Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheSecretAgenda t1_j1pgq53 wrote

The laws of physics are the only upper limit. Also, the amount of energy required may mean that things that are theoretically possible could not be done because of the energy requirements.

157

SublimeCosmos t1_j1zq86z wrote

Currently only a billionth of the sun’s energy actually reaches earth. The rest is radiated out in space to no benefit for humanity. If we figured out a way to capture more of it and move it to where we need it, that would unlock tremendous energy for humanity.

1

Endl4ss_ t1_j1s7l2f wrote

I agree but it’s also the smarts of the person making it

−3

Duckpoke t1_j1r0wr6 wrote

If we can harness E=mc2 properly I have a hard time believing even energy would be an issue.

Changing this to

"If we can harness nuclear fusion properly I have a hard time believing even energy would be an issue." because so many people have an issue w/ my short hand

−11

IsThereAnythingLeft- t1_j1r3nzt wrote

You sound like you have no idea what you are talking about. ‘Harnessing E=mc2’ isn’t a term lol

40

urtley t1_j1r5yqk wrote

Isn't he saying that turning matter into energy would give us plenty to work with?

21

IsThereAnythingLeft- t1_j1r7wdl wrote

So using nuclear energy. That is a term

4

urtley t1_j1rdgrx wrote

From web search: The mass converted to energy in fission is about 0.1%;

Imagine if we got that number way higher like the OP was suggesting.

7

Crime_Dawg t1_j1rhtmx wrote

You can’t make it go higher, it’s a fundamental aspect of the difference in starting mass of your initial atom and the final mass it splits into.

3

Gavinlw11 t1_j1rj5n0 wrote

To expand, the 'mass' lost in nuclear reaction is not actually 'matter' (meaning particles) it is just energy stuck in the bonds between particles, not unlike chemical bonds. Of course we observe it as 'mass' because e=mc^2, and there is enough bonding energy to effect the mass we observe, but e=mc^2 does not mean we can obliterate particles into pure energy. The only way to do that is with anti-matter, which we can only make by expending a vast amount of energy (more than we would get back out)

7

aspiringnobody t1_j1rzzkb wrote

You actually can liberate 100% of the energy “stored” in matter by annihilating it with antimatter.

Not likely in the near future but certainly conceivable in the distant future.

3

Crime_Dawg t1_j1scvea wrote

Yeah but that has nothing to do with fission / fusion.

1

amitym t1_j1trhyr wrote

Strictly speaking it is a form of fusion...

0

IsThereAnythingLeft- t1_j1rvmx9 wrote

Op suggested nothing of the sort, they hadn’t a clue what they were talking about

0

whitewail602 t1_j1rskkd wrote

I knew exactly what they were talking about.

0

IsThereAnythingLeft- t1_j1rvvxi wrote

Doesn’t make what op said a correct statement

1

whitewail602 t1_j1rxj1x wrote

Just because they're not up on the terminology doesn't mean they can't participate in the conversation. I hear stuff like this from actual scientists all the time and no one thinks twice about it.

2

Duckpoke t1_j1r84t2 wrote

You can always pick out who the real imposters are because they’ll be pedantic and go after someone’s grammar to try to disprove their entire point. You are that person

−3

shill779 t1_j1rqzb0 wrote

Ahhh yes grammar. That is the real enemy standing in our way of free energy. The grammar nazis clamor around as if beacons of death devouring our opportunities and crushing our points.

6

IsThereAnythingLeft- t1_j1rvfg2 wrote

Lol if you think that was picking at grammar. It is fundamentally not a term in that it has not meaning. Harnessing an equation isn’t a thing. So you are the one who has no right to comment here

3

Duckpoke t1_j1s0l45 wrote

Harnessing energy from converted mass? How hard is that to understand? Sorry if you didn't like my lingo for it.

1

IsThereAnythingLeft- t1_j1uy74r wrote

That’s not what he said tho. He just stated an equation, that equation works both ways too

2

[deleted] t1_j1s06ys wrote

Fine, I’ll bite. What does properly harnessing mass-energy equivalence mean in your mind?

1

Duckpoke t1_j1s0duu wrote

harnessing energy by converting to it from mass? idk how hard that is it understand...

1

[deleted] t1_j1s1501 wrote

Where do you think energy already comes from, my dude? What are you even trying to say lmao

1

goelrishabh09 t1_j1vhzmj wrote

Haha, i got you. Have same thinking that nuclear energy is very much needed now on commercial scale. It will start soon enough. You need some ruthless govt decisions for it but it will happen.

1