questionposter

If you had an enormously strong casing, it would increase the yield. In reality, you can't. In fiction you can, and nobody minds.

I suppose if I consider that the reaction happens over time, then that type of casing would help, but I was thinking it was more or less an instant process in which case it wouldn't really help. Theoretically, if you could store that much energy over time, the energy it would release in one instant would have a greater concentration than just using a bunch of nukes one at a time, but I always thought the fission reaction was rather quick.

Questionposter.

The issue of "Why not just detonate all of it at the same time without the casing? " is easier said than done. Nukes need very good timing mechanisms already. If one were late by a few tens of nanoseconds it would get smashed before it could detonate.

On the other hand, they do put containers round bombs to increase the yield. They don't rely on the strength of the material- just the mass. If the case is heavy it will take some time to push the case apart. During that time the nuclear reaction can continue. The yield is improved that way.

The practical problem of finding something strong enough is another matter- but it's fiction so nobody cares.

The reaction of a nuclear bomb is what breaks the casing though, and it's not some kind of imaginably strong material like in this video game, it's designed to evaporate in those high of temperatures.

What is it being created from?

Quantum field theory seems to be the best framework for nature we have. Really quantum field theory is a theory of quantum fields not particles, which are rather a derived notion and quite a special one particular to "flat-like" space-times. Mathematically one often deals with the theory rather formally, but that is okay.

 

Even more abstractly, one school of though is that the fields are not the primary objects, but rather the algebra of observables. This gets mathematically tough very quickly and the framework cannot cope with realistic theories.

Don't those fields have planar-wave solutions though?

Also, I would say right now that "wave-particle-duality" is the best description, but that doesn't mean particles can't have properties of waves or have wave-mechanics describe them. They either are the oscillation itself or they are the whole of an oscillating field.

Not only that, but the only distinction of particles that I have seen so far as that one is a little solid sphere that has mass and spin, I haven't seen anything to suggest they can account for superposition and field cancellation without considering that a particle has oscillatory properties.

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?

There's often questions about sci-fi stuff. But if you had some kind of casing, wouldn't the energy just radiate through that if the explosions happened pre-hand? Why not just detonate all of it at the same time without the casing? If you had a material that like, broke thermal dynamics and was incapable of absorbing thermal energy, then you could store all that energy inside it without losing any of it, otherwise even if it doesn't deteriorate from the over 5000 degrees of heat, energy will still transfer through it to the outside, not only that but maybe some gamma rays would escape as gamma rays are very small.

I had a separate topic at one point for using degenerate matter to store massive amounts of energy, but so far the research is inconclusive and you might need to constantly expend energy to keep matter in a degenerate state.

In short, it's improbable a bomb like that could be made. Usually sci-fi stories create an idea first, usually games don't spend a bunch of money to hire a scientist just to create futuristic bomb.

It is in the same sense as you flip a dice, we know the law that controls it but it would be cumbersome to calculate how it will end up. But that does not diminish the classical law.

It's not cumbersome its just that you can't do it with 100% accuracy, ever. Not even Einstein could create this equation, and scientists definitely don't know for sure how the universe will end up, there's multiple theories.

The main idea in all present theories is to have a unified principle to describe particles and forces, and from that to explain the cosmic problem. My theory seems to do the former well in a natural way, but it is to early for the later. I doubt if you will have a realistic equation for the universe, since in QM we have a hard time tracking individual particles (even in principle) let alone the universe.

If there isn't a singular equation to describe the entire universe, how can the universe be math?

What is meant in the first sentence is that if reality is not math then what is it.

 

We can also say water is water and air is air, so what.

 

Yes, math is the pattern that we observe reality with, that is the whole point. This is how we do science, we say the only thing that we can know are these patterns. But I say from my theory it appears that these patterns look very much like the patterns that we notice in mathematical objects (like circle and triagles for simplicity) which have no underlying cause and they stand on their own. Hence, nature IS a mathematical structure ( or object, albiet with complexity but which arises from realtively simple relations).

Not everything can be described by the same set of mathematics though. Maybe if you can find a single equation to describe all of the universe, which even Einstein couldn't do, then I'll believe you.

Of course we know how well that math works to describe reality that is not new, but it is more correct to say that we don't know what nature is made of, mathematics or otherwise. But because our understanding of nature has grown tremendously in the past hundred years or so, it was the scientists in the field who got to consider that nature looks like it has more than this casual relation with mathematics. It was not just the suggestion of that casual relation but also the deeper understanding of how nature seems to be constructed. While we don't understand a lot of things about nature, it was this comprehendible thing about it that made many scientists make that connection.

 

 

The quote of Wigner's "Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" is very well known and pointed to as one of the first hints. Another hint you can see in the classic textbook by Wheeler , Misner and Thorne GRAVITATION where the first attempts were made to drive the law of physics by logic which they called pre-calculus. As our knowledge increased more people got to consider it like Wolfram in New Kind of Science, Conaway's game of life, all kinds of automata ideas, Fractals and not the least as we got hints from how computers generate virtual realities. But the grand slam belonged to Dr. Tegmark with his MUH. So this idea did not happen in one go but in a continuous fashion. But the man who put that in words that I think is most beautiful is wheeler.

 

Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we grasp it - in a decade, a century, or a millennium - we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise? How could we have been so stupid?

 

you can also get some idea from

 

http://www.fqxi.org/...kles_fqxi_2.pdf

 

I did not say that reality is a mathematical structure and stopped. I show some evidence. maybe you can say that your evidence is not good enough because ....so and so.

 

Mathematics has a lot of philosophical issues. like is there anything deeper as to the reason of their compelling truth, to my knowledge most agree that no reason is there or needed. as to where those numbers exist, I take a guess and say WE are the living proof, derived from my theory.

 

we don't know what nature is made of

If we don't know what nature is, then we cannot know it is math.

Nature is it's own thing, and math is just the patterns of it that we observe.

Thanks for the reply.

 

While it is true that there is a controversy of math being "invented" vs "discovered", but I would say the vast majority agree that reality and math is outside of our minds and objective. And in science they are treated as so. Our mind does not make up the concept of circle.

 

My system uses a computer program to prove the point, but I suspect someday an equivalent mathematical system can be produced. It just seems so much easier to do it with a computer program, say, just like CDT(casual dynamic triangulation)-google-. So it is not about a computer program it is the mathematical structure that is important.

 

Here is the most important first result from the three results that I will show. The results confirm that the classical Bohr Model falls out from QSA model which encompasses QM and QFT. It is generated using the same program listed in post # 11

 

Please always refer to these wiki

 

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Bohr_radius

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Bohr_model

 

this is the result of simulating two particles with a width of 1823 which is close to 1822.8885 for electron compton wavelength (just simplification)interacting at a seperation of around Bohr radius which is

 

1/(m*alpha)=1/(.00054858*.007297352569) = 249801.3

 

 

the raw data is below from the program with int=50. also make this change in the program to get these results

 

for (mk = 2475; mk <= 500000000; mk++)

 

also

 

d0 =1823; // Particle 1 size

d1 = 1823; // Particle 2 size

 

long long kj =20000000000; // # of random throws (approx 30 min for each distance)

 

but next I give the important data that we will discuss

 

distance  energy (P.E.) 	charge^2(e^2) 	Expectation value(Ex)   

249323 0.0000120326 3.000003457 2.219640631
249423 0.0000120278 2.999998876 2.219325817
249523 0.0000120229 3.000000804 2.217591031
249623 0.0000120181 3.000000809 2.217731633
249723 0.0000120133 2.999998829 2.215744702
249823 0.0000120085 3.000006682 2.215434488
249923 0.0000120037 2.999998356 2.214921159

 

 

because I have the 1/r law I interpret the energy as e^2/r , e=charge

 

so if you multiply distance *energy(P.E.)= e^2=3 as shown, the average of above e^2= 3.000001, but we will take 3 to simplify.

 

then because we know alpha I deduce that ( from alpha=e ^2/(h*c))

 

h*c=e^2/alpha= 3/ .007297352569= 411.108

 

from other arguments I have h=c= sqrt(411.108)= 20.2758

 

Now, the important part which Expectation value(Ex for short)

 

after inspection I find it to be related to the classical bohr model variables

 

Ex=v^2/(2*m*e^4) ---------- eq 1

 

solving for v^2=(2*m*e^4)*Ex --------------- eq 2

 

from above simulation the average of Ex= 2.2172 almost

 

hence v^2= (2*.0005485*9)*2.2172= 0.0218936

 

v= sqrt(0.0218936)= 0.14797

 

now we compute v/c=0.14797/20.2758= 0.0072976

 

v/c should be alpha we have a very good match with some error mostly because of Ex which we can simulate with higher j thows to get more accuracy and also due to the approxomation of 1823 and 1822.8885

 

Great we proved that Ex is what it is and h=c

 

next

 

from eq 1 we can compute the kinetic energy

 

K.E.= (m^2*e^4)*Ex=(1/2)*m*v^2=.5*.00054858*0.0218936

 

= 0.000006005195544

 

2*K.E.= 0.000012010

 

That is Bohr Model P.E.= 2*K.E.

 

So the energy has the interpretation of potential energy and Ex is related to K.E. , that makes perfect sense

 

also if we take 1/(2*Ex)=1/(2*2.2172)=0.22551 almost m*c^2

 

m*c^2=.00054858*411.108= 0.225526

 

errors should be taken into account as mentioned earlier

 

 

Q.E.D

 

 

 

 

 

 

2475   249323   1.2032598102434993e-005 5.9941919763095141e-006  3.0000034566933995   1.823      2.2196406306904919   -2.1562643940237649
2476   249423   1.2027755561853412e-005 5.9917972737823617e-006  2.9999988755041636   1.823      2.2193258174578432   -2.1564566940604664
2477   249523   1.202294299276971e-005 5.9894015680537819e-006  3.0000008043848765   1.823      2.2175910306876858   -2.1541575969249607
2478   249623   1.2018126569310113e-005 5.9870183764102081e-006  3.0000008086108982   1.823      2.2177316327685048   -2.1541184268552342
2479   249723   1.2013306059579073e-005 5.9846252913626688e-006  2.9999988291162647   1.823      2.2157447018220182   -2.1534291553698495
2480   249823   1.2008528765272037e-005 5.9822392351484673e-006  3.000006681726556   1.823      2.2154344880241297   -2.1517840085696207
2481   249923   1.2003690562073311e-005 5.9798542464554e-006  2.9999983563450483   1.823      2.2149211586316824   -2.1521569239379232

Math is just the patterns we observe, there's nothing to suggest that math is reality and I can just find the number 2 floating around (I think one of the great philosophers like Plato or Aristotle also thought math was reality and that numbers could therefore exist on their own without human invention, and literally believed you could in some way find the true value of "2" just floating around somewhere). Math is reality in the sense that there are many of those patterns that exist in nature which change by specific amounts of something, but I don't think you can directly say any particular object is math.

Observations occur in our minds, therefore our observations cannot themselves be reality. Math is based off those observations: math cannot be reality.

Also, how is making programs which themselves can create programs via evolution going? Last time I heard it would take 100 years for a program like that to make a game, but computers are probably faster by now.