Rongorongo Decipherment of rongorongo Haumea International Phonetic Alphabet Moons of Haumea Cistercian numerals Kaktovik numerals

Your comments may be archived
here after 48hrs

Word/quotation of the moment:

Astrology has no effect on reality, so why should reality have any effect on astrology? – J.S. Stenzel, commenting on astrological planets that astrologers acknowledge don't really exist

(Previous quotes)
The official state rainbow flag of Russia (official in JAO since 1996)

Do you think the liberals are using these school shootings to further their anti-tragedy agenda?

— Col. Erran Morad, Who Is America?, s01e01

yod-dropper

— (when you need something that sounds like an insult)[1]

ALL keys matter

— response to the scale-wandering rendition of the national anthem at CPAC 2021

The Lunatic-in-Charge becomes the Lunatic-at-Large

Lame duck à l'orange (AKA canard à l'orange)

It is a mortifying circumstance, which greatly perplexes many a painstaking philosopher, that nature often refuses to second his most profound and elaborate efforts; so that often after having invented one of the most ingenious and natural theories imaginable, she will have the perverseness to act directly in the teeth of his system, and flatly contradict his most favorite positions. This is a manifest and unmerited grievance, since it throws the censure of the vulgar and unlearned entirely upon the philosopher; whereas the fault is not to be ascribed to his theory, which is unquestionably correct, but to the waywardness of Dame Nature, who, with the proverbial fickleness of her sex, is continually indulging in coquetries and caprices, and seems really to take pleasure in violating all philosophic rules, and jilting the most learned and indefatigable of her adorers. [...] The philosophers took this in very ill part, and it is thought they would never have pardoned the slight and affront which they conceived put upon them by the world had not a good-natured professor kindly officiated as a mediator between the parties, and effected a reconciliation. Finding the world would not accommodate itself to the theory, he wisely determined to accommodate the theory to the world.

— Washington Irving, Knickerbocker's History of New York

Pela primeira vez na sua vida a morte soube o que era ter um cão no regaço.
For the first time in her life, death knew what it felt like to have a dog in her lap.

— José Saramago, Death with Interruptions / Death at Intervals

It is now generally accepted that the megaliths that make up Stonehenge were moved by human effort.

— as opposed to by what?

Anybody who says you only have yourself to blame is just not very good at blaming other people.

— It's Happy Bunny

When poppies pull themselves up from their roots
and start out, one after the other, toward the sunset –
don't follow them.

— Slavko Janevski, 'Silence'

And the dough-headed took their acid fermentation for a soul, the stabbing of meat for history, the means of postponing their decay for civilization.

— Stanislaw Lem, Return from the Stars

The Church says that the Earth is Flat,
but I know that it is Round,
for I have seen its Shadow on the Moon,
and I have more Faith in a Shadow than in the Church.

— (commonly misattributed to Magellan)

In the early years of the study there were more than 200 speakers of the dialect, including one parrot.

— from the WP article Nancy Dorian

Mikebrown is unusually eccentric and not very bright. [...] Astronomers have not noticed any outbursts by Mikebrown.

— from the WP article 11714 Mikebrown
Ecce Mono
Keep Redskins White!
"homosapiens are people, too!!"
a sprig of spaghetti
"I've always had a horror of husbands-in-law."
awkwardnessful
anti–zombie-fungus fungus
"Only an evil person would eat baby soup." (said in all sincerity)


Regarding protium[edit]

To be honest, it seems to me that "hydrogen" is often used instead when one would expect "protium". Sometimes that happens just in symbols, e.g. D/H ratio, but sometimes also in text (e.g. Arblaster's 2018 Selected Values of the Crystallographic Properties of Elements). On the flip side, normally "proton" is used even when "hydron" is meant.

There's some promising 1930s citations from when the H isotopes were being sorted out that could probably help trace the story. Maybe I'll look into it some other time. It may be related to the old tradition with radioelements, back when different isotopes were getting different names (e.g. thorium vs ionium), that the longest-lived isotope got to be the name of the element. (Though for Fr it was admitted that "actinium K" would not do, so Perey suggested another name for the element.) This has caused lots of confusion with the discoveries of Rn and Pa where the first researchers to discover those atomic number values did not find the most stable isotope. In fact, Rn is actually another case where names for different isotopes still survive today. People still write about "thoron" i.e. radon-220, with "radon" sometimes really meaning "radon-222".

The numerical tradition apparently died with tritium, though likely that fits the chronology of when scientists no longer generally knew ancient Greek. Heavier isotopes are known (though frankly I am tempted to just call them resonances), but nobody talks about "tetartium" or "pemptium". The real extra H isotope of interest to chemistry is muonium. Its nucleus is exactly a muon, so probably it should have been "muium", so that muonium could've fit the particle-antiparticle pattern of quarkonium and positronium. Oh well. (I don't think of positronium as a light H isotope because the two bodies are of the same mass. I'd be persuaded to call muonic helium a heavy H isotope, though, since the sole electron essentially sees a ppnnμ nucleus of total charge 2 − 1 = 1. No opinion yet on exotic atoms with hyperons in the nucleus. Theoretically lambda hypernuclei live long enough to have chemistry, but I think we're a while away from technologically probing this!)

Neither did George Gamow's "tralphium" for 3He catch on, though "helion" is still used for that nucleus as opposed to 4He as the alpha particle. Which is a funny situation because it's the opposite of H: for He, the less common isotope got the generic name. Personally, I think 3He deserves its own name and symbol, considering its very different condensed-phase behaviour from 4He, but it's probably too late now. :)

P.S. in a way, aren't radiocaesium, radiostrontium, and radioiodine implicitly used as names for the famous fission-product isotopes too? Though I've seen radiostrontium meaning both 89 and 90. Hmm. Double sharp (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Quad(r)ium" is used for 4He. Sorry, don't have time right now to read/answer. — kwami (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. (But do you have a source for "quad(r)ium" for 4He? If I'm only thinking about the nucleus, I might call it an alpha, though.) Double sharp (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, typo: Quadrium is 4H, not 4He. — kwami (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unnecessary subdivisions on language maps[edit]

Hi Kwamikgami, while editing their respective articles, I noticed that the infobox map for English language and the Lusosphere have unnecessary subdivisions that aren't consistent or aesthetically pleasing as maps for other global languages such as Spanish or French. For instance, on the English map, Australia is subdivided despite having the same status throughout all states and the state/provincial boundaries for the U.S. and Canada make it appear similar to national boundaries. I think it would be better to restore the map previously used, as it is consistent with the other global languages and does not show subdivisions in an unnecessary manner. The Lusosphere map meanwhile shows Brazil being subdivided in an excessive manner similar to Australia on the English map despite the whole nation having just one status and should have subdivisons removed, unlike Canada with English. Thank you for your contributions again to these maps. - Moalli (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New paper on Eris and Makemake[edit]

Here. :) Double sharp (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool! Thanks. Been working w heavy water, so the use of deuterated methane is fun. — kwami (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It also occurs to me that the title is a perfect example of what I mentioned a couple of sections above: in practice "H"/"hydrogen" can also mean "protium", when used in opposition to "D"/"deuterium". Perhaps worth a Wiktionary mention? Double sharp (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it, though? Or is it just deuterium as a fraction of total hydrogen? — kwami (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the Oxford dictionary of earth sciences explicitly says H means 1H in these constructions. As does the Encyclopedia of Astrobiology. Double sharp (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for finding that. Shouldn't matter which def is used at normal concentrations, but would be important for nuclear engineering. — kwami (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm, looks like that phrase is only used for astro and geo stuff, so the difference wouldn't matter. — kwami (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, it doesn't really matter there. But I've seen "hydrogen" used to mean "protium" implicitly also in crystallography, e.g. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.165.1032 and the Arblaster handbook. Double sharp (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
H for protium in Otterson et al. (1969) "ABSORPTION OF HYDROGEN BY PALLADIUM AND ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY UP TO HYDROGEN-PALLADIUM ATOM RATIOS OF 0.97":
Hydrogen is generally considered to be electronically the same as deuterium. However, some differences in results for the two systems have been observed in the relation between resistivity and temperature and in neutron diffraction experiments. In both PdHx and PdDx where x is close to 0.6, a resistivity maximum is found near 50 K. However, PdD0.6 required much more time for its resistivity to become constant than PdH0.6 after cooling to a temperature near 50 K.
— kwami (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Regarding your edit on Orcus's classification[edit]

I noticed you've changed Orcus's lead section to state that consensus now disfavors Orcus's status as a dwarf planet, and cited a paper. There are a few issues here, and I'm seeking clarification in case of a misunderstanding.

If there was indeed a recent change in attitudes to Orcus's status that I have missed and/or if there is a better-suited paper for this change, please do let me know! ArkHyena (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There have been a couple papers now listing suspected DP's down to Quaoar and Sedna, and saying that no other known objects appear to qualify. That would include Orcus, Salacia, etc. The authors include ones we used to justify calling Orcus a DP in the first place. — kwami (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In which case, I believe those additional papers should be added as well to provide a clearer picture for the case of Orcus's classification. I still would argue against stating this represents a full change in consensus, however. There are likely astronomers who still would argue for Orcus's status as a potential dwarf planet, and a 'couple papers' does not necessarily represent astronomical consensus. In my opinion, it would be more transparent to word it as 'growing evidence' against Orcus's dwarf planet status, especially considering that our general understanding of Orcus's properties, as aforementioned, is rather poor. ArkHyena (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are very few papers that take a position on this, and few astronomers who are looking into it. So a couple papers coming to a different conclusion, based on new evidence, can indeed be a change in consensus, esp. when it includes authors who were part of the prior consensus. Our prior sources were mostly just someone using the phrase 'DP' without giving any particular argument or evidence. — kwami (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In which case, should we remove Orcus from the gallery on the Dwarf planet page, or does 'nine likeliest dwarf planets' still warrant its inclusion? ArkHyena (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's still among the more likely, with Salacia next. It also has a proportionately large moon, like Pluto. And now there's a paper questioning the DP status of Quaoar. (I don't know how it will be received; it's still in pre-print.)
Personally, I suspect that Haumea and Makemake will turn out not to be DPs based on the strict definition of the phrase, just as Mercury isn't a planet. (Well, it is a planet because it's in the IAU list of planets, but it's not a planet because it doesn't meet the IAU definition of a planet.) But the strict definition isn't actually followed by anyone, any more than the one for 'planet' is; they're just there to make the classification look scientific.
So I think the question should be, not which objects are actually DP's (we can't know), but which would most be useful to our readers to illustrate the concept. I think we could argue for including Salacia just as easily as for excluding Orcus and now possibly Quaoar. The next most likely after Salacia haven't even been named, so from a reader-accessibility POV, that would be a natural place to stop.
But IMO it's a judgement call whether we stop at Gonggong, Quaoar, Orcus or Salacia. — kwami (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally, I'd stop at Quaoar for now. The paper arguing that Orcus isn't one thinks that the difference between Sedna/Quaoar/Gonggong and the smaller ones has to do with the chemical evolution, which was kind of the point of having a DP category. Whereas the doubt about Quaoar is whether or not it's in HE, which Mercury proves that nobody actually cares about. Double sharp (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That works for me. I'll miss the "anti-Pluto", though. — kwami (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I miss it too. :) This really seems to be a striking demonstration of the effects of temperature, considering that Interamnia (much further in) might've achieved HE in the past. I guess Sedna might well be nearer the top of the error bar in size. (Though of course, the opposite scenario would make it even more fascinating.) Double sharp (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will point out that a recent paper proposes a triaxial shape for Quaoar which is not in equilibrium with its current rotational period (though the paper is still pending publication on A&A). In contrast, as far as I can tell, it still is unclear if Ceres is in HE. Due to these, I believe that strict hydrostatic equilibrium is a poor criterion compared to chemical evolution, as aforementioned. Most astronomers seem to interpret being in hydrostatic equilibrium as a more general state of being gravitationally rounded, anyways. ArkHyena (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We only had one ref that Orcus was a DP, Grundy et al (2019), and they simply used the phrase 'The dwarf planet Orcus'. Grundy is now a co-author of the new papers that exclude Orcus from the roster of DP's, and this time they give a reason. So I think that does indeed trump the earlier ref. — kwami (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The point of the paper was that Sedna, Quaoar, and Gonggong differ from all smaller TNOs in a way that suggests that the former melted, differentiated, and went through internal chemical evolution, but the latter did not. By the definition, that implies the latter are not dwarfs. Double sharp (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rings of Rhea[edit]

I wonder why we still have them linked in ((Solar System)), when the last word on them seems to be that they don't exist. Double sharp (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Our article leaves it as an open issue, and as long as that's true I think it's appropriate to have a link. But maybe w a question mark? — kwami (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More