Why is alchemy impossible??

---

I'm not trying to be, like, kid-ish, or whatever you want to call it, and I don't mean the alchemy that's on TV, where you can make timber into water, I mean lead to gold alchemy.

I've been wondering this the past couple days, and this is tthe best hive I have before asking my chem. teacher or physics. And I kinda want to talk about it, too, lol.

It's supposed to go against the laws of physcis, but, if you can make AB+CD out of A+C+BD, and then you have some left over afterwords, ie (I know it's not true, just example) FeO^2+NaCl=FeNa+Cl+O^2, why can't you do the same with lead and some other element, or gold in the beginning, and get more gold out of the reaction?

Interesting question, I've never really thought abo0ut it.Off the bat though, getting gold from more gold seems to be impossible because of the conservation of energy. You can never get more out than you put in.

So are you asking why we can't simply rearrange, add and subtract the sub-atomic particles to produce gold atoms?

If that's what you are asking and keeping in mind it's been 16 years since I had any meaningful chemistry, I don't think there is any law baring it but rather a set of circumstances that must be met. You would have to be able to take the sub-atomic particles from a different host atom and add them to what your making into a stable gold atom. The caviot, I think, is that the host atom your stealing sub-atomic particles from or adding them to has to result in a stable form of matter or it would react right back to a most stable form, thereby destroying what you've created such is done with super-heavy elements that last only milli-seconds.

That's the best I can do on my all to faulty memory.

Alchemy doesn't work because it's pretend, a flight of fancy, like magic.Now, if you were to attempt to manipulate elements at a sub atomic level, stripping off electrons, adding neutrons, etc using scientific methods, then it's not alchemy anymore. It's just plain old science.

Essentially, the energy required to push more protons into a nucleus that is already positive is much greater than the energy you can get from temperatures achievable in furnaces. You either need interior-of-sun temperatures, or directed beams of sub-atomic particles.The alchemists of course did not know the structure of the atom and were working on a different theory which they thought made it possible.

It's simple. Humans have not learned e ough yet to do it. And if we ever do then it would make gold wothless and we'd have to found our money another way.

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedAlchemy doesn't work because it's pretend, a flight of fancy, like magic. Don't tread on my Philosopher's stone!

you can tread on my patio stones

Originally Posted By: deekIt's simple. Humans have not learned e ough yet to do it. And if we ever do then it would make gold wothless and we'd have to found our money another way. Very true. Would be nice, if you ask me. It's a question in physics.On one end of the periodic chart we have elements that, when forced together to create other elements, undergo a decrease in net mass. The extra mass is released in the form of energy, according to E=MC2. This is known as fusion, and is what occurs in stars like our sun. On the other end of the chart, elements undergo a net decrease in mass when torn apart to form other elements...resulting in a release of energy according to E=MC2. This is known as fission, and is the kind of reaction we have in nuclear reactors worldwide. In the middle is iron...which releases no energy when undergoing fission or fusion. Interestingly, it is also the metal that has the property of generating a magnetic field. Other metals can be artificially magnetized...but iron generates it all on its own.Now...lead into gold...Pb to Ag...we'd have to release a lot of energy somewhere if we could ever get it to go, if you look at the chart. But getting it to go, with our current technology, would cost much more than the value of the gold would ever be worth...if it could even be done at all.

I have MUCH to say regarding the topic, but due to time constraints at the moment, I'll have to decline. Tomorrow, I should have much more time.

Quote:In the middle is iron...which releases no energy when undergoing fission or fusion. where did you glean that little tidbit?Many exothermic reactions occur with iron, including oxidization. That's why they use thermal photography to detect rust.

Originally Posted By: unsupervised  Quote:In the middle is iron...which releases no energy when undergoing fission or fusion. where did you glean that little tidbit?Many exothermic reactions occur with iron, including oxidization. That's why they use thermal photography to detect rust. That's a chemical reaction...not a nuclear one. Nuclear physics involves what goes on in the nucleus, by definition. Protons and neutrons are the basic elements involved. Chemistry involves what happens concerning the exchange/capture/loss of electrons and their levels of energy in their orbits or shells as they move from one level to another. There is no change of mass involved...no nuclear release of energy by mass conversion according to E=MC2. Exothermic reactions occur when the overall energy of the electrons is lower after the reaction than before. Heat, as well as the release of photons, are two of the ways energy is transmitted from the molecules...just as absorbing heat and/or photons are evidence of an endothermic reaction.Chemistry and Nuclear Physics are two different animals, though both molecular reactions.

ah, got it. Sorry, I misread your post.

My goodness, so much to address, and I have to get ready for bed in an hour, lol. Curse you life, taking over!! OK!Bob:Kind of what I was going for, with Scotty's intertwined with yours, almost the same idea. Although I meant using gold to get more gold, not the other way around. In terms of equivalency, what about catalysts? They aren't destroyed, but are used in any reaction they're in. Why don't those count for CoM? My chem teacher never really explained that, just that they don't. Like the titanium [whatever]-ide in laundry detergent.Scotty: that's more or less what I mean, making them come from something else, but having whatever the host turns into, to be something stable enough not to steal it's atoms back.U:Did you know that modern chemistry was derived from alchemy, etymologically and conceptually? Alchemists ("-") were commonly referred to as chemists, and their study became known as "chemist-ry", thus why we have our chemistry today, since around 1600's with Bohr's (?..it's been a while) "new" model of the atom. Pete:But, we have particle colliders/accelerators and we can almost reach absolute zero (Kelvin) ((off by about 5 degrees, something amazing)), why wouldn't we be able to generate enough energy, especially if that fusion reactor that so many nations are pumping money into comes to fruition and works?Thor:It's late-ish (or getting back from school, with science being at 7 in the morning, ). May I ask for a restate, that's just a little simpler? I understand most of it...>>Were you/are you a teacher/prof? Or are you just good with chemistry? <<Generally:I'm glad this is actually a discussion, ("-") not just a ""I wanna ask this." ...Replies:1" kind of thing.

Yes, we can change one element into another now, including making gold, but only on a tiny scale, nothing commercial. My point was that it's impossible with the equipment the alchemists had.

I think you may be confusing Niels Bohr (1885-1962), who developed a model of the atom that was a great step forward, with Robert Boyle (1627-1691), whose book The Sceptical Chymist (1661) rejected the prevailing alchemical theory, propounded an atomic theory, and, most importantly, set experiment as the basis for determining theory.

yes, chemistry has roots in alchemy as doctors have witchdoctors in their family tree.Research at the Large Hadron Collider hardly represents alchemy. Just as burying lead in the droppings of 100 white horses does not represent chemistry.

Ahh, gotcha now, and yes, I was confusing the two, but the basic point is still there...I think...:grin:

U:I'm not sure if your being serious or sarcastic there. but what I mean by bring colliders into this, is that we have MUCH more technology now, that's all, not that their research is for alchemy.

I'm not being sarcastic. What I'm saying is that alchemy is as much science as is magic.Some of what alchemy attempted or claimed possible is now within the realms of modern chemistry and physics. Alchemy it's self is still as fanciful now as it was in the dark ages.You asked why it's impossible, that's why. Simple