Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google and a nuclear fusion company have developed a new algorithm

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 129 posts

Re: Google and a nuclear fusion company have developed a new algorithm

#91

Post by Retric »

amelius wrote: post #80
zaph0d_ wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if this would be the dream of a lot of theoretical physicists to replace experiments with simulations, this must not happen! Ever! Even if every complex system in the world could be simulated in reasonable time it would still require experiments to verify or falsify the simulation results. A simulation is essentially just a calculation from a model someone came up with to describe a system. In order to check how…

I believe this is more about solving an engineering/mathematics problem, than about fundamental physics and the scientific process.

Physics is a lot more than just fundamental physics. H-Bomb designs for example get hundreds of hours of super computer time to simulate a few pounds of stuff for 1/1,000th of a second and even then they are approximations which need to be validated.

Re: Google and a nuclear fusion company have developed a new algorithm

#92

Post by marco_salvatori »

abefetterman wrote: post #16

This is actually a really exciting development to me. (Note, what is exciting is the "optometrist algorithm" from the paper [1] not necessarily googles involvement as pitched in the guardian). Typically a day of shots would need to be programmed out in advance, typically scanning over one dimension (out of hundreds) at a time. It would then take at least a week to analyze the results and create an updated research pl…

Though this work may seem exciting, there is an existing, respected body of work available on how to mathematically structure a search over a large parameter space and how to mathematically interpret experimental responses. That body of work is a subset of applied statistics called design of experiments. It helps scientists avoid the common failures that result from doing exactly what was done here, random space exploration and non rigourous evaluation of results.

For this to be exciting I would expect some indication as to how this method extends and enhances the existing science of experimental methods and the trade offs involved with using their method. I dont see that.

Re: Google and a nuclear fusion company have developed a new algorithm

#93

Post by [deleted] »

mtgx wrote: post #13

I think their universal quantum computer (to be announced later this year) could accelerate fusion research even more, as I imagine it could more accurately simulate the atom reactions and experiments on it. Practical quantum computers may just be what we were missing to finally be able build working fusion reactors. The millions of possible "solutions" and algorithms for working fusion reactors may be what has made…

[deleted]

Re: Google and a nuclear fusion company have developed a new algorithm

#95

Post by detaro »

j7ake wrote: post #94

how does this nuclear fusion company hope to make money ? Their product is decades in the future.

Quite possibly, it never making any money at all but getting the world closer to usable fusion is an acceptable outcome for investors like Paul Allan. And it could make money by being the first ones to sell said product, decades in the future, or by at least holding valuable IP at that point?

Re: Google and a nuclear fusion company have developed a new algorithm

#97

Post by markvdb »

hyperbovine wrote: post #50
dwaltrip wrote: post #31

There was a talk about the state of nuclear fusion by some MIT folks linked here on HN a few days ago. One of the biggest takeaways was that many fusion efforts are very far away (3 to 6+ orders of magnitude) on the most important metric, Q, which is energy_out / energy_in. Additionally, much press and public discussion completely fail to discuss this and other core factors that actually matter for making fusion viab…

But hey, string ~20 consecutive 50% improvements together and you're at four orders of magnitude :-)

You might allowed to be much more optimistic.

A 50% increase could be much much more significant depending on the parameter optimised. Tokamak magnetic field strength for example has a factor ^4 effect towards net energy.

Have a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0KuAx1COEk , as previously discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14834390 .

Re: Google and a nuclear fusion company have developed a new algorithm

#98

Post by etatoby »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #86
noobermin wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The system is fundamentally 6^N dimensional with N~10^23.

I suppose you meant 6*N? Which is a lot better, but still intractable. And anyway, we don't exactly resolve molecules in e.g. turbulent flow simulations, yet they still take tens, even hundreds of millions of CPU-hours.

Unless you consider quantum effects, which are probably relevant in this situation, then it's an exponentially larger problem space.

Re: Google and a nuclear fusion company have developed a new algorithm

#99

Post by [deleted] »

detaro wrote: post #95
j7ake wrote: post #94

how does this nuclear fusion company hope to make money ? Their product is decades in the future.

Quite possibly, it never making any money at all but getting the world closer to usable fusion is an acceptable outcome for investors like Paul Allan. And it could make money by being the first ones to sell said product, decades in the future, or by at least holding valuable IP at that point?

[deleted]

Re: Google and a nuclear fusion company have developed a new algorithm

#100

Post by j7ake »

detaro wrote: post #95
j7ake wrote: post #94

how does this nuclear fusion company hope to make money ? Their product is decades in the future.

Quite possibly, it never making any money at all but getting the world closer to usable fusion is an acceptable outcome for investors like Paul Allan. And it could make money by being the first ones to sell said product, decades in the future, or by at least holding valuable IP at that point?

one possible alternative would be to put the money into academic research so there is no pressure from investors to have a return on investment.
Post reply on HN