Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2024 September 10

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.

September 10

Recatquista

In looking into my answer to Cat above, I stumbled on the quantum immortality article, and I feel dumber for having read it. I'm getting that it's premised on some mystic consciousness woo, but I still don't understand what the experimenter dying, or the experimenter understanding QM, has to do with anything. Or does the thought experiment just exclude hard materialists at its premise? SamuelRiv (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The basic argument has nothing to do with consciousness. In the many worlds interpretation, a measurement that causes the wave function to collapse to a definite state actually makes the universe split into two: one for each of the two possible outcomes. Now imagine a qubit being measured again and again, until the outcome is 0. Each time there will be a branch in the tree of universes in which the outcome was 1, so there is a path in which the qubit never "dies". The death of a living organism is the result of many measurements eventually leading to its demise, but, analogously to the immortal qubit, there should be a path in which all outcomes are such that they keep the organism alive and, pace Tegmark, well.  --Lambiam 08:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

In the article it says Tegmark's thought experiment "must be virtually certain to kill the experimenter" and "on a time scale shorter than that on which they can become aware of the outcome of the quantum measurement". I don't understand what this has to do with what you're saying about the MWI. It should be sufficient proof enough of MWI to simply have an experiment running measuring the spin of a random qubit that never ever measures 0 (or I guess to see an event in any known process whose expected duration is orders of magnitude smaller than the lifespan of the universe). Or, if personal experience is insisted, I don't see what dying, or instantaneous dying for that matter, has to do with 'traveling' so-to-speak through the many worlds. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

In your universe the qubit may come up 0 while another version of you, in a sister universe, sees a 1. But that other you cannot communicate this outcome to your you.  --Lambiam 17:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok? But if I instaneously kill myself I can?

I feel like there's a great deal of unarticulated premises about consciousness here that everyone in the article seems to know instinctually, but I am completely lost by. (Not that I can't sympathize, but that there are a lot of interpretations of spiritual consciousness and the self around the world, so I can't follow the logic of the argument until I know what premises they're using.) SamuelRiv (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I think bringing in consciousness is a red herring. Everything would go just the same with philosophical zombies – the laws of physics don't care.  --Lambiam 17:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so then could you explain Tegmark's reasoning in the article? I understand the laws of physics as far as I've studied them, but I'm trying to understand the argument as written (and maybe even salvage the article). SamuelRiv (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

There isn't much to it. You have two people (let's make them people to make it easy). One is in the box. One is outside the box. The one in the box knows if he is alive or dead. The one outside the box doesn't know if the one inside the box is alive or dead and, therefore, must continue with the assumption that the person in the box is both alive and dead at the same time. What is being done that requires this? Let's assume that the person outside the box is filing taxes for the person inside the box. Is this the final tax statement for someone who is dead or a normal tax statement for someone who is alive? The person outside the box does not know and has to fill out both, one for someone who is dead and one for someone who is alive. Now, let's assume the person in the box is alive. He knows that the person outside the box is filing both and giggles to himself that he making the extra work. But, what if the person inside the box is dead? The person outside the box is treating him as if he is still alive... which is overhyped as "life after death." It isn't that the person in the box is alive. It is that the person outside tbe box is treating them as they are alive (and dead). The complication isn't in the concept of being alive and dead. The complication is in the quantum formulas that use the two states combined. 75.136.148.8 (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not following what this has to do with Tegmark's 3 conditions in the article I linked at the beginning of this topic header (the question to which you immediately replied), or the subject of the quantum immortality/suicide generally? SamuelRiv (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Your reply suggests that the quantum state of the box is a definite one and that the issue is merely the lack of knowledge of outside observers. This is then in fact a local hidden-variable theory; such theories do not conform to the rules of quantum mechanics.  --Lambiam 06:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, no red herring here. The consciousness is here what makes the superposition its own observer. The basic question is here "How do the equation of Schroedingers cat work if observer and observed are the same, especially if the observer could observe only one of the states?" (A dead observer can not observe) 176.0.144.43 (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the quantum immortality article? That's the subject of the question. This has nothing to do with Shroedinger's cat. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence in the lede links to Schroedingers cat. How does it not do have anything to do with Schroedingers cat under these circumstances? 176.0.152.191 (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Voltage and speed of electrons

For a resistance $R$, a voltage $U$ and a current $I$, with the relation $U=RI$, the electrical power is $P=UI=RI^{2}$ ​​. As $I$ is the intensity of the electron current in a section, that is to say the number of electrons that pass through this section per unit of time. Then should we consider that the number of circulating electrons is constant and proportional to $R$, therefore with the intensity proportional to their speed which is then considered as the voltage, or a mixture between the number of circulating electrons and their speed? In the latter case what is the rule giving the relationship between the number and the speed of the electrons?
Malypaet (talk) 08:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The concept that current flow is the same as electron flow is acceptable for learning about circuits, but it is not real. It is similar to using water flow to explain the concept of electricity. Electrons do move, but very slowly in comparison to electrial current flow. There are many websites and videos that explain the actual flow of electromagnetic waves through a circuit. If you ever happen to get into radio or microwave circuitry, understanding the electromagnetic nature of electricity is important. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Your first sentence is entirely correct. Your second too, assuming that the current is carried by electrons, which is normally the case in solid or liquid metals. Then your question. I don't fully understand the question, in particular the part “the number of circulating electrons is constant and proportional to $R$”. Both the number of free electrons and the resistance are static properties of the circuit, independent of the voltage or current applied, but with both constant, you cannot say that one is proportional to the other. Otherwise, the answer to the question appears mostly yes, although it's worded in an uncommon way. If you increase voltage, the drift speed of the electrons increases, but the number of free electrons is constant (again, in a solid or liquid metal).

The density of free electrons (electrons per cubic metre) depends on the material used. In semiconductors, there's a strong temperature dependence too. The specific resistance (ohm-metre) also depends on the material and temperature. The current density (ampère per square metre) equals the free electron density (electrons per cubic metre) times the drift velocity (metres per second) times the electron charge ($-1.6\cdot 10^{-19}$ coulomb per electron). The current density also equals the local electric field (volts per metre) divided by the specific resistance, none of which are constant throughout the circuit. All of that assuming that magnetic and electrostatic induction can be ignored (i.e., DC) and that electrons get up to speed in a negligible distance compared to the length scale of the circuit. PiusImpavidus (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

One does not apply a voltage or a current, but only a voltage, which will then give a current depending on the circuit's resistance.
So I will clarify my question. I consider the resistance in a restricted circuit volume and having a certain section (elsewhere the resistance is zero), all in a solid. If I understand your answer correctly, the number of (free) electrons moving in the resistance is constant and it is the voltage divided by the resistance which gives the drift velocity of the electrons. I know that this current carries an electromagnetic wave, more precisely a flow of energy and at constant speed. So I am looking for the relationship between the current of the electrons whose number is fixed and the flow of electromagnetic energy whose speed is constant, which gives the equation $P=RI^{2}$. If the number of electrons is fixed, it seems logical to me that the voltage is proportional to their drift velocity (speed). Maxwell is for the energy on one side, and on the other, Ampere is for the electrons that carry this energy.
f the electrons do not move, there is no electromagnetic wave with its transport of energy. Malypaet (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The electron drift velocity is proportional to the electric field which has the units volts/meter. See Drift velocity and Electron mobility. Our article Speed of electricity further calculates the medium-dependent electromagnetic wave velocities of their interactions. Modocc (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks.
It confirms that the voltage and the speed of electrons are proportional. However, I am not sure that "drift velocity" is an appropriate term here because it is zero in an alternative current. It seems to me that the average instantaneous speed of the electrons is more appropriate. Malypaet (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Kinds of Herability

Is there one scientific-mathematical test to distinguish between different forms of genetical herability?
I mean, if a certrain phenotypic property is genetic during Mendel's rules or additiv or something? I wonder whether we are able to find out just by looking at the offsprings and the parent generation. 2A02:8071:60A0:92E0:25A6:B013:4618:1FCD (talk) 10:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

When looking at individual organisms, you see phenotypes. The forms of heredity (biological inheritance) apply to genotypes. The relationship between genotype and phenotype is not straightforward. If the phenotypical statistics of the offspring of a couple form a typical Mendelian pattern, it is an indication that Mendelian inheritance is at play, but it is not a proof. And conversely, the absence of a typical Mendelian pattern need not mean the underlying genotypical inheritance is not Mendelian.  --Lambiam 17:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Presumably you're referring to Heritability. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The reference to Mendel's rules shows that the OP means heredity (aka inheritance), not heritability.  --Lambiam 17:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

See below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

What is below? Did you review the article you linked? SamuelRiv (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

No, the point is that Lambiam stated the OP was asking about heredity, but it appears the OP was asking about heritability. Though it could be a language issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

There are different kinds of heritability. For instance one way via the rules of Mendelian; some properties are heritabil with additive effects and others with combinated effects.

The question is whether there is a methode to make clear via which way one given property is heredite. 2A02:8071:60A0:92E0:1465:9402:7F53:FBFB (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Take a look at the diagram labeled "A ’Broken Stick’ Model" in the article Additive genetic effects. In general, the observed phenotypic variation is the combined effect of additive and non-additive effects. If it is known that the phenotypic variation is controlled by just a single gene, it is relatively easy to determine which variants the gene has and which variants, if any, are dominant or recessive with regard to their phenotypical expression. But control by just a single gene is exceptional; it implies that the phenotypes can be split into a limited number of discrete categories. The converse implication is not necessarily valid.  --Lambiam 06:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Does "narcissist personality disorder" contradict itself?

I.e. labelling "excessibe grandiosity" using one person's name (fictional or not) achieves grandiosing that person (narcissus) thus communicates a double message? As in while the word "disorder" says "it is severe", the name of one person trivializes grandiosity. Thus it seems not quite medically consistent. Ybllaw (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see how saying someone has narcissistic personality disorder (assuming that's what you mean) "achieves grandiosing that person". Do you mean to suggest the term is an oxymoron? No it isn't. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

You misread what I said. Your comment "grandiosing that person" is not what I said. I said it grandioses "narcissus". I also didn't use the word "oxymoron". I think there is no need to introduxe extra terminology. My question was sufficiently clear. "No it isn't" is an unuseful/not very dilligent reply. Ybllaw (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I said "grandiosing that person" about the (fictional) person whose name is used (narcissus), not a person diagnosed with NPD. Ybllaw (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that you are referring to the mythological Narcissus. The capital letter makes all the difference. I still don't see how the label is grandiose. If anything it demeans him. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Your sneering/snobbery about "capitalization" doesn't contribute to making this reference desk a welcoming place.

Grandness as I think to understand it doesn't mean "good" nor "bad", it means great, and a lot of attention is still making a person great, the same way a "great dictator" can be written about as great without being written about as "good". Ybllaw (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

"My question was sufficiently clear." No, it wasn't. You have multiple spelling and grammar errors as well as just odd phrasings that make it very diffcult to understand what you are trying to ask.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 10:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

PS- Shantavira's "no, it isn't" was obviously in answer to the question of whether the phrase is an oxymoron.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

If you could spot my spelling errors than you admit that you knew what the words were that I intended, and thus didn't detract from the readability.

I never asked "whether the phrase is an oxymoron", you introduced that question.

As I have already said, the amount of effort in "no it isn't" makes your reply completely useless. That reply has NO educational value, it doesn't provide any tools that would enable me to understand an answer to my question, rather you have only encouraged me to blindly copy an answer without understanding anything about the reasons you see for that answer. Ybllaw (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I for one did not understand the question as you had intended it. I thought that you used narcissus as a common noun for a person suffering from narcissistic personality disorder (although the term is usually used as a synonym of adonis).  --Lambiam 18:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

You need to explain your concept of "grandiosing" before anyone can give you a satisfactory reply. We don't know what it means so we can't tell where to start. What are some synonyms, how does it trivialize grandiosity (someone's grandiosity? the quality of being grandiose itself?) to attach a name to the word "disorder"? HansVonStuttgart (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

These definitions need to be kept in sight: Narcissus A fictional character in ancient Greek myth whose self admiration comically exceeded his common sense. We spell Narcissus with a capital first letter for no other reason than that his is a proper name. We derive from Narcissus by analogy (a relationship of resemblence) narcissism that is a personality style of unusually high preoccupation with oneself and one's own needs. Only when a narcissistic personality is so extreme as to impair mental well-being and Psychosocial development will it be declared a mental disorder, this called narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). I see nothing illogical or contradictory in this understanding of NPD. However the OP is here to argue an objection to the term NPD that is difficult to understand and proceeds quite combatively to take issue with every responder to their question.

Grandiosity is simply an unrealistic sense of unique superiority that is often present in NPD and is in no way a genuine achievement. It is meaningless to talk of grandiosing a third party when grandiosity is only what the NPD feels about themself. The language becomes confused if the real person with NPD is called "narcissus" or "Narcissus" which both seem merely rude. The OP snaps impolitely[1] at Shantaviraj who actually read the words "achieves grandiosing that person" correctly and attacks Shantaviraj for offering a tentative answer to the unclear question. The OP returning[2] just 3 minutes later to shore up their own thoughtless contradiction is what I qualify as a snapping behaviour. The OP's next accusation about "Your sneering/snobbery..." is calculated insult. I conclude that despite the best-effort responses from Shantaviraj, Khajidha, Lambiam and HansVonStuttgart this OP is not here to accept any help in the form of references that we could give and that further engagement on the OP's issue is a waste of time. Philvoids (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I take "grandiosing" (not an existing word in English, though its formation is transparent) to be an error for 'aggrandising'. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.83.137 (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

That is also what I interpreted their meaning to be with regard to their impromptu back-formation/verb construction. But even having parsed that, the other respondents are correct that the ambiguity of the actual subject the action of that verb was also ambiguous. However, neither of these are the bigger issue. The real problem is that the OP appears to have been looking for either support or rejection of their hot take that the use of the specific mythological figure from which the term takes its name is in some way a contradiction in terms or otherwise clunky or irrational. Actually that's a best case scenario, because if you read the opening, there is not only not a request for references, but indeed, not even a question--the one question mark is appended to a declarative statement and the other two statements are just supporting the premise of that non-really-a-question.

In other words, the whole request was a WP:NOTAFORUM exercise. Which I would be tempted to point out is something that would have been highlighted immediately if people focused more on references as this place was intended to supply, rather than open-ended inquiries...but given that I haven't supplied any refs in my own smattering of responses the last few days, I'm really not one to talk. Nevertheless, it's still a point that should be considered by everyone who has decided to shut this discussion down now that the OP got randomly and inexplicably hostile to responses. That is the appropriate solution, sure enough, but really it isn't the kind of post that should have been indulged from the start (and in that respect is not unlike a good chunk of other discussions had here in your average week). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Any observed similarity between Hero syndrome and FDIA?

I read on the Hero syndrome page.. "The term is used to describe individuals who constantly seek appraisal for valiant or philanthropic acts, especially by creating a harmful situation which they then can resolve". Isn't that very similar to FDIA? There is no mention on the Hero syndrome page of FDIA.

The FDIA page even literally mentions.. "These proxies then gain personal attention and support by taking on this fictitious 'hero role' and receive positive attention from others, by appearing to care for and save their so-called sick child", but doesn't reference the Hero syndrome page either. Ybllaw (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

A statement such as "A is a kind of B" requires a reliable source. One issue why such sources are hard to come by in this case may be that Factitious Disorder is a recognized disorder (300.19 in DSM-5, F68.1 in ICD-10), whereas "hero syndrome" is journalese and has no generally accepted diagnostic criteria.  --Lambiam 17:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. Is there not a lot of literature about hero syndrome? Some of the cases mentioned on the wikipedia page (e.g. a police officer setting a bomb to "be seen defusing it") seem quite high profile, I'd expect to be some literature about that. Ybllaw (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see much that makes the connection, but here is a directly relevant passage in a RS, a book by the title The Munchausen Complex: Socialization of Violence and Abuse:

In another manifestation of MSBP, a perpetrators will induce a condition in order to heroically “save” the victim thereby showing they are a concerned caretaker. Sometimes health care providers – including nurses of both sexes – do this. Their actions are considered a type of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. This phenomenon may very well be a distinct category of Munchausen that should be researched and redefined as Munchausen Malignant Hero Syndrome.^[3]

The proposal of the last sentence does not appear to have gained traction.  --Lambiam 18:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

So, I'm going to try to find a good source for this a little later, Ybllaw, but quickly while I am here now: it is worth noting that typically Munchausen by proxy manifests in a desire to derive sympathy and attention from the manufactured ailment, rather than accolades for heroism. That said, I don't think the two pathologies would be by any means mutually exclusive. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)