What can cause an atomic blast in nature?

[EquisDeXD]

We already know stars can, what else in nature can?

[ewmon]

Not exactly a "blast", but a natural nuclear fission reactor.

[John Cuthber]

You have another thread about pretty much the same subject and there are 4 pages of postings there.

They cite evidence why the simple answer to the question posed in the thread title is "nothing".

 

This thread does not seem to serve any purpose.

If you want to discuss the question I think you should do so in the previous thread on the subject.

[EquisDeXD]

You have another thread about pretty much the same subject and there are 4 pages of postings there.

They cite evidence why the simple answer to the question posed in the thread title is "nothing".

 

This thread does not seem to serve any purpose.

If you want to discuss the question I think you should do so in the previous thread on the subject.

 

The other thread was originally suppose to be this thread, but turned into "if" it actually happened at a particular location. This thread isn't talking about that, it's merely asking about possibilities. The right answer isn't "nothing", it's to not post because all that means is your not aware of a possibility, which would already be understood by you not posting at all.

Edited October 18, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[Moontanman]

The other thread was originally suppose to be this thread, but turned into "if" it actually happened at a particular location. This thread isn't talking about that, it's merely asking about possibilities. The right answer isn't "nothing", it's to not post because all that means is your not aware of a possibility, which would already be understood by you not posting at all.

 

 

You have a strange twist on how to answer a question. The answer to your question is nothing can cause a fission explosion naturally. I don't understand how you can justify twisting that into not knowing what could cause a blast...

[EquisDeXD]

You have a strange twist on how to answer a question. The answer to your question is nothing can cause a fission explosion naturally. I don't understand how you can justify twisting that into not knowing what could cause a blast...

 

Because he's only basing that knowledge off of what he particularly knows, while someone else may know of a possibility he doesn't. If he doesn't particularly know how it's possible, then he doesn't need to post. I doubt he knows enough science to have tested every single possible scenario in the universe and determine none of them can cause one.

Edited October 18, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[swansont]

Assembling a supercritical mass for a fission explosion, on purpose, without it just fizzling, is hard to do. Having it occur naturally after the Uranium has been sitting around for billions of years is a nonstarter, since there is nowhere near the isotopic abundance you need. To have any shot you would need material from fairly soon (on galactic time scales) after the supernova that produced it, probably with an unnaturally high abundance of your fissile material, and then you would have to somehow assemble the material into a subcritical mass — twice — and one would need to also have an alpha decayer and the other include a material that gave off neutrons when bombarded by alphas (e.g. Beryllium), because you need extra neutrons to get the U-235 to explode nicely (Pu has a higher neutron yield and doesn't need an initiator). You need a high activity for the alpha emitter but don't want a lot of material, which means short half-life, so there's a time limit for how long the source will be viable. Then have those two collide at high speed, in just the right way that they stay together long enough for the reaction to occur without fizzling.

[EquisDeXD]

Assembling a supercritical mass for a fission explosion, on purpose, without it just fizzling, is hard to do. Having it occur naturally after the Uranium has been sitting around for billions of years is a nonstarter, since there is nowhere near the isotopic abundance you need. To have any shot you would need material from fairly soon (on galactic time scales) after the supernova that produced it, probably with an unnaturally high abundance of your fissile material, and then you would have to somehow assemble the material into a subcritical mass — twice — and one would need to also have an alpha decayer and the other include a material that gave off neutrons when bombarded by alphas (e.g. Beryllium), because you need extra neutrons to get the U-235 to explode nicely (Pu has a higher neutron yield and doesn't need an initiator). You need a high activity for the alpha emitter but don't want a lot of material, which means short half-life, so there's a time limit for how long the source will be viable. Then have those two collide at high speed, in just the right way that they stay together long enough for the reaction to occur without fizzling.

 

It's improbable for the 235 to naturally have the critical density in a sample to trigger a reaction, fair enough, nothing against that. But, what if you didn't want a full one nuclear explosion? What's the smallest atomic explosion you can make and call it an explosion and not a fizzle?

Edited October 18, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[John Cuthber]

It's improbable for the 235 to naturally have the critical density in a sample to trigger a reaction, fair enough, nothing against that. But, what if you didn't want a full one nuclear explosion? What's the smallest atomic explosion you can make and call it an explosion and not a fizzle?

I think it would be better if you actually went away and found out about the subject.

You can, in principle, have an arbitrarily small explosion, but the conditions required (sudden compression to very high density) are impossible.

[swansont]

It's improbable for the 235 to naturally have the critical density in a sample to trigger a reaction, fair enough, nothing against that. But, what if you didn't want a full one nuclear explosion? What's the smallest atomic explosion you can make and call it an explosion and not a fizzle?

For a bomb a fizzle is any device that doesn't meet its designed yield. I don't know if there is a formal definition for something that is not designed, since there is no expected yield for a comparison.

[John Cuthber]

There are two uses of the phrase.

One is a bomb that doesn't do what it should.

The other is what you get if you assemble a supercritical mass, but slowly. You don't get an explosion but you do get a criticality incident.

It was portrayed in this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_of_Darkness#.22Fusion.22

 

 

Also using the word "improbable" as in "It's improbable for the 235 to naturally have the critical density in a sample to trigger a reaction" is a bit like saying it's "improbable" that aliens will land in Trafalgar square and that Elvis will ride down the exit ramp on Shergar.

[EquisDeXD]

Also using the word "improbable" as in "It's improbable for the 235 to naturally have the critical density in a sample to trigger a reaction" is a bit like saying it's "improbable" that aliens will land in Trafalgar square and that Elvis will ride down the exit ramp on Shergar.

 

It is improbable, and I admitted that, but this isn't the other debate. According to your knowledge you don't know of a way that it is possible, that's fine, so you have no need to post on this topic unless you are disputing a suggestion of a possibility someone on this topic made.

Edited October 19, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[John Cuthber]

Imagine that you had asked for two numbers A and B with no common factor and such that A^2/B^2 was exactly 2.

Any number of people could reply and say "I don't know".

Any number of people could supply two candidate numbers for you to try.

The only person who would progress the discussion is the one who pointed out that it can be proved to be impossible.

 

(It's the proof of the irrationality of the square root of two)

 

It's not that I don't know of a way that it's possible to get an atomic explosion.

It's that I know it is impossible.

And the reasons are given in the other thread where you also ignored them repeatedly.

[EquisDeXD]

It's not that I don't know of a way that it's possible to get an atomic explosion.

It's that I know it is impossible.

And the reasons are given in the other thread where you also ignored them repeatedly.

 

 

The circumstances that would allow a natural atomic explosion to happen are merely dependent on the locations of matter at certain times, it doesn't not require physics to be broken, and according to the equation that describes the probability of every particle, it is in fact theoretically possible for any matter to occupy any spacial coordinate. Happening to have a higher concentration and maybe some extra neutrons and alpha decay to spark the process is merely an improbable location for certain types of matter, and nothing more. It does not require that the 4 fundamental forces of nature work differently, or break the laws that describe relative motion, so it is possible regardless of how improbable it is, unless you can cite direct evidence that says it would require it to break current laws of physics, (which already happened with black holes anyway), which you didn't, it stands that it is in some way possible for the matter to happen to occupy a specific location at a specific time, in fact it can mathematically do it from light years away, even though that's unimaginably improbable.

Edited October 19, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[John Cuthber]

"The circumstances that would allow a natural atomic explosion to happen are merely dependent on the locations of matter at certain times,"

Nope, they are subordinate to the laws of the universe.

The laws of physics show that you are simply wrong.

I have been out for a beer. I will get back to your assertions if they are still there.

[EquisDeXD]

"The circumstances that would allow a natural atomic explosion to happen are merely dependent on the locations of matter at certain times,"

Nope, they are subordinate to the laws of the universe.

The laws of physics show that you are simply wrong.

 

Nothing you've said proves that the laws of physics need to be broken for the circumstance to happen.

Edited October 20, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[John Cuthber]

Try the second law of thermodynamics for a start. Things don't spontaneously "unmix" to give nice clean uranium.

[Ophiolite]

Equis, have you joined this forum to learn from individuals in fields they are familiar with and perhaps to educate others in fields you are familiar with, or have you just come here to demonstrate globally what a prat you are? I'm having a hard time not reaching the conclusion that it is the latter.

[StringJunky]

Try the second law of thermodynamics for a start. Things don't spontaneously "unmix" to give nice clean uranium.

 

What about the separation from centrifugal forces in a spinning, molten early-Earth? The heavy radioactive elements would be on the outside wouldn't they? I read this in a hypothesis for the formation of the Moon where there was a sufficient concentration to cause an eruption that lead to a separation of a portion of the Earth's material into space.

 

Nasa article: http://lunarscience.nasa.gov/articles/did-the-moon-form-in-natural-nuclear-explosion/

 

The paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4243

 

This is not actual evidence against what you saying but it is a proposed possible mechanism.

Edited October 20, 2012 by StringJunky

[John Cuthber]

There are ways to get some degree of separation, but the purity needed for uranium to explode is not on the cards.

[EquisDeXD]

Try the second law of thermodynamics for a start. Things don't spontaneously "unmix" to give nice clean uranium.

 

Units of density and units of entropy are different, but even though that matter usually tends to head towards a greater degree of chaos, that does not mean it's impossible for order to occur. Just look at sediments and crystals. Thermodynamics is more about thermodynamics, and not solid or fluid dynamics. Heat in a system tends to spread out, that doesn't mean it's impossible for there to happen to be a greater amount of a particular isotope or of some type of matter than usual, there's impurities in random objects all the time.

 

 

Equis, have you joined this forum to learn from individuals in fields they are familiar with and perhaps to educate others in fields you are familiar with, or have you just come here to demonstrate globally what a prat you are? I'm having a hard time not reaching the conclusion that it is the latter.

 

I've been pretty open about saying that it's improbable, so it's really astounding how you could be so rude about it. Originally I did come here to ask questions, and I still do, like with this topic, but I've found I can also contribute myself and answer other people's questions.

Edited October 20, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[Moontanman]

Units of density and units of entropy are different, but even though that matter usually tends to head towards a greater degree of chaos, that does not mean it's impossible for order to occur. Just look at sediments and crystals. Thermodynamics is more about thermodynamics, and not solid or fluid dynamics. Heat in a system tends to spread out, that doesn't mean it's impossible for there to happen to be a greater amount of a particular isotope or of some type of matter than usual, there's impurities in random objects all the time.

 

What does this word salad have to do with a critical mass assembling it's self naturally?

 

 

I've been pretty open about saying that it's improbable, so it's really astounding how you could be so rude about it. Originally I did come here to ask questions, and I still do, like with this topic, but I've found I can also contribute myself and answer other people's questions.

 

 

Yes you keep saying it's improbable and everyone else says it's impossible. There is a big difference between the two terms. Falling out of an airplane at 25,000 feet and surviving is improbable, swimming across a lake of molten lava is impossible... do you see the difference?

[EquisDeXD]

What does this word salad have to do with a critical mass assembling it's self naturally?

Hot to cold, right? Thermal energy usually (almost always) transfers from the highest amount to areas of the lowest amount. He's saying based on that, that matter has to do the same thing. But, matter itself doesn't, solid matter doesn't always have to osmose, and can in fact go from a state of more chaos to less chaos, such as molten rock cooling to form structured minerals

 

 

 

 

 

Yes you keep saying it's improbable and everyone else says it's impossible. There is a big difference between the two terms. Falling out of an airplane at 25,000 feet and surviving is improbable, swimming across a lake of molten lava is impossible... do you see the difference?

 

I do see the different, that's why I don't agree it's impossible. The circumstances for a nuclear blast to happen are indeed improbable, but they merely require matter to happen to be located in a certain volume of space at a given time, it doesn't require any sort of physics to be broken like in your lava analogy where in order for the swimmer to actually swim, the conjecture that thermal energy tends to travel from a higher state to a lower state in macroscopic systems would have to be broken for the swimmer to not gain enough thermal energy to die.

Edited October 20, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[Moontanman]

Hot to cold, right? Thermal energy usually (almost always) transfers from the highest amount to areas of the lowest amount. He's saying based on that, that matter has to do the same thing. But, matter itself doesn't, solid matter doesn't always have to osmose, and can in fact go from a state of more chaos to less chaos, such as molten rock cooling to form structured minerals

 

 

So you're saying what? Uranium 235 can crystallize out and become pure enough to fission?

 

 

 

 

I do see the different, that's why I don't agree it's impossible. The circumstances for a nuclear blast to happen are indeed improbable, but they merely require matter to happen to be located in a certain volume of space at a given time, it doesn't require any sort of physics to be broken like in your lava analogy where in order for the swimmer to actually swim, the conjecture that thermal energy tends to travel from a higher state to a lower state in macroscopic systems would have to be broken for the swimmer to not gain enough thermal energy to die.

 

 

No laws of physics has to be broken, lets put it another way, it's possible for all the molecules of air in the room you are in to suddenly all rush to one corner of the room and suffocate you... it's improbable but not impossible, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

 

You are suggesting that several times in relatively recent history a uranium meteor, somehow made mostly of uranium 235, has struck the earth and exploded leaving a layer of nuclear glass... is that about right?

 

Are you thinking this through?

[EquisDeXD]

So you're saying what? Uranium 235 can crystallize out and become pure enough to fission?

I'm pretty sure I never said that, I implied that it's possible for there to by chance to be a higher mass or concentration of 235 because it's not determined that everything always goes from a state of order to chaos, sometimes it can go the other way around.

 

You are suggesting that several times in relatively recent history a uranium meteor, somehow made mostly of uranium 235, has struck the earth and exploded leaving a layer of nuclear glass... is that about right?

 

Are you thinking this through?

There's also tectonic compression, and I still suggested it could have been a normal meteor in a way no one else even bothered to research, i.e. the fireball. Atomic blasts definitely leave glass behind from the melted rock, so there's a justification for stating it's possible to have happened since it isn't proven it's impossible to happen.

Edited October 21, 2012 by EquisDeXD