Fusion! Science or Miracle?

[mfbukowski]

Today is a historic landmark in science, it has been announced that nuclear fusion in a lab has been accomplished!

Humankind has achieved understanding of yet another of God's natural laws which might have been called "miraculous" in one kind of religious  paradigm, but not for members of the Church of Jesus Christ, who understand that "miracles" are simply results of scientifically observed principles we commonly call "laws"

A paper by an LDS professor has traced the history of our beliefs.

https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/lds/lds-natural-law.php

"...If such is the fact, then, there never has been a miracle, and there never will be one. The laws of nature are the laws of truth. Truth is unchangeable, and independent in its own sphere. A law of nature never has been broken. And it is an absolute impossibility that such law ever should be broken.

This sentiment prevailed into the 20th century. LDS Apostle James E. Talmage, author of The Articles of Faith, wrote the following [Talmage1899, pg. 220]:

Miracles are commonly regarded as occurrences in opposition to the laws of nature. Such a conception is plainly erroneous, for the laws of nature are inviolable. However, as human understanding of these laws is at best but imperfect, events strictly in accordance with natural law may appear contrary thereto. The entire constitution of nature is founded on system and order.

With this more flexible theology, any lingering reasons for a "war" between science and religion totally evaporate. This may be part of the reason that so many LDS people have pursued careers in the field of science. For example, a 1974 study found that disproportionately large numbers of students who graduated from undergraduate programs in scientific fields in Utah (where the LDS Church is quite strong) went on to receive doctorates in these fields [Hardy1974]."

 

Edited December 14, 2022 by mfbukowski

[LoudmouthMormon]

I haven't seen any conflict between science and miracles since I was around 15 years old, and had developed the maturity to think about it for like five minutes.

[Buckeye]

Wait. Getting more energy out of the reaction than what was put in? Hmm … sounds kind of loaves and fishy to me. 

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Wait. Getting more energy out of the reaction than what was put in? Hmm … sounds kind of loaves and fishy to me. 

Yeah, that's the deal. I mean foot warmers cause exothermic reactions,  but this really is amazing. It was said on abc news that the energy created could have powered all the energy needs of planet earth.

The catch was that it would only last one hundred ten thousandths of a second.

Gotta work on that part.

But there goes the SUPER-natural.

God is and always has been immanent, and nothing supernatural. 

Alma 32 makes science LDS Doctrine.  Humanism becomes theology- it always has been.

I love this gospel.

 

 

Edited December 14, 2022 by mfbukowski

[rodheadlee]

How long will it take to make it into production and use?

[The Nehor]

That energy in vs. energy out doesn’t account for the whole process which takes a lot more energy to accomplish.. We are still not at a point where we can harvest energy from fusion.

Humanity has succeeded in fusion experiments before this but this is the most controlled set up. This form of fusion would be a good energy source if it can be made efficient and scaled but it is not the holy grail that ends most other forms of power generation and has no downside or waste products.

[The Nehor]

Just now, rodheadlee said:

How long will it take to make it into production and use?

It won’t see general use without a lot more refinement and this form of fusion might not ever be efficient enough to produce power.

[Pyreaux]

Miracles are all scientifically valid events we just don't yet know how to explain.

[mrmarklin]

Fusion is possible, but perhaps not in my lifetime. They have a long way to go. 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

How long will it take to make it into production and use?

I have heard "several decades" kicking around on a few reports, and another - also abc news- said "within a decade".  I have done no research, just heard tv / radio reports.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Fusion is possible, but perhaps not in my lifetime. They have a long way to go. 

They achieved fusion. It is just that it took more power to cause the fusion to happen than the fusion generated. Useful fusion is still not available unless you count the nuclear weapons that use fusion as useful. I am going to go with no.

The confusion is the they talk about this being the first time they have a net gain in energy from a fusion reaction. This is true but there were external factors that increased the energy cost way beyond any gain. This is an impressive proof of concept. There are a few problems. The lasers they fired to achieve this would have to fire about ten times a second to sustain fusion and continuously generate power. That is an impressive laser. It is probably not impossible but will be tricky to build such a laser. I am not sure what fuel this reaction used but if it was deuterium tritium even if the reaction could be sustained we would burn through our fuel supply pretty quick and produce waste products. i would bet it is deuterium tritium. This would help with energy production but not solve it…..probably.

There are other fusion fuel possibilities. Deuterium deuterium is possible but is harder to achieve and still produces waste products. It might be useful but it is not a golden bullet..

Deuterium He3 is possibly the best model but He3 is difficult to harvest on Earth. Options are to mine the moon (this would be very work intensive). An easier option would be to capture He3 from the gas giants using orbital stations. Jupiter has plenty but its gravity well is deep enough to make mining less economical. Saturn and Uranus are the best candidates for mining. We would need a lot of it. The fusion process has also not been tested at a larger scale and we aren’t sure how clean it would be. Obviously this will not be a thing in the near future and it will be decades or centuries before the He3 operations could be built. This could end energy problems if it can run without much negative radioactive output.

Proton Boron (I have heard it called Protium fusion) is theoretically clean and would be pretty easily fueled. This would be the one that would definitely end energy concerns without having to mine gas giants. The problem is that while it is super-efficient it requires much hotter temperatures (about ten times as hot) as Deuterium Tritium. It also requires much bigger leaps in energy confinement. The fusion testing facilities build around the world cannot handle this and the approaches we are using in terms of engineering won’t work. There are teams trying to design devices that can pull this off but it is possible this will require some advances in material science to create anything that will work.

 

Edited December 14, 2022 by The Nehor

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Fusion is possible, but perhaps not in my lifetime. They have a long way to go. 

Turn on the news- apparently it has happened.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Turn on the news- apparently it has happened.

Humanity first created a fusion reaction with the Ivy Mike test back in 1952. We have had fusion for a while. It is just that all we could realistically do was kill people with it.

[Stargazer]

On 12/14/2022 at 9:22 AM, mfbukowski said:

I have heard "several decades" kicking around on a few reports, and another - also abc news- said "within a decade".  I have done no research, just heard tv / radio reports.

The standard line has always been something like fusion will always take 20 years from now. An ever receding possibility.

[Stargazer]

On 12/14/2022 at 2:41 AM, Buckeye said:

Wait. Getting more energy out of the reaction than what was put in? Hmm … sounds kind of loaves and fishy to me. 

Well, no. The sun up there in the sky has been doing this for 4.5 billion years. It's not a case of loaves and fishes.

And it's not getting more out of the reaction than what is put in. This is because the energy encapsulated in the matter is already there. When you start a fire it's usually a small match that touches off a larger conflagration. In the case of a standard fire it's the release of chemical energy bound up in compounds already present. When you cause two hydrogen atoms to fuse into one helium atom this releases a small burst of energy that was already bound up in the two hydrogens. This is actually a conversion from mass to energy according to Einstein's famous equation, E=mc2.

When you do loaves and fishes that's a completely different kettle of ... fish.

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Well, no. The sun up there in the sky has been doing this for 4.5 billion years. It's not a case of loaves and fishes.

And it's not getting more out of the reaction than what is put in. This is because the energy encapsulated in the matter is already there. When you start a fire it's usually a small match that touches off a larger conflagration. In the case of a standard fire it's the release of chemical energy bound up in compounds already present. When you cause two hydrogen atoms to fuse into one helium atom this releases a small burst of energy that was already bound up in the two hydrogens. This is actually a conversion from mass to energy according to Einstein's famous equation, E=mc2.

When you do loaves and fishes that's a completely different kettle of ... fish.

This. Fusion is two nuclei combining to form a single heavier nucleus. The thing is the resulting nucleus is not as heavy as the two lighter nuclei combined had and the excess mass is converted into energy. When mass turns into energy you get a LOT of energy compared to the amount of mass converted.

It is pretty much the best energy production method we know of that we can realistically duplicate. The one other possibility which is many orders of magnitude above fusion would be matter/anti-matter collisions. Problem is creating and storing anti-matter is very very problematic.

In Star Trek with their matter/antimatter engines those ships should have a LOT more power than is shown. Like, virtually limitless outside of warping the ship itself which they loosely took from a theoretical method of exceeding the speed of light except it doesn’t actually exceed the speed of light for reasons I only partially understand.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This. Fusion is two nuclei combining to form a single heavier nucleus. The thing is the resulting nucleus is not as heavy as the two lighter nuclei combined had and the excess mass is converted into energy. When mass turns into energy you get a LOT of energy compared to the amount of mass converted.

It is pretty much the best energy production method we know of that we can realistically duplicate. The one other possibility which is many orders of magnitude above fusion would be matter/anti-matter collisions. Problem is creating and storing anti-matter is very very problematic.

In Star Trek with their matter/antimatter engines those ships should have a LOT more power than is shown. Like, virtually limitless outside of warping the ship itself which they loosely took from a theoretical method of exceeding the speed of light except it doesn’t actually exceed the speed of light for reasons I only partially understand.

Maybe it is actually fiction?

Nah, they wouldn't do THAT.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Maybe it is actually fiction?

Nah, they wouldn't do THAT.

Did I somehow imply Star Trek was real?

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Did I somehow imply Star Trek was real?

No, sorry, it was a bad joke.  It's just amazing that you know enough about it to know how big a device would have to be actually propel a ship of that size with  fusion engine of some kind!   Truly impressive!

[mfbukowski]

On 12/13/2022 at 6:23 PM, mfbukowski said:

Today is a historic landmark in science, it has been announced that nuclear fusion in a lab has been accomplished!

Humankind has achieved understanding of yet another of God's natural laws which might have been called "miraculous" in one kind of religious  paradigm, but not for members of the Church of Jesus Christ, who understand that "miracles" are simply results of scientifically observed principles we commonly call "laws"

A paper by an LDS professor has traced the history of our beliefs.

https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/lds/lds-natural-law.php

"...If such is the fact, then, there never has been a miracle, and there never will be one. The laws of nature are the laws of truth. Truth is unchangeable, and independent in its own sphere. A law of nature never has been broken. And it is an absolute impossibility that such law ever should be broken.

This sentiment prevailed into the 20th century. LDS Apostle James E. Talmage, author of The Articles of Faith, wrote the following [Talmage1899, pg. 220]:

Miracles are commonly regarded as occurrences in opposition to the laws of nature. Such a conception is plainly erroneous, for the laws of nature are inviolable. However, as human understanding of these laws is at best but imperfect, events strictly in accordance with natural law may appear contrary thereto. The entire constitution of nature is founded on system and order.

With this more flexible theology, any lingering reasons for a "war" between science and religion totally evaporate. This may be part of the reason that so many LDS people have pursued careers in the field of science. For example, a 1974 study found that disproportionately large numbers of students who graduated from undergraduate programs in scientific fields in Utah (where the LDS Church is quite strong) went on to receive doctorates in these fields [Hardy1974]."

 

There's another aspect to this article that somehow did not not get copied into the above quote.

We often think that early LDS leaders eschewed the science of their day in NOT accepting evolution, and ACCEPTING the biblical account of the six day creation.

Yet what did at least some of the early leaders believe about science?

You might be surprised! :

https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/lds/lds-natural-law.php

 

Quote

 

Although LDS theologians have mentioned the "omnis" from time to time, they have nonetheless taught that God works, in some sense, within the realm of the real universe and natural law. For example, as early as 1842, John Taylor (President of the LDS Church from 1880-1887) wrote that there are "immutable and eternal laws" by which the universe is governed [Taylor1842, pg. 46 (15 Dec 1842)]:

True science is a discovery of the secret, immutable and eternal laws, by which the universe is governed; and when practically applied, sets in motion the mighty wheels of useful engines, with all the various machinery which genius has invented, or art contrived. It ameliorates the condition of man, by extending the means of intellectual, moral, social, and domestic happiness.

In 1869, Brigham Young (the second President) was the among the first in LDS discourse to dismiss the traditional notion that miracles are contraventions of natural law [Young1869, pg. 140-p.141 (11 Jul 1869)]:

Yet I will say with regard to miracles, there is no such thing save to the ignorant -- that is, there never was a result wrought out by God or by any of His creatures without there being a cause for it. There may be results, the causes of which we do not see or understand, and what we call miracles are no more than this -- they are the results or effects of causes hidden from our understandings.

A year later, in 1870, he elaborated further, emphasizing that God himself works in accord with these eternal natural laws [Young1869, pg. 302 (13 Nov 1870)]:

It is hard to get the people to believe that God is a scientific character, that He lives by science or strict law, that by this He is, and by law he was made what He is; and will remain to all eternity because of His faithful adherence to law. It is a most difficult thing to make the people believe that every art and science and all wisdom comes from Him, and that He is their Author.

Apostle Parley P. Pratt, writing in 1891, was even more explicit [Pratt1891, pg. 102]:

Among the popular errors of modern times, an opinion prevails that miracles are events which transpire contrary to the laws of nature, that they are effects without a cause. If such is the fact, then, there never has been a miracle, and there never will be one. The laws of nature are the laws of truth. Truth is unchangeable, and independent in its own sphere. A law of nature never has been broken. And it is an absolute impossibility that such law ever should be broken.

This sentiment prevailed into the 20th century. LDS Apostle James E. Talmage, author of The Articles of Faith, wrote the following [Talmage1899, pg. 220]:

Miracles are commonly regarded as occurrences in opposition to the laws of nature. Such a conception is plainly erroneous, for the laws of nature are inviolable. However, as human understanding of these laws is at best but imperfect, events strictly in accordance with natural law may appear contrary thereto. The entire constitution of nature is founded on system and order.

With this more flexible theology, any lingering reasons for a "war" between science and religion totally evaporate. This may be part of the reason that so many LDS people have pursued careers in the field of science. For example, a 1974 study found that disproportionately large numbers of students who graduated from undergraduate programs in scientific fields in Utah (where the LDS Church is quite strong) went on to receive doctorates in these fields [Hardy1974].

 

Brigham Young said miracles don't exist- and belief in them is for the "ignorant"?

Parley Pratt said that belief in miracles was a "popular error of modern times"? (Wow!  Now we think that not believing in miracles is tied to atheism!)

Talmadge says that "belief in miracles is ...plainly erroneous"?

So why the fuss about evolution and a six day creation?

There are still folks right here on this board that demand that the bible is scientifically true.

Does that make them "ignorant" according to Brigham Young??   Shall we poll the General Authorities?

Edited December 18, 2022 by mfbukowski

[TheTanakas]

On 12/13/2022 at 9:23 PM, mfbukowski said:

Today is a historic landmark in science, it has been announced that nuclear fusion in a lab has been accomplished!

Fusion - science.

Walking on water - miracle.

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, TheTanakas said:

Fusion - science.

Walking on water - miracle.

Unless you think gravity can be suspended, or reversed, and science hasn't really even had a good look at gravity yet

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

Fusion - science.

Walking on water - miracle.

Water strider bugs are miracle workers?

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Water strider bugs are miracle workers?

If one considers water tension miraculous. 

[carbon dioxide]

There are no miracles to God.  God never asks himself how He did something.  He knows exactly how he did it and the process that was required for it to occur. 

Edited December 18, 2022 by carbon dioxide