I've started adding plastic bottles of water to the freezer to make up for the space that opens up as the dogs eat. I'd like to reuse these bottles, they're empty juice bottles, so how much should I fill them to keep the ice from breaking the plastic open as the water expands upon freezing? I thought about squeezing the bottle slightly before putting the cap on, thinking that the ice formation would push the sides out as far as it needed. Is this a good strategy? Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you filling the bottles with water at all ? Air has a much lower thermal capacity, meaning it will take far less energy for the freezer to bring air-filled bottles down to freezer temps than water-filled bottles. As for how full, you'd need it less than 90% full of water to prevent overflowing, if the water flows evenly and no expansion or contraction of the bottle is allowed. Unfortunately, neither assumption is valid. For example, ice might very well form across the surface of the water, preventing it from expanding upwards (depending on the bottle geometry), and split the bottle open, even if only half full. StuRat (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you need bottles at all? I'm really not getting this... what's wrong with leaving your freezer half empty? --Tango (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, since water takes more energy to cool than air does, why add room temperature water to the freezer at all? It seems that that would be a waste of energy and resources... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with a half-empty freezer is that whenever you open it warm air enters, and has to be cooled, wasting energy. As StuRat points out, this can be averted by filling the space with empty bottles or such. Algebraist 02:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suspect that the energy required to cool the air is far, far less than the energy needed to cool and freeze the water occupying the equivalent space, by orders of magnitude. Unless you need jugs of frozen water, do not place jugs of water in the freezer to occupy the space previously occupied by frozen food. If you open the freezer "daily" just leave the space empty until you buy more dog food.How many times would one have to cool air from room temp (20 Celsius?) to freezer temp (fifteen below zero Celsius?) to make up for the energy required to cool water from over the same range? Look at the specific heat of air versus the specific heat of water as well as the heat of fusion of water. Water appears to have about 1000 times the density of air and a specific heat of 4.1813 kiloJoules per kilogram per degree Celsius, about 4 times the specific heat of air (1.0035 kilojoules per degree celsius per kilogram). Once it freezes, it has about twice the specific heat of air of the same mass, 2.050 kiloJoules per kilogram per degree Celsius). In addition, for the phase change from water to ice, add 333 kiloJoules per kilogram. It looks like the freezer would have to be opened an unrealistic number of times to make the freezing of water of the equivalent volume more economical than cooling the warm air which entered. (But, then, I am not a chemist). Edison (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense. Yes, air-filled bottles could save some energy, water-filled bottles most likely won't (and certainly not as much as air-filled ones). --Tango (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except for Edison's answer, which went over my head, it sounds like the rest of you are saying that I should just put in empty bottles. I was filling them with water because I thought that the ice blocks would keep the condenser from having to run as often to maintain the temperature. That they would aid in keeping everything cold for longer than the same volume of air. Dismas|(talk) 04:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what we're saying. While water-filled bottles will store more coldness (don't look at me like that!), which would help maintain the temperature, that effect is outweighed by the energy required to freeze the water in the first place. --Tango (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for dumbing it down for me. Neither of my degrees are in engineering or anything of the sort. Dismas|(talk) 04:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't intentionally dumbing it down, I was thinking about it in terms of storing coldness myself, so that's how I wrote it. (Yes, I cancel dx's too, so sue me!) --Tango (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please contact my lawyer immediately - he'd like to discuss what date you could make it into court! (Thermodynamics - it's not just a good idea - it's the LAW!)
There are two effects going on here:
  1. Preventing volumes of cold air from spilling out and being replaced by warm air when you open the freezer door. Cold air is denser than warm air - so if you have a "chest" freezer - there is little problem - but for freezer's with doors that hinge open at the front, all of the cold air will "fall" out of the bottom in just a few seconds. To stop that, it's only necessary to prevent the air in the unused parts of the freezer compartment from moving - and a few three liter coke bottles will do that just fine.
  2. The idea of 'thermal inertial' - that something like water/ice would slow down the rate of change of temperature. That's a more dubious thing. Certainly, if the thermal inertia is high then when you open the door, the temperature won't fall by so much before you shut it again. That SOUNDS good - except that the high thermal inertia ensures that having fallen a bit - it takes so much longer for the freezer to get back to the right temperature again. So from a point of view of saving energy - there isn't any benefit to using high-thermal inertia materials inside those bottles. It's only use is to prevent the temperature from rising to the point where the food might spoil - but for that, you'd need to leave the door open for a considerable amount of time even without anything like bottles of water in there.
So the conclusion is that any kind of system for stopping the air in the empty parts of the freezer from moving when you open the door is probably about as good as any other. Balloons, empty cardboard boxes, coke bottles, dead aarvarks...it doesn't matter. But if you have a "chest freezer" it's hardly worth bothering with since the cold air will pretty much stay put. So if you're going to do this - you might as well use bottles full of air because (a) the initial cost of chilling them is much less and (b) there is no chance of them rupturing. SteveBaker (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dead aardvarks are mostly water. Dessicated aardvarks, on the other hand, ... Saintrain (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Cecil Adams covers this question here. --Sean 13:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is one advantage to having lots of frozen water in the freezer, it will keep the food frozen longer in the event of a power failure. You can also use freezer gel packs that will hold even more "coolth", but then again, those cost money and you can't drink the melting water on a hot day in summer. StuRat (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about freezing the bottles outdoors when it's cold out? Since your user page indicates that you live in Vermont, I recommend doing it today! That will give you the benefits mentioned above, without the energy cost. -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent idea. Even better, fill those bottles with cold maple syrup. :-) StuRat (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do something similar with large leftover items I want to freeze, like a ham or turkey. I have an enclosed, but unheated, porch, so I put food out there to cool down before I put it in the freezer. Of course, if I just left those items outside, I would find dogs and racoons fighting over them in my yard. StuRat (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An additional point about not freezing water; when the frozen bottles are removed to make space for food, the energy used to freeze the water just melts away :-) Saintrain (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stone use

[edit]

Is the British unit of weight the stone used for anything other than human body weight, commonly or otherwise? --Milkbreath (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only other usage I have ever encountered was by me, expressing the mass of meat in my family's Christmas dinner in stones and pounds to emphasize its size. Algebraist 01:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is (or at least was) used for the weight of horses, as well. StuRat (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Back in the 1950's it was used for weighing coal for domestic delivery. But generally, no - it's going the way of the Dodo. SteveBaker (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remember it being used by people buying potatoes (usually as "half a stone"), but I haven't heard that for many years. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it's not even used for bodymass any more, except perhaps colloquially. I'd be very surprised if you went to a doctor's surgery or hospital and they measured your mass in anything other than Kilogrammes. Alun (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I met Brits a few years ago who could readily state their weight in stone,(like "I weigh 12 and a half stone") but had to do mental calculations to come up with the pound or kg equivalent. When did Brit scales for home or medical use switch from "stone" to pounds or kilograms, if ever? "Stone" still shows up in Brit press along with pounds and kg for the weight of fish [1] adults [2] and babies [3] . Stone still shows up in "ideal weight" charts [4]. Edison (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That switch has yet to occur. Every Briton I know states their weight in stones, or in stones and pounds. Scales for weighing oneself normally have a scale of stones and pounds and a scale of kilograms. Algebraist 15:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! <wave> It's me! The Brit who has no clue how much a 'stone' is and only knows his weight in kilo's (but who can do a rough conversion into pounds if required). :-) SteveBaker (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like Brits vary considerably in how they note their weight. Edison (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, you live in Texas now. You don't count as a Brit. ;-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he certainly doesn't count as a Texan if he thinks about his weight in kilos. Dragons flight (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a Brit (that actually lives in Britain) that measures his weight in stone (well, when he weighs himself at all...). Doctors certainly use kilograms, but I don't think anyone else does (those that do, we exile to the other side of the pond ;)). --Tango (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't send them to the US, as we measure our weight in pounds, except for doctors, again, always using those silly kilograms. StuRat (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you guys eventually get with the program and start using kilograms and kilometres (oh, alright, kilometers if you must), you'll all wonder "Why didn't we make this very sensible change two centuries ago?". -- JackofOz (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kilograms are too big, so you must resort to fractions or decimals to give your daily weight. StuRat (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a Englishman who lives in England, measures his weight in kilograms, but knows others who still use stones and pounds. None use pounds on their own. I also measure my height in metres but know others who quote feet and inches. I buy my bottled English beer in half-litre quantities but it's always a pint (or several) in the pub. Milk from the supermarket comes in 3.4 litre plastic containers, but from the corner shop in 1 litre packs. I fill my VW up with 55 litres of diesel and get 45 miles for every gallon. It is one of the nicer things about living here that we are able to mix everything up this way and yet still know what we want to know at the end of it. Bazza (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about waves

[edit]

Hi - I was at the lake yesterday afternoon - a shallow, broad artificial lake; it was a bit blowy, and I saw two types of waves - a low chop moving across the water, and other, more sinuous waves that were neither rising or falling, but remaining in place. From the article on waves, these aren't standing waves, as I understand them, because according to the animation they rise and fall, albeit in the same spot - whereas these crests remained fixed and unmoving. Is there a name for this phenomenon?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In rivers you often get a bulge in the water right after it passes over a rock, so perhaps something similar is happening here. StuRat (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer, but it didn't look like that, because the crests were regularly spaced, and the water wasn't flowing - there was no movement, only apparent movement, an effect of the ripples blowing across the surface. Adambrowne666 (talk)
Could there have been a shape at the bottom of the artificial lake that resembles the shape of the waves above ? And how can you tell there was no motion of the water ? It seems to me that the chopiness would tend to disguise this. I'd dip the end of a stick in and see if you get a wake. StuRat (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible the water was moving - but is it likely in a shallow artificial lake with no inlets? - maybe, I dunno - the ducks etc were bobbing in the same spot, so it seemed not to be moving. You may be right - though I was thinking of something along the lines of the wind setting up waves that were reflected back from the shore causing interference patterns on the surface; is that possible too? - I'm totally guessing here... If it was that, would they be defined as standing waves? Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The wind could blow the surface water one way, and it might need to flow the other way underneath, to maintain equilibrium. With wind waves being reflected back from the edge, you could get standing waves, but they would go up and down at any given point, not "stay up", as you noted earlier. StuRat (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, makes sense - well, maybe it was flowing - next time I see it, I'm definitely going to check - my curiosity's piqued - thanks for the answers, Stu.
You're welcome. I'm curious, too, so be sure to let me know what you find out. StuRat (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

solid objects behavior under stress

[edit]

we all know that any materials in solid state will respond by change in its dimension (strain)when be subjected to aforce . but will there be any change between the volume before and after applying of the force? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjaafreh2008 (talkcontribs) 02:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We probably shouldn't be answering your homework questions, but you may want to read the articles titled Compressibility and Condensed matter physics, which contain information for you to answer the question yourself. As an alternate idea, your teacher may have issued you a text book, if our articles are more detailed than you need to answer your question, the information may likely be found there, or possibly in the lecture notes from class when you learned this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about we assume good faith, huh? While that's certainly the kind of question that may be set for homework (although I wouldn't set it if I were the teacher, since it just tests if you were awake in class and doesn't touch on any actual understanding), it's also the kind of question that a naturally curious person may come up with by themselves. If it was homework, at least the OP went to the effort of writing it in their own words. --Tango (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - I don't think this is in any way obviously a homework question. Certainly any material could be compressed into neutron-star-material ("neutronium") and even black-hole-material - so the answer is yes - for absolutely all normal or abnormal matter. But what about for 'ordinary' kinds of forces? Well, consider diamond - it's formed by applying huge compression forces to 'normal' carbon. The density of diamond is about 150% that of graphite - certainly that is an example of a material which can be compressed to a smaller volume...and which will remain at that volume when you withdraw the pressure. SteveBaker (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can try this yourself and observe the result. First, squeeze a dry sponge or a stuffed animal. Does the volume change? Now, fill a ballon or a plastic milk jug with water, with no air. squeeze it: Does the volume change? If you cannot tell by direct observation, do this experiment under water in a tub and observe the displacement. Now, explain any differences. Note: when I do this, I can dramatically reduce the volume of the stuffed animal, but I cannot reduce the volume of the water balloon. -Arch dude (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bogus answer based on bogus experiment: The stuffed animal is mostly air. When you compress it - you (probably) aren't compressing the solid material at all - you are either compressing or (more likely) expelling the air. The issue of whether the solid material that makes up the individual fibres is compressible is the question at issue here - and your experiment doesn't show that. SteveBaker (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fibrinogen

[edit]

a friend of mine is having a fibrinogen count that is below the reference level. the blood test report states that the fibrinogen level is 120mg/dl while the reference range is 175-350mg/dl. what will be the effect of such a shortage?what is the function of fibrinogen? i am not able to understand the wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.225.118 (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fibrin article certainly could be made more reader-friendly. Basically, fibrinogen is a major building block for blood clots. Under conditions that trigger clot formation, a fibrin polymer can be created. This protein mesh forms the backbone of a clot. Circulating fibrinogen (an inactive form) is the principal source of fibrin, is converted to it's functional state when it is cleaved by the clotting enzyme thrombin. Information about any possible medical implications for your friend would represent medical advice, which should not come from the RefDesk. --Scray (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of itself, a slightly low fibrinogen level doesn't have any clinical significance. However the clotting abnormality disseminated intravascular coagulation can cause a low fibrinogen level. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tests are always interpreted within a clinical situation. The fibrinogen level was presumably ordered for a specific purpose: to assess abnormal bleeding or abnormal blood tests like PT/PTT; to assess the progression of liver disease which might interfere with protein synthesis, or to assess the risk of developing cardiovascular disease. A low fibrinogen level would have different significance depending on the clinical setting in which it was ordered, so really your friend has to discuss this with his physician. - Nunh-huh 18:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More likely the fibrinogen level was a default test in the coagulation screen. If the PT and APTT are normal, the fibrinogen level isn't very helpful. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of the OP, this is beginning to look a lot like medical advice. --Scray (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fifth dimension

[edit]

what is the fifth dimension? light is said to be the vibration of the fifth dimension in the book "HYPERSPACE" by michio kaku. but in the same book, it is said that the universe was earlier made up of 10 dimensions and six broke off. ours is the remaining four. also, the remaining six dimensions have shrunk to the size of the fraction of the size of a proton. so how doesit fill our universe so that light would travel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.225.118 (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like fiction, not science - which fits the source you cite. We do have science-based articles on the fourth and fifth dimensions that might interest you. --Scray (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A book called Hyperspace is unlikely to be a reliable source. Light is not a vibration of the fifth dimension, but rather an electromagnetic phenomenon that can be adequately if unsatisfyingly described in the usual 3 (special) plus 1 (time) dimensions. In science fiction, the fifth dimension is often assumed to be an extra spatial dimension that allows for faster-than-light travel via some handwaving pseudophysics, and hyperspace is the medium that allows this. In string theory, a fairly advanced and controversial area of higher nonsensetheoretical physics, more-dimensional are models considered, and they often have the property that many of the extra dimensions are somehow compacted so that we only perceive the normal ones. See String_theory#Extra_dimensions, and take an aspirin or two in advance ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article Hyperspace (book) it is a real science book. And Michio Kaku is an expert in string theory, apparently. So I don't think the reliability of the source can be in doubt. I don't know anything about theoretical physics though. Alun (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I agree that the person who wrote the book sounds reliable, but I retain the impression that it sounds like (well-informed) speculation. --Scray (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, it just occurred to me, upon reading what you wrote that all scientific theories are well-informed speculation!! Alun (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are the spatial dimensions special? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For me, I can travel more easily to the kitchen than to yesterday... --Stephan Schulz ([[User talk:
A fifth dimension wouldn't fill any particular place in the universe - it would be everywhere but curled up. The usual comparison is to a telephone line, far away it looks like a line but close by for an ant it is two dimensional with one dimension curled up an circular. A string can just go straight along the line or wind around it an these two paths would be different so one can get different effects. In our three spatial dimensions there could be another tiny dimension curled up everywhere just like the curve round the wire is all along it. An alternative is tha there could be an extra huge dimension but we can't look in that direction, for instance if our universe is like a layer of an onion and light only travels along a layer of the onion, the fifth dimension would be between layers. I'm sure this is the sort of Michio Kaku would be writing anyway, perhaps you could be more specific? Dmcq (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michio Kaku is considered a joke by his fellow physicists and I would recommend ignoring anything he says. In this case, though, when he talks about light as a vibration in a fifth dimension he's probably talking about Kaluza-Klein theory, and when he talk about six extra dimensions he's talking about Calabi-Yau compactification in string theory. The six extra dimensions in string theory have, as far as I know, nothing to do with the one extra dimension of Kaluza and Klein's theory. There's no standard "fifth dimension" that everyone agrees on. -- BenRG (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have personally seen and heard the Fifth Dimension. Edison (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Michio Kaku is the 'physicist' who is trotted out on every Science Channel and Discovery Channel show to say impressive, dramatic, surprising (and often VERY wrong) sciencey things on every subject under the sun. If you watch any of those shows - check out the photo (at right) and I'm sure you'll recognise him. He was once a leading string theorists - but I certainly would take anything he wrote in the last 5 to 10 years or so with a huge pinch of salt. His latest book is about "the technologies of invisibility, teleportation, precognition, star ships, antimatter engines, time travel and more"...which is a measure of how much he's "sold out" to the media business. He clearly hasn't been a hard-working grass-roots scientist for many years because he must be spending close to 100% of his time with film crews, in makeup tents and writing trash about precognition and teleportation with the flimsiest of scientific pretext. I find this very sad. SteveBaker (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, as much as love the Science Channel and the Discovery Channel (and the History Channel too), I am distressed by all the shows on Nostradamus, the Bermuda Triangle, Roswell, etc.. Now I find out that the guy on the legitimate science shows on astronomy and physics isn't exactly reliable either? Ugh. Where's a lay scientist supposed to turn? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From my experience, most popular scien-tists (as in scientists heavily active in the popular science field not as in scientists who are popular) tend to be somewhat disconnected from real science Nil Einne (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about Carl Sagan? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said most, not all Nil Einne (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia Ref Desk, of course! --Tango (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I know that book (his latest Steve mentioned, not the one under discussion here). It's riddled with factual errors. Algebraist 18:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Branes? ~AH1(TCU) 23:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unified theory

[edit]

have scientists arrived at an equation that can explain all the laws and features of nature? what is the equation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.225.118 (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. Algebraist 12:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No; see Grand unification theory for the most famous attempt. Even there, it's a long way from understanding particle physics to understanding why blue-footed boobies behave the way they do. Nature isn't just big; it's everything! --Sean 13:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... but it is known that 42 is the answer to life, the universe and everything. 98.220.251.111 (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't - but what we do know is that there are hard limits to what we CAN explain. We have several sources of fundamental unknowability to contend with: The Heisenberg uncertainty principle and associated quantum weirdness limits what we can know at the nano-scale. Chaos theory and Catastrophy theory limits what we can predict - even at the macro-scale. Hawking radiation has been argued as a source of cosmic-scale randomness. Godel's theorem limits what we can prove mathematically. The Halting problem (and it's greater consequences) limit what we can compute with software. So I guess what we DO know is that even if we do find "the equation of everything" - it's not going to help us to understand or predict everything. We do not have a mechanical universe (how is that a red link?!?) - and Einstein notwithstanding: "God" does indeed play dice...or possibly roulette...in fact it often seems that it's the only game (s)he knows! SteveBaker (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do economists know, really?

[edit]

With the economy seeming to fall into a quagmire, I can't help but wonder why more economists didn't see this coming? (I suspect some did, at various points along the way, but all along the way down there has also been no shortage of people to suggest things will get better soon.)

I'm generally interested in analysis of the accuracy of forward looking economic predictions. Presumably someone tries to figure out how accurate analysts have been, right? I'm not sure what the right data sets to look at are though. Any ideas? Dragons flight (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economics is a science in flux. Rules change. Sometimes this is the point. For example FDIC was created in 1933 to prevent future runs on the bank, no one knew what it a run on the bank would look like with this new insurance in place. Could one still happen? No one knew because there wasn't any data for something that had never been tried before.
A lot of economists study cause and effect rather than getting good at predictions. To draw another example, suppose I asked an economist why people speed less on the freeway in a recession. They would tell you that it could be because people can't afford a ticket or that they are trying to get better gas mileage. If I ask them why they speed MORE they will say because they can't afford to be late for work or they are burning off frustration. But if I ask whether people speed more or less in a recession they would have no idea unless they went out and collected data. So they are not effective at predicting something they haven't seen. Once they have data on this though, they'll be able to predict it for a while in the future unless traffic laws change significantly, in which case they could make predictions based on old predictions but ultimately they just have to collect more data.
These mortgage backed securities are like new traffic laws. No one really knew what would happen if they started bottoming out. Sure there were some that viewed it overly optimistically, and some that viewed it overly pessimistically (turns out these ones were right).
Now that being said there are some incredibly bright economists out there that probably see true most of the time. The problem is that firms don't necessarily have the incentive to listen to these economists. Seems stupid? Its not. Companies are rewarded for taking risks. Companies are also rewarded for making short term (one-quarter) quick profits that can be put into their prediction for their next quarterly release. Unlike Japanese firms which always keep long term in mind and take very few risks, American firms jump boldly into new cash making endeavors. This generally gives American firms better growth but sucks in times like these.
In fact often companies do things that are not in their own interest. The Game Theory that is created by open markets sometimes make Prisoner's dilemmas. For example when the banks stopped leading to each other, it sucked for all of them. They would've been better off if they had all kept lending, but individually they all thought, "Well it'd be great if everyone BUT me kept lending, so that I don't have to expose myself to that risk." This creates a scenario of no lending for the Nash equilibrium.
As far as predicting stock prices or market movements anyone who doesn't have insider information is no better at predicting than a monkey throwing at a dart board. Shows like Mad Money actually predict stock movement at slightly worse than random rates. Managed Mutual funds (meaning having an active "expert" playing the market buying/selling everyday to try and maximize profits) have historically done worse than indexed funds (just a list of stocks that never changes or infrequently change) in just about any economic climate. No one can predict the market.
Anyway probably a bit wordy there, hopefully you got something interesting out of it. Anythingapplied (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

to say frankly, the world economy is controlled by the gulf countries. they provide the world with nearly 80% of crude oil and so, they can control the price of petroleum by increasing or decreasing production. a decrease in production will cause an increase in petrol prices. this increase already is causing turmoils in India. the government did not increase the petrol price significantly when oil prices rose to $140 a barrel. this results in accumulated loss for all companies. But when the price fell to $40, the gov. will not reduce the price since there was no increase. the stock market situation is similar to that of the uncertainty principle at the quantum level. you cant just find for sure anything. u can just find the probability. the same applies for weather reports and stock markets. Harnithish (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately in the short term doing stupid things can seem right so the more silly politicians and economists get the limelight. It annoys me at work too that people who plan properly, bring in a profit and don't have a crisis get little reward compared to people who are always rushing around patching up the trouble they've caused. But on the original question I can't answer better than the old joke of what's the difference between an exam in philosophy and in economics? ---- One asks a different question every year and expects the same answer, and the other asks the same question every year and expects a different answer. Dmcq (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Economics isn't really a science. We should stop calling it that. You can't do experiments with economies - not proper, controlled double-blind experiments. If you could then the major opposing camps (The Marxians and the Keynsians) would long ago have figured out which of those two theories was "correct" and we wouldn't have one bunch of highly paid, trained, professional economists claiming that lowering taxes on the rich would cause them to invest more money and cause a 'trickle-down' effect from which everyone benefits - while another group of equally highly paid, respected economists claim that we should raise taxes on the rich so we can lower them for the poor and have those consumers spend more and thereby raise the economy from the bottom up. We literally don't know the answer to something as fundamental as that. Sure, we can change some policy and a year later it SEEMS like things either got better or they got worse - but without a "control group" you have no clue whether it was what you did that caused that - or some other factor like the weather or the discovery of a new source of energy or a terrorist flying a plane into a building.
The scariest thing about economists is their propensity for having graphs with no numbers on their axes! Ask them about their most well-known theory: 'Supply and demand' and 100% of the time, they'll trot out this pretty graph with one curve swooping down dramatically from one side and another curve swooping down from the other - and right there at the point of intersection there will be a big red arrow. OK - so this tells us that supply and demand should be equal and the price of the goods will change until that happens - fair enough. So, you ask - what are the numbers? At what price should we sell this item? Surely we can look at the curves and read off the answer? No? Well, at least we have the equations for price-versus-supply and price-versus-demand curves then? Well, sadly, no. Because economists have no clue how (mathematically - numerically) supply and demand change as a function of price because THERE ARE NO NUMBERS ON THE FREAKING AXES!! Proper scientific theories have to produce PREDICTIONS that can be tested. So, nobody was prepared to sign off on Einstein's theories of relativity until some poor sap had hauled a bunch of telescopes through the middle of a war zone and later out into the back of beyond and measured how a star is displaced during a solar eclipse! Where is the seminal experimental evidence for those supply and demand curves?
So what use is this wonderful 'supply and demand' theory? All it tells you is the most blindingly obvious thing - that if something gets cheaper, more people will buy it (and vice-versa) and if it gets more costly, more people will want to make it. Yeah - great job guys! If I'm a manufacturer and I make widgets in small quantities for discerning customers - so the supply is short and the prices are high...should I invest in another factory and sell twice as many widgets (albeit at a modestly reduced price) or will the price drop so steeply when I do that that I will drive the price down so far that I'll actually make less profit than I do now? Maybe instead, I should cut back on production and let the price rise? I should be able to toss the numbers into a spreadsheet using the equations provided in the Economics 101 "big book of equations" and PREDICT (within the limits of experimental error) whether I should open the new factory or not. In truth - nobody knows - ask N economists and you'll get 2x(N-1) answers! This is one of their most fundamental principles - and certainly the one they teach first in Economics 101 - and we don't have even the basic math to tell us how it works. This stuff isn't just a lack of scientific rigor - it's an actual practical matter for which there is no known answer...just look at the way governments work to try to artificially limit supply (eg by buying agricultural 'setasides' where they pay people NOT to increase the supply) - or the way that they try to increase supply by offering subsidies. These are direct tinkerings with that supply/demand curve - but in the absence of any science - there are these huge debates about whether to institute these kinds of practices. If it were a science, you'd plug the numbers into your spreadsheet - people would look at your numbers and everyone would nod sagely and "do the right thing".
That's not to say that economists are a waste of space (let's reserve that for the philosophers!) - but what they are doing isn't science - and they shouldn't call it that. Obviously there are very good reasons why they can't do these kinds of experiments - which is an excellent excuse for the state of economic theory...but we should please just not call it 'science'.
SteveBaker (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would rate philosophers above economists. Mistakes by economists are disastrous; mistakes by philosophers merely ridiculous. Matt Deres (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A problem which virtually precludes the success of economics is that economists publish their findings, and the economic actors have access to these publications. They then try to gain an advantage from the insight and change their behaviour and therefore the economy which is being studied by the economists. There may not be that many people who actually read the papers of economists, but a few smart individuals should be enough (if they run successful businesses then others will be interested in their business models and copy it). In general, economists are not smarter than economic actors. Icek (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

[edit]

Apparently I hit a nerve. However, the verbose responses given above largely missed the point of the question. Rather than offering opinions about how good/terrible economics is at making predicitons, I would like to see actual evidence of what comes from those predictions. User:Anythingapplied alluded to what could be good evidence saying: "Shows like Mad Money actually predict stock movement at slightly worse than random rates. Managed Mutual funds (meaning having an active 'expert' playing the market buying/selling everyday to try and maximize profits) have historically done worse than indexed funds", but didn't give any references to back up his assertions.

In response to SteveBaker's assertion that economics is not "science" and shouldn't be treated as such, well that's what I would like to investigate. So what if there is only one economy? That doesn't preclude making predictions and verifying whether the results are statistically better than random guessing. By analogy, cosmologists have only one universe and climatologists have only one planet, and yet neither field should be accused of being incapable of scientific analysis. Some economists, such as stock analysts and money managers, are routinely making predictions about the future of the economy. Either they turn out to be right or wrong, but that's what I would like to know. Before we condemn all economists, I'd like to see some data about their actual performance. Dragons flight (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point of my post. What makes something a science or not has nothing to do with how often it's right. It's to do with methodology. Science has a long and (mostly) successful history of applying "The Scientific Method" - where you have some idea for a theory - you test it with an experiment - the experiment either confirms your theory or rejects it. Economics doesn't (and indeed, cannot) work like that. Furthermore, it wraps itself in the trappings of science - graphs and charts - but misses out on the aspects of measurement and testing. So it may be 100% successful or worse than chance - it doesn't matter - it's not science because it doesn't apply scientific methodology. So if your goal is to claim (as I do) that economics is not a science - then you don't need evidence of how economic predictions turn out. You merely have to ask how economists make those predictions...and they'll readily admit that they can't do proper experiments because that's in the nature of their field.
Cosmologists certainly do perform experiments - a good example is that they hypothesised that the big bang was the origin of the universe. They reasoned that if that really happened then the cosmic microwave background radiation should have a certain set of properties. Finally, they launched a spacecraft with microwave detectors and they measured that radiation experimentally. The result fitted their prediction and debunked the older theories - so now we have a new cosmological finding and we regard the Big Bang as "A True Theory".
I agree that climatologists can't experiment on the entire planet - but they can take results and equations from other fields of science and apply those to the systems they study. Weather (not climate) prediction (for example) is a notoriously inaccurate field of study. We all know that weather forecasts are unreliable. But they DO use scientific principles - they have a computer with a 'model' of the atmosphere which includes things like the gas laws and the laws of thermodynamics - and they run that data against current data. They test that model (which is a kind of 'theory') against historical weather data - and that is a kind of experiment. When the model fails, they figure out why - and hopefully fix it...that is (in a sense) their scientific "law". It's not perfect and the results aren't particularly reliable because of Chaos theory...but they know why it doesn't work - and they know the accuracy of their forecasts falls of as a function of time. When the next hurricane heads towards Florida - they will predict it's track and various teams of meteorologists will largely agree on the results. Hence it's a scientific method. Economists rarely agree - if they were following a set of laws that had been scientifically derived and proved by experiment - they wouldn't disagree so violently. Stock market prediction is also unreliable - but it's not done with a scientific model - it's just statistics and the best gut feel that various stock market 'experts' can come up with.
Cosmology and climatology can build on the results of physics and chemistry. Economists have nasty unfathomables like the behavior of humans under stress, the weather, the random-seeming discovery of new raw material deposits, massive fraud in ENRON, one guy becoming President rather than another as a result of 'dangling chads' - they simply can't build their results on the back of other scientific results - and they can't come up with scientific laws of their own. It's not their FAULT that it's not a science - but none-the-less, it's not.
But none of that changes whether they are right or wrong when making predictions. Weather forcasting has a TON of science thrown at it - but Chaos theory dooms us to forecasts that are no better than chance beyond a week or so - and short term forcasts that do better than chance - but not much better than following the rule "Today's weather will be the same as yesterday"...which is remarkably effective! Some economic theories work really rather well in practice (certainly better than weather forecasting) - but they aren't based on science.
SteveBaker (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you miss my point. I don't care what you think of their methodology. I don't care whether what they do qualifies as science. I want to see evidence evaluating their reliability.
Look at this way. Athletics is not generally considered a science. On any given day, an athlete may have a good performance or a poor one. Nonetheless, what they are capable of doing is often interesting and great athletes are consistent enough to build legendary careers.
Maybe economists indulge in superstition and fantasy, but regardless, I am still interested in whether there exist economists who are right often enough that they are able have useful insights about the future of our economy. I consider all this discussion about whether the methodology is scientific to be largely irrelevant to the question of whether economics, as a field of human endeavor, can be empirically demonstrated to be useful. Dragons flight (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dragons flight, there are some very successfull investors like George Soros, but I don't know their methods ;-)
I strongly disagree with SteveBaker's reasoning. Cosmologists certainly don't perform experiments! A hypothesis is not an experiment. Economists hypothesise as well, and the hypotheses can be falsified.
As I already said, the largest problem is not the inherent complexity but the lack of separation between the theory and the economic actors who shall be described by the theory.
-Icek (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using frogs to keep milk cold

[edit]

My father told me once that when he was young (around year 1920) they used a frog to keep milk cold. They put the frog into the milk container and by having the frog there, the milk would stay cold. I wonder if this possibly could be true? --Kr-val (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: No. Longer answer: once people found out there's a frog in the milk, my guess is that they would leave it alone, and it would stay colder because it's not being handled. I don't think that's the intended effect, though. --Scray (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The closest thing I have heard to this mistaken lore is my dad saying they would put a jug of milk in the spring to cool it. Frogs do spring sometimes. Wasn't there a Three Stooges episode where one of them put a frog in the beer they were trying to make, saying the recipe included "hops?" Edison (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your dad's story is corroborated by this NY Times article from 1854. Presumably it was not unusual to find a frog in your spring-cooled milk, and some people mistakenly guessed that it was the frog that was doing the cooling. --Heron (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

moment of inertia

[edit]

I looked all over for a logical defintion for moment of inertia .

i dont need a mathmatical defintion , i need atext answer without numbers...thank you...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjaafreh2008 (talkcontribs) 09:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google has a special function for bringing up definitions. Search by writing "define:moment of inertia" [5] The article Moment of inertia may also help, but I guess you've read it already. EverGreg (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is the resistance to turning you might notice when starting a wheel rotating. It' bigger for heavier wheels. I'm sorry but maths is the language of science. One can put words in instead of the symbols but it would still be maths. Dmcq (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessarily true that heavier wheels have a higher moment of inertia. It depends on how the weight is distributed...a point on which I elaborate in my explanation below. SteveBaker (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The canonical 'gut feel' thing is the ice-skater spinning on tip-toe. As she starts off, her arms are outstretched - when she pulls them in she immediately spins much faster. The amount of angular momentum she has stays the same even though she's spinning faster - and that's because she changed her moment of inertia by becoming more "compact". So I guess the loosest definition would be 'state of compactness'.
Hence (to pick a practical example that I was discussing with fellow car club members a few days ago): if you have 10" radius wheels on your car with 3" deep tyres (tires) mounted - for a total radius of 13" - and you decide to switch them out for sexier 12" wheels with 1" 'skinny' tyres - you are putting more heavy metal out towards the edge of the wheel and removing some the lighter weight rubber. So even though your new wheel/tyre combo may not weigh any more than the old ones - and even though you didn't change the overall circumpherence - you may be shocked to discover that it added half a second to your 0-60 time! That's because the moment of inertia of the wheel got bigger - the denser parts moved outwards - it became less "compact". This increased moment of inertia requires more torque to accelerate them up to speed - which in turn makes your car's acceleration (and braking) noticably worse....although it does LOOK pretty cool!
SteveBaker (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Informally you can think of moment of inertia as a measure of rotational inertia, i.e. the tendency of an object to maintain its state of rotational motion. To accelerate a stationary (non-rotating) object to a given speed of rotation, you need to give it a certain amount of angular impulse. Say you applied a torque (turning force) for duration . You can get the same result by using half the turning force (i.e. ) but you have to apply it for twice as long (i.e. ). Or you can use double the turning force () and apply it for half as long (). There are many ways you can accelerate the object to the same speed of rotation, but the product of (turning force)×(time) remains the same. So the product of (turning force)×(time) provides a measure of the amount of “effort” expended in changing the rotational speed of an object. You can understand an object of large moment of inertia as one whose speed of rotation cannot be changed easily — you have to either apply a large turning force, or apply a turning force for a long time, or do both, to change its rotational speed. --98.114.146.183 (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of "I don't need a mathematical definition" didn't you understand?! SteveBaker (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blood spurts

[edit]

To kill one of my chickens for dinner, I hang it upside down, hold its head, and make deep cuts (down to the bone) on both sides of its neck, just below the skull. I know I've done it right when I see rhythmic spurts of blood shoot out. In the butchering books I've read, they say this method cuts the jugular vein, which I happily accepted due to the phrase "go for the jugular", but it occurs to me that usually arteries, not veins, should do more spurting. The cuts are so deep that I'm certainly also cutting the carotid artery. Which vessel is likely to be the important one that drains the blood out? Thanks. --Sean 14:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tree stump and a sharp hatchet also gets the job done, severing all arteries and vessels, although the chicken is likely to run around flapping its wings for a minute or less. Your method seems to offer the possibility of greater suffering for the animal if done hesitantly or incompletely, but might drain the blood more completely. Edison (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done it both ways, and much prefer the way I described. I always use an exquisitely sharp knife, and I've noticed in other contexts that being cut by a very sharp blade is not particularly painful. Wacking heads off is much more likely to go awry, in my experience. --Sean 15:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that this still does not answer your question, but by taking a thin blade and poking it through the chickens beak (as if it were being swallowed) angled up towards the brain is the way I've done it in the past. What I was told is that if you stick the knife into the brain, it's instant death for the bird and the least painful. Then you can cut the throat and have the blood run out like you have been doing. You'll still get the death rattle effect, so watch out for blood splashing about. Dismas|(talk) 16:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do indeed do that, but I didn't want to cloud the discussion further. --Sean 18:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I argue that it would be extremely painful to have a knife thrust through the roof of the mouth into the brain. Ever had sinus surgery or dental surgery? Edison (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to a report by Compassion in World Farming Trust, [6] " the time taken by a chicken to die varies enormously, depending on which blood vessels in the neck are cut... Research, however, shows that of all the neck cutting methods, the severing of both carotid arteries (these are the major blood supply to the brain) is the quickest method of inducing death (Gregory & Wotton, 1986). Cutting both carotid arteries (and both jugular veins) is vital if a rapid bleed out and quick death are to be achieved. Failure to cut both carotids can add two minutes to the time taken to reach brain failure (MRI, 1984)" Rockpocket 19:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the informative reply. Carotids, then! --Sean 13:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short tongue and snipping

[edit]