Neutrons were first definitively observed in 1932.
First nuclear reactor was 1942, and bomb was 1945.
Once the science is established, we have smart engineers to make a short work out of it.
Fusion energy is really the only counterexample in history, which makes me think we are still missing some crucial physics about how it works, for example in stars. Specifically the particle physics view of how it's reliably triggered with minimal energy.
The antiproton decelerator at CERN has been operational for 25 years, and they have plenty of smart engineers there. Unlike in the 1940s, the underlying physics has been well understood for many decades. I would argue that nuclear fission is the counter example that happens to be surprisingly easy to do.
All experiments at the AD are strongly limited by the low rates. If there was a straightforward way to improve this by many orders of magnitude, they would have done it a long time ago.
> Fusion energy is really the only counterexample in history, which makes me think we are still missing some crucial physics about how it works
This is magical thinking. We know how fusion works in great detail. And “reliably triggered with minimal energy” is essentially not a thing, unless by minimal energy you mean something like 10 million times the energy of an air particle at room temperature, for every particle in a reactor.
What we’re trying to do is recreate the conditions at the core of a star - which is powered by gravity due to hundreds of thousands of Earth masses. And since we don’t have the benefit of gravity anything like that, we actually have to make our plasmas significantly hotter than the core of a star. And then contain that somehow, in a way that can be maintained over time despite how neutron radiation will compromise any material used to house it.
The reality is, we still don’t know if usable fusion power is even possible - there’s no guarantee that it is - let alone how to achieve it. The state of the art is orders of magnitude away from even being able to break even and achieve the same power out as was put into the whole system.
> at the core of a star - which is powered by gravity
That is what I meant, I doubt we really understand what 'powered by gravity' means. You could win a Nobel prize or two by discovering all the details involved here. You would also win a Nobel prize by definitively proving that nothing special happens, you just have high temperatures and high pressures.
The way we are trying to study fusion is like rubbing larger and larger rocks to produce more fire.
The processes involved in solar fusion have been well understood since the 1930s [1,2]. Hans Bethe won a Nobel Prize for this in 1967. The problem is that one cannot produce stellar densities and pressures in any kind of apparatus.
We have an extremely good understanding of how gravity operates, both inside and outside of stars. There are no Nobel prizes waiting for things you describe, because that’s all well-established and settled science.
Quantum physics tells us exactly why high temperatures and pressures are needed, and predicts numerically what values are needed. We have a great deal of confidence in its correctness, especially because classical physics predicted values that were far too high - it’s only with quantum tunneling that we get values that match observations.
> The way we are trying to study fusion is like rubbing larger and larger rocks to produce more fire.
This is an incorrect opinion borne of ignorance of the very well-understood physics involved.
I'm amused at your confidence in stating that we have a good understanding of what's literally the most prominent open problem in physics, gravity at small/particle scales.
We do have an extremely good understanding of how gravity causes stellar fusion. We don't need quantum gravity to model that. The gravitationally-induced pressure due to the star’s total mass provide the conditions needed for fusion.
If you're thinking along the lines that if we knew how gravity worked at the quantum scale, we might find some sort of way to achieve fusion under much less extreme conditions, we probably can't entirely rule that out, but there's been many decades of work in that area, so it's seeming pretty unlikely. Also, that has nothing to do with what's happening inside a star.
We know about the need to overcome the electrostatic Coulomb barrier, we know what energies are required to overcome it and have models that predict those energies very accurately, we know how quantum tunneling allows this barrier to be penetrated, etc.
We can even do things like muon-catalyzed fusion, where we substitute muons for electrons in hydrogen atoms, which lowers the Coulomb barrier.
As such, the claims in the comment I originally replied to were just completely wrong.
First nuclear reactor was 1942, and bomb was 1945.
Once the science is established, we have smart engineers to make a short work out of it.
Fusion energy is really the only counterexample in history, which makes me think we are still missing some crucial physics about how it works, for example in stars. Specifically the particle physics view of how it's reliably triggered with minimal energy.