Welcome to the science section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/S

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

May 23

DMEM (explain the joke?)

https: //mander.xyz/pictrs/image/12b51d24-e090-4a6b-9cf7-b6ec674d99c3.jpeg What is this stuff? Thanks. 2601:644:8581:75B0:A690:D665:179B:79F0 (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle's minimal essential medium. Not sure about the joke though. I assume it's a single node in some gigantic meme-based causal network i.e. you had to be there. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The image is a cut-out of a stock photo. The fridge itself is a household fridge, not a typical lab fridge, even though the image is used by a provider of refrigerators that comply with laboratory standards. The posting (of May 19) is on Facebook here. I don't get the joke, but many of the jokes on the user's page are super nerdy, supposed to appeal to people working in biochemistry labs. ‑‑Lambiam 16:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, I suspect none of us are really missing much. 2601:644:8581:75B0:A690:D665:179B:79F0 (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It probably is a joke about men consuming protein powder to build muscles, but here using an enhanced amino acid growth medium instead. A man is not merely reduced to a body full of muscle, but now to a collection cells. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

size vs age of universe, name of discrepancy

The universe is supposed to be 13.8 billion years old, while the observable part has estimated radius 90 billion light years. The discrepancy is explained by the expansion of space, particularly during the inflationary period. I'm not asking about the explanation right now. I'm just wondering whether the apparent contradiction has a name, like "so-and-so's paradox". I couldn't find anything about it by clicking in some of the relevant articles. Thanks. 2601:644:8581:75B0:A690:D665:179B:79F0 (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can read comoving and proper distances. Ruslik_Zero 20:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 25

Why life is a thing in the Universe

I've been reading Abiogenesis and unless I'm mistaken it doesn't answer the question, or maybe I'm reading the wrong stuff. Non-philosophically speaking, is there a point for life in the Universe or it's an unanswerable question? As in, do habitable planets possibly exist for an objective reason? Matt714931 (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether you might be interested in Blaise Agüera y Arcas's work and his book, or the first part anyway. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a question that science can't answer, because there's no way to test any hypotheses about it. Science answers "how", not "why" -- questions of causality, not intent. (When science answers a "why" question like "why is the sky blue?" it's really answering the question of "due to what mechanism", not "for what purpose".) Plenty of people have speculated about the purpose of life, but that's philosophy, not science. -- Avocado (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the few things philosophers and scientists agree on is that asking for the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, is not within the province of science. This applies not only to the question, "what does it all mean?", but even to the question, "does it mean anything?". ‑‑Lambiam 21:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matt714931. Unfortunately we don't yet have a philosophy reference desk, and we are not supposed to speculate here, but we do have an interesting article on the meaning of life. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Humanities desk is supposed to cover philosophy anongst other areas, but of course it's for answerable questions, not extended discussions of unresolved ones. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.154.147 (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated I was looking for an "non-philosophically speaking" (and especially anthropocentric) answer. Maybe I didn't phrase it correctly, I'm more looking into finding out theories as to why there is life at all, when it does not seem to change anything (no relationships) from the standpoint of Existence, i.e. the Universe. Things were around before the Earth was habitable and things are going to be around after. The conumdrum is even bigger if we're indeed a biological rarity. Whether the Earth is a barren crater or not doesn't seem to change anything. Matt714931 (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might as well ask "what is the point" of the universe itself. There's nothing in science that requires there to be a "point" for the existence of something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why there is life at all could be because it is inevitable. At the very least, it changes the amount of computation and complexity, locally anyway. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you said anthropocentric ... there's the Anthropic principle which says that we can't observe the absence of life since that would entail the absence of us. Physics presumably doesn't entail life, so far as we know. This depends on how likely life is, which is an open question. Card Zero (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The deeper question is Why is there anything at all?. DMacks (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Creator is uber-Trumpian in his Supreme Narcissism. He requires there to be sentient beings to adore and worship Him forever. Rocks and gases can't do that, so we're the next cab off the rank. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of life is to keep the Supreme Fascist’s "score" low by acting in good conscience.^[1] ‑‑Lambiam 21:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abiogenesis (the origin of life) remains a mystery, and the mechanisms of how organisms arise naturally from non-living matter remain controversial. Scientists are generally believed that life on Earth originated from a series of chemical reactions that gave rise to complex molecules, which then evolved into self-replicating systems and eventually cells. If this process can occur on Earth, then it should be able to occur anywhere in the universe given the right conditions. Stanleykswong (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 29

Extended Gaumt vision?

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hd2XrjFBXW0

The research mentioned appears to relate to using direct stimulation of cones.

Does anyone have a direct citation for the relevant paper ( if published) ?

The approach also got me thinking, various anecdotal accounts of the impacts of pharmacological effects of certain psychidelics have allegedly included increased or more vivid colors. What papers constitute a reasonable basis for explaining this mechanism, that could be used as a basis for determining if pharamocological influences, can create an enhanced cone simulation or response, simmilar in effects (although not mecahnism) to the laser 'microdose' technology developed by UC Berkely?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Novel color via stimulation of individual photoreceptors at population scale".^[2] ‑‑Lambiam 19:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 31

More BS about Amelia?

Is there any substance to recent reports that Amelia Earhart's plane allegedly may have been found? In other words: did they actually find any plane debris at all, and if so, what type of aircraft did they find? (I'm asking this because I've seen a number of recent videos alleging to have found Amelia's plane, but all of those videos showed planes of the wrong type -- for example, one showed the remains of what looked to me like a Junkers 52, and another showed a largely intact plane which could be an Ilyushin Il-14 or Saab 90 Scandia or similar, but was in no way, shape or form even remotely like an Electra 10-E!) 2601:646:8082:BA0:20FE:78DB:A092:17F4 (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The rumors are based on this Instagram post of January 27, 2024 by deep water exploration company Deep Sea Vision, who spotted an anomaly said to be shaped like the Lockheed Model 10 Electra, at a location that is not implausible under a new theory of a navigational error. In this article we can see (in the last illustration) an image of the anomaly next to a representation of the Lockheed. Personally, I find the similarity less than convincing. ‑‑Lambiam 10:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It looks more like Earhart's jet, the one with swept-back wings. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur -- the image looks to me more like a Chance-Vought F7U Cutlass or a Grumman F-9 Cougar, which BTW both happen to be about the same size as the Electra -- and given that our Navy has always (since at least the 1930's) performed carrier operations pretty much everywhere in the Pacific Ocean, and that carrier operations are inherently dangerous, it's very plausible that they might have lost one of those in that area! (In any case, I'm pretty sure there are more than enough aircraft of all kinds on the bottom of the Pacific to start an undersea airline!) 2601:646:8082:BA0:1DA0:4169:3D3F:16BA (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The aircraft is unlikely to be completely intact, regardless of what it is. It would have to have survived a controlled ditching (at best), followed by impact with the seabed when it sank, and then all the effects of corrosion etc that lead to breakup of objects in the sea. The apparent 'sweep' could be the result of any of that. Certainly the image lacks anything like the detail to say for sure that is an Electra, but likewise, taking into account the likely damage, it would seem unwise to say definitively that it isn't. Anyway, we aren't being asked to pay to send an ROV down to take a look. If anyone does, we'll find out one way or another. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, but it seems unlikely. It would have to be just in the range of bend, but not break (off) and roughly equally on both sides. Googling pictures of underwater aircraft show perpendicular wings still perpendicularing when they're attached. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a sharper image. ‑‑Lambiam 04:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like an anchor. DuncanHill (talk) 07:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to the text associated with that photo: "After 11 months the waiting has finally ended and unfortunately our target was not Amelia's Electra 10E (just a natural rock formation).. As we speak DSV continues to search - now clearing almost 7700 square miles... the plot thickens with still no evidence of her disappearance ever found... let us know what you think - did she run out of gas near Howland Island?" --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The human brain tries to make sense out of random objects. Hence the story about a "face" on the surface of Mars. Or for that matter, the Old Man of the Mountain, and the Man in the Moon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earth radioactive decay contribution in Sankey diagram

The flow diagram I once drew shows that the energy arriving at the Earth balances the energy leaving, as per its references.

As the Earth produces its own heat through radionuclide decay, shouldn't there be a flow coming in from elsewhere to join the flow "Radiated to space"? Is it negligible, or already lumped into "Absorbed by ground"?

Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 08:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The total solar irradiance is about 1361 W/m². To get the incoming energy from the Sun, this needs to be multiplied by the cross-sectional area of Earth, about 127×10¹² m², giving about 173×10¹⁵ W.

According to our article Earth's internal heat budget, the flow of heat from Earth's interior to the surface (which comes in roughly equal amounts from the radiogenic heat and the primordial heat left over from the formation of Earth) is estimated to be no more than 49×10¹² W. This is less than 0.03% of the total budget, indeed a negligible fraction. It is, however, significant on the Earth's energy imbalance of about 460×10¹² W, although, AFAICS, not accounted for in ref 1 of the article Earth's energy budget. ‑‑Lambiam 09:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for doing the maths, Lambiam. Guess no change is needed to the diagram then. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 09:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Butia odorata or Butia capitata

If you know about Butia palms, please see c:Commons:Village pump#Butia_odorata_or_Butia_capitata. File:Butia capitata Madrid.jpg is titled and captioned as Butia capitata, but it is presented on Butia (and commons:Category:Butia odorata any many other pages) as Butia odorata. I wasn't sure where the best place to report this was, so I've gone with reporting it on Commons and posting this notification here. -sche (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A possibly relevant comment from 2018: Talk:Butia capitata § This article is actually about another species. Note, though, that File:Butia capitata Madrid.jpg was not used on page Butia capitata, but File:Butia capitata, Tresco.JPG – which the commenter replaced with the current image. ‑‑Lambiam 05:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2

Are seizure mostly curable in the end nearly all the time ?

I can understand why surgery can’t be done in all cases, but is there reasons for not attempting vagus nerve stimulation when drugs don’t work ? Are there cases where peoples end up in a wheelchair for the remaining of their lives because of too much frequent seizures in their legs ?

To be clear, I’m not talking about seizure induced permanent brain damage, but about seizures happening so frequently in legs and arms that it’s impossible to walk between 2 rooms.2A01:E0A:ACF:90B0:0:0:A03F:E788 (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you are referring to myoclonic seizures, which exist in a variety of types and forms. Vagus nerve stimulation has proved effective in many cases,^[3] but to what extent it can be expected to help in a given individual case should be discussed with a specialist. ‑‑Lambiam 07:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 3

Do birds ever sleep on their backs in the wild?

My goffin cockatoo sometimes likes to sleep on her back with her feet in the air, especially if she's laying on her favourite blanket, or on my laptop (above the warmest part), or on my belly. I've seen videos of other parrots doing similar. Have birds ever been observed doing this in the wild? 146.200.107.90 (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only when riding rhinoceri. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps when pining for the fjords. (I'm impressed that's a Wiklink!) HiLo48 (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it's pretty common in the wild, at least when there's fermented fruit available. I've seen lots of parrot-like birds in Queensland sleeping that way. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because they were drunk? Stanleykswong (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess. I should add, this wasn't the occasional individual bird, it was flocks of birds, many parrot-like birds all sleeping scattered around on the ground (can you still call a group of birds on the ground a flock even though it starts with fl like fly?) Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping upside down is a vulnerable position for birds. I believe this only occurs when domesticated birds are relaxed (e.g. laying on her favourite blanket), trusting (e.g. she trusts you), and comfortable (e.g. on your laptop, it's warm). This does not happen in the wild because sleeping upside down makes it harder for them to fly away quickly if attacked. Stanleykswong (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 4