←back to thread

January 1928: Dirac equation unifies quantum mechanics and special relativity

(www.aps.org)
28 points thunderbong | 2 comments | 21 Nov 24 02:17 UTC | HN request time: 0.425s | source
Show context
hdivider ◴[21 Nov 24 05:09 UTC] No.42201327[source]▶
If our society were sane, rational, advanced, the headlines would be all about scientific and technological progress. The fusion power breakthrough of 2022 by Lawrence Livermore National Lab would still dominate the news. Large corporations would compete to create the first Star Trek replicator (at least for organic matter, food, etc) by advancements in nanofabrication. Politicians would debate R&D topics and strategy, figuring out which path leads to greater broad-sector economic progress.

One can dream. :) Instead, we have a society almost entirely dependent on many kinds of technology, and yet very few understand any of it, nor care to. Wonder how long this trend can persist until some sort of phase transition appears on the horizon.

replies(7): >>42201471 #>>42201601 #>>42201801 #>>42201903 #>>42201946 #>>42202133 #>>42202481 #
1. antonvs ◴[21 Nov 24 06:52 UTC] No.42201801[source]▶
> The fusion power breakthrough of 2022 by Lawrence Livermore National Lab would still dominate the news.

If our society were sane, rational, advanced, it would recognize that that "breakthrough" was a minor, arbitrary improvement in reaction efficiency, that realistically brings us no closer to commercially viable fusion power, and doesn't prove anything about the possibility of that.

That reaction still consumed something like 100 times the power that it produced, and the "power" that it produced was just heat energy, which would still entail losses when converted into usable form.

On top of that, the nature of the Livermore reaction is not one that's even intended or suitable for commercial power production.

At this point, we simply don't even know whether controlled, commercially viable fusion will ever be able to produce more power than it consumes. There's no guarantee that it will.

If you're not aware of what I'm referring to, this article is a starting point: "Why the nuclear fusion ‘net energy gain’ is more hype than breakthrough": https://whyy.org/segments/why-the-nuclear-fusion-net-energy-...

While this might all seem like an irrelevant aside to the point being made above, it's relevant because it shows how pervasive misinformation is, even when coming from supposedly scientific sources.

replies(1): >>42201902 #
2. elashri ◴[21 Nov 24 07:15 UTC] No.42201902[source]▶
The announcement was correct and precise. I am not sure what misinformation you are describing here.

Regarding your 100 more energy claim. It overlooks key facts about the NIF breakthrough. The fusion reaction itself achieved net energy gain, producing 3.15 MJ compared to 2.05 MJ of input laser energy - far from consuming "100 times the power it produced." While the total facility power usage was indeed higher due to laser inefficiencies, this misses the crucial scientific achievement. This was basically humanity's first controlled fusion reaction producing more energy than was directly input to the fuel. Dismissing this as a "minor, arbitrary improvement" understates its significance. This wasn't just about efficiency metrics - it demonstrated fusion ignition was possible, a fundamental physics milestone that had eluded scientists for decades. Though challenges remain for commercial fusion power, the breakthrough proved a critical theoretical concept that many thought impossible. Many critics before that were referring to this point as the reason why it isn't worth it to keep researching. And they were proved wrong.

Trying to redefine the announcement and experiment result to mean something else so that you can attack is a dishonest behavior.