Nuclear Explosion Particles: Characteristics & Scientists

[Dlockwood]

What are all of the particles, radioactive or otherwise, left over from a nuclear explosion, and what are their characteristics? Scientists who have been involved in monitoring underground detonations would be best qualified to answer this, however, I would welcome all input and information.

 

[DaveC426913]

A short list:
Alpha particles - the common helium nucleus, stripped of its electrons (He^2+)
Beta radiation - high-energy electrons or positrons ejected from a nucleus
Gamma rays - an energetic form of electromagnetic radiation (above X-rays)

I found some good descriptions on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_particle
Google them to taste, for all the info you can read.

 

[Dlockwood]

Spectral Analysis

Has femto-second or, at least nano-second spectral analysis ever been done during a nuclear detonation? And, are there particles that have been created then destroyed during the blast? Are alpha particles the only particles that exist without electrons? Are there other particles that occur naturally or otherwise that are without electrons? What is meant by 'fast-moving particles' in reference to particle radiation? Do alpha and beta particles recombine with water when it rains to become non-radioactive? How long do the alpha and beta particles last and what (other than rain or water) makes them become non-radioactive? Are there different types of radioactivity with different types of bombs (Other than alpha, beta, gamma and neutron exitation)? Or is there just more of these particles with different types of nuclear bombs? You didn't mention x-rays. What is the full spectrum of radiant energy emitted by a nuclear detonation and do all types of bombs emit the same spectum of energy? Is there different intensities at different frequencies for different bombs? What are the intensities of radiant energies? Does the spectrum change during the duration of the fireball?

 

[Dlockwood]

Also, about positrons... Do they only annialate with electrons? Can they annialate with protons or nuetrons? If they're anti-matter shouldn't they be able to annialate with any form of matter? How long do they last after a nuclear detonation? My interest is purely scientific and I will return the favors with another 'interesting conclusion' if my questions are answered, otherwise, this forum is of no further use to me and I will leave. None of these questions should be covered by any secrets act, and if they are, someone is really paranoid. Just about anybody in the world can make a nuclear bomb and if they had any brains, they would know that they don't need fissionable materials to do it.

 

[Coolblueflame]

Holy crap...you don't want much lol

 

[Morbius]

Dockwood,

In terms of radiation, you get alpha, beta, gamma, and neutrons.

The alpha particles are short range - slow down, pick up stray electrons, and
become neutral helium-4.

Beta are electrons - they also are slowed down and captured and become part
of the background material.

Gammas are Compton scattered and eventually absorbed, for example, by
pair production - which produces a positron / electron pair. The positron
eventually annihilates with another electron. A particle of anti-matter only
annihilates with its matter counterpart.

There are conservation laws - conservation of lepton and baryon numbers -
for example. An electron is a lepton, a positron an anti-lepton. A proton is
a baryon. The positron has a lepton number of -1. The proton has a baryon
number of +1. If you annihilated a positron with a proton - the number of
leptons would increase by 1, and the number of baryons would decrease by 1.
The conservation laws say that can't happen.

As far as making a nuclear bomb - you don't need "fissionable" material - but
you do need "fissile" material. It's not as easy as you think!

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[hitssquad]

Nuclear fission fragments

He said, "left over," Morbius, not "immediate emissions." Here is a fairly concise answer to his question, in terms of fission (and not fusion)...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fisfrag.html

When uranium-235 undergoes fission, the average of the fragment mass is about 118, but very few fragments near that average are found. It is much more probable to break up into unequal fragments, and the most probable fragment masses are around mass 95 and 137. Most of these fission fragments are highly unstable (radioactive), and some of them such as cesium-137 and strontium-90 are extremely dangerous when released to the environment.

...except that that article does not deal directly with fission explosions. Fission explosions would also at least involve releasing unfissioned uranium or plutonium (since fission bombs do not burn their nuclear fuel with 100% efficiency).

 

[Morbius]

He said, "left over," Morbius, not "immediate emissions." Here is a fairly concise answer to his question, in terms of fission (and not fusion)...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fisfrag.html

hittssquad,

"Immediate" or "left over" - depends on your time scale. Since Dockwood
had mentioned nanosecond time scales, I assumed he was talking about
what is left over after the nuclear event - but still on the short time
scale.

...except that that article does not deal directly with fission explosions. Fission explosions would also at least involve releasing unfissioned uranium or plutonium (since fission bombs do not burn their nuclear fuel with 100% efficiency).

Nothing is 100% efficient - but you'd be surprised what the efficiency is.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[theCandyman]

There are conservation laws - conservation of lepton and baryon numbers -
for example. An electron is a lepton, a positron an anti-lepton. A proton is
a baryon. The positron has a lepton number of -1. The proton has a baryon
number of +1. If you annihilated a positron with a proton - the number of
leptons would increase by 1, and the number of baryons would decrease by 1.
The conservation laws say that can't happen.

What is a lepton number? And what about combinding a lepton and baryon? Are those just different names for protons and electrons?

 

[Morbius]

What is a lepton number? And what about combinding a lepton and baryon? Are those just different names for protons and electrons?

Candyman,

The lepton number is the number of leptons you have.

Leptons and baryons are not just another name for electrons and protons -
they are names of a class or category.

Leptons include electrons and neutrinos

Baryons include protons and neutrons.

Let me take another example of this - beta minus decay. Essentially you
have a radioisotope that has too many neutrons to be stable. One of the
neutrons decays to a proton, an electron, and an anti-neutrino:

n -> p + e + nu-bar [ "nu-bar" - a nu with a bar over it is the symbol
for the anti-neutrino ]

Let's look at the baryon number. Before the reaction, we had 1 baryon;
the neutron - and after the reaction we have 1 baryon - the proton.
So baryon number is conserved - +1 before, +1 after.

Let's look at lepton number. We had 0 leptons before. Afterwards we
have an electron [ lepton number +1 ] and an anti-neutrino [ lepton
number -1 ]. [ The number of the anti-particle is the negative of the
particle's number ]. The lepton number after the reaction is +1 + (-1) = 0
So we started with 0, and ended with 0 - lepton number was conserved.

Let's look at charge. Before the reaction, we had a chargeless neutron -
so the charge was 0. Afterwards we have a proton [ charge +1 ], and an
electron [ charge -1 ]. Total charge afterwards is +1 + (-1) = 0
We started with 0 net charge and ended with 0 net charge.

So the number of baryons was conserved, the number of leptons was
conserved, and the net charge was conserved.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[theCandyman]

Thank you for the examples with that reply, Dr. Greenman. But, why does net charge have to be conserved? Is charge not a form of energy, and is there not a small change in the total mass between a neutron changeing into a proton/electron/anti-neutrino?

 

[Morbius]

Thank you for the examples with that reply, Dr. Greenman. But, why does net charge have to be conserved? Is charge not a form of energy, and is there not a small change in the total mass between a neutron changeing into a proton/electron/anti-neutrino?

Candyman,

Just like conservation of energy - the laws of physics dictate conservation
of charge too. It comes out of Maxwell's equations. Courtesy of
Georgia State University Dept of Physics:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxsup.html

Courtesy of Clark Atlantic University:

http://www.hbcumi.cau.edu/tqp/451/451 Module I/451-03/451-03.html

Since total energy is conserved - if in the beta decay reaction - you
take the energy equivalent of the mass of the parent radioisotope -
and compare that to the sum of the energy equivalent of the daughter
isotope, plus the energy equivalent of the electron, plus the energy
equivalent of the anti-neutrino plus the kinetic energies - you will find
that the energy equation balances too - total energy is conserved.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[theCandyman]

What is a neutrino's mass in relation to electron? About the same size? The same for anti-neutrinos?

Also, I thought neutrions moved at 99 percent the speed of light. Would this not require a lot of energy, to attain this speed? Or is that speed only the ones coming from the sun as their source?

Sorry to bother you with so many questions.

 

[Morbius]

What is a neutrino's mass in relation to electron? About the same size? The same for anti-neutrinos?

Also, I thought neutrions moved at 99 percent the speed of light. Would this not require a lot of energy, to attain this speed? Or is that speed only the ones coming from the sun as their source?

Sorry to bother you with so many questions.

Candyman,

Actually it's a very good question.

At one time, physicists thought that neutrinos moved at the speed of light
like photons. In order to do that - they would have to have a rest mass of
zero like the photon.

More recently, it's been suggested that the neutrino moves somewhat
slower than the speed of light. Therefore, it has a small mass - smaller
than the electron.

It's understandable that this is not a settled issue - it's very hard to
study neutrinos - they interact so weakly with matter. Our experiments
determine the properties of neutrinos [ or any other nuclear particle
for that matter ] by how it iteracts with other matter. The neutrino
interacts so weakly with matter, that most of the time, neutrinos
stream right through matter without "doing anything" - so how do you
study them?

There is a concept called the "mean free path" - which is on average -
how far will a particle "free stream", i.e. propagate without interacting
before it eventually interacts. You can think of it as the average
distance the particle goes before it "collides" with something.

You can determine the mean free path of practically any particle in
any material if you know the nuclear "cross-section" or interaction
probability.

If you calculate the mean free path of neutrinos in solid lead - you would
measure that distance in "light-years". It's that long!

Scientists use huge underground vats of liquid [ I believe a certain
cleaning fluid has the right properties, and is cheap enough to make a
huge underground detector.] There are photo-detectors surrounding the
vat of fluid that watch for the almost infinitesimal flashes of a neutrino
interaction. They build it underground for shielding - nothing but
neutrinos can get all the way down underground.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990623.html

[Notice that man standing near the bottom left corner - it gives you
a sense of the size of the detector.]

Even with these large detectors - a neutrino interaction "event" is rare.

It's amazing that we can study them at all.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[theCandyman]

It is huge! And more than a mile underground!

Light-year distance through solid lead? I am guessing that is because they have mass, unlike photons, which implies they do not have wavelike properties which is why photons do not go throught solid objects?

 

[Morbius]

It is huge! And more than a mile underground!

Light-year distance through solid lead? I am guessing that is because they have mass, unlike photons, which implies they do not have wavelike properties which is why photons do not go throught solid objects?

Candyman,

Nope - even when we thought that neutrinos had zero rest mass - the
mean free path in lead was still many light-years.

The reason the mean free path is so long is that the force with which
neutrinos interact with matter is the "weak" force. [ which is a certain
manifestation of the "electro-weak" force - there's been a unification
between the weak force and the Coulomb force].

Quantum mechanically, neutrinos have wavelike properties - just like
any particle does - even electrons, protons, neutrons...

Photons don't go through solid matter because they react with the
electrons that surround atoms. If a photon has an energy that is
equal to the difference in energy between a lower "orbit" that has an
electron in it, and an unpopulated higher "orbit" - the electron in the
low orbit can absorb the photon and use its energy to move to the
higher orbit. If the photon has an energy in excess of 1.02 MeV - then
you can have "pair production" - if the electron passes close enough to
an atom - its energy can be converted to an electron / positron pair.
There are other reactions that scatter or deflect the photon instead
of absorbing it.

Photons interact with electrons via the Coulomb force.

However, neutrinos interact with the weak force - and it's just not as
"strong" as the Coulomb force. With such a meager force causing
interactions - neutrinos just flat out don't "do anything" when passing
through matter [ which is mostly empty space ]. THATS why neutrinos
have such a long mean free path.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Dlockwood]

I appreciate the concise responses of Dr. Greenman (Moribus) and the questions and comments of the Candyman, even though only part of my questions were answered. It takes me awhile to play catchup, meaning that some of your responses require a great deal of research and investigation on my part, followed by a time of brainwracking to thoroughly understand the issues and 'test' the theories and, sometimes, developing my own. You are very good at communicating Dr. and it is obvious that you have a great deal of understanding. I cannot express enough my gratitude for your responses. I still have several unanswered questions and, doubtless, I'll have more when these are answered.

First unanswered question: What is the largest particle extant (natural or synthetic) without electrons, not counting the 'free' particles of an accelerator. (I stated my reasons for not believing that accelerator particles are free of electrons in my 'Another question' which I posted under the Quantum physics forum, which forum was truncated to three pages about the time my thread hit page four.)

Second: Has femto, pico, or nano second spectral analysis ever been performed during a nuclear detonation? The reason that I ask is that I assume that the greatest changes in the fireball will likely happen in the first few femto seconds after detonation, and that elemental changes will also occur during this time.

Thirdly: What is the bandwidth and intensity of propagative emmisions during the entire length of a detonation. I am assuming that certain frequencies will dominate during the first femto seconds of the detonation while other frequencies will dominate at later intervals. Most likely from gamma to lower frequencies.

F.Y.I., quoting from Sarbacher's 'Encyclopedic Dictionary of Electronics and Nuclear Engineering (Published in 1959): "Fissile. In nucleonics, fissionable (q.v.). Fissile is used more in England and Canada than in the the United States."

I know that much of the material in the book is obsolete, but I use it mostly to weed through some of the current mis-information floating around on the internet and sometimes this forum. Plus I use it as a comparison of old and new. That being said, I'll use fissile henceforth, assuming that fissionable is obsolete. I bought the book in Japan in 1968.

 

[Morbius]

First unanswered question: What is the largest particle extant (natural or synthetic) without electrons, not counting the 'free' particles of an accelerator. (I stated my reasons for not believing that accelerator particles are free of electrons in my 'Another question' which I posted under the Quantum physics forum, which forum was truncated to three pages about the time my thread hit page four.)

Second: Has femto, pico, or nano second spectral analysis ever been performed during a nuclear detonation? The reason that I ask is that I assume that the greatest changes in the fireball will likely happen in the first few femto seconds after detonation, and that elemental changes will also occur during this time.

Nuclear tests were heavily diagnosed. The purpose of a test was not to
determine simply whether the device went "boom" or not - but the
details of exactly how the process happened.

Thirdly: What is the bandwidth and intensity of propagative emmisions during the entire length of a detonation. I am assuming that certain frequencies will dominate during the first femto seconds of the detonation while other frequencies will dominate at later intervals. Most likely from gamma to lower frequencies.

It's certainly very complex. At detonation, the device starts out
extremely hot, and cools as it radiates and expands. The big fireball
one sees in films of nuclear detonations is a state that has expanded
and cooled a great deal from when all that energy was contained in
only the mass of the nuclear device, itself.

F.Y.I., quoting from Sarbacher's 'Encyclopedic Dictionary of Electronics and Nuclear Engineering (Published in 1959): "Fissile. In nucleonics, fissionable (q.v.). Fissile is used more in England and Canada than in the the United States."

I know that much of the material in the book is obsolete, but I use it mostly to weed through some of the current mis-information floating around on the internet and sometimes this forum. Plus I use it as a comparison of old and new. That being said, I'll use fissile henceforth, assuming that fissionable is obsolete. I bought the book in Japan in 1968.

The accepted definitions of "fissile" and "fissionable" by scientists are
as follows.

"Fissionable" means that the nuclide will fission - but there is a threshold
energy that the neutron must have. That is - if one were to introduce
a low energy neutron into the nuclide - the nuclide would not fission.
The neutron has to carry with it an additional amount of kinetic energy
in order to make the "fissionable" nuclide unstable and subsequently
fission. U-238, for example, is "fissionable". U-238 will fission, but only
if the triggering neutron has an energy above ~1 MeV.

"Fissile" means that the nuclide will fission with low energy neutrons.
The mere introduction of a neutron into the nuclide will cause the
nuclide to be unstable with respect to fission. The neutron need not
bring any additional kinetic energy with it - the mere fact that the
neutron falls into the nuclide's nuclear potential well is enough to cause
the nuclide to fission. U-235 is "fissile".

In a light water moderated nuclear reactor - most of the neutrons are
low energy "thermal" neutrons - their temperature is in equilibrium
with the temperature of the materials of the reactor. Such neutrons
have energies that are a small fraction of an eV.

If the reactor has enough U-235 in it - one can have a self-sustaining
chain reaction. However, if the reactor had nothing but U-238 in it -
it would not support a chain reaction - even though U-238 is "fissionable".
[There aren't enough high energy neutrons is a water moderated,
"thermal reactor".]

A thermal reactor runs on thermal neutrons fissioning U-235. As a result
of fission - there are fast neutrons produced [ which will later slow down
after scattering off the hydrogen in the water ]. Before these neutrons
slow down - they are above the threshold of U-238 fission, and will cause
some fissioning of U-238 - but this is a small percentage of the fissions.

A very early reactor calculational model was Enrico Fermi's "four factor
formula". One of the four terms was the "fast fission factor". You might
search for information on those terms.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Dlockwood]

Forces

When you were a kid you must have been very good at dodgeball Dr.. I guess you could consider me as a sort of technical no spin zone. Obviously, my questions are not going to be answered. I'm not really surprised, though, and we both know why. That's not to say that you don't provide really good information. I have a great admiration for people of your capability. I have one last question, or at least an attempt at one. How would you compare the different forces in the core? In other words, if I gave the attractive forces of the particles a weight of one per particle, what would the repulsive forces be (per repulsive particle)?

 

[Astronuc]

First unanswered question: What is the largest particle extant (natural or synthetic) without electrons, not counting the 'free' particles of an accelerator. (I stated my reasons for not believing that accelerator particles are free of electrons in my 'Another question' which I posted under the Quantum physics forum, which forum was truncated to three pages about the time my thread hit page four.)

Second: Has femto, pico, or nano second spectral analysis ever been performed during a nuclear detonation? The reason that I ask is that I assume that the greatest changes in the fireball will likely happen in the first few femto seconds after detonation, and that elemental changes will also occur during this time.

Thirdly: What is the bandwidth and intensity of propagative emmisions during the entire length of a detonation. I am assuming that certain frequencies will dominate during the first femto seconds of the detonation while other frequencies will dominate at later intervals. Most likely from gamma to lower frequencies.

First question - do mean largest particle or largest stable particle without electrons? Excluding atomic nuclei, the largest stable particle would be a proton. On the other hand, since protons and electrons really dig each other, they don't stay very far away from each other. Charge neutrality is the local gig. You did, man?

Quantum mechanically speaking, in a hydrogen atom, the electron orbits some distance from the proton. Furthermore, protons like to pair up with their electron partners to form diatomic hydrogen molecules.

Second question - femto-spectral analysis? Get real! No way! The resolution of the best electronics is going to be nano-seconds, and by the time one processes the data - more like 10's or 100's of nano-seconds. And the measurements will not give one a direct observation of what is happening at the atomic/nuclear level. One will get a prompt gamma-burst, but that will involve some degradation of the gammas by the Compton effect.

And what is meant by 'elemental changes'? The fission process is well known and understood. No surprises. Dr. Greenman has answered your questions about subatomic particles - quite adequately.

Third question - the fission process takes place over nano-seconds. Why be concerned with femto- or pico-seconds. Firstly, the fission process releases gamma-rays (prompt gammas, with energies of 1 to 7 MeV), with fission products and neutrons. Some fission products may decay by beta-decay within a few milliseconds - but most have half-lives of seconds or more, so they do not release beta-particles or anti-neutrinos until after the CM has dissociated.

The fissile CM (e.g. Pu-239 (+240, 241)) becomes a plasma of unfissioned Pu and fission products. The prompt gammas will scatter on the electrons (Compton effect) and the other atoms will collide causing ionization, from which recombination will produce photons of wavelengths characteristic of the particular atoms.

So, the detonated CM will produce a broad spectrum of electromagnetic radiation consisting of gamma rays, X-rays, UV, visible and infrared.

Just curious - what is the point of your questions?

 

[Morbius]

When you were a kid you must have been very good at dodgeball Dr.. I guess you could consider me as a sort of technical no spin zone. Obviously, my questions are not going to be answered. I'm not really surprised, though, and we both know why. That's not to say that you don't provide really good information. I have a great admiration for people of your capability. I have one last question, or at least an attempt at one. How would you compare the different forces in the core? In other words, if I gave the attractive forces of the particles a weight of one per particle, what would the repulsive forces be (per repulsive particle)?

Dlockwood,

What attractive forces do you have in mind?

As Astronuc points out, after detonation the device is rapidly
transformed into an extremely hot mass of plasma.

Now - what attractive forces are you concerned with - the attraction
between protons and electrons?

The temperatures and kinetic energies in a plasma are so high that the
attraction between protons and electrons is overwhelmed - that's why
the material becomes a plasma - the nuclei can no longer "hold onto"
their electrons - they get "knocked away" by the forces of the high
energy collisions between the atoms of the plasma.

So you end up with a bunch of free nuclei, and free electrons - all at
very high temperature, and very high pressure. Surrounding that is
the ambient environment - nominal pressure and temperature. So the
hot, high pressure plasma expands - generating a blast wave, thermal
wave, and all the familiar consequences of such an explosion.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Dlockwood]

Frequency

First question: I didn't specify stable or unstable. Normally that would include either. I just wanted to know the largest particle that exists in a 'natural setting', that is, without the aid of machines, without electrons, even if they were created by machines.

Second question: Sprectal sensors are inherently slow, operating at best, in nano-seconds. In order to properly analyze the fireball, I assumed that femto-second analysis would be a minimum requirement. While I assumed this is not feasible with current sensor technology, I also know that scientists have always been 'stellar' at finding ways to solve this kind of problem. I also assumed that using multple staggered trigger multiple sensor arrays would have been the most likely approach.

Third question: I have long wondered what the emmisions were from a nuclear explosion. Particularly, the differences in frequency between the different types of nuclear devices and the intensities of each frequency per unit of time for each type. Each part of this question would produce three dimensional pictographs of the emmisive events that take place during a nuclear detonation. I assumed that intense gamma bursts would be the first highest intensity emmisions followed by lower frequencies, with some lower frequencies possibly exceeding the intensities of the gamma bursts at later periods. Of course it depends how you define intensity for these emmisions also, which I expected to be discussed in the answer.

Lastly, I did mention 'the core' meaning that since there are attractive forces at work in the core, that would include protons and nuetrons, not electrons. The attractive force would be the gravitational attraction of the particles. Repulsive forces could only include protons, unless there are other repulsive forces in the core, and these would refer to the 'like' charges. What I wanted to know, in terms of force, is if the attractive forces were equal to the replusive forces, or if one outweighed the other, and which if any, was the greater force.

And no, I don't believe these questions have been answered. I would be surprised if you didn't know these answers so I am assuming that you won't answer them because you're bound by a secrets act. That's ok by me, but it would be nice if you would give some indication to that effect rather than dancing around these fairly straight forward concepts. I'm sure that any good physicist with a better math background than I have could calculate the answers to these questions in about a year. Most of the information needed is out there.

 

[Morbius]

First question: I didn't specify stable or unstable. Normally that would include either. I just wanted to know the largest particle that exists in a 'natural setting', that is, without the aid of machines, without electrons, even if they were created by machines.

Dlockwood,

What's a "natural setting" [ or what's an "unnatural setting" ] ?

Second question: Sprectal sensors are inherently slow, operating at best, in nano-seconds. In order to properly analyze the fireball, I assumed that femto-second analysis would be a minimum requirement. While I assumed this is not feasible with current sensor technology,

You're wrong again with respect to spectral sensors not having
femto-second resolution. The sensors employed by Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory in the laser-fusion program are that fast. They
have to be - the laser fusion events are very short - much shorter than
a bomb.

Courtesy of the International Society for Optical Engineering:

http://www.spie.org/app/publications/magazines/oerarchive/december/dec97/cover.html

is an interview with LLNL scientist Deanna Pennington. Notice Figure 4 -
curve d) shows the pulse to have a width of 620 femto-seconds, while
curve c) shows the spectrum of the pulse. In order to obtain a spectrum
of a pulse that has a 620 femto-second duration, one has to have sensors
that respond with femto-second scale resolution.

I also know that scientists have always been 'stellar' at finding ways to solve this kind of problem. I also assumed that using multple staggered trigger multiple sensor arrays would have been the most likely approach.

Third question: I have long wondered what the emmisions were from a nuclear explosion. Particularly, the differences in frequency between the different types of nuclear devices and the intensities of each frequency per unit of time for each type. Each part of this question would produce three dimensional pictographs of the emmisive events that take place during a nuclear detonation. I assumed that intense gamma bursts would be the first highest intensity emmisions followed by lower frequencies, with some lower frequencies possibly exceeding the intensities of the gamma bursts at later periods. Of course it depends how you define intensity for these emmisions also, which I expected to be discussed in the answer.

Again, you are making erroneous assumptions. With matter, the higher
the kinetic energy - the faster the object travels. However, this is NOT
TRUE with photons, i.e. radiation. Gamma rays don't travel faster than
X-rays which don't travel faster than visible light. They all travel at
the speed of light.

However, the radiation is not transporting in a vacuum - it is travelling
in a medium - the air [ plus bomb debris ]. The detected radiation may
not just free-stream in the air. It may interact and be absorbed and
re-emitted - which, in effect, slows down the transport velocity. [ Ex.
light travels slower in water and glass than it does in air - which is why
you see refracted images of the fish in your aquarium ]. At what
frequencies the light is absorbed and re-emitted is complex - and it is
not a simple function of the energy.

"Intensity" doesn't depend on how you define it - there is A definition of
intensity. The intensity is the number of photons per unit area per unit
solid angle per unit energy [ or frequency ] per unit time.

Lastly, I did mention 'the core' meaning that since there are attractive forces at work in the core, that would include protons and nuetrons, not electrons. The attractive force would be the gravitational attraction of the particles. Repulsive forces could only include protons, unless there are other repulsive forces in the core, and these would refer to the 'like' charges. What I wanted to know, in terms of force, is if the attractive forces were equal to the replusive forces, or if one outweighed the other, and which if any, was the greater force.

The gravitational attraction is INSIGNIFICANT - by many, many orders
of magnitude! Gravity only plays a significant role when one of the
"particles" is a planet or something larger. [ There's a gravitational
attraction on the objects around you exerted by the massive Earth ].
But gravitational attraction between nuclei? PULEEZ!

The nuclear attraction between protons and neutrons don't play any
part in how the expansion of the exploding bomb proceeds. Those forces
are totaly internal to the nuclei - so they don't affect how the nuclei
are accelerated or dispersed in the explosion. [ Consult a high school
physics text as to why internal forces don't affect the motion. ]

And no, I don't believe these questions have been answered. I would be surprised if you didn't know these answers so I am assuming that you won't answer them because you're bound by a secrets act. That's ok by me, but it would be nice if you would give some indication to that effect rather than dancing around these fairly straight forward concepts. I'm sure that any good physicist with a better math background than I have could calculate the answers to these questions in about a year. Most of the information needed is out there.

If there are areas which involve secrets - then obviously those can't
be discussed.

In fact, if that's the case, then one can't even state what those areas
are - because that would be telling people where to look for interesting
secrets.

You'll just have to accept the answers I give as I give them.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Astronuc]

First question: I didn't specify stable or unstable. Normally that would include either. I just wanted to know the largest particle that exists in a 'natural setting', that is, without the aid of machines, without electrons, even if they were created by machines.

The largest particles in nature would be found in the upper atmosphere of Earth as a result of high energy protons striking other protons and forming mesons and baryon resonances or hyperons. The hyperons then decay into protons or neutrons and mesons. The same particles can be created by synchtron particle accelerators. But such particles are not produced in nuclear fission systems - energy per nucleon is way too low.

Second question: Sprectal sensors are inherently slow, operating at best, in nano-seconds. In order to properly analyze the fireball, I assumed that femto-second analysis would be a minimum requirement. While I assumed this is not feasible with current sensor technology, I also know that scientists have always been 'stellar' at finding ways to solve this kind of problem. I also assumed that using multple staggered trigger multiple sensor arrays would have been the most likely approach.

No, femto-second analysis is not necessary. The fission process is well known. Consider in 1 fs (1E-15 s), a photon at the speed of light would travel 0.3 microns. Let's say that a sphere of fissile material has radius of 10 cm. The photons are buried inside the CM, and it will take photons from the center approximately 333,333 fs, or 333 ps (picoseconds). A lot can happen in that time to degrade the orginal spectrum.

I will have to investigate further the link posted by Dr. Greenman. I did a brief reveiw, but could not see any discussion of the sampling rate or method for development of the pulse with by auto-correlation. The FWHM was 620 fs (on the order of 1 pico-sec).

Third question: I have long wondered what the emmisions were from a nuclear explosion. Particularly, the differences in frequency between the different types of nuclear devices and the intensities of each frequency per unit of time for each type. Each part of this question would produce three dimensional pictographs of the emmisive events that take place during a nuclear detonation. I assumed that intense gamma bursts would be the first highest intensity emmisions followed by lower frequencies, with some lower frequencies possibly exceeding the intensities of the gamma bursts at later periods. Of course it depends how you define intensity for these emmisions also, which I expected to be discussed in the answer.

Each individual fission release prompt gamma-rays, 2 or 3 neutrons, and two nuclei (fission products). The gamma-rays interact with the electrons, which scatter (Compton effect). Fission products ionize other atoms, and recombination produces photons.

So there is a broadspectrum of gamma-rays, X-rays, UV, visible in a fire ball very early in the detonation.

The fissions do not all occur simultaneously, but limited by how fast the neutrons released from one fission are absorbed and cause a new fission.

 

[Dlockwood]

First, I have to apologize for my 'largest particle' post. I must have been brain dead when I posted it. What I meant was largest particles (s) without electrons as in alpha particles.

In response to some of these last posts I should present an 'interesting conclusion' on core bonding but that would cause a deviation in this thread that would detract from my goal.

Just curious - what is the point of your questions?

Intergalactic travel... I know it's possible and the process needed to accomplish it, but the logistics are formidable. I'll need these answers to build enough understanding to finish, I think. I'm trodding in a lot of unknown territory and in areas where there is no science as of yet, or, at least I haven't been able to find any. In order to complete my conclusions I need a better understanding of the relationships between energy and matter.

Again, I really appreciate the response thus far.

 

[Astronuc]

Thanks for the explanation of your interests. That helps.

Intergalactic travel is indeed a formidable goal. Perhaps one would consider a more modest goal of interstellar travel (within our galaxy), or perhaps even interplanetary travel, which humans have yet to master.

For now all practical propulsion systems available to humankind are reaction based. Some thermal energy source is used to produce kinetic energy of a 'propellant' and the propellant mass-velocity (momentum) is expelled essentially in the opposite direction of travel. Still other concepts attempt to use transfer of momentum from solar wind or cosmic particles (like a sail with wind). The physical and technical constraints are stored energy density, maximum power density and specific energy, and propulsive efficiency (e.g. Isp).


Now, for the largest particle question - alpha particles (nucleus of He atom) would indeed commonly be the largest particle without electrons. They are frequently encountered in alpha decay of transactinide elements, but also Ra-226, Rn-222 and isotopes of Po (210, 214, 218). However, the alpha particles will interact with surrounding atoms and eventually slow down and collect two electrons to produce an He atom. Alpha-particle are effectively not involved in fission reactions.

At the other end of the chart of nuclides, fusion reactions may produce alpha particles, which are about the heaviest, at least they are the most common of the heaviest particles. I think there is a post in the nuclear engineering forum which discusses various fusion reactions, but perhaps only the more common ones. Some reactions may produce Li ions.

I believe the physics forums have quite a lot on matter-energy relationships. If there are specific questions, we will try to answer them to your satisfaction.

 

[Dlockwood]

Intergalactic Travel

Interplanetary travel is probably always going to be accomplished with a semi-conventional propulsion system. It provides the most control within a star system and using the hydrogen atomic principle (although helium may be a better way with more thrust), probably already developed or in development by NASA (a simple process really), would allow us to reach Mars in about three days, providing that they accelerated at one g for half the trip and decelerated for the other half (Yes, there could be enough fuel carried on board to do it). Traveling to other star systems in the galaxy could also be accomplished with atomic rockets (below C) but the efforts would be decades before frutition and by then we should have a non-propulsion system that will get us there in hours or days, that is if current scientists are willing to eat crow and admit that their evolutionary philosophies are wrong (probably not going to happen). Right now, I would say that, given the current trends in science, it will be at least a hundred years before interstellar and intergalactic travel is accomplished unless someone who is not bound by convention and secrets acts does it.

The problem with non-propulsion systems is that the science does not yet exist. And, knowing the processes required to achieve it does not help much without a supporting foundation of non-particle science. However, there is enough base information, I think, to pursue the concepts, so, since the whole process is shrouded in secrecy (by the agencies and universities involved), and since I'm fascinated by the concept of a non-propulsion system (although there's really no such thing as a non-propulsion system that provides movement) I thought I would just go ahead and pursue it. I'm at the point where I know it can be accomplished and what phenomena need to be understood to do it, but, as I said before, the logistics are formidable. I still need to better understand the interactions between matter and energy. I also need to know for sure if string theory is correct and why. I've found that it is not enough to understand electron motion and core bonding to pursue intergalactic travel. Knowing that m=0@c doesn't help either. In fact, it greatly complicates the problem. But, I'm relentless, so while I'm still alive, I'll pursue it.

Most of the alternate propulsion processes currently in consideration, while fascinating, are going to be realized as futile attempts at interstellar travel, even though they may be the first attempts and may actually arrive at other star systems. I would guess that they would be sent as probes at first, looking for planets around other stars. This whole process would take probably a hundred years for conformation of a successful probe.

Do you know why alpha particles are the largest particles without electrons? Don't you think that this is a really big clue to nuclear core bonding?

 

[Dlockwood]

The gravitational attraction is INSIGNIFICANT - by many, many orders
of magnitude! Gravity only plays a significant role when one of the
"particles" is a planet or something larger. [ There's a gravitational
attraction on the objects around you exerted by the massive Earth ].
But gravitational attraction between nuclei? PULEEZ!

Are you saying that the gravitational attraction is INSIGNIFICANT enough so as to be incapable of retaining electrons? PULEEZ! If the attractions can retain electrons, which are far away, then those attractions are much stronger, close. Don't try to spin me.

As far as secrets are concerned, the very fact that you dodge my questions tell me why and what secrets are involved. I've had this argument with with Dr. Michael Pollack of the Office of Navel Research. There are times when it is better to respond than not to respond. The way you people try to protect secrets sometimes does more harm than good.

 

[Morbius]

Are you saying that the gravitational attraction is INSIGNIFICANT enough so as to be incapable of retaining electrons? PULEEZ! If the attractions can retain electrons, which are far away, then those attractions are much stronger, close. Don't try to spin me.

As far as secrets are concerned, the very fact that you dodge my questions tell me why and what secrets are involved. I've had this argument with with Dr. Michael Pollack of the Office of Navel Research. There are times when it is better to respond than not to respond. The way you people try to protect secrets sometimes does more harm than good.

Dlockwood,

If you've had discussions with Dr Pollack of ONR, then he might also have
told you that it is not up to the scientist to decide whether or not to
comment.

It is a matter of law - you either dodge the question - or you go to prison.
It's Congress that sets the policy - not scientists.

As far as the electrons - the gravitational force is many, many orders
of magnitude less powerful than the Coulomb force unless one of the
objects is a planet or larger. The gravitational force between a nucleus
and an electron is insignificant.

I'm pointing out, that at the temperatures that we are discussing - that
gases are plasmas - that collisions between the constituents are so
powerful that the Coulomb force that bonds electrons to the nucleus
is incapable of retaining the electrons.

Since the gravitational force between nucleus and electron is
insignificant compared to the Coulomb force, and the Coulomb force
can't even retain the electrons - then you can safely ignore the effects
of gravity - it's too weak to have any impact.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[russ_watters]

Regarding your questions:

Are you saying that the gravitational attraction is INSIGNIFICANT enough so as to be incapable of retaining electrons? PULEEZ! If the attractions can retain electrons, which are far away, then those attractions are much stronger, close. Don't try to spin me.

Dlockwood, you may or may not be aware, but there are four fundamental forces:

-The "strong nuclear force"
-The "weak nuclear force"
-Electromagnetism
-Gravity

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html

Gravity is far and away (34+ orders of magnitude, according to that link) the weakest of the four. One of the fundamental problems being worked on in physics today is trying to link these four forces under one equation. Gravity is most problematic because it is so weak at short distances that it is/can be utterly ignored when dealing with forces inside just about anything smaller than an asteroid.

Now, regarding your tone: it is most unwelcome here. Please fix it. I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theory and won't allow it in the engineering section (and in any case, the concepts you are arguing secrecy about are pretty basic and there is nothing secret about them), but that's secondary to the bigger problem: you're abusing the very people who are answering your questions. The best you can hope for is that they'll stop answering your questions. The worst is that you won't be allowed to continue to post here.

 

[Dlockwood]

Have you ever been in a dark room or outside in the dark, next to a door that was ajar, just a crack? If you peered into a lighted room through that small crack, you could see much of what was inside the room.

When I started this thread, I knew that most of the information that I sought would be contained within the secrets acts of various countries, especially the U.S.. I know this because I had a secret clearance forty years ago. So, what do you do when you need information that will cut two to five years off your personal project? I’ll tell you what I did.

First, I asked for the information straightforward. On this site that usually provokes very little response. I usually get references to other sites (most of which I have already been to several times) like ‘Wikipedia’ by some clueless person who completely underestimates the question. But, believe it or not, I dutifully go the recommended site to confirm what I think I already know. These sites are usually either disappointing or frustrating because they generate more questions than answers. So, then I go to round two of the straightforward questions. I inject much more detail into what I thought was pretty straightforward and simple to start with. This usually provokes much better responses that are still completely inadequate. But, by now I know I’m not likely going to get the information I need so I proceed to the next step.

Second, I try to appear incredibly stupid. I ask questions in a way that convinces some that I’m the dumbest cluck on the web. Remember, my goal is the information. My own pride and ego has to take a back seat to my goal. This usually provokes a further response that provides a little more information, along with a lot of patronizing or belittling. But, as was the case in this thread, still insufficient.

Thirdly, I try to say something that is completely wrong. This usually provokes more responses with more information with more belittling and some patronizing. By this time I usually get lot’s of good information but, as in this case, has very little to do with the subject and did not answer my original question.

Laced in with these various methods, I try to inject a little hostility. ‘Stirring the vat’ is always a good way to provoke more responses. Unfortunately, this forum is so conformal that this usually provokes threats from the hosts with expulsion or termination. Disappointing. Argument is the only way to solve some problems.

The purpose of all this was to try to get the door opened just a crack. I don’t need all of the information. Just crack the door and I can do the rest.

My hat’s off to Dr. Greenman… He did a great job of keeping the door shut. He could have saved me a lot of time if he could just have said at the beginning that the information was classified. My beef about secrets is not with Dr. Greenman but with stupid policy makers who don’t have enough sense to know that anybody who is interested in secrets will be able to figure where they are by any number of techniques. Dodging questions does not serve any useful purpose and forbidding people with secret clearances to mention that information others seek is classified is just as useless.

As far as nuclear core bonding is concerned, and since I didn’t get my questions answered, I’ll just say this: Like charges repel and unlike charges attract. Notice that the rule does not say that opposite charges attract, but unlike charges. Go back and study gold leaf experiments. That’s half of it. Can you figure out the other half? Read my journal.

For those interested in interstellar/intergalactic travel, I’ll give you a few hints. I don ‘t have the solution but I have made a few observations. First, all propagation takes place through a medium. The medium is what determines the velocity of propagation. Second, wave theory will provide the solution to interstellar/intergalactic travel. Read my journal. It’s only a few paragraphs.

As a little aside to Astronuc… Has anyone ever observed that the north poles of the planets line up with the south pole of the sun? Wouldn’t this indicate that the sun is the primary magnetic influence in the solar system? And the fact that Uranus’ north pole is displaced sixty degrees, even though it’s axis of rotation is perpendicular to the rest of the planets? Just something I thought about fifteen years ago (although I didn’t know about Uranus’ magnetic displacement at that time, I just suspected it). I guess by now that this is common knowledge amongst astrophysicists but I 've never seen it in print.

Douglas Lockwood
461 Bitterroot
Redding, Ca., 96003

530 604 5062 - cell

 

[russ_watters]

I'm sorry we can't help you.