Live data from Hacker News

ALICE detects the conversion of lead into gold at the LHC

home.cern

241–250 of 310 posts

Re: ALICE detects the conversion of lead into gold at the LHC

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Avogadro's number has a 10^23 in it to account for this atom-->physical matter sort of "scale up" conversion. Atoms are really small...

Sometimes I have a hard time wrapping my head around reconciling that with the estimated number of protons in the observable universe which is "only" ~10^80 ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_number ). Seems like it "should" be much higher, but orders of magnitude are sometimes deceptive to our intuition.

It takes a bit to accept your (10^0 m) place in the universe on the length scale between the Planck length (10^-35 m), the width of a proton (10^-15 m) and the diameter of the observable universe (10^27 m).

Re: ALICE detects the conversion of lead into gold at the LHC

#242
post #237

I have already mentioned that, but such a grandiose waste of money is terrible. We pour billions in these accelerators without any hope of using the findings. At the same time other branches of science (even physics) are scrapping some money around. CERN is a fabulous place (I did my PhD there so yes, shitting my old bed), but this is the fabulous of a First Class or private jet flight around the world without any co…

I don't think "the findings" are the only thing that comes out of CERN. In the end we are communicating (and doing many other things) over something that originated as a CERN innovation ( https://home.cern/science/computing/birth-web ). Not to mention the indirect benefits such as education and networking of the scientists (which, if you talk with people there, seem to be an integral part of the mission even if maybe…

Don't get me wrong: CERN is fantastic, the summer student program is (or at least was) a revelation. The place, the people, everything.

But it costs a disproportionate amount of money for what it brings to humanity. Budgets in science are tight and CERN is a real blackhole

Re: ALICE detects the conversion of lead into gold at the LHC

#243
post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, except for in particle accelerators, stars, and supernovae, atoms are never created or destroyed, so if they're creating gold, it's here for good.

> particle accelerators, stars, and supernovae I have no clue about this stuff, but don't black holes also change matter... somehow? I mean, with all that gravity and stuff, crazy things must happen in there, right?

What happens inside a black hole is basically unknowable. We can only ponder the math which leads to ideas like space and time swapping roles once you cross the event horizon.[0] The only thing that comes out is hawking radiation, which is sort of like... half of nothing.

[0] https://youtube.com/watch?v=KePNhUJ2reI

Re: ALICE detects the conversion of lead into gold at the LHC

#244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely will mis-speak/mis-write, but my mathematic (also flawed) tells me that if Gold + 1 = Mercury, then Something + 1 = Gold, so we can find that "something" add 1 of the thingie, and booya!! gold!! (right?) (please read the above with silly humor) In a slightly more serious note, I remember listening to Elon in some podcast 1-2 years ago saying how they create new metals/alloys that nobody had created previ…

The same mechanism that lets you convert gold-197 to mercury does in fact work to convert the equivalent isotope (that is, 1u lighter than gold) of the element left of gold on the periodic table to gold. The only problem, the element left of gold is platinum, and platinum-196 is not even the most common isotope of platinum, making up ~25% of it. You're rather unlikely to be able to make money on this. (Not that you w…

Start with Tungsten?

Re: ALICE detects the conversion of lead into gold at the LHC

#245
post #33

I just did a funny exercise (details are not interesting) to estimate how long would LHC and Alice need (assuming perfect conditions and ignoring any limitations) to get enough gold to fund FCC (15B CHF assuming today's gold price in CHF) on their own. And it would take about 185 billion years of continuous run. A reminder that the universe is about 14 billion years (ignoring the hubble tension for our purpose here)

You’re assuming they would attempt to produce gold exactly the same way. The process would likely evolve to become better. What happens if you add a growth rate?

Re: ALICE detects the conversion of lead into gold at the LHC

#246
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They just need to build a few billion LHCs to scale up production

There are about 2.44*10^11 grams of gold in circulation. Let's say the LHC would need to produce 10% of that per year to "flood the market." With the current production rate of 10^-11 grams per year, we'd need 2.44*10^21 (2.44 sextillion) LHCs operating simultaneously to flood the gold market. A single LHC weighs 3.6*10^9 grams, so 2.44 sextillion of them would weigh 8.8*10^31 grams, which is about 50 times the mass…

Glad they didn't subscribe to "move fast, break things"..

Re: ALICE detects the conversion of lead into gold at the LHC

#247
There's a lot of folks doing financial calculations in this thread, but keep in mind that this produced an unstable isotope of gold with a half-life measured in seconds. This has been done before. Even before you get to any economic calculus, you need to find a way to make that one stable isotope (out of about 40 known).

Re: ALICE detects the conversion of lead into gold at the LHC

#249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And remember, 1 AU is about 997.3 billion bananas laid end to end.

In a straight line?

Yes, laid end to end, after they've been bent.

If you were to lay them end to then, then bend the them, you'd have a coil of bananas about three to four bananas (bent) in diameter.

Re: ALICE detects the conversion of lead into gold at the LHC

#250

As an aside, I've always thought of this when listening to discussions of technological advancement. I often hear the argument that in the early 20th century many people thought we were near the apex of technology. That often gets brought up when people claim the same today. I don't think we are quite there, but I get a feeling that the limit we are approaching is more a limit, not of knowledge, but of resources and…

Material science is still largely an art consisting of educated guesses, formulation followed by exhaustive (and exhausting) testing of very tiny variations in composition and process. This is mainly because while we have good theoretical frameworks, mathematical techniques and computation capabilities that works angstrom scale downwards (kinda... I think first principles computation of properties of collections of atoms beyond a few light ones is still difficult) or milli scale upwards (think FEM and similar used in mechanical engineering), nano to micro scale where all material properties arise is basically un-computable. Not being someone gifted with intuition of advanced math & calculus that could tackle inventing such, the nature of graduate work in the field did not appeal to me personally. You can see how Semiconductor Fabs & catalyst labs for instance have nevertheless successfully used the systematic exhaustive iterative experimentation approach to deliver massive progress.

Solving for computability of the nano-to-micro scale will absolutely drive a massive transformation in the world much like the industrial and information technology revolutions. Biological revolution i believe requies basically the simila computability to manipulate proteins though there seem to be shortcuts leveraging bacteria. In recent years that I occasionally have seen papers that hint at progress on math and computability at a nano to micro scale. So I'm quite hopeful we'll have massive progress technologically

Post reply on HN