Science desk
< December 1	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 3 >

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.

December 2[edit]

New organic chemistry 3D resources[edit]

What other wikiprojects than WT:CHEM should I tell about https://qrchem.net and https://rschemistry.com which were just announced. EllenCT (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals which is more specific for the stuff at https://qrchem.net, but the PubChem site itself has more info. Our articles usually have the link to the same 3D manipulable image already. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nonhuman aesthetic responses to natural phenomena[edit]

Is there any evidence that nonhuman species show an aesthetic interest in natural phenomena (e.g. rainbows) as humans do? 188.74.64.13 (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick search through the online archives of the journal Ethology, I found:

Gordon M. Burghardt, Alumni Distinguished Professor in Psychology and in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Tennessee

This author has written peer-reviewed works and full-length books, such as The Genesis of Animal Play and The Cognitive Animal: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives on Animal Cognition.

You probably aren't going to find satisfaction from a very succinct "yes"/"no" answer; but at least you can see how one expert in a relevant field has framed some of the issues.

Nimur (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat related:

Darwin hypothesized that a female “aesthetic faculty”—literally an evolved “taste for the beautiful” that is exercised during mate choice—constitutes a distinct evolutionary force that leads to the evolution of ornamental traits in animals.

—Prum, Richard O. (2013). "Coevolutionary aesthetics in human and biotic artworlds". Biology & Philosophy. 28 (5): 811–832. doi:10.1007/s10539-013-9389-8. ISSN 0169-3867.

2606:A000:1126:28D:E579:84AC:9408:ADE (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What "aesthetics" would factor into a tarantula's choice for a mate? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about tarantulae, but Cyrtophora citricola males evidently consider the aesthetics of a female's web when selecting a mate (who then eats him during or after mating): [2]. 2606:A000:1126:28D:E579:84AC:9408:ADE (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are many animals who seem to appreciate aesthetics in different forms. Consider Bowerbirds, some males of this species use colours to decorate their 'bowers' to compete and attract females. The Peacock spider uses a highly coloured and patterned upper abdomen surface to attract females. The selection by females of ever more ornate abdomens has resulted in extraordinary specimens. The plumage of some types of Birds of Paradise has developed some very eye-catching plumes over many generation of females selecting the most ornate male. It is clear that there are many examples of females animals, birds and insects being able appreciate aesthetic differences in a male's courting plumage. Richard Avery (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Blanket statements that animals don't appreciate "beauty" are going to have to find some other explanation for such diverse behaviours as listed above and other courtship displays. Like other behaviours, it seem to me that there's a continuum from standard responses to stereotyped stimuli (e.g. most insect mating displays) all the way to appreciation of aesthetics. Or, to put it another way, if the female lyrebird's appreciation for the male's complicated and improvisational mating calls isn't based in aesthetics, you're going to have to explain how our behaviour is any different. Matt Deres (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No hair conjecture for black holes, location[edit]

Doesn’t the statement that black holes can be distinguished only by mass, charge, and angular momentum neglect the fact that they are also distinguished by different locations and linear momentums?Rich (talk) 08:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How does hair figure into it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the no-hair theorem describes what it means, and the metaphorical origins of its name. For the OP, the speed and location of an object doesn't affect its behaviour, so isn't considered by the theorem. LongHairedFop (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the OPs question: As LHF above cites the correct article, you can read in that article how the choice of reference frame can eliminate things like position and linear momentum by setting them to zero. The three measurements that remain in any reference frame, even one comoving with the black hole itself, are the angular momentum scalar, the electric charge, and the mass. All other measurements are either frame-dependent or are lost when the in-falling matter crosses the event horizon.--Jayron 32 06:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Power of Siberia[edit]

The Power of Siberia article says:

1. Deliveries to China started on 2 December 2019.

2. The pipeline's working pressure is ensured by nine compressor stations[18][12] with a total capacity of 1,200 MW. Construction of compressor stations will be completed by 2022.

So the pipeline is currently delivering gas, but some compressor stations have not finished construction yet. My guess is that the pipeline is currently operating at lower pressures, and thus not using its full possible capacity yet. And when all compressor stations are completed, it will operate at higher pressure and thus have greater capacity. Is my guess correct? Mũeller (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find exact confirmation but A huge Siberian pipeline binds Russia and China, as gas flows for the first time (Washington Post, 12/02/2019) says: "In the coming year, the gas flow in the Power of Siberia pipeline to China will be limited, amounting to 4.6 billion cubic meters in 2020, according to Gazprom, and rising to 10 billion cubic meters in 2021. But Gazprom has declared its ambition to provide 38 billion cubic meters to China by 2025 and to supply a quarter of China’s liquefied natural gas imports by 2035". Alansplodge (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input. I'll keep digging.Mũeller (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]