Hypercube

I haven't studied nuclear weapons in any great detail, so if what I'm about to ask seems stupid, just keep that in mind. What difference would it make whether one bomb detonated before the others? Even if the idea of one nuke setting off other nukes in the vicinity is pure Hollywood (and I do know that much), wouldn't the fact that in the fictional weapon I described, all of the nine individual nukes that make it up are within extremely close proximity (presumably within several feet of one another, if that) of each other render that point moot? Since it was my understanding that the size, and by extension the yield, of a nuclear device is determined by the mass of Plutonium that is used. So wouldn't the Plutonium of the other 8 nukes simply contribute to the chain reaction just the same as if they had all detonated, especially considering that in this fictional NOVA bomb, the nine nukes are temporarily contained in some sort of superstrong material?

I just finished reading the novels for the Halo franchise a little while ago and I was very intrigued about one of the weapons that the humans have developed. They called it the NOVA bomb, and while we aren't told very much about it, it is basically a cluster of fusion warheads encased in some sort of fictional super-strong material that is able to temporarily contain the nuclear explosions, supposedly increasing its thermonuclear yield a hundredfold. Though I can't for the life of me understand how this would have any effect whatsoever on the power of the bomb. All we really know about its properties and effects comes from the following quote: "This is the prototype NOVA bomb, nine fusion warheads encased in lithium triteride armor. When detonated, it compresses its fissionable material to neutron-star density, boosting the thermonuclear yield a hundredfold. I am Vice Admiral Danforth Whitcomb, temporarily in command of the UNSC military base Reach. To the Covenant uglies that might be listening, you have a few seconds to pray to your damned heathen gods. You all have a nice day in hell..." A heartbeat later Vice Admiral Whitcomb's ploy of slipping the UNSC prototype Nova bomb into Covenant supplies had finally paid off: a star ignited between Joyous Exultation and its moon. Every ship not protected on the dark side of the planet boiled and vaporized in an instant. The atmosphere of the planet wavered as helical spirals of luminescent particles lit both north and south poles, making curtains of blue and green ripple over the globe. As the thermonuclear pressure wave spread and butted against the thermosphere, it heated the air orange, compressed it, until it touched the ground and scorched a quarter of the world. The tiny nearby moon Malhiem cracked and shattered into a billion rocky fragments and clouds of dust. The overpressure force subsided, and three-hundred-kilometer-per-hour winds swept over Joyous Exultation, obliterating cities and whipping tidal waves over its coastlines. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm assuming the idea is that by temporarily containing the initial nine nuclear explosions, all the energy of the combined explosions is released all at the same instant when they finally break free of the armor, as opposed to over the course of several seconds as is the case for normal nuclear warheads. But anyway, given the information provided about this fictional weapon, does anyone know whether there is any truth at all to this idea, ASSUMING that there was some kind of material durable enough to temporarily contain a series of nuclear explosions, which obviously there isn't, but just assume that there was. Or is it just pure nonsense?

OK. It looks like I need to make my question more specific. When I say 'drown in quicksand' I'm not referring to incoming tides, or anything like that. And I'm not questioning that it is extremely difficult to get out of quicksand once you're stuck in it. All I want to know is whether there is ANY way, barring the person wearing heavy weights or something, that a person can continue to sink further and further into the quicksand until they are completely submerged in it and drown, leaving only their hat floating on the surface of the quicksand; like in the old Tarzan movies. Or will the laws of fluid dynamics still apply to quicksand, in which case the person would be buoyant in the quicksand.

I recently got into a debate with someone on YouTube after I had commented on a quicksand video where someone drowned in it. I had made the point that the idea of someone drowning in quicksand is pure Hollywood nonsense, and he contradicted me rather rudely I might add. Correct me if I'm wrong. Whatever special properties quicksand (I'm talking about classical quicksand, not dry quicksand) might have as a non-Newtonian fluid, it is still a fluid, and one that is more than twice as dense as the human body. And as everyone learns in high school physics, if an object/fluid of density X is placed into a fluid of density nX where n>1, than that object/fluid will just float on/in the denser fluid. Which would seem to imply that, barring somehow going into the quicksand head first, in which case drowning is probable, it would be almost impossible for a human to sink under the surface of the quicksand (their whole body I mean, feet to face). Don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to suggest that I don't think quicksand is dangerous, because I know that it is. I'm only saying that the typical Hollywood depiction of quicksand slowly dragging a person under and drowning them is complete nonsense overruled by the laws of physics. Now if I'm wrong, or at least have overlooked something, please let me know.

And the Earth's gravitational field is so weak that even the energy contained in a human's biceps, albeit maintained constantly without weakening, is theoretically enough to break free of the Earth's gravity? Wow, gravity really is the weakest force, isn't it. lol.

And yet the same can't be said for a black hole?

A mini black hole with the mass of the Earth would have exactly the same net amount of gravity as the Earth itself does from what I remember in university physics, albeit condensed into a much, much smaller volume of space. And if its event horizon was only the size of a walnut, I would think it would be very easy to avoid if you knew it was there. But anyway, this lets me ask another question which has always confounded me. What the heck is meant by escape velocity and why does escaping the gravitational field of an astronomical body such as a black hole or planet have a minimum speed/velocity at all? To put the mindset of my confusion to bear, here's what I would intuitively think. If I jump off the ground, I am temporarily overcoming the Earth's gravity. Now, logic would dictate that if I could build some sort of device capable of providing a constant upward thrust of say 4 kph (I.E. it's capable of lifting me off the ground at a constant speed of 4 kilometres per hour, similar to an elevator). By the very fact that it is able to continually overcome the Earth's gravity, a logical layperson would probably say that eventually they would leave the Earth far behind. But the physics textbooks all say that to break orbit, spacecraft must be travelling extremely high speed, 11 km/sec or something. Please explain why if you are able to get off the ground at 4 km/hour that it is physically impossible to leave the Earth, even though technically speaking the gravity get weaker the higher off the ground you are (albeit by a miniscule amount).

But it was my understanding that the event horizon is the absolute point of no return; the distance from the singularity at which the pull of gravity towards the black hole becomes too powerful for any force or object to resist it. I've read that in over a dozen textbooks. The fact that here on Earth we are, for example, able to briefly defy gravity by jumping into the air is because the upward force generated by our legs is temporarily greater than the force of gravity pulling us down. And also, correct me if I'm wrong, a person only feels gravity when they try and resist it; in free fall, you feel weightless. Now I admit I'm no PhD astrophysicist, but wouldn't 'falling' into a supermassive black hole essentially be analogous to being in free fall? That is, in the absence of the extreme tidal forces present in less massive black holes, wouldn't you theoretically only be crushed by the black hole's gravity when you 'hit' the singularity? Now in my mind, and mind you I'm not ignorant enough to use this as anything other than a useful analogy, hitting the singularity would be equivalent to a person falling to Earth from a plane; they would not be 'crushed' by the downward gravitational acceleration of the Earth until they hit the ground. Now, assuming I haven't missed something, the only difference between 'free falling' into a supermassive black hole and free falling to the surface of the Earth is that unlike in the latter, the former would require a (although personally I think this will one day be found to be a flaw in the theory) infinite amount of energy to move in opposition to the inward pull of the black hole's gravity, as like you said, the escape velocity of the black hole is greater than the speed of light once you're within the event horizon. Now that you know my reasons for thinking this, I'll rephrase my question: how would it be possible for your essential bodily functions such as blood flow and nerve impulses to continue past the event horizon when the energy required to 'defy' the gravitational pull of the black hole is infinite (or technically greater than infinite according to E=MC^2)? Last time I checked a red blood cell does not have the >infinite amount of energy that would be required to overcome the black hole's gravity and flow in the opposite direction of the singularity.

I recently thought of something. I've heard several times that if a person were to fall into a supermassive black hole, that they would survive quite comfortably for a while even after they've crossed the event horizon due to the lack of significant tidal forces. But there's one thing I don't understand. From what I've read about black holes, the event horizon is the absolute point of no return; it's the point at which outward movement becomes impossible. In other words, once you cross the event horizon, the only possible direction you can move is inward towards the singularity. Now this got me thinking though; if that is true, and past the event horizon nothing can move in a direction away from the singularity, then crossing the event horizon should be almost instantly fatal regardless of the size/mass of the black hole. Because that would mean that your blood would no longer be able to flow, your brain would no longer be able to send nerve impulses, heck, your heart wouldn't even be able to beat because it would by definition involve some kind of movement AWAY from the black hole. So why is it that it is often said a person could survive within the event horizon of a supermassive black hole for quite some time before hitting the singularity? Have I missed something?

Wow, it has been so long since I saw this movie as a kid, this certainly brings back lots of pleasant memories watching this movie with my grandparents. But I digress. I agree with you that if it were a fight to the death, the dogs wouldn't stand a chance; the tiger is bigger, faster, has lethal claws and jaws, and is far more deadly than any canine could hope to claim. However, in the real world I don't think there is any way (unless the tiger was starving) that a tiger that size would dare try to kill 'prey' that large and aggressive, much less two of them. So bottom line, if the tiger were forced into a fight to the death between Duke and Turk, the dogs would almost certainly sustain mortal injuries, although the tiger might as well, but in reality the tiger would almost certainly flee from the dogs.

Actually I think Larry Niven utilized a similar concept in some of his Sci-Fi novels; I've never actually read them, but from what I've been told, an advanced alien race known as the 'Puppeteers' use some sort of material to build the hulls of their starships that they are able to remotely send energy to in order to prevent them from being damaged. If I'm not mistaken, the concept was referred to as 'powered structures'.

Why? If the blade of the sword really did taper down to an edge of atomic or possibly even sub-atomic thickness, it should be able to pass cleanly between the atoms of most any substance, shouldn't it? As I can't think of any natural material that is one atom thick.

Exactly. The thing that most interested me about this sword (which incidentally was named Albitr, or 'Tinkledeath') was that it was implied that it did not need any sort of magical protection (yes, I do know that magic is fiction, but for the purposes of this post it basically means that there is little chance of it being damaged) because the blade was literally so sharp that it would almost never encounter any substantial resistance. Its wielder was able to literally slice through several feet of solid stone as if it were no harder than butter. Now I know how absurd this sounds, but I still can't help but wonder whether there is ANY kind of truth to this idea even in principle, whether it is made of diamond or not is immaterial, as it is never actually confirmed to be made of diamond in the book.

I just recently finished reading the last Eragon book, Inheritance, which I highly recommend everyone read, because it's awesome. Anyway, an interesting thing in the book was a sword made of diamond that was sosharp that it could cut through virtually anything. it was described as being 'the archetype of an inclined plane'. What exactly that means, I'm not sure, but I'm guessing it means that the thinnest point on the edge of the blade is only one carbon atom thick, and gets progressively thicker to form a perfect slant right down to the atomic level. Now, obviously there is no way we could (or would) make such a blade with current technology, but I couldn't help but wonder; if such a blade could be made, and if its edge really was a perfect slant right down to a single row of carbon atoms, whether it could do what it could in the book. I have no doubt that it could cut through skin and flesh like a scalpel through warm butter, but what about stone and metal? Is that just pure fiction or could there be something to this idea, at least in theory?

I'm glad to hear that you know how ridiculous the movie's replication time is. lol. It might be possible, although I doubt it would be to the same extent as in the movie. That's most likely just Hollywood. But I could be wrong, since I don't know much about neurology.

I have a couple of questions regarding the field and terminology of mass spectroscopy. I think I understand the basic concept of how it works; molecules are ionized, bonds break, and the fragment ions are detected. But one thing I don't understand is that let's say the molecule has a molar mass of 458.37 g/mol; naturally there would be a m/z peak at ~458, that mass since it's the parent ion, but how is it possible for there also to be a m/z fragment at, say, 934.2003. That mass is greater than the mass of the molecule in its natural form. And second; what does the term "MRM transition" refer to? I know that MRM stands for Multiple Reaction Monitoring, but what does it mean when someone telly you to look of the MRM transitions of a certain compound or molecule? I really need to get this straight, and the sooner the better.

How the heck would tossing Sodium at pipes on the ceiling cause it to explode? Sodium explodes when in contact with water; just coming in contact with metal pipes wouldn't cause it to react violently.

OK, I know this is most likely a load of nonsense, but I just have to ask. I heard someone at my university discussing an incident which allegedly happened while they were in high school involving some moron swiping a whole bunch of pure sodium or potassium metal from the chemical store room (don't ask me how he could have gotten in, because I have absolutely no idea) and flushing it down one of the school's toilets. Now I can maybe see some idiot prankster actually pulling a stunt like that, but I am extremely dubious about the alleged results of this prank; basically the metal reacted exactly as you would imagine it would a few seconds after coming in contact with water, namely it blew up. But here's where it starts sounding like MythBusters 101; this supposedly created some sort of intense pressure wave which surged through and ruptured almost every pipe on the entire floor. Is this even within the realm of possibility? Quite frankly it sounds like complete lunacy, but I'm a microbiologist not a chemist, so I don't know for sure.

Again, that's a matter of pure semantics. In the situation you describe, it is not true indifference, which by definition involves neither hate nor love. I suppose I should rephrase my original thesis: true indifference is not the opposite of love; true hate is the opposite of love.

Semantics, the fact remains that indifference is simply the lack of love and hate. It's absolutely true that you can both love and hate someone, but it is impossible to be both indifferent and loving/hateful towards a person because you can't have both something and nothing. Indifference is the neutral ground between love and hate, it's the state where you can either begin loving someone or start hating them; but it is not the opposite of either of them anymore than a neutron is the chargewise-opposite of an electron or a proton. Love is a positive emotion, indifference is a neutral emotion, and hate is a negative emotion.

Maybe somebody could explain this to me; I read somewhere that the generally accepted opposite of the emotion 'love' is 'indifference', But this makes absolutely no sense to me. To me, the clear-cut opposite of love is hate. And that makes perfect sense. Indifference cannot be the opposite of love because indifference by definition means that you don't feel anything for the person, you neither love nor hate the person. This means that in effect, indifference is simply the lack of both love and hate. A simple analogy would be to let the number 1 represent love; this means that if you take away the emotion, you're left with indifference, which would be represented by the number 0. Anyone who's gone to school knows that 0 is not the opposite of 1, which by extension means that indifference cannot be the opposite of love. The opposite of love would have to be represented by the number -1, which in my mind would clearly be hate. If I'm missing something here, please fill me in, because I absolutely know for a fact that lack of is not the same thing as opposite of.

According to my textbook, if a fatty acid is 12 of fewer carbons long, it can enter the mitochondria without a transporter. However, if it is 14 or greater carbons long, it requires the carnitine-acylcarnitine translocase in order to enter the mitochondria. So what would happen if they are 13 carbons long? Would they need the translocase? Would it depend on certain attributes?

OK, I wanna make one thing perfectly clear right now; I am not a pessimist. A pessimist never looks on the bright side, whereas I always do when the occasion calls for it. In fact, that's the primary reason why I don't believe diseases should be eradicated, UNLESS they pose a legitimate threat to our species as a whole; if an airborne strain of Ebola emerges, I would absolutely think it should be eradicated. In my opinion, eradicating disease will (and is) have the same effect as killing all the wolves in Yellowstone way-back-when to "save the elk", look how that turned out. It's the exact same principle for us. But I digress; I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist, and unless the human race experiences some sort of miraculous leap of wisdom, the Earth will eventually no longer be able to support us; remember how the Earth was in 'Avatar'? It's inevitable. So if that is being pessimistic, then maybe I am, but it doesn't mean that I'm wrong.

I'm just curious how many others have the same opinion of our species' future as I do; what do you think the chances are that the human race will still be around come the 3rd millennium? I personally think there's virtually zero chance of that given how we're destroying our planet, eradicating the diseases that keep our population in check, sweeping all new energy technologies that could replace oil/gas under the rug, wasting tens of trillions of dollars on designing new weapons, and other similar acts. In my opinion, our species has a very bleak future, indeed.

I was just watching an episode of Fringe which was about a former Nazi who managed to design a toxin which he was able to custom-tailor to literally only target individuals who had certain genetic traits. For example, he could tailor it to only target people who had brown hair, or brown eyes, brown skin, cleft chins, etc. In fact, the toxin could even be tailored to target only a specific person via their specific DNA, or only people of a certain lineage. So I was wondering; would this be possible to do even in principle? I mean I know that it is possible to target specific genes, but could a toxin be designed that could actually do what it did in Fringe? And I'm just talking in principle, I don't care whether the technology actually exists yet.