this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2024
132 points (94.6% liked)
Technology
59174 readers
2961 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We've known how to turn lead into gold for ages, you just add a couple of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Long story short: Uses a fuckton of energy, not worth it.
Fun fact: When Ernest Rutherford and colleagues put together the first paper about their findings they avoided the word "transmutation" like the plague. It has been considered impossible since before alchemy became chemistry and even though he was publishing in physics chemists would probably still have had his head.
Dumb question but would using nuclear energy make it more feasible?
Nuclear energy is more expensive than renewable so not really, no. Having a good combination of starting materials to minimise the amount of energy you need to fuse everything together, or even starting out with something heavier, would be the way to go.
For more details ask a nuclear physicist of which I'm not one. Honestly there doesn't seem to be much work on it.