August 3

Is the Napoleon complex seen only in men, or in both sexes equally? If the former, why might this be the case? 2601:646:8A81:6070:1D7C:4719:D935:CFC5 (talk) 06:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, how many women would be subject to the synonym, "small man complex"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being a myth, the complex is seen only in the eye of the beholder.  --Lambiam 08:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should actually read the article, it tells you relevant information that would have stopped you from asking your nonsensical question in the first place; the answer is "It isn't even seen in men. It's a fake thing." --Jayron32 11:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article, and it cites 2 or 3 studies which show it doesn't exist and 1 study which shows it does -- so it is not actually settled science that it doesn't! 2601:646:8A81:6070:E444:54E5:A1D5:C1CE (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those who claim it exists could be guilty of Confirmation bias. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The study that reportedly showed the existence of the Napoleon complex merely found that male height is negatively correlated with jealousy.^[1] It does not use any terms such as "Napoleon", "complex", or "syndrome". While the correlation found was significant, it was not particularly strong, no stronger than a reported ${\displaystyle r=-.22}$. Having a slightly increased tendency to jealousy (guarding the bond with one's partner) is a far cry from the "overly-aggressive or domineering social behaviour" that is supposed to be characteristic for affected men compensating for their lack of stature. The baseless interpretation of the study's findings as the alleged corroboration of the pop-sci complex is entirely due to the journalist of The Telegraph, as is the "50%", which is based on a gross misunderstanding of the actual study.  --Lambiam 06:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our article needs to be updated as the review is from 2002 and Sandberg has coauthored seemingly every paper reviewing psychosocial effects of heightism since them. However, Sandberg's reviews seem to be focused more on children who would be candidates for treatment with hGH, which currently is proscribed for those below 2.25 standard deviations from mean height. I would tend to think of a Napoleon Complex as impacting adults below average height, but not so short as to appear unusual, but maybe that's the wrong impression. But in terms of detecting behavioral differences correlated to height differences, a few studies have shown this to exist, particularly for men as opposed to women (see Knapen et. al. 2018, though I couldn't find a review).

A not infrequent cause of short stature among women is Turner syndrome, and in my brief look at the literature there arequite a few associated psychosocial issues, that could be attributed to other effects the endocrinology of Turner, or the teasing over height and other apparent issues, or increased parental stress, etc., or a combination. That study also suggests that the literature specific to female psychology with respect to Turner (and other diseases) is too sparse. Finally, there is some research about how parents and doctors approach height treatment in parts of China (again about children who are candidates for hGH: it seems boys were overtreated and girls were undertreated) which might be interesting to explore further as it gets more into the culture and social psychology involved.

In all this I didn't find a term for women analogous to "Napoleon complex", however. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the more important thing to keep in mind is that Napoleon complex is a trope and not a psychological phenomenon. The terminology and the concept come from pop culture, and not from psychologists. Relationships between body size-and-shape and psychological traits may be real things, but none of them are the "Napoleon complex" we think about. --Jayron32 14:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we consider an electron as a negatively charged sphere of Gauss ? Malypaet (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Gaussian surface is not an object or a thing, it is a mathematical tool used to provide a surface across which to measure a flux. No object is a gaussian sphere, though a gaussian sphere can be used to calculate the electrical flux around a point particle. --Jayron32 15:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that Malypaet is thinking of an isotropic multivariate Gaussian distribution. This is a good picture for a free electron and is used in introductory quantum mechanics courses to describe the motion of a free particle. The Gaussian gives the probability distribution in 3D space of measuring the electron's location (similar to atomic orbitals, which describe the probability distribution of electrons in atoms). For quantitative modelling it is accompanied by another Gaussian that describes the probability distribution of the electron's momentum. The widths of these two Gaussians are related through the uncertainty relation. Strictly speaking, the Gaussian is not the electron itself, but it describes everything we know about the thing (well, most of it. Spin and charge must be added to the description.)--Wrongfilter (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to name this stuff after different people... Gauss and Euler have like everything named after them. --Jayron32 13:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to find out if an uncharged elementary magnetic dipole type object joining an object like a free electron on a tangential trajectory could enter orbit around it, under certain conditions, such as a negligible mass of the object. dipole with respect to the other, but not zero and also from the orientation of its magnetic fields. Malypaet (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy for you to say. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto#IAU_classification says that the IAU included Pluto in their Minor Planet Catalogue, giving the official minor-planet designations "134340 Pluto". Dwarf planet's hatnote cautions against confusing it with minor planet, but the latter says that the 519,523 unnumbered minor planets also include five officially recognized dwarf planets. And comparing both definitions, my impression is that dwarf planet is basically a subtype of minor planet. Because of that would it be safe to remove the "not to be confused with minor planet" hatnote from Dwarf planet? Brandmeister^talk 16:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a long-ex astronomer, I would say no, because these classifications, besides being subject to possible future corrections (new measurements) and amendments (the current IAU definition of a 'dwarf planet' was decided by a vote – possibly a manipulated vote – and could be re-voted on) aren't really intended to be part of a single hierarchy; they are assigned for different ad hoc purposes.

The 'dwarf planets' (which I personally regard as actual planets) are retained or added to the MPC so that automated search programs won't observe them, fail to find them in the Catalogue, and flag them as "new discoveries".

Your 'impression' amounts to WP:Synthesis unless you can find an authoritative astronomical source that says the same thing. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.195.175.46 (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The OP did not suggest that they are the same, but that dwarf planets are also minor planets, just like horses are also mammals.  --Lambiam 17:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's not quite accurate. The IAU system doesn't any longer use "minor planet" in its classification scheme, but the terminology is kept for historical purposes in some contexts. The IAU only recognizes three classifications currently; being "planet", "dwarf planet", and "small solar system bodies". The older terminology intersected with these categories in some ways, but not in any way that is currently useful. The official naming union has their systems, for what it is worth, but older terminology didn't get erased from existing literature, and long-entrenched linguistics resists obeying lately-enacted rules. Basically: minor planet is officially an older term, still in use, but not official anymore. The definition thereof is similar to, but not identical to, the modern classification of "Dwarf planet". If we oversimplify it to say that one is a subset of the other, that introduces inaccuracies that it is best not to do. --Jayron32 18:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(E/C) As I understand it, it's true in practice that all dwarf planets are also listed as minor planets, but they aren't defined as logically nested categories where every dwarf planet is also automatically a minor planet by definition. Instead, "dwarf planet" is part of a different set of categories that is intended to replace the older scheme that used "minor planet". The diagram File:Euler_diagram_of_solar_system_bodies.svg does not show the set of dwarf planets as lying inside the set of minor planets, but there's nothing to indicate the reasoning or to indicate whether there could be a concrete example. In general, there doesn't seem to be anything in Template:Distinguish to suggest it can't be used when one term is a subset of the other, but it does say that "It is used in cases where the distinction between the titles is generally obvious and does not need further explanation." That may not be the case here. --Amble (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. That the dwarf planets are retained or added to the MPC so that automated search programs won't observe them is a fun fact. Brandmeister^talk 09:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was getting to be a PITA. Late last century when the "Is Pluto a "planet"?" argument was getting quite heated, I modestly proposed adding all 9 canonical planets (which Pluto then still was) and the Sun to the MPC just to negate some of the arguments. Strangely, this perfectly sensible suggestion was not taken up. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.195.175.46 (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was, that you have the objects orbiting the sun, and you need to make a dividing line somewhere. In order of size, you've got:

Jupiter   Saturn   Neptune   Uranus   Earth    Venus   Mars   Mercury   Pluto   Eris   Haumea   etc. etc.

Here's the deal that made Pluto untenable as a planet: You've got to place a dividing line somewhere and ideally, things on one side of the line should be more like the other things on the same side of the line as itself than it is like the things on the other side of the line. Putting the line here:

Jupiter   Saturn   Neptune   Uranus   Earth    Venus   Mars   Mercury   Pluto | Eris   Haumea   etc. etc.

Makes a LOT LESS SENSE from a purely "good categorization" point of view than putting the line

Jupiter   Saturn   Neptune   Uranus   Earth    Venus   Mars   Mercury | Pluto   Eris   Haumea   etc. etc.

With the reason being that either we have 8 planets or we have, like, 400 of them. Having 9 or 10 or something close to that doesn't make any sense, since any criteria that include Pluto as the same kind of object as Jupiter, ends up also including a shit ton of other stuff. Now, while there is nothing inherently wrong with that (ALL classification systems are arbitrary. Some, however, are useful), the people who made the final decision felt that the criteria that defined planets in a way that excluded Pluto was more useful to them than was a system that include Pluto (and a metric shit ton of other similar stuff). People mostly got bent out of shape because they learned Pluto was a planet by rote without understanding the nuances of how and why astronomers would classify these things one way or another anyways, and we learn something "just cuz that's the way it is", we tend to thing that's the only way it could be. --Jayron32 17:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of what you say; I myself didn't have any problem with there potentially being many Solar system planets (and note we have to date only been able to confirm 10 or 11* dwarf planets including Pluto, making 18 or 19 in total), and objected to classifying things not by what they physically and orbitally are, but according to how many names high-school kids can memorise (which was an argument actually used at the time).

(* I regard Pluto and Charon as a double planet, so would classify Charon as a planet, or 'dwarf planet', also.)

I alluded earlier to a rigged vote: it is thought by some that the timing and hence attendance of the meeting at which the vote was taken was manipulated by Planetary Dynamicists to minimise the attendance and views of Planetary Geologists: It's interesting that recent observations and analyses have increasingly been revealing active planetary processes ongoing on both Pluto and Ceres.

Much of this boils down to what the purpose of classification is, whether it is necessary at all in certain circumstances, and whether or not classifications have to be completely mutually exclusive or can overlap in various ways according to various criteria. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.195.175.46 (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And such classifications also ignore what the word "planet" originally meant, a "wanderer" compared with the relatively fixed celestial sphere. One thing, though - are there any so-called dwarf planets that are larger than Pluto? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eris (dwarf planet) is just smaller (at about 98%) than Pluto by diameter, but is markedly denser and so masses about 26% more. It's thought very likely that larger (in both senses) 'dwarf planets' will be identified in the Trans-Neptunian object zone in due course. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.196.45.159 (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a similar impression to Formerly Known As. In my admittedly armchair opinion, whether an object is a planet or not should depend more on what it is than where it is. I saw somewhere that the "clearing the neighborhood" definition would probably exclude Earth, if it were in Pluto's orbit, and obviously it does not help at all with categorizing rogue planets.

My humble view is that, if we wanted to kick out "planets", we should start with Jupiter. Jupiter is obviously not the same kind of object as Earth or Venus or Earth's Moon or Ceres; those four have much more in common with one another than they have with Jupiter. A reasonable ontology would be "rocky planets", "gas giants", "ice giants", and ... I don't know, "overgrown comets" or something?

Earth, Ceres, the Moon, Ganymede would all be rocky planets. I don't see why planet status should depend on whether you directly orbit the Sun or some other object. Pluto's classification would depend on future data — it might be a rocky planet or it might be an overgrown comet. --Trovatore (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone could come up with any categorization scheme that makes sense to themselves. All categorization schemes are basically arbitrary. It usually isn't important what the scheme is based on, but having no scheme is a problem. Your system is fine. So is the one that the IAU created in 2006. The difference is that the IAU has more ability to get people to use their scheme. You're just one person. Having feelings about something doesn't change it; and being disappointed or angry or annoyed or feeling like it "could be done better" doesn't actually mean anything. The scheme is what it is. --Jayron32 11:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The objects in the solar system are also what they are. When Tyson et al decided to reclassify Pluto, Pluto didn't change - only its human-based classification did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point; classification is a convenience for people. The astronomers of the IAU decided, that for their purposes, it made more sense to them to not count Pluto within the same classification as the other 8 planets, and instead count it in the category with Eris, etc. --Jayron32 14:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson fancies himself this generation's Carl Sagan. I wonder what Sagan would have said about this situation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're talking about Neil deGrasse Tyson. He was not particularly involved with the classification of planets; AFAIK his primary research involved star formation and galactic evolution; he really has nothing to do with planetary science. For the past 20 years or so, he's been primarily involved in science communication and education, being employed at the American Museum of Natural History. --Jayron32 12:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Lorentz force applies to a charged particle moving in a magnetic field. Is there an equivalence for a magnetic dipole moving in an electric field ? Malypaet (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There would be an equivalent equation for the force on a magnetic monopole. For an uncharged dipole, the form is a bit different, and you have to consider torque as well as force. See Eqs. 1-5 in [2]. --Amble (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But ${\displaystyle \nabla \cdot \mathbf {B} =0}$ according to Herr Gauss who persuades me and Mr. Maxwell that magnetic fields always form loops and that, despite old rumour to the contrary, a magnetic monopole has no right to exist. Philvoids (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The equivalence the OP asked about requires a magnetic monopole; whether one exists or not is beside the point. But I could point out that Mr. Dirac says we only need one, and Mr. Cabrera only found one, so the ledgers balance. --Amble (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need many many many many many more than one; in order to be considered a significant result, any experiment needs to be repeatable, and experiments that have given a single, unrepeatable result are indistinguishable from noise. Whether it was Blas Cabrera Navarro single result that gave evidence of a magnetic monopole, or the Wow signal, or anything similar, if it can't be reproduced reliably, it can be ignored. --Jayron32 18:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, I think you're missing (or eliding) Amble's point about needing only one. Dirac's argument showed that, if there is even one monopole, then charge must be quantized. Or at least that's how it's reported in the link above; it would be fun to drill down and try to find loopholes, say whether the argument works outside the observable universe centered at the monopole, but that's not important right now. So while we need many observations to conclude that we know monopoles exist, the existence of even one (whether we know it exists or not) is sufficient to imply the conclusion. --Trovatore (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Amble was telling a joke, and using the "only needed one" and "only found one" in the Garden-path sentence type (time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana), where in the first case, they meant "only needed clear evidence of one" in the first case, and "only found one singular data point" in the second case. I don't know, because, as Poe's law has taught us, it is impossible to tell by reading text characters alone, whether a person is serious or sarcastic, things that tone-of-voice and facial expressions and posture would be able to be communicated readily. Given that this is a reference desk, I took the assumption that allowed me to provide the most factually informative response, and not the one that assumed a joke that I couldn't be sure of. --Jayron32 18:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the on-topic point was not whether magnetic monopoles do exist, could exist, or must exist, but that the equivalence OP asked about applied to magnetic monopoles instead of magnetic dipoles. —Amble (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how you chose to model the dipole. If you model the dipole as an infinitely small current loop with magnetic dipole moment ${\textstyle {\vec {m))}$, then the force is ${\textstyle {\vec {F))=\nabla ({\vec {m))\cdot {\vec {B)))}$. On the other hand, if you model it as separated monopoles, you get ${\textstyle {\vec {F))=({\vec {m))\cdot \nabla ){\vec {B))}$, which is more analogous to the electric model.^[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by PianoDan (talk • contribs)

The question was about a magnetic dipole in an electric field, not a magnetic field. --Amble (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Good point. PianoDan (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, according to Jackson ^[2], the force (in SI units) is ${\textstyle {\frac {1}{c^{2))}{\frac {d}{dt))({\vec {E))\times {\vec {m)))}$. This is in addition to the magnetic field contribution given above. He doesn't derive this equation, however. PianoDan (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]