If it had been possible, it would have been done long ago.
That statement is simply absurd.
2) why not take the Concorde design and work to reduce or undo the sonic booms in that design? Because there's nothing in the Concorde design that helps them. The Concorde, again, is a prime example of what NOT to do.
Huh? Read that sentence you wrote again and think about how silly it is. Was there a Neanderthal space program 10,000 years ago that I’m not aware of? Did they also have iPhones because, “If it had been possible, it would have been done long ago?”
The X-59 that is now researching sonic boom reduction is a huge jump forward acoustically compared to the Concorde. Its fuselage is uniquely designed to spread the shockwave out across the fuselage to dilute the pressure differential. That’s why it has a shockingly long, specially contoured nose, and the pilot has no forward windscreen, instead relying upon cameras and synthetic vision. That design and the extremely high altitude at which it will fly should combine to prevent most of the acoustic energy from reaching the ground. I’ve experienced Lockheed Martin’s sonic boom simulator that allows you to hear a typical sonic boom, followed by the sound that the X-59 is expected to make. It’s really stunning, going from a very loud boom that shakes everything to a barely noticeable thump that Lockheed says should be no louder than someone nearby closing a car door.