I might understand the excitement for a truly new competitor in the search space, bit this article sounds more like an ad from openAI than something critical and informative.
This was absolutely my take, as well. I was wondering if I was looking at some Tom's guide knockoff.
And I still don't trust ChatGPT with facts. I do use it as a starting point for research, but then I switched to [my preferred paid search engine] to verify and correct.
This is the well known litany from string theorists to try and justify the inordinate amount of money threw at them to get back nothing of physical value: no falsifiable prediction.
Instead of reasoning on the worth of the effort spent in this direction to investigate nature (a very tangible companion) they try to steer the discourse toward this nonsense. We spent >50 years listening to these tales and the time has long passed since we are required to stop playing with these smoke and mirrors.
> justify the inordinate amount of money threw at them
They're theorists, you're paying for pencils and paper. String theory may not have produced a theory of quantum gravity yet, but neither has any other line of inquiry.
You are right, the amount of money spent in string theory proposals has been staggering if you take into account the size of the field. For decades competing (or even just non-aligned) research lines have been starved to feed this behemoth.
Particle accelerators have been built since way before any string theory was formulated.
The biggest and most powerful existing accelerator (LHC) has been built to fulfill the high energy/high luminosity requirements to explore the Highs boson energy regime (that has been found) and at most the lightest supersymmetric particles (not found as of today).
The Higgs boson is a cornerstone of the Standard Model. Supersymmetry is an extension to it that does not involve strings.
And right now we have no reason to think either would produce more useful math. Math at least is honest about studying math for the sake of math (or truth and beauty). Nothing wrong with throwing money at math, but physics is supposed to be about understanding the universe so if we only get math we get a bad return on investment no matter how nice the math is. Even if the math turns out to be useful elsewhere we didn't get what we wanted out of the investment.
They produced a family of theories with an infinite amount of underlying possible geometries, and we still don't know if these reduce in the low energy limit to the standard model. I humbly suggest this reading:
I was going to rant something about open standards and how they did not care to test this toy on Firefox (but they did it test it on safari), but I grew tired.
According to MDN, the feature can be enabled in Firefox by enabling layout.css.scroll-driven-animations.enabled in Firefox (though the demos don't work, looks like there are still some implementation bugs).
I don't really mind proof of concept demos like these only working in some browsers. The feature is still useless on real websites, but who cares about a silly cat GIF made up of CSS boxes not working.
I tested this on safari and chrome + mobile but not the fox as I rarely use it. I know that ff is more common in the dev world so on the next toy I will be sure to give things a whirl there too.
For ref, I didn't test this on windows, linux, or android nor the browser combos within.
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.
> 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.
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).
And a bad one at that. It is a redundancy nightmare.
To save your time:
"In 1951, the United States military initiated a program aimed at developing a nuclear-powered aircraft capable of unlimited range (ANP program).
The program’s goal was to create a nuclear reactor small enough to fit into an aircraft yet powerful enough to provide the necessary thrust while ensuring the safety of the crew from radiation.
General Electric (GE) initiated the HTRE (Heat Transfer Reactor Experiment) series to create and refine the technology necessary for integrating a nuclear reactor with a jet engine.
The reactor in the HTRE-1 was essentially a modified version of existing nuclear technology adapted for aviation use.
The HTRE-2 tested different configurations and setups to optimize the efficiency of the nuclear jet engine concept.
The HTRE-3 featured a more compact and efficient reactor design that was closer to what would be needed for actual aircraft implementation. The HTRE-3 incorporated a modified General Electric J47 turbojet engine, which was a well-known engine in military aircraft at that time.
The HTRE-3’s design was sophisticated, involving a direct cycle in which the air passed directly through the reactor core, getting heated in the process and then expelled to generate thrust. Moreover, the HTRE-3 featured improved radiation shielding techniques
While the HTRE series ultimately did not result in operational nuclear-powered aircraft due to various strategic, technical, and ethical considerations, it significantly advanced the understanding of nuclear propulsion."
I think it’s basically a non-starter to fly an open cycle nuclear reactor around spewing radiation out in its exhaust to rain down on the people below it. Even if it is a relatively small amount, and is fairly dilute at ground level.
"Please write a lengthy essay about the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion program, including details about the role of General Electric and the Heat Transfer Reactor Experiment. I need about 100 paragraphs. I know, this is a lot, but it is ok if there is a lot of reduncancy in the essay."
Prompting an AI service, like ChatGPT, to write an essay of a certain length about a given topic, then adding imaging and publishing the output on a website.
"Sure, here is a detailed and extensive essay on the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANP) program, including the role of General Electric and the Heat Transfer Reactor Experiment. While aiming for comprehensiveness, this essay might contain some redundancy to fulfill the length requirement.
The Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANP) program was an ambitious initiative undertaken by the United States during the Cold War era. Its primary goal was to develop aircraft capable of prolonged flight durations without the need for refueling, thus providing significant strategic advantages in terms of endurance and range. The program was marked by extensive research and development efforts, significant investment, and a considerable degree of technical challenge. The program is particularly notable for the involvement of major corporations such as General Electric and the development of significant technological experiments like the Heat Transfer Reactor Experiment (HTRE).
The concept of nuclear-powered flight emerged during the early stages of the Cold War, a period characterized by intense rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. The strategic advantages of nuclear-powered aircraft were clear: they could remain airborne for extended periods, potentially for days or weeks, without the need to land for refueling. This capability would be invaluable for strategic bombers and reconnaissance aircraft, providing a persistent presence over critical areas and enhancing deterrence capabilities.
General Electric played a crucial role in the ANP program. As one of the leading corporations in the United States with significant expertise in both aviation and nuclear technology, General Electric was well-positioned to contribute to the development of nuclear-powered aircraft. The company's involvement included designing and testing nuclear reactors that could be integrated into aircraft systems. This was no small feat, as it required overcoming substantial technical hurdles related to reactor design, thermal management, radiation shielding, and integration with aircraft systems.
One of the most significant technical challenges in the ANP program was the development of a suitable nuclear reactor that could be used in an aircraft. Traditional nuclear reactors used in power plants were far too heavy and bulky for aviation purposes. Therefore, the ANP program focused on developing compact, lightweight reactors that could provide sufficient power for sustained flight without compromising the structural integrity or performance of the aircraft. This led to the development of several experimental reactor designs, including those tested under the Heat Transfer Reactor Experiment (HTRE).
The Heat Transfer Reactor Experiment was a series of tests designed to evaluate the performance and feasibility of nuclear reactors for aircraft propulsion. These tests were conducted at the Idaho National Laboratory and were critical to understanding how nuclear reactors could be effectively integrated into aircraft systems. The HTRE program involved several iterations of reactor designs, each incorporating lessons learned from previous tests. These reactors were designed to test various aspects of nuclear propulsion, including heat transfer efficiency, radiation shielding effectiveness, and overall reactor performance.
The first reactor in the HTRE series, HTRE-1, was primarily focused on demonstrating the basic principles of nuclear-powered flight. It was a significant milestone, as it successfully demonstrated that a nuclear reactor could be used to generate the necessary power for aircraft propulsion. HTRE-1 was followed by HTRE-2 and HTRE-3, each of which incorporated improvements and refinements based on the findings from earlier tests. These reactors were tested under various conditions to simulate the operational environment of an aircraft, including high-altitude and high-speed flight conditions.
One of the critical aspects of the HTRE program was the focus on heat transfer efficiency. In a nuclear-powered aircraft, managing the heat generated by the reactor is of paramount importance. Efficient heat transfer systems are essential to ensure that the reactor operates within safe temperature limits while providing sufficient power for propulsion. The HTRE reactors were designed with advanced heat exchanger systems that could effectively transfer heat from the reactor core to the aircraft's propulsion system, enabling sustained flight without overheating.
Radiation shielding was another major challenge addressed by the HTRE program. Nuclear reactors emit significant levels of radiation, which can be harmful to both the aircraft's crew and sensitive electronic systems. Effective shielding is necessary to protect against this radiation while minimizing the additional weight that the shielding adds to the aircraft. The HTRE reactors were designed with innovative shielding materials and configurations to minimize radiation exposure while maintaining the overall weight and performance of the aircraft.
General Electric's contributions to the ANP program were not limited to reactor design and testing. The company also played a key role in developing other critical components of the nuclear propulsion system, including control systems, fuel handling systems, and safety protocols. These components were essential to ensure the safe and reliable operation of the nuclear-powered aircraft. The integration of these components into a cohesive system required meticulous engineering and testing, with a focus on reliability and safety.
Despite the significant progress made under the ANP program, the initiative faced numerous challenges and criticisms. One of the primary concerns was the safety of nuclear-powered aircraft. The potential consequences of a nuclear reactor failure or crash were catastrophic, raising concerns about the feasibility and wisdom of deploying such aircraft. Additionally, the technical challenges of developing a practical nuclear propulsion system proved to be more formidable than initially anticipated. The weight and complexity of the required shielding, combined with the challenges of heat management and reactor control, posed significant hurdles.
The ANP program also faced competition from other technological advancements. During the same period, significant progress was being made in the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and other advanced conventional aircraft. These technologies offered alternative means of achieving strategic objectives without the inherent risks and challenges associated with nuclear-powered flight. As a result, the perceived strategic value of nuclear-powered aircraft diminished over time.
In light of these challenges and shifting strategic priorities, the ANP program was eventually canceled in the early 1960s. The decision to terminate the program was influenced by a combination of technical difficulties, safety concerns, and the emergence of more viable alternatives. Despite its cancellation, the ANP program left a lasting legacy in the field of aerospace engineering and nuclear technology. The research and development efforts undertaken during the program contributed to advancements in reactor design, heat transfer systems, and radiation shielding, which had broader applications beyond aviation.
General Electric's involvement in the ANP program also had a lasting impact on the company. The expertise and experience gained through the program contributed to GE's broader capabilities in nuclear technology and aerospace engineering. While the dream of nuclear-powered flight was never fully realized, the lessons learned from the ANP program informed future projects and initiatives in related fields.
In conclusion, the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANP) program was an ambitious and technically challenging initiative that sought to develop nuclear-powered aircraft capable of prolonged flight without refueling. General Electric played a crucial role in the program, contributing to the design and testing of nuclear reactors and other critical components. The Heat Transfer Reactor Experiment (HTRE) was a key element of the program, providing valuable insights into reactor performance, heat transfer efficiency, and radiation shielding. Despite its eventual cancellation, the ANP program left a lasting legacy in the fields of aerospace engineering and nuclear technology, highlighting both the potential and challenges of nuclear propulsion."
I see you’re getting downvoted, but that was my first, second and third thought when reading the article. It’s suspiciously hand-wavy about the technical details, things are repeated several times and it really does feel like the writer was trying to stretch the article with the help of a LLM.
You are conflating the whole scientific endeavor to a very specific problem to which this specific approach is effective at producing results that fit with the observable world.
This has nothing to do with science as a whole.
