- #1
Alan J.
- 17
- 0
What would be the reprocussions of detonating a nuclear device in outer space? Would nothing happen except the explosion... would it create a black hole? Would it become a ball of energy self contained in its own atmosphere?
Alan J. said:What would be the reprocussions of detonating a nuclear device in outer space?
Not quite - the entanglement principle says that certain properties of the particles are uncertain until you measure them, if you measure the state of one particle you know the state of the other and so in some way you have set it's value even though they are separated.Alan J. said:In quantum mechanics. There are theories in which if 2 electrons were created at the same time and one was effected by a force then the other would respond instantly.
A nuclear explosion is pretty pathetic on an astronomical scale.Would a nuclear device have any effect on these connections or is a nuclear explosion in space still too primal or elementary to effect such connections?
Along those lines,mgb_phys said:A nuclear explosion is pretty pathetic on an astronomical scale.
Alan J. said:What would be the reprocussions of detonating a nuclear device in outer space? Would nothing happen except the explosion... would it create a black hole? Would it become a ball of energy self contained in its own atmosphere?
Astronuc said:But 1015 J in 10-6 s is only 1021 W, still puny compare to things stellar.
mheslep said:A cubic meter of stellar core wouldn't run my toaster oven.
JeffKoch said:Hmm, with a core temperature of 15,000,000K, Stefan-Boltzmann says your cubic meter of stellar core radiates around 1e22 watts, not including energy from particles. That's a lot of toaster ovens. Nuclear bombs produce similar sorts of temperatures and densities, but over MUCH smaller volumes. Laser experiments can do the same, but over smaller volumes still.
About 3.4×10^38 protons (hydrogen nuclei) are converted into helium nuclei every second (out of ~8.9×10^56 total amount of free protons in the Sun), releasing energy at the matter–energy conversion rate of 4.26 million tonnes per second, 383 yottawatts (3.83×10^26 W) or 9.15×10^10 megatons of TNT per second. This actually corresponds to a surprisingly low rate of energy production in the Sun's core—about 0.3 µW/cm³ (microwatts per cubic cm), or about 6 µW/kg of matter. For comparison, a candela of light (roughly one candle) produces heat at the rate 1 W/cm³, and the human body at approximately the rate 1.2 W/kg—millions of times more heat production. The use of plasma with similar parameters for energy production on Earth would be completely impractical—even a modest 1 GW fusion power plant would require about 170 billion tonnes of plasma occupying almost one cubic mile. Thus, terrestrial fusion reactors utilize far higher plasma temperatures than those in Sun's interior.
rewebster said:I think they (the USA) did it back in the 60's or early 70's
mheslep said:No, that's a misapplication of Stefan-Boltzman.
The radiator calculation is fine; my point was its not indicative of the steady state exothermic fusion reaction, the power density of which is lousy for any practical earthly purpose. The 15,000,000K (1.4keV in core) is essentially the kinetic energy required to keep our M^3 reactor ignited. Allowing all that energy to radiate away would quench the reaction, akin to leaving the door open on a furnace, and its a one time deal. I want the toaster oven to run awhile. In the sun's core, radiation loss would also be proportional to Trad^4 but its mostly blocked or reflected by the mantle. Likewise our M^3 reactor has to have some kind confinement (magnetic or other) that serves a similar purpose. Note that ITER will have 5-10keV temperatures over several M^3 of plasma. Certainly you don't expect to measure its power output from T^4.JeffKoch said:Not at all. You have a cubic meter of 15,000,000K material (never mind how you got it, or how long it'll stay there), and you ask how much energy is radiated away assuming it's optically thick to that radiation. MKS power per unit area is then 5.67e-8 times (15,000,000)^4, and total power is 6 times this (6 square meters for the cube). Even if it's not perfectly optically thick, that's still a lot of toasters. I invite you to show me what's wrong with this calculation.
Yes its ~80Watts/M^3 in the core, and will be for another 5-10^9 years, i.e. steady state.You can ask about power produced from fusion reactions in that cubic meter, and you'll get a different number.
Yes, nuclear detonations can occur in outer space. They are caused by the explosion of a nuclear weapon, which releases a huge amount of energy through a chain reaction of nuclear fission or fusion.
The effects of a nuclear detonation in outer space are different from those on Earth. In space, there is no atmosphere to absorb the energy and heat from the explosion, so the blast and radiation effects are much more powerful and can travel farther. This can potentially damage or destroy satellites and other objects in orbit.
Yes, there have been several nuclear detonations in outer space, mostly as part of nuclear weapon testing during the Cold War. The United States and Soviet Union both conducted multiple tests in outer space, including explosions in the Earth's upper atmosphere and in orbit around the Earth.
No, a nuclear detonation in outer space cannot cause a nuclear winter. A nuclear winter is caused by the large-scale burning of cities and forests on Earth, which would not occur in outer space. However, a nuclear detonation in the atmosphere could potentially lead to disruptions in the Earth's climate and environment.
If a nuclear detonation occurred near a planet or star, the effects would depend on the size and distance of the explosion. If it was close enough, it could potentially disrupt the planet or star's magnetic field and cause electromagnetic disturbances. However, if it was far enough away, the effects would likely be minimal and have no significant impact.