Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is anti-Fusion possible?

  1. Oct 20, 2004 #1
    A thought suddenly come to mind, whether anti fission is possible or not. I selected fussion because it is much simmpler then the fission, there is no radioactive disintegration, no fast moving neutrons are ejected. Only gamma rays are emmited.
    I know it sounds stupid, but i do not have enough reasons to put it away exept the law of entropy, as all the condition can be assumed to meet, just to explain.
    I'd greatly appreciate any help whether in favor or against it.

    Last edited: Oct 20, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 20, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    What do you mean by "anti-fusion"?? Breaking a helium atom into hydrogen atoms?

    Certainly that is possible. It happens all the time in the interior of the sun, for example. It just takes energy rather than releasing it.
  4. Oct 20, 2004 #3
    Yes. but not only hellium,breaking carbon to hellium, as in white dwarf star.
    for all the know fussions.
  5. Oct 20, 2004 #4
  6. Oct 20, 2004 #5
    I know breaking up atom is known as fission. but you are mixing it with nuclear fission, where a moving neutron set up a chain reaction, but i reffered anti-fussion to the process in which we somehow just reverse the process of fussion, not breaking as in fission.
    Thanx for your interest, i'd greatly appreciate your any further help.
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2004
  7. Oct 20, 2004 #6
    The moving-neutron acts as a promoting factor for the nuclear fission process which already has a tendency to ocuur. If it weren't for the unstability of the bigger nuclei, the neutron would have done nothing. So, it mainly has to do with stability.
    Smaller nuclei being stable, will not really be dividable or fissionable, whatever you choose to call it.
  8. Oct 20, 2004 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There are only two processes involved here, fusion and fission. Anti fusion is nonsense. Atoms lighter then iron need extra energy to fission, but they release energy in the fusion process. Atoms heavier then iron require an input of energy to fuse, but they release energy on fission.

    In either case, fusion of lighter atoms, or fission of heavy atoms, you must add energy to start the process. Once the process is started you will get back more energy then you added, thus a net gain in energy.

    Iron is at the peak of the binding energy curve, it requires additional energy to either fuse or fission. Thus iron can be seen as stellar ashes, it can no longer fuel nuclear reactions of any kind.
  9. Nov 14, 2005 #8
    I did not study the nuclear physics yet
    but I think mantly if the fission is opposite of fussion , and you get energy with huge quantity for example :-

    1 kg of uranium makes about E=mc^2 =1*(3E8)^2 = 30 , 000 , 000 giga joule

    I think in your case "anti-fusion {which I think its fission with it self}" need to exerts this energy to make 1 kg of uranium grouping -------> "I just thought about that , it does not depend on scientific fundamental base" :biggrin:

    I hope my answer was succeded

    my regards
    heaven eye
  10. Nov 14, 2005 #9


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Uranium under goes fission which only results in a small amount of mass being converted into energy. You're equation means 1kg of uranium would have the destructive power of a thermonuclear warhead.
  11. Nov 15, 2005 #10


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That's self-contradictory. If breaking up is fission and combining is fusion, then "anti-fusion" - if there were such a thing - would be fission. Ie, how do you reverse combining atoms without breaking them up?

    -Combining: two atoms becomes one. (fusion or "anti-fission")
    -Breaking up: one atom becomes two. (fission)
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2005
  12. Nov 15, 2005 #11
    I think this whole concept of anti-fusion thing came out of an episode of justice league.
  13. Nov 15, 2005 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    When people either introduce something that isn't a standard nomenclature of physics, or worse, something they made up on their own, that it is the burden of those people to DEFINE what it is and use a specific example to illustrate this clearly.

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook