← Back to context

Comment by antonvs

14 hours ago

> Fusion energy is really the only counterexample in history, which makes me think we are still missing some crucial physics about how it works

This is magical thinking. We know how fusion works in great detail. And “reliably triggered with minimal energy” is essentially not a thing, unless by minimal energy you mean something like 10 million times the energy of an air particle at room temperature, for every particle in a reactor.

What we’re trying to do is recreate the conditions at the core of a star - which is powered by gravity due to hundreds of thousands of Earth masses. And since we don’t have the benefit of gravity anything like that, we actually have to make our plasmas significantly hotter than the core of a star. And then contain that somehow, in a way that can be maintained over time despite how neutron radiation will compromise any material used to house it.

The reality is, we still don’t know if usable fusion power is even possible - there’s no guarantee that it is - let alone how to achieve it. The state of the art is orders of magnitude away from even being able to break even and achieve the same power out as was put into the whole system.

> at the core of a star - which is powered by gravity

That is what I meant, I doubt we really understand what 'powered by gravity' means. You could win a Nobel prize or two by discovering all the details involved here. You would also win a Nobel prize by definitively proving that nothing special happens, you just have high temperatures and high pressures.

The way we are trying to study fusion is like rubbing larger and larger rocks to produce more fire.

  • We have an extremely good understanding of how gravity operates, both inside and outside of stars. There are no Nobel prizes waiting for things you describe, because that’s all well-established and settled science.

    Quantum physics tells us exactly why high temperatures and pressures are needed, and predicts numerically what values are needed. We have a great deal of confidence in its correctness, especially because classical physics predicted values that were far too high - it’s only with quantum tunneling that we get values that match observations.

    > The way we are trying to study fusion is like rubbing larger and larger rocks to produce more fire.

    This is an incorrect opinion borne of ignorance of the very well-understood physics involved.