Why can't scientists make Gold?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eric333
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gold
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the feasibility and implications of creating gold through scientific means, particularly focusing on nuclear reactions and the economic viability of such processes. Participants explore the theoretical and practical aspects of element transmutation, the energy requirements, and the historical context of alchemy.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that while elements can be transmuted, the cost of doing so is prohibitively high compared to mining.
  • There are concerns about the stability of created isotopes, with some noting that they may be radioactive for a period.
  • One participant explains that creating gold would require nuclear reactions, which involve massive energy inputs, making it impractical for large-scale production.
  • Another participant mentions that certain isotopes of mercury can be converted into gold under specific conditions, such as in a fission or fusion explosion.
  • Some argue that the yield from such processes is very low, referencing Glenn Seaborg's historical transmutation of bismuth into gold.
  • There is a debate about the law of conservation of matter, with differing views on whether matter can be created or destroyed in nuclear reactions.
  • Participants discuss the distinction between mass and matter, particularly in the context of energy conservation and nuclear reactions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the feasibility of creating gold, with some agreeing on the impracticality due to cost and energy requirements, while others highlight the theoretical possibility under specific conditions. The discussion on the conservation of matter reveals significant disagreement among participants.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved definitions of matter versus mass, and the implications of nuclear reactions on the creation and destruction of matter. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the feasibility of creating gold or the interpretations of conservation laws.

Eric333
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
With all the scientific and technological capabilities we have, why can't scientists make Gold? If all elements came from just a few elements early on in the big bang, why can't we simulate it somehow? Is it that we can, but its just not cost effective to mass market it and drive down the price of Gold (i.e., it costs more to make the gold than its worth)? Or is it just not possible to create a primary element? And lastly, do experts think we will be able to one day?

Thanks, Eric
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
Elements can be transmuted but it's far more expensive than mining.
 
And they may be radioactive for a while.
 
Thanks for the quick reply Antiphon
 
Making Gold would be a nuclear reaction - that means massive energy in a supercollider to produce just a few atoms. It wouldn't be worth it.

To date, the only nuclear reactions that we CAN make practical use of are special cases; like atoms that are on the verge of falling apart on their own (uranium and thorium), or something simple with no need of control, like a hydrogen bomb. We are a long way from manipulating stable atoms in any visible quantity.
 
Algr said:
something simple with no need of control, like a hydrogen bomb.
Actually, a hydrogen bomb it takes a very lot of control -- without it, either the hydrogen would be blown away or the conditions wouldn't be right to trigger fusion or sustain a reaction.
 
Using fast neutrons, the mercury isotope 198Hg, which composes 9.97% of natural mercury, can be converted by splitting off a neutron and becoming 197Hg, which then disintegrates to stable gold.

It may be possible to create gold in significant quantities in the environment of a fisson and/or fusion explosion (such as a bomb), i.e. in an environment with lots of fast neutrons, in a fast fission reactor or in the fusion reactors that are being prototyped now, such as the ICF and tokamak approaches.
 
Hurkyl said:
Actually, a hydrogen bomb it takes a very lot of control -- without it, either the hydrogen would be blown away or the conditions wouldn't be right to trigger fusion or sustain a reaction.

True. I meant that once the fusion starts happening there is no real control of what it does. This is compared to creating electricity from a stable fusion reaction - that is much harder.
 
It's possible but nobody would invest in it since mining is a much cheaper and tension on an international scale regarding use of nuclear energy is sky-high.
 
  • #10
According to the law of conservation... Matters can't be created nor destroyed...
 
  • #11
Karimspencer said:
According to the law of conservation... Matters can't be created nor destroyed...

That is not correct. Matter is created and destroyed all the time (the hydrogen bomb is a pretty spectacular example). it is energy that is conserved, and since E=mc^2 matter can be created/destroyed while still preserving energy.
 
  • #12
Oh ok
 
  • #13
The yield is just really really really bad. Glenn Seaborg actually transmuted bismuth into gold once effectively putting an end to the ancient quest of alchemy.
 
  • #15
f95toli said:
That is not correct. Matter is created and destroyed all the time (the hydrogen bomb is a pretty spectacular example). it is energy that is conserved, and since E=mc^2 matter can be created/destroyed while still preserving energy.

The "m" stands for mass, not matter. You can't take particles and blink them out of existence (not without creating other particles) to create energy. Matter is most definitely not ever destroyed, even in a hydrogen bomb.
 
  • #16
Topher925 said:
The "m" stands for mass, not matter. You can't take particles and blink them out of existence (not without creating other particles) to create energy. Matter is most definitely not ever destroyed, even in a hydrogen bomb.

Apparently, the term matter in the English language is reserved for particles possessing rest mass and occupying space, i.e. massive fermions. By this criterion, photons are not matter. Therefore, the processes of matter-antimatter annihilation really do destroy matter.
 
  • #17
Dickfore said:
Apparently, the term matter in the English language is reserved for particles possessing rest mass and occupying space, i.e. massive fermions. By this criterion, photons are not matter. Therefore, the processes of matter-antimatter annihilation really do destroy matter.

If that's the definition you want to use, then yeah. But the fission-fusion process that occurs with a hydrogen bomb is not matter-antimatter annihilation.
 
  • #18
Topher925 said:
If that's the definition you want to use, then yeah. But the fission-fusion process that occurs with a hydrogen bomb is not matter-antimatter annihilation.

What is your measure for "the quantity of matter"?
 

Similar threads

What Makes CRISPR-Gold a Promising Tool for Genetic Diseases?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Does energy currency make sense?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Ruthenium-Iridium compound with catalytic effects
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Undergrad Is it possible to make non-radiactive gold?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
13K
Making The Best Use Of RAM In Windows
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Tech: Everything Old Is New Again
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Use of AI (ML/DL) in Science
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Experimental demonstration of existence of atoms
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Can Electricity Generators Survive with LCOE Higher than Wholesale Prices?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Why is there a difference between the composition of planets and stars?
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K