Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: peterhousehold on 13/07/2007 16:35:11
-
Is relativity theory necessary for nuclear energy technology? Could the nuclear industry exist with e=mc^2, could the bomb have existed without Einstein, could it have been reached purely on the basis of the Curies' research?
-
Lightarrow, SoulSurfer or another_someone will probably correct me, but I'll have a go.
An atom bomb is a chain reaction among subatomic particles. As such, it falls more into the field of quantum mechanics than relativity. However, Einstein was, of course, 1 of the leading lights of the early quantum theory movement.
With relativity, Einstein was building on theories already put forward by others so I'm pretty sure that someone would have arrived at E=mc2 eventually anyway, but Einstein got there first.
I'm not familiar enough with Curie's work to conjecture whether it was pertinent.
-
My understanding is that E = mc2 is a product of the Lorenz equations that form the core of special relativity; and it was the realisation that the splitting of the Uranium atom, when you added up the mass of all the component fractions, there was a bit missing, and so working out how much mass was missing, the calculated the corresponding energy using E=mc2, and realised it was a hell of a lot of it.
Thus, E=mc2 was not necessary to split the atom, but it related the missing mass to the energy gained.
Einstein himself probably had more to do with politically promoting the atom bomb (he was a German Jew who had fled his homeland, and was fearful that the Germans were developing an atom bomb, and so helped convince the American establishment that the resources had to be made available to make sure that the US had an atom bomb before the Germans got there - in fact, after the war it was realised that the Germans were further away from their goal than was anticipated - although one can well imagine that captured German nuclear scientists would have finished the work under Soviet control after the war).
-
Ian has made a very good point there. It was Einstein as much as anyone else who convinced Roosevelt that the U.S.A. had to have the bomb.
Here's a good article about it.
http://www.doug-long.com/einstein.htm (http://www.doug-long.com/einstein.htm)
-
THe observations of radioactivity reactions that lead to nuclear fission energy sources and nuclear weapons do not require relativity theory although when you add up the masses of the results of the reactions it is clear that some mass has been lost and significant amounts of energy has been released. This leads to the a relationship shpwing an interchangability between mass and energy. The value of the constant can also be determined. As to whether the fact that the velocity of light is involved. I do not think that is inuitive and requires an understanding of relativity
-
Relativity theory is not needed to explain nuclear energy.
All 3,000 known stable and radioactive atoms are in the 3-D plot shown in Figure 1 of the paper, "Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source", J. Fusion Energy 20 (2003) pp. 197-201.
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf
The vertical scale represents M/A = mass per nucleon.
The value of M/A decreases for all spontaneous processes, i.e., like water running downhill the products are deeper in the "Cradle of the Nuclides" and the mass loss appears as energy.
Page 145 of Hilton Ratcliffe's new book, "THE VIRTUE OF HERESY: Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer", shows a better version of this figure.
I purchased this 400-page paperback book from the publisher for only $15.20 plus shipping. It is also available from several bookstores,
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
-
Relativity is needed to explain what is going on in a detailed way, the energies and therefore the speeds of the interacting particles are relativistic. However understanding what was going on to this level of detail happened long after the use of nuclear energy.
The main reason it was important was to flag up the fact that there was a huge amount of energy there for the taking rather than how to get hold of it.
-
Inspired by this thread I browsed thru Google and turned up the theory that the Sun formed on a collapsed supernova core.
This was the first time that I have read this, is the theory given any credence.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20031002191731data_trunc_sys.shtml
-
The general opinion is that the sun is a perfectly normal mid generation star formed out of the debris of supernovae that do contain some iron (hence the iron core of earth and some of the other planets) and there is no reason to believe that the sun has an excess of this element. It is possible that there is a concentration of heavier elements close to the centre of the sun but it is almost certainly not a major component of the mass of the sun
-
The general opinion is that the sun is a perfectly normal mid generation star formed out of the debris of supernovae that do contain some iron (hence the iron core of earth and some of the other planets) and there is no reason to believe that the sun has an excess of this element. It is possible that there is a concentration of heavier elements close to the centre of the sun but it is almost certainly not a major component of the mass of the sun
Yes, the Sun is a perfectly normal star. However, the primary energy source for the Sun and other ordinary stars is neutron repulsion, not hydrogen fusion.
Astrophysicists confused "smoke" with "fuel" because nuclear scientists failed to provide this simple plot of the 3,000 data points that represent all observable matter in the universe.
http://www.omatumr.com/Photographs/SolarEnergy.htm
Page 145 of Hilton Ratcliffe's new book, "THE VIRTUE OF HERESY: Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer", shows a better version of this figure with the intercepts at Z/A = 0 and Z/A = 1 [nuclei made of only neutrons or protons].
The hydrogen that pours from the surface of the Sun is a neutron decay product.
Hydrogen is "smoke" from stellar nuclear furnaces*, not the primary "fuel".
Like a high efficiency furnace, stellar "smoke" is further combusted in the chimney.
About 35% of the Sun's luminosity is produced by further "combustion" [fusion**] of hydrogen into helium during its upward journey.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
*Stellar furnaces may be seen in the debris following a stellar explosion.
**No, solar electron neutrinos do not oscillate! The number produced is the number detected.
-
The general agreement among astrophysicists is that the sun and other stars is a gravity contained hydrogen fusion structure and your suggestions do nothing to connvince me otherwise.
The current models of stellar structure and evolution are extremely precise and tally with nuclear reaction crossections, predicted compositions and vast numbers of observations if stars at various stages in their lives.
The mechanism you suggest just does not make sense. The initial material in the universe is clearly initially mostly hydrogen and helium and neutrons are unstable in isolation and decay in a few minutes so there is absoutely no reason why stars should contain significant excesses of neutrons.
-
The general agreement among astrophysicists is that the sun and other stars is a gravity contained hydrogen fusion structure and your suggestions do nothing to connvince me otherwise.
The current models of stellar structure and evolution are extremely precise and tally with nuclear reaction crossections, predicted compositions and vast numbers of observations if stars at various stages in their lives.
The mechanism you suggest just does not make sense. The initial material in the universe is clearly initially mostly hydrogen and helium and neutrons are unstable in isolation and decay in a few minutes so there is absoutely no reason why stars should contain significant excesses of neutrons.
If you want to learn, you must study the data instead of making statements like,
"The current models of stellar structure and evolution are extremely precise and tally with nuclear reaction crossections, predicted compositions and vast numbers of observations if stars at various stages in their lives."
Nobel Laureate William A. Fowler recognized many discrepancies.
For example, the photosphere value of Oxygen/Carbon = 2 in the Sun and similar stars does not match laboratory and theoretical calculations for the products of Helium burning.
Another discrepancy -- neutron capture cross sections -- was noted in the classical paper by Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler and Hoyle [B2FH] in 1957 on element synthesis in stars.
Precise isotope measurements on samples from the 1969 Apollo Mission to the Moon revealed yet another discrepancy.
Professor Fowler is quoted and referenced and the experimental data from B2FH and a few others are presented in this paper, if you or others are interested.
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/Oxygen_to_Carbon_Ratio.pdf
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
-
The idea that the Sun might have formed by the accumulation of Hydrogen onto a neutron star appears at first sight to be a possibility but for the fact there are many systems where a neutron star forms a pair with a normal star and the result is that gas is sucked from the normal star and accumulates on the neutron star until temperature and pressure are sufficient for fusion to occur when it then blows off in a supernova type explosion.
It does not seem possible for a large stable structure to form.
-
Thanks for an interesting thread, everyone. DoctorBeaver, you may be interested to know that Einstein did not get to E=mc^2 first. It was first devised and published by Henri Poincare circa 1904, about a year before SRT. No doubt Dr Einstein noticed it there.
Regards
Hilton
-
Did DoctorBeaver see the latest Physics News Update 834 (27 July 2007) with this comment on HYDROGEN SEVEN (H-7), the most neutron-rich nucleus known:
". . . energy is required to force the extra neutron to adhere to the other nucleons" ?
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2007/834.html
The properties of all other nuclei, including the six hydrogen isotopes known in 2005 (H-1, H-2, H-3, H-4, H-5, and H-6), were shown in these two slides from the paper presented at the Nuclear Research Center in Dubna, Russia:
http://www.omatumr.com/Overheads/8a.pdf
http://www.omatumr.com/Overheads/9a.pdf
We now have a new data point for HYDROGEN SEVEN, and its properties do not seem to contradict the earlier conclusion that neutron interactions are repulsive.
Manuel Caamaño Fresco (caamano@ganil.fr, 33-231-45-4435) is first author on the paper scheduled for publication in Physical Review Letters.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
-
Thanks for an interesting thread, everyone. DoctorBeaver, you may be interested to know that Einstein did not get to E=mc^2 first. It was first devised and published by Henri Poincare circa 1904, about a year before SRT. No doubt Dr Einstein noticed it there.
Regards
Hilton
Hello Hilton! Welcome in this Forum!
-
In HYDROGEN SEVEN, 15 repulsive N-N interactions seem to cancel the 6 attractive N-P interactions ["Nuclear systematics: III. The source of solar luminosity", J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 252, 3-7 (2002); "Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source", J. Fusion Energy 20 (2003) 197-201].
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2001/nuc_sym3.pdf
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf
The life-time of H-7 is reported to be less than 10^-21 sec.
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2007/834.html
In my opinion, this paper offers direct experimental confirmation of N-N repulsion in the nucleus. This is probably the energy source that powers neutron stars and prevents further collapse.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
-
Thanks for an interesting thread, everyone. DoctorBeaver, you may be interested to know that Einstein did not get to E=mc^2 first. It was first devised and published by Henri Poincare circa 1904, about a year before SRT. No doubt Dr Einstein noticed it there.
Regards
Hilton
Yeah, but Poincare said it in a language no-one can understand - French! [:D]
-
Thank you for the welcome Lightarrow. I apologise for the delay in my response. Soul Surfer, perhaps it would useful to ponder upon just how a ball of hydrogen could have formed at the centre of our Solar System in the first place, and from what, given that there are iron rich satellites in orbit around it, using known physics in each case. How and in what order do elements mass fractionate in gravitational settling?
-
Did DoctorBeaver see the latest Physics News Update 834 (27 July 2007) with this comment on HYDROGEN SEVEN (H-7), the most neutron-rich nucleus known:
". . . energy is required to force the extra neutron to adhere to the other nucleons" ?
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2007/834.html
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
Doctor Beaver has to admit that he did not. That may be due to the fact that he was too busy reading Psychology Today, The Journal Of Psychology & other such material as he is a psychologist with but an amateur interest in physics.
Incidentally, much of what I know about physics has been learned via this forum from those such as your good self whose knowledge of the subject puts me very much in the shade.
-
Greetings fellow scientists,
My name is Elton Hesbon and I couldn't help but over hear a common misfortune we scientists are often faced with in the observatory stance.We constantly press to move forward but our lack
of knowledge diminishes our responsiveness and thus remain the barriers of uncertainty.We often times acknowledge the base for our actions and take the necessary steps to solve the problems wich occur regularly in our fields but we must come to understanding that a great presumption on our part is to behave as modern tensils in a realm of factors and factoids wich claim most of our resources and leave us with the blank thoughts of what's and what ifs. Now imagine a world that has been deprived of knowledge,of even the simplist matters-intriguing, certainly not.We must as the more fortunate beings in our time not let little mistakes and wrongs hemper the joyous experience that will in due season thrive full of new and exciting discoveries
Elton Hesbon .phd
-
Welcome to TNS, Elton.
What a lovely, poetic turn of phrase you present; and I totally agree with your statement. The discovery of things new is indeed a joyous experience. That is why I await with hopeful anticipation the results from the LHC at CERNE. I believe some wondrous new avenues will be opened to us.
-
Welcome to TNS, Elton.
What a lovely, poetic turn of phrase you present; and I totally agree with your statement. The discovery of things new is indeed a joyous experience. That is why I await with hopeful anticipation the results from the LHC at CERNE. I believe some wondrous new avenues will be opened to us.
...or the start of a nuclear reaction which then generate a chain reaction on all the matter on this planet, destroying it in a fraction of second, or the production of a micro-black hole which doesn't evaporate immediately as predicted, but instead keep growing eating all the matter of this planet... [:0]
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbestsmileys.com%2Fanxious%2F3.gif&hash=54ae68a84818eea7ffc26314ae6a3cf4)