What could explain the gallium anomaly?(quantamagazine.org)
quantamagazine.org
What could explain the gallium anomaly?
https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-could-explain-the-gallium-anomaly-20240712/
103 comments
>> It's funny when one encounters serious real-world discussion on something previously seen as sci-fi technobabble.
> In this case, I'm thinking of the Destiny universe, such as this apocalyptic alert from a military AI.
To be clear, physicists have been thinking very non-fictionally about sterile neutrinos since 1968.
> In this case, I'm thinking of the Destiny universe, such as this apocalyptic alert from a military AI.
To be clear, physicists have been thinking very non-fictionally about sterile neutrinos since 1968.
Google is (still) a great tool for this sort of conversion. It comes up with just under 58 barrels: https://www.google.com/search?q=57+tonnes+%2F+%286.1+g%2Fcm%...
> Google is (still) a great tool for this sort of conversion
Alas, not in this case, since Google is interpreting that as a 42-gallon "petrochemical-industry traditional abstract measuring unit of crude oil" as opposed to a 55-gallon "physical container readers may have seen and everybody actually uses." (Including to hold crude oil, in the rare cases that it's not in an enormous tank or pipeline.)
Perhaps this is an example of where "intelligent assistant" software lands in a dangerous middle-zone of "wrong, but not wrong enough that it's obvious."
Anywho, if we reword it a bit and put in a less-rounded density, it comes out the same:
https://www.google.com/search?q=57+tonnes+%2F+%286.095+g%2Fc...
__________
P.S.: The way it parses this small change is also amusing, where "in water barrels" isn't a change in the type of barrel, but instead introduces a non-SI unit of pressure, making everything murky indeed.
https://www.google.com/search?q=57+tonnes+%2F+%286.1+g%2Fcm%...
Alas, not in this case, since Google is interpreting that as a 42-gallon "petrochemical-industry traditional abstract measuring unit of crude oil" as opposed to a 55-gallon "physical container readers may have seen and everybody actually uses." (Including to hold crude oil, in the rare cases that it's not in an enormous tank or pipeline.)
Perhaps this is an example of where "intelligent assistant" software lands in a dangerous middle-zone of "wrong, but not wrong enough that it's obvious."
Anywho, if we reword it a bit and put in a less-rounded density, it comes out the same:
https://www.google.com/search?q=57+tonnes+%2F+%286.095+g%2Fc...
__________
P.S.: The way it parses this small change is also amusing, where "in water barrels" isn't a change in the type of barrel, but instead introduces a non-SI unit of pressure, making everything murky indeed.
https://www.google.com/search?q=57+tonnes+%2F+%286.1+g%2Fcm%...
It is remarkable that you spotted the inaccuracy. You make a good point about it being wrong but not wrong enough.
OTOH, the correct answer by your reasoning is 44 barrels. For my purposes, 58 is right enough. I can't even visualize the difference between 44 and 58 barrels.
44 barrels is about 323 cubic feet (9.1 cubic meters). That's about the size of my bathroom.
57 tons in my tiny bathroom. Gallium is shockingly dense. Which makes sense.
OTOH, the correct answer by your reasoning is 44 barrels. For my purposes, 58 is right enough. I can't even visualize the difference between 44 and 58 barrels.
44 barrels is about 323 cubic feet (9.1 cubic meters). That's about the size of my bathroom.
57 tons in my tiny bathroom. Gallium is shockingly dense. Which makes sense.
Yes, it's a cube with sides of just a touch more than 2m (7ft). Remarkable.
My preference for this on the web is Wolfram Alpha:
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=57+tonnes+%2F+%286.1+g%...
(note I've slightly changed the prompt to match the "drums" OP used instead of barrels. This avoids the issue other child mentions of ambiguous units, as it clearly states the volume of drum it's using and gives options for others (e.g. the international 200L instead of the US 208L/55 GAL).
Another option which I wouldn't inherently trust to get the calculation just right, but is good for explaining the process if you can fact-check it is ChatGPT-4o: https://chatgpt.com/share/ead07fff-8d55-4147-a742-6e19b26f1e...
(note I've slightly changed the prompt to match the "drums" OP used instead of barrels. This avoids the issue other child mentions of ambiguous units, as it clearly states the volume of drum it's using and gives options for others (e.g. the international 200L instead of the US 208L/55 GAL).
Another option which I wouldn't inherently trust to get the calculation just right, but is good for explaining the process if you can fact-check it is ChatGPT-4o: https://chatgpt.com/share/ead07fff-8d55-4147-a742-6e19b26f1e...
double check that math - olympic pool is 50x25x2 meters, or 2500m3. 1 m3 of water is roughly 1 metric ton (1 g/cc = 1 kg/L = 1 t/m3) depending on temperature and such.
57000000g / 5.9 g/cc = 9661017 cc = 9.661m3
57000000g / 5.9 g/cc = 9661017 cc = 9.661m3
Whoops, yeah, made a few mistakes. Next time I'll do the usual and open a throwaway spreadsheet. Also, picking gallium-density from a slightly higher temperature where it's liquid.
[deleted]
> While Russia’s invasion of Ukraine “has complicated things,” Elliott said, the collaboration between the U.S. and Russia on BEST is still ongoing, for now.
Nice to hear in these uncertain times.
Nice to hear in these uncertain times.
How is that "nice"? The fact that 3 years in we are still collaborating with Russia on the ISS and in other scientific programs is deeply disturbing. I get that the ISS is a special circumstance and a difficult knot to unravel. That's an extremely unique situation and it's not worth digging into at length for this situation. Life support onboard for all occupants relies on a continuing collaboration.
Beyond the ISS situation we should have completely cut all ties with Russia. They have killed hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. Stolen children, assaulted women, and killed Ukrainian elderly and children. Not even digging into their internal recruitment policies, but the way they drag innocent Russian civilians into supporting their invasion is worth its own war crimes investigation.
Yes, this experiment is interesting and it's intriguing to me. But it's not "nice" when a few physicists are getting results at the expense of all the collective suffering going on right now.
I'm generally pragmatic about things, but in this situation cooperation is entirely uncalled for.
Meanwhile the US ignores joint efforts with China. They (China) have some interesting things going on right now. For an international space station, it's awful that a Chinese crew hasn't even been invited to the ISS despite allowing numerous rich folks going up for a week long vacation.
To be clear, I'm NOT supporting China. Their government is antithetical to a free society and is deeply partnered with Russia, N. Korea, and other states hostile to the EU and US.
But they are a major player in humans in space, and it's important to engage them at that level. Again, the ISS is a unique scenario.
Beyond the ISS situation we should have completely cut all ties with Russia. They have killed hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. Stolen children, assaulted women, and killed Ukrainian elderly and children. Not even digging into their internal recruitment policies, but the way they drag innocent Russian civilians into supporting their invasion is worth its own war crimes investigation.
Yes, this experiment is interesting and it's intriguing to me. But it's not "nice" when a few physicists are getting results at the expense of all the collective suffering going on right now.
I'm generally pragmatic about things, but in this situation cooperation is entirely uncalled for.
Meanwhile the US ignores joint efforts with China. They (China) have some interesting things going on right now. For an international space station, it's awful that a Chinese crew hasn't even been invited to the ISS despite allowing numerous rich folks going up for a week long vacation.
To be clear, I'm NOT supporting China. Their government is antithetical to a free society and is deeply partnered with Russia, N. Korea, and other states hostile to the EU and US.
But they are a major player in humans in space, and it's important to engage them at that level. Again, the ISS is a unique scenario.
The problem is these joint scientific efforts were and continue to be effective tools to diffuse more dangerous possibilities.
In case you have forgotten Russia is still the 2nd largest nuclear power and their arsenal is enough to eliminate pretty much all life on Earth.
The war in Ukraine is terrible but don't underestimate how much worse things could get. If things do get worse it's back channels like space collaboration/UN/other symbolic things that can keep people talking enough to not end up cleansing the Earth in nuclear fire. Just because those things are ineffective at stopping a proxy war doesn't mean they aren't worth doing.
For the same reason I also agree that China should be welcomed into the international space community. They are flying state of the art rockets and have their own modern space station... you couple that with the fact they too are an increasingly powerful military nation then more collaboration rather than less is the way to go.
In case you have forgotten Russia is still the 2nd largest nuclear power and their arsenal is enough to eliminate pretty much all life on Earth.
The war in Ukraine is terrible but don't underestimate how much worse things could get. If things do get worse it's back channels like space collaboration/UN/other symbolic things that can keep people talking enough to not end up cleansing the Earth in nuclear fire. Just because those things are ineffective at stopping a proxy war doesn't mean they aren't worth doing.
For the same reason I also agree that China should be welcomed into the international space community. They are flying state of the art rockets and have their own modern space station... you couple that with the fact they too are an increasingly powerful military nation then more collaboration rather than less is the way to go.
Glad we agree on China at least.
I highly disagree about Russia being a modern nuclear power. China and Israel are really the only countries that have the modern infrastructure required to maintain significant nuclear presences other than the US. Russia today is mostly living off of the remnants of pre-1985 Soviet energy infrastructure investments.
They have some nuclear capability, but it's far, far below what the US still maintains. Sadly even a reduced capacity is still far above what's needed to mess things up.
I highly disagree about Russia being a modern nuclear power. China and Israel are really the only countries that have the modern infrastructure required to maintain significant nuclear presences other than the US. Russia today is mostly living off of the remnants of pre-1985 Soviet energy infrastructure investments.
They have some nuclear capability, but it's far, far below what the US still maintains. Sadly even a reduced capacity is still far above what's needed to mess things up.
> I highly disagree about Russia being a modern nuclear power
Look, I'm as pissed at Russia as anyone but it doesn't change the facts. They are indisputably a modern nuclear power, and they have ramped up their spending in recent years. It's practically the only thing in their defense they haven't starved of funds.
> They have some nuclear capability
They don't have "some" nuclear capability. They are equal first or near enough.
> China and Israel are really the only countries that have the modern infrastructure
Israel!?? Now I'm really questioning your source of information. Whoever told you tiny Israel was anything other than dead last was leading you quite astray, I'm afraid. In fact some would say that Israel's nuclear capability is behind some other countries who don't even possess the weapons.
Look, I'm as pissed at Russia as anyone but it doesn't change the facts. They are indisputably a modern nuclear power, and they have ramped up their spending in recent years. It's practically the only thing in their defense they haven't starved of funds.
> They have some nuclear capability
They don't have "some" nuclear capability. They are equal first or near enough.
> China and Israel are really the only countries that have the modern infrastructure
Israel!?? Now I'm really questioning your source of information. Whoever told you tiny Israel was anything other than dead last was leading you quite astray, I'm afraid. In fact some would say that Israel's nuclear capability is behind some other countries who don't even possess the weapons.
a) This isn't true, quite the opposite.
b) The shilling for "#yolo, let's start nuclear war with Russia" is a bad idea. Trust me. You don't want to go there.
b) The shilling for "#yolo, let's start nuclear war with Russia" is a bad idea. Trust me. You don't want to go there.
> b) The shilling for "#yolo, let's start nuclear war with Russia" is a bad idea. Trust me. You don't want to go there.
Russia already went there. We're already there.
Russia already went there. We're already there.
No, the constant shilling of the idea that "don't worry, Russia won't do anything anyways" isn't coming from Russia's side.
Living in the world as a hostage to nuclear weapon yielding crazies is a fate worse than death for some free-minded people.
Shame about those free-minded people; everyone else understands that it's how the world works and why everything isn't on fire. MAD is the foundation of international politics; everything else is role-playing on top of it.
> MAD is the foundation of international politics
MAD is a religion-like fiction by-for people who emotionally need it. People armed with nuclear weapons are coming for us, whether it's emotionally convenient for you or not. And it doesn't matter whether we have nukes, too.
MAD is a religion-like fiction by-for people who emotionally need it. People armed with nuclear weapons are coming for us, whether it's emotionally convenient for you or not. And it doesn't matter whether we have nukes, too.
[deleted]
They’d have no issues producing a dozen Tsar Bombas even today, no question.
Plenty enough to ruin everyone’s day.
Plenty enough to ruin everyone’s day.
Tsar Bombas aren’t realistic weapons.
Russia is having trouble producing modern tanks and planes. Its ships are being blown up by radio controlled boats with explosives on them.
Russia absolutely excels at one thing: the relentless use of its human meat grinder. Nothing fundamental has changed since Stalingrad.
Russia is having trouble producing modern tanks and planes. Its ships are being blown up by radio controlled boats with explosives on them.
Russia absolutely excels at one thing: the relentless use of its human meat grinder. Nothing fundamental has changed since Stalingrad.
Russia also excels at MAD. And suffering.
Suffering yes -- to an extend that we here in the US have little understanding the depths of.
But re: MAD, my point may have been the emperor's new clothes.
But re: MAD, my point may have been the emperor's new clothes.
The depths of... so far.
This isn't the choice or will of the citizens, the government just uses fear of death to exercise control.
Eh, I wouldn't discount India and France so fast.
>their arsenal is enough to eliminate pretty much all life on Earth
Lol, not even close.
Lol, not even close.
I hate the russian regime and what its doing to ukraine too.
Still there is something comforting about putting aside our differences, petty and otherwise, to do science.
After all, its not like the Russian scientists involved personally ordered the invasion.
Still there is something comforting about putting aside our differences, petty and otherwise, to do science.
After all, its not like the Russian scientists involved personally ordered the invasion.
Everyday Russians, including scientists, should feel consequences for their government's murders.
Except for the ISS (complicated, as noted), I'm astounded that anything goes in or out of Russia: people, goods, services, atoms, electrons.
Except for the ISS (complicated, as noted), I'm astounded that anything goes in or out of Russia: people, goods, services, atoms, electrons.
There aren't many "innocent" countries out there. In your opinion we should all focus our energy on shunning and hating each other because of it?
No I don't.
This situation is acute, and will spread.
The only way Germany was stopped in 1945 was by a collective decision to defeat them militarily, by multiple participating countries.
That won't happen this time around, because WWIII is all but unthinkable.
The only thing left is for Russian citizens to be motivated enough to stop it. That's a hard lift, but if they feel it long enough, they might get it.
In any case, after arming Ukraine, it's about all we have.
This situation is acute, and will spread.
The only way Germany was stopped in 1945 was by a collective decision to defeat them militarily, by multiple participating countries.
That won't happen this time around, because WWIII is all but unthinkable.
The only thing left is for Russian citizens to be motivated enough to stop it. That's a hard lift, but if they feel it long enough, they might get it.
In any case, after arming Ukraine, it's about all we have.
I'm a US citizen, and I recognize my country has done some terrible things, but I shouldn't have to personally feel the consequences for those things.
At the same time, I wouldn't want random Russian citizens to have to feel the consequences for things their government has done.
Your bad argument is the same one that spurs Islamic terrorists into stabbing random people.
At the same time, I wouldn't want random Russian citizens to have to feel the consequences for things their government has done.
Your bad argument is the same one that spurs Islamic terrorists into stabbing random people.
Our government is doing some terrible things. I voted for this government and I feel I should take some responsibility for it. I accept that there may be consequences, potentially awful ones.
I am afraid we are about to vote in a government that will do even more harm -- including to me personally. I think that a lot of people are choosing that harm deliberately. But even worse is a lot of people who are willing to accept that harm to me but without feeling any responsibility at all.
The world is difficult. We make hard choices to live together. We do our best, or at least most of us do. I wish there were more empathy, and I accept that this means I feel guilt.
The Russians are not really a democracy and their understanding of the world is severely warped by their media. And even those more clear on the situation can do only a little. But the more they individually feel a responsibility, the sooner they can collectively do something.
I am afraid we are about to vote in a government that will do even more harm -- including to me personally. I think that a lot of people are choosing that harm deliberately. But even worse is a lot of people who are willing to accept that harm to me but without feeling any responsibility at all.
The world is difficult. We make hard choices to live together. We do our best, or at least most of us do. I wish there were more empathy, and I accept that this means I feel guilt.
The Russians are not really a democracy and their understanding of the world is severely warped by their media. And even those more clear on the situation can do only a little. But the more they individually feel a responsibility, the sooner they can collectively do something.
Did you ever consider that USAians are not really a democracy and their understanding of the world is severely warped by their media? It is 100% true, by the way.
Of course. But I'm as certain as I can manage (in an epistemologically challenging world) that we're closer to those goals than Russia is.
I'm not especially interested in false equivocation as an argument. It's cheap and boring.
I'm not especially interested in false equivocation as an argument. It's cheap and boring.
For non-restricted goods, it's still the fastest non-air transport route from China to Germany.
We'll have to at least pay for the track maintenance and electricity usage caused by that, so why should we listen to a country that isn't affected? BTW the next best option would be to send war ships to the red sea and put the shipping corridor under effectively European control, would that be preferred?
We'll have to at least pay for the track maintenance and electricity usage caused by that, so why should we listen to a country that isn't affected? BTW the next best option would be to send war ships to the red sea and put the shipping corridor under effectively European control, would that be preferred?
> I'm generally pragmatic about things
Not nearly pragmatic enough. Of course the war is terrible and of course Russia is to blame. But the world doesn't stop moving and high level co-operation still needs to continue. Russia is still a big, powerful, important country and we can't just cancel everything in a fit of spite.
I mean, even Ukraine, even while it's being brutalized by its neighbor, still maintains high level connections to organize prisoner transfers. There's regular communication between the RUAF and NATO to deconflict and identify each other's assets to avoid misunderstandings and accidents. All of this continues, war or not, because everyone knows the alternative is just that much worse.
It's no different for the scientific cooperation. War or not, everyone knows it is in everyone's best interest for cooperation to continue. The scientific ties long predate the war, and will continue long after everyone has forgotten it, too.
And I'm surprised you then completely contradict your moral point - which I disagree with, but it is a point - by suggesting the West engage with China, a prospect against which almost the exact same argument can be made. Of course, taking the "we only co-operate with partners with sparkling moral rectitude" line even further, you could argue that no-one should be co-operating with the USA, with its two disastrous recent wars, either. See where this goes?
Not nearly pragmatic enough. Of course the war is terrible and of course Russia is to blame. But the world doesn't stop moving and high level co-operation still needs to continue. Russia is still a big, powerful, important country and we can't just cancel everything in a fit of spite.
I mean, even Ukraine, even while it's being brutalized by its neighbor, still maintains high level connections to organize prisoner transfers. There's regular communication between the RUAF and NATO to deconflict and identify each other's assets to avoid misunderstandings and accidents. All of this continues, war or not, because everyone knows the alternative is just that much worse.
It's no different for the scientific cooperation. War or not, everyone knows it is in everyone's best interest for cooperation to continue. The scientific ties long predate the war, and will continue long after everyone has forgotten it, too.
And I'm surprised you then completely contradict your moral point - which I disagree with, but it is a point - by suggesting the West engage with China, a prospect against which almost the exact same argument can be made. Of course, taking the "we only co-operate with partners with sparkling moral rectitude" line even further, you could argue that no-one should be co-operating with the USA, with its two disastrous recent wars, either. See where this goes?
I see it more simplistically. If there's two guys love neutrinos, neutrinos is they passion, one happens to be born in Russia, one in US (neither one chose to be born there), and they want to work together to understand life, the universe, everything, then so what? What matters more, life, the universe, everything, or some years-long dramatic squabble, years long on the scale of a 5 billion year old planet and millions year old species and perhaps tens of thousands of years old civilization.
The "ideal" of science is that there should be this purity, this honesty, etc. Deviations do occur, politics are common in science itself, data falsification, etc, but we must not let that deny the purity ideal. In the same way, I believe the idea here is to acknowledge that purity over political differences as something transcendent to politics. But yes, such collaborations do have political value in terms of being a "relationship". And yes of course I don't want to poo-poo politics. Whereas it's true that politics is as inescapable to the human condition as say language, perhaps we shouldn't let political constraints guide and dictate scientific work just as we shouldn't let linguistic barriers limit science, both part of the human condition, both miniscule in the face of the work being done.
The "ideal" of science is that there should be this purity, this honesty, etc. Deviations do occur, politics are common in science itself, data falsification, etc, but we must not let that deny the purity ideal. In the same way, I believe the idea here is to acknowledge that purity over political differences as something transcendent to politics. But yes, such collaborations do have political value in terms of being a "relationship". And yes of course I don't want to poo-poo politics. Whereas it's true that politics is as inescapable to the human condition as say language, perhaps we shouldn't let political constraints guide and dictate scientific work just as we shouldn't let linguistic barriers limit science, both part of the human condition, both miniscule in the face of the work being done.
> The fact that 3 years in we are still collaborating with Russia on the ISS and in other scientific programs is deeply disturbing.
Do you think Putin cares about scientific programs enough to stop killing people?
All the "we won't talk to Putin, but will buy Russian gas reexported by another murderer Aliyev" is very nice and emotional, but it did not have any positive effect.
If instead of all of this theater with sanctions, EU and US gave more weapons from the start, and removed regulations to drop oil prices, Ukraine would have won at the end of 2022, and at a much smaller cost than damage to the EU economy already caused by sanctions.
Do you think Putin cares about scientific programs enough to stop killing people?
All the "we won't talk to Putin, but will buy Russian gas reexported by another murderer Aliyev" is very nice and emotional, but it did not have any positive effect.
If instead of all of this theater with sanctions, EU and US gave more weapons from the start, and removed regulations to drop oil prices, Ukraine would have won at the end of 2022, and at a much smaller cost than damage to the EU economy already caused by sanctions.
This project highlights the complexity of the real world. Not all of russia is evil. So why should the good be isolated, starved, punished? True, people in power can cause irreparable harm to neighboring nations, or even their own (Stalin?) Do we therefore obliterate all contributions of Soviet math, science and engineering and expunge them from our internet?
In the face of injustice caused by politicians and corporations, we must privately support those individuals doing good work.
In the face of injustice caused by politicians and corporations, we must privately support those individuals doing good work.
As far as I can tell the US is fully, and I mean fully, on
Israel’a side, even though the genocide now happening in Gaza is a very real thing.
Could the gallium anomaly be explained by something far more prosaic? For example, in water, there are all kinds of species of different anions and cations present, existing in equilibrium with each other. Water forms complex semi-crystalline structures by virtue of hydrogen bonds. Although they are not true crystals, the supramolecular structures of individual water molecules and the valence species create a sophisticated structure, even in a seemingly homogenous substance.
Now, consider if something similar happens with gallium. What if the electron configuration of gallium's orbitals means that gallium, in its liquid form, also has various anions and cations? Moreover, what if gallium can form analogs to hydrogen bonds, leading to semi-crystalline or structured forms?
This structured form could provide some shielding to the gallium atoms, making them less likely to be converted via neutrinos to germanium. Instead of impacting a nucleus at the expected rate, the overlapping orbital bonds and electron resonance might offer a form of shielding. This shielding could make the gallium atoms more stable and less reactive, thereby reducing their conversion to germanium.
While this idea applies a chemical concept to nuclear chemistry or physics, and may not align perfectly with the traditional views of high-energy particle physicists and astronomers, it offers a potentially more prosaic explanation for the gallium anomaly. This perspective might not have been top of mind for those focused on high-energy interactions and could be worth considering further.
Now, consider if something similar happens with gallium. What if the electron configuration of gallium's orbitals means that gallium, in its liquid form, also has various anions and cations? Moreover, what if gallium can form analogs to hydrogen bonds, leading to semi-crystalline or structured forms?
This structured form could provide some shielding to the gallium atoms, making them less likely to be converted via neutrinos to germanium. Instead of impacting a nucleus at the expected rate, the overlapping orbital bonds and electron resonance might offer a form of shielding. This shielding could make the gallium atoms more stable and less reactive, thereby reducing their conversion to germanium.
While this idea applies a chemical concept to nuclear chemistry or physics, and may not align perfectly with the traditional views of high-energy particle physicists and astronomers, it offers a potentially more prosaic explanation for the gallium anomaly. This perspective might not have been top of mind for those focused on high-energy interactions and could be worth considering further.
> This structured form could provide some shielding to the gallium atoms, making them less likely to be converted via neutrinos to germanium. Instead of impacting a nucleus at the expected rate, the overlapping orbital bonds and electron resonance might offer a form of shielding. This shielding could make the gallium atoms more stable and less reactive, thereby reducing their conversion to germanium.
Might this be covered by this bit from the article?
> Another proposed explanation was that physicists had miscalculated the probability of neutrinos from the source interacting with the gallium. But in September 2023, Haxton and his colleagues also ruled out this possibility. “You can’t get rid of the anomaly,” he said.
Maybe they don't consider the scenario you outlined in their calculations, but I lack the training to understand the paper [0].
In addition, speaking more generally I'd be curious how your proposed mechanism would work physically. Given the size of the nucleus compared to that of the electron cloud, the fact that (known) neutrinos only interact via the weak interaction and gravity, and the range of the weak interaction, a big question to me is how big your proposed effect could have in this case, if any.
[0]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.13623
Might this be covered by this bit from the article?
> Another proposed explanation was that physicists had miscalculated the probability of neutrinos from the source interacting with the gallium. But in September 2023, Haxton and his colleagues also ruled out this possibility. “You can’t get rid of the anomaly,” he said.
Maybe they don't consider the scenario you outlined in their calculations, but I lack the training to understand the paper [0].
In addition, speaking more generally I'd be curious how your proposed mechanism would work physically. Given the size of the nucleus compared to that of the electron cloud, the fact that (known) neutrinos only interact via the weak interaction and gravity, and the range of the weak interaction, a big question to me is how big your proposed effect could have in this case, if any.
[0]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.13623
If I understand idea, this sounds like what physicists might call a 'collective phenomena' effect introducing some type of screening. It's possible -- if true it could independently be tested. I know there are models for this type of stuff in denser matter (and in more extreme conditions), but not sure whats known in situations like the experiment. I assume there is a reason that isnt mentioned, but would love to know from an expert why.
Collective phenomena do show up in high energy/particle physics, albeit rarely, ex: when you collide large enough nuclei together at high enough speeds, you create a highly energy-dense nuclear plasma which effective 'screens' jets of particles that would travel through the center of the collision. If you go to smaller nuclei or lower energy, you can start to see these jets of particles pass through the collision area.
Collective phenomena do show up in high energy/particle physics, albeit rarely, ex: when you collide large enough nuclei together at high enough speeds, you create a highly energy-dense nuclear plasma which effective 'screens' jets of particles that would travel through the center of the collision. If you go to smaller nuclei or lower energy, you can start to see these jets of particles pass through the collision area.
Neutrinos can pass through the whole Earth, and almost none of them is stoped. A trick to get a neutrino ray and block all other particles is to not build a tunel and let a few miles of soil absorb all other particles. So a few electrons more or less concentrated arround a gallium atom have no effect. Considering the electronic distribution is an interesting idea, but not for the shelling effect.
This is not my area so I have to guess more than what I'm confortable. Anyway, the difference between the electons in gallium and germanium is an aditional electron in a p orbital. An electron in a p orbital has some probability of beein nearby the nuclei.
The decay from germanium to galium is an electron capture Ge + e -> Ga + ν , so the "postion" of the electon is important, but I'm not sure how important. But in this experiment they are measuring the inverse reaction Ga + ν -> Ge + e and comparing the rates of both reactions.
So ... perhaps it's possible that the change of the electon density distribution causes a change in these decay/undecay. I never heard something similar, and I expect the effect is neligible, but this is not my area so I can't rule it out.
This is not my area so I have to guess more than what I'm confortable. Anyway, the difference between the electons in gallium and germanium is an aditional electron in a p orbital. An electron in a p orbital has some probability of beein nearby the nuclei.
The decay from germanium to galium is an electron capture Ge + e -> Ga + ν , so the "postion" of the electon is important, but I'm not sure how important. But in this experiment they are measuring the inverse reaction Ga + ν -> Ge + e and comparing the rates of both reactions.
So ... perhaps it's possible that the change of the electon density distribution causes a change in these decay/undecay. I never heard something similar, and I expect the effect is neligible, but this is not my area so I can't rule it out.
Yes I understand the traditional objections to this idea. I don’t think you’ve quite grasped what I propose tho. Consider this: The reaction v_e + (71)Ga → (71)Ge + e− involves the release of an electron. The local electronic environment, including electron orbitals or metallic bonds in liquid gallium, can influence this electron's energy levels and spatial distribution. These changes can affect the reaction rate and shift the equilibrium position of the reaction, potentially making the forward reaction less favored and accounting for the 20% discrepancy. So, while neutrinos primarily interact via the weak nuclear force, the electron release means the local electronic environment can subtly impact the overall reaction dynamics.
Then we agree. I though you were thinking about shelling like a plumber wall or like the core electrons in an atom.
In the released electron has low energy, perhaps some change of the electriñonic configuration may cause a problem(???). (Triple question mark because I think it's possible but I never heard something similar.)
Also, in solid germanium the electronic didtribution is affected by the bands, that is another can of worms. In liquid gallium I'm not sure what happens. (And an isolated germanium atom disolved in liquid gallium may have also an unusual electronic distribution.)
In the released electron has low energy, perhaps some change of the electriñonic configuration may cause a problem(???). (Triple question mark because I think it's possible but I never heard something similar.)
Also, in solid germanium the electronic didtribution is affected by the bands, that is another can of worms. In liquid gallium I'm not sure what happens. (And an isolated germanium atom disolved in liquid gallium may have also an unusual electronic distribution.)
Unfortunately many physicists believe chemistry is just applied physics. In reality most physicists have no clue of chemistry beyond the H2 molecule.
Based on that, your “less prosaic” could be a good candidate for an explanation.
Based on that, your “less prosaic” could be a good candidate for an explanation.
Would sterile neutrinos as an oscillation really change anything about dark matter? The total mass of neutrinos doesn't change, just the lepton number.
It might mean 20% more neutrinos exist than we think. That would change the total mass of neutrinos.
Much more interesting (and not touched on by the article as far as I noticed): The electron neutrino is the "partner" to the electron. The muon neutrino is the partner to the muon, and the tau neutrino to the tau. What's the sterile neutrino the partner to? (Or doesn't it have one, and that's what makes it "sterile"?)
If there is a partner to it, does the partner have mass? Does it interact in any way besides gravitationally? If not...
Much more interesting (and not touched on by the article as far as I noticed): The electron neutrino is the "partner" to the electron. The muon neutrino is the partner to the muon, and the tau neutrino to the tau. What's the sterile neutrino the partner to? (Or doesn't it have one, and that's what makes it "sterile"?)
If there is a partner to it, does the partner have mass? Does it interact in any way besides gravitationally? If not...
IIRC, there is another quantum number, the chirality. All the neutrinos measured are left chiral. The sterile neutrino, which does not pair with other lepton, is right chiral.
Is that the only possible sterile neutrino? Because if I recall correctly, a right chiral neutrino cannot change into one of the other types, because of the chirality. (That's why it's "sterile".)
So either they aren't produced by beta decay, or they are but they can't be captured by gallium, or we're seeing a sterile neutrino in a different sense. ("Sterile" because it can't interact with gallium, but not sterile due to chirality.)
If I understand, the conversion of gallium into germanium is exactly a beta interaction. (But I may not understand, because it seems to me that gallium->germanium should emit a neutrino, not absorb one.) So I have a hard time seeing how a neutrino could be emitted by the source, but not absorbed by gallium. I could more readily see it as saying that there's a fourth type of neutrino that they cycle through, and while in that fourth state it can't convert gallium. But that wouldn't be "sterile" in the chirality sense.
So either they aren't produced by beta decay, or they are but they can't be captured by gallium, or we're seeing a sterile neutrino in a different sense. ("Sterile" because it can't interact with gallium, but not sterile due to chirality.)
If I understand, the conversion of gallium into germanium is exactly a beta interaction. (But I may not understand, because it seems to me that gallium->germanium should emit a neutrino, not absorb one.) So I have a hard time seeing how a neutrino could be emitted by the source, but not absorbed by gallium. I could more readily see it as saying that there's a fourth type of neutrino that they cycle through, and while in that fourth state it can't convert gallium. But that wouldn't be "sterile" in the chirality sense.
> If I understand, the conversion of gallium into germanium is exactly a beta interaction
In a "standard" beta decay the neutron turns into a proton and emits an electron and an anti-electron neutrino. In this reaction its absorbing an electron neutrino and emitting an electron (while still turning the neutron into a proton). Absorbing an electron neutrino is pretty much equivalent to emitting an anti-electron neutrino.
In a "standard" beta decay the neutron turns into a proton and emits an electron and an anti-electron neutrino. In this reaction its absorbing an electron neutrino and emitting an electron (while still turning the neutron into a proton). Absorbing an electron neutrino is pretty much equivalent to emitting an anti-electron neutrino.
>gallium->germanium should emit a neutrino, not absorb one.
Neutron-Neutrino interaction?
https://www.vivaxsolutions.com/physics/feynman-diagrams.aspx
Neutron-Neutrino interaction?
https://www.vivaxsolutions.com/physics/feynman-diagrams.aspx
Emitting an antiparticle is (in Feynman diagrams at least) the same as absorbing a particle. IIRC, for neutrinos the anti aspect isn't that important because they don't quickly annihilate with regular matter and they have no electrical charge.
I even seem to remember that the most commonly produced neutrinos are antineutrinos (so the anti aspect is more fundamental than a convention for each particle type).
I even seem to remember that the most commonly produced neutrinos are antineutrinos (so the anti aspect is more fundamental than a convention for each particle type).
> What's the sterile neutrino the partner to?
It would be a very unusual partner that has no concerved quantum numbers, and only mass.
A sterile neutrino would also imply that the neutrino is a Majorana particle (because it would have not quantum numbers that could be "anti").
It would be a very unusual partner that has no concerved quantum numbers, and only mass.
A sterile neutrino would also imply that the neutrino is a Majorana particle (because it would have not quantum numbers that could be "anti").
> It might mean 20% more neutrinos exist than we think.
Would it though? It's not like we know neutrino mass from measurement, rather we estimate it from nuclear reactions that have occurred. The estimate would not change if a neutrino oscillates into a sterile one.
Would it though? It's not like we know neutrino mass from measurement, rather we estimate it from nuclear reactions that have occurred. The estimate would not change if a neutrino oscillates into a sterile one.
Sterile neutrinos could also be a lot heavier than regular neutrinos, those kind of sterile neutrinos are ideal candidates for explaining dark matter and the matter-antimatter asymmetry
https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6912
Just as I am disappointed that "global warming" changed into the more ambiguous "climate change", I'm a little disappointed that the "right-handed neutrino" has turned into the "sterile neutrino". It's really strange that we only observe left handed neutrinos and either the revelation that there is a hidden right-handed neutrino or that neutrinos are fully Majorana particles without a right-handed form would be absolutely groundbreaking.
My take on it is that the neutrino mass term is not "physics beyond the standard model" but rather a "missing part of the standard model" and that one way or another, neutrinos hold an important secret, if not the important secret of the universe. (Note potentially three generations of right-handed neutrinos could exist at three mass scales and explain the gallium anomaly, cold dark matter, and the rarity of antimatter)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6912
Just as I am disappointed that "global warming" changed into the more ambiguous "climate change", I'm a little disappointed that the "right-handed neutrino" has turned into the "sterile neutrino". It's really strange that we only observe left handed neutrinos and either the revelation that there is a hidden right-handed neutrino or that neutrinos are fully Majorana particles without a right-handed form would be absolutely groundbreaking.
My take on it is that the neutrino mass term is not "physics beyond the standard model" but rather a "missing part of the standard model" and that one way or another, neutrinos hold an important secret, if not the important secret of the universe. (Note potentially three generations of right-handed neutrinos could exist at three mass scales and explain the gallium anomaly, cold dark matter, and the rarity of antimatter)
As a climatologist, I can tell you that we switched to “climate change” because it’s more precise. “Global” in global warming is not the “universal” sense of global, because not everywhere on Earth warms equally, and some places may even cool with mean global warming. Global climate change implies that the averages and ranges are changing. The phenomenon is best measured in statistics.
(Also as a climatologist I have no idea what the handedness of neutrinos even means. Something with spin?)
(Also as a climatologist I have no idea what the handedness of neutrinos even means. Something with spin?)
> (Also as a climatologist I have no idea what the handedness of neutrinos even means. Something with spin?)
Indeed, it's the relation of spin to linear momentum of the particle.
Indeed, it's the relation of spin to linear momentum of the particle.
Its not quite that, the thing you're describing is called helicity. Helicity and chirality are closely related, they're the same if your particle is massless for example, but for massive particles they aren't the same.
Imagine I have a particle which is spinning in the same direction as its linear momentum (so positive helicity) but then I speed myself up really fast so now I'm going faster than it. Its linear momentum (to me) appears to have switched sign but its spin hasn't so the helicity has flipped.
Chirality is a more complicated thing which avoids this "problem" with helicity. Chirality doesn't change when the observer changed velocity.
Imagine I have a particle which is spinning in the same direction as its linear momentum (so positive helicity) but then I speed myself up really fast so now I'm going faster than it. Its linear momentum (to me) appears to have switched sign but its spin hasn't so the helicity has flipped.
Chirality is a more complicated thing which avoids this "problem" with helicity. Chirality doesn't change when the observer changed velocity.
A Capella Science: Massless (Muse neutrino parody): https://youtu.be/dBxcC8zV46E
Gallium likes to form alloys with other metals, does this anomaly happen with the gallium-containing alloys as well?
Question for experts:
If sterile neutrinos exist, would they be the best candidate for dark matter? Additionally, would it be impossible to detect them since they do not interact with anything and possess only mass?
EDIT:
My reasoning is as follows:
- Low-energy neutrinos might not be relativistic. For example, relic neutrinos from the Big Bang, which have a temperature of around 1.95 K, would travel at approximately 4.5% of the speed of light.
- I've also read that sterile neutrinos are hypothesized to have a large mass (though I'm not sure).
So "slow neutrino" + "not so light like normal neutrino" => dark matter
If sterile neutrinos exist, would they be the best candidate for dark matter? Additionally, would it be impossible to detect them since they do not interact with anything and possess only mass?
EDIT:
My reasoning is as follows:
- Low-energy neutrinos might not be relativistic. For example, relic neutrinos from the Big Bang, which have a temperature of around 1.95 K, would travel at approximately 4.5% of the speed of light.
- I've also read that sterile neutrinos are hypothesized to have a large mass (though I'm not sure).
So "slow neutrino" + "not so light like normal neutrino" => dark matter
All neutrinos are relativistic (moving at almost speed of light) and our current model assumes dark matter is "cold" (moving at relatively slow speeds).
There is excellent evidence for then-relativistic cosmic neutrinos from the cosmic microwave background acoustic oscillations. As with the CMB, these neutrinos cooled into a "relic" field with the metric expansion.
A cooling gas of relativistic neutrinos becomes non-relativistic when the average neutrino momentum becomes comparable to their rest mass. The present cosmic neutrino background (CNB) temperature is about 1.9 kelvins corresponding to ~ 1.7e-04 eV/c^2 which is smaller than some neutrino masses.
This is still "hot" compared to Cold Dark Matter, and CNB also only a small fraction of the required CDM energy density.
The lightest cosmic neutrino background mass eigenstates could be relativistic at present, so how the CNB is split between (FLRW) radiation and dark matter is ripe for research. It will mostly be "hot" DM because of the heavier, colder species. But not hot enough to leave clusters of galaxies, unlike neutrinos produced by present-day astrophysics (and our own laboratory experiments and nuclear power generation).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_neutrino_background
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/cosmic-neutrino-back...
A cooling gas of relativistic neutrinos becomes non-relativistic when the average neutrino momentum becomes comparable to their rest mass. The present cosmic neutrino background (CNB) temperature is about 1.9 kelvins corresponding to ~ 1.7e-04 eV/c^2 which is smaller than some neutrino masses.
This is still "hot" compared to Cold Dark Matter, and CNB also only a small fraction of the required CDM energy density.
The lightest cosmic neutrino background mass eigenstates could be relativistic at present, so how the CNB is split between (FLRW) radiation and dark matter is ripe for research. It will mostly be "hot" DM because of the heavier, colder species. But not hot enough to leave clusters of galaxies, unlike neutrinos produced by present-day astrophysics (and our own laboratory experiments and nuclear power generation).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_neutrino_background
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/cosmic-neutrino-back...
Thank you.
I updated my question with my reasoning.
But I assume that in order for these sterile neutrinos to be dark matter they need to be really slow ...
But I assume that in order for these sterile neutrinos to be dark matter they need to be really slow ...
The known (non-sterile) neutrinos are very light, but there's no particular reason a hypothetical sterile neutrino would be.You can cook up sterile neutrinos with very large masses if you want to
https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6912
https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6912
Is there any reason to think that Gallium would be a particularly good source of sterile neutrinos? Or is it more that if regular neutrinos oscillate into sterile neutrinos, then this would be the first experiment that could detect so at this scale?
The gallium isn't what's producing the neutrinos; there's a radioactive source that the gallium is being irradiated by, and I believe that's the source:
> In an underground lab shielded by a mountain of rock, highly radioactive material sits inside a vat of liquid gallium, blasting out particles called neutrinos that break the gallium down into atoms of germanium.
> In an underground lab shielded by a mountain of rock, highly radioactive material sits inside a vat of liquid gallium, blasting out particles called neutrinos that break the gallium down into atoms of germanium.
Gallium is not a source of sterile neutrino. Gallium is a good "electonic neutrino" target.
The problem is that they only detect the 80% of the "electonic neutrino" that they expect and they have no clue of the cause. One of the posibilities is that the other 20% of the "electonic neutrinos" mutate to "sterile neutrinos" during the trip.
(Note that there are 3 types of neutrinos and it's possible that there are also a few types of sterile neutrinos (3 is a good guess).)
The problem is that they only detect the 80% of the "electonic neutrino" that they expect and they have no clue of the cause. One of the posibilities is that the other 20% of the "electonic neutrinos" mutate to "sterile neutrinos" during the trip.
(Note that there are 3 types of neutrinos and it's possible that there are also a few types of sterile neutrinos (3 is a good guess).)
I'd still like to ask a version of the same question, is gallium so special that it only makes sense to do this experiment with gallium?
If sterile neutrinos cause the production of germanium from gallium to be 80% of what we thought it was, will there be other nuclear reactions that we now don't understand? E.g. a given plutonium reaction produces 100g of uranium, currently consistent with the theoretical model, after sterile neutrinos are confirmed will we be saying hang on, this should only produce 80g of uranium with the new model, something else is wrong?
Presumably not, at least with well-understood reactions, so why is gallium so special here?
If sterile neutrinos cause the production of germanium from gallium to be 80% of what we thought it was, will there be other nuclear reactions that we now don't understand? E.g. a given plutonium reaction produces 100g of uranium, currently consistent with the theoretical model, after sterile neutrinos are confirmed will we be saying hang on, this should only produce 80g of uranium with the new model, something else is wrong?
Presumably not, at least with well-understood reactions, so why is gallium so special here?
It's a good question.
In another experiment they are measuring the decay form germanium to gallium, and in this experiment they are forcing an "udecay" fro gallium to germanium. I think both decaya are too complex to be calculated theoricaly, but the rates can be compared and in the comparison they note the problem.
* Perhaps the energy of the decay is small and it's easy to get neutrinos with enough energy to revert it???
* The ammount of gallium they get is tiny, perhaps it's easier to process a liquid target to detect it???
In another experiment they are measuring the decay form germanium to gallium, and in this experiment they are forcing an "udecay" fro gallium to germanium. I think both decaya are too complex to be calculated theoricaly, but the rates can be compared and in the comparison they note the problem.
* Perhaps the energy of the decay is small and it's easy to get neutrinos with enough energy to revert it???
* The ammount of gallium they get is tiny, perhaps it's easier to process a liquid target to detect it???
Given the potential implications of discovering sterile neutrinos, what other anomalies or unexplained phenomena in particle physics might be re-evaluated in light of this new understanding?
Photo caption: In the lab that houses the BEST experiment, fish serve as an early warning system about any leaking radiation.
Never change, Russia. Never change.
Never change, Russia. Never change.
Did you know that mussels and clams are sensitive to changes in water quality and can absorb pollutants? They are often used as bioindicators to detect harmful substances like heavy metals and toxins in the water. They are used in United States and in Europe to check if water is clean.
I remember someone creating a sensing system to see if the shells were open or closed. Given enough mussels, the odds of them all closing at once due to random chance instead of pollution drops to zero.
This Tom Scott video?
https://youtu.be/i0RkEs3Xwf0
Clams at 2:22.
https://youtu.be/i0RkEs3Xwf0
Clams at 2:22.
I believe Tom is the second time I heard of this, as was the experience of a number of his chattier viewers.
coal miners carried canaries to warn of CO. chemical weapons workers brought bunnies in cages to monitor nerve gas leaks. it's an old tradition - it's simple, and it works.
though why not Geiger counters for radiation? there must be a reason.
though why not Geiger counters for radiation? there must be a reason.
I'm no nuclear physicist, but a theory to try out:
1. The leak scenario they're concerned about is an alpha emitter within water, which-- unlike gamma rays and Geiger counters--is harder to detect remotely, since the water serves as effective shielding for anything but microscopic distances.
2. Permanent resident fish serve as a kind of long-term accumulator for dissolved amounts that would otherwise be too hard to detect.
3. The concern isn't so much immediate risks to human health, but rather how any slow leak or discrepancy might compromise the experiment.
1. The leak scenario they're concerned about is an alpha emitter within water, which-- unlike gamma rays and Geiger counters--is harder to detect remotely, since the water serves as effective shielding for anything but microscopic distances.
2. Permanent resident fish serve as a kind of long-term accumulator for dissolved amounts that would otherwise be too hard to detect.
3. The concern isn't so much immediate risks to human health, but rather how any slow leak or discrepancy might compromise the experiment.
If there's enough CO to kill a canary, you still have time to get to safety.
If there's enough nerve gas to kill a rabbit, you still have time to get to safety.
If there's enough radiation to kill a fish, you're a walking dead man... and the 'walking' part is temporary.
If there's enough nerve gas to kill a rabbit, you still have time to get to safety.
If there's enough radiation to kill a fish, you're a walking dead man... and the 'walking' part is temporary.
What if you have a potential worrisome alpha emitter already in water. Keeping some fish in that water might give you heads up when something is going wrong.
Then, lacking the availability of an ISO-standard fish, you should probably use a scintillator or surface-barrier detector. Like everyone else who has to deal with such matters.
If you teach a man a fish, he will eat for one lifetime. If you give a man a radioactive fish, he will eat for many half-lives.
> though why not Geiger counters for radiation? there must be a reason.
If a detector fish moves, it works. With Geiger counter, you may not be always able to tell when it malfunctions.
If a detector fish moves, it works. With Geiger counter, you may not be always able to tell when it malfunctions.
You can't get them all right. To be fair, they used pencils while NASA spent time and money to have a pen that writes in 0g.
This is a myth, using a pencil in space isn't clever or thrifty, it's a disaster waiting to happen. The graphite from pencils breaks off in small fragments while writing and the fragments can create shorts in electronics and to top it off they're also flammable. None of those are properties you want to bring into a spacecraft.
I wonder how graphite can create shorts, when all electronics board and components on them can be easily covered with protective nonconducting PCB varnish.
dumb question but how well do sharpies work in space? the ink diffuses through the felt tip - that doesn't require gravity. wouldn't that work pretty well?
also crayons seem like a better bet than pencils - they're still flammable and prone to flaking but at least they're not conductive.
also crayons seem like a better bet than pencils - they're still flammable and prone to flaking but at least they're not conductive.
Your question piqued my curiosity, so I did some googling... Apparently sharpies do work in space, though NASA seems to prefer the Duro brand of marker.
https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/saga-writing-sp...
https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/saga-writing-sp...
Sharpies and markers generally run out waaay quicker than pens or pencils. They also dry out if you're not careful, and dry out temporarily if you use them for more than a few minutes at a time.
Crayons just aren't dark enough, and are too wide. Accurately reading numbers and symbols written in crayon at a normal handwritten size is not something I want to do. Not to mention the constant sharpening.
Crayons just aren't dark enough, and are too wide. Accurately reading numbers and symbols written in crayon at a normal handwritten size is not something I want to do. Not to mention the constant sharpening.
And we licensed the pens from a dude who spent a fortune developing them.
After Fisher, the pen company, spent their own couple millions to develop a pen that could write in zero gravity, they convinced NASA to use it, and a few years later the Soviets bought 100 of them for their own space program.
NASA was never involved in the development of the space pen, though they supposedly had their own effort that was quickly abandoned as it got expensive. Before that they also used pencils.
The pen is just a better writing implement in space. It cost $3 in the 60s, with wide availability.
NASA was never involved in the development of the space pen, though they supposedly had their own effort that was quickly abandoned as it got expensive. Before that they also used pencils.
The pen is just a better writing implement in space. It cost $3 in the 60s, with wide availability.
Fischer made the space pen as a commercial product, all R+D entirely at their own expense. NASA just bought some of the pens from them.
That's just a myth, you know: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-n...
It's funny when one encounters serious real-world discussion on something previously seen as sci-fi technobabble.
In this case, I'm thinking of the Destiny universe, such as this apocalyptic alert from a military AI. [0]
> Multiple distributed ISR assets report a TRANSIENT NEAR EXTRASOLAR EVENT. Event duration ZERO POINT THREE SECONDS. Event footprint includes sterile neutrino scattering and gravity waves. Omnibus analysis detects deep structure information content (nine sigma) and internal teleonomy. No hypothesis on event mechanism (FLAG ACAUSAL). Bootstrap simulation suggests event is DIRECTED and INIMICABLE (convergent q-Bayes/Monte Carlo probability approaches 1). No hypothesis on deep structure encoding (TCC/NP-HARD).
______
> In the lab that houses the BEST experiment, fish serve as an early warning system about any leaking radiation.
I'm curious how this works, it looks as if there's one central underwater valve and two above-water valves, perhaps supposedly-breathable air is getting bubbled up through the tank?
> SAGE used a tank of 57 metric tons of gallium.
Some napkin-math [egregious mistake corrected] to visualize how much that is, and I get "45 oil drums".
____
[0] https://www.ishtar-collective.net/cards/ghost-fragment-darkn...