Well, until they flood the market.

At 10 picograms per year, that'll be a while

They just need to build a few billion LHCs to scale up production

There are about 2.44*10^11 grams of gold in circulation. Let's say the LHC would need to produce 10% of that per year to "flood the market." With the current production rate of 10^-11 grams per year, we'd need 2.44*10^21 (2.44 sextillion) LHCs operating simultaneously to flood the gold market.

A single LHC weighs 3.6*10^9 grams, so 2.44 sextillion of them would weigh 8.8*10^31 grams, which is about 50 times the mass of the sun.

So in a way, all of those people who were concerned about the LHC creating a black hole would be right.

With this process we could produce about 65.4g of gold with the energy needed to boil the entire ocean once to full vaporization.

The Earth's oceans contain approximately 1.4 x 10^21 kilograms of water, which equals 1.4 x 10^24 grams. The average ocean temperature is about 3.5 degrees Celsius, and we need to heat it to the boiling point of seawater at approximately 100 degrees Celsius, for a temperature difference of 96.5 degrees Celsius. Seawater has a specific heat capacity of about 3.93 joules per gram per degree Celsius. To calculate the energy needed to raise the temperature, we multiply the mass by the specific heat capacity and the temperature difference: 1.4 x 10^24 grams x 3.93 joules per gram per degree Celsius x 96.5 degrees Celsius = 5.3 x 10^27 joules.

After reaching the boiling point, we need additional energy to vaporize the water. The heat of vaporization for water is approximately 2,260 joules per gram. Multiplying this by the ocean's mass gives us 1.4 x 10^24 grams x 2,260 joules per gram = 3.2 x 10^27 joules. Adding these two energy requirements together, we get 5.3 x 10^27 joules + 3.2 x 10^27 joules = 8.5 x 10^27 joules total to completely boil the ocean. Now, for the LHC gold production calculation. The LHC produces gold at a rate of 10^-11 grams per year and consumes about 1.3 x 10^15 joules of energy annually. To produce 1 gram of gold would take 10^11 years of operation, requiring 1.3 x 10^15 joules per year x 10^11 years = 1.3 x 10^26 joules of energy. Comparing this to the energy needed to boil the ocean (8.5 x 10^27 joules), we calculate 1.3 x 10^26 joules divided by 8.5 x 10^27 joules = 0.0153. This means the energy needed to produce 1 gram of gold via the LHC would boil only about 1.53% of the ocean. Conversely, the energy required to boil the entire ocean once could produce approximately 65.4 grams of gold using the LHC process.

as I have thought with the other numerous "boiled earth" comparisons i've read in the past few weeks : who cares? In what case is this a useful way to describe something to anyone? since when does a laymen comprehend the size of the earth in any meaningful way?

aside : it's funny how many wordy multi-step unit conversion comparisons have flooded the discussion space post-LLM... I'm sure that's unrelated.

I find multiples of the amount of energy needed to vaporize our oceans a useful unit of energy because 8.5 x 10^27 joules is too abstract.

It's just like 1 AU being the average Sun-Earth distance. It is easier to comprehend than 149,597,870,700 m when talking about large distances.

Many discussions recently have centered around processes which require tremendous amounts of energy and the vaporized oceans unit provides some more tangible if absurd perspective.

And remember, 1 AU is about 997.3 billion bananas laid end to end.

How do you define the major axis of a banana?

The longest dimension.

In a straight line?

Yes, laid end to end, after they've been bent.

If you were to lay them end to then, then bend the them, you'd have a coil of bananas about three to four bananas (bent) in diameter.

How big of a burger could you sizzle with that energy?

Hard to say because if you wanted to cook it properly but still apply the energy of the vaporized oceans the size would have to be so massive that it would collapse upon itself due to its own gravity and initiate nuclear fusion

Glad they didn't subscribe to "move fast, break things"..

With that kind of potential, you could get an OpenAI-sized valuation!

Only if the LHC doesn't quire gold to operate. If you're using ICs and components that have some gold in them and they need maintenance, you consume more than you produce.

Well, except for in particle accelerators, stars, and supernovae, atoms are never created or destroyed, so if they're creating gold, it's here for good.

Except that everyone with a fusor can feed the gold atom a neutron which converts it to unstable Au-198 that decays to mercury. Fun times when you can (theoretically) transmute gold to mercury with stuff you can order on the internet.

I definitely will mis-speak/mis-write, but my mathematic (also flawed) tells me that if Gold + 1 = Mercury, then Something + 1 = Gold, so we can find that "something" add 1 of the thingie, and booya!! gold!! (right?) (please read the above with silly humor)

In a slightly more serious note, I remember listening to Elon in some podcast 1-2 years ago saying how they create new metals/alloys that nobody had created previously, because they needed specific needs covered, and no known material had the attributes they needed. So.. in a way..

The same mechanism that lets you convert gold-197 to mercury does in fact work to convert the equivalent isotope (that is, 1u lighter than gold) of the element left of gold on the periodic table to gold.

The only problem, the element left of gold is platinum, and platinum-196 is not even the most common isotope of platinum, making up ~25% of it. You're rather unlikely to be able to make money on this.

(Not that you would have been able to regardless of the price of platinum. There are 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms in a gram of gold, and a desktop fusor is going to generate ~<1m neutrons per second.)

Start with Tungsten?

Wouldn’t that be platinum?

> I remember listening to Elon in some podcast 1-2 years ago saying how they create new metals/alloys that nobody had created previously

Comparing a slight tweak to the mix ratio of 304L stainless steel alloy to transmuting elements is a stretch...

The whole concept of "turning lead into gold" is somewhat self defeating. Because turning lead into gold doesn't make lead as valuable as gold, it makes gold as valuable as lead.

This has happened before. Aliminium used to be very scarce, and hence expensive. More expensive than silver. The top of the Washington monument is capped with aluminum.

A new process was invented to extract aluminum. So scarcity disappeared and value is negligible. Today we use it for packaging soda.

Turning anything (cheap) into gold means gold is cheap. It doesn't make us all rich.

There was a point in history when science was not public. Even after it became public, moat was still a thing.

I presume you're referring to the concept of alchemy in the middle ages?

The problem in that context is test it would have been impossible to keep the process a secret. To be useful (to say the king) it would have to be more than one guy in a castle. And between spies, and traitors who could be materially incentivised), and outright kidnapping and torture, well, I just don't see it staying hidden.

And its not like a King could really even hide the fact that he had a "gold mine" producing endless quantities of gold.

It's kinda like the story of the goose laying the golden eggs. The story fails to elaborate on what they did with the eggs. Presumably they sold them, but to whom? And did that person not get curious as to the source of the gold? And what did he do with all that gold? He'd need to sell enough of it to pay the peasant. Did his customer not notice the increase in volume?

So no, alchemy wouldn't have remained a secret for long. And the king would just be financing wars to protect it.

Fair point.

Yes, the moat is that you need the LHC.

> The top of the Washington monument is capped with aluminum.

Interesting. I was curious how large and expensive this was.

Apparently the tip weighed only 100 ounce, at a time the price was around $1.10 per ounce. Translating to 2025 dollars it would be around $36 per ounce, or $3,600 for the entire tip; much less than I expected, but still more expensive than the silver price today ($32.75 per ounce).

In a way yes, but(!!) if I know the way and I turn 50gr of lead to gold per month, and I slowly do this (not convert 200 tons of lead into gold and flood the market) then I can have a rich and easy life without destabilising the price of gold. But that's just me.. Someone else may play this differently.

Not if you're the only one with the knowledge or means to do it.

Tbh, it if couldn’t be recycled, it wouldn’t be used for soda. I’ve heard that 70% of aluminium in use today id recycled.

You could do that for decades already!

It just doesn't make a lot of economic sense, but I wonder why nobody made fusion art yet.

> particle accelerators, stars, and supernovae

I have no clue about this stuff, but don't black holes also change matter... somehow? I mean, with all that gravity and stuff, crazy things must happen in there, right?

As I understand contemporary physics, once matter crosses the event horizon it becomes part of the singularity. The singularity behaves as a single super-sized particle, so nothing happens inside. However I also have heard that many physicists don't believe that singularities actually exist, it's just the best mathematical model we have for physics that are too extreme for us to measure.

>> it's just the best mathematical model we have for physics that are too extreme for us to measure

It's not only a measurement problem. Rather, the laws of physics, as we currently understand them, lead to this singularity. Sure, many physicists may doubt the existence of the singularity. They will need new physics, not only better equipment, to challenge it.

It does not become part of the singularity once it crosses the event horizon. The event horizon is actually rather uneventful as far as any particular piece of matter crossing it goes - it only means that this matter can never leave the boundary defined by the horizon, but it doesn't change it otherwise. The singularity (if it even exists) is the thing at the center of the black hole, far below its event horizon.

Technically yes. But also, things that enter the event horizon are compelled to hit the singularity on a very tight timescale. I forget the exact fraction of a second, but even for a supermassive hole it's very small. So it's not crazy to think of stuff entering the event horizon as immediately becoming part of the singularity (if it exists, as you mentioned. My bet is that it doesn't, but as far as our current understanding goes...)

The precise formula, assuming that object was at rest at the event horizon, is:

τ = (2√2)·R/3c

So "fraction of a second" is only true if you're talking about relatively small black holes. For a supermassive one, it can take hours or even days for the largest ones.

But note again that this assumes no orbit, just falling straight towards it from rest. For orbiting objects it could take much longer depending on their velocity.

Also, this all is from the perspective of the observer who is undergoing the fall. From the outside, time dilation means that objects never actually cross the event horizon at all - no matter how long you wait, you'll see them as they were getting closer and closer to it, but never the actual crossing.

Particles with any (rest) mass can have lots of things that happen inside.

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-ph...

What happens inside a black hole is basically unknowable. We can only ponder the math which leads to ideas like space and time swapping roles once you cross the event horizon.[0] The only thing that comes out is hawking radiation, which is sort of like... half of nothing.

[0] https://youtube.com/watch?v=KePNhUJ2reI

> space and time swapping roles once you cross the event horizon

This is a common misunderstanding. Space and time don't swap roles. It's just that there's one rather popular coordinate system (Schwarzschild coordinates) whose coordinates t, x outside the horizon correspond to temporal (timelike) and spatial (spacelike) directions, respectively, and inside they correspond to spacelike and timelike directions. What we mean by "timelike" and "spacelike", however, does not change.

That's what the video link (PBS SpaceTime) explains. Quite well, IMO.

Kind of a one way path though - unless you count the gamma radiation and split pairs. I'm no expert either but it's pretty cool stuff.

Radioactive elements probably have something to say about that.

Just saw this idea recently -- to add to your list: "Magnetars’ strong flares forge gold and other heavy elements" https://earthsky.org/space/strong-flares-magnetars-forge-hea... "After black holes, neutron stars are the densest objects in the universe. A neutron star forms when the core of a massive star collapses during a supernova explosion. Intense gravitational forces compress the core, reducing most of its elements to subatomic particles called neutrons. And magnetars are neutron stars with intense magnetic fields. On April 29, 2025, astronomers said a powerful flare unleashed by a magnetar, named SGR 1806–20, created large amounts of heavy elements including gold, strontium, uranium and platinum. They think magnetar flares could produce as much as 10% of the heavy elements in our galaxy."

Can still recover the gold from old parts though.

Quite fitting actually, alchemists scamming investors with needing a "starting" amount to get their reaction going

You mean like gas money?

Seed money

They just need to name it AIlchemy.

You'd probably need to build another facility to actually extract the gold.

Sounds like a factorio expansion pack.

On the other hand, it's only doing this accidentally, right? It could probably be optimized further if the goal were just transmutation. Who knows, maybe we could get all the way down to only 10 trillion per ounce! /s

I just saw the price for lead jump up!

Shhh keep that to yourself. He might even fund science again!

hard to compete when stars do it for free

Tariff Alpha Centauri!

Agreed, down with Alpha-Centaurian gold!

Gold is exempt from tariffs

The stable isotope of gold is produced by the collision of two neutron stars, which is unlikely to happen in our stellar vicinity any time soon.

Can't the s process produce gold too? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-process

Sure, but even that article shows that it's a small fraction.

We don't have to wait for any new collisions. Plenty have already happened and left their debris on the "cosmic floor", so to speak.

This is something I don't get - solar system is say 5 billions years old (a bit less I know). Universe is roughly 13 billions, and our Milky way almost the same.

What this means is that there must have been quite a few collisions of such before solar system formed, to produce so much of heavy stuff we see in our planet, no? Stars can produce only up to Fe in normal way. Yet it seems such collisions are very rare, and its not like during collision half of the mass converts to a golden blob (or more like atomic mist spreading away at fraction of c).

I know 8 billions of years is a long time, and gold once fused ain't breaking apart to H or He anytime soon, but still it feels like our planet should have way more basic atoms and not all of those rare fused oned. What about super/hypernovae?

In what appears to be a fairly recent discovery, it seems that flares on magnetars can produce gold and other heavy elements, and these are likely more frequent than neutron star collisions.

https://science.nasa.gov/universe/stars/neutron-stars/magnet...

Stars produce beyond Fe during supernova.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the early universe was filled with giant stars, these stars don't last very long. Ironically, the more fuel you have, the quicker you burn through it for stars, so a lot of supernova have happened before our solar system formed.

For additional reading, google "Stellar Population" it's about the amount of metalicity in a star based on how many "generations" old it is

There's also a lot of open questions about how stars and galaxies form and our current models are known to be extremely incomplete based on the JWST data and our knowledge of the upper bound of how old the universe is from repeated measurements of the CMB & other data. So there's definitely a lot unknown about the state of stars in the early universe and how everyday elements we know & love actually came to be in the quantities they did.

I REALLY hope not.

How many years of inflation til that's realistic?

10,000?

lol, and this is deflationary for gold...

Wait a sec… ok I’m back. Had to go short $GLD.

My high school science teacher(Brother Quinn in the 80s) always said it was possible, although rather expensive, now I know how much - thanks.

and you can enjoy that gold for bilionth of a second