Started By
Message
locked post

Scientists figure out subatomic particles can fuse together, consider withholding findings

Posted on 11/10/17 at 1:39 pm
Posted by NYNolaguy1
Member since May 2011
21849 posts
Posted on 11/10/17 at 1:39 pm
quote:

A pair of physicists announced the discovery of a subatomic event so powerful that the researchers wondered if it was too dangerous to make public.

The explosive event? The duo showed that two tiny particles known as bottom quarks could theoretically fuse together in a powerful flash. The result: a larger subatomic particle, a second, spare particle known as a nucleon, and a whole mess of energy spilling out into the universe. This "quarksplosion" would be an even more powerful subatomic analog of the individual nuclear fusion reactions that take place in the cores of hydrogen bombs.

Quarks are tiny particles that are usually found clinging together to make up the neutrons and protons inside atoms. They come in six versions or "flavors": up, down, top, bottom, strange and charm.

Energetic events at the subatomic level are measured in megaelectronvolts (MeV), and when two bottom quarks fuse, the physicists found, they produce a whopping 138 MeV. That's about eight times more powerful than one of the individual nuclear fusion events that takes place in hydrogen bombs (a full-scale bomb blast consists of billions of these events). H-bombs fuse together tiny hydrogen nuclei known as deuterons and tritons to create helium nuclei, along with the most powerful explosions in the human arsenal. But each of those individual reactions inside the bombs releases only about 18 MeV, according to the Nuclear Weapon Archive, a website devoted to collecting research and data about nuclear weapons. That’s far less than the fusing bottom quarks’ 138 MeV.


quote:

"I must admit that when I first realized that such a reaction was possible, I was scared," co-researcher Marek Karliner of Tel Aviv University in Israel told Live Science. "But, luckily, it is a one-trick pony."

As powerful as fusion reactions are, a single instance of fusion on its own isn't at all dangerous. Hydrogen bombs derive their enormous power from chain reactions — the cascading fusion of lots and lots of nuclei all at once.

Karliner and Jonathan Rosner, of the University of Chicago, determined that such a chain reaction wouldn't be possible with bottom quarks, and, before publishing, privately shared their insight with colleagues, who agreed.

"If I thought for a microsecond that this had any military applications, I would not have published it," Karliner said.


Live Science

I dont know whether to be alarmed or reassured by this article
This post was edited on 11/10/17 at 1:42 pm
Posted by JetsetNuggs
Member since Jun 2014
15619 posts
Posted on 11/10/17 at 1:40 pm to
quote:

consider withholding findings


Neil deGrasse Tyson finna beat some weakling-scientist arse
Posted by RidiculousHype
The Hatch
Member since Sep 2007
10992 posts
Posted on 11/10/17 at 1:41 pm to
Literal

Posted by Walking the Earth
Member since Feb 2013
17469 posts
Posted on 11/10/17 at 1:41 pm to
Everything has military applications, you dumbass scientist.
Posted by fr33manator
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2010
135044 posts
Posted on 11/10/17 at 1:41 pm to
quote:

"If I thought for a microsecond that this had any military applications, I would not have published it," Karliner said.




That’s what he thinks
Posted by Strannix
C.S.A.
Member since Dec 2012
54241 posts
Posted on 11/10/17 at 1:42 pm to
Tyson is soft
Posted by mailman
Houston
Member since Jul 2009
6143 posts
Posted on 11/10/17 at 1:42 pm to
So more boom for less bite
Posted by nerd guy
Grapevine
Member since Dec 2008
13847 posts
Posted on 11/10/17 at 1:45 pm to
quote:

could theoretically


Posted by Spock's Eyebrow
Member since May 2012
12300 posts
Posted on 11/10/17 at 1:50 pm to
quote:

Hydrogen bombs derive their enormous power from chain reactions — the cascading fusion of lots and lots of nuclei all at once.


That's not right. Chain reaction of fissioning nuclei is what lets an atomic bomb explode, and an atomic bomb is just the trigger for a hydrogen bomb. Fusion does not chain react; it just burns, like wood on a fire.

About the quarks, I don't expect it's easy to collect and store a bunch of them.
Posted by SlapahoeTribe
Tiger Nation
Member since Jul 2012
12722 posts
Posted on 11/10/17 at 1:50 pm to
quote:

If I thought for a microsecond that this had any military applications, I would not have published it," Karliner said.


This guy’s not thinking right. Here’s what he should’ve thought-
quote:

If I thought for a microsecond that this had any military applications, I would have been a billionaire because nobody spends more money than the military" Karliner said.
Posted by NYNolaguy1
Member since May 2011
21849 posts
Posted on 11/10/17 at 1:54 pm to
quote:

About the quarks, I don't expect it's easy to collect and store a bunch of them.


No, but people thought the same thing about a fusion reaction before they realized fission could provide the necessary starter for a fusion reaction.

Also, agreed that the got the fusion sequence wrong.

Posted by alphaandomega
Tuscaloosa-Here to Serve
Member since Aug 2012
17385 posts
Posted on 11/10/17 at 1:55 pm to
its probably what we used to collapse NK test facility.

Posted by Jim Rockford
Member since May 2011
106119 posts
Posted on 11/10/17 at 1:58 pm to
So long, humanity. It was a good run.
Posted by GingerMerkin
Member since Oct 2012
811 posts
Posted on 11/10/17 at 2:01 pm to
quote:

Neil deGrasse Tyson finna beat some weakling-scientist arse


You mean rape some scientist arse.
Posted by The Quiet One
Former United States
Member since Oct 2013
12171 posts
Posted on 11/10/17 at 2:01 pm to
Posted by Tigris
Cloud Cuckoo Land
Member since Jul 2005
13231 posts
Posted on 11/10/17 at 2:04 pm to
The Fermi Paradox just got a little easier to explain.
Posted by CrimsonTideMD
Member since Dec 2010
7124 posts
Posted on 11/10/17 at 2:05 pm to
quote:

About the quarks, I don't expect it's easy to collect and store a bunch of them.


He. I've got at least a dozen of em in an old bucket in my garage, along with some worn out baseballs, ragged tennis balls, a couple of half deflated footballs, and a bocce ball.
Posted by Spock's Eyebrow
Member since May 2012
12300 posts
Posted on 11/10/17 at 2:15 pm to
quote:

quote:
About the quarks, I don't expect it's easy to collect and store a bunch of them.



No, but people thought the same thing about a fusion reaction before they realized fission could provide the necessary starter for a fusion reaction.


AFAIK, no one even fantasized about a fusion bomb without using a fission bomb as trigger. No other way to get enough heat and pressure to make it go.

I have to think generating enough quarks to go bang is orders of magnitude more difficult that separating U235 from U238 or making Pu in a reactor, which you need for the atomic bomb, or making lithium deuteride, which is the fusion fuel.
Posted by offshoretrash
Farmerville, La
Member since Aug 2008
10779 posts
Posted on 11/10/17 at 2:23 pm to
Hello light speed!
Posted by foshizzle
Washington DC metro
Member since Mar 2008
40599 posts
Posted on 11/10/17 at 3:24 pm to
Don't worry.

quote:

To spark a chain reaction, nuclear bomb makers need large stockpiles of particles. And an important property of bottom quarks makes them impossible to stockpile: They wink out of existence just 1 picosecond after they're created, or in about the time it takes light to travel half the length of a single grain of salt. After that time span, they decay into a far more common and less energetic kind of subatomic particle, known as the up quark.


A picosecond is one trillionth of a second.

The real news here isn't that the reaction is all that impressive, it's that it releases energy at all.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram