Hacker News Reader

Comment by autoexec | Hacker News Reader

> The only other known naturally forming quasicrystal was found inside meteorite fragments

Does it really count as "naturally forming" if we had to artificially construct and detonate a nuke during a carefully conducted experiment to create this one?

View on HN

Well, it's more natural than something like a lab diamond. This one forms naturally given unnaturally created, but not completely implausible, conditions. There is a big difference between "we blew up rocks and they formed this mineral" and "we treated rocks with X acid and Y acid and then carefully annealed them under extreme pressure and they formed this mineral"

De Beers has entered the chat

You don’t really love your wife unless you’re willing to detonate a nuclear device and wait for the half-life.

If a beaver constructed and detonated the nuke, it'd still just be natural though.

Those industrious bastards need to be stopped before they get their paws on The Bomb.

I doubt many people would think that was natural and if the beaver wasn't killed outright for acting so unnaturally it'd probably spend the rest of its life in a lab being researched.

You'd think that, but the beaver who does this is a nuclear power. Are you quite so sure you can keep him prisoner?

How do we know the quasicrystals in the meteorite fragments are naturally occurring, and weren't created by nuclear detonations on an alien planet, then blasted off into space when an asteroid hit the site? Or perhaps the nuclear explosion was tested on an asteroid rather than a planet.

We’re a product of nature, it’s mistaken to believe we are above nature or that nuclear weapons aren’t also part of nature.

We’re also very much dependent on nature and natural forces.

So everything we do is, even if many steps removed, still an act of nature.

This is a valid argument, albeit a pointless one.

We use the term natural specifically to distinguish between the.. natural and artificial.

A term like that is necessary.

I think sometimes the distinction is made between natural and artificial (human made) as a way to sway an argument. In many of these cases, the reasoning is tenuous if we examine with an understanding that the difference is sometimes arbitrary.

If anything, we should be more careful with our use of language. For instance; 'naturally ocurring' vs. 'human made'.

A similar one is synthetic. We've used that label for things like synthetic oil, but there are a lot of other things that are synthesized because it is too difficult to get the material naturally.

Diamonds are also product of nature, but when we grow them in a lab they aren't often considered to be "naturally formed". It's just that the lab we used in this instance was part of the Jornada del Muerto.

Very small diamonds can be created using detonation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonation_nanodiamond

> when we grow them in a lab they aren't often considered to be "naturally formed"

Isn't this solely because De Beers wants to keep the product of their mines artificially priced higher? So they come up with phrases to make lab grown diamonds sound less than the ones they mine?

Side note: Jornado del Muerto translates to English as Journey of Death.

With the influence of humans: artificial.

Without the influence of humans: natural.

There’s a useful definition for you. Otherwise according to your definition the term “natural” is completely meaningless and serves no purpose.

All natural nuclear weapons has a nice ring to it ~ the OP.

"As strange as it seems now, the notion of “clean” nuclear weapons was taken fairly seriously in the late 1950s and early 1960s. U.S. government officials had been interested in the possibility of such nuclear weapons, which they believed would produce far less radioactive fallout than standard “dirty” thermonuclear weapons."

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2017-0...

It doesn't seem that strange?

You can drastically change the amount of fallout with materials and design decisions, so it's worth considering.

For example, tsar bomba was tested with a lead tamper instead of uranium; this reduced the yield, but also the fallout. The Ripple design has no tamper, was used in the last US airdrop test, and produces very little fallout compared to other designs.

A limited fallout design allows for occupation and/or resettlement after an attack, so it seems useful to consider.

Yes, yes, it didn't make a practical difference because MAD makes them all unusable.

They also wanted these for domestic use. No fallout means making a new Panama Canal, or removing a pesky mountain, are just nuclear construction projects.

Yeah... the problem is if you were to use them for excavating, you have to explode them on, in, or near the ground which will generate lots of fallout from neutron irradiation of the ground materials.

Clean H-bombs are only clean if used for air bursts, but air bursts aren't effective for excavation.

Here I have been thinking all these freeways and strip mall suburbs are organic growth of older cities. You mean a person designed this hellscape?? /s

If you pee on grass, does that make the dandelion that grows there later artificial? If you plant and grow a potato, is that an artificial potato?

The term “natural” is meaningless when used in ways like on “all natural juice” labels, because the line is arbitrary and suits whatever the argument is (usually by being a fancy substitute for “good”).

There are uses for the term, like in “natural sciences” (as opposed to philosophy, for example). Incidentally, the core limitation of natural sciences is related to the contention of “natural juice”: we are part of nature, and so when it comes to studying some aspects of nature it becomes circular and unproductively self-referential.

The line between ourselves and nature is paradoxical and it is worth pondering why we draw it at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com