B Transmuting 'anything' into 'anything'.

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter phillovix
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Transmuting basic materials like dirt and water into complex items such as meals and diamonds is theoretically possible but not practically feasible with current technology. The discussion emphasizes that simply altering atomic composition does not guarantee the creation of desired macro materials due to the importance of atomic arrangement and properties. For example, the same carbon atoms can form either graphite or diamond based on their arrangement, highlighting that the physical properties of substances are crucial. While transmutation is not proven impossible, existing scientific understanding does not support its feasibility on a meaningful scale. The conversation concludes by underscoring the complexity of material transformation beyond mere atomic manipulation.
phillovix
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Hey there.

Is there any actual theoretical reason why things like dirt and water cannot technically be transmuted into 5 course meals and diamonds?
Is it not "just" a matter of altering the composition of atoms?
Stuff like adding 71 protons to oxygen to create gold?

Are we actually a part of a species that goes to war over resources when that is a thing?
Wat?

<3
Phillip
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Because Alchemy is not a science.

How do you propose to just "add protons"?
 
Vanadium 50 said:
Because Alchemy is not a science.

How do you propose to just "add protons"?
Preach it brother!

Now, back to the question.
"Is there any actual theoretical reason why things like dirt and water cannot technically be transmuted into 5 course meals and diamonds?"

Not currently having the technology to "just add protons" is not an 'actual theoretical reason why things like dirt and water cannot technically be transmuted into 5 course meals and diamonds.'

Say it's a bazillion years down the track and we have all the technology and can "just add protons"...
Can things like dirt and water technically be transmuted into 5 course meals and diamonds?

<3
Phillip
 
I would add that the answer to this problem has been know many years ago and it's about the effects (properties) of substances. Hint, Hint!
 
You are missing A LOT of things here. One of them is that just because you can "make" an atom, it doesn't necessarily mean that you can create the macro item.

I'll give you a common example that I often used. Take carbon atom. You arrange these atoms one way, and you get graphite. Yet, take the same carbon atoms, and arrange them in a different way, you get diamond! Both have very different physical properties.

In solid state physics, one learns that how atoms and molecules are arranged can significantly alter the physical properties of the material. You can take a bunch of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, and end up with an infinite variation of hydrocarbon chains representing different materials. Remember, your genes in your DNA are made up of identical stuff, only the sequence of the basis is different. Just a variation in the sequence alone can alter the function of a particular gene.

So even if you can transmute an atom (and this is really a BIG if in the first place), you simply can't do it and expect it to transform to a particular bulk material. A solid is more than just the atoms that make it.

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes Greg Bernhardt
If by "theoretically possible", you mean "not proven to be impossible the way that building a perpetual motion machine has been", then yes, transmutation is theoretically possible. However, nothing in our current scientific understanding of physical processes suggests that there might be a way to do it on any meaningful scale.

This thread is closed. As always, you can PM any mentor if you have something to add to the discussion.
 
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
I am attempting to use a Raman TruScan with a 785 nm laser to read a material for identification purposes. The material causes too much fluorescence and doesn’t not produce a good signal. However another lab is able to produce a good signal consistently using the same Raman model and sample material. What would be the reason for the different results between instruments?
Back
Top