[ad_1]
explore
1 Nuclear weapons research supports research in fundamental physics and astronomy, and vice versa
Whether you’re investigating the inside of a nuclear weapon, the interior of a giant planet, the core of a star, or the flow from a supernova, physics is physics, atoms are atoms, and high-pressure situations are high pressures. – Pressure situations.
All of that is self-evident, but as I researched this book, I found again and again that much of the basic science that astronomers and physicists use to understand the world is also relevant to nuclear weapons-related research. I was aware and enlightened. For example, some of the largest experimental equipment overseen by the Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration contribute to both. Consider a device called the Z Machine at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico. It uses huge bursts of electrical current to generate huge magnetic fields, which generate high temperatures and pressures, and produce X-rays. Scientists use the Z-machine to explore the physics of high energy densities, nuclear fusion energy, and map the different layers of planets like Jupiter and Saturn. But it can also be used, for example, to figure out how different materials would react if a nuclear weapon were detonated nearby.
Meanwhile, the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory uses the world’s most powerful lasers to generate nuclear fusion (combining small atoms into larger atoms) that releases more energy than scientists can inject. It has come true. That is the goal of nuclear power. It also produces intense radiation and high temperatures and pressures, allowing scientists to study changes in the behavior of nuclear weapons as they age.
I met a physicist who used weapons-related experiments to help astronomers create supernova models.
In addition to weapons-related research, scientists working at nuclear weapons laboratories often conduct research in physics, astronomy, and nuclear power. This research not only increases the human knowledge base; That’s also important. talk about it. Researchers can take their discovery of fusion power or our understanding of Jupiter’s interior and paste it into a conference poster. By doing so, you can get feedback (both compliments and gossip) from other experts in the field. They can then take that feedback and make related, but quieter, weapons science better.
Conversely, nuclear weapons research results can provide insights into basic science. For example, I met a physicist. He used weapons-related experiments and simulations to help unfunded astronomers better model supernovae. This is a cycle of innovation, where science benefits from national security efforts and national security efforts benefit from science.
But what surprised me most is what basic science is meant to convey beyond the scientific community, for example to those involved in developing nuclear weapons in other countries. These international experts can look at press releases and scientific papers about recent fusion breakthroughs at the National Ignition Facility, for example, and infer what that means for U.S. weapons capabilities—who knows? There is no need to disclose confidential information. Scientific research is thus part of nuclear deterrence, which also persuades others not to attack due to the threat of retaliation.
2 We will no longer test nuclear weapons, so we need to understand them more than ever
when I started working on countdownI knew that the United States did not blow up nuclear weapons to test whether they would work or to learn more. how they were working. This country did just that for decades, eventually detonating more than 1,000 bombs between 1945 and 1992. The negative effects of those experiments affected the atmosphere, soil, crops, livestock, the people who depend on it all, and even geopolitics. Stability was important. In 1992, the United States conducted its last full-scale nuclear weapons test and ultimately signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1996.
What I didn’t fully understand was how much was still unknown or uncertain about nuclear weapons even after testing ended. We also didn’t know how much effort scientists would have to work to close the gap and more fully understand the physics and engineering of nuclear weapons as they exist and age. . As soon as the United States stops pushing the red button for testing, it will develop better supercomputers and software to better simulate nuclear weapons and the physics swirling within them. We embarked on a large-scale computing effort to not only model it, but also understand its internal structure. We are working on a basic and scientific level.
Scientific research is part of nuclear deterrence.
In addition, researchers are also conducting experiments to test various aspects of the bomb, without reaching the level of a “nuclear explosion,” but without causing a significant radioactive chain reaction. The results of these experiments are fed back into the simulation to improve the experiment, and the simulation informs how the experiment is designed. Learning about and maintaining nuclear weapons in this way is called “stockpile management,” and stockpiles are nuclear weapons.
In many ways, the inability to test a nuclear bomb, which Los Alamos National Laboratory calls a “shortcut,” means that scientists will have to take a closer look at nuclear physics, particle physics, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, and materials science. , which means that we need to understand it in more detail. You can check everything all at once. It was interesting to learn that the research in the weapons lab is interdisciplinary. In academic research, fields tend to become more siled and people’s expertise tends to narrow.
3 Scientists in the world of nuclear weapons think very much about the morality of their research.
During the years I spent writing this book, I spoke with dozens of scientists who contribute to the maintenance of nuclear weapons. At the same institute, I also spoke with many scientists who are trying to prevent the world’s nuclear arsenal from increasing. Instead, we seek to reduce our nuclear arsenal, ideally to zero. But what surprised me is that these two groups of researchers tend to have similar goals. It’s about helping the world become a more peaceful and stable place through deterrence, non-proliferation (stopping the spread of nuclear weapons), or a combination of both. both. While they may disagree on how either group pursues these objectives, that is usually the lens through which they view their work.
Many of the people I have met have followed similar paths into this world. They studied astronomy and physics and came to the Weapons Institute during or right after graduate school to do more of that type of research. These labs often had more funding, more resources, less competition, larger experiments, and better computers than universities. The longer they stayed there, the more they began to add more applied research to the basic science research that got them there, whether it was “stockpile management” or non-proliferation. And they found meaning and motivation in their work that they could not find in pure academic science. They also enjoyed being able to work across disciplines to solve problems that can have a significant impact on the world.
It might seem that the scientists who choose to work on the world’s most feared weapons are some kind of war hawk. But in general, they either believe that their research into weapons will help maintain peace through deterrence, or that it will lead to the ultimate goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. But people who think on both sides tend to believe that as long as these bombs are there, someone has to maintain them, and someone has to continue to monitor their spread. And if those people fundamentally want to live in a world that does not depend on nuclear weapons in the future, so be it. 
Lead image: Popel Arseniy / Shutterstock
Get the Nautilus Newsletter
Cutting edge science explained by the brightest thinkers alive.
[ad_2]
Source link
