Nuclear explosions in space

Beaconator

Beaconator

Valued Senior Member
A nuclear explosive is set off in space?

does it consume more space and is therefore larger?

or is it perhaps less likely even to occur because there is no oxygen?
 
You'd get a huge release of energy in the form of electromagnetic waves of various frequencies. You'd get a minimal shock wave produced just by the expanding material from the bomb itself ( no atmosphere to add to and carry this).
The no oxygen question is just silly. Oxygen is not required for a nuclear device to function, and even conventional chemical explosives contain everything they need within themselves and do not require an external oxygen supply.
 
James R said:
What does "consume space" mean? More space than what?
Click to expand...

I learned something today. I honestly would have thought the answer to the question was pretty straightforward, even obvious, that the explosion does not consume space. But you're the scientist and educator, so you would know better if a thermonuclear explosion can destroy spacetime itself, or not, so it's entirely possible I'm wrong. After all, I probably never would have guessed that there were so many ways to destroy space itself that we need a more specific description.

A fascinating question arises: After the space is destroyed, what happens to the size of the Universe? Does new space occur ex nihilo, or does extant space slip into the dearth, and when does that effect subside, i.e., it would probably be very hard to observe the subsequent effects at the leading edge of creation.
 
Tiassa said:
I learned something today. I honestly would have thought the answer to the question was pretty straightforward, even obvious, that the explosion does not consume space.
Click to expand...
Explosions don't consume space, if that's the sense in which that comment was made. I couldn't be sure, so I asked.
But you're the scientist and educator, so you would know better if a thermonuclear explosion can destroy spacetime itself, or not, so it's entirely possible I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
They can't.
 
Beaconator said:
Does the absence of oxygen affect its visual appearance?
Click to expand...

Yes.

The cinematic idea of white light suffices; generally speaking, there is nothing to burn, nothing left over. The bright, fire-like fire we see in actual detonation videos on the Earth's surface involve both the burning of oxygen and everything else the heat consumes. A nuclear explosion in space has considerably less matter to destroy; if you're far enough away and have the right diffraction grating, you will actually be able to tell what matter was destroyed in the affected space.
 
Beaconator said:
Affect a larger area perhaps…
Click to expand...
So you don't know what you meant when you wrote that? Why did you write it?
Does the absence of oxygen affect its visual appearance?
Click to expand...
Does the absence of oxygen affect what's visual appearance?

What are you talking about?

Can't you explain clearly what you mean? Why does it go like this every time, with you?
 
James R said:
So you don't know what you meant when you wrote that? Why did you write it?

Does the absence of oxygen affect what's visual appearance?

What are you talking about?

Can't you explain clearly what you mean? Why does it go like this every time, with you?
Click to expand...
I know what I meant when I wrote it… I just try to place similar words in when you get confused.

is there less fire because of the absence of oxygen and is the radius of the explosion different than on Earth?

oh wait Tiassa answered both questions.
 
Tiassa said:
involve both the burning of oxygen and everything else the heat consumes.
Click to expand...
Not really burning. That much energy heats almost everything to incandescence, including the gases around the explosion. New compounds (like nitrogen oxide) form, but that's the opposite of burning - it actually takes energy to do that.
 
Tiassa said:
Yes.

The cinematic idea of white light suffices; generally speaking, there is nothing to burn, nothing left over. The bright, fire-like fire we see in actual detonation videos on the Earth's surface involve both the burning of oxygen and everything else the heat consumes. A nuclear explosion in space has considerably less matter to destroy; if you're far enough away and have the right diffraction grating, you will actually be able to tell what matter was destroyed in the affected space.
Click to expand...
The "fireball" produced by a nuclear explosion on Earth is not due to combustion, but is the surrounding air being heated to incandescence. And the matter isn't "destroyed" per se, but reconfigured by exposure to this much energy.
 
Long ago and far away, supernovae probably did not destroy spacetime. How could you tell?
 
sideshowbob said:
I had a professor ding me half a point on an assignment once because I said "area" when I meant "volume". :)

Colloquially, we use "area" with less-than=mathematical precision. A safer word might be "region".
Click to expand...
You make a fine argument…

Yet it still stands to reason all the elements of the periodic table placed into a volume would not create a nuclear reaction. We don’t know exactly what it would do. Years after a theory could even be postulated we could not be certain.

We can not say with certainty that a nuclear explosion in space would have a larger volume because we have not tried it. Theory suggests it would.

The only thing we can be certain about is; that in the random universe everything that could happen will.
 
Last edited:
Beaconator said:
Yet it still stands to reason all the elements of the periodic table placed into a volume would not create a nuclear reaction.
Click to expand...
You have given no reasons, despite making silly claims about bringing all elements together at regular intervals on this forum.
 
James R said:
You have given no reasons, despite making silly claims about bringing all elements together at regular intervals on this forum.
Click to expand...
Actually I have outlined several different ways to accomplish such a feat or something similar to the idea.

anything close to what I propose already exists in space. Yet since we are here on Earth The idea may undergo changes differently compared to one put together in space.

How does a clump of impurities even come to exist?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top