Equal and opposite reaction

[E=mc?]

What would be the equal and oppisite reaction to a nuclear explosion?

[Moontanman]

What would be the equal and oppisite reaction to a nuclear explosion?

 

Matter/Antimatter pairs condensing out of a very strong evergy field:smart:

[Overdog]

What would be the equal and oppisite reaction to a nuclear explosion?

 

Roughly speaking, the utter destruction of everything in the nearby vacinity.

 

When a nuclear explosion occurs, not many people are interested in whether or not matter, energy, and momentum are conserved in accordance with the laws of physics as we understand them. As the extremely complex event unfolds, those of us who lived through the cold war will be following the procedure as taught from the time we were in the first grade; bend over, place your head between your knees, and kiss your *** goodby! :cup:

[InfiniteNow]

To which reaction are you referring? In what context? On an atomic level, at the level of the surroundings, through time and including nuclear fallout? What? Your question is a bit too vague.

 

You'll need to be much more specific to get an answer that meets your desires.

[Moontanman]

I figured that since a nuclear reaction makes energy from matter he wanted to know what the opposite of that was, making matter from energy.......

[InfiniteNow]

But wouldn't that be a bit like asking, "what's the opposite of making bread from dough," or "plants from seeds?"

[modest]

I figured that since a nuclear reaction makes energy from matter he wanted to know what the opposite of that was, making matter from energy.......

 

I believe he's just wondering about the explosion.

 

The explosion would push on the environment as hard as the environment pushes on the explosion.

 

-modest

[E=mc?]

I would like to hear theories on how to negate a nuclear reaction once its reached critical mass. Theoretically for example would it be possible to intiate a black hole, if you will, to negate or avert a nuclear explosion. Atomic bomb goes off then what?

[Overdog]

I would like to hear theories on how to negate a nuclear reaction once its reached critical mass. Theoretically for example would it be possible to intiate a black hole, if you will, to negate or avert a nuclear explosion. Atomic bomb goes off then what?

 

I'm not sure what you are asking. But we do have techniques for controlling the rate at which a nuclear reaction proceeds, and this the is the "controlled" nuclear reaction, which is the basis for Nuclear Power stations.

 

If you are talking about stopping a run-away nuclear chain-reaction (such as in an atomic bomb) once it has started, well, it's already too late at that point. That's why it's called a run-away chain reaction. No way to stop it.

 

Now if you are talking about somehow containing the effects of a chain reaction you have lost control of. The Russians have some experience in this area. Think Chernobyl.

 

As for theories for containing a nuclear bomb after it goes off, I don't believe anyone has any that work.

[Thunderbird]

The mushroom cloud itself is a result of the implosion, caued by a rebound pressure from the nuclear explosion, this explosion itself being the result of an implosion of a man made unstable element. The fall out from this is action is the further destruction of natural biochemical structures that are unable to transmute these unnatural elements that where never meant to exist in nature, natural karma ? What goes around comes around .:wink::eek2:

[HydrogenBond]

They used to be able to perform underground tests. This is where a mountain of stone would push back. The result was a new cave. I often wondered if this caused the temperature to get even higher. I always thought this would have been a good way to dispose of nuclear waste. Why not bombard the heck out of it with a good blast of hot radiation, to squeeze the sponge.

[Overdog]

They used to be able to perform underground tests. This is where a mountain of stone would push back. The result was a new cave. I often wondered if this caused the temperature to get even higher. I always thought this would have been a good way to dispose of nuclear waste. Why not bombard the heck out of it with a good blast of hot radiation, to squeeze the sponge.

 

No doubt it increased the local temperature. But I don't think it would work as a way of disposing of nuclear waste. Nuclear waste already is a source of a hot blast of radiation. If you exposed nuclear waste directly to a nuclear explosion, the result would primarily be to scatter radioactive waste across the planet. This is essentially the idea of the so-called "dirty bomb" although there are a variety of designs that do not involve a nuclear explosion.

[E=mc?]

I'm not sure what you are asking. But we do have techniques for controlling the rate at which a nuclear reaction proceeds, and this the is the "controlled" nuclear reaction, which is the basis for Nuclear Power stations.

 

If you are talking about stopping a run-away nuclear chain-reaction (such as in an atomic bomb) once it has started, well, it's already too late at that point. That's why it's called a run-away chain reaction. No way to stop it.

 

Now if you are talking about somehow containing the effects of a chain reaction you have lost control of. The Russians have some experience in this area. Think Chernobyl.

 

As for theories for containing a nuclear bomb after it goes off, I don't believe anyone has any that work.

 

How about redirecting a nuclear blast?

[Moontanman]

How about redirecting a nuclear blast?

 

believe it or not even the shape of the bombs container affects the blast shape in a small way. something as big as a mountain could shape and direct the blast for sure.