# Alchemy



## Arlina (Oct 2, 2005)

Does anyone know anything about alchemy? I'm trying to research alchemy, and have found out some things, however most things that seem to turn up is from the anime: Full Metal Alchemist. I'm trying to seperate fact from fiction. Anything anyone knows will be really helpful. Thanks.


----------



## e.Blackstar (Oct 2, 2005)

All I know is that it was an ancient method of trying to turn one element into another, specifically iron into gold.


----------



## Arlina (Oct 2, 2005)

I do know that it dates back past the Eygptain times, alchemist believe the Philospher's Stone has the elixir of life and if ever found will turn that person immortal, but that's about it...

thanks black!


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Oct 2, 2005)

Arlina said:


> Does anyone know anything about alchemy? I'm trying to research alchemy, and have found out some things, however most things that seem to turn up is from the anime: Full Metal Alchemist. I'm trying to seperate fact from fiction. Anything anyone knows will be really helpful. Thanks.



Here's something to get you started: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=alchemy . You shouldn't have much of a problem separating fact from fiction: it's all fiction.

Barley


----------



## Shireman D (Oct 3, 2005)

Saith Mr Butterburr: It's all fiction.Hang on old chap: the alchemists may have been a bit wacky from the safe distance of a few centuries later but they were trying to explore the physical world in an organised way - note I did not say scientific - they were working at the level of observation. Without those observations it would not have been possible for later folk to begin to explore what 'science' might look like. The problem is that they set their targets before the work instead of letting the research tell them its own stories - but really is that so very different to what most of us do most of the time?</p>


----------



## Walter (Oct 3, 2005)

If you want to find out a little more about Alchemy, Arlina, I would suggest you consult a serious encyclopedia rather than asking here. Chances are, that what you will learn here, are mostly garbled things.

Alchemy can be considered a transition stage from magic to science, mainly in the fields of chemistry and metallurgy (though other fields, e.g. medicine were also affected). As in all other fields concerned, the transition from magic to science employed empirical methods (learning by doing - trial and error).

Alchemy played a sgnificant role in Europe, the Levante and the Far East from the later Iron Age up to the Middle-Ages.


----------



## Hammersmith (Oct 3, 2005)

As far as I know, the basic theory behind it was the truth that gold (or iron, or silver, or copper, or any base or rare metal) was built up of smaller parts. While the theory is correct, as any science student will admit (in that the elements of gold and iron differ only in the makeup of their atoms which can theoretically be broken down), alchemists were preoccupied with the basic elements being air, water, fire, earth and ether rather than the elements we know to exist. Their work was focused towards breaking down the base metals and reconstituting them as gold.

They obviously never succeeded, but I was under the impression that their relentless scientific work did accomplish several other discoveries throughout the centuries. I think that under several regimes Alchemy was banned for religious reasons. As Walter rightly says, try an encyclopaedia or a library for some quotable and reliable sources, and sorry for the extremely unscientific explanation above!


----------



## Walter (Oct 3, 2005)

Hammersmith said:


> While the theory is correct, as any science student will admit (in that the elements of gold and iron differ only in the makeup of their atoms which can theoretically be broken down)...



theoretically ... maybe, practically ... no way 

Having a look at a Periodic Table and considering the structure of nucleus and electronic shell of Iron ([Ar]3d6 4s2) and Gold ([Xe]4f14 5d10 6s1) any science student should soon realize that there is no way to accomplish that....


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Oct 3, 2005)

Shireman D said:


> Saith Mr Butterbur: It's all fiction. Hang on old chap: the alchemists may have been a bit wacky from the safe distance of a few centuries later but they were trying to explore the physical world in an organised way - note I did not say scientific - they were working at the level of observation. Without those observations it would not have been possible for later folk to begin to explore what 'science' might look like. The problem is that they set their targets before the work instead of letting the research tell them its own stories - but really is that so very different to what most of us do most of the time?</p>



Uh-oh oh oh oh oh! Methinks we've touched a soft spot, tweaked an exposed nerve? Then praps ye sits here and chats with it a bitsy, eh, my preciousss?

Far be it from me to devalue the achievements made by the ancients through acute observation! Astounding though they were, much was proved to be off the mark in later years. And what I refer to by "it's all fiction," is the time-honored and venerable attempt to transmute lead into gold. Nobody's done it yet anyway, and, sez I, _probably_ nobody will... 

Barley


----------



## Thorondor_ (Oct 3, 2005)

I think that this is within the reach of high energy physics even today... though I bet it would be too costly to obtain even very small amounts of gold.


----------



## Walter (Oct 3, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


> I think that this is within the reach of high energy physics even today... though I bet it would be too costly to obtain even very small amounts of gold.


Pray tell: _How_?

Are you aware of the atomic structure and the energy-bilance of such a process?

Making Helium out of Hydrogen (the two simplest atoms) is still quite a strech or else we would've solved all our global energy problems by now...


----------



## Walter (Oct 3, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


> A process similar to the fusion in the stars was what I had in mind.


Yes, that is nuclear fusion. First Helium out of Hydrogen, then slowly heavier elements are formed. At some point in time we arrive at Iron (Iron, e.g. is ~56 times as heavy as Hydrogen, Gold ~197 times as heavy as Hydrogen). This happens e.g. in our sun at ~15.000.000C at 340.000.000 times atmospheric pressure in billions of years.


> I have very little, amateur-level, knowledge.


I guessed that...


> I know, that is why I said it would be too costly. But not impossible.


Nature - or God, if you prefer - can do it, mankind won't be able to do it within the next millennia is my educated guess. Not because it's too costly, but because our technology is not nearly advanced enough to control the process. It's like trying to build a microprocessor with tools from the Neolithic...


----------



## Walter (Oct 3, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


> I don't think that we are that far away; sonoluminiscence could be one of the answers; recent experiments at the University of California with pyroelectric crystals also hold some promise. Also, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Russian Academy of Science apparently reproduced cold fusion through tabletop ultrasonic generators.


If you prefer to think so...

Only - if I may suggest - you make yourself familiar with the nature and magnitude of nuclear forces (strong/weak/electromagnetic), then with atomic structure (namely Iron and Gold in this case), then with nuclear fusion technology, then with the technology to control the temperature and pressure necessary and eventually you might - slowly - begin to realize the difficulties of this venture...


----------



## Walter (Oct 3, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


> Considering the rate of scientific and technological advancement, I think that this is akin to the problem of trains and airplanes; at that time, many people didn't even think it would be possible. I am optimistic .
> 
> I dislike your condescending tone. Thanks for taking this into consideration.


I am sorry if that came across as condescending. It was more a sign of impatience. Whenever I get the feeling people argue just for the sake of it, without the necessary background of knowledge, I tend to get impatient. But I shouldn't....

It was your line of argumentation, which suggested little familiarity with the underlying physics, chemistry and technology and - consequently - your optimism seems rather unwarranted to me - as it would to everyone else familiar enough with the matter. But maybe you are right nonetheless.

Some people are also optimistic, that someday they may be able to travel in a spaceship with twice, thrice or n-times the speed of light. Maybe they are right too in spite of what the loremasters of physics think today...  

But be that as it may...

Cheers


----------



## Hammersmith (Oct 3, 2005)

Walter said:


> theoretically ... maybe, practically ... no way
> 
> Having a look at a Periodic Table and considering the structure of nucleus and electronic shell of Iron ([Ar]3d6 4s2) and Gold ([Xe]4f14 5d10 6s1) any science student should soon realize that there is no way to accomplish that....


That was one of my main points


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Oct 4, 2005)

Walter said:


> Whenever I get the feeling people argue just for the sake of it, without the necessary background of knowledge, I tend to get impatient.



That kind of thing is indeed hard to abide. But if God meant fer birds ta fly, he woulda given 'em _wings!!!_ (Or was that something else...cats? dogs? people? Hmmmhhh...)

Barley


----------



## Walter (Oct 4, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


> Interestingly enough, there is talk since august last year about building a linear accelerator to re-create conditions similar to the Big Bang. So I guess I am not that off the mark, am I?
> 
> You know what they say... Patience is the goddess of forums



Talk is cheap, particle accelerators arent....

But let's presume it happens, then that would be the very threshold between energy and matter. 

To the best of my knowledge the state of the universe at that point is still in the dark. Calculations reach back to the time a little after the big bang when the temperature was already sunk to 1,500,000,000,000 K and universe consisted mainly of Pi-mesons.

A little later - at some 3,000,000,000 K the first stable nuclei should begin to form, including already the fusion of Helium-nuclei. 

Some billion years later we should arrive at the heavy elements, metals. Only, the problem is that this kind of fusion in stars stops at iron and for gold we needed - as shown above - almost 4 times the mass of iron. As it appears heavier elements are only formed in supernovae.

So - given our scientists should manage to control their small-bang in a way similar to a big-bang and successfully be able to form a substantial amount of He nuclei to keep their fusion going - we would only have to wait a little and - some billions of years and a mini-supernova later - voila - we have made gold out of iron... 

Your optimism in all honour, but I'm not sure I can be _that_ patient...


----------



## Walter (Oct 5, 2005)

No, in fact they can do neither...

What I tried to explain in the second part of my previous post (the first part described the process forming of iron and gold in our universe) was the - entirely hypothetical - process of forming iron and gold quasi from scratch. It was meant to demonstrate that a "synthectical" creation of iron or gold as well as the transformation of iron into gold is technologically impossible and will remain so for a very, very, very long time.

What scientists actually do in those accelerators (e.g. at Stanford) when they refer to _"conditions similar to the big-bang"_ is rather the opposite. They destroy two particles, originally an electron and a positron by accelerating them and have them collide and annihilate each other. The resulting "energy-plasma" is considered to be similar to that shortly after the big-bang...


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Oct 5, 2005)

Walter said:


> What scientists actually do in those accelerators (e.g. at Stanford) when they refer to _"conditions similar to the big-bang"_ is rather the opposite. They destroy two particles, originally an electron and a positron by accelerating them and have them collide and annihilate each other. The resulting "energy-plasma" is considered to be similar to that shortly after the big-bang...



OK Walter, speaking of the big bang — since you're TTF's resident polymath  — my understanding of the big bang theory is that that was the starting point of time, space and dimension. I don't understand that. If time, space, dimension, matter and energy all began at that point, what was there before that point, and how did whatever was going on lead up to the big bang? It seems to me that there was some sort of preparation that led up to the big bang, which implies at the very least, the passage of time. If something was in preparation which resulted in the big bang it also implies the presence of matter, energy, process and dimension. Yet none of them were supposed to have existed before this "big bang" (obviously a theory in which I have small trust). I believe this is one of those explanations which is no more than a scientific conceit. I don't believe the human being is capable of apprehending what really happened, any more than a cat is capable of reading a racing sheet — and pretty much for the same reasons.

Barley


----------



## Hammersmith (Oct 6, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> OK Walter, speaking of the big bang — since you're TTF's resident polymath  — my understanding of the big bang theory is that that was the starting point of time, space and dimension. I don't understand that. If time, space, dimension, matter and energy all began at that point, what was there before that point, and how did whatever was going on lead up to the big bang? It seems to me that there was some sort of preparation that led up to the big bang, which implies at the very least, the passage of time. If something was in preparation which resulted in the big bang it also implies the presence of matter, energy, process and dimension. Yet none of them were supposed to have existed before this "big bang" (obviously a theory in which I have small trust). I believe this is one of those explanations which is no more than a scientific conceit. I don't believe the human being is capable of apprehending what really happened, any more than a cat is capable of reading a racing sheet — and pretty much for the same reasons.
> 
> Barley



Barley, for different reasons than yours, I have also been perplexed by this idea. Nobody has been able to explain to me adequately how a natural explanation for anything existing before the big bang, no matter how simple, could come to be. So it was a reaction between atoms. Which atoms? It happened at a subatomic level. Which subatomic particles? I'm waiting with you.....


----------



## Walter (Oct 6, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> OK Walter, speaking of the big bang — since you're TTF's resident polymath  — my understanding of the big bang theory is that that was the starting point of time, space and dimension. I don't understand that. If time, space, dimension, matter and energy all began at that point, what was there before that point, and how did whatever was going on lead up to the big bang? It seems to me that there was some sort of preparation that led up to the big bang, which implies at the very least, the passage of time. If something was in preparation which resulted in the big bang it also implies the presence of matter, energy, process and dimension. Yet none of them were supposed to have existed before this "big bang" (obviously a theory in which I have small trust). I believe this is one of those explanations which is no more than a scientific conceit. I don't believe the human being is capable of apprehending what really happened, any more than a cat is capable of reading a racing sheet — and pretty much for the same reasons.
> 
> Barley



Only God knows... 

Though I'm not sure that energy "began" at the big-bang all calculations of those learned people indicate, that space, time and matter did. And consequently our wits end at the beginning of the universe... 

That said, I need to mention that we cannot yet be certain how our universe will end, chances are (depending on matter-density of the universe) that the current expansion will end at a certain point, and a contraction (due to gravity) will begin and lead to a big-crunch, which could also be the big-bang of the next universe.

In that case, our universe might not be the first, but just one out of an infinite number of universes before and after the one we live in.

But that, of course, wouldn't answer the question what was before the first one...

I think we should bear in mind that our petty little brains are but the product of evolution, they developed and enabled us to survive in our environment on this planet and are thus rather limited in their potential to solve riddles like the ones of the origins of time, space, matter or energy...


----------



## Walter (Oct 6, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


> Of all the places, Guinness Book:



This is the first post - aside from the one you deleted again, yesterday - where I got the feeling you have begun to give the issue some serious thought, whatever the driving force behind it may be...

I would like to invite you not to stop here, but to proceed...

I did not bother to check whether or not the entry in the guiness book is actually true, but it might be. At least it doesn't deem me as impossible (as making gold from iron does). But what is the difference between achieving gold from iron and gold from lead? The answer can be found e.g. in a periodic table of the elements...



> Someone from Stony Brook University has also confirmed to me that they have obtained gold in their "superconducting heavy ion linac" by "stripping the electrons from one element and smashing the reminaing nuclei into a target of some other element". Though I can't provide an URL at the moment.



Someone, formerly from the Technical University of Graz is hereby confirming to you, that they didn't obtain gold from iron...  But still, I'd be interested to learn which elements they used (mercury, maybe? ... since that would appear to be one of the more promising candidates) and whether or not the "gold" they obtained was something that comes close to being considered a stable nucleus, let alone element...

But gold is indeed used for certain experiments in particle accelerators, e.g. in attempts to create conditions similar to that of a big-bang. The second link (in the post you deleted) contains some hints as does this link.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Oct 6, 2005)

Walter said:


> I think we should bear in mind that our petty little brains are but the product of evolution, they developed and enabled us to survive in our environment on this planet and are thus rather limited in their potential to solve riddles like the ones of the origins of time, space, matter or energy...



*THANK YOU!* You and I share the same conviction on that; that has been my firm belief for many _many_ years. It used to get me into a lot of trouble when discussing _the R word_ back when it was allowed.

Like you, I didn't really take the _The Guiness Book of Records_ as an unimpeachable science resource... but after a bit of judicious googling, it appears that ol' Glen Seaborg actually did transmute lead into gold(!) — but such a ridiculously minute amount, and at such an appallingly monumental price per gram (to say nothing of the cost/energy of the process involved), that I daresay the gold market has nothing to fear until at least several hundred more years of tweaking the technique has taken place...  

Barley


----------



## Walter (Oct 6, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> *THANK YOU!* You and I share the same conviction on that; that has been my firm belief for many _many_ years. It used to get me into a lot of trouble when discussing _the R word_ back when it was allowed.
> 
> Like you, I didn't really take the _The Guiness Book of Records_ as an unimpeachable science resource... but after a bit of judicious googling, it appears that ol' Glen Seaborg actually did transmute lead into gold(!)



Yes, I googled it up too, meanwhile, but - like I said above - making gold from lead (in very small amounts and probably not stable either) doesn't strike me as odd, like it wouldn't from mercury, thallium or maybe even bismuth, given how similar the nuclei of these elements are...

But making gold from iron is an entirely different story, since there it doesn't suffice to "shoot out" a couple of protons and neutrons, rather you'd have to "build" a nucleus almost 4 times the size, the overall process is endotherm (meaning you don't have to provide only the activation energy) plus the resulting nucleus is less stable than the original one (even in it's steadiest state).


----------



## Walter (Oct 6, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


> There are thousands of web pages acknowledging this; I chose the Guinness Book as a counter-example to your "high-school student" refference. Science does make big steps every now and then, and some of the barriers which the "loremasters of physics" once held as absolute soon become just jokes.
> I am surprised you don't know about Glenn Seaborg or his achievement, after all, the seaborgium element was named as such in his honor. Learning about his achievement made me even more .... "optimistic" ... though I am surprised, again, that you find his success as somewhat irrelevant. After all, he did achieve the dream of alchemists, of transmutation of "inferior" elements into "noble" ones, which is the main subject of this thread, right?


Oh please, Thorondor, I've been really patient with you and tried to establish a constructive dialogue. Why do you ruin that now with such a polemical post?

In my previous post in reply to Barley - as well as in other posts above - I tried to make clear why I consider making gold from iron impossible. Now, and for a very, very long time.

I'd really suggest you make yourself familiar with some of the basics of chemistry and physics if you still insist that somebody out there is going to make gold from iron anytime soon. If you could substantiate your claims somewhat, it would enable us to discuss the issue a little more seriously on a factual level.

You could then, for example make some propositions as to _how_ you would proceed from iron, which steps you would take and so on and we could try to find out which problems we are likely to face.

Seaborg's success is not irrelevant in general, but for the specific process of transforming iron into gold it is, because here it doesn't suffice to "shoot out" a few particles. Removing the roof of a car by means of a chainsaw, is something entirely different from building a car... 

If today we are still struggling with understanding and constructing a round wheel, a Ferrari F50 will be out of reach for a while...


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Oct 6, 2005)

Thor old thing, it's about time you stepped up to the plate and explained just _why it is_ that you believe it will be possible to evolve a practical process for making lead or iron or Limburger cheese into gold in the reasonable future (leaving aside what that would do to the gold market). As it is you appear to be arguing just to be arguing, and you're making yourself appear — well — just a weeeeeeeeee bit (dare I say it?) foolish. Right, then, let's have something solid! Enough of this silliness! 

Barley


----------



## Hammersmith (Oct 6, 2005)

Walter said:


> In my previous post in reply to Barley - as well as in other posts above - I tried to make clear why I consider making gold from iron impossible. Now, and for a very, very long time.


Why should that be an issue? Typically lead is the substance Alchemists choose, which has been proved possible. Why drag poor innocent Fe into this, unless to build up your own argument? To do so would seem...well, rather...silly?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Oct 7, 2005)

Thorondor said:


> ...lead is the substance Alchemists choose, which has been proved possible. Why drag poor innocent Fe into this, unless to build up your own argument? To do so would seem...well, rather...silly?



Y'know — you asked me who was included in the PE _et al_. Come to think of it — I think you _were_ included as one of those who simply love to keep a petty argument going on empty assertions and little else. 

I think Walter knows a significant amount more about it (and probably everything else) than you and I do. Seaborg's experiment proved transmutation _possible._ SO WHAT? His experiment _also_ proved that it is neither probable nor practical nor even desirable to press on with it, based, ultimately, on the lack of _followup_ over the years. You need to give it a rest...

Barley


----------



## Walter (Oct 7, 2005)

Hammersmith said:


> Why drag poor innocent Fe into this, unless to build up your own argument? To do so would seem...well, rather...silly?


Well did I? I wonder who came up with the iron...

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?p=461647#post461647

Had you said lead instead of iron I would have had never objected...

Making Gold from Lead is a bit like splitting off a little bit from the surface of a stone. Making Gold from Iron would be like smashing 4 stones together and expecting they'd form one stable big stone...

And with that I'm out of this argument...


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Oct 7, 2005)

Walter said:


> ...with that I'm out of this argument...



Me too, I'm gone. 

Barley


----------



## Hammersmith (Oct 7, 2005)

Walter said:


> Well did I? I wonder who came up with the iron...
> 
> http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?p=461647#post461647
> 
> ...


Under a different context, and you know it. Thorondor was talking about lead. Why did you jump back to Iron?

And Barley, I'll always keep an inane debate alive rather than see it finished on the note of sad self-righteousness by those who will never admit to be wrong.


----------



## Walter (Oct 7, 2005)

Hammersmith said:


> Thorondor was talking about lead. Why did you jump back to Iron?


I didn't...

When I objected to your post in which you brought up the Iron/Gold issue, Thorondor hadn't even posted in the thread. And I was talking about a transformation of iron into gold all along - as I thought was clear from my posts.

As I said above, I'd had never objected had you said Lead or Mercury or Thallium because of the structural similarities such a transformation doesn't strike me as odd. I was not aware though, that it had been accomplished already.

If Thorondor was indeed talking about lead at first, then part of the dialogue was a misunderstanding from my side. 

But at least from Thorondor's later posts I gather that he has been - and still is - trying to make a case for the Iron->Gold issue, polemically and without giving evidence of even the most basic knowledge about the underlying facts. This I consider arguing out of ignorance, hence I bowed out.

And his latest post confirms me in this decision...


----------



## Hammersmith (Oct 7, 2005)

Walter said:


> And with that I'm out of this argument...


 



Walter said:


> I didn't...
> 
> When I objected to your post in which you brought up the Iron/Gold issue, Thorondor hadn't even posted in the thread. And I was talking about a transformation of iron into gold all along - as I thought was clear from my posts.
> 
> ...


Walter, you're very good at bickering over semantics, but I wonder if that's _all _you're good at.


----------



## Walter (Oct 8, 2005)

Hammersmith, I thought your question why I jumped back to iron was serious and as such - I felt - it deserved a serious answer - despite of what I've seen coming from you here and elsewhere. I was mistaken and for that I am sorry...

I will try not to make the same mistake again...


----------



## Hammersmith (Oct 8, 2005)

Walter said:


> Hammersmith, I thought your question why I jumped back to iron was serious


Well, that's fair enough. Next time you think that, try and provide a serious reply.


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 8, 2005)

*Mod's comment.*

I think that this discussion has gone on long enough to no purpose. I give no judgement on the matter, however, it is now time to get back to the actual question of the thread and leave the by-products of the discussion.

Gothmog


----------

