Genuine question for an outsider: would this imply that gold can be created? My memories from the last chemistry class I had, I clearly remember my teacher demonstrating philosopher stone ( aka changing materials in gold ) was feasible.
This article is about arsenic minerals acting like a sponge that holds and concentrates gold from the surrounding environment that it comes in contact with. It isn't creating new atoms of gold.
Gold can be created through an unrelated process of nuclear transmutation, but it's impractically expensive [0].
Gold is a chemical element, not an alloy or any kind of mixture of other things - so no, chemical reactions won't help you get gold.
Nuclear reactions WILL produce gold - in many ways actually (none profitable afaik):
- throw a neutron or 2 at neighboring elements, ensure they have the right energy for the cross section, hopefully with neutron capture and beta decay you get some gold (maybe the stable Au197 version, maybe a violently radioactive isotope though, I wouldn't wear a ring made of that. And it will eventually stop being gold when it decays). Oh an immense amount of radioactive byproducts. And the starting elements are often more expensive than gold itself.
- Fuse 2 lighter elements with just the right weights, you may get gold. But creating elements above iron is energy-negative so your fusion reaction will immediately die unless you can sustain it. All the gold we found on the planet was created during supernovas IIRC.
- Fission something heavier and hope that gold is one of the pieces you're left with.
- Start with an unstable isotope of Thallium, Bismuth, etc and hope for a few alpha decays to line up and get you gold.
There are actually quite a few paths.... and ALL the gold you'll ever see, whether artificial or "natural", was created with one or another (but most really is from supernovas). Remember, we started with only the building blocks in the big bang, mostly Hydrogen.
Yeah it's always tickled me that we probably do have the technology to turn lead to gold, it would just be at an incredible loss. Almost fable-like that (one aspect of) what alchemists dedicated their whole lives to chasing is actually possible, just not actually worth it.
It's like if the federal government allowed you to print your own money but only if it was ones and it turned out that it cost $100/bill to do it properly.
Nope, this doesn’t create gold, just helps existing gold accumulate in certain conditions. Actual gold creation requires nuclear reactions, which are technically possible but not practical.
Gold could be made by neutron capture on Hg-196. This is a rare isotope, so doing so would require two things: cheap neutrons, and a cheap way to enrich that isotope.
Helion's FRC scheme could provide the first if operated on DD (even if just at engineering breakeven). As for the latter, there's a scheme that's been proposed for mercury isotope separation that exploits the change in magnetic moment of mercury atoms when they are optically excited. This would use radiation from a mercury lamp that itself uses isotopically separated mercury to produce radiation that would selectively excite just that isotope, and steer the atoms in a beam using a magnetic track.
(This isotope separation technique has been proposed as a way to make fluorescent lights more efficient by reducing UV photon trapping in mercury vapor.)
The world's mercury production is low enough and this isotope rare enough that this wouldn't affect gold prices.
A fun little fact: We now have the ability that alchemists sought for so long (transmuting elements through nuclear reactions), and we are using it to destroy gold, not create it.
The processes involved are so expensive to do that in terms of cost it doesn't really matter what you are using as the source material, and the way gold is very resistant to corrosion is useful for using as a target in experiments.
Would be interested to know how this was computed. I guess this was a kind of survey and if so, based on the question: are proud of the US army or are you supporting us army action around the world then I wouldn't be surprised to observe difference.
Couldn't find detailed questions for the study, but it says they literally asked for their level of confidence
> In each survey, we asked respondents about their levels of confidence in a host of American institutions, as well as their personal policy preferences, their views on the direction of the country, their support for particular democratic norms, their use of social and traditional media, and a wide range of other questions.
Asset management business model in needs of clear reassement. There is clearly a lack of concurrence combined with high fees.
Moreover, the sector has in a recent years seen an inflation of legislative obligation impacting their costs.
I only know Cramer from the fun and others meme is been the originator. But that statistics should be taken with caution. Being long equity since 2008 was not really a proof of creating a alpha ( aka adding superior return than the market).
That's the long term low interest rates environment that incentivize W Buffet to make his famous 10 years long sp500 won't be beaten by any HF.
Though the problem is well known (at least for 40 years),
No french governments has considered diversifying the source of the revenue funding the pension system. Actually its worse as the only capitalisation existing are in a process to be nationalised.
Moreover, this reform is purely the outcome of political game. Macron electorat is mainly the 'boomers' who fully beneficiated of th situation ( in fact their pension are impacted despite having higher wealth than the majority of the workers).
I personally would consider a reform only if there an effort requested for everyone.
Yes, that's what I've done for about a decade now, and apparently more and more people do as well (abstention is record high).
The thing is I distrust big corporations almost as much as I distrust big government, but at least, it's easier to move to a different company when one of them really sucks, provided there's a bit of competition.
With governments, there's no such thing, you're stuck with them for 5 years, and their power only keeps growing.
The French gov, like most others, basically only seeks more money and power over society. Whatever the ruling party.
The current system requires more workers ( with decent salary) than number of retirers...
Given the population if getting older this creates an a very prévisible imbalance...
there are enough. there are using statistical models to predict that we wont have enough in the coming decades.
a biased model that is financed by private pension funds and led by mckinsey…
I have a very simple way to make enough funds to maintain current retirement age : increase our salaries. france income per capita is the same for the past 20 years, if you raise salaries it will raise how much money goes to pension funds. problem solved
your made in china tv or your fruits or even cars made in morroco will be greatly impacted by a raise in french salaries. butter in france rised 50% thanks to energy war. one can argue raising salaries will never reach that level of crazy.
Same reason as most other countries - reversal or population age pyramid because they’re of baby boomers generation being more populous than younger ones. Soon there will be more retired baby boomers than gen X and millennials working so there will be less money going in to pension funds than going out.
The withdraw from the $59 trillion Net Zero Asset Managers initiative shows somehow a little more nuance than the current doxa. Like it or not, this echoes the comment from former HSBC manager fired few months back for raising his own view.
