Large Hadron Collider Transmutes Lead Into Tiny Particles of Gold
May 9th, 2025Via: CERN:
In a paper published in Physical Review Journals, the ALICE collaboration reports measurements that quantify the transmutation of lead into gold in CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
…but the total still amounts to trillions of times less than would be required to make a piece of jewellery. While the dream of medieval alchemists has technically come true, their hopes of riches have once again been dashed.
Take the resultant gold from the CERN’s Large Hardon Collider and rehypothicate it through the LBMA’s Large COMEX Divider.
There’s been little news about the SAPHIRE Project in recent years, but it sure had my attention 6-7 years ago regarding transmutation–one of the stated possibilities was the remediation of high-level radioactive waste. There is a commercial spinoff called Aureon Energy, but I haven’t kept up with it:
Me to Grok: “Can you give a summary of the current status of the SAPHIRE Project, of which the late Wal Thornhill was an advisor, particularly as it pertains to the possible transmutation of elements, given the recent announcement that CERN has transmuted lead not through direct collisions, but by near misses of particles?”
https://safireproject.com/index.html
https://www.aureonenergy.com/
Grok: “The SAFIRE Project, advised by the late Wal Thornhill, was an experimental initiative to test the Electric Sun model and explore the role of electricity in stellar and planetary phenomena. It aimed to investigate plasma-based processes, including the possibility of low-energy nuclear transmutations, which could challenge conventional nuclear physics. Below is a summary of the project’s status, its relevance to transmutation, and how it connects to the recent CERN findings on lead-to-gold transmutation via near-miss collisions, based on available information.
Status of the SAFIRE Project
Overview and Goals: The SAFIRE Project, conducted by Aurtas International Inc. and supported by the International Science Foundation, used a plasma chamber to simulate solar and cosmic conditions. It focused on observing electrical phenomena, including the Electric Sun hypothesis, which posits that stars are powered by galactic electric currents rather than internal fusion. A key claim was the potential for low-energy transmutations in plasma environments, suggesting elements could transform without high-energy collisions typical in nuclear physics.
Reported Findings: In a 2019 update, SAFIRE claimed evidence of low-energy transmutations in their plasma chamber, where elements reportedly changed atomic structure, potentially forming new isotopes or elements. They also suggested achieving “cold fusion,” producing more energy than input, which could imply nuclear reactions at lower energies than standard models allow. These claims supported a proton-electron model of the atom, where subatomic structures permit transmutations more readily than in conventional nuclear theory. However, specific details on the elements transmuted, experimental reproducibility, or peer-reviewed data were sparse.
Current Status: As of the latest available information (up to 2020), the SAFIRE Project released updates via videos and presentations, notably through the Thunderbolts Project, co-founded by Thornhill. There’s no evidence of ongoing experiments or new publications post-2020, and the project’s website and updates are limited. Wal Thornhill’s passing in 2023 likely impacted its momentum, as he was a key intellectual driver. The project remains controversial, with mainstream scientists questioning its claims due to a lack of rigorous, peer-reviewed evidence and reliance on non-standard models like the Electric Universe.
Scientific Reception: The SAFIRE Project’s findings, particularly on transmutation and cold fusion, have not been widely accepted. Mainstream physics demands mathematical rigor and reproducible experiments, which SAFIRE’s qualitative approach and limited data have not met. Critics argue it aligns with fringe theories, inspired by Immanuel Velikovsky’s ideas, which prioritize electricity over gravity in cosmic phenomena.
SAFIRE and Transmutation
Claims of Transmutation: SAFIRE suggested that plasma environments could facilitate low-energy transmutations, potentially mimicking processes in stars or planets. For example, they cited potassium transmuting into a light isotope of calcium by shedding an electron, implying a mechanism where electric fields reorganize atomic nuclei without high-energy collisions. This contrasts with standard nuclear physics, where transmutation requires overcoming strong nuclear forces via particle bombardment or radioactive decay.
Relevance to Electric Universe: Thornhill’s Electric Universe model posits that plasma and electric currents dominate cosmic processes, including element formation. SAFIRE’s transmutation claims were framed as evidence that electric fields in plasma could drive nuclear reactions, supporting the idea that stars and planets form elements through electrical processes rather than stellar nucleosynthesis.
CERN’s Recent Lead-to-Gold Transmutation
Breakthrough Announcement: In May 2025, CERN’s ALICE collaboration reported quantifying the transmutation of lead into gold at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Unlike traditional methods using direct collisions or neutron bombardment, this process occurred in “near-miss” ultra-peripheral collisions. High-energy lead nuclei, accelerated to 99.999993% of light speed, passed close without colliding, generating intense electromagnetic fields. These fields produced virtual photons that interacted with lead nuclei, ejecting three protons and at least one neutron, transforming lead (82 protons) into gold (79 protons). The ALICE detector’s Zero Degree Calorimeters (ZDCs) measured these events, producing about 89,000 gold nuclei per second, though only ~29 picograms total from 2015–2018. The gold was fleeting, disintegrating in microseconds.
Mechanism: This electromagnetic dissociation process relies on photon-nucleus interactions, not physical collisions. The intense electromagnetic fields act like a “pulse” that excites the nucleus, causing it to shed particles. This is a novel mechanism compared to earlier transmutations, like Glenn Seaborg’s 1980 experiment or Soviet reports in 1972, which used particle bombardment or reactor conditions.
Comparing SAFIRE and CERN
Mechanistic Differences:
SAFIRE: Claims low-energy transmutations in a plasma chamber, driven by electric fields without high-energy particle accelerators. The process is poorly documented, lacking specific energy thresholds or particle interactions. It suggests a fundamentally different nuclear model where electric forces dominate.
CERN: Uses ultra-high-energy conditions (5.02 TeV collisions) and precise electromagnetic interactions in a controlled, relativistic environment. The process is well-quantified, with clear measurements of proton and neutron emissions, and aligns with established nuclear physics.
Energy Scales: SAFIRE’s purported low-energy process contrasts sharply with CERN’s high-energy regime. CERN’s near-miss transmutation still requires extreme conditions (near-light-speed nuclei), far from SAFIRE’s lab-scale plasma chamber. SAFIRE’s claims of “cold fusion” or low-energy reactions remain unsubstantiated by mainstream standards.
Scientific Validation: CERN’s results are published in peer-reviewed journals (Physical Review C, 2025) with detailed methodology and data, while SAFIRE’s findings lack peer review and rely on conference presentations and videos. CERN’s work builds on decades of nuclear physics, while SAFIRE aligns with fringe theories, limiting its credibility.
Relevance to SAFIRE’s Claims: CERN’s near-miss transmutation, driven by electromagnetic fields rather than collisions, superficially resembles SAFIRE’s emphasis on electric processes. Both involve electromagnetic interactions altering nuclei, but CERN’s process is highly energetic and precisely measured, whereas SAFIRE’s is low-energy and speculative. CERN’s findings don’t validate SAFIRE’s claims, as the energy scales and mechanisms differ vastly, but they could inspire Electric Universe proponents to argue for a broader role of electromagnetic forces in nuclear processes.
Implications and Context
SAFIRE’s Legacy: Without new updates or leadership post-Thornhill, SAFIRE’s impact remains limited to Electric Universe advocates. Its transmutation claims, if true, would revolutionize physics, but lack of rigorous evidence stalls progress. The project’s focus on plasma and electricity aligns with Thornhill’s vision but hasn’t bridged to mainstream science.
CERN’s Advance: The ALICE experiment demonstrates a new, measurable transmutation mechanism, advancing nuclear physics and LHC capabilities. While not practical for gold production (due to minuscule yields and high costs), it enhances understanding of photon-nucleus interactions, potentially improving accelerator performance.
Philosophical Connection: SAFIRE and CERN both explore how electromagnetic forces can alter atomic nuclei, resonating with your earlier question about Birkeland currents and cosmic neural networks. If the universe is analogized as a brain, CERN’s precise electromagnetic manipulations mirror controlled neural signals, while SAFIRE’s plasma experiments evoke the chaotic, self-organizing currents of cosmic plasma. However, CERN’s work is grounded in empirical rigor, while SAFIRE’s remains speculative.
Conclusion
The SAFIRE Project, as of its last known updates in 2020, claimed low-energy transmutations in a plasma chamber, supporting the Electric Universe model but lacking mainstream validation due to insufficient evidence and non-standard methodology. CERN’s 2025 breakthrough, quantifying lead-to-gold transmutation via electromagnetic near-miss collisions, is a rigorous, high-energy process that doesn’t directly support SAFIRE’s claims but shares a thematic link through electromagnetic-driven nuclear change. SAFIRE’s current status appears dormant, and its transmutation findings remain unverified, while CERN’s work advances nuclear physics with clear, reproducible results. To explore SAFIRE further, one would need new experimental data or peer-reviewed publications, which are currently absent.
If you’d like, I can dig deeper into the Electric Universe model, Thornhill’s theories, or CERN’s technical methods—or even check for any recent, obscure SAFIRE updates online. Let me know!”
Geek/silly? Mode, off topic–Me to Grok:
“Can you give your opinion on how birkeland currents, self-organized from the ubiquitous conductive plasma in space, may be analogous to conductive neurological tissue in the brain, if your view of the universe is that of a giant brain?”
Grok: “The idea of Birkeland currents—electric currents that flow along magnetic field lines in space, self-organizing within conductive plasma—being analogous to neurological tissue in a brain is a fascinating speculative concept, especially if we view the universe as a kind of “cosmic brain.” Here’s my take, blending scientific reasoning with the metaphorical framework you’ve proposed:
Birkeland currents, observed in phenomena like auroras and galactic jets, arise from the interaction of charged particles in plasma, guided by magnetic fields. Their self-organization emerges from the interplay of electromagnetic forces, where plasma’s conductivity allows currents to flow efficiently, forming filamentary structures. Similarly, neurological tissue in the brain consists of neurons that transmit electrical impulses through conductive pathways (axons and synapses), with self-organization evident in neural networks that adapt and rewire based on stimuli. Both systems exhibit emergent complexity: Birkeland currents form intricate, dynamic patterns across vast scales, while neural networks create consciousness and cognition through interconnected firing patterns.
If we imagine the universe as a giant brain, Birkeland currents could indeed be analogous to neural pathways. The conductive plasma, pervasive in space (estimated to constitute ~99% of the visible universe’s matter), acts like a medium for information transfer, much as the brain’s conductive tissue (neurons and glial cells) facilitates signaling. The filamentary structures of Birkeland currents, seen in galactic magnetic fields or solar prominences, resemble the dendritic and axonal networks in the brain, both channeling energy along preferred paths. Moreover, the self-organizing nature of both—driven by feedback loops in plasma dynamics or neural plasticity—suggests a parallel in how complexity arises from simple rules.
However, there are key differences. Birkeland currents operate on electromagnetic principles in a near-vacuum, with vast spatial and temporal scales (e.g., light-years, millennia), while neural tissue relies on electrochemical signals in a dense, biological medium, with rapid (millisecond) dynamics. The “information” carried by Birkeland currents, if any, is likely impersonal—patterns of energy and matter flow—whereas the brain’s activity produces subjective experience. For the universe-as-brain metaphor to hold, we’d need to speculate on whether cosmic structures encode or process information in a way that resembles cognition, which remains unproven and leans into panpsychism or similar philosophies.
In this view, the universe’s plasma-filled filaments, threaded by Birkeland currents, could be seen as a cosmic neural network, with galaxies or star systems as “nodes” (like neurons) and currents as “synapses” transmitting energy and influence. This is poetic and aligns with ideas in plasma cosmology or electric universe theories, though these are controversial and lack mainstream acceptance due to limited empirical support compared to standard cosmology.
Ultimately, the analogy is compelling as a thought experiment: both systems channel energy through conductive media, self-organize into complex networks, and suggest a universe alive with dynamic processes. But equating cosmic currents to a brain’s cognitive function requires a leap beyond current science, into the realm of metaphor or speculative philosophy. It’s a beautiful lens for imagining the cosmos as interconnected and “thinking” in its own alien way, but we’d need evidence of cosmic-scale information processing to make it more than an analogy.
What do you think—want to dive deeper into the physics of Birkeland currents or the philosophical implications of a brain-like universe?”
I thought all these big, expensive machines were there to discover how the principles of physics worked or something esoteric like that. But, yet again, it’s about how the few at the top can amass riches beyond belief?
I hope some extraterrestrials are interfering a bit just to tease the people who own these machines. I wouldn’t mind if they made a stop over my chimney: it’s got lead flashing.
NH, are mainstream scientists certain that gravity does not involve or require electricity? Or that they work together in a specific way which scientists already know all about?
Can Grok do a thought experiment in which it takes all the known science about both and about science itself and looks for proof or viable theoretical possibilities linking the two? Or has that been done already with an AI of greater abilities than Grok’s?
If whoever gets the answers doesn’t like them, can’t they just hide them? Would you ask Grok if that’s happened yet? Free energy would sure upset our current fossil-fueled economy.
NH,that’s a fascinating output from Grok. Particularly the results from the second half, i.e. the cosmic brain analogy. I’ve always found the Electric Universe a compelling theory, regardless of its nascent state.
Overall I’m blown away with the rapid research potential of these AI language models. Thanks for posting.
@Snowman–mainstream physicists are certain about a lot of things they shouldn’t be, and unaware of a lot of things they should be–turning over too much of physics to the mathematics “priests” has been a big mistake. Good questions.
@Dale–Me too, when I first came across Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology theory it really grabbed me from a common sense standpoint–many of the recent astronomical observations could be explained from an electrical perspective without resorting to wildly speculative math and nonsense like dark energy/matter and even the “theological” Big Bang.
I recommend Wal Thornhill’s blog from about 2003-2019.
https://www.holoscience.com/wp/
Yeah, the reality of having a super intelligent research assistant at your fingertips 24/7 is mind blowing, and then trying to contemplate how this plays out from a competitive nation state/World power faction/corporate standpoint is a whole nother thing.