4 ms·

> We have an abundance of silicon, that hasn't sparked any sort of revolution around silicon. ...But it has? Think of all the things we make out of silicon and

> We have an abundance of silicon, that hasn't sparked any sort of revolution around silicon. ...But it has? Think of all the things we make out of silicon and silicon compounds. Buildings, glass, countertops, tools, computers, etc... If silicon were rarer we would surely not be making buildings and windows out of silicon compounds! Some of these do not have easy replacements. You can make buildings without silicon (many are made without) but without silicon we would have a hard time coming up with something like glass. Glass fueled a lot of our scientific revolutions, giving us glassware for chemistry, optics for microscopes and telescopes, etc. Who can know how long it might have taken for us to discover the theory of gravity, cell theory, germ theory, or large chunks of chemistry without glass.

perl4ever 7y ago
Another case in point, maybe a better parallel, is aluminum. Once it was more precious than gold and used in similar applications to gold and platinum. Then technology was developed to produce it more easily, and we started making things like wheels and then entire vehicles out of it. So we already have the precedent of a precious metal becoming an industrial one, although I don't mean to suggest gold alloys would be good for the same applications due to its density.
- cogman10 7y ago
  The strength to weight ratio of aluminum was known long before we could mass produce it. For example, Titanium is superior to aluminum in most weight/strength applications. If we could mass produce it, we'd not use aluminum anymore. Carbon fiber is even better than Titanium. Again, if it were mass producible, we'd use it for everything. I can point to materials that, if they were cheaper, we'd make everything out of them. That's because we've researched these materials and know that they have potential applications. Their availability hasn't been a factor in the research, not really. Gold, AFAIK, doesn't have those same sorts of analogous usages. It doesn't have a "But if it were cheaper" sort of application. Maybe some electronics or nano-scale applications might benefit from it, but I wouldn't think it would be excluded from that research since you are talking about a tiny amount per component (after all, we still use gold to plate electronic leads today).
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Titanium is strong but brittle, and carbon fibre (or the epoxy which bonds it) has problems at high temperatures. Even aluminium has challenges compared to steel of fatigue under stress or tension, being attacked by certain substances (especially mercury), of a lower melting point, and of bimetallic corrosion (when paired with copper wire in electrical applications: don't do that). Abundance matters (iron, steel), ore processing (electricity and baauxite), but so too do material properties.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    I have no idea, but lots of things, like of course aluminum, are generally used in alloys and alloys can have very interesting properties.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Excellent example and one I was going to make. Worth noting that aluminium itself is abundant, it is the processing and refinment, before abundant supplies of electricity, which are difficult and proved limiting: https://aluminiumleader.com/history/industry_history/ https://aluminiumleader.com/history/industry_history/
cogman10 7y ago
Fair point, but I still don't believe that just because something is more available, we'd discover more applications for it. After all, we've used gold for tooth fillings in the past. That's a pretty high accessibility for everyone. I could see the argument for materials (such as anti-matter) which are only synthesized in the lab. However, gold, while expensive, is also fairly common to researchers. Take platinum as another counter point. Even though it is more expensive than gold, we still put it in catalytic converters for millions of cars. Gold is researchable today. Maybe if it were more available we wouldn't exclude it from research due to cost. But that is a big maybe. If silicon were as rare as gold, we'd still be able to say "Hey, this gets transparent when we heat it up" and "Hey, this doesn't really conduct electricity well". That is, we'd be able to see it and have the arguments of "if we just had a bunch more of this, we could make a lot of cool glass things". AFAIK, there isn't some application that exists like that with gold. It is very malleable. It has a low melting point. It doesn't corrode. The best application I think we'd come up for it is something like using it for soldering like we use tin (it would probably do a better job there than tin does).
- stanfordkid 7y ago
  The entire technology revolution is based around the idea that "if we have more of something we find new applications"... You wouldn't have an iPhone if compute power was as rare as gold. The whole article is written with the tone of someone who doesn't understand the concept of "unknown unknowns".
- klodolph 7y ago
  > Fair point, but I still don't believe that just because something is more available, we'd discover more applications for it. I really don't understand why you would believe this. There are countless things we can make out of widely available materials like stone, wood, glass, steel, etc., because we've spent an enormous amount of time learning how to work with these materials. Researchers have budgets that they have to work with, so they don't use much gold, just enough to plate something that needs to be corrosion resistant or another similar use. Some researchers have large budgets, but who would research the application of gold to everyday purposes if you know that it wouldn't be financially viable? > Take platinum as another counter point. Even though it is more expensive than gold, we still put it in catalytic converters for millions of cars. Platinum has been variously more and less expensive than gold over the course of history. At this particular moment it is less expensive, ten years ago it was more. > If silicon were as rare as gold, we'd still be able to say "Hey, this gets transparent when we heat it up" and "Hey, this doesn't really conduct electricity well". If silicon were as rare as gold, we would not have: - Windows - Eyeglasses - Microscopes - Telescopes - Cameras Except for use by the extremely wealthy and well-funded, or perhaps in extremely inferior versions. There are some better substitutes we could make in the latter half of the 20th century out of plastics. > It is very malleable. It has a low melting point. It doesn't corrode. The best application I think we'd come up for it is something like using it for soldering like we use tin (it would probably do a better job there than tin does). You wouldn't stop using tin just because you started using gold :-) You would use something like 80Au20Sn. But I think that just because you can't imagine a use for it, doesn't mean that someone else hasn't.

perl4ever 7y ago

Another case in point, maybe a better parallel, is aluminum. Once it was more precious than gold and used in similar applications to gold and platinum. Then technology was developed to produce it more easily, and we started making things like wheels and then entire vehicles out of it. So we already have the precedent of a precious metal becoming an industrial one, although I don't mean to suggest gold alloys would be good for the same applications due to its density.

cogman10 7y ago
The strength to weight ratio of aluminum was known long before we could mass produce it. For example, Titanium is superior to aluminum in most weight/strength applications. If we could mass produce it, we'd not use aluminum anymore. Carbon fiber is even better than Titanium. Again, if it were mass producible, we'd use it for everything. I can point to materials that, if they were cheaper, we'd make everything out of them. That's because we've researched these materials and know that they have potential applications. Their availability hasn't been a factor in the research, not really. Gold, AFAIK, doesn't have those same sorts of analogous usages. It doesn't have a "But if it were cheaper" sort of application. Maybe some electronics or nano-scale applications might benefit from it, but I wouldn't think it would be excluded from that research since you are talking about a tiny amount per component (after all, we still use gold to plate electronic leads today).
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Titanium is strong but brittle, and carbon fibre (or the epoxy which bonds it) has problems at high temperatures. Even aluminium has challenges compared to steel of fatigue under stress or tension, being attacked by certain substances (especially mercury), of a lower melting point, and of bimetallic corrosion (when paired with copper wire in electrical applications: don't do that). Abundance matters (iron, steel), ore processing (electricity and baauxite), but so too do material properties.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  I have no idea, but lots of things, like of course aluminum, are generally used in alloys and alloys can have very interesting properties.
dredmorbius 7y ago
Excellent example and one I was going to make. Worth noting that aluminium itself is abundant, it is the processing and refinment, before abundant supplies of electricity, which are difficult and proved limiting: https://aluminiumleader.com/history/industry_history/ https://aluminiumleader.com/history/industry_history/

cogman10 7y ago

Fair point, but I still don't believe that just because something is more available, we'd discover more applications for it. After all, we've used gold for tooth fillings in the past. That's a pretty high accessibility for everyone. I could see the argument for materials (such as anti-matter) which are only synthesized in the lab. However, gold, while expensive, is also fairly common to researchers. Take platinum as another counter point. Even though it is more expensive than gold, we still put it in catalytic converters for millions of cars. Gold is researchable today. Maybe if it were more available we wouldn't exclude it from research due to cost. But that is a big maybe. If silicon were as rare as gold, we'd still be able to say "Hey, this gets transparent when we heat it up" and "Hey, this doesn't really conduct electricity well". That is, we'd be able to see it and have the arguments of "if we just had a bunch more of this, we could make a lot of cool glass things". AFAIK, there isn't some application that exists like that with gold. It is very malleable. It has a low melting point. It doesn't corrode. The best application I think we'd come up for it is something like using it for soldering like we use tin (it would probably do a better job there than tin does).

stanfordkid 7y ago
The entire technology revolution is based around the idea that "if we have more of something we find new applications"... You wouldn't have an iPhone if compute power was as rare as gold. The whole article is written with the tone of someone who doesn't understand the concept of "unknown unknowns".
klodolph 7y ago
> Fair point, but I still don't believe that just because something is more available, we'd discover more applications for it. I really don't understand why you would believe this. There are countless things we can make out of widely available materials like stone, wood, glass, steel, etc., because we've spent an enormous amount of time learning how to work with these materials. Researchers have budgets that they have to work with, so they don't use much gold, just enough to plate something that needs to be corrosion resistant or another similar use. Some researchers have large budgets, but who would research the application of gold to everyday purposes if you know that it wouldn't be financially viable? > Take platinum as another counter point. Even though it is more expensive than gold, we still put it in catalytic converters for millions of cars. Platinum has been variously more and less expensive than gold over the course of history. At this particular moment it is less expensive, ten years ago it was more. > If silicon were as rare as gold, we'd still be able to say "Hey, this gets transparent when we heat it up" and "Hey, this doesn't really conduct electricity well". If silicon were as rare as gold, we would not have: - Windows - Eyeglasses - Microscopes - Telescopes - Cameras Except for use by the extremely wealthy and well-funded, or perhaps in extremely inferior versions. There are some better substitutes we could make in the latter half of the 20th century out of plastics. > It is very malleable. It has a low melting point. It doesn't corrode. The best application I think we'd come up for it is something like using it for soldering like we use tin (it would probably do a better job there than tin does). You wouldn't stop using tin just because you started using gold :-) You would use something like 80Au20Sn. But I think that just because you can't imagine a use for it, doesn't mean that someone else hasn't.