The relevant part: "The ALICE analysis shows that, during Run 2 of the LHC (2015–2018), about 86 billion gold nuclei were created at the four major experiments. In terms of mass, this corresponds to just 29 picograms (2.9 ×10-11 g)."
Just need to scale it by trillions to make 1 ounce, but transmutation of lead to gold - the dream of many alchemists - is now just a by product of particle accelerators.
Only if the LHC doesn't quire gold to operate. If you're using ICs and components that have some gold in them and they need maintenance, you consume more than you produce.
On the other hand, it's only doing this accidentally, right? It could probably be optimized further if the goal were just transmutation. Who knows, maybe we could get all the way down to only 10 trillion per ounce! /s
The analogy I heard was that if you take a golf ball and enlarge it to the size of the Earth, the atoms in the enlarged golf ball would be about the size of the original golf ball.
Yeah. I think most ppl (incl me) lack strong intuition about things at scales outside our human day-to-day. Reminds me of a conversation about wealth, someone said "The difference between a million and a billion is... about a billion."
>> Just need to scale it by trillions to make 1 ounce, but transmutation of lead to gold - the dream of many alchemists - is now just a by product of particle accelerators.
Quick, somebody call nVidia!! They already integrate accelerators into their GPUs and they have scaling better than Moore's law!!
I hope that this can one day be scaled, even if 100 years into the future.
I do not want gold to be prized as a store of value. It is too useful as a material (inert, doesn't oxidize, food safe) that it would be vastly beneficial to society if it were possible to produce in limitless quantities.
Pick something that isn't useful as a material to be a store of value.
Basically, pick something with no value as a store of value. If we want to do that, we can just stick with fiat currency in a database. No reason to pick a material.
If we want a physical store of value, I actually think something of use that can easily be subdivided and combined is ideal. It doesn't even have to be as valuable as gold is today, this makes just as much sense if gold is cheap and plentiful. The natural inflation from creating more of it even helps cut down hoarding. It just gets harder to carry around enough to buy coffee (which of course brings us back to databases).
I can't help but worry that the technology wouldn't be enough to solve the way social problem of existing stakeholders not wanting to lose the value of their investments. I'm not sure exactly how comparable it is from a utility perspective, but diamond seems like there would at least some incentive to have available cheaply given how durable it is, but my understanding is that its scarcity is almost entirely artificial, and for non-utility purposes, it seems unfortunately very common for people to prefer "real" diamond, which fuels the inflated pricing.
That's not to say I think this shouldn't be pursued, but I feel like the science and technology side might end up being the easier half of cheap gold from this becoming a reality. I sadly have more faith in humanity's ability to figure out solutions to incredibly difficult technical problems in the long run than I do in our ability to solve the social problems that would benefit almost everyone but require changing the status quo.
(As an aside, I personally find the idea of lab-grown diamonds pretty cool just from a science perspective, and the fact that they're cheaper and don't have the same ethical concerns to make it unfathomable that I'd ever want to purchase a mined one, and I'm lucky that my wife felt the same way when we picked out her engagement ring, although she ended up selecting a lab-grown pink sapphire instead).
Given the half-life of Gold-198 is 2.7 days, you've got an arbitrage opportunity during which running it to the closest pawn shop might be viable without losing too much of your hair.
No, but in the Medieval days, it was a common hobby to try to figure it out, called Alchemy. They figured lead and gold were otherwise so similar, why can't you just... convert it? Because it requires nuclear physics instruments, or neutron stars. Some suspected it might be complicated, maybe impossibly so. Imagine going back to the 1500s and telling one of those guys "yes, it is possible, but it's not as simple as melting lead and mixing in some gold starter... first, you need to understand superconductors, supercomputers, subatomic physics..."
Stick some in a nuclear reactor and it is bound to happen. But it obviously isn't economical to sort out a few specs from the soup of other exotic and probably unstable elements.
Profitability is just a matter of time.
Uber was not profitable for years, too.
Just wait until the economy of scale kicks in.
Alchemy is here to stay.
Element conversion is only getting started!
Did my thesis research at Brookhaven National Lab, home of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), which is the predecessor of the heavy ion program at the LHC.
While there, one of the more senior scientists relayed an exchange from an ongoing review of the program. At the time, RHIC was colliding gold in the heavy ion program.
One of the reviewers asked if RHIC could save money by switching to a cheaper element, like lead. None of the RHIC representatives knew what to say. I don't remember the exact numbers, but RHIC used something like < 1 milligram of gold over the lifetime of the program.
I worked at a lab for a while that had a atomic layer deposition setup for gold. I believe they charged a modest amount (a few cents? a few dollars?) per single-atom layer of gold. The device had a bell-shaped chamber that you would place your wafer into, but of course no matter how big or small the wafer was, the entire interior of the chamber got an even coating of gold. The technician who operated it had a ring he would put inside the chamber alongside his own samples, so over the course of several years he had gradually accumulated enough layers to "turn it into gold."
Note that the gold produced is gold-203, which is radioactive and decays into mercury-203 (also radioactive) in a minute. It is not the gold that we know of, which is gold-197.
It is not the first transmutation of lead into gold by far. A transmutation from lead into gold-197 as been done in 1980.
In all these cases, the gold is produced in quantities so tiny that its value as a precious metal is effectively zero.
And if that's not enough, mercury-203 decays into thallium-203 (stable) with a half-life of 46.6 days. Thallium is even more toxic than mercury. You really don't want that gold-203.
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?
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 engineering.
We have literal alchemy, but we don't have the capability to make useful amounts of gold. It is not that we don't know how to, but that it is not practical. How much more will material science, chemistry, and maybe even physics give us in practical (technology-wise) knowledge? Plenty for sure, but I don't think our rate of technological advancement will continue in these fields. That said, we have so much to learn even if it is not immediately applicable to technology.
Where I think there is an absolute abundance of applicable and practical knowledge to be collected is in the fields of biochemistry and biology. We haven't even scratched the surface there. We may never find a way to travel faster than light but if we can adapt our bodies to last for hundreds or thousands of years in stasis it may not matter. To me, being able to easily manipulate biology is so much more dangerous than nuclear proliferation. Anyways, not an expert of any of these fields.
> How much more will material science, chemistry, and maybe even physics give us in practical (technology-wise) knowledge? Plenty for sure, but I don't think our rate of technological advancement will continue in these fields.
Strong disagree. We have only scratched the surface of material science and chemistry; we are typically working with the bulk properties of relativity simple materials.
There’s a very wide design space of metamaterials and molecular machines that we have not explored.
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
I agree that there's an interesting question how far we can lean into this space of applying the knowledge and technology capability we have, because for however far ahead of the outer limits of our capabilities get in the outer limits of our understanding from that matter, there's a frontier of applicability that also has to advance in the wake of those. It's interesting to consider if there's any principle that articulates the relationship between that frontier and the frontier of discovery.
In some senses, I've thought we'd hit a wall in part just because of the highly visible challenges to democracy, the wall on processing power of computers, how enshittification has caught up services and taken them down from the inside, not being able to pull off things like high-speed rail, the halting progress of self-driving vehicles, or just realizing that the buildings that exist in cities are going to stay there for a long time and not be subject to any overnight cyberpunk makeover.
But I think if our era was not known for the threats to democracy, pandemics, and war, we might have otherwise have had enough breathing space to remember this historical era as one of true, truly major advances in the frontiers of science. There's plenty on that front that would have been "enough" to mark this historical era as a distinct one. CRISPR and AI, by themselves, are enough to be the signature achievements of an era. And so far as it relates back to your point, I suppose on balance I would say I feel that the advances we have made don't yet testify to an imminent slowdown in our ability to translate from a frontier of our knowledge into applicability. So I suppose I understand your idea but feel a little bit more optimistic.
CERN's budget has not really had a budget cut or a need to justify its budget. Nor does it have extra money flowing, mind you. It's also really cheap for member states all things considered, I think as a french citizen I "pay" 5 euros per year or something like that for CERN ?
So they were just waiting for the price of gold to reach a value that made lead=>gold justifiable? I'm expecting a Discovery TV show about the new Gold Rush. Maybe Parker will go all in?
The Ars Magna abides I suppose? I really do think that alchemists would find the modern age of chemistry fascinating, if they could get over the horror of realizing that their religious theories of nature would require immense modification.
It would sort of be funny to see the best alchemist get the explanation. “Oh dang, I was not even close.”
It is somehow radically simpler in terms of fundamental underlying rules, and radically more complex in terms of… I dunno, emergent complexity or something.
Edit: imagine,
Alchemist, “But then we were right, it is made up of a small number of tiny discrete elements at the lowest level?!?”
Modern physicist: “Oh man… ah, yeah, but here’s the thing about ‘discrete’…”
Random question. Historically, why have Lead and Gold been so closely linked? Why did alchemist focus on turning lead into gold (and not start with iron, or a rock like quartz)? Is it just because they're two heavy soft metals?
The leading theory at the time was that metals were grown in the earth, starting as base metals and transmuting over time/under certain conditions into the higher metals, eventually ending up at gold, which they thought was the end point because it never tarnished. It was actually not a terrible theory given the information they had, all metals come from the ground after all - the idea of turning lead into gold wasn't some magical thinking, they were trying to reproduce natural conditions in the lab and speed it up, just like we do today in hundreds of other ways today. If someone had succeeded it would have been like doing the double slit experiment of it's day, a complete proof that alchemical theory was right.
replyming to my own comment here but for this audience in particular, consider that given this reasonable train of thought (that alchemy was like an advanced science which, if cracked, would have this really cool financial upside of providing infinite gold) - consider how many companies must have been created, raised money to do R&D, built working prototypes, rewrote the books & sometimes even made money by accident. If you were someone balancing their portfolio in 1700s Amsterdam, from a risk management perspective you would have invested at least a little bit on AlchemyTech just incase it really doesn turn out to be a real thing. People had lifetime careers wrapped up in it !
Most likely because lead was used for faking coins. Lead covered in a thin layer of gold. You know that coin biting move from movies about middle ages? It was to check if you’re dealing with gold or lead. So lead was the impersonation of the fake. Turning a fake into the real deal.
> This long-standing quest, known as chrysopoeia, may have been motivated by the observation that dull grey, relatively abundant lead is of a similar density to gold, which has long been coveted for its beautiful colour and rarity.
If one wanted to fool someone into accepting gold painted lead as genuine gold, it is easier than trying to pass off pyrite. Golds much higher melting point is a giveaway, though. I don’t think it was the idea of atomic properties that was attempted to be changed but the selection of certain properties that alchemy was attempting to transmute to lead from gold, such as melting point and color to make a cheaper gold in a lab.
Maybe because the weight was "close enough", at least closer than iron, so they figured they must be closely related. So we just need a "little bit" of work to it make shiny and beautiful and 40% heavier or so.
And I am sure they tried to change silver to gold as well. It's even closer in weight so an even a smaller changer is needed.
A friend of mine who was into alchemy, told me it was because the difference was only three protons. I don't if early alchemists knew that or why not consider metals that are less than three protons different from gold.
Those would iridium, platinum, mercury, and thalium. For varying definitions of "early", these alchemists only knew about mercury and maybe platinum (there was platinum in Egyptian gold, but it isn't clear they knew it was in there or thought of it as anything more than an impurity). Mercury they did try to turn to gold. They thought of it as an ur-metal from which all other metals came.
But as the sibling poster states, no, they didn't know.
One has to remember that alchemy was as much a religious and spiritual pursuit as anything resembling proto-science, and understand that occultists were working from a worldview which was nominatively deterministic - meaning the names and properties of things in the natural world held inherent power and reflected a higher, divine nature ("as above, so below")
The transmutation of metals in alchemy is a metaphor for the transmutation of the soul, from its base and sinful nature ("lead") to divinity ("gold".) The means of purifying one was the means of purifying the other, and the "philosopher's stone" alchemists often sought to achieve this was credited for doing both.
Also... it was often an easy grift to get room and board (and money) from wealthy patrons.
Here is a good /r/AskHistorians thread about this[0].
Thank you for this. Here's a pull quote from the linked article:
Broadly speaking, alchemical writings are not just concerned with the
manipulation of physical matter; rather, alchemy can be viewed as a
philosophy that synthesizes chemistry and spirituality. A common overarching
idea is that transmuting materials is directly analogous to the purification
of the soul - alchemists were, in general, trying to advance *spiritual*
enlightenment as well as *intellectual* enlightenment. It's important to
understand this mindset in order to grasp what they were trying to achieve
with metallurgy.
Because alchemists were afraid of people stealing their recipes. Jabir bin Hayyan (aka Geber) the father of chemistry wrote in his own shorthand which is named after him—-gibberish or jibberish.
So Lead, gold, and quicksilver were not the substances their names suggest. They were codenames. The real processes have never been revealed.
Most likely. "If we could just make this shinier... we could be rich"
Alchemists probably weren't thinking about the gold economy, in that if they figured out how to turn something common like lead into something more rare like gold, that gold would no longer be rare, and they wouldn't be rich for very long.
we just need a bigger transmutation circle bro, trust me, just one more transmutation circle, and we’ll finally turn organic material into gold, bro, just around the whole city bro, one more time
Readit News
Just need to scale it by trillions to make 1 ounce, but transmutation of lead to gold - the dream of many alchemists - is now just a by product of particle accelerators.
10,000?
1,000 billion billion gold nuclei per gram of gold.
Being able to detect these tiny amounts is nuts to me.
The ultimate philosopher's stone.
Quick, somebody call nVidia!! They already integrate accelerators into their GPUs and they have scaling better than Moore's law!!
I do not want gold to be prized as a store of value. It is too useful as a material (inert, doesn't oxidize, food safe) that it would be vastly beneficial to society if it were possible to produce in limitless quantities.
Pick something that isn't useful as a material to be a store of value.
If we want a physical store of value, I actually think something of use that can easily be subdivided and combined is ideal. It doesn't even have to be as valuable as gold is today, this makes just as much sense if gold is cheap and plentiful. The natural inflation from creating more of it even helps cut down hoarding. It just gets harder to carry around enough to buy coffee (which of course brings us back to databases).
That's not to say I think this shouldn't be pursued, but I feel like the science and technology side might end up being the easier half of cheap gold from this becoming a reality. I sadly have more faith in humanity's ability to figure out solutions to incredibly difficult technical problems in the long run than I do in our ability to solve the social problems that would benefit almost everyone but require changing the status quo.
(As an aside, I personally find the idea of lab-grown diamonds pretty cool just from a science perspective, and the fact that they're cheaper and don't have the same ethical concerns to make it unfathomable that I'd ever want to purchase a mined one, and I'm lucky that my wife felt the same way when we picked out her engagement ring, although she ended up selecting a lab-grown pink sapphire instead).
While there, one of the more senior scientists relayed an exchange from an ongoing review of the program. At the time, RHIC was colliding gold in the heavy ion program.
One of the reviewers asked if RHIC could save money by switching to a cheaper element, like lead. None of the RHIC representatives knew what to say. I don't remember the exact numbers, but RHIC used something like < 1 milligram of gold over the lifetime of the program.
It is not the first transmutation of lead into gold by far. A transmutation from lead into gold-197 as been done in 1980.
In all these cases, the gold is produced in quantities so tiny that its value as a precious metal is effectively zero.
What a horrible combination, mercury is poisonous enough by itself, it truly has no business being radioactive.
We have literal alchemy, but we don't have the capability to make useful amounts of gold. It is not that we don't know how to, but that it is not practical. How much more will material science, chemistry, and maybe even physics give us in practical (technology-wise) knowledge? Plenty for sure, but I don't think our rate of technological advancement will continue in these fields. That said, we have so much to learn even if it is not immediately applicable to technology.
Where I think there is an absolute abundance of applicable and practical knowledge to be collected is in the fields of biochemistry and biology. We haven't even scratched the surface there. We may never find a way to travel faster than light but if we can adapt our bodies to last for hundreds or thousands of years in stasis it may not matter. To me, being able to easily manipulate biology is so much more dangerous than nuclear proliferation. Anyways, not an expert of any of these fields.
Strong disagree. We have only scratched the surface of material science and chemistry; we are typically working with the bulk properties of relativity simple materials.
There’s a very wide design space of metamaterials and molecular machines that we have not explored.
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
Pah. The singularity is scheduled for around next Tuesday and we haven't even made a Dyson sphere yet.
In some senses, I've thought we'd hit a wall in part just because of the highly visible challenges to democracy, the wall on processing power of computers, how enshittification has caught up services and taken them down from the inside, not being able to pull off things like high-speed rail, the halting progress of self-driving vehicles, or just realizing that the buildings that exist in cities are going to stay there for a long time and not be subject to any overnight cyberpunk makeover.
But I think if our era was not known for the threats to democracy, pandemics, and war, we might have otherwise have had enough breathing space to remember this historical era as one of true, truly major advances in the frontiers of science. There's plenty on that front that would have been "enough" to mark this historical era as a distinct one. CRISPR and AI, by themselves, are enough to be the signature achievements of an era. And so far as it relates back to your point, I suppose on balance I would say I feel that the advances we have made don't yet testify to an imminent slowdown in our ability to translate from a frontier of our knowledge into applicability. So I suppose I understand your idea but feel a little bit more optimistic.
[1] Newton famously spent around 30 years of his life on alchemy ( the other stuff were really side projects )
It was long known it can be achieved, but it's prohibitively expensive :)
Though rather than lead into gold, it's known stuff into unknown or previously unseen but predicted stuff.
So it is, in fact, a giant Alchemy machine. Newton would have been proud.
Really? I thought, it was one of the Newton's doom which couldn't be achieved.
When did humanity know alchemy is a real science?
It is somehow radically simpler in terms of fundamental underlying rules, and radically more complex in terms of… I dunno, emergent complexity or something.
Edit: imagine,
Alchemist, “But then we were right, it is made up of a small number of tiny discrete elements at the lowest level?!?”
Modern physicist: “Oh man… ah, yeah, but here’s the thing about ‘discrete’…”
hehe. Seriously though, why weren't people trying to turn iron or copper into gold? Why lead?
Dead Comment
> This long-standing quest, known as chrysopoeia, may have been motivated by the observation that dull grey, relatively abundant lead is of a similar density to gold, which has long been coveted for its beautiful colour and rarity.
And I am sure they tried to change silver to gold as well. It's even closer in weight so an even a smaller changer is needed.
But as the sibling poster states, no, they didn't know.
The transmutation of metals in alchemy is a metaphor for the transmutation of the soul, from its base and sinful nature ("lead") to divinity ("gold".) The means of purifying one was the means of purifying the other, and the "philosopher's stone" alchemists often sought to achieve this was credited for doing both.
Also... it was often an easy grift to get room and board (and money) from wealthy patrons.
Here is a good /r/AskHistorians thread about this[0].
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/114vo4m/alch...
So Lead, gold, and quicksilver were not the substances their names suggest. They were codenames. The real processes have never been revealed.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/F8VYpIJjkoI
Alchemists probably weren't thinking about the gold economy, in that if they figured out how to turn something common like lead into something more rare like gold, that gold would no longer be rare, and they wouldn't be rich for very long.
Edit: this was a joke, in case it wasn’t clear.