[HN Gopher] What could explain the gallium anomaly?
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       What could explain the gallium anomaly?
        
       Author : ars
       Score  : 95 points
       Date   : 2024-07-12 18:35 UTC (4 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.quantamagazine.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.quantamagazine.org)
        
       | CamperBob2 wrote:
       | 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.
        
         | dylan604 wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | spankalee wrote:
           | That's just a myth, you know:
           | https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-
           | fiction-n...
        
           | dflock wrote:
           | 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.
        
           | Etheryte wrote:
           | 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.
        
             | sterlind wrote:
             | 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.
        
               | mypalmike wrote:
               | 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...
        
           | mrguyorama wrote:
           | 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.
        
         | sterlind wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | CamperBob2 wrote:
           | 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.
        
             | dudinax wrote:
             | Maybe the fish get less shielding.
        
             | postalrat wrote:
             | 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.
        
       | ars wrote:
       | Would sterile neutrinos as an oscillation really change anything
       | about dark matter? The total mass of neutrinos doesn't change,
       | just the lepton number.
        
         | AnimalMuppet wrote:
         | 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...
        
           | torrefatto wrote:
           | 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.
        
             | AnimalMuppet wrote:
             | 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.
        
               | eigenket wrote:
               | > 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.
        
               | floxy wrote:
               | >gallium->germanium should emit a neutrino, not absorb
               | one.
               | 
               | Neutron-Neutrino interaction?
               | 
               | https://www.vivaxsolutions.com/physics/feynman-
               | diagrams.aspx
        
           | ars wrote:
           | > 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.
        
           | ars wrote:
           | > 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").
        
         | PaulHoule wrote:
         | 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)
        
       | Terr_ wrote:
       | > sterile neutrinos
       | 
       | 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".                   Line
       | item               Amt Units         Gallium Mass
       | 5.70E+01    metric tons         Gallium Mass            5.70E+04
       | kg         Gallium Mass            5.70E+07    grams         Liq.
       | Gallium Density    6.10E+00    grams/cm3         Gallium Vol
       | 9.35E+06    cm3         Oil Drum Volume         5.50E+01
       | gallons         Vol Ratio               3.79E+03    gallons/cm3
       | Oil Drum Volume         2.08E+05    cm3         Gallium Volume
       | 4.49E+01    oil drums
       | 
       | ____
       | 
       | [0] https://www.ishtar-collective.net/cards/ghost-fragment-
       | darkn...
        
         | auspiv wrote:
         | 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
        
           | Terr_ wrote:
           | 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.
        
         | addaon wrote:
         | 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%...
        
           | Terr_ wrote:
           | It seems the discrepancy comes Google using 42-gallon
           | "petrochemical industry crude oil measuring units" instead of
           | 55-gallon "popular physical containers people have probably
           | seen before holding all sorts of stuff."
           | 
           | So just reformulate it a bit, put a non-rounded density,
           | and...
           | 
           | https://www.google.com/search?q=57+tonnes+%2F+%286.095+g%2Fc.
           | ..
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-07-12 23:00 UTC)