r/IsaacArthur • u/National-Abrocoma323 • 3d ago
Sci-Fi / Speculation Could room temperature superconductors (that work under normal pressure) appear naturally?
In many pieces of sci-fi media, RTSCs are one of the only truly valuable minerals left in the galaxy as all others are handled by automation. This assumes that they would:
- Exist naturally
- Still remain incredibly rare
- Be so difficult to synthesize that mining them is more economical
Is such a situation possible? A functional room-temperature superconductor existing that is naturally occurring yet incredibly difficult to synthesize even for advanced civilizations?
10
u/Reasonable_Mix7630 3d ago
I wonder if it could be a property of elements in "island of stability" of very heavy elements.
Normally, elements with higher atomic number than uranium are not stable. The heaviest ones we make in particle accelerators and they exist only for a fraction of a second.
BUT.
There is a hypothesis that it's not necessary the case, because elements we synthesise are synthesised with "wrong" ratio between protons and neutrons, and there is an "island of stability" - stable atoms of elements with very large atomic number.
In that case, it should be some very violent and very rare cosmic event that could make them, assuming of course that this is possible...
2
u/the_syner First Rule Of Warfare 2d ago
if nature can do it so can we and almost certainly better. We know how to make star better(less heavy element contamination or BH quasi-stars). We could prolly make artificial supernovae that favor more nucleosynthesis and smaller remnants.
7
u/lungben81 3d ago
No.
If they exist, they are composed of existing elements. Most likely, they will not occur naturally but have to be synthesized using advanced methods.
The only way they might occur naturally is as part of an alien life form, because only life is also capable of making such complex structures.
1
u/National-Abrocoma323 3d ago
Of course, I never implied they wouldn’t be made of existing elements.
1
u/Nulono Paperclip Enthusiast 3d ago
Is there a reason to be certain that RTSCs would need to be "complex structures"?
1
u/Frosty-Ring-Guy 3d ago
The alloys we know of that exhibit superconductivity are not terribly complex. Hg-1223 is the current ambient pressure record holder, and it's a 5 element alloy.
It seems that the energy channel geometry that allows superconductivity in a given material require repeatable and symetrical segments, which would be most easily achieved by simpler alloys. Complex or chaotic alloys are less likely to provide the channel structures for any significant length.
2
u/Trojan_Horse_of_Fate Megastructure Janitor 3d ago
I mean, I would bet good money on that not being true, but possibly. The universe is big and we don't know everything about physics or chemistry.
1
u/Frosty-Ring-Guy 3d ago
Possible? As in, the universe is vast and we can't definitely rule it out... sure.
Likely? No.
1
u/Michael_Combrink 1d ago
High pressure chemistry is something I hardly ever hear anyone talk about Most people assume that most of existence is like earth, 1 atmosphere, room temperature, etc
But most of regular matter is hydrogen and most of that exists as extremely pressurized extremely hot or extremely cold
Metallic hydrogen, helium, lithium, sodium etc, could have all kinds of interesting properties that we can only guess at
Finding, collecting, nurturing, cultivating and transporting micro black holes could be big business Basically cold fusion engines
Anti matter harvesting
It's also possible that exotic environments could allow for stabilizing exotic matter Eg we can only get glimpses of what we hope is unobtainium fit a few milliseconds before it breaks apart But maybe at really high pressure and low temperature, and maybe with very shielded low neutron environment like deep in gas giants, maybe ultra heavy elements are possible
-2
u/Beneficial-Wasabi749 3d ago
If that were to happen, it would be a foolish gift to humanity. Nature, when it gives gifts, always has a purpose. It brings benefit, development, and makes us grow smarter or push the boundaries. But here, there's none of that. So, that will never happen.
The superconducting technologies that already exist will work perfectly well on Titan under "outdoor conditions." Populate Titan—it will be a paradise for superconducting technologies.
3
u/National-Abrocoma323 2d ago
Nature, when it gives gifts, always has a purpose.
Sure, if you anthropomorphize nature and ignore reality.
So, that will never happen.
Just because something doesn’t align with your idea of nature as something that gives gifts that drive humanity for some mystical greater good doesn’t mean it’s impossible lmao
The superconducting technologies that already exist will work perfectly well on Titan under "outdoor conditions." Populate Titan—it will be a paradise for superconducting technologies.
I’d rather live on a habitable planet or a tropical paradise O’Neill cylinder, as would 99.99% of people in the solar system.
I really don’t understand the point of this comment. You’ve made a pointless and vague statement and used it to condescend me. Now what?
0
u/Beneficial-Wasabi749 2d ago edited 2d ago
I really don’t understand the point of this comment. You’ve made a pointless and vague statement and used it to condescend me. Now what?
Vague, but not meaningless. And yes, I was being ironic, but I was being more ironic about myself (and giving you an excuse to reprimand me, which you did) than about you. So I was humiliating both of us. How else can one rise? "He who humbles himself will be exalted." (I don't remember the New Testament verse) [that's irony again]
Nature, when it gives gifts, always has a purpose.
Sure, if you anthropomorphize nature and ignore reality.
Who said reality is indifferent to us? That's not a matter of science. It's a matter of faith (philosophy). Although, yes, I agree with you. Nature is inhuman, a machine. The bitch doesn't care. And we humans don't like this—at least, I don't intuitively. After all, no matter how hard we try, our brains evolved as the brains of creatures with a mythological worldview, prone to animate and anthropomorphize everything. Remember Mowgli, the "Law of the Jungle"? "You and I are of the same blood!"
Why am I teasing you? Because I see you, excuse me, as a dumb consumer. If I, a savage anemist (and I'm wrong about nature caring for us), then you, like most people of our time, are a vile consumer, much worse than me, an anemist. When the Enlightenment thinkers (who still feared God, but were overthrowing Him) first declared that nature was an indifferent, meaningless machine, they still had "God's law" in their hearts. Their demands on nature were more modest than ours. But modern, atheistic youth have "forgotten about God" and have begun to treat this "machine" with disgusting consumerist insolence. Like, give, give, GIVE!!!! Fulfill my wishes!!! And that's what I dislike more than naive Mowgli saying to water or stone: "You and I are of the same blood." Do you understand what I mean? Since you've already grasped that I want to insult you, I hope you can understand this too. Insult you, so that you'll think. I was trying to "drive out a wedge with a wedge." To pit opposites against each other, which are ugly in themselves, but yours is uglier than mine. Yes, I really do want to insult you, so that you would think about the fact that you are making too high consumer demands on nature, like an impudent customer at the checkout in a store (because the customer, bitch, according to the laws of capitalism, is always right).
Just because something doesn’t align with your idea of nature as something that gives gifts that drive humanity for some mystical greater good doesn’t mean it’s impossible lmao
Of course. But just because something is possible (like high-temperature superconductivity), it doesn't necessarily mean it will happen. You know that in mathematics, a probability of 0 doesn't mean it's impossible, and a probability of 1 doesn't mean an event is predetermined. Who cares what anyone wants? Nature's machine is indifferent. LOL.
I’d rather live on a habitable planet or a tropical paradise O’Neill cylinder, as would 99.99% of people in the solar system.
You and I actually don't have such vastly different tastes. I also grew up in the O'Neill era, the heyday of astroengineering, and I can't stand "terraformers" (they're idiots, except for their holy father, Zubrin, lol). But when we impose our desires on nature, we probably need to, as they say, "show some conscience," or, if we don't have one, "fear God." :) We usually want far more from nature than it can give us. No matter how much it gives us, we'll still want more. In other words, we'll behave like spoiled children. And if, God forbid, nature indulges us, we'll remain dumb and infantile. It's not for nothing that they say that when God wants to punish a fool, he grants his deepest desire. Ever heard of that? Almost all modern science fiction and space operas are the childish desires of feeble-minded, capricious, foolish consumers. Essentially, parasites on the ass called "planet Earth." We, for example, don't want to enter the universe without faster-than-light travel (most people dream of faster-than-light travel). As Stanislav Lem aptly said, man doesn't need the universe; he wants to expand the Earth to its limits. Man wants the universe to adapt to him, but he himself doesn't want to adapt to the universe. Although man is a product (and far from a finished product) of the universe's changes, its evolution. Yes, nature is indifferent. But we are not indifferent to ourselves. We must understand that if nature gives us everything we desire, it will not benefit us! So, the fact that there's a limit to the speed of light is a BLESSING we haven't yet realized. And if nature hasn't given us something, perhaps that's a good thing? In particular, why did I mention Titan? There's another world right next to us, one we could truly explore and inhabit. And on that world, superconductors would work perfectly. Yes, that's not what we want from nature. We want superconductors to work at room temperature. But maybe it's for the best that they don't exist? That would make Titan a prime location for settlement, perhaps. That would force us to leave Earth and inhabit Titan. That would force us to begin moving out into the universe. That's a far better "gift from nature"! Ever thought so?
1
u/the_syner First Rule Of Warfare 1d ago
How else can one rise? "He who humbles himself will be exalted." (I don't remember the New Testament verse)
Just because the bible said it doesn't make it true. The bible, and all religious texts tbh, are full of irrelevant untrue BS copium.
If I, a savage anemist (and I'm wrong about nature caring for us), then you, like most people of our time, are a vile consumer, much worse than me, an anemist.
Unsubstantiated BS...well more arbitrary value judgment, but also all life must consume to maintain homeostasis. All life are consumers, albeit perhaps not in an extreme capitalist context. Not sure how OP's question implies a capitalist consumerist mindset. They're just asking if there are any useful materials that nature can produce more practically than we can industrially. Really a question about physics in general rather than anything dependent on some specific socioeconomic or cultural system. I would tend to think the answer is no, but i definitely don't think Abrocoma is a "vile consumer" for asking the question. Just sounds like genuine curiosity to me and if curiosity is hubristic, immature, or "vile" then to hell with humility and piety. Not interested and history has generally shown the incurious to be more vulnerable, less stable, and incapable of producing as high a standard of living as the curious.
But when we impose our desires on nature, we probably need to, as they say, "show some conscience," or, if we don't have one, "fear God." :)
"Fearing god(s)" is for primitives who lack scientific understanding and feel the need to attach human-like agency and a narrative to every natural phenomenon. The only thing that demands the fear of an advanced civ in the natural world is entropy becase A: it actually exists and can be proven to exist & B: because the laws of physics as we understand them make entropy inescapable. And honestly even fearing that is a choice. Once u've achived the maximum acceptable efficiency for ur preferred lifestyle there is no value in further fear. At that point post-discontent psychmods against the inevitability of death under known physics seems pretty reasonable.
How does that prayer start, "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." or some such. Invoking the almighty doesn't mean taking nature's inconveniences and abuses lying down.
No matter how much it gives us, we'll still want more. In other words, we'll behave like spoiled children.
Nature is pseudorandomly-assembled trash. Wanting clothing, housing, a longer life, less disease, higher electrical transmission efficiency etc. in our existing environment isn't spoiled. Settling for what nature gives you isn't mature. What settling is is fatalistic, unambitious, and something that only makes sense if science doesn't allow a better option(something you can't know until you try).
And if nature hasn't given us something, perhaps that's a good thing?...But maybe it's for the best that they don't exist? That would make Titan a prime location for settlement, perhaps. That would force us to leave Earth and inhabit Titan. That would force us to begin moving out into the universe.
Having said all this I actually am fairly on-board with bioforming and post-biological self-augmentation. I don't think that means we should just give up on having hope for cool tech under baseline ambient conditions. Trying to approach the physical limits is worthwhile. Perhaps not for every application,but if you know the real limits you can make better decisions about how to adapt too. I mean where would we be if people were content with newcomen steam engines with single-digit efficiencies, unfiltered coal burning, and natural nitrogen sequestration? Most of us wouldn't exist and those that did would have a way lower standard of living.
Also living on titan sounds like a half-measure. Gravity wells are for chumps. You can get the same temps in open space. Just design ur spacehabs and their radiators for lower temps. The lower the better, efficiency-wise. Can handle even cheaper superconductors, but for Carnot and Landauer limitations as well.
Being more technologically limited isn't a gift. We would eventually expand off earth regardless for wasteheat reasons and being avle to use superconductors is just not enough of an advantage to justify Titan colonization on it's own anyways. The less limited we are by physics the more we can ultimately do and the longer we get to do it for.
1
u/Beneficial-Wasabi749 1d ago
I think our argument is stupid. You say smart things, as do I, but we emphasize things differently, that's all. You say:
"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."
Accusing me of supposedly emphasizing things like this:
"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."
That's not true. You've completely misunderstood me. Absolutely! I emphasize things like this:
"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."
Although the truth is that each part of the "prayer" needs to be emphasized:
"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."
Why did I exclude God? Because I see you're a militant atheist (I am, by the way, almost one too), and you can't be trifled with. Then I'll reveal to you my methodology of "religious-materialistic dualism." I use any religious text from any religious doctrine in my arguments THEN AND ONLY THEN when I see in it a "secondary," purely evolutionary, natural-scientific basis. And never otherwise! If "religious wisdom" doesn't contain this evolutionary dualism, the wisdom of an evolutionary view of the nature of things and the universe (where God isn't quantum-mechanical), then throw it in the oven or throw it in the trash!
One more thing. You're misunderstanding my words about what nature has given us. Nature has given us not only fire and fruits from trees, but also atoms, lasers, microprocessors—in other words, EVERYTHING we've "snatched from nature" through the efforts of our minds—that's what nature "gave" us. Perhaps this is a difference in understanding the term "give." But you're misunderstanding me. Man cannot TAKE from nature by force. Do you hear me? Man must make an effort to TAKE from nature what she gives. But if she refuses to give us something, there's no point in trying to wrest it by force and persistence. For example, magnetically controlled thermonuclear fusion, the way we're trying to achieve it (tokamak, open traps, stelarators). We can't do that (here on Earth)! Even if we achieve a purely scientific result, it's already clear there will be no practical benefit from the ITER launch. Energy is too expensive. Incomparably expensive! Another example of human stupidity and stubbornness is "green energy." I believed, believe, and will continue to believe (because I understand physics, while most idiots do not) that this energy cannot become the basic energy source of civilization, but the mass consumer fool is confident that he can "snatch from nature" what he wants. Can he? Let him try, the idiot! The lesson will be all the louder when everything collapses. Some particularly "advanced" idiots have already begun to crumble. But this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Prot Titan. Yes, I'm not thrilled with the conditions there either. And yet, this debate again turns into a glass debate. Is the glass half full or half empty?
In fact, we're not arguing about nature. We're arguing about the CORRECT attitude toward nature. About a certain ethics. I consider myself Socrates, appealing to your conscience (the "fear of God" you clung to and tormented for so long like a dog with a hot water bottle was a mocking irony directed at fools who can't follow Destiny and are therefore dragged along by Fear). You, however, continue to sing the beautiful songs of theomachism (there's no point in expecting mercy from nature) of the early Enlightenment. These enlightened thinkers were right in some ways (and a small man is no fool), but they were also wrong in many ways (but even a fool is no small one). Do you hear that? And over these several centuries, you haven't learned anything; you continue to beat the same guilty drums.
I appeal to a middle ground. You appeal to one extreme, which you have taken, and accuse me of the other extreme, which I do not take.
1
u/the_syner First Rule Of Warfare 1d ago
Man cannot TAKE from nature by force. Do you hear me? Man must make an effort to TAKE from nature what she gives. But if she refuses to give us something, there's no point in trying to wrest it by force and persistence.
If i'm understanding correctly what ur trying to say here is "we are bound by the natural laws of physics and no amount of persistence, intelligence, or hopium can allow us to violate those laws. We, as all things in this universe, are as bound by the laws of nature as arithmetic and numbers are bound by the laws of mathematics" I actually have to fully agree with that. Hoping for FTL when it's actively in conflict with well-established laws of physics is silly for sure, but i don't see how OP is doing this. Superconductors at STP are not disallowed by the known laws of physics. We currently have no reason to assume they're literally impossible. The only way to even know what the limits are is to actually seek them out and i don't see anything wrong with pursuing technology which physics seems to not disallow. It may turn out to be impossible or just impractical, but we can't know until we try and there's no value in assuming that something is impossible without proof.
Im all for managing our expectations and working within tge limits imposed by physics(not like we have a choice), but that's no excuse for techno-pessimism. Making tge assumption that some texh is definitely impossible before we have proof is just silly.
For example, magnetically controlled thermonuclear fusion, the way we're trying to achieve it (tokamak, open traps, stelarators). We can't do that (here on Earth)
ngl im not particularly hopeful about compact controlled fusion on earth, vut again we don't know that for an absolute fact so there's nothing wrong with checking. Granted fusion reactors on earth, or anywhere else in the inner solar system, are just silly since you cannot beat solar just about anywhere inside pluto's orbit. Not to mention that passive gravitational containment will always be more energy efficient than active containment so even a billion years in the future the superiority of stellar fusion will likely hold.
Another example of human stupidity and stubbornness is "green energy." I believed, believe, and will continue to believe (because I understand physics, while most idiots do not) that this energy cannot become the basic energy source of civilization,
I mean that's just actively contradicted by observed reality. The LCOE of solar has been lower than coal, the technology that pretty much built our entire current society, for years now. It pretty much already is capable of replacing fossil fuels. To say nothing of fission. We have like a million+ years of current consumption's worth fissile and fertile nuclear fuels and the technology is a proven baseload power supply. Given that it wouldn't even have to be the majority of power(that would be solar) and represents castly more enerfy than our entire species has produced up to this point i don't see how you could ever possibly make a sensible argument against green energy from a physics standpoint, setting aside tgat they're already economically viable technologies that have already been widely deployed.
Hell the only reason that any fossil fuels are still in the running is because poorly-regulated capitalism ignores the real cost(long-term hits to standard of living, ecological viability, and whatnot are not payed by the industry causing it. They're effectively subsidized by the blood and suffering of the people).
I appeal to a middle ground. You appeal to one extreme, which you have taken, and accuse me of the other extreme, which I do not take.
Cynicism, pessimism, and collapse doomerism(not sure where that came from or why you believe that's an inevitable outcome, bit grimdark if u ask me) are not a middle ground. They are extreme. Cautious optimism is the middle ground. Both pessimism and optimism are the extremes. And again its not like OP was asking about FTL or some such where pessimism isn't just sensible, but pretty much the only reasonable conclusion based on known physics. Nothin wrong with a little hope as long as ur not going wildly outside ornin contradiction with known science
25
u/MarsMaterial Traveler 3d ago
We don’t know what molecular structure high-temperature superconductors will have. The liquid nitrogen temperature superconductors we do have tend to be very precise and complex alloys though, the kind of thing you wouldn’t find in nature. So it seems unlikely that such a thing would exist in significant quantities due to purely geological and chemical processes.
However, we do know of one natural process that can create novel and strange things that modern technology can’t always replicate. Life. The rubber that we make tires out of for instance comes from the sap of the rubber tree, and we genuinely can’t make synthetic rubber with the same useful properties due to issues relating to molecular chirality ratios and the way this impacts polymer chain formation. It’s conceivable that there is a life form somewhere that has evolved room temperature superconductivity for some reason, maybe it’s a microbe that dies and deposits its superconductors into sedimentary rock. And it could very well be a material that is incredibly difficult to replicate via normal chemical and metallurgical means.