Physics Mathematics Biology Computer Science Topics Archive Special Issues Podcasts Videos Qualia Essays Multimedia Q&As Explainers About Quanta Search Search for: Search Search Newsletter Get the latest news delivered to your inbox.
Youtube Instagram RSS Newsletter An editorially independent publication supported by the Simons Foundation.
Physics Mathematics Biology Computer Science Topics Archive Saved articles Saved Articles Create a reading list by clicking the Read Later icon next to the articles you wish to save.
Login Log out Change password Search let headerArray = '{"type":"default","solid_primary_color":" text-1a1a1a","solid_secondary_color":" text-999999","solid_hover_color":" text-ff8600","solid_background_color":null,"solid_border_color":null}'; Type search term(s) and press enter
Physics Black Holes Evolution Home Is There Anything Left in the Dream of Cold Fusion? Comment Save Article Read Later Share Facebook Copied! Copy link Email Pocket Reddit Ycombinator Comment Comments Save Article Read Later Read Later Qualia Is There Anything Left in the Dream of Cold Fusion? By George Musser November 2, 2026
Save Article Read Later Add as Preferred Source (opens in a new tab) i Click to tell Google to prioritize Quanta and see more of the best coverage of science and math in your search and AI results.
atomic physics nuclear physics particle physics physics Qualia All topics
C old fusion: Now there’s an idea I hadn’t thought about in a while. It came back onto my radar in spring 2026. I had written an article on how scientists tend to be risk averse, and Huw Price , a philosopher at Trinity College at the University of Cambridge, responded to it on Bluesky, citing a paper he’d recently co-authored on attitudes toward cold fusion. He thinks scientists have been overly dismissive not only of cold fusion, but also of the claim that they have been overly dismissive of cold fusion. As if to prove his point, a journal had just rejected his paper. I’ve long admired Price’s work on the nature of time and causation, so I was intrigued.
I n philosophy, “qualia” refers to the subjective qualities of our experience: what it’s like for Alice to see blue or for Bob to feel delighted. Qualia are “the ways things seem to us,” as the late philosopher Daniel Dennett put it. In these essays, our columnists follow their curiosity, and explore important but not necessarily answerable scientific questions.
When the cold-fusion controversy erupted in 1989, I was in the middle of backpacking off the grid for six months. (You could do that back then.) By the time I caught up on the news, it was over. In March, two chemists had called a press conference to announce a simple tabletop experiment that released too much energy to be a mere chemical reaction. They said it had to be nuclear: hydrogen nuclei fusing to form helium. It promised limitless clean, cheap power. Physicists were stunned. That sort of thing wasn’t supposed to be possible under such pedestrian conditions. Politicians proclaimed the end of all our energy woes. But then labs across the globe tried to replicate the experiment and couldn’t, and an almighty takedown ensued. The whole thing only lasted a few months. Not having experienced the episode in real time, and being a contrarian by nature, I initially sympathized with the plucky maverick scientists. But then I read about their rookie mistakes, their fudging of a crucial graph, and their threats of lawsuits against skeptics. Experiments that initially corroborated the results were retracted, in one case amid indications of deliberate spiking with fake fusion products.
Although cold fusion was a pathological case, fusion in general has been a graveyard of dreams. I grew up on the dream it evoked. Whether it occurs at room temperature, as it was supposed to have done in the cold-fusion episode, or at center-of-the-sun temperatures, as in conventional thermonuclear reactors (and bombs), fusion doesn’t require strip-mining (and disposing of) uranium or escorting oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz. All you would need, ideally, is a bit of seawater. Fascinated, I once built a “fusor” in my basement based on an article in Make magazine. Fusors are real, the one legitimate tabletop fusion technology. In them, a high voltage creates a hot plasma that smashes nuclei together. My unit didn’t achieve fusion, but with work it could have, although it would have produced negligible power. I loved showing guests its glowing purple plasma, but the more I learned about fusion, the more a sense of disillusionment grew in me. A couple of years later, a friend at a private fusion company gave me a tour of an actual experimental fusion reactor. It was complex and costly. So much for cheap. It produced intense, deadly neutron radiation. So much for clean. And it required tritium fuel, which does not occur naturally and has to be manufactured. So much for just a bit of seawater.
So how did a nice philosopher like Price get mixed up in a business like this? Over Zoom, he explained that his interest dates to 2011, when he and other luminaries were hatching the idea for the Center for the Study of Existential Risk . This research group frets over nuclear winter, engineered bioweapons, massive volcanic eruptions, and artificial intelligence takeover — it rang that alarm bell long before it became fashionable. Price told me he saw parallels between doomsday scenarios and cold fusion. They may seem improbable, and studying them is a lonely or even fringe activity, yet the consequences are huge, so we should give more weight to them than might strictly seem warranted.