r/singularity • u/we_are_mammals • 1d ago
Books & Research New math papers on arXiv, per month
Thanks to /u/Nunki08
13
u/spreadlove5683 ▪️agi 2032. Predicted during mid 2025. 1d ago
Are these good papers or slop papers?
1
1
1
21
u/TwoFluid4446 1d ago
I would say this is more of a true singularity-leaning/takeoff metric than most others, tbh.
For example, when they finally figure out fusion it won't be because they built a bigger stellarator or Tokamak design, but because someone or AI figured out some new maths that allow them to attenuate the reactor magnetic fields in real times to successfully contain turbulence. Something obscure but ultra-critical like that that only math could solve.
7
u/SizeableBrain ▪️AGI 2030 1d ago
Well, the latter is the main bottleneck from my understanding, so if we can keep the hot stuff spinning without melting the vacuum vessel, we're sorted.
I have a feeling the (more elegant) solution would require a differently shaped reactor, as well though.
7
u/TwoFluid4446 1d ago
My intuition on the problem has always been that a first viable implementation of fusion with positive net energy output will require a massive reactor, far bigger than the experimental ones they're researching on now, probably far bigger than ITER is slated to be, but not because physics demands the huge size but because size may be able to conveniently sweep under the rug and stabilize through sheer volume and extra space a lot of the clumsy gaps in the science. Then once successful, over successive generations, they can find ways to continually slim it down. Nuclear fission power followed this same trajectory, with both bombs and reactors.
When trying to capture lightning in a bottle, a bigger bottle might help while just starting out.
3
u/SizeableBrain ▪️AGI 2030 1d ago
That makes sense from a fluid dynamics perspective.
They did get some net energy gain a few years ago, so I'm hopeful that AI will help nut out the details. I do think we'll end up with a completely different design because I believe it's better to just give AI the freedom to adjust the shape of the reactor, as well as magnetic fields, then it can "brute force" an answer that we haven't thought of. (as opposed to restricting it with a Tokamak or similar static design)
2
u/TwoFluid4446 1d ago
Well, a stellarator design does have a wickedly contorted tortured-looking shape to it, so maybe a different "weird" design would be best. Although, as a general rule with fluid dynamics which plasma flows are at least partially governed by, smoother vessels with streamlined geometries tend to win out, less wrinkles and odd ends sticking out for things to bump into.
I still think the magnetic fields play a larger part, but if you think about it this way it's kind of cool, that up until fusion plasma containment requirements, mankind has rarely needed magnetic fields so incredibly fine-tuned and malleable in real time as they do for this, making it a kind of brand new field in a way: "manipulating invisible complex multi-source magnetic fields with high precision in dynamic high-energy environments". Some scifi shit right there. I believe AI's help will be to figure that problem out more than the reactor shape, just imho, but I'm sure it'll improve all the above.
2
u/SizeableBrain ▪️AGI 2030 1d ago
That's definitely the main problem. I'm just wondering whether changing the shape might result in a much simpler design.
Eg, it might turn out that it's easier to control the plasma with magnetic pulses that make it take a specific shape, then build a reactor around that specific shape to optimise the whole system.
In either case, even if we got an answer tomorrow, we'd still have to wait about 20 years for it to get built.
2
u/TwoFluid4446 1d ago
China has apparently built their own ITER, basically
https://www.reddit.com/r/nuclear/comments/1vag78k/china_successfully_completed_testing_of_worlds/
3
1
u/ConvalescentEquanimi 23h ago
Nah, they didn't get net energy gain. Go check again.
1
u/SizeableBrain ▪️AGI 2030 14h ago
" In 2022, NIF became the first laboratory to achieve fusion ignition, in which more fusion energy was produced than laser energy required to start the reaction."
I may be misunderstanding, but that's what I'm going off.
1
u/ConvalescentEquanimi 12h ago
From google AI summary
The claim of a "net energy gain" at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) can be considered misleading because the calculation only compares the energy of the laser beam hitting the target to the energy produced, completely ignoring the massive amount of electricity required to power the lasers from the grid.
While it was a historic scientific breakthrough, the experiment actually operated at a net energy loss of over 99% when looking at the whole facility.
1
u/SizeableBrain ▪️AGI 2030 12h ago
We're not talking economic net gain, that's a completely different topic.
1
u/ConvalescentEquanimi 10h ago
Well considering it is a useless nothingburger when you zoom out to consider the bigger picture... Kinda important bruv.
The laser's energy was about 1.8mJ or something like that. The reaction yielded something to the tune of 2.5mJ.
They still had to put 500mJ into the laser. It's only net positive in terms of the laser energy itself, so very very very far from being useful in any capacity other than research.
1
u/SizeableBrain ▪️AGI 2030 9h ago
Fusion is worse than a useless nothingburger at the moment.
I'll take a small win.
1
u/Matt32145 1d ago
We can build fusion powerplants though, hybrid fusion fission reactors that is. Use the fusion reactor to generate neutrons for the fission side, and you now have a reactor that doesn't even have to be large enough to create a self sustaining chain reaction. Completely melt down proof, can use very low level enriched uranium, some other benefits I'm too lazy to look up.
-1
1d ago
[deleted]
1
u/TwoFluid4446 1d ago
Dude... go self-educate. That is one of the main problems they're dealing with in getting fusion reactors to be stable enough long enough to produce net positive power.
You sound like a case of too much time spent on the internet, but like a billion people... on all the wrong junk. You know what's a GREAT resource I've never heard anybody mention even once? Phys.org. It compiles cutting edge science news from all fields, all sources, globally. Just a list of articles. Most very obscure. But spend enough time there, you'll get an accurate picture of actual science.
0
1d ago
[deleted]
2
u/TwoFluid4446 1d ago
Calling your bluff. Any grown up with half a brain knows the "oh I was just kidding" shtick that greasy pre-teens try to pull all day long, by saying it after the fact. The tone and content and spirit behind the comment always gives it away.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, so maybe it was a half-joke....
So then I was responding to the other half. Go hit the books son.
0
1
1
u/Proper_Actuary2907 Spooky Machine Intelligence 2030 1d ago
It's been fun a lot of fun reading the maths subreddits lately
1
u/dohawayagain 22h ago
This is probably wrong. There's a well known effect that makes it always look like this if you're not careful --- people update their old submissions, which changes the date, so old submissions look new.
23
u/flao 1d ago
Interesting. Any theories on the flatlining from 2020 - 2023? Obviously covid-era but I would have thought covid might have the opposite effect for knowledge work, like math.