Science desk
< January 5	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 7 >

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.

January 6[edit]

How does Raman spectroscopy look like?[edit]

I want to know how does Raman spectroscopy look like? if it is device like telescope, then I like to know how it look like ? Google images didn't help me much Rizosome (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See this short video on YouTube. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.56.237 (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quantectum earthquake prediction[edit]

Are these people making fringe arguments? I see some Elsevier results for them on Google, but calling your idea "Omega-theory" sounds a little kooky. 93.136.84.49 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake prediction is a tricky area, as the Wikipedia article describes. It would seem that the "omega" in this work is just a type of brand name for the computer system/program this Swiss group are using. I don't think it is any more "fringe" than anyone else trying to tackle a difficult but important problem. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see mixed signals. The hype language used ("the solution of the earthquake prediction problem, which is an entirely new physical theory of earthquakes, which we call the Omega-Theory") indeed sounds kooky. Calling it "vortex theory" (vrtinčna teorija^[1]) does not immediately inspire confidence either. It is suspicious that the sleek Quantectum website does not even try to present an accessible explanation of the content of Omega-Theory. Also, if the theory has merits, it is almost completely ignored by the scientific seismological community. The book explaining the theory is not being referenced, except for an occasional almost content-free occurrence in a series of references, as seen here; I see no reviews. On the other hand, as far as GBS allows me to inspect the book, the theory development appears to proceed in a fairly normal scientific way – but that does not exclude the possibility of a magic trick in some hidden corner, just like "proofs" that π is rational are typically mostly standard maths except for one magical step. The developer of the theory has authored several peer-reviewed publications in seismology. In the end, the proof is in being actually better than other models in predicting quakes – which is still a low bar. --Lambiam 08:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

could a supercomputer create genetic variation?[edit]

The genetic variation between individuals of the same species is small compared to the size of the genome. Could a supercomputer with artificial intelligence, one day, deduce the genomes of several individuals in a healthy population of a species, from the genome of a single individual? It would be very useful in threatened species and de-extinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inhabitant of the encyclopedia planet (talk • contribs) 22:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The genome itself would not require a supercomputer. The human genome itself is only 3.1 billion base pairs, so at worst, it could be stored as roughly 3.1 GB of data. I regularly process datafiles far larger than that without the aid of a supercomputer. Some variation could be easily done today, such as single base pair substitutions to change between different codons that code for the same amino acids. That would be simply done even today. What is harder is if you do things like base pair insertions, or even single base pair substitutions that change the amino acids they code for. This is because the big challenge isn't in processing or handling the genome itself, rather, the problem is calculating or simulating protein structure and function. There have been some notable advances recently, but it remains challenging. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The viability of an individual can only be defined in relation to its interaction with a typical environment. In order to determine the viability of a candidate genome by simulation, the computer will have to simulate that environment too – which means it will need an almost inconceivably larger amount of information than stored in the genome. --Lambiam 10:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. Viability to the point of successful reproduction, perhaps would require that level of environment simulation. However, viability just as a living organism altogether may not. For example, if a mutation on the cytochrome C could be simulated to the point of protein structure and interaction with other proteins, that could determine viability (or loss of viability) without need for a full up environment simulation. Some mutations could be tested for viability without even a computer. If you have a point mutation that replaces the methionine distal to the heme c moiety with a glycine, for example, you would know that it would no longer be a viable organism. Without that distal methionine, the spin state on the iron center will no longer be maintained by a proper ligand field, and the cytochrome c will not be able to do its electron transport job. The organism would die very quickly, if an embryo could even form at all. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True by itself, but in the context of the OQ ("very useful in threatened species and de-extinction") I assumed the intent was the SF scenario of creating a genetically diverse healthy population Jurassic Park-style from a collection of modified genomes derived from a single genome. A point mutation or two will not do to create the desired genetic diversity of a healthy population; if a mammal species, the genetic engineers may have to replace a whole X chromosome by a Y chromosome. --Lambiam 09:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]