Science desk
< June 7	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 9 >

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 8

Kepler-10c curiosity / silly scenario

Kepler-10c is the planet in the news recently as the largest rocky planet currently known. It has an equilibrium temperature something like 450 K, and a mass equivalent to Neptune, 17 times that of Earth, in 2.41 Earth radii.

Anyway, I was thinking: with a 45-day orbital period around a red dwarf, what are the odds it is tidally locked?

If it is tidally locked, the far side should be very cold. I remember reading that Mercury would be even colder than the present 100K if it were tidally locked, after all. Which makes me wonder: how much atmosphere could be frozen on the dark side? Could you have a planet like our Neptune (which is 3.8 Earth radii due to its massive atmosphere) where the entire atmosphere has condensed and frozen on one shaded side of the planet, if there were a sufficiently dim period in the star's early history to begin with? (Is an egg-shaped planet that rotates once per revolution stable when lined up with the star?)

Is it possible for a tidally locked planet to have a sort of hysteresis where it is in a state with a frozen atmosphere, but some astronomical or geological catastrophe vaporizes enough of its frozen atmosphere that as vapor it can conduct heat around the planet and permanently turn it into a Venus-type situation where convection prevents any future freeze?

If a frozen atmosphere on this or any other planet is abruptly heated, would it contain potentially reactive compounds that could catch on fire explosively and transform the planet very abruptly? (I vaguely recall there's an old sci-fi short story about Pluto's atmosphere like that...)

One thing's for sure: with the really remarkable precision of the Kepler-10c radius measurement, if something like that ever happened, the astronomers ought to be able to spot the change. I wonder how many of these worlds they'll ultimately identify that could be watched for it... Wnt (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with the idea that the "atmosphere" might freeze out on the cold side of the planet. After all, we get that here, with components of our atmosphere, like water vapor and a portion of the carbon dioxide. But some atmospheric components would either stay as a gas, like hydrogen, or become liquids, like nitrogen. The liquid components could quickly flow to the hot side and evaporate, while the solid components would have a much slower glaciation pattern, where the weight of the top layers would force the bottom layers to extrude towards the warmer side, where the glaciers would calve off and the solid portion would melt/sublimate. Also note that the larger the planet, the more likely it is to have a hot interior, and that means volcanism (although you can get water volcanoes and other forms, not necessarily liquid rock as we get on Earth) . StuRat (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source escaped me, but when the long axis of an orbiting body is locked (pointing) at the central body, the configuration is stable. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 14:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source: Orbiter (computer game) documentation. No prime WP:RS material, but the author knows what he's talking about. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 10:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of Blanus

Hello. Does anyone know the etymology of the amphisbaenid genus name Blanus? Thanks! Leptictidium (mt) 10:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your answer, though it is in Greek and Latin so I do not understand it. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 15:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek blanos apparently means "blind", which I suppose is a reference to their underdeveloped eyes. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'd been looking for Wagler's work but hadn't found it.Leptictidium (mt) 18:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta Reticuli mystery: apparent radio astronomy anomaly from 1920s and 1930s

Glen David Brin's paper The 'Great Silence': the Controversy Concerning Extraterrestrial Life, published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 24, NO.3, P.283-309, 1983, expands on the Drake equation in light of recent thought at the time that interstellar travel might be possible after all, and that extraterrestrial life or their artifacts might thus be found elsewhere than initially evolved. While addressing the possibility of alien probes already present in our solar system, he makes passing reference to an apparent radio astronomy anomaly from 80-some years ago. Page 299:

With the exception of some strange echoes received in the 1920s and 1930s (22) (the zeta Reticuli mystery), there have been no traces to indicate such probes are here.

His footnote #22 is: Bylinski, G., 1981. Life in Darwin's Universe, Doubleday, New York.

So, what was this zeta Reticuli mystery? Nothing about it is mentioned in our Zeta Reticuli article and any search I try is overwhelmed by UFO nut-jobbery. -- ToE 11:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is here. Brin is also a science fiction writer, and - without seeing the Bylinski book - it would seem plausible to me that his reference to "Zeta Reticuli" is a hoax, or joke, playing on the multiple references to the star in fiction, which in turn relate back to the purported "Betty and Barney Hill abduction" incident. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the tone of the rest of the article, I believe that he is being serious, and that the mention is of some actual anomaly from the early days of radio astronomy, though I suppose that calling it the "zeta reticulate mystery" might be tongue-in-cheek. -- ToE 14:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From a brief search through the 'nut-jobbery', I think this is CTA-102. The sensation from alleged discovery of intelligent transmissions in 1963-1965 was later followed up by a 1966 publication by Marjorie Fish that she had been shown a map of the stars in the area in 1961 by aliens, which turned out to match a star map of the area. Wnt (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CTA-102 is in Pegasus, and Marjorie Fish's findings related to the Hill abduction to which I alluded. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, that's odd. I'm getting that the Betty and Barney Hill abduction was published about in 1966, with a "star map" which apparently must have been presented as being the view from Zeta Reticuli, with this match-up being then described in 1969. Yes, I think somebody's playing games with us and I doubt it's aliens. Anyway, the choice of Zeta Reticuli then ought to reflect something from an earlier mythology, and indeed, the OP said 1920s, so I have to admit I've also missed the mark. Wnt (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OP back. The "1920s and 1930s" part is confusing because radio astronomy doesn't seem to have started until Jansky's work in the early 1930s. Brin does not explicitly say "radio astronomy", but I don't know what else "strange echoes" could refer to. I wish I could get ahold of Bylinski's book. -- ToE 00:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting the following snippet of Bylinski's book from gbooks;

...(prob)ably expect the extra extraterrestrials to prepare landing strips for B-19-type aircraft. No artifacts of visits from space have ever been found on Earth.

Could mysterious radio echoes be artifacts of that type? A series of such echoes had been received in Eindhoven, the Netherlands, and ...

That rules out CTA-102 which was discovered by Caltech, not in the Netherlands as well as the dates not matching. I can't get google to cough up any more of that page, but on the following page the Duncan Lunan#Alien message is being discussed so I think it must be that. The star concerned is Epsilon Boötis according to Bylinski (and our article) not Zeta Reticuli, but the 1920s date (Størmer and Van der Pol, 1928) and "mysterious echoes" are all consistent. The mysterious echoes is referring to the long delayed echo phenomenon of radio transmissions. Spinning Spark 02:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that research Spinningspark! Identification of the "strange echoes" was what I was looking for. I am mildly curious as to what led Brin to call them the "zeta Reticuli mystery", so I'll add Bylinksi's book to the list of things to look for some day when I make it to a place with a good library. -- ToE 16:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't horses evolve to run?

"The daunting Triple Crown challenge squeezes three races into a five-week period, in an era when thoroughbreds normally run no more than once a month."

Surely wild horses run more often than that? Imagine Reason (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which Triple Crown you're talking about. Wikipedia documents at least three. But it's a question that's intrigued me about modern horses. In Australia in 1930 Phar Lap won four thoroughbred races in eight days. I believe he was a freak though. HiLo48 (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo, why do you even bother? You know the default answer is American, as it obviously is here. μηδείς (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a new career move, California Chrome is planning to try out for the Dodgers, with the intent of leading the league in batting average, home runs, and runs batted in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand either of the above two posts. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis is being funny. I'm talking about Major League Baseball Triple Crown. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People evolved to run, too. Like racehorses, marathonners do a training run every morning and afternoon, but they don't make an all-out effort on consecutive weeks. Me, I'm still tired from biking day before yesterday, but I'll be on the bike again an hour from now. But I'm old, so that counts as an effort. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modern thoroughbred horses are very different from wild horses. They have been artificially selected, and most pro-level race horses descend from just a few mares, specifically ones that had freakishly large hearts [1], [2]. They also descend from just a few sires, which leads to problems via population bottlenecks, and founder effects. That large-hearted trait makes them very fast at certain race distances, but can cause other health and stamina issues. So, I don't think horse evolution will tell us much about the performance of race horses, any more than wolf evolution will tell us too much useful about the stamina and speed of a Chihuahua or English Bulldog. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The misunderstanding is the use of the word "run". Here by run they don't mean a type of fast movement, but "raced". The horses that are raced in the triple crowns are usually only raced at a brutal, top speed, once a month. It is damaging to the young horses, and quite dangerous, with broken limbs often meaning euthanasia. I am sure you can look up PETA's opinio of this. You might also look up the various gaits such as cantering, trotting]], and galloping. In the wild, horses are fairly dominant pack animals *pack as in wolf pack) and the defend themselves well and rarely find themselves in occasions where they have to race each other at top-speed for two anh a half miles. μηδείς (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any Secretariats or Man o' Wars anymore. When Secretariat won the Belmont at 2:24, announcer Chic Anderson said that record might stand forever. Not only is that comment looking more and more valid with each passing year, it's looking more and more likely that there will never be another Triple Crown winner again, unless there's a change in the rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But why aren't there any Secretariats or Man o' Wars anymore? HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better testing methods for illegal performance enhancing substances, maybe?--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 23:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To answer HiLo, Stephen Jay Gould wrote an excellent essay as to how, as sports mature, standouts become less numerous. It's either in his article, or someone here will know it off hand. I am in a rush, so have no time to add the proof to the margin. μηδείς (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The owner complained that entrants to these races are often run in only one, intended to be well-rested spoilers to prevent they real contenders by wearing them. The obvious requirement is to allow only horses registered for all three race to enter and fines and disqualifications for withdrawals. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Hmm. Just saw this while debating about horses on Mars. How about everyone trot over to Thoroughbred for more details on race horses, which will answer many questions. That said, yes, horses evolved to run as a defense against predators; they lack horns, antlers, and armor. Though you don't want to be bit or kicked by one, they prefer fight to flight. Top speed is not "brutal" and when anyone sees horses turned loose in a field, it is obvious that they enjoy running and many have a competitive spirit toward one another, particularly the young males (colts/stallions). PETA is far from a RS on the matter (they have no actual understanding of all aspects of the sport, they only highlight the bad apples and seem to think that even pleasure riding is cruel).

- As for medications, the reality is that more medications are allowed now than in the 1970s, notably lasix, and that alone is one of the reasons people think horses aren't running as well, trainers use the needle instead of proper sports conditioning. Another factor is that the best time to sell a race horse, balancing investment cost against sales price, is when they are yearlings, before they have started race training; thus horses that mature quickly and look big and full-grown even if they aren't sell for the most money, encouraging sellers to over feed them, use steroids to enhance growth, and simply breed for a precocious growth rate; all of which bite you in the ass later. They are also breeding them to be fast more than durable, wins in their two-year-old year are required for horses to be ready to run the US Triple Crown races early in their 3-year-old year, so early speed over shorter distances is what sells. So it's a multi-factored problem. People compare US horse racing unfavorably to that in the rest of the world; most European horses get an extra year to grow up before racing (compare Epsom Derby to [{Kentucky Derby]]), race day medication is banned, most races are on turf instead of dirt, and the horses don't race year-round; US horses don't really ever get a break, they just ship from New York to Florida; Kentucky to Arkansas or just run year-round in California. So it's complicated, but all can be summed up as worship of the almighty dollar and lack of regulation. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy water

Is "heavy water" drinkable? Lastwine123 (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The heavy water article seems to indicate that it's drinkable, although toxic if drunk in large amounts (enough to replace 25-50% of the water in your body). WegianWarrior (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and so is Doubly labeled water. Thincat (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you boil a pot full of water for hours you will end up with a larger concentration of heavy water at the bottom because the water with Deuterium does not evaporate easily. Just pour this water out. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Distillation of two kinds of water that differ only 1.4 deg C in boiling points is a slow and energy costly way to separate them. See Heavy water#Production. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]