
How to Turn Your Power Plant Into a Gold Factory
For more than two millennia, the promise of alchemy—and, specifically, transmuting ordinary elements into valuable ones—has intrigued scientists and scoundrels alike. Medieval alchemists were obsessed with finding or creating the Philosopher's Stone, a substance thought to turn common metals into gold. That turned out to be elusive, though arcane tinkering continued for centuries. Then, in the early 1900s, physicists determined that they could change one element into another by altering the number of protons in its nucleus. In an essay published in The Atlantic in 1936, a physicist wrote that turning mercury into gold —which is what Marathon is advocating—was scientifically possible but 'cannot be commercially profitable.'
From the June 1936 issue: Modern alchemy
That didn't stop scientists from giving it a go. Over the past 50 years, researchers have produced gold in laboratories, but only on the scale of atoms. In 1980, Glenn Seaborg, who was part of the team that first isolated plutonium, was able to turn several thousand atoms of the metallic element bismuth into gold by using a particle accelerator. The amount was minuscule—not enough to see, much less sell—and the cost exorbitant. Seaborg estimated at the time that, using his technique, making a single ounce of gold would cost $1 quadrillion. In May, scientists reported that they had turned lead into gold inside the world's largest particle accelerator, in Switzerland—although, again, the yield was tiny, measured in trillionths of a gram. And an instant after the gold atoms were created, they dashed themselves into subatomic particles inside the accelerator.
Nuclear fusion has proved similarly challenging, despite being pursued with similar fervor. Fusion, in which atoms are smashed together in order to release energy, is the holy grail of clean power, both because it creates less waste than fission reactors and because it doesn't carry the same risk of melting down like the ones in Chernobyl and Fukushima. Although experimental fusion reactors that can make electricity have been built, the technology hasn't advanced enough to allow fusion to be practical on a commercial scale. Fusion, like modern alchemy, is prohibitively expensive, in part because the reaction requires extremely high temperatures, which require a lot of energy to achieve.
Back in February, Adam Rutkowski, one of the co-founders of Marathon, started thinking about additional ways that a fusion reactor could prove useful—an extra revenue stream, perhaps, that could subsidize the costly process. He told me that he'd had a few other ideas, including one involving nuclear batteries, before he arrived at his epiphany: The neutrons produced during fusion could be repurposed to change one metal into another. A power plant, in other words, could double as a gold factory.
Rutkowski ran the idea past several fusion physicists, including Dennis Whyte, a professor of nuclear science and engineering at MIT. Whyte told me that he thought it was clever, and he plans to test the theory by using computer simulations during one of his classes next semester. Steven Cowley, the director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, who was not involved in the study, was likewise intrigued. Rutkowski has 'a really nice idea,' Cowley told me, though he would like to see more analysis before he's entirely convinced that gold could be manufactured in this way.
At the moment, Rutkowski's idea is entirely speculative; he's not sitting on a pile of gold, but rather would like to be one day, as commercial fusion becomes more of a reality. In fact, the utter lack of commercial fusion in 2025 is likely the largest and most obvious barrier to his vision. Marathon is not in the reactor-building business; instead, it hopes to team up with such companies by consulting and supplying them equipment. According to a recent survey, fusion companies have raised $2.6 billion in the past year, and the majority of company representatives who responded said they believe that fusion power will become a reality at some point in the next decade. Some physicists I spoke with thought that timeline might be optimistic, but they also noted that significant progress has been made in recent years.
I sent Marathon's proposal to Lawrence Principe, a historian and chemist at Johns Hopkins University who has written several books about alchemy and has re-created alchemical recipes in his lab. (He successfully replicated one 17th-century experiment that made a lump of gold appear to grow into a glittering tree inside a flask.) Principe was struck, while perusing the company's website, by the spirited promotional language—touting a 'golden age,' for example—that echoes the pamphleteering of centuries past. 'I'm getting deja vu here looking at this relative to 16th- and 17th-century texts,' he told me.
Like Marathon, many alchemists from that era advertised that they were on the cusp of a breakthrough, according to Principe. They wrote to kings and queens asking for an investment in their laboratory, or for a gold sample to kick-start the undertaking. In the 15th century, King Henry IV banned the practice because he was worried about alchemical advances undermining gold currency. That's a theoretical consideration today too. But fusion seems unlikely to devalue anyone's stockpile: Rutkowski estimates that a single reactor could produce just a couple of tons of gold per year—worth more than $200 million, but still a far cry from the 3,000-plus tons that are mined annually, not to mention that any gold produced through fusion would be somewhat radioactive and would take about 15 years to be considered safe.
The history of alchemy is replete with stories of dashed hopes and dubious boasts. In 1782, a British chemist named James Price, like Marathon, claimed that he could turn mercury into gold, though he professed doing it with mysterious powders rather than nuclear energy. After being repeatedly challenged to replicate his experiment, he agreed to put on a public demonstration. But instead, when the time came, he drank a vial of poison and died in front of the three witnesses who showed up. In the early 20th century, Rudolph Hunter, an engineer and inventor, was deemed a 'modern Midas' after claiming he was set to build a factory that could produce thousands of dollars' worth of gold a day by using principles he had learned from studying the sun. He passed away before proving his concept.
From the January 1973 issue: History of alchemy
Unlike those ill-fated efforts, Marathon's plan has real science behind it. If it works, the achievement would mark the end of the alchemist's quest, proof positive that humankind can alter the elements. But Rutkowski and company aren't driven by the desire for gold itself. Instead, they're after a technology that could help sate the world's ever-growing need for energy—a prize that's far more valuable and, for now, still just out of reach.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Atlantic
3 days ago
- Atlantic
How to Turn Your Power Plant Into a Gold Factory
Last month, a small company in San Francisco announced that it had a plan to manufacture gold—not merely a flake or a nugget, but tons of the stuff. According to a paper written by one of Marathon Fusion's co-founders (and not yet peer reviewed), the alchemist's dream could be achieved not by mixing powders in a crucible but by tweaking atoms that were superheated during the process of nuclear fusion. The gold wouldn't be the end game, more like a side hustle. The millions of dollars made from selling the precious metal could be used to offset the cost of nuclear fusion, a near-limitless power source that maybe, just maybe, could one day replace fossil fuels. For more than two millennia, the promise of alchemy—and, specifically, transmuting ordinary elements into valuable ones—has intrigued scientists and scoundrels alike. Medieval alchemists were obsessed with finding or creating the Philosopher's Stone, a substance thought to turn common metals into gold. That turned out to be elusive, though arcane tinkering continued for centuries. Then, in the early 1900s, physicists determined that they could change one element into another by altering the number of protons in its nucleus. In an essay published in The Atlantic in 1936, a physicist wrote that turning mercury into gold —which is what Marathon is advocating—was scientifically possible but 'cannot be commercially profitable.' From the June 1936 issue: Modern alchemy That didn't stop scientists from giving it a go. Over the past 50 years, researchers have produced gold in laboratories, but only on the scale of atoms. In 1980, Glenn Seaborg, who was part of the team that first isolated plutonium, was able to turn several thousand atoms of the metallic element bismuth into gold by using a particle accelerator. The amount was minuscule—not enough to see, much less sell—and the cost exorbitant. Seaborg estimated at the time that, using his technique, making a single ounce of gold would cost $1 quadrillion. In May, scientists reported that they had turned lead into gold inside the world's largest particle accelerator, in Switzerland—although, again, the yield was tiny, measured in trillionths of a gram. And an instant after the gold atoms were created, they dashed themselves into subatomic particles inside the accelerator. Nuclear fusion has proved similarly challenging, despite being pursued with similar fervor. Fusion, in which atoms are smashed together in order to release energy, is the holy grail of clean power, both because it creates less waste than fission reactors and because it doesn't carry the same risk of melting down like the ones in Chernobyl and Fukushima. Although experimental fusion reactors that can make electricity have been built, the technology hasn't advanced enough to allow fusion to be practical on a commercial scale. Fusion, like modern alchemy, is prohibitively expensive, in part because the reaction requires extremely high temperatures, which require a lot of energy to achieve. Back in February, Adam Rutkowski, one of the co-founders of Marathon, started thinking about additional ways that a fusion reactor could prove useful—an extra revenue stream, perhaps, that could subsidize the costly process. He told me that he'd had a few other ideas, including one involving nuclear batteries, before he arrived at his epiphany: The neutrons produced during fusion could be repurposed to change one metal into another. A power plant, in other words, could double as a gold factory. Rutkowski ran the idea past several fusion physicists, including Dennis Whyte, a professor of nuclear science and engineering at MIT. Whyte told me that he thought it was clever, and he plans to test the theory by using computer simulations during one of his classes next semester. Steven Cowley, the director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, who was not involved in the study, was likewise intrigued. Rutkowski has 'a really nice idea,' Cowley told me, though he would like to see more analysis before he's entirely convinced that gold could be manufactured in this way. At the moment, Rutkowski's idea is entirely speculative; he's not sitting on a pile of gold, but rather would like to be one day, as commercial fusion becomes more of a reality. In fact, the utter lack of commercial fusion in 2025 is likely the largest and most obvious barrier to his vision. Marathon is not in the reactor-building business; instead, it hopes to team up with such companies by consulting and supplying them equipment. According to a recent survey, fusion companies have raised $2.6 billion in the past year, and the majority of company representatives who responded said they believe that fusion power will become a reality at some point in the next decade. Some physicists I spoke with thought that timeline might be optimistic, but they also noted that significant progress has been made in recent years. I sent Marathon's proposal to Lawrence Principe, a historian and chemist at Johns Hopkins University who has written several books about alchemy and has re-created alchemical recipes in his lab. (He successfully replicated one 17th-century experiment that made a lump of gold appear to grow into a glittering tree inside a flask.) Principe was struck, while perusing the company's website, by the spirited promotional language—touting a 'golden age,' for example—that echoes the pamphleteering of centuries past. 'I'm getting deja vu here looking at this relative to 16th- and 17th-century texts,' he told me. Like Marathon, many alchemists from that era advertised that they were on the cusp of a breakthrough, according to Principe. They wrote to kings and queens asking for an investment in their laboratory, or for a gold sample to kick-start the undertaking. In the 15th century, King Henry IV banned the practice because he was worried about alchemical advances undermining gold currency. That's a theoretical consideration today too. But fusion seems unlikely to devalue anyone's stockpile: Rutkowski estimates that a single reactor could produce just a couple of tons of gold per year—worth more than $200 million, but still a far cry from the 3,000-plus tons that are mined annually, not to mention that any gold produced through fusion would be somewhat radioactive and would take about 15 years to be considered safe. The history of alchemy is replete with stories of dashed hopes and dubious boasts. In 1782, a British chemist named James Price, like Marathon, claimed that he could turn mercury into gold, though he professed doing it with mysterious powders rather than nuclear energy. After being repeatedly challenged to replicate his experiment, he agreed to put on a public demonstration. But instead, when the time came, he drank a vial of poison and died in front of the three witnesses who showed up. In the early 20th century, Rudolph Hunter, an engineer and inventor, was deemed a 'modern Midas' after claiming he was set to build a factory that could produce thousands of dollars' worth of gold a day by using principles he had learned from studying the sun. He passed away before proving his concept. From the January 1973 issue: History of alchemy Unlike those ill-fated efforts, Marathon's plan has real science behind it. If it works, the achievement would mark the end of the alchemist's quest, proof positive that humankind can alter the elements. But Rutkowski and company aren't driven by the desire for gold itself. Instead, they're after a technology that could help sate the world's ever-growing need for energy—a prize that's far more valuable and, for now, still just out of reach.


Miami Herald
4 days ago
- Miami Herald
Jim Acosta's AI interview raises deeper questions about human connection
From Facebook to FaceTime, it is now easier than ever to stay connected with friends and family members. Thanks to technology, I can FaceTime with my parents, send TikTok videos and share photos of my dog with friends with a few clicks. But what happens when we use technology to virtually resurrect the dead and allow an avatar to speak on behalf of the deceased in a video interview sharing a political viewpoint? That question came to the forefront when former CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta 'interviewed' an Artificial Intelligence avatar of Joaquin Oliver, a teenager killed in the 2018 Parkland high school shooting. In the video, the avatar used a chatbot to generate answers in a voice that supposedly sounded like the boy. Acosta said the boy's father had approached him to do the piece as a way of keeping Joaquin's memory alive. The interview sparked backlash and raised ethical concerns over technology's potential role in tarnishing the memory of the dead or changing their viewpoint. In this case, the Joaquin avatar advocated for 'stronger gun control laws, mental health support and community engagement.' Acosta's interview also raises a larger question: Is AI helping us connect or just simulating human connection while we become more disconnected? Grief is different for everyone, and how people grieve is evolving along with technology. Four years ago, I read about Joshua Barbeau, a guy who lost his fiancée to a rare liver disease. He used Project December — a chat website that simulates a text-based conversation with anyone, including someone who is dead — to communicate via chatbot with an AI version of his deceased fiancée. Traditionally, people processed grief through therapy or with the support of trusted friends or family members. Today, programs like ChatGPT are being used as therapists, for friendships and in some cases, as romantic partners. As Derek Thompson wrote in The Atlantic in February, 'Americans are spending less time with other people than in any other period for which we have trustworthy data, going back to 1965.' Isolation isn't accidental. Many people keep their phones on silent, prefer texting to calling and spend hours doomscrolling. Now, AI can simulate people with avatars. So when grief feels heavy, there is a program to help. When my grandmother died, the grief felt unbearable. Fifteen years later, when I talk about her, the loss still tugs at my heart. There isn't a day that I don't wish she was still here. I keep her memory alive without using AI, but I don't judge how others grieve. Grief is intimate — and that's what makes Joaquin Oliver's AI interview so eerie. It raises emotional questions. Is AI helping a family grieve? Was it a family's attempt to give their son a voice in a country that failed to protect him from gun violence? Maybe it's both. Human emotions can be messy. But what makes it all bearable is human connection — holding space for others in tough times — something technology can't replace. A chatbot can't actually resurrect the dead. It's a mirror of memories, reflecting our own words and thoughts. In the end, as the San Francisco Chronicle reported, Barbeau — the man who lost his fiancee — 'felt like the chatbot had given him permission to move on with his life in small ways, simply by urging him to take care of himself.' Perhaps that's the lesson. Technology can offer us tools for processing grief and maintaining memories, and maybe even give us permission to move on. But AI can't hug you or laugh at inside jokes. It won't sit next to you in silence when the world feels heavy. The loss of my grandmother still hurts. No amount of technology can bring her back. That's part of life's beauty — to love something death can touch. We carry those we've lost not through digital simulations, but by sharing memories and stories with others. The danger isn't just that AI will replace human connection — it's that we may settle for it. Mary Anna Mancuso is a member of the Miami Herald Editorial Board. Her email: mmancuso@
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Yahoo
Dark Mirror of Our Own Universe Could Explain Quirks in Gravity
Since conventional explanations have failed to pony up dark matter, one physicist is looking towards the unconventional. In a series of two papers, physicist Stefano Profumo of the University of California, Santa Cruz has proposed two strange, but not impossible, origins for the mystery material responsible for the excess gravitational effects we see out there in the Universe. In the first, published in May 2025, he proposes that dark matter could have been born in a dark matter 'mirror' of our own Universe, where matter is made of dark versions of particles akin to our protons and neutrons. In the other, published in early July, Profumo proposes that dark matter particles could have formed at the boundary of the cosmic horizon – the edge of the observable Universe – during the rapid expansion following the Big Bang. Related: Entire Planets Made of Dark Matter May Exist. Here's How We Can Find Them. "Both mechanisms are highly speculative," he says, "but they offer self-contained and calculable scenarios that don't rely on conventional particle dark matter models, which are increasingly under pressure from null experimental results." Dark matter is one of the most vexing problems in the cosmos. It neither emits nor blocks radiation, which means we have no way of detecting it directly. With few clues to go on, we don't know what it is; we only know of its existence because somehow, the effects of gravity throughout the Universe are far stronger than they should be, once you've accounted for every galaxy, every star, and every cloud of dust drifting silent and dark between the stars. Dark matter is the placeholder name we give to whatever it is that's responsible for this gravity excess, and there's a range of theoretical candidates to explain it, from planet-sized blobs to fleeting particles. However, in spite of avid and dedicated searches, none of the candidates have been verified. For his new explorations of alternative dark matter candidates, Profumo turned to different realms of physics. For the first, he turned to quantum chromodynamics, which describes the strong force that binds quarks and gluons into particles like protons and neutrons. According to this theory, a sort of 'mirror' universe exists within ours, where the strong force is replaced by a variation that binds fundamental particles hidden from our own Standard Model. Under certain conditions in the early Universe, Profumo's paper expounds, concentrations of these hidden particles could grow dense enough to form dark matter black holes that would interact with our visible Universe only through gravity. For the second paper, Profumo invokes quantum field theory at the cosmic horizon, sort of like a universe-scale version of the black hole's event horizon – the 'edge' of our observable Universe that we will never be able to probe beyond. Following the Big Bang, the Universe underwent a period of accelerated expansion according to current cosmological theory. During this time, quantum fluctuations at the cosmic horizon could have spontaneously generated dark matter particles with a range of masses. Both explanations are new and unconventional, but solidly based in current theory, and should be testable with future experiments. Further work is needed to refine the newly proposed models, but, Profumo says, they open up new possibilities for exploring and understanding the dark matter that suffuses the Universe. Both studies have been published in Physical Review D. They can be found here and here. Related News Project Reveals Mindblowing Designs For Shipping Humans to The Stars Cosmic Rays Could Help Aliens Thrive in The Barren Wastelands of Space Something Massive Could Still Be Hiding in The Shadows of Our Solar System Solve the daily Crossword