1 gigaton nuclear weapon

[Chogy]

All my rambling comes down to this - "If I compress a spring and the act itself increases the mass of the spring due to the added energy, what form does that added mass take?"

Do the particles in the spring weigh a bit more?

Are particles added?

Do the particles spin/move/vibrate faster, thus increasing their mass, because as an object increases in velocity, its mass also increases?

 

[Donatello]

the laws of conservation of energy were created in the olden days of classical physics now we are in the age of quantum physics where both matter and energy are known to come into existence out of nowhere...dimension hopping.

Mass and Energy are different manifestations of the same quantity under measure.

Most of the classical laws hold valid for most of our everyday scenario.

For anything at the sub-atomic level, you need to think differently where the simple F=ma equation doesn't fit well. That's quantum mechanics.

Scientists are still looking for the origin of Mass/Energy. It's not like it just came out of nothing. That's why they have built the LHC and want to confirm the notion that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are valid phenomena and valid explanations.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

I was a chemist long ago. One of the rules of chemistry was "conservation of mass." The mass before and after a chemical reaction is always the same. I asked my professor once, "If a reaction gives off heat, then matter must be consumed, right? Even if only an immeasurable amount."

He said "Essentially yes. A TNT bomb creates products that weigh less than the original bomb, but the matter lost cannot be measured by science at this scale - it's too small."

I hope I'm right with this - it's how I remembered it. Maybe someone current in chemistry or physics can comment.

Hi I am a student in materials physics.

There is only mass reduction if you take Einstein's mass-energy equivalence. Usually in chemistry and materials physics (any physics that happens on earth basically) we don't talk about mass-energy, but mass and energy. The reason is, in low enegy low speed environments mass and energy can be regarded as separate.

The energy given off in a chemical reaction is the potential energy of the molecules decaying to a lower potential energy state. This potential energy ("chemical energy") is just a complex manifestation of electromagnetism. This energy is released as heat, which is just the kinetic energy of product molecules.

There are other sorts of transitions like fluoresence which is when a single electron jumps from a high energy state to a lower, stabler energy state that's unfilled, and in the process releases a photon of energy. a mole of atoms behaving this way glows. Mass (what I mean is, particle numbers) is not disappearing.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

All my rambling comes down to this - "If I compress a spring and the act itself increases the mass of the spring due to the added energy, what form does that added mass take?"

Do the particles in the spring weigh a bit more?

Are particles added?

Do the particles spin/move/vibrate faster, thus increasing their mass, because as an object increases in velocity, its mass also increases?

if you compress a spring the atoms barely change. the natural dislocations present in the metal of the spring, however, become stressed. the mass-energy increase is insignificant.

actually, spins in quantum physics are invariant. they're just a number and you can't change the "speed" (but can change orientation which is how NMR works).

mass (rest mass, I should say) is conserved in all chemical and mechanical processes happening on earth. the energy released from all chemical processes is the transformation of the electromagnetic potential energy in a molecule into heat.

rest mass is not conserved so much for nuclear phenomena and astrophysics, as pair production can occur in stars. Actually, an interesting part of pair production is that it cannot occur in a vacuum. Pair production in a vacuum would violate the conservation of momentum. It must occur inside matter.

 

[LAKHNAVI]

No one would admit in creating such a monster. The Tsar Bomba is believed to be the largest ever detonated at 100 megaton.

yes but they had detonated it at midway ie 50megaton yield

 

[sourceinfratech]

thanks for information...

 

[IronsightSniper]

You really, really don't need more than a few hundred kilotons to do most of the jobs you'd want a nuke to do.

 

[ridoking]

good idea

 

[Harry Potter]

The yield of 1 gigaton is possible only with antimatter bombs.

 

[funtoosh]

i have just eaten a lot of chole, i might have the 1GT tomorrow morning,.

 

[applesauce]

The yield of 1 gigaton is possible only with antimatter bombs.

not true, modern design(Teller–Ulam design) deployed by all 5 unsc permanent members can be scaled up to any yield provided, enough materials are present to build such a device, of course no one does this because its useless.

 

[karan21]

not true, modern design(Teller–Ulam design) deployed by all 5 unsc permanent members can be scaled up to any yield provided, enough materials are present to build such a device, of course no one does this because its useless.

nop its very usefull. depending on what u wanna do.

if u wanna end manking from earth go for it.

 

[Chogy]

Even a modest sized asteroid packs more energy than the entire world nuclear arsenal, and they don't destroy the Earth. Nuke power is vastly overrated.

Scaling up a H-bomb, very true, but as applesauce says, not practical. They end up weighing too much. But you could, in theory, build one inside a big building, scale it up, and detonate it with 1 gigaton or larger yield.

 

[iskandhar]

The yield of 1 gigaton is possible only with antimatter bombs.

I disagree, if one can trigger a phase transition from metastable quantum vacuum, into the fundamental zero energy state, this would launch an autocatalytic process, in which an adiabatic phase boundary would move at essentially the speed of light, releasing ever more energy, thus sustaning the state transition in the remanining space.

One way to trigger this, would be with a cumulative process, focusing a huge amount of energy, in an infinitesimal partition of space, in an infinitesimal amaount of time... but then we have an engineering problem... how to make this infinitesimal partition of space, larger than the quantum decoherence scale, so that the whole thing does not simply dissipate...

I have a few ideas about how to do this...

Although.. this would not be a Gigaton weapon... thsi would be someting, really, REALLY powerful... i would no want to design this, yet alone test it...

 

[Mujahid Memon]

such kind of weapon should be assembled and tested on a different planet......say Mars...maybe it would result in a change in orbiting path of that planet