Un equipo de físicos ha determinado el valor de la constante de estructura fina con una precisión inédita. El resultado restringe las posibilidades de que existan nuevas fuerzas en la naturaleza.
Read More
Known as Spherical tokamak for energy production (STEP), the United Kingdom today embarked on a step towards building the world's first nuclear fusion power station, launching a search for a site of more than 100 hectares where it can be connected to the electricity grid.
However, there are still big hurdles to overcome before it can start generating power. No fusion reactor has so far produced more energy than it consumed. That could change in 2025, when the world's largest fusion project, ITER in France, turns on.
Master Upgrade
Master Upgrade (Mega Amp Spherical Tokamak) will use an innovative design known as a spherical tokamak and could remove some of the obstacles to delivering clean, unlimited power to the grid. Most tokamaks are donut shaped. But in Mast Upgrade, the size of the nut hole has been reduced as much as possible, giving the plasma a nearly spherical profile.
STEP's energy production target is more modest (a net gain of 100MW) but, unlike ITER, it will be connected to the ordinary electrical grid to understand how a fusion plant operates day in and day out.
The plant is being presented as an important platform in efforts to reach the UK's target of net zero emissions by 2050. The UK is not the only country aiming to build a commercial fusion reactor. A Chinese proposal, the Chinese Fusion Engineering Test Reactor (CFETR), could come into operation in 2035. And DEMO, the European successor to ITER, is planned for the 2050s.
The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), the government body that oversees STEP, hopes construction can begin around 2030, with the plant operational as early as 2040.
The tokamak is a fusion device that uses magnetic fields to confine plasma (hot ionized gas) within a container. This plasma allows light elements to fuse and produce energy.
–
The news
UK takes step towards world's first fusion nuclear power plant
was originally published in
Xataka Science
by
Sergio Parra
.
As part of the Plant Habitat-02 experiment, NASA astronaut Kate Rubins has harvested the first radishes grown aboard the International Space Station.
The following radish shows the 27-day process of radish growth on the space station accelerated for the study in 10 seconds.
Why radishes?
Rubins meticulously picked and wrapped each of the 20 radish plants in aluminum foil, placing them in cold storage for the trip back to Earth in 2021. As they grew inside the habitat, The radishes required little maintenance from the crew.
But why radishes? Because they are nutritious, grow quickly, and are genetically similar to Arabidopsis, a plant frequently studied in microgravity.
As explained Nicole Dufour, NASA APH program manager at Kennedy Space Center:
Radishes are a different type of crop compared to the leafy greens that astronauts previously grew on the space station, or the baby wheat that was the first crop grown on the APH. Growing a variety of crops helps us determine which plants thrive in microgravity and offer the best variety and nutritional balance for astronauts on long-duration missions.
Sophisticated control systems supply water, while control chambers and more than 180 sensors in the chamber allow researchers at NASA's Kennedy Space Center to monitor plant growth, as well as regulate levels of humidity, temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration.
–
The news
These are the first radishes to be grown on the International Space Station
was originally published in
Xataka Science
by
Sergio Parra
.
Everyone is an influencer. And that's good and bad. It's bad because dumb ideas seem to spread just as easily as well-founded ideas.
For this reason, social networks have contributed toempower conspiracy theorists: anti-vaccines, anti-5G, those who think that the coronavirus does not exist or that it was created in a laboratory.
Avoid frustration
Talking to these types of people is frustrating, sometimes because they are very well informed, other times because they are very stubborn. Next, Tanya Basu, from MIT Technology Review, proposes ten strategies To do it most efficiently:
-
Treat others with respect. Although it can be considered a simple rhetorical trick (a trick to win the debate, not to get to the truth, because what matters are the ideas and data, not the persuasion to get them to nest in the other), without respect, compassion and empathy, our interlocutor will shut down and stop listening to our ideas, no matter how valid they may be. Sometimes, that is very difficult, of course, because it can also happen that in front of us there is a real nutcase.
-
Prevent others from attending the debate. Having an audience is the best way to influence people's behavior and the course of a conversation. Social networks tend to lead to the harsh exchange of invective and insults, precisely because there are millions of eyes potentially reading what is said. It is better to resolve these types of issues in private, perhaps through a Twitter DM, rather than through a tweet that leaves the conspiracy theorist at the mercy of ludibrio. Embarrassing someone in public is one of the worst formulas when it comes to reaching an agreement.
- Don't waste time with lost cases. If the person in front of you categorically states that they will never change their mind, don't waste time and energy: you are unlikely to achieve anything useful. Sometimes people just want to give their opinion without being bothered because their opinion is actually a way of describing themselves to the world: it does not matter if that opinion is true or not, but if the opinion allows them to be part of a social club.
- Show agreement on some points. People are not wrong about absolutely everything, there are surely parts of their argument that you agree with. Make them clear and reinforced to show that you are on the same side and thus generate an environment of trust. The adversarial format always tends to be very thorny.
- Try the 'truth sandwich'. It uses the fact-fallacy-fact approach, a method first proposed by linguist George Lakoff. It involves stating what is true, debunking the conspiracy theory and re-stating what is true, says Donovan. For example, if you're talking to someone who believes in the 5G conspiracy theory, you could structure your argument like this: "Coronavirus is an airborne virus, meaning it is transmitted by sneezing or coughing; Because viruses are not transmitted via radio waves, the coronavirus, which is an airborne virus, cannot be carried by 5G. It's repetitive, but it reinforces the facts and points out where the conspiracy theory doesn't work.
- Use the Socratic method. In other words, use questions to help others test their own argument and see if it holds up. Because the best way to change someone's mind is to make them feel like they've figured it out themselves.
- Be careful with your loved ones. Before embarking on a debate with a family member or close friend, perhaps you should consider how harmful that idea is and whether it is worth confronting. Social relationships are preferable to winning depending on what debates. Sometimes you have to bite your tongue, be polite, or even think that everyone can hold their own. Imagine trying to convince your mother, devastated by the death of her husband, that Heaven does not exist when she uses that belief to combat her sadness.
- There are ideas that are difficult to change.. All ideas that have to do in a deep way with worldview, morality, politics and others are very difficult to change because they are linked with other sets of ideas that support the entire personality and way of facing the world at a level. social. That means it won't be enough to simply show peer-reviewed studies or overwhelming logic. The other person may never change their mind. The world, after all, is more interesting if there is neurodiversity.
- If it gets worse, quit.. All debate is like weather: a non-linear dynamic system. You have to be attentive to those storm clouds that lurk: if they grow, give up. That can mean both that the other person is starting to lose it and that you yourself are losing it because your demons are taking over. You simply have to know how to stop.
- Every little bit helps. One conversation probably won't change a person's mind, and that's okay. People are not going to have profound changes in beliefs all at once. Sometimes you can change someone's perspective a little, like water eroding a rock. You won't debunk a conspiracy theory, but you will pave the way for someone in the future to do so.
Bonus track: above all, above all, avoid the ad hominem. It doesn't matter who the other person is, nor their studies, nor their culture, nor their ideology. What matters are the ideas. Let the ideas be the ones that confront each other, not the people; Respect the latter, be merciless as much as possible with the former; listen to the koala:
–
The news
Ten tips for talking to someone who believes in conspiracy theory
was originally published in
Xataka Science
by
Sergio Parra
.
The list of errors, negligence, lies, dances of figures and contradictions of governments in relation to COVID-19 and other issues could be enough to write a book.
However, they have not assumed their responsibilities. They have avoided blame. Modern politicians are now very skilled at managing the press and adept at reframing issues in their favor.
slippery slope
Dishonesty is like a slippery slope, where small ethical transgressions pave the way for larger future transgressions. If a politician lies and can save himself from responsibility, in the future he will lie more, and more... until it's almost grotesque.
Just like researchers point out British researchers from University College London, the repetition and escalation of lies desensitize the brain's amygdala, and the repetition of this behavior, to which most politicians are so accustomed, encourages even more deception in the future.
The team has also considered the possibility that the activity of the amygdala represents the moral conflict resulting from contrasting the desire to appear honest, on the one hand, to the temptation to lie to obtain maximum personal benefit, for another.
Another difference between a common lie and a political lie is that it not only seeks to scam the electorate, but also generate adhesions or consensus or separations or dissent.
In fact, many politicians can be classified as psychopaths, at least as this study carried out with American presidents suggests. The study was carried out in 2010 by Scott Lilieneld, the forensic psychologist Steven Rubenzer and professor of psychology at the Foundation for the Study of Personality in History, in Houston, Texas, Thomas Faschingbauer. Back in 2000, Rubenzer and Faschingbauer had sent the NEO Personality Inventory to the biographers of every U.S. president in history.
The results suggested that a number of US presidents displayed psychopathic traits. As explained Kevin Dutton in his book The wisdom of psychopaths Regarding the test that had been sent to the biographers of the presidents:
It included questions such as: “You have to take advantage of others before others take advantage of you,” and “I never feel guilty about hurting people.” In total, there were 240 such questions. And a trick. It was not the biographers who were being analyzed, but their subjects. Biographers, based on their knowledge, had to respond on behalf of their subjects.
Furthermore, political rhetoric has been diluted and simplified precisely due to greater democratic participation. As abounds in it Hit Makers: The Science of Popularity in the Age of Distraction, of Derek Thompson:
The greater simplicity of political rhetoric is actually a sign that political speeches aim to reach a broader audience, so they are emulating other populist forms of mass entertainment, such as music.
But politicians are not only responsible for significant mistakes made within their departments, but also for behaviors that are considered contrary to your ministerial code of conduct. Again, the conventions hold that ministers must resign if their actions are considered dishonest, intended to mislead parliament or the public, or bring the government into disrepute.
We are far from reaching those standards, and it seems that we are going to be increasingly so. Until it becomes grotesque.
–
The news
Politicians commit negligence and lie but manage to avoid responsibility because they can
was originally published in
Xataka Science
by
Sergio Parra
.
Although we have all assumed that the Venus of Willendorf symbolizes fertility, a new interpretation suggests that we are actually seeing something else.
The Venus of Willedorf, and other Venuses, would be a sign of the fear or hope of hunter-gatherers due to the sudden drop in temperatures and the lack of food associated with them. The Venus, then, It would be a symbol of caloric opolence.
Climate change and diet
This is what a researcher at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus suggests, Richard Johnson, in A study published in the magazine Obesity.
The first modern humans entered Europe during a warming period about 48,000 years ago; as he explains:
We demonstrate that these figures correlate with moments of extreme nutritional stress.
Known as Aurignacians, they hunted reindeer, horses and mammoths with bone-tipped spears. As temperatures dropped, the ice sheets advanced and disaster struck. During the colder months, temperatures dropped to 10-15ºC.
It was during these desperate times that obese figurines appeared. They were between 6 and 16 centimeters long and made of stone, ivory, horn or occasionally clay. Johnson and his team measured the statues' waist-hip and waist-shoulder ratios. They found that those closest to the glaciers were the most obese compared to those further away. Obesity, according to researchers, became a desired condition.
We found that body size ratios were higher when glaciers advanced, while obesity decreased as the climate warmed and glaciers retreated.
The figurines may also have been imbued with spiritual meaning: a kind of fetish or magical charm that could protect a woman during pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding.
The increased fat would provide a source of energy during pregnancy through weaning the baby and also as much-needed insulation.
–
The news
The Venuses would not be a symbol of fertility, but rather a consequence of an extreme climate and associated famines.
was originally published in
Xataka Science
by
Sergio Parra
.
It borrows some techniques from… astronomy.