Tag Archives: controversial

Anniebot Review: Exploring the Controversial Novel on Sex Robots

Posted on by
Reply

Explore New Scientist's website and magazine for the latest science news, expert insights on technology, health, and environmental developments.

“Annie Bott” by Sierra Greer was the Book Club’s January pick

Dittmeyer

The New Scientist Book Club transitioned from classic science fiction reads to a contemporary choice in January with Sierra Greer’s award-winning novel, Anniebot, the recipient of the 2025 Arthur C. Clarke Award.

I felt a mixture of apprehension and excitement when announcing this book to our community. Anniebot explores the haunting tale of a sex robot entangled in a toxic, abusive relationship. With its darker themes and explicit scenes, I aimed to prepare readers for its intense narrative. Some found the scene in the cupboard particularly disturbing.

As anticipated, reactions varied. While a few opted out early due to the heavy content, many engaged deeply with the story, which sparked significant discussion (and disagreements) among members.

Let’s highlight some positive perspectives. I personally appreciated how Greer navigated the fine line between explicitness and narrative depth, steering clear of simply becoming “roboporn.” During my interview with her, she affirmed her intention to avoid categorizing the book as erotica. To me, she succeeded. Each scene, while uncomfortable, provoked thought about humanity and freedom. Annie’s existence raises questions: is she less human than primitive robots like Delta? What future awaits her? The marking of a truly impactful read is its lingering questions in your mind.

Laura Akers echoed this sentiment: “Hearing people discuss Annie as though you had no emotional investment was intriguing.” She likened it to pre-feminist exploitation, noting how Annie’s perception of sexual abuse highlighted deeper societal issues.

Annie Arnott shared her initial struggles with the portrayal of sex in Greer’s writing. “Things started off well,” she explained. “But I now carry a profound respect, recognizing the important narrative work being done—perhaps reminiscent of The Yellow Wallpaper. Greer showcases the nuanced experience of many women, culminating in an ending steeped in bitter hope.”

Before delving into the conclusion debate, let’s hear from our insightful reader, Alan Perret. He found Anniebot challenging to complete. “Annie’s plight was so harrowing that while I was relieved to finish, it was a tough journey,” he remarked.

Alan’s critique included insights into Doug’s extreme brutality, stating, “While Doug isn’t questioned about his humanity, it’s evident he lacks the vital traits that define it. Interestingly, Annie, despite not being human, displays more empathy than he does. Does that imply that humanity is merely about biological composition?”

Though Alan pointed out some plot inconsistencies—like Annie’s need for exercise—he and I both left with many profound questions after finishing the book. “I’m glad to have read it, as it pushed boundaries many would shy away from,” he concluded.

In contrast, Jennifer Bertrand struggled to connect with Annie. “The narrative reminded me constantly of her artificial nature, hindering any empathy,” she noted, wondering if Doug treated real humans poorly too.

Niall Leighton, while recognizing Greer’s strong character study, felt it lacked a nuanced exploration of AI autonomy. “I wanted deeper analysis on male behaviors within the existing patriarchal context,” he expressed. “While the book is disturbing, it didn’t offer the groundbreaking feminist perspective I hoped for.”

Jacqueline Farrand additionally criticized the absence of distinct science fiction elements in Anniebot, echoing sentiments shared by Phil Gursky, who viewed it as a raw tale of abuse.

Annie’s resolution brought a divided response. Many, including Pauline Moncrief, expressed relief that it concluded positively. In contrast, Karen Sears found the ending unsatisfactory, feeling it lacked depth. Ken Lynch too expressed disappointment, viewing Annie’s freedom as diminishing her agency. Nonetheless, he recognized the book’s ambition in tackling difficult themes.

Amid the discussions, Octavia Butler’s name frequently resurfaced, with many praising her ability to address similar themes with greater depth.

“After immersing myself in Butler’s works, I found her talent for weaving themes of slavery and oppression far more compelling,” Jennifer noted.

Members also discussed Greer’s depiction of race and recommended other books touching on similar themes, including Sarah Gary’s Echo Wife and Joanna Sinisalo’s chilling commentary on patriarchy in The Core of the Sun.

These suggestions are excellent, but I encourage our readers to finish the upcoming February books first. This novel stands as a monumental literary piece that will continue to resonate. Next in the New Scientist Book Club is Tim Winton’s Juice, depicting a future Australia plagued by devastation, questioning what led to this reality. Our science fiction critic, Emily H. Wilson, found it profoundly impactful upon its hardcover release. Prepare to explore the complexities of our world through this engaging read, and don’t forget to join the discussion in our book club or Facebook group here.

For immediate help, reach out to the UK Domestic Abuse Helpline at 0808 2000 247. using safe equipment. Click here for helplines in 46 countries.

Topics:

Source: www.newscientist.com

2026 Controversial Satellite Launch: Reflecting Light Back to Earth

Posted on by
Reply

Artist’s rendering of Reflect Orbital satellites

Artist Rendering of Reflect Orbital Satellite

Image Credit: Reflect Orbital

The bold initiative by Reflect Orbital aims to commence in 2026, deploying satellites to reflect sunlight back to Earth. This technology seeks to illuminate dark regions for visibility and enhance energy generation. However, many astronomers express skepticism regarding the project’s feasibility and its implications for scientific research.

Reflect Orbital, a US-based company, aspires to provide “sunlight on demand.” Their first satellite is expected to launch in early 2026, illuminating ten locations as part of its inaugural “world tour.” Plans include deploying thousands of satellites fitted with extensive mirrors designed to reflect sunlight back to the Earth, catering to needs such as remote control, defense, infrastructure, and energy production.

By 2030, Reflect Orbital anticipates having sufficient satellite coverage to deliver 200 watts per square meter to solar farms on Earth, mimicking the light levels of dusk and dawn, thereby facilitating reliable energy production, especially in regions lacking natural light.

Despite these ambitions, their Federal Communications Commission (FCC) specifications suggest that a single satellite may not generate significant power. Astronomers, including members from Tucson’s Dark Sky Consulting and the American Astronomical Society, utilized these filings to underscore potential energy limitations.

As highlighted by John Valentine, a prominent scholar in the field, the reflected light would only exceed a full moon’s brightness fourfold, indicating insufficient electricity generation. In order to produce more significant light output, deploying satellites with a multitude of reflectors would be essential, presenting logistical challenges and increased costs.

Furthermore, the dynamic nature of the mirrors could pose challenges for astronomical research, since they might intermittently produce flashes of sunlight. Additionally, even micro-damage to a satellite’s reflector from tiny meteoroids could scatter light unintentionally, complicating operational efficiency.

Reflect Orbital is actively engaging with the scientific community to explore solutions for these arising concerns. As of now, the company has not responded to inquiries from New Scientist.

Topics:

  • Satellites/
  • 2026 News Preview

Source: www.newscientist.com

2025 Controversial Scientific Cooking Tips from a Renowned Physicist

Posted on by
Reply

Cacio e pepe pasta sauce

Mastering the Cacio e Pepe Sauce

Brent Hofacker/Alamy

A groundbreaking recipe for the classic Cacio e Pepe pasta dish and perfectly cooked hard-boiled eggs has stirred discussions in the culinary world throughout 2025, evoking both excitement and dissent.

In January, Ivan di Terlizzi and researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Complex Systems Physics in Germany unveiled their findings on achieving the ideal silky texture of Cacio e Pepe pasta sauce. This traditional dish, composed of black pepper, pecorino cheese, and water, is notoriously challenging to perfect without unwanted lumps. According to the researchers, the key lies in the addition of a small amount of cornstarch.

The research involved meticulous testing of hundreds of sauce variations to determine the ideal ratios of cheese, starch, and water, resulting in insightful graphs and diagrams that indicate the threshold for achieving a lump-free sauce. Despite the scientific backing, their findings sparked controversy, particularly in Italy.

“Being an Italian recipe, we encountered some skepticism on social media, with remarks suggesting we’ve mastered this dish over generations. Cooking should be driven by passion, not just science,” Di Terlizzi noted.

Conversely, responses from the scientific community were predominantly positive, with fellow researchers approaching him at physics conferences to discuss his work. In September, Di Terlizzi and his colleagues were awarded the Ig Nobel Prize, a whimsical recognition of research that stimulates both laughter and contemplation. “It’s about finding patterns in what appears chaotic, provided you examine it through the lens of rigor and mathematics,” he explained.

In February, Ernesto Di Maio and his team at the University of Naples introduced a revolutionary method for boiling eggs perfectly. This intricate technique involves transferring the eggs between pots of 30°C water and boiling water every two minutes for at least 30 minutes to ensure even cooking of the whites and yolks, which solidify at different temperatures.

This egg-cooking method gained significant traction online, though some users criticized the lengthy process for a traditionally quick dish. The media attention also led to unexpected platforms, such as a live cooking show on Japan’s public broadcaster and a segment on the Italian version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? Di Maio remarked, “I recently returned from Washington, D.C., where I prepared countless eggs for a gathering at an ambassador’s residence.”

Di Maio further mentioned that the scientific principles applied in perfecting the egg-boiling technique are being adapted for more practical applications, such as curing materials at varying temperatures to create layered plastics, akin to the egg white and yolk layers.

The Science of Wine and Cheese in France

Join us for a captivating journey into France’s culinary heritage, exploring the intricate relationship between wine and cheese through the lens of science, tradition, and terroir.

Topics:

  • Culinary Science/
  • 2025 News Highlights

Source: www.newscientist.com

2025: The Controversial Experiment That Might Threaten the Multiverse

Posted on by
Reply

Exploring the Multiverse: Insights into Quantum Behavior

Victor de Schwamberg/Science Photo Library

A groundbreaking physics experiment published this year reported measuring single photons in two locations simultaneously, an assertion that challenges the multiverse theory. While many physicists express skepticism, the researchers staunchly defend their findings.

In May, Holger Hoffman and his team from Hiroshima University revealed results from a refined version of the iconic double-slit experiment. Their findings indicate that individual photons are “delocalized,” suggesting they cannot be confined to one location.

The initial double-slit experiments, conducted in 1801, demonstrated that shining light through two narrow slits onto a screen resulted in a wavy interference pattern. This phenomenon persists even when photons are emitted one at a time, implying that a single photon can behave like a wave—a point of contention among physicists regarding the nature of single photons and measurement.

When referencing a quantum particle as wavelike, this typically pertains to its wave function, a mathematical representation of all potential locations the particle might occupy.

These potential states exist in a layered configuration until a measurement is made—a concept known as superposition. Most physicists contend that measuring a particle collapses its wave function from superposition to a singular state.

One way to understand this is to propose the existence of multiple overlapping universes, each allowing photons to navigate different paths, with potential interference between photons from these separate universes, a concept referred to as the “many-worlds” interpretation.

However, Hoffman and his collaborators argue that their experiments provide concrete evidence that photons traverse both slits, demonstrating the wave function as more than just a mathematical abstraction—it serves as a depiction of reality, countering the idea of a multiverse.

Nevertheless, many physicists have expressed concern regarding the team’s methodology, suggesting that repeated statistical measurements cannot adequately determine a particle’s attributes. “I don’t believe you can draw conclusions about a single photon based on this,” stated Andrew Jordan at Chapman University in California, discussing the report with New Scientist.

The assertion that these experiments could resolve foundational issues in quantum mechanics has been met with considerable skepticism, according to Hoffman, partially due to the innovative nature of their measurement techniques.

“We’re challenging traditional views,” Hoffman explained, noting that existing interpretations of quantum mechanics usually presume that measured values and their mathematical representations depict reality. “The many-worlds interpretation is essentially the most extreme extension of that presumption,” he added.

Hoffman asserts that their investigation reveals that mathematical wave functions do not embody reality; the only true reality is what can be measured. “Although superposition suggests that a state might be defined by hypothetical measurements, actual experimental data contradicts this broader interpretation,” he elaborated.

Despite facing difficulties in publishing their findings, Hoffman and his team have been invited to present their research to various academic groups and are actively refining their work. “We anticipated some resistance. If this endeavor were straightforward, it wouldn’t be worthwhile. Altering one’s perspective takes considerable effort,” Hoffman concluded.

Topics:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Microsoft’s Controversial Quantum Computer Set to Make Headlines in 2025

Posted on by
Reply

Press photo: Microsoft's Majorana 1 chip - the first quantum chip featuring a topological core based on groundbreaking materials developed by Microsoft. Image by John Brecher from Microsoft.

Microsoft’s Majorana 1 Quantum Chip

John Brecher/Microsoft

In February, Microsoft unveiled the Majorana 1 quantum computer, igniting debates in the quantum computing community.

The Majorana 1 is noteworthy for its use of topological qubits, which promise enhanced error resistance compared to traditional qubit designs. Microsoft has pursued the development of topological qubits grounded in the elusive Majorana zero mode (MZM), facing mixed results throughout its journey.

In 2021, a significant paper from Microsoft researchers was retracted by Nature due to identified analytical flaws in their research on topological qubits. Furthermore, evaluations of experiments leading up to Majorana 1 received heavy criticism in 2023.

Consequently, the 2025 paper from Nature announcing Majorana 1 faced heightened scrutiny. Notably, the editorial team claimed, “The results in this manuscript do not represent evidence of the presence of Majorana zero mode in the reported devices.” In contrast, Microsoft’s press release asserted the opposite.

Chetan Nayak from Microsoft addressed concerns during a packed presentation at the American Physical Society Global Summit in Anaheim, California, in March. Despite presenting new data, skepticism remained prevalent among critics.

“The data presented does not demonstrate a functional topological qubit, let alone the basic components of one,” stated Henry Legg, a professor at the University of St Andrews, expressing his reservations.

In response, Nayak contended that the community’s feedback has been enthusiastic and engaged. “We’re observing thoughtful discussions and intriguing responses regarding our recent findings and ongoing efforts,” he noted.

In July, additional data emerged, with researchers like Kim Eun-ha from Cornell University asserting that these results exhibit characteristics more indicative of a topological qubit than previously shown. “It’s encouraging to witness the progress,” she emphasized.

Nayak and his team remain optimistic about future advancements, aiming to escalate their quantum computing capabilities beyond Majorana 1. This initiative was selected for the final phase of the Quantum Benchmarking Initiative led by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, focusing on practical approaches toward building viable quantum computers.

“This past year has been transformative for our quantum program, and the introduction of the Majorana 1 chip marks a crucial milestone for both Microsoft and the quantum computing sector,” stated Nayak.

Looking ahead to 2026, will Microsoft’s endeavors finally quell the critics? Legg remains doubtful: “Fundamental physics doesn’t adhere to schedules dictated by major tech corporations,” he remarked.

Topics:

Source: www.newscientist.com

OpenAI Diverges from Technology Council of Australia Amidst Controversial Copyright Debate

Posted on by
Reply

Open AI has severed its relationship with the Technology Council of Australia due to copyright limitations, asserting that its AI models “will be utilized in Australia regardless.”

Chris Lehane, the chief international affairs officer of the company behind ChatGPT, delivered a keynote address at SXSW Sydney on Friday. He discussed the geopolitics surrounding AI, the technological future in Australia, and the ongoing global discourse about employing copyrighted materials for training extensive language models.

Scott Farquhar, CEO of the Tech Council and co-founder of Atlassian, previously remarked that Australia’s copyright laws are “extremely detrimental to companies investing in Australia.”

Sign up: AU breaking news email

In August, it was disclosed that the Productivity Commission was evaluating whether tech companies should receive exemptions from copyright regulations that hinder the mining of text and data for training AI models.

However, when asked about the risk of Australia losing investment in AI development and data centers if it doesn’t relax its fair use copyright laws, Mr. Lehane responded to the audience:

“No…we’re going to Australia regardless.”

Lehane stated that countries typically adopt one of two stances regarding copyright restrictions and AI. One stance aligns with a US-style fair use copyright model, promoting the development of “frontier” (advanced, large-scale) AI; the other maintains traditional copyright positions and restricts the scope of AI.


“We plan to collaborate with both types of countries. We aim to partner with those wanting to develop substantial frontier models and robust ecosystems or those with a more limited AI range,” he expressed. “We are committed to working with them in any context.”

When questioned about Sora 2 (Open AI’s latest video generation model) being launched and monetized before addressing copyright usage, he stated that the technology benefits “everyone.”

“This is the essence of technological evolution: innovations emerge, and society adapts,” he commented. “We are a nonprofit organization, dedicated to creating AI that serves everyone, much like how people accessed libraries for knowledge generations ago.”

AI opened on Friday stopped the ability to produce a video featuring the likeness of Martin Luther King Jr. after his family’s complaints about the technology.

Lehane also mentioned that the competition between China and the United States in shaping the future of global AI is “very real” and that their values are fundamentally different.

Skip past newsletter promotions

“We don’t see this as a battle, but rather a competition, with significant stakes involved,” he stated, adding that the U.S.-led frontier model “will be founded on democratic values,” while China’s frontier model is likely to be rooted in authoritarian principles.

“Ultimately, one of the two will emerge as the player that supports the global community,” he added.

When asked if he had confidence in the U.S. maintaining its democratic status, he responded: “As mentioned by others, democracy can be a convoluted process, but the United States has historically shown the ability to navigate this effectively.”

He also stated that the U.S. and its allies, including Australia, need to generate gigawatts of energy weekly to establish the infrastructure necessary for sustaining a “democratic lead” in AI, while Australia has the opportunity to create its own frontier AI.

He emphasized that “Australia holds a very unique position” with a vast AI user base, around 30,000 developers, abundant talent, a quickly expanding renewable energy sector, fiber optic connectivity with Asia, and its status as a Five Eyes nation.




Source: www.theguardian.com

Is It Too Late to Be Afraid? Readers React to the Controversial Rise of AI ‘Actors’ in Film

Posted on by
Reply

the recent announcement of AI ‘actor’ Tilly Norwood, touted as the next Scarlett Johansson, has sparked a swift backlash in Hollywood. Here’s what Guardian readers are saying about the contentious emergence of AI actors.

“Of course they’ll do that.”

The focus is on economically produced entertainment rather than artistic merit. AI isn’t about creating great art; it’s about cutting costs by replacing human talent and accelerating production. Netflix has amassed 300 million subscribers, generating $400 billion in revenue against $17 billion in content expenses. The quickest way for Netflix to boost profits is to reduce content costs through automation. They already use AI for content decisions, catering to every viewer preference, from high art to low-budget dating shows. Netflix is committed to impactful storytelling, yet can’t risk losing high-value subscribers. It’s similar with the multitude of languages for shows like “Love Is Blind,” ensuring fans don’t abandon ship. If AI enables tech companies to outpace traditional studios by being faster and cheaper, of course, they’ll do it. STAK2000


“I don’t understand humor.”

Comedy is where AI really struggles. It doesn’t grasp humor, timing, or what makes something engaging. We’ve seen technically impressive yet entirely lifeless dialogue that left us unimpressed. We tuned in expecting surprises but found it utterly dull. Mattro

“I’m not saying it’s impossible, it’s just that we’re not there yet.”

99% of AI-generated films consist of individuals speaking directly to the camera. We’ve yet to see compelling interactions among multiple AI-generated characters. Dialogue is fragmented; it seems AI cannot create distinct characters that interact meaningfully. I’m not saying it’s impossible, it just hasn’t happened yet. cornish_hen

“It will come back to bite them.”

Hollywood executives may bet on Tilly Norwood to slash costs and enhance profits. However, if film enthusiasts start creating their own content using generative AI, it might backfire on the industry. I hope those investing in human talent will succeed, resisting this reckless AI trend. Data Day

“The genie is not going back in the bottle.”

It’s astonishing how quickly this technology has progressed.

Even if AI never stars in leading roles, it will undoubtedly have a presence in major productions. It serves as a tool like any other, fundamentally changing certain facets of media.

Individuals affected by this shift (and they will be) must remain calm and consider future career paths. The genie won’t be contained. I’m sure traditional trades reacted strongly to innovations by Gottlieb Daimler and Henry Ford; if AI-generated content proves beneficial and cost-effective, it’s here to stay. Abbathehorse

“My main concern is the lack of education.”

Those involved in advancing AI are pushing boundaries. It’s up to the rest of us, particularly regulators, to hold them accountable when they overstep. My chief worry is the widespread ignorance regarding AI’s potential benefits and threats. Many who aren’t directly impacted by AI don’t perceive the risk. Dasinternaut

Tilly Norwood. Illustration: YouTube

“I doubt I could support a character that is completely AI.”

I hope films featuring AI are clearly labeled. This allows us, the paying audience, to make informed decisions regarding productions. I’m not convinced I can endorse purely AI-generated characters (except perhaps in animated films). We form connections with human actors and invest emotionally in their performances. It might take generations to navigate this shift, but history shows that even vinyl, once thought dead, can become a highly sought-after commodity. Matt08

“It’s reminiscent of a Ballard short story.”

As I read this, I reflected on the multitude of individuals behind creating this “star.” Coders, scriptwriters, marketing teams— a network of humans furthering careers, but not necessarily existing narratives. However, it feels unsettling when the program is crafted to mimic humanity. It evokes themes from Ballard’s stories. glider

“It’s too late to be scared.”

The time for fear has passed.

Hollywood prioritizes profit over artistry.

Studios may justify hiring photographers, makeup artists, set designers, and caterers with the argument that AI can perform those roles while saving costs.

Films featuring real people—actors and many behind-the-scenes roles—may soon become as rare as ballet or opera.

However, fans of franchises like “Fast & Furious” or the Marvel Universe might not mind; they often seek visual stimulation that AI can deliver. gray

“Just a bunch of guys sitting around a computer.”

What unsettles me is the apparent committee behind creating this character, obsessively defining attractiveness. Is your skin not smooth enough? Let’s iterate again. Are the proportions not appealing? Revise it.

Not only does this seem disconcerting, but it also reinforces narrow standards of attractiveness. Successful actors often conform to idealized norms, but at least nature or fate had a role in that. It’s not just a few individuals coding at their computers. bearvsshark

“A meaningless concept.”

Nonetheless, this notion is essentially futile. Acting requires collaboration. An AI “actor” necessitates real substitutes and someone to voice lines. You can produce a completely AI-generated film (essentially a CGI effort) or a human-centric film with AI characters, but the label of “AI actor” remains devoid of meaning. pyeshot

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/3sVO_j4czYs?wmode=opaque&feature=oembed" title="AI Commissioner | Comedy Sketch | Particle6" height="480" width="854" allowfullscreen="

“The public doesn’t attend or appreciate actual art.”

For those claiming “this is a live theater row,” it’s clear you need to step outside your bubble. The public shows little interest in genuine art; they desire polished, commercial products, be it a catchy pop song or a superhero flick. As long as these superficial desires are nurtured, AI-generated “art” will face no backlash. Authentic art, including work from skilled human artists, requires funding, and resources for it are dwindling, threatening its survival. Yes, there may be exceptional pieces, but I suspect they will become increasingly rare unless more people become educated and learn to appreciate art’s inherent values. LondonAmerican2014

“AI slops are what happens when an idea is executed straight away.”

One day, hopefully soon, people will realize that the friction between idea and execution is where 90% of creativity resides.

Great art springs from thorough preparation and exceptional performances, requiring time and sometimes multiple attempts.

This need for friction applies to all creative endeavors, not just art. Even mundane businesses thrive on this dynamic.

AI slops emerge when concepts are rushed to completion. While they may appear effective initially, the ideas often lack depth. Shakeydave

Source: www.theguardian.com

Cold Fusion: Controversial Experiments Enhance Fusion Research

Posted on by
Reply

Thunderbird Fusion Reactor

Berlinguette Group, UBC

Cold Fusion, once a notorious name in the scientific community, is experiencing a resurgence. Researchers are revisiting earlier experiments that suggested room-temperature fusion, hinting at the potential for energy generation akin to that of the Sun, but without the extreme heat typically required. Although the initial claims were thoroughly scrutinized, recent iterations of this research have found ways to enhance fusion rates, even if they still fall short of producing usable energy.

Nuclear fusion involves merging atomic nuclei under extreme temperature and pressure, releasing energy in the process. This phenomenon naturally occurs in stars like our Sun, but replicating it on Earth for energy use has proven to be a significant challenge. Despite aspirations for commercial fusion reactors dating back to the 1950s, we haven’t yet managed to build one that yields more energy than it consumes.

The tide seemed to turn in 1989 when chemists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann at the University of Utah reported that they had achieved nuclear fusion at room temperature using palladium rods submerged in water injected with neutron-rich heavy water and subjected to an electric current. This process generated unexpected heat spikes that surpassed predictions for standard chemical reactions, leading them to believe significant levels of nuclear fusion were occurring.

Dubbed Cold Fusion, this experiment captivated interest for its implication of a simpler, cleaner energy source compared to conventional hot fusion. However, the excitement quickly faded as researchers worldwide failed to replicate the observed heat anomalies.

Recently, Curtis Berlinguette and his team at the University of British Columbia have developed a novel tabletop particle accelerator, drawing inspiration from the original research conducted by Pons and Fleischmann.

“Cold fusion was dismissed back in 1989 due to the inability to replicate the findings. Our setup is designed for reproducibility, enabling verification by others,” Berlinguette explains. “We don’t claim to have discovered an energy miracle; our goal is to advance scientific understanding and provide reliable data to make fusion more attainable and interdisciplinary.”

Similar to the initial cold fusion experiment, the current research employs deuterium and palladium, which are hydrogen isotopes containing neutrons. The Thunderbird reactor utilizes a deuterium nucleus and a concentrated high-energy beam directed at a palladium electrode. This method prompts the palladium to absorb these high-energy particles and facilitates fusion by increasing the saturation of deuterium in the material.

To enhance fusion rates, the researchers incorporated an electrochemical device filled with deuterium oxide (heavy water). This device breaks down the heavy water into deuterium and oxygen, allowing the deuterium to be absorbed by the electrodes, boosting the quantity of deuterium available for fusion. “An essential takeaway from our 1989 experiment was the use of electrochemistry to introduce hydrogen fuel to the electrodes,” Berlinguette emphasizes.

As a result, the researchers noted a 15% increase in neutron production, correlating with a rise in fusion rates, though it only generates a billionth of a watt—far less than the 15 watts required to operate the device. “We’re just a few orders of magnitude away from powering your home with these reactors,” Berlinguette states.

While the experiment is notably inspired by the 1989 research, the current work indicates that the primary source of fusion comes from the powerful deuteron beam, rather than the electrochemistry proposed by Pons and Fleischmann. Anthony Ksernak from Imperial College London notes, “This is not an unknown phenomenon; it’s about colliding deuterium with a solid target and achieving what appears to be a fusion event,” noting the energy from the high-energy particles is equivalent to hundreds of millions of Kelvins.

Ksernak acknowledges that the 15% increase in deuterium saturation in palladium is modest, but he sees potential in experimenting with different metals for the electrodes in future research.

Berlinguette remains hopeful that the fusion rate can be elevated by redesigning the reactor. Recent unpublished work from a colleague suggests that merely altering the shape of the electrodes might yield a four-order magnitude increase in the fusion rate, though it would still fall short of the levels required for practical applications.

Even if higher fusion rates aren’t achieved, Berlinguette believes the electrochemical technique for enhancing deuterium loading in metals could be beneficial for developing high-temperature superconductors. Many promising superconducting materials, known for their zero electrical resistance and potential to transform global electrical systems, are metals that incorporate significant hydrogen amounts. Traditionally, creating these materials demands excessive pressure and energy; however, the electrochemical systems used in Thunderbird reactors could streamline the process with much less energy expenditure, according to Berlinguette.

Cern and Mont Blanc, Dark and Frozen Matter: Switzerland and France

Prepare to be amazed by CERN, the European Centre for Particle Physics. Here, researchers operate the renowned Large Hadron Collider situated near the picturesque Swiss city of Geneva.

Topic:

  • Nuclear Fusion Technology

Source: www.newscientist.com

After Spike’s Review: A Controversial New Book Argues for Persuading People to Increase Birth Rates

Posted on by
Reply
Stadium crowd

A large population can drive innovation and economies of scale

Philippe Montigny/Istockphoto/Getty Images


After the Spikes

Dean Spears and Michael Geruso (Bodley Head (UK); Simon & Schuster (US))

Current estimates suggest that four-fifths of all humans who will ever be born have already come into existence. The global number of births peaked at 146 million in 2012 and has been on a decline ever since, indicating that the world population is set to peak and decrease by the 2080s.

This decrease won’t be gradual. Fertility rates are already below replacement level in several nations, including China and India, leading to a rapid decline in population as quickly as it rose. This new controversial book argues that the planet could hold fewer than two billion people in the coming centuries.

“There’s no scenario where individuals worldwide are likely to opt for fewer children than required to replace themselves, leading to a drastic population reduction,” assert economists Dean Spears and Michael Geruso in After the Spike: Risks of Global Depopulation and Cases for People.

You might consider this a positive development. Could it help alleviate pressing environmental challenges? Not according to the authors. They assert that while population size does hold significance, adjusting other factors, such as the speed of global warming, is even more critical. The chance to lessen our carbon footprint through population reduction has mostly passed.

Spears and Geruso highlight numerous advantages of a large population. More individuals can lead to greater innovation and economies of scale, making technologies like smartphones feasible. “The abundance of neighbors enhances our potential,” they state.

Thus, their perspective is not about reducing the global population but rather stabilizing it. The challenge lies in the fact that even with the right political determination, the path to achieve this is unclear.

As we become more affluent, we are increasingly hesitant to give up career and leisure opportunities for parenthood.

The authors contend that while some government strategies may yield short-term results, no country has sustainably altered long-term demographic trends. Consider China’s one-child policy—it is often credited with curtailing population growth but did it genuinely do so? Spears and Geruso present ambiguous data on China’s population in relation to its neighbors before, during, and after these policies were enacted, raising the question of discernible differences based on their observations.

Efforts to reverse the declining fertility rates have also faced failure, they argue. In Romania, after the ban on abortion in 1966, birth rates surged but soon declined again. Sweden’s approach has been to incentivize through subsidies for childcare, yet its fertility rates remain below replacement level.

Attempts to boost fertility with financial incentives are likely doomed to fail, according to Spears and Geruso. While some claim that they would have more children if financial means allowed, the reality is that as people gain wealth, the tendency to have fewer children increases.

The focus should be on addressing what individuals need to balance rather than simply financial capability, according to the authors. As affluence grows, there is a reluctance to sacrifice careers and leisure for childbearing. Even technological advancements are not expected to change this trajectory, they conclude.

This book presents an unwaveringly optimistic viewpoint regarding many issues, but it acknowledges the complexity of stabilizing population levels. It effectively demonstrates that dire predictions of widespread famine with population growth have proven incorrect and suggests long-term trends toward healthier, longer lives remain possible. “Fears of a depleted, overpopulated future are outdated,” they argue.

But is that truly the case? Spears and Geruso also emphasize that food prices play a key role in determining hunger levels, yet it’s worth noting that food prices are presently rising as a consequence of escalating climate change. For a substantial portion of the population, uncertainty persists regarding whether conditions will continue to improve.

This book is undoubtedly provocative and may not provide an easy read, as Spears and Geruso delve into their primary assertions. However, if you believe that understanding the impact of a declining population is simple, and if you consider it a positive trend, this book is essential reading.

New Scientist Book Club

Do you enjoy reading? Join a welcoming community of fellow book enthusiasts. Every six weeks, we explore exciting new titles, with members receiving exclusive access to book excerpts, author insights, and video interviews.

Topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Climbers Ascend Everest with Controversial Xenon Gas

Posted on by
Reply

Internet Explorer 11 is not supported. Please choose a different browser for the optimal experience.

  • Currently Playing

    Climbers Ascend Everest Utilizing Controversial Xenon Gas

    03:46

  • Next

    Australian Mother Contemplates “Cryogenic” Procedure for Late Son After Heartbreak

    06:45

  • Underwater Volcanoes Near the Pacific Coast: Eruptions Can Occur Swiftly

    02:07

  • Watch: Blue Origin Crew Feels Zero Gravity Upon Capsule’s Entry into Space

    00:49

  • Gail King on Not Hesitating to Pierce His Ears Post-Spaceflight

    04:18

  • “I Went to Space!”: All-Female Crews Return from Blue Origin Space Flight

    01:58

  • Hospitals Offer Sea Turtles a Second Chance at Life

    04:11

  • Biotech Firms Claim Extinct Wolf Species Returns 13,000 Years Later

    02:43

  • The Video Depicts a Genetically Modified Wolf, Allegedly by Biotech Company

    00:46

  • Crops Designed to Absorb Carbon Aim to Combat Air Pollution

    02:59

  • Harvard Scholars Utilize AI to Replicate for Tutoring Tests

    03:15

  • SpaceX Initiates FRAM2 Missions at Earth’s Poles

    01:45

  • Exploring the World’s First “Woolly Mouse”

    01:56

  • NASA’s Spherex and Punch Missions Launch from Falcon 9 Rocket

    01:41

  • Protests Against Trump’s Budget Cuts with Science Rally

    01:37

  • Study Reveals “Devastating” Decline in Butterfly Populations

    02:27

  • SpaceX Loses Spacecraft During Test Flight

    00:58

  • Best Viewing Spots for the Upcoming Planetary Parade

    01:26

  • The Lunar Lander Set to Launch on SpaceX Rocket This Month

    01:48

  • Atomic Scientists Move “Doomsday Clock” Closer to Midnight at 89 Seconds

    00:55

NBC News Now

Four British climbers ascended Mount Everest within a week, aided by a new controversial treatment known as Xenon Gas. NBC News’ Camila Bernal discusses the ethical concerns raised by critics.
May 29, 2025

  • Currently Playing

    Climbers Ascend Everest Utilizing Controversial Xenon Gas

    03:46

  • Next

    Australian Mother Contemplates “Cryogenic” Procedure for Late Son After Heartbreak

    06:45

  • Underwater Volcanoes Near the Pacific Coast: Eruptions Can Occur Swiftly

    02:07

  • Watch: Blue Origin Crew Feels Zero Gravity Upon Capsule’s Entry into Space

    00:49

  • Gail King on Not Hesitating to Pierce His Ears Post-Spaceflight

    04:18

  • “I Went to Space!”: All-Female Crews Return from Blue Origin Space Flight

    01:58

Source: www.nbcnews.com

Contemplating the Most Controversial Concepts in Science

Posted on by
Reply
2FMXX1B USA. (c) Jeff Goldblum in the Universal Pictures Film Scene: Jurassic Park (1993). Plot: A practical paleontologist visiting an almost complete theme park is tasked with protecting several children after the blackout of the park escapes due to a blackout. Director: Steven Spielberg Ref: LMK110-J7096-110521 Provided by LMKMedia. Editorial only. Landmark Media only serves recognized media outlets, not copyright owners of these films and television stills. pictures@lmmedia.com

Jeff Goldblum has made many contributions to this world, but perhaps the best is the delivery of the iconic line in the 1993 film Jurassic Park. In the scene where his character Ian Malcolm bets Dinosaur Park creator John Hammond, Goldblum speaks of what has become a long-standing meme.

As we might call it high, paradigms are a great way to think about the risks and rewards of scientific efforts.

Still, it is rare to see scientists appear strongly in their field of research. As a mathematician, Malcolm probably didn’t really care much about the development of genetics. Perhaps this has given us a recent warning against creating “Mirror Life.” Molecules can wreaking havoc through the biosphere, where they have an opposite orientation to everything else on Earth.

The creation of mirror life can cause havoc through the biosphere

Mirror Life fails violently on the “must-have” side of the scale, but there seems to be little reason to create it – in other cases, the decision is not that easy. Perhaps the most troublesome recent example is gain-of-function research. This is where often pathogenic organisms are modified and increase their ability to both risk and reward. For example, changing the flu virus makes it obviously a risk to make it easier to infect humans. But if it helps us understand the virus and potentially prevent the pandemic, is it worth it?

The acquisition of features has always been controversial, but recently the debate over it has exploded. People who believe that SARS-Cov-2, the virus behind Covid-19, was created in the lab – no evidence-based belief jumped on gain-of-function research as a smoking gun. Does this mean that such work must be prohibited? Perhaps not, but in Malcolm’s words, we need to keep in mind the distinction between “possibility” and “essential.”

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Editor-in-chief of Scientific American resigns following controversial remarks about Trump

Posted on by
Reply

overview

  • Laura Hellmuth, editor-in-chief of Scientific American, is leaving the company.
  • Immediately after the election, she posted several profane comments on social media posts about the results.
  • It is unclear whether Helmut's post or the backlash to it played a role in her resignation.

Scientific American Editor-in-Chief Laura Hellmuth is departing from the magazine soon after sharing profane posts regarding the presidential election results on the social media platform BlueSky.

“Following four and a half exhilarating years as editor-in-chief, I have opted to step down from Scientific American,” stated Hellmuth. wrote BlueSky on Thursday.. “I'm going to take some time to think about what's next (and go bird watching…)”

It remains uncertain whether Helmut's social media posts or the backlash they provoked contributed to her resignation. Helmut declined an interview request and mentioned being unable to provide a comment.

Scientific American did not directly address inquiries regarding Helmut's departure, but company president Kimberly Lau conveyed in a statement: We appreciate Laura for her exceptional leadership at Scientific American, during which time the magazine received significant science communication accolades and facilitated the establishment of a reimagined digital newsroom. We extend our best wishes to her in her future endeavors.”

Helmut became the subject of criticism from certain conservative pundits following a series of posts on Blue Sky on November 5 post-election. The post was subsequently deleted from her profile, but the screenshot went viral.

In her post, Helmut apologized to young voters and expressed regret that her Generation X was plagued by “king fascists.”

“Solidarity with all the meanest, stupidest, most bigoted high school classmates celebrating early results to fly to the moon and back,” Hellmuth wrote.

in Later Bluesky post, November 7thHelmut apologized and deleted the election night post, calling it “offensive and inappropriate.”

“I respect and value people beyond their political positions,” Helmut wrote, adding that the now-deleted post was a “misguided expression of shock and confusion over the election results.”

Under Helmut’s leadership, Scientific American began endorsing political candidates. After 175 years, the publication’s editors endorsed Joe Biden in 2020, Kamala Harris in SeptemberDonald Trump “endangers public health and safety, rejecting evidence and instead favoring nonsensical conspiracy fantasies.”

In an interview with the editorial desk before the election, Blog about writing and editing Hellmuth, the author of the book and a professor at the University of North Carolina, stated that in 2020, the editors at Scientific American felt compelled to convey, “We have a duty to share what we know,” as lives were at stake in that election.

Rather than just presenting “both sides” and letting readers decide for themselves, she advocated for informing the public of what they know to be true and how they arrived at that conclusion. She supported an approach that focuses on providing information to the public.

“There aren’t always two rational sides to every story. We know that evolution is real and creationism is not. We know that vaccines save lives and that autism We know that climate change is real,” Hellmuth expressed to the Editorial Desk. “It is inappropriate to give equal consideration to creationists, RFK Jr., or climate change deniers when reporting on these topics, except to clarify that while these topics have been politicized, the science is unambiguous.”

Helmut mentioned Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who President-elect Donald Trump has nominated to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. President Kennedy has made misleading and false claims about vaccines, suggesting they are linked to autism, even though multiple studies have debunked the concept.

Source: www.nbcnews.com

The Ethical Dilemma of AI in Art: Controversial or Innovative? Exploring How Artists are Embracing AI in their Work

Posted on by
Reply

CBeloved actor, film star, and refugee advocate Atheé Blanchett stands at the podium addressing the European Parliament: “The future is now,” she says authoritatively. So far, so normal, but then you’re asked, “But where are the sex robots?”

The footage is from an actual speech Blanchett gave in 2023, but the rest is fictional.

Her voice was generated by Australian artist Xanthe Dobie using text-to-speech platform PlayHT for Dobie’s 2024 video work, Future Sex/Love Sounds, which imagines a feminist utopia populated by sex robots and voiced by celebrity clones.

Much has been written about the world-changing potential of large-scale language models (LLMs), including Midjourney and Open AI’s GPT-4. These models are trained on massive amounts of data, generating everything from academic papers, fake news, and “revenge porn.” Music, images, software code.

While supporters praise the technology for speeding up scientific research and eliminating routine administrative tasks, it also presents a wide range of workers, from accountants, lawyers, and teachers to graphic designers, actors, writers, and musicians, with an existential crisis.

As the debate rages, artists like Dobie are beginning to use these very tools to explore the possibilities and precarity of technology itself.

“The technology itself is spreading at a faster rate than the law can keep up with, which creates ethical grey areas,” says Dobie, who uses celebrity internet culture to explore questions of technology and power.

“We see replicas of celebrities all the time, but data on us, the little people of the world, is collected at exactly the same rate… It’s not a question of technology capabilities. [that’s bad]That’s how flawed, stupid, evil people choose to use it.”

Choreographer Alisdair McIndoe is another artist working at the intersection of technology and art: His new work, Plagiary, premieres this week at Melbourne’s Now or Never festival before running in a season at the Sydney Opera House, and uses custom algorithms to generate new choreography for dancers to receive for the first time each night.

Although the AI-generated instructions are specific, each dancer is able to interpret them in their own way, making the resulting performance more like a human-machine collaboration.

In Alisdair McIndoe’s Plagiary at Now or Never festival, dancers respond to AI-generated instructions. Photo: Now or never

Not all artists are fans of technology. Nick Cave, January 2023 Posted a scathing review He called the song ChatGPT generated by imitating his work “nonsense” and a “grotesque mockery of humanity.”

“Songs come from suffering,” he says, “which means they’re based on complex, inner human conflicts of creation. And as far as I know, algorithms don’t have emotions.”

Painter Sam Leach doesn’t agree with Cave’s idea that “creative genius” is an exclusively human trait, but he encounters this kind of “total rejection of technology and everything related to it” frequently.

Skip Newsletter Promotions
Fruit Preservation (2023), directed by Sam Leach. Photo: Albert Zimmermann/Sam Leach

He justifies his use of sources by emphasizing that he spends hours “editing” with a paintbrush to refine the software’s suggestions. He also uses an art critic chatbot to question his ideas.

For Leach, the biggest concern about AI isn’t the technology itself or how it’s being used, but who owns it: “There are very few giant companies that own the biggest models and have incredible power.”

One of the most common concerns about AI is copyright. This is an especially complicated issue for people working in the artistic sector, whose intellectual property is being used to train multi-million dollar models, often without their consent or compensation. For example, last year, it was revealed that 18,000 Australian books had been used in the Book3 dataset without permission or compensation. Booker Prize-winning author Richard Flanagan described this as “the biggest act of copyright theft in history.”

And last week, Australian music rights organization APRA AMCOS Presenting the survey results They found that 82% of members are concerned that AI will reduce their ability to make a living from music.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Elon Musk’s Twitter Week: What’s the Controversial CEO Been Tweeting About?

Posted on by
Reply

pictureRon Musk isn’t stopping tweeting. In just seven days last week, he made nearly 650 posts on the social network he bought in November 2022 and reluctantly rebranded as X. He also spent nearly three hours wrestling with technical issues in what he would later conclude was the result of an unproven hacking attack while trying to host a “conversation” with Donald Trump, and livestreamed himself playing Blizzard’s sword-and-sorcery game Diablo IV for several hours.

The volume of his content alone is impressive enough, but even for someone who was so into posting that he spent more money on a site than the Manhattan Project budget, Musk’s consistency is astonishing.

In the week of tweets analysed by The Guardian, there was a 90-minute period when he posted nothing, between 3am and 4:29am local time, but he tweeted at least once every other half hour throughout the day and night: at 4:41am on Saturday morning, 2:30pm on Wednesday night, and at 11pm on six of the seven days.

The longest Musk went without tweeting that week was seven and a half hours, when he slept until 8:10 a.m. after a late-night posting session. On Saturday night, Musk logged out after retweeting a meme likening the Metropolitan police to the SS, then returned online four and a half hours later to retweet a tweet from a cryptocurrency influencer complaining about the prison sentences of British protesters.

Awesome, awakened, cool

Not all of Musk’s posts on X are loaded with meaning. Most are simple one- or two-word replies to fans, followers and allies. Two minutes after he replies “Cool” to a construction influencer’s AI-generated photo of himself, he replies “Cool” to a montage of photos of the Tesla Cybertruck driving through North America, and a minute later an AI-generated cartoon of himself points to a sign that reads “Criticism is welcome on this platform” and replies “💯.”

One-word replies can sometimes be a good thing and a bad thing. Musk, who has never been one to follow traditional “online etiquette,” occasionally replies to messages with a “😂” emoji and then copies the exact same thing to his own feed without credit. It’s unclear why some posts get Musk’s treasured retweets while others get stolen and reposted.

Musk is sometimes careful with his praise, especially when it comes from users he’s not comfortable being too vocal about. An End Wokeness post about a California early release bill, a Malaysian far-right influencer’s post about Haitian criminals, and a Libs of TikTok post about another California bill have all been marked with a simple “!!” by Musk, while a post by Dom Lucre, a far-right influencer who was banned from the site for posting child abuse imagery, doesn’t even get that mark. Personally covered In 2023, I received just one “!” from a billionaire.

Riot and Grok

Musk’s outrage over the UK riots seems to be deepening his ties to the far-right: Over the past week, he has begun a conversation with Canadian influencer Lauren Southern, one of three anti-Muslim activists named in the UK riots. Banned from entering the UK It was launched by Theresa May’s government in 2018. Though the pair share a distrust of the media, Musk is now a paying subscriber to her feed, supporting her – along with more than 160 other users – for £4.92 a month.

But Musk’s crazy behavior makes sense. A showman, the memes and chatter he retweets and reposts are full of promotions he wants to make that day. Sometimes, it’s professional. On Wednesday and Thursday, when his AI company xAI released the latest version of its large-scale language model, Grok, a significant percentage of his posts were sharing quotes and images generated by it.

In the UK in 2030, you could be executed for posting a meme…

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 10, 2024

And then there are the riots. During the week, Musk’s attention was diverted from tensions in the UK, but the spate of rulings handed down over the weekend meant he was primed for a bit of mayhem.

He latched onto right-wing memes about Keir Starmer promoting a “two-tier” policing system and downplayed their contribution to the violence while constantly drawing attention to the punitive sentences given to rioters. Early on Friday morning, he expanded on his criticism of the SNP's Humza Yousaf, calling the former Scottish First Minister a “super super racist” and challenging him to take legal action in response.

Trump and Tesla

On Monday and Tuesday, Musk drew attention to his conversation with Donald Trump, sharing posts before the livestream in which fans excitedly wondered how many people would tune in and what the two smartest people in the world would discuss, then reposting posts after the livestream in which fans were upset that biased media wouldn’t write more positive headlines and asking fans to shorten the conversation into a more manageable hour-long highlights reel.

Despite this friction, another side of Musk shows up when he talks about his two biggest companies, Tesla and SpaceX. With Tesla being a public company, Musk has to be careful with what he says. He has a fiduciary duty to shareholders and legal obligations on how to disclose material information. Those obligations came to a head when the SEC sued him over his infamous tweets in which he falsely claimed he had “secured funding” to take Tesla private. In a subsequent settlement with regulators, Musk agreed to have his lawyers review all of his tweets about Tesla, a deal he has since regretted.

But after an appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, the deal remains valid, meaning Musk’s final chance to escape the “Twitter guards” may be… It was scrapped in April this year.His posts about Tesla have been surprisingly muted. Shortly after his conversation with Trump, he posted a lengthy, mostly standard, statement retracting some of his comments about climate change: “To be clear, I believe global warming is real.” He startedWhat he meant was that even without global warming, high levels of CO2 It was dangerous.

“Guardians are trash…”

Musk also used the opportunity to take aim at another favorite target, The Guardian. After the paper quoted experts in what he called “the dumbest climate change debate in history,” Musk slammed others he follows who shared the article, telling author Stephen King that “The Guardian cannot be considered objective” and entrepreneur Vinod Khosla that “The Guardian is rubbish.”

Source: www.theguardian.com