Science desk
< January 10	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 12 >

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 11[edit]

exceptional electronic configuration[edit]

I was puzzled by the fact that chromium and copper have five and ten electrons in 3d orbitals rather than four and nine. Now I have come to know from Dr. Wayne Breslyn's video that half-filled or completely filled d orbitals are more stable than those with one electron less. However, I found a few more exceptions in 4d orbitals, i.e., niobium, ruthenium, rhodium, and palladium, which are neither half-filled nor completely filled. What may be the explanation for the exceptional electronic configuration? Huzaifa abedeen (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not an explanation, but what are now called the group 11 elements used to be called IB reflecting their common univalent state. The four that are known (Cu, Ag, Au and Rg) all have just a single s-electron in their outermost shell. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huzaifa abedeen You will find a discussion of this at Aufbau principle, with relevant references. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why JWST take so much time to send images whereas Mars 2020 send images within days after landing?[edit]

Why JWST has to take about 6 months to send images from L2 orbit which is nearer to Earth compared to Mars 2020 to Earth? Rizosome (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the end of [1] for a brief overview of what is done during those six months. JWST will send lots of data and even images during that time but they're used for aligning and calibrating the telescope and the instruments. This is needed to make JWST fit for scientific operations which will start after six months. --Wrongfilter (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also bear in mind that JWST is a large and complex telescope, whereas rovers are kitted out with cameras that are not very different from regular cameras; it's a completely different technology.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Telescopes, also on Earth, take time to calibrate. Specifically for JWST, it has to be very cold to make good infrared observations without interference from its own heat. That cooling takes time and cannot be done before launch. It wouldn't stay cold during launch, and probably couldn't be deployed when it's too cold. Regarding rovers, they are in a hostile environment without service so you want them to send good data before they break down. That may affect what you choose to put on them. But also, they don't need large movable parts to cooperate for their cameras to take pictures at close range, and you are satisfied with OK pictures you couldn't possibly take from Earth or orbit. The distance from Earth is not important when you don't make service missions and don't need fast reactions to new data. Radio signals from the most distant probes take less than a day to reach us (but more than a day in total when you count both ways). PrimeHunter (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This line answered my question: Telescopes, also on Earth, take time to calibrate. Rizosome (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Nostradamus[edit]

I have heard enough of him. Was he really talented, or he is overrated due to some coincidences? --Knight Skywalker (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that our article Nostradamus covers this pretty well. Mikenorton (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He was really talented in his ability to shroud statements in ambiguous or obscure language, allowing anyone (particularly if eager to believe) to interpret them as conforming to known facts. Mentalists use the same skill on stage to elicit reactions that enable them to "read" the audience. --Lambiam 11:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does he have to do with science? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because we don't have a ref desk sub-page devoted to con artists. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although the science of his time has since been extensively discredited there really isn't any evidence suggesting that Nostradumus was any sort of deliberate fraud. 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:1059:4466:F0E0:BD11 (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence suggests he wasn't? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The classic argument from ignorance. There's not enough evidence either way of deliberate fraud by Nostradamus, so nothing can be proved. It appears though that the works we see today may be corruptions and additions to his original, see Nostradamus#Interpretations. At the time natural philosophy (which would eventually become science) was in its infancy and had to avoid clashing with "known facts" as recorded in the Bible and by the Church. To doubt those was heresy. Nostradamus evidently was careful ensure he only used prophecy (which if genuine was the unalterable Word) or astrology (which was provided by the Almighty for our understanding) and never magic (which was the work of Satan). Our understanding of the roles of science and religion have changed in 500 years, to understand historical figures we have to try to accept for a moment their belief system. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a general sort of a thing, and doubly so in the context of a reference desk, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim; if you wish to claim that Nostradamus was a "con man" you presumably have some reason to do so beyond feeling the need to make ill-informed comments. 37.169.45.151 (talk) 10:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know whether he speculated in it and I don't know much about him but here are some characteristics I think helped him become famous as a reputed seer: He published predictions at a time where it was rare, he made a lot of them, they sounded like important events, they were vague enough to apply to many events with some good will, and usually not specific enough to ever say they failed. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rollercoasters[edit]

Hello! This is sort of a physics related question (although it has to do with the human body) so I think this is the best place to ask this. I went on the wooden rollercoaster in SeaWorld San Antonio (it's called the Texas Stingray) and I experienced something interesting. At the beginning on the track, after you climb up a hill, you are then sent back down it rather quickly. When I went down the downhill, I could feel my eyes being forced to shut. I wasn't actually closing them out of fear (i wasn't really afraid, just a bit nervous cause I hadn't been on a rollercoaster before), it just felt like my eyes were being forced shut. What exactly caused this to happen? I would assume it has something to do with G-forces but other than that I have no clue. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently, we don't have an article on Fear response; if we did, it might provide some insight. For one thing, fear response is mostly not a conscious thing; you don't necessarily need to "feel afraid". If your body senses danger, it will react. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. That would make sense since on that downhill my body probably felt like it was falling and so as a natural instinct I shut my eyes tight as if to brace for impact (despite the impact being non-existent). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Try Fear. Bazza (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nerve Cells via Antidepressivant?[edit]

There have been reports that the antidepressant Prozac stimulates the formation of new nerve cells. Are there any more in-depth studies on this?
Are there many substances known in general that stimulate the formation of nerve cells?--2A02:908:426:D280:3176:4A6:D5CB:45BB (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reports from whom? A starting place for us to look for more in-depth studies would be to know the depth and rigor of the studies you have seen. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found this one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306452209011063

This: https://www.nature.com/articles/1300234/

Neurogenesis and Adult neurogenesis have some info. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]