this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
65 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Science

8596 readers
23 users here now

Ask a science question, get a science answer.


Community Rules


Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.


Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.


Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.


Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.


Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.


Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.


Rule 7: Report violations.Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.


Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.


Rule 9: Source required for answers.Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.


By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.

We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Famously, Oppenheimer and co worked out how close a nuclear bomb test would be to causing a chain reaction of nitrogen fusion in the atmosphere. They made a lot of worst-case-scenario assumptions and still came to the conclusion that no, a nuclear bomb test wouldn’t scour the surface of the world.

But let’s say the atmosphere was twice as dense as it is. Or ten times as dense. At what point would that calculation turn very, very scary?

Obligatory xkcd

Edit: man, seriously, most of the people ‘answering’ this question didn’t even read it.

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] phcorcoran 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

I don't know what chain reaction exactly they were thinking of, but from modern fusion research, I believe we can confidently say that the atmosphere would need to be interior-of-a-large-star-level dense, and even then I'm not sure you'd get nitrogen fusing with anything without a lot of hydrogen or helium around. Nitrogen-nitrogen fusion seems extremely implausible for sure

[–] chuckleslord 22 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Fusion of two nitrogen-14 nuclei and a hydrogen nucleus. That was the feared chain reaction, since both elements are abundant.

Source

[–] errer 9 points 4 months ago

Prolly the most relevant paragraph from the linked article for this discussion:

Today, especially after the detonation of the 50 MT Tsar hydrogen bomb on Novaya Zemlya in 1961, it is also experimentally verified that the danger of atmospheric or even oceanic ignition does not exist. Also, the experimental measurements obtained by Zucker and others demonstrate that the fusion probability is much smaller than the geometric cross-section for 14N+14N assumed by Teller and coworkers, further reducing the chances for such an event. Furthermore, the atmosphere is also heated only to temperatures of a few million degrees, so that the most efficient energies of the fusing nuclei are a few 100 keV and thus well below the Coulomb barrier and very much reduced by penetrability. These temperatures are noticeably lower than those in the late hydrostatic burning stages of massive stars.

Basically the temperature of the atmosphere is over an order of magnitude too low to have any chance of ignition (need 10s of millions of K), and the reaction rate is thus several orders of magnitude lower than the threshold.

[–] phcorcoran 8 points 4 months ago

Thank you, the page you sourced references a 2024 paper inspired by the Oppenheimer movie that was super interesting to read

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

i think the idea is that the part that already fused creates a blast wave that could create the conditions, including preassure required for more fusion. i have no idea if it's possible though.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

It would turn scary if the atmosphere would become as dense as the core of a star. Then too, a lot of stuff depends on the type of star we're talking about. Are we talking about some wimpy red dwarf core density? Yeah, we'll fuse the hydrogen in the atmosphere/on the surface all right. U wanna fuse nitrogen? Oof. U'r gonna need a much bigger star than that.

So basically, to become scary, ur atmosphere would have to be a lot more dense than what it would be if it was fkin solid (like if the gases were literally solid). It wouldn't thus be an atmosphere.

So don't worry. Have fun blowing up ur nukes!

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

for fission, nothing in the atmosphere is fissable and so it can't. Fusion would be possible but that starts spontaniously via pressure.

at least that is how I read wikipedia, I await a real phyiscist to tell me how close I am.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

Yeah, you're not going to get a self-sustaining reaction in Earth's atmosphere if it wasn't already hot and compressed enough that there would be a self-sustaining reaction happening anyway. It's just not a plausible concern. You only get self-sustaining fusion in stars, so Earth would have to be a star in this scenario.