Role of Gravity / Time in a Nuclear Reaction?

a reply to: Phage

What's that have to do with science?

a reply to: onequestion

Are we not a product of the universe? Is therefore space/time not observing itself?

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Phage

What's that have to do with science?

Look up "Frame of reference."

a reply to: combatmaster

Good point.

So I guess experience is the point at which one begins to observe then huh?

a reply to: Phage
I thought science was devoid of context and opinions?

It's fact right?

So there's no room for perspective in your version of science...

a reply to: onequestion

Look up "Frame of reference."

a reply to: Phage

a reply to: onequestion

I guess. Since I didn't actually state my point of view.
Not that it would matter, because it is relative to my frame of reference in any case.

S0 13.6 KG of uranium goes to critical mass, which is how much? what is the speed of compression and What is the role of gravity and time for this critical mass in its frame of reference?
a reply to: Phage

originally posted by: Nochzwei
S0 13.6 KG of uranium goes to critical mass, which is how much?

Asking for details of making a nuclear bomb while sporting an anti-gravity delivery system in your signature which would not require any rockets to deliver them, let's see, I'd say "How can I get put on a watch list?" Alex.

what is the speed of compression and What is the role of gravity and time for this critical mass in its frame of reference?

Gravity has little relevance to the initial detonation though it obviously plays a role in the shape of the aftermath, such as the mushroom cloud. Looking at the time index of certain photos of an atomic bomb test allowed a physicist to estimate the yield of the Trinity test:

Nuclear test yield

Taylor noted that the radius R of the blast should initially depend only on the energy E of the explosion, the time t after the detonation, and the density ρ of the air.

He just assumed the normal flow of time for this analysis.

Thus, with t = 0.025 s and the blast radius was 140 metres...

So 140m/0.025s is 5600 m/s, the speed of the shock wave, is not anywhere close to 299792458 m/s, the speed of light, where one might worry about things like relativistic time corrections, not that you believe in the theory of relativity.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
S0 13.6 KG of uranium goes to critical mass, which is how much? what is the speed of compression and What is the role of gravity and time for this critical mass in its frame of reference?
a reply to: Phage

The amount of material needed to attain a critical mass depends on what type of material and what type of device you are talking about, gun type or implosion type.
For a gun type , the speed of compression is above 2300 feet/sec. And a U235 mass of about 50 kg or a weight of 100 pounds
Implosion devices are more efficient which need about 15kg of U235 or 5kg of P239.
Now the speed of compression is however fast the shock wave from combustion moves through the different types of explosives used in the device. It is very fast indeed, hence the increase in efficiency.
But decidedly non relativistic, though your original question is really far more complex than I originally thought when I first read your OP.
As to the question of gravity and how it comes into play in this situation, is something physicists have been wrestling with since the introduction of quantum mechanics.
We don't know how gravitational fields behave at the quantum level. If we hold to the simplest idea of what gravity is, a distortion in time space relative to a mass, then all matter that has mass should should induce its own gravitational field, no matter how small the mass.
But then again the force of gravity is so small compared to the strong nuclear force or the electrostatic forces, that in this case gravity has nothing to do with what's going on.

a reply to: onequestion

If the big bang is true then time existed without observers as they can map the expansion of the material universe from the beginning apparently.

a reply to: Nochzwei

I think you are asking if there is a valid difference to time within the core of a nuclear explosion. Correct me if I am wrong but you are comparing such an event to that of stellar phenomenon; in so much as there could be a temporal
difference at the core of a star as opposed to its surroundings. Understandably and in relation to a Nuclear bomb implosion has occurred.

the result of the implosion was not a event, caused by an effect anywhere near the speed of light.

This is not to suggest that in some absolute I consider that when stars implode of significant mass. This issue is that they have achieved some fraction of the speed of light.

But I do consider it.....

Any thoughts?

you are right about what I am asking. Tho in my opinion, speed of light is not required. According to me time runs faster in the imploding core as well as in an imploding star. What appears to us as an instantaneous reaction in our frame of reference is actually considerably longer in the actual events in question, in the events frame of reference.
a reply to: Kashai

a reply to: Nochzwei

I would respond by saying you do not have enough energy for an observable temporal effect. That there was one would in effect relate perhaps in minutia

Take in consideration a detonation of 50 megatons and in so far is understood temporal variations occur in an implosion upon scales of a Red Giant Star.

So in context any gravitational variation and due to a 50 megaton bomb would be negligible. In context beyond our technology to measure.

Negligible at least from our general frame of reference.

a reply to: glend

How can time exist without the observer when it is relative?

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: glend

How can time exist without the observer when it is relative?

You can measure time with a clock. I'm not sure the clock has to be called "an observer" but the way physicists use the term "observer" could refer to a clock. For example we use radioactive "clocks" to estimate the age of the Earth, as these clocks have been running for billions of years without any human observers around until recently. In ordinary English one might not think of a clock as an "observer" but in special relativity it may be considered such.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The clock is keeping a record of time though isn't it?

Regardless of the school of science this belongs too I believe that tells us that the clock is in fact observing time.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Could we redefine "being in observance of", such as observing a holiday? That's a modality for experience isn't it?

Is experiencing something observance?

Would the clock need to experience time in order for it to record it?