Slashdot Mirror


'Quark Fusion' Produces Eight Times More Energy Than Nuclear Fusion (futurism.com)

walterbyrd shares a report from Futurism: This new source of energy, according to researchers Marek Karliner and Jonathan Rosner, comes from the fusion of subatomic particles known as quarks. These particles are usually produced as a result of colliding atoms that move at high speeds within the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), where these component parts split from their parent atoms. It doesn't stop there, however, as these disassociated quarks also tend to collide with one another and fuse into particles called baryons. It is this fusion of quarks that Karliner and Rosner focused on, as they found that this fusion is capable of producing energy even greater than what's produced in hydrogen fusion. In particular, they studied how fused quarks configure into what's called a doubly-charmed baryon. Fusing quarks require 130 MeV to become doubly-charmed baryons, which, in turn, releases energy that's 12 MeV more energy. Turning their calculations to heavier bottom quarks, which need 230 MeV to fuse, they found that a resulting baryon could produce approximately 138 MeV of net energy -- about eight times more than what hydrogen fusion releases. The new study has been published in the journal Nature.

173 comments

  1. 8x more powerful X zero chain reaction = 0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The ability to generate sufficient quarks for such a thing to be sustaining is decades to centuries off but it's nice to know how it works.

    1. Re: 8x more powerful X zero chain reaction = 0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      We have to get more people buying these large hadron colliders! When the price goes down everyone will get one put in their backyard and we will all be rolling in the quarks.

    2. Re: 8x more powerful X zero chain reaction = 0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      If I'm going to be rolling in the Quarks, will I be a Top or a Bottom? I'm already considered a bit Strange, and without any Charm. But those are the Ups and Downs of walking around with a Hadron all the time.

    3. Re: 8x more powerful X zero chain reaction = 0 by CaptainDork · · Score: 0

      No mod points, but this is +1 Funny.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    4. Re:8x more powerful X zero chain reaction = 0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      How dare you question the mantra of endless progress! We have millions of times more computing power than in the 1960s! Just look at how everything else progressed!

      We live in the same houses, drive on the same roads, with cars that go the same speed driving on the same tires, while airplanes fly at the same height and speed burning the same fuel!

      See? Endless progress! This means the glorious 3D printed private-space asteroid-mined quark-fused warp drive is JUST AROUND THE CORNER!

      Look at how many cores my laptop has (and curiously is brought to its knees every four hours because a web browser needs to wade through gigabytes of temporary files!)

    5. Re:8x more powerful X zero chain reaction = 0 by thegreatbob · · Score: 4, Funny

      Quark Fusion; it shall always be 200 years off from becoming a commercially viable power source.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    6. Re:8x more powerful X zero chain reaction = 0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seriously though, we've pretty much always known the heaver bottom ones put out more. This isn't really news.

    7. Re:8x more powerful X zero chain reaction = 0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      someone is still bitter about not getting their jetpack

    8. Re: 8x more powerful X zero chain reaction = 0 by Dog-Cow · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You need to kill yourself. Please swallow some boiling lead.

    9. Re: 8x more powerful X zero chain reaction = 0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got 4 season tires that are new and they're amazing. Excellent winter performance and I don't need to be constantly swapping wheels.

    10. Re: 8x more powerful X zero chain reaction = 0 by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Found the strange one.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:8x more powerful X zero chain reaction = 0 by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      The problem for a lot of these is a lack of clean, safe and cheap energy.
      We got dependent of fossil fuels which are dirty, mostly safe and currently cheap.
      This in general limited our progress in transportation because any faster or less fuel efficient the dirty part of the fuel will have more of a cost then a benefit. We are already paying for the cost now except for a few idiots who want to ignore the problem of the world.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    12. Re: 8x more powerful X zero chain reaction = 0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Go be a bottom."
      In the race to the bottom, you have already beaten me there. Dude, seriously... a Sitcom? You obviously know nothing about the Naming Of Quarks. In fact, when they were handing them out, somehow you ended up two Quarks and a Pink short. You Sir missed the Muster Mark. Sure you haven't got much of a bark.

      You have never seen Beckett's description of the operation of Shift Registers, performed on top of the Dining Room table by the originators, much less seen it on Stage. You have never seen Nucleosynthesis as it occurred in Cave Zero, where outraged Electrons are flung off in Shells of Light. You have never figured out the trick for making Helium Hydride.
      You never perked up when this odd old bird ran into our Chemistry 101 Lecture, and announced the creation of a new Element, and was then present as a Group Leader a few years later for the Confirmation.
      You never got an Award, not even a Participation Award, for your contributions to Gamma Ray Optics, and then blew the money on a custom Mercedes Pickup.
      You never got your name on a paper concerning Yrast levels in tickled Hafnium 165 solely because you won a very late night bet on which movie "We don't need no stinking badges!" came from. You didn't have your name retracted from a Paper due to Experimental Fraud. (No, not mine.)
      You never had some of the weirder stories that you were involved in depicted on TV... badly.

      Instead, you watch Sitcoms, and sneer at puns that are still beyond your comprehension.
      By any chance were you an Business Administration Major?

    13. Re: 8x more powerful X zero chain reaction = 0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously know nothing about the Naming Of Quarks. In fact, when they were handing them out, somehow you ended up two Quarks and a Pink short. You Sir missed the Muster Mark. Sure you haven't got much of a bark.

      Riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.

    14. Re: 8x more powerful X zero chain reaction = 0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are season tires? It's good that you have 4 of them though.

    15. Re: 8x more powerful X zero chain reaction = 0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lost my password for /. ages ago, but that's funny right there.

    16. Re:8x more powerful X zero chain reaction = 0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *monroe-bot

    17. Re:8x more powerful X zero chain reaction = 0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like someone needs funding and a life long job of hunting ghosts making 1 million dollars a year.

    18. Re:8x more powerful X zero chain reaction = 0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be clear for others reading this more seriously:

        - we know antimatter is a wonderful source of energy, however, there is no known natural source and producing it requires many multiples the amount of energy that it can provide.

        - we now know that quark fusion is a wonderful source of energy, however, there is no known natural source and producing it requires many multiples the amount of energy that it can provide.

        - we know sequestered hydrocarbon fuels to be a wonderful source of energy. Producing it requires many multiples the amount of energy that it can provide, but fortunately there are (was) plentiful natural reserves.

      It's all about the energy people, and I wish it was taught better in schools as it gives one deep insight into what is, and isn't, possible in this little old/young* universe of ours.

      *matter of perspective.

    19. Re: 8x more powerful X zero chain reaction = 0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey leave the ghostbusters out of this. They offer a valuable service.

    20. Re: 8x more powerful X zero chain reaction = 0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're into this sort of thing, read "Riddley Walker". Wonderful Language:
      "What Goodparley calls Eusas head which it ben a girt box of knowing and you hook up peopl to it thats what a puter ben. We ben the Puter Leat we had the woal worl in our mynd and we had worls beyont this in our mynd we programmit pas the sarvering gallack seas."

      "We ben the Puter Leat..."
      Well, that's Slashdot...

      Hmmm... interesting Captcha: nonempty

  2. Hooray! Bigger bombs! by stevegee58 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Trump and Kim will love that.

  3. Re:Hooray! Bigger bombs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    100MT should be enough for anyone.

  4. When do I get my flying Delorean? by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    This should be enough power, right?

    1. Re:When do I get my flying Delorean? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      138 MeV is only about 2*10^-11 joules of energy.

      For comparison, a typical AA battery has about 13,000 joules of energy when bought off the shelf.

    2. Re:When do I get my flying Delorean? by slack_justyb · · Score: 2

      Correct the single reaction is only 138 MeV. The whole point is that a single gram of material provides 6.02*10^23 reactions. That's 1.186 * 10^13 joules. 6.3 * 10^13 is roughly the energy in the Hiroshima bomb. However, I can be wrong about that, that's some serious back of the napkin math on a process I haven't really read up on, but it is Avogadro's number for the molar mass of a gram of hydrogen. Point being, while a single reaction is very weak, a single gram of material provides a massive amount of chances for a reaction.

    3. Re:When do I get my flying Delorean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is slashdot, not reddit. I think people are capable of sussing out that a quark reactor would not be fusing a pair of quarks and then call it a day.

      You don't have to prove how smart you are by doing grammar-school maths.

    4. Re:When do I get my flying Delorean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I think people are capable
      mark wasn't, necessitating remark

      Not that slack needed to jerk off either

  5. Oh, Great! by freeze128 · · Score: 4, Funny

    This means that ubiquitous fusion energy is 50 years away again!

    1. Re:Oh, Great! by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 2

      This means that ubiquitous fusion energy is 50 years away again!

      Even better yet, we'll have 8 times as much fusion energy in 50 years!

    2. Re:Oh, Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great idea.

      Let's get energy by fusing ubiquitons.

      I mean, they're like ...everywhere.

    3. Re:Oh, Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It means that in 50 years time there'll be a new "Fallout"-type game but themed on Quark-instead-of-nuclear energy. It'll basically be the same as the Fallout games but 8 times better.
      So that's something to look forward to.

    4. Re:Oh, Great! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I'm using fusion power right now. It powers my car!

      No need to build more, the one we have is sufficient.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Oh, Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I need some more explaining, because quarks are already fused at the lowest level of energy into particles, One would have to disassemble them first [then the farther they get from each other the more energy the system has]. I really don't get it.

    6. Re:Oh, Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too! Life was so considerate to collect it for me a few hundred million years ago ;)

    7. Re:Oh, Great! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Quarks, along with electrons, are believed fundamental at the moment, as they cannot be split or even collided, so are either tiny beyond statistical belief, or are true point particles.

      Anyway, quarks form together to make protons and neutrons and stuff, and protons and neutrons together make the nucleus of an atom. It turns out jamming quarks together to make protons and neutrons gives off 8x more energy than jamming neutrons and protons together to make the nucleus of an atom.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    8. Re:Oh, Great! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but we've got lots of hydrogen around, and if we fuse that into heavier elements we create power. All the quarks I can see here at my desk are pretty firmly bound, and we'd have to unbind them to fuse them. According to TFS, scientists bashed atoms together in the LHC and got a few quarks to swap around. That doesn't sound like an energy source (from TFS).

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    9. Re:Oh, Great! by Mkkby · · Score: 2

      50 years is far too optimistic. With no working theories for energy gain, containment or collection, it really is infinity years away.

  6. Quirk in quark. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Deuterium for regular fusion. What for the quark fusion? Not to mention the very short life of quarks.

    1. Re: Quirk in quark. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was in the Holosuite with federation trollops!

      It's not his fault he finally fused...

  7. Don't get too exited by Dorianny · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is NOT a usable source of energy. The quarks are so short-lived that a sustained reaction is impossible

    1. Re:Don't get too exited by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      That just means we need to incorporate time manipulation into the reaction.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Don't get too exited by atherophage · · Score: 1

      Eight times zero is still zero. Until this is realized another billion dollars will be thrown at this generating a couple dozed PhD's.

    3. Re:Don't get too exited by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

      How old was Quark? He didn't seem short-lived to me.

    4. Re: Don't get too exited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Of course Quark fusion is unacceptably unstable. While not quite as good, there is an alternative which is much more stable. Ladies and gentlemen, get ready for...

      PageMaker Fusion!

    5. Re:Don't get too exited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they said man would never fly and the world only needs five computers, Luddite!

      Our computers got better therefore everything will. See you on Mars!

    6. Re:Don't get too exited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if quarks could be generated reliably at nanometer scale distances?
      Could modern integrated circuit lithography make an array of such devices to generate kilowatts?

    7. Re:Don't get too exited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if my ass could shoot out unicorns?
      Could modern underwear factories make an array of poop chutes to generate a warp field?

    8. Re:Don't get too exited by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 0

      They also said that nobody would adopt horses on steam powered pogo sticks as a method of transportation.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    9. Re: Don't get too exited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know the muted trumpet after Debbie Downer opens her mouth? I'm hearing it now.

    10. Re: Don't get too exited by sheramil · · Score: 1

      Of course Quark fusion is unacceptably unstable.

      I am now imagining Quark and the Grand Nagus doing that little dance, side by side, pointing their fingers in the air, leaning towards each other and shouting "Fu... sion.. HAA!"

      I'm not apologising.

    11. Re: Don't get too exited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also said the dream of a Communist Utopia, ultimate progress, would work, the first french commune collapsed in 2 months and all the other regimes are like 100 million deaths later.

      Sometimes dreams work in reality, often they don't.

    12. Re:Don't get too exited by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is NOT a usable source of energy.

      More importantly, the energy required to create the baryons in the first place is 1-2 orders of magnitude more than the fusion releases and you get more energy just waiting for them to decay.

    13. Re:Don't get too exited by slack_justyb · · Score: 4, Informative

      Exactly this! The whole reason nuclear fusion works is because we're tapping into the energy in a neutron. A star's massive size creates a sizable amount of gravitational energy. A small amount of this gravitational energy is used to transition a proton into a neutron via the weak force. This creates deuterium. That eventually flies away from a star and carries off the energy or stays put and gains more energy by converting into helium. In nuclear fusion, we bring two deuterium atoms and form either tritium or Helium-3. The process of doing so releases some of that energy that was used to originally bind the proton and neutron. Fusion isn't creating energy from nothing, it came from somewhere to begin with. It's just that we've got so many isotopes of hydrogen, helium, and lithium on this planet, that using them as a fuel is cheap. We don't have some magic well for doubly charmed or bottom quarks.

    14. Re:Don't get too exited by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But it is eight times as zero!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Don't get too exited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The quarks are so short-lived that a sustained reaction is impossible

      That's not even the fundamental reason why it's not a usable source of energy. You need to expend energy to create the quarks in the first place, and you only get a fraction of it back by fusing them. You might as well imagine using a wire spring as a power source: you need to spend energy to compress it, then you can get some of it back as it expands.

    16. Re:Don't get too exited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that we can increase the efficiency of this to a thousand times zero with little effort.

    17. Re:Don't get too exited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      High energy particle has, erm, high energy! News at 11.

      Reactions between unstable exotic particles don't really mean much unless they catalyze something useful.

      Next up, Could a Higgs Boson RTG could solve earth's energy needs?

    18. Re:Don't get too exited by Netbending · · Score: 1

      Famous last words. Lets wait a century or two and see.

    19. Re:Don't get too exited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really wish the reaction had been eleven times greater...

    20. Re:Don't get too exited by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      And they were wrong.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  8. Re:Hooray! Bigger bombs! by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2, Informative

    Trump and Kim will love that.

    Well... From TFA:

    However, their fears that this quark fusion could be weaponized soon fizzled out as they realized in subsequent experiments that quarks exist only for about one picosecond. That’s too short a time to create a chain reaction to set off more baryons, as the quarks quickly decay into less volatile, lighter quarks.

    (In short, they decay faster than Trump's attention span.)

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  9. Spectacularly confused summary by tyme · · Score: 5, Informative
    The fusion isn't a fusion of quarks, but of baryons: two Lambda baryons fuse to form a Chi baryon and a neutron, which is analogous to Deuterium/Tritium nuclear fusion. The bottom form of the Lambda to Chi baryon fusion results in about 11x as much energy released as the charmed form.

    Anyone who knows anything about subatomic physics would know that you can't have fusion of individual quarks because quarks never occur individually outside of a baryon, so the summary is simply incoherent nonsense.

    --
    just a ghost in the machine.
    1. Re:Spectacularly confused summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has the reverse transcriptase survived the nucleotide synthesis?

    2. Re:Spectacularly confused summary by markus · · Score: 1

      Where are my mod points when I need them?

      Thank you for the concise and accurate summary. The only isolated quark is a dairy product.

    3. Re:Spectacularly confused summary by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So if I happen to have a couple of charm or bottom Lambda bosons, I can do something clever to collide them and I can get energy. Alternatively, I could just wait about 10^-12 seconds until they decay of their own accord, and I can get energy.

      It got past the Nature reviewers, so I suppose there must be some point, but I'm not seeing it.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    4. Re:Spectacularly confused summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...because quarks never occur individually outside of a baryon,

      That's not the reason. The reason is that they are fundamental quantum particles. Electrons don't fuse either.

    5. Re:Spectacularly confused summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It got past the Nature reviewers, so I suppose there must be some point, but I'm not seeing it.

      I assume the researchers and the Nature reviewers - being, unlike Slashdot submitters and editors, in possession of at least two brain cells each - were not treating it as a miraculous power source. Rather, they were publishing a description of the way certain exotic particles interact with one another, confirming or refuting the way theory says they should, like thousands of other papers examining the intricacies of particle physics.

    6. Re:Spectacularly confused summary by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2

      I could just wait about 10^-12 seconds until they decay of their own accord

      What do you plan to do during all that time?

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    7. Re:Spectacularly confused summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It got past the Nature reviewers, so I suppose there must be some point, but I'm not seeing it.

      I think the real point is to show that Slashdot isn't an outlier when it comes to misleading titles and poorly handled stories.

    8. Re:Spectacularly confused summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if I happen to have a couple of charm or bottom Lambda bosons, I can do something clever to collide them and I can get energy. Alternatively, I could just wait about 10^-12 seconds until they decay of their own accord, and I can get energy.

      It got past the Nature reviewers, so I suppose there must be some point, but I'm not seeing it.

      You're "not seeing it", because you posted without even bothering to look. I don't know if the article is pay walled, but the abstract certainly isn't. This is the last sentence of the abstract.

      At present, however, the very short lifetimes of the heavy bottom and charm quarks preclude any practical applications of such reactions.

    9. Re:Spectacularly confused summary by ImprovOmega · · Score: 2

      It happens that 10^-12 seconds is the average length of time a person on Slashdot spends reading the article and considering a reply before they begin posting about it. It would be much shorter, but people like OP keep skewing up the average.

  10. Okay, but by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    What about Rom Fusion?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Okay, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Con Fusion?

  11. If only we had a pile of loose quarks by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

    Since 99% of an atom's mass is the binding energy of the quarks, I would say that would be a great source of energy. But since we don't have a pile of loose quarks sitting around, I don't see how that would be much use. We would have to expend energy to break them apart first.

    1. Re:If only we had a pile of loose quarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this is a great way of producing energy during those family holidays at the start of the Universe, or on a singularity inside of a black hole as it forms.

  12. This is in line with rules of acquisition. by sinij · · Score: 1

    Eight times more? This is in line with rules of acquisition.

  13. Quark bomb? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do I make a thermonuclear Quark bomb out of this knowledge?

  14. Who wrote that summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > releases energy that's 12 MeV more energy

    Is the submitter trying to say that the fusion process releases a total of 142 MeV of energy? Because they chose a terrible way to say that.

  15. Re:Hooray! Bigger bombs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (In short, they decay faster than Trump's attention span.)

    Nah, Trump's attention span is on the order of the Planck Time.

  16. buying quarks by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    I'll take a pound of quarks please. Put it on my tab, I'm good for it.

    1. Re:buying quarks by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      I'll take a pound of quarks please.

      Here you have a 1-pound stone full of high-quality quarks. It is $1 for the stone and $1 trillion for the quarks. LOL.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
  17. Re:We got lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Free Libya" oh that is a funny one

  18. Re:The Republicans will never let us have this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    University of Utah demonstrated cold fusion in 1989, but notice that the Republicans haven't allowed us to have it yet.

  19. The Mouse That Roared by bunyip · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hmmm...

    Maybe that movie was prophetic and they'll produce a Q-bomb, with more power than all the A-bombs and H-bombs of the world combined...

    A.

    1. Re:The Mouse That Roared by neoRUR · · Score: 1

      They were hesitant about publishing this because of the threat of making a Q-Bomb out of it, but they said that the Baryon's didn't last long enough to create a chain reaction.
      But I'm sure someone will figure out how to make them last longer also.

    2. Re:The Mouse That Roared by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      They were hesitant about publishing this because of the threat of making a Q-Bomb out of it, but they said that the Baryon's didn't last long enough to create a chain reaction.
      But I'm sure someone will figure out how to make them last longer also.

      That's simple; Accelerate all the baryons you plan to fuse to a significant fraction of C large enough to produce sufficient time-dilation effects.

      Of course, to achieve that kind of velocity you'll need large scale quark-fusion levels of energy.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    3. Re:The Mouse That Roared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm... like some sort of super accelerator turned into a space gun that makes fusion at a specific distance out. fire quark torpedos... pew pew

    4. Re:The Mouse That Roared by John+Da'+Baddest · · Score: 1

      That's simple; Accelerate all the baryons you plan to fuse to a significant fraction of C large enough to produce sufficient time-dilation effects.

      I'm curious about this possibility. To my understanding, velocities of non-C particles are always in context (ie, relative) to an observer. Thus you don't need to accelerate the baryons at all, they're already traveling close to the speed of light relative to some other speedy observer -- who may or may not exist.

      This "velocity gap" is sometimes useful in use-cases like detecting high-speed short-lived muons falling through the atmosphere, when they would ordinarily decay long before hitting the ground had they not been moving so fast (relative to Earth).

      But the fast-moving particles don't notice their speed. So unless you intend to stick your hands in and manipulate these proposed high-speed baryons as they zip along more slowly, relative to you, it doesn't change their decay fate or make the reaction any more or less chain-able.

    5. Re:The Mouse That Roared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if this new method could be applied to current nuclear weapons much like how nitroglycerin was first tamed in the production of TNT. Would we have clean running super nukes at our disposal giving us the terraforming power that we need.

    6. Re:The Mouse That Roared by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      To my understanding, velocities of non-C particles are always in context (ie, relative) to an observer. Thus you don't need to accelerate the baryons at all, they're already traveling close to the speed of light relative to some other speedy observer -- who may or may not exist.

      That would necessarily be in relation to the particle's space-time fabric within which it and the 'observer(s)' exist. Everything and everyone outside of that space-time fabric 'bubble' around the particles created by relativistic effects are the 'observers'.

      Interesting relativistic space-time discussion. However, in all honesty, I was making a 'chicken/egg' jest in that it would take the power of a quark-fusion reactor to accelerate baryons fast enough to create a quark-fusion reactor requiring accelerating significant masses of baryons to relativistic speeds.

      Or, could it be that...purely in jest...I unwittingly unlocked the secret to quark-fusion, ushering-in Mankind's "Golden Age" of cheap/clean power and interstellar travel/colonization?

      Crap! I hope they don't blame me!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    7. Re:The Mouse That Roared by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Wow...Slashdot completely lost my hypertext quotes.

      Or maybe they simply entered a different space-time 'bubble'.

      Probably chilling with my MIA unmatched socks.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    8. Re:The Mouse That Roared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The proper way to do quotes on /. for years has been with the artificial <quote> </quote> tags.

    9. Re:The Mouse That Roared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think someone with an original 6-digit UID likely has it pretty-well down by now. Slashcode has eaten my quote tags (among other weird things) a time or two over the years as well. However, hands-down the most common thing for Slashdot to devour is one's hope for mankind and personal will to live.

  20. Wrong Quark by maroberts · · Score: 2

    You'll actually be a Ferengi

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:Wrong Quark by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      At least he'll have a bar.

      All I got is this freakin' moon.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Wrong Quark by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Wilhuff, will you EVER be happy?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Wrong Quark by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1
      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    4. Re:Wrong Quark by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I hold your Star Trek reference and raise you a Star Wars reference.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Wrong Quark by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, because "Quark" is from Star Wars.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    6. Re:Wrong Quark by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No, but the "just a moon"... forget it, jokes don't get better when you start explaining them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  21. Fifty years away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perpetually; just like regular fusion. Not holding my breath.

  22. Re:Hooray! Bigger bombs! by maroberts · · Score: 3, Funny

    (In short, they decay faster than Trump's attention span.)

    Nope, Scientific tests have proven that nothing decays faster than Trump's attention span. However, it seems like a Twitter containment field can prevent such decay

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  23. Checks out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eight times nothing is also nothing.

  24. What do the heavier baryons decay into? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this also release weirder particles than the positrons and neutrinos from fusion of hydrogen?

  25. Quark them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, we'll drop a quark bomb on North Korea?

  26. Re:Democrat wins VA governorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Virgina is a flip-fop state. Some times they elect Republicans, sometimes they elect Democrats. There's no consistent pattern. This is no "rout". It's just business as usual. if you think this election is an indication of a trend you probably believed that Hillary Clinton had a 98% chance of winning in 2016.

    Nyet komrade. Virginia has had far and away more Democrat governors in the last 100+ years, but––

    Spin it how you want, but up until the mid 60s or so, the roles of Democrats and Republicans in the South were reversed. The Democrats were the ones clinging to the old ways: segregation, Jim Crow laws, voter suppression among blacks, etc. Huey Long was a Democrat. George Wallace was a Democrat. Now look at who the governor of Alabama is today! And Mississippi. It'll be interesting to see how the next elections in 2018 and 2019 turn out.

    So, since 1966 Virginia has had eight Democrats and six Republicans, but more important than the numbers is that this race was largely seen as sending a message to Twitler. If you don't believe me, don't ask for citations; there are these things called the Internet and Google, you can do the search yourself. If you're not a Russian shill and have an average IQ you should be able to cobble up a google search that will give you the New York Times article, amongst others, as the first result.

    As for Clinton's chances in 2016, considering she won the popular vote, and only lost the rigged[1] electoral college vote due to gerrymandering, voter suppression, and Russian interference I fail to see what your point was about "trends." Obviously it's a trend that you and your Nazi brethren hope will fizzle. Those of us in the Resistance are hoping otherwise.

    Give my regards to David Duke the next time you see him, will you? Have a nice day.

    [1] Yup, ol' Swampthing even told us during the election that it was rigged. Somehow he managed to actually tell the truth about something. I'm sure it was an accident.

  27. Cost of 'Quark Fusion'? by Ze+Wah · · Score: 1

    8 x The energy but at what cost?
    I wonder what the current Gold Pressed Latinum exchange rate is?

    1. Re:Cost of 'Quark Fusion'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on where you get your quarks from.

      So, since there is no such thing as "loose quarks", and the only way to get to a state where this could happen, would be to yo this in reverse and spend the energy, the best case scenario is that you will have to spend as much as you will get out. But an practice, you will have to spend more.

  28. Anyone who knows anything about subatomic physics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you understood subatomic physics, then this energy would be a 'prediction being tested' not an 'observation being documented'.

  29. Re:When May We Expect the Quark Bomb? by lhowaf · · Score: 1

    Pull my finger.

  30. releases energy that's 12 MeV more energy by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    Why not instead of wording it so utterly retardedly go with something like:

    releases bigness that's 12 MeV more bigger

  31. As much by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 0

    Eight times as much as, not eight times more than. A technical site should at least know how to compare quantities. Eight times more means nine times as much.

  32. Before anyone gets too excited.... by joe_frisch · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is very interesting from a theoretical / experimental point of view. Its an analog of nuclear fusion but done with quarks. That is fun and interesting and well worth a nature paper. It is NOT however in any way a possible source of energy. The quarks in normal matter are already in their lowest energy state. The lambda_c particles they are fusing have a half life of a fraction of a picosecond - not something you might find lying around. Making lambdas would take far more energy than comes out of the "fusion".

    So its an interesting example of a large binding energy between charmed quarks, but since you have to create the input particles out of energy, its not a path to net energy production. The abstract of the paper says as much.

  33. Re:Hooray! Bigger bombs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Base Planck Units converted to Politics:

    Planck Length = Bernie
    Planck Mass = 1/Christie
    Planck Time = Trump
    Planck Charge = 1/HRC
    Planck Temperature = 1 Electorate

  34. Re:Hooray! Bigger bombs! by Khyber · · Score: 2

    Whomever downmodded you is a fucking idiot that has never heard of Tsar Bomba.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  35. This is a previously unknown energy in the univers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or is it? How does this discovery change our models of the universe? 8x the energy of fusion! Are there stars doing quark fusion somewhere?

    This IS more exciting than some puny human reactor tech.

  36. Sadly... by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...your post is lacking any truth or beauty!

  37. Minor energy problem by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Unfortunately, unlike nuclear fusion where the things you want to fuse can be found lying around because they are stable, exotic baryons containing c or b quarks have to be created. Since their mass is several thousand MeV - even more if you are using baryons with b-quarks - this will require vastly more energy than this fusion will release.

    In fact, just the decay of these baryons releases far more energy that this fusion process so it's not the short lifetime that prevents practical application it's making the constituents in the first place and, even if you find someway to do that, you are better off just waiting for them to decay.

    1. Re:Minor energy problem by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 1

      So.....60 years?

    2. Re:Minor energy problem by DCFusor · · Score: 1

      Yep, this was all utter BS and hype. Wonder if the authors were that stupid or just looking for some $?

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    3. Re:Minor energy problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, this was all utter BS and hype. Wonder if the authors were that stupid or just looking for some $?

      The study still is quite useful for astrophycisists... you know... to study how quark stars work?

    4. Re:Minor energy problem by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      Actually, it's a significant contribution to how subatomic physics works. The proper question is whether whoever wrote TFS was that stupid or just looking for some attention?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    5. Re:Minor energy problem by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

      No, you need about -13.8 billion years.

  38. I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can imagine that this could be a theorical exercise about some weird "quark transmutation" of two elements particles into another two not normal cause there is a "quark exchange".
    But I didn't find the quarks indicated in the texts so I think that this quarks combinations refer to some extreme shortlived particles generated in high energy experiments, very unstable and created in first place, so not useful for creating energy (because you must create the particles first).
    Even if the particles were stable, they could be usefull as a "energy storage" much like antimatter. But it did't same that way.

    I doubt there is some possibility of "quark fusion" based on elementary/long lives particles and gives a different result that classic fusion (mostly turn protons and electrons into neutrons, inside heavier atoms to be stable).

  39. girlfriends vagina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my girlfriends vagina also puts out and 8 times more intensly than my wifes vagina.

  40. Re:Democrat wins VA governorship by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

    people went to church every sunday

    And to a picnic every labor day.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  41. Quark? There is more energy in Grana Padano by havana9 · · Score: 1

    Everyone knows that soft fresh cheese has fewer calories than aged hard cheese. Even Mascarpone is more energetic.

  42. Re:Hooray! Bigger bombs! by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

    *sigh*

    Fuck, when will people ever get it right. The Twitter Containment Field (or TCF) only creates a snapshot, it does not conserve a state. And even though to the untrained eye the TCF seems to conserve a state, its attention half life is even shorter than what is contained therein, making it even less important than what it contains.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  43. Is this the Solarmanite? by anwyn · · Score: 1

    Is this the Solarmanite described in Plan Nine from Outer space?

  44. Moogie Approved. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quark fusion for all your energy needs.

  45. Quark already is my daily energy source, ... by antek9 · · Score: 1

    ... and I'll agree that Quark fusion is even better. I tend to fuse it with fresh fruits or berries, some linseed and one drop of honey.

    Ref.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_(dairy_product)/

    Irradiated foods, on the other side, tend to wear me out, so the headline seems about correct.

    --
    A World in a Grain of Sand / Heaven in a Wild Flower,
    Infinity in the Palm of your Hand / And Eternity in an Hour.
  46. Hydrogen is abundant in the universe ... by Ihlosi · · Score: 2

    ... but right now I can't think of a good source of quarks.

  47. Cold quark fusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How soon before we can see this variant?

  48. Not that surprising. by Rothron+the+Wise · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's using the strong nuclear force rather than the weak one, but as long as you don't have a free supply of free quarks (you don't) it's not really a power source. Don't expect to see quark fusion reactors at any time in the future, sure you can make them in the LHC, but only by using vastly more energy than you'll get fusing the quarks back together again.

    --
    A witty .sig proves nothing
    1. Re:Not that surprising. by strikethree · · Score: 1

      It's using the strong nuclear force rather than the weak one, but as long as you don't have a free supply of free quarks (you don't) it's not really a power source.

      Batteries are not a "power source" and yet we find them quite useful. Perhaps this discovery could lead to a battery that you can keep in your pocket and power your jetpack, personal AI super computers, and such for a lifetime? Sure, it may take an entire star worth of energy to charge that battery, but it could be useful...

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  49. Re: Democrat wins VA governorship by orlanz · · Score: 0

    I know the parent post is there to just get a pointless raise out of everyone and release some pent up stress the poster has, but for the foreigners who also may not know the history of the US (what the poster is really referring to).

    The US geographical part of the Americas in its 500 years of recognized history has NEVER been anything the parent implies. In many aspects it was the exact opposite. The US has been the most prosperous nation since the early 1800s (overtaking Britain I think) and has pretty much stayed at the top since... even with the Great Depression and Great Recession.

    Where the posters notion comes from is product advertisements of a "happy nuclear family" (Male & female parents with one boy & girl; all white) from the 1950s. All of fake-them were called Father, Mother/Wife, Jonny, & Mary/Suzy.

  50. The Quark Bomb.....formerly known as by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the Johnny Cyclops Bomb, after the President of the same name.

  51. I guess that means... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    ...that soon we'll hear that Iran and DPRK have both independently begun development of 'quark bombs'.

    --
    -Styopa
  52. Venting helps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or at least it should, not sure what's wrong in your case. Maybe there is something else to explain your obsession.

  53. Re:Democrat wins VA governorship by dadelbunts · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Reversed my ass. Democrats just switched tactics to keep black people down. Democratic controlled black areas seldom recover and do better, they are kept in a state of perpetual poverty and reliance on welfare. Coupled with programs to send black males to prison (super predators anyone) and they ensure black communities are reliant on them thus ensuring votes. The ONLY thing the parties appear to have switched on is freedom of speech and personal liberties. The party once known for being "liberal" is now trying to curb speech any way it can.

  54. Isn't this 'free energy' and therefore impossible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rather like Bessler's Wheel was impossible, because 'the law' says so, and we completely understand gravity and it's impossible to create a device that somehow 'harvests' it...

  55. Re:Hooray! Bigger bombs! by s122604 · · Score: 1

    Well hopefully, if we really put our minds to it, we can still figure out how to turn this thing into a big ass bomb

  56. Cool. Now how practical is it? by Chas · · Score: 1

    Whoops! Used the P-word! Sorry! Sorry!

    Still. Is this process any more manageable, efficient or economical than nuclear fusion?

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  57. Blueberry Quark! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like my Quark fused with blueberry, but Quark fused with strawberry is a close second!

  58. Re: Democrat wins VA governorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Says the guy who voted for the man who delegates all decisions to the establishment.

  59. Re: Democrat wins VA governorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will do. Wouldn't want you guys to have to stop playing the victim for ten seconds.

  60. Re: Democrat wins VA governorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is super stupid.

  61. Re:Hooray! Bigger bombs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet the Russians seemed to thing 100MT was too much for anyone.

  62. Re:Hooray! Bigger bombs! by Mkkby · · Score: 2

    While quarks may have a lifetime too short to use as a DIRECT weapon, quantum action at a distance should allow us to attack North Korea without them being aware.

    Trigger Kim's bombs to explode in their silos. Then play Trump's tweets over an over again in his head until he goes (even more) mad.

  63. Re:Democrat wins VA governorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Democrat won the governorship held by a Democrat in a Democrat heavy state that Trump didn't win. The loser was the epitome of an inside the beltway, former head of the RNC, swamp critter that Trump has wringing out of the party. From that you get 'the route has begun'. That's just delusional. Dem's picked up nothing in VA. With a route like that they will be a permanent minority party.