Tonight I saw Oppenheimer the third time. Chuck, I hope you go to see the movie, you'll love it. It's refreshing to see a good movie that doesn't dumb down the subject.
Just seen the movie, and i thought of AI as something similar to the Manhattan project. AI is another Manhattan project made to increase the US gdp because the chinese are about to surpass the us economically and militarilly. We'll see if it does.
@@morosis82He is curious but forgettable. Everytime Neil explains the thing which he has explained 10 times on the show chuck reacts like OMG this is amazing😂😂😂. He doesn't accumulate anything. He just learns and forget😂😂😂😂
@@veedocaponeand with the sentiment comes the end of the channel that teaches you about science.. they're able to do these because of the patreon members
How the Sun Works Scientists falsely claim that the Sun is a fusion reactor, constantly emitting photon particles and solar wind. In fact, all stars are balls of mass, warmer, brighter matter that are oscillating generators and transformers. Because each atom has its own unique structure, it is an oscillating generator and transformer. Atoms are eternal generators and transformers All atoms consist of indestructible, electrically charged hollow spheres and internally charged solid spheres. The so-called electrons are actually negatively charged liquids attached to the surface of the atom. The hollow sphere has multiple layers, each with an opposite charge. The inner sphere and inner layers of all atoms have the same charge. According to Coulomb's law, the inner balls of all atoms oscillate constantly at a natural frequency and never touch the inner layers. Theoretically, the ability of an atom to carry an infinite amount of energy depends on the input. The more atoms there are, the higher the energy density, the higher the temperature, and the brighter the light. Atoms oscillate at higher voltages. Stars do not emit energy or photons outward, but induce other masses around them to oscillate at their frequency. This is the true mechanism of light, photons and radiation.
And here's a mind-blowing fact: as powerful as the Fat Man (Nagasaki) bomb was (20 kT yield), only about 30% of the plutonium actually fissioned. By the time that first 30% had "gone off" (a few microseconds after criticality), the sphere of plutonium was beginning to disintegrate and lose it's perfectly spherical shape, resulting in the remaining 70% of the plutonium being ejected in the fireball un-fissioned. The Little Boy U-235 weapon that was dropped on Hiroshima was even worse: only 10% of the fuel fissioned before the core geometry became to disrupted to sustain the chain reaction, with the result that, even though the total mass of U-235 in Little Boy was about 3 times the mass of the Fat Man core, Little Boy only yielded about 15 kT. Of course, it still killed 75,000 people instantaneously and flattened more than 2/3 of the city. In the 1960's just to see how big a blast was possible, the Soviet Union built the "Tsar Bomba", a fission-fusion-fission device that yielded 50 megatons (2,500 times the yield of Fat Man). The fireball was visible some 250 miles away from Ground Zero, the blast wave broke windows 150 miles away, and the crew of the aircraft that dropped the device over Novaya Zemlya was given only a 50/50 chance of survival. They were 28 miles away from the detonation, and the TU-95 Bear they were flying was almost knocked out of the sky - it fell 12,000 feet before the pilot regained control. The crew did survive, just barely. The Tsar Bomba was a one=off experiment, but both the US and Soviet governments had weapons of 15 to 25 megatons in the "active" inventory, meaning ready to use if a war should break out. A 25 megaton air blast on top of downtown Los Angeles, would have caused total destruction and 100% casualties in an 8 mile radius from Ground Zero, and killed anyone exposed outdoors in direct line of sight of the blast out to a radius of about 12 miles. True city killers. During the 10 days of the Cuban Missle Crisis in October 1962, there were about 1,000 such weapons in the inventory, 500 in the US arsenal, about the same number with the Soviets. Fortunately, by the end of the 1980's, it's believed that all weapons over 1.5 megaton yield were decommissioned. We hope.
Smaller isn't better. With smaller bombs you can make MORE bombs and overall they're more efficient at releasing energy. So fewer small bombs results in much more damage.
I’ve been waiting weeks for Star talk to talk about Oppenheimer. The movie made me cry. It hurts to know how destructive we humans can be. I thought the movie touched on it showing the scientists confused and mixed reactions to what they had just helped to create. But as Neil says, this was the frontier of physics.
It’s also really fascinating to see the disconnect between the scientists and the people in power. If the people who worked on the Manhattan Project actually had the authority to make the decision to drop the bomb on the people of Japan, I believe they would have not done that. Science, especially physics, is a great example of knowledge is power, and when the power of science isn’t respected and is taken advantage of, it can be dangerous. That’s one of the messages I got out of the movie.
I have loved Niel for a long time but Chuck realy elevates the content! He's gained many new fans from star talk i bet. Please dont ever stop making content!
One thing I thought may have been mentioned is that the fusion bombs use an initial fission explosion to create the necessary temperature/pressure to initiate the fusion part. This is why we are taking so long to utilise fusion for energy generation. The conditions required are very extreme
They've been over that before in an earlier video. Last December scientists were able to initiate fusion using lasers. The energy to create conditions was less than the energy released from fusion
Yeah, but a non-zero chance is not the same thing as a possible or even probable result. The LHC had a non-zero chance of creating a massive antimatter explosion, or possibly even a stable miniature black hole. Neither possibility was likely, but there was a non-zero chance of it happening. You have a non-zero chance of spontaneously combusting in the next seven days, and the non-zero chance of it happening between now and day seven statistically increases by a minuscule fraction (non-zero+) every day. You have an even higher non-zero chance of being hit by a car in the next seven days. Depending on where you live in the world, or North America, you have a very high non-zero chance of being the victim of gun violence. And we have a non-zero chance of having all of our civilization wiped out by a massive CME, and at best we'll have hours to prepare for the social and economic catastrophe heading our way. It was scary because it was meant to be dramatic; . I guarantee you, the scientists barely considered it, even if they had math saying it could happen. Even the calculation said it was a very remote chance: A three parts per million probability that such a chain reaction would occur. Meanwhile, there is a 12% chance that we get hit with a civilization ending coronal mass ejection. Every two years, your odds of experiencing a pandemic go up by 2%. And there is a 27.5% chance of a new virulent pandemic emerging, to wipe out swaths of humanity again. We live with the danger of obliteration from one horrible thing or another every day. Guess what? That's the Human condition. I've had a long day, and I'm going to bed. Pleasant dreams, all.
@@stevenkarmazenuk2540 "Meanwhile, there is a 12% chance that we get hit with a civilization ending coronal mass ejection." ? In what timeframe? Without a timeframe this can escalate very quickly.
@@stevenkarmazenuk2540… “I guarantee you, the scientists barely considered it”. And how can you “GUARANTEE” this? Were you there? Were you privy to their discussions? Did you read their minds? Were you one of the scientists? Having read several biographies and autobiographies, and research papers from scientists, engineers and philosophers directly involved with this Project, the sense I get is that many many involved were actually frightened of the possibility of annihilation. I don’t‘guarantee’ this, but I do bring it forward as my opinion derived from actual writings & musings from people actually involved with the physics, engineering and philosophy of the endeavor, not a dramatized movie script. Take my opinion as you will, and I suggest you do your own research, and not rely on mine. BTW, where did the ‘12% chance of civilization-ending CME” come from? Apart from the fact that this has zero frame of reference, and thus the statistics implied have no validity?
Also in the fission. Whenever a proton changes into a neutron the positive charge is preserved. This works only if an antimatter electron is released aswell.
@@chottomatekudasai-kun3887 yes I just don't want to throw words at people. If you say anti-electron they can understand better than the word positron.
@@Evan_BellCan you give me physics lessons? I need a 1 hour lesson where I learn all there is to know about the above topics. Any good youtube videos? 🙂
Just in case someone gets confused at 03:31, Neil was talking in the context of "where did that mass go? oh, it must be through the release of energy then". But from a pure equation perspective, if you just look at E = m * c^2, energy loss means mass loss and vice-versa. So it's lose-lose or win-win, to keep both sides of the equation in balance.
Nuclear fission and nuclear fusion are two different processes that produce energy from atoms, but they have different characteristics and implications for safety. Nuclear fission is the splitting of a heavy, unstable nucleus into two lighter nuclei, releasing energy and neutrons. Nuclear fusion is the joining of two light nuclei into a heavier nucleus, releasing energy and sometimes other particles. In this essay, I will explain why nuclear fission is more dangerous than nuclear fusion by arguing and showing data and sources. One of the main reasons why nuclear fission is more dangerous than nuclear fusion is that it produces highly radioactive, long-lived waste that can pose serious threats to human health and the environment. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), nuclear fission generates about 25,000 tonnes of high-level radioactive waste per year worldwide¹. This waste contains many different radionuclides, some of which have half-lives of thousands or millions of years, meaning that they will remain radioactive for a very long time. For example, plutonium-239, a common by-product of fission, has a half-life of 24,100 years². This waste must be carefully stored and isolated from the biosphere to prevent exposure and contamination. However, there is no permanent solution for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste yet, and the current methods of storage are not without risks. For instance, in 2014, a leak occurred at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico, USA, releasing radioactive material into the air and exposing 21 workers³. On the other hand, nuclear fusion produces much less radioactive waste than nuclear fission, and most of it is short-lived and low-level. The IAEA states that fusion produces only low-level radioactive waste that does not pose any serious danger⁴. This waste consists mainly of contaminated materials from the reactor components, such as protective clothing, cleaning supplies and metal parts. These materials have low levels of radioactivity and decay quickly, so they can be safely handled with basic precautions. The most radioactive element involved in fusion is tritium, a hydrogen isotope with a half-life of 12.3 years⁵. Tritium is used as fuel in fusion reactors, along with deuterium, another hydrogen isotope. Tritium is produced inside the reactor by neutron bombardment of lithium in the wall. Tritium can be recycled and reused as fuel, reducing the amount of waste generated. Moreover, tritium poses less risk than other radionuclides because it emits only low-energy beta particles that can be easily shielded by a thin layer of material⁶. Another reason why nuclear fission is more dangerous than nuclear fusion is that it can lead to catastrophic accidents or incidents that release large amounts of radiation and cause severe damage to people and the environment. Nuclear fission relies on a chain reaction that can become uncontrollable if not properly moderated and regulated. If too many neutrons are produced and not absorbed by control rods or other materials, the reaction can accelerate and cause a power surge or an explosion. This can result in the melting of the reactor core or the breach of the containment vessel, releasing radioactive material into the surroundings. Such accidents have occurred several times in history, such as at Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011⁷. These accidents have caused thousands of deaths, injuries and illnesses from radiation exposure, as well as widespread environmental contamination and social disruption. In contrast, nuclear fusion is inherently safe because it requires very specific and extreme conditions to initiate and sustain a reaction. Nuclear fusion requires temperatures exceeding 100 million degrees Celsius and high pressure to achieve enough particle density for the nuclei to fuse⁸. These conditions are very difficult to create and maintain artificially, and any disturbance or deviation would stop the reaction immediately. Therefore, there is no possibility of a runaway chain reaction or a meltdown in a fusion reactor. Even in the event of a loss of cooling or power supply, the reaction would simply cease and the plasma would cool down rapidly without causing any damage to the reactor or releasing any radiation. There has never been a serious accident or incident involving nuclear fusion so far. In conclusion, nuclear fission is more dangerous than nuclear fusion because it produces highly radioactive, long-lived waste that requires careful management and disposal; it can cause severe accidents or incidents that release large amounts of radiation and harm people and the environment; and it depends on a chain reaction that can become unstable and uncontrollable if not properly moderated and regulated. Nuclear fusion produces much less radioactive waste that is mostly short-lived and low-level; it cannot cause catastrophic accidents or incidents that release radiation or damage the reactor; and it relies on a self-limiting process that requires very specific and extreme conditions to start and maintain a reaction. Therefore, nuclear fusion is safer and more environmentally friendly than nuclear fission as a source of energy. References: ¹: [IAEA - Radioactive Waste Management](www.iaea.org/topics/radioactive-waste-management) ²: [EPA - Plutonium](www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclide-basics-plutonium) ³: [BBC - US nuclear waste dump leak sparks anger](www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26337232) ⁴: [IAEA - Safety in Fusion](www.iaea.org/bulletin/safety-in-fusion) ⁵: [EPA - Tritium](www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclide-basics-tritium) ⁶: [ITER - Tritium and safety](www.iter.org/mach/safety) ⁷: [Wikipedia - Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents](en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents) ⁸: [BBC - Nuclear fusion breakthrough - what is it and how does it work?](www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63957085) : [ITER - Safety and Environment](www.iter.org/mach/safety) Origine: conversazione con Bing, 9/8/2023 (1) Fission and Fusion: What is the Difference? - Department of Energy. www.energy.gov/ne/articles/fission-and-fusion-what-difference. (2) Fission vs. Fusion - What’s the Difference? | Duke Energy | Nuclear .... nuclear.duke-energy.com/2021/05/27/fission-vs-fusion-whats-the-difference-6843001. (3) Nuclear Fission vs Nuclear Fusion: Difference and Comparison. askanydifference.com/difference-between-nuclear-fission-and-nuclear-fusion/. (4) Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents - Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents. (5) Criticality accident - Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_accident. (6) Safety in Fusion | IAEA - International Atomic Energy Agency. www.iaea.org/bulletin/safety-in-fusion. (7) Safety and Environment - ITER. www.iter.org/mach/safety. (8) Nuclear fusion breakthrough - what is it and how does it work?. www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63957085.
Well, Neil started it. Dr. Tyson mentioned LA, I grew up in an adjacent berg if you will. And, when I was a kid growing up in the 1960's at school we used to have duck and cover drills. We were taught in case of the Rooskies dropping the big one on us, to get under our desks at school and scrunch up face down with our interlocked hands covering the back of our necks. Our elementary school was pretty much right at the base of the San Gaberial Mountains, and when I was a bit older I thought "Swell, so if we didn't get vaporized then the blast wave would squish us against the mountains." Big diff. And after hearing Dr. Tyson's explaination of how fission and fusion work, now I remember why I never went to CalTech.
I liked the part where NDT explained that fusion is thermonuclear, but was disappointed that it was never mentioned that a fission bomb provides the "thermo" part of an H bomb.
When last year they announced "Fusion energy is imminent! We achieved the break even point! We produced a positive energy balance!", I just smiled. First, the positive energy balance meant that the the entergy that was injected into a handful of atoms to make them fuse together was less than the enertgy that the fusion process produced. All the monstrous amount of energy that was required to create the conditions to where that can happen is not included in the energy balance - like the energy in the magnets that hold the fusion material in place, that are superconductors that must be kept cooled down to -200^C or so, and so on. Second, it was over 40 years ago when our physics class of my school made an excursion to the fusion lab of our Technical University here in Munich (TUM). They had at least 3 experiments running for years, a giant laser shooting Gigawatts at plastic foils, a tokamak and a stellarator (the latter 2 are construction variants of a fusion reactor). They told us back then it would take some more years to come to a stable fusion reaction, with their experiments they are happy to keep the medium stable for a few milliseconds and heat it up to a few million Kelvin before the process collapses (you need 100 million Kelvin for fusion). And now, after 40 years, we are so much "farther", for a nanosecond or so they had a positive energy balance. That was it. To be a FUNCTIONAL source of energy production, you need a CONTINUOUS process, stable for days, months, years, decades. One where the energy that is needed to operate the whole complex is negligible in comparison to the amount of produced energy. Just to say it: As far as I know, the termperature inside the sun is far too low for a "clean", complete fusion, "just" a few million degrees. But the enormous amount of available atoms cause that even though it is so to speak just a rare, accidental event when 2 atoms fuse at so low temperature that it happens often enough to light up our sky since 4.5 billion years. But for our earthly fusion, we do not have the luxury of "then let's do it with a few billion tons of hydrogen".
I had read that the actual rate of heat production inside the sun is roughly equal to composting vegetation. It is only the volume of it that makes the outside put forth so much. Your explanation makes me understand why it doesn't all go off at once. Thanks.
@@mitchellminer9597 It requires a rare quantum tunneling event to allow fusion to occur in the core right now, so it's really not gobbling up hydrogen very fast, tho, not very fast in stellar terms equates to about 5 million tons of hydrogen per second, so.....
@@mitchellminer9597 Mhmm. The original calculations showed the sun shouldn't be on fire right now, so they had to find a mechanism that allowed the two hydrogen atoms to fuse, even if they didn't have the raw energy required to do it. Enter: fuzzy wave functions and quantum tunneling.
So “this first step didn’t solve the entire problem, so what a waste of time”? It’s a step in the process of science. No one knowledgeable has said “it’s imminent”. It’s a step.
I remember more than a decade ago, Stephen Hawking was on Larry King Live; and Larry asked something like “What technology are you most disappointed we haven’t developed yet?” and Dr Hawking replied “Nuclear Fusion”.
It's awesome how easily Tyson explains complex topics. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and lessons, Chuck really seems to be having fun and learning at the same time. Thank you guys.
I have probably watched more than thousands of videos on youtube during my 25 years. This is the absolute BEST. NDG explained these terms so greatly even a dog would understand.
My local lake geologists took some core samples from the silt entering the lake inlet. A geiger counter spiked once they got to the part of the sample from the 1950s. All of the radiation from the Pacific Ocean bomb tests made its way into Minnesota over 10,000 miles away.
That could just from a natural source or from illegal dumping of contaminated material. Most of the airborne fallout from nuclear tests have short half-lives. Only Cesium-137 and Stronium-90 remain long term. To really check you need to use a test to measure the energy levels of the material to determine the source of the radiation. Another possibility is contamination from coal as coal does contain radioactive elements.
I love the idea of a scientist inventing the bow and arrow. Like some person thousands of years ago is like "Guys I really think I'm onto something this time" "Sigh... What is is this time Grog?"
The military wasn’t satisfied with just a fission-fusion bomb. So modern warheads have a tamper of uranium surrounding the fission material which 1) keeps the fusion reaction going for just a fraction of a fraction of a second which greatly increases its yield and 2) then the tamper itself fissions adding even more.
I’ve been wondering Chris Nolan is planning to do a sequel called “Teller”, about the development of the hydrogen bomb. Edward Teller and mention of the fusion bomb were quite prevalent in the film.
Neil missed an opportunity. The hydrogen bomb is only possible because it uses an atomic bomb to generate the required heat and pressure to start the fusion process. So hydrogen bombs are actually two bombs in one. One fission that then triggers a second much bigger fusion explosion
11:05 This is an interesting and cautionary simulation that assumes a limited nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan showing even in such regional event ash with possible fallout will circulate around the entire globe affecting all of us.
Fusion, which powers the stars, is more powerful than fission because it combines light nuclei to form heavier ones, releasing vast amounts of energy in the process, whereas fission splits heavy nuclei into lighter ones. Harnessing fusion on Earth could potentially offer a nearly limitless and cleaner energy source compared to the splitting of atoms used in fission. Why does nuclear fusion release significantly more energy per reaction compared to nuclear fission, and what are the fundamental differences in their processes that account for this difference?
Amazing explanation. I actually understood it, reminiscent of hawking radiation where negative mass of quantum jitter falls towards the black hole causing it to lose mass
Physics is really cool, it was so great they made a movie about Oppenheimer. It’s so great to see it spur public curiosity about science. Our species harnessing the power of the Atom was definitely a giant leap for us to take. It’s also interesting to see the difference between fusion and fission.
On the subject of nuclear winter, one of the unwritten doctrines during the Cold War was M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction) which meant that both sides had to be expert negotiators because given the arsenal that each other possessed, everyone was on edge and the first nuclear warhead to go airborne would basically end everyone involved. The first country to launch also kills themselves because the targeted country would launch back before those first warheads impact. Mutually. Assured. Destruction.
The MAD really comes from all of the nuclear power plant meltdowns. A nuclear bomb may contain several dozen kilograms of fissile material. A nuclear power plant contains several dozen tons of fissile material & heavy radioactive isotopes from the fission products.
13:20 Einstein did send the letter but he wasn't really the one who came up with the warning for Roosevelt. Rather It was Szilard who drafted the letter but then sought Einstein to sign his name on it so as to put more authoritative weight to the warning. While Einstein's equation was one of the bases that eventually lead to the creation of the atomic bomb he was never even part of the Manhattan Project. In a way that's understandable considering that with his high public profile if he suddenly disappeared into the desert for three years many would have noticed.
Einstein was not acceptable for a security clearance to work on the Manhattan Project, despite having signed Szilard's letter to Roosevelt, because of his politics. It's unclear whether his focus was specific enough for work on the bomb, as his theories were very high level.
The complexity of gathering materials and the main engineering behind synchronizing the internal detonation clocks is rocket science alone. It's not like you find this stuff in a pharmacy
I was never good at physics class in high school. However, I was always a bit of a trekkie so science did fascinate me. The work tbat Neil and other scientists is so important. They give people insight into scientific principles in an intuitive manner. Given the lack of basic scientific knowledge by many of our elected officials, this is critical. It might just save our species from killing our planet and ourselves off in the long run.
Dr. Tyson, Dr. Sagan would be proud of his influence on the new communicator of science. You fill his shoes admirably. I thought the movie was well done, and the story fascinating.
Let's also remember that a fusion bomb requires a fission bomb to initiate the reaction. Implode the plutonium using conventional explosives to start the fission reaction, which in turn compresses the hydrogen to the point where it can fuse. Of course fusion is more powerful than fission.
there's more to it than that. the initial fission stage also generates neutrons that react with the lithium of the fusion stage to make the fusion fuel, and excess neutrons from both first two stages to fission u-238 in the tamper which provides around half the actual yield of a thermonuclear bomb
Don't forget to mention the Teller-Ulam design. Fission-Fusion-Fission staging. A fission bomb generates radiation to set off the fusion bomb, which compresses the U238 'tamper' or 'spark plug' contained within, causing it to undergo fission - except nearly complete fission... Staging is how the really large bombs were made (Castle Bravo, Tsar Bomba, US B41)
Purifying Uranium isn't only to make bombs. It is necessary to run nuclear reactors to produce power. Its just that to produce power a LOT of Uranium needs to be enriched to low concentration (tens of tons @3-5%) while to make a bomb you need 80% U235 concentration but just 50kg suffices to make a bomb.
Highly dependent on if you are North Korea or USA. Explosive lens technology and other critical tricks on nuclear weapons construction. @@richardjones7984
Nuclear physics including nuclear weapons have always been a true fascination of mine. There's an "awesomeness" in a really horrifying way in nuclear weapons. The films shot of the many test shots over the years are simultaneously fascinating, awe-inspiring, beautiful, alien, horrific, and utterly terrifying. It's like looking at an all-powerful, unearthly, glowing, monstrous entity. I don't know how many more adjectives I could add here to convey the sensation I feel seeing these films. The physics underlying nuclear reactions is equally as fascinating to me. I just wish I get my head wrapped around the maths that describe it all, I'm just not that smart.
The fission of U235 produces about 200 MeV of power. Fusion of D+T is closer to 18 MeV. But the mass of u235 of much much higher then D+T giving a better mass to energy ration, but fissile material and fertile material is a lot more common then fusible material. So it’s a tossup.
When it comes to those vanishingly low probabilities, it's sorta like saying you take thousands of decks of cards, shuffle them all, and all the aces show up on top, followed by all the kings, then all the queens, etc. For the atmosphere to ignite, the random motion of particles in our atmosphere would have to happen to put everything in just the right place for things to go wrong.
Ok, here are 2 questions. No#1: the chain reaction in the fission process keeps going thanks to the released neotrons, what keeps the chain reaction going at the fusion process? No#2: after sustracting the high energy spent to fuse the two hydrogen atoms, is the released energy still higher than the fission reaction for the same mass?
I will never understand the amount of hate that Neil has to deal with. Think of him what you want, but at the end of the day, how can you not admire his love for teaching knowledge?! Can it be a bit much? Yes, I guess so. Sometimes. But I don't think the world would be worse off if we had thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people like him...
I know. Not seen much on this episode, but the absurd accusations that he is an actor reading from a NASA approved script, and knows nothing (by people who really do know nothing), is irritating at the very least. The same people tend to call Einstein, Newton, Darwin and all genuine scientists idiots. Grrrr.
This was a fantastic primer! The natural segue would be to talk about why fusion reactors are still eluding us. Why do they produce so little net energy? Maybe you already covered this? Searching...
You should follow this up next week on nuclear power plants, both water cooled and also liquid sodium or thorium. To many people get the bomb and power plants confused
Easiest way to explain it. Fission is the process of splitting atoms to create energy, while Fusion smashes atoms together. Beyond that simple explanation is Fusion does not create any byproduct, so there is no radioactive waste to worry about and a Fusion reaction can reach a point where it's self sustaining. Our Sun is an example of Fusion.
Japanese split their Uranium and Plutonium projects between their Army and Navy. Did a test detonation in North Korea, deployment plan was to send it on a ship to meet the invasion fleet.
Didn’t really get a good explanation for fusion being more powerful than fission. But I’m assuming fusion is much more powerful because it’s more efficient with mass to energy transformation
Not all forms of radioactive decay involve the splitting of a nucleus. The primary decay mode of uranium does not involve the emission of a neutron. Fusion bombs weren't tested until the 50s. For all of the 40s, they were far from perfected, nobody was certain if they were even possible. The concern of a fission bomb igniting a fusion reaction in the atmosphere was nitrogen fusion, not hydrogen fusion in water in the air.
So Much Empathy, Love and Wonder, yet we Use our Intellect to Destroy. Why? We have a Choice. Such a Discovery should’ve been Celebrated and not Remembered as our Darkest Times in Recent History.
Great vid, as always Manhattan Project physicists know the Uranium “gun” bomb would work, so didn’t test it. It was dropped on Hiroshima. The Plutonium bomb, especially the compression device to start the runaway chain reaction, did need to be tested: Trinity Site and used on Nagasaki. Physicist Edward Teller realized they could develop an H-Bomb, so they pushed for its development, because if the USA didn’t do it, someone else (USSR) would.
Neil, I got a question. First, you said that you cannot get a runaway fusion reaction in our ocean caused by exploding a nuclear bomb in it because the density is not high enough. HOWEVER, WHAT if you DROP and detonate a nuclear bomb into JUPITER? WOULD that cause a fusion reaction inside Jupiter?
This is the first StarTalk I had to rewind to make sure I understood what Neil was saying. I would of been like Chuck and acted like I understood everything. 😂
Its funny to hear something so oversimplified but also awesome. Also laughing he said omg how do you think about that and neil just was like some of us do without saying we all do when we question everything
What were your thoughts on Oppenheimer?
Tonight I saw Oppenheimer the third time. Chuck, I hope you go to see the movie, you'll love it. It's refreshing to see a good movie that doesn't dumb down the subject.
One of Nolan's best works
Great film
Masterpiece
Just seen the movie, and i thought of AI as something similar to the Manhattan project. AI is another Manhattan project made to increase the US gdp because the chinese are about to surpass the us economically and militarilly. We'll see if it does.
Gotta appreciate how much knowledge Chuck has accumulated over the years.
He has enough knowledge to debate against young earth creationists 😂
I've often thought so too. He's a curious dude and obviously has interest in the subjects despite being there to be the funny guy.
That's why it's better to surround ourselves with people we want to become like
@@morosis82He is curious but forgettable. Everytime Neil explains the thing which he has explained 10 times on the show chuck reacts like OMG this is amazing😂😂😂. He doesn't accumulate anything. He just learns and forget😂😂😂😂
@@PartridgeAvesgive him more credit than that. He does retain most of The knowledge. It’s obvious if you been watching all the explainer videos.
I need to start remembering to like these videos because the level of content StarTalk provides is spectacular
You know it will be good. Start the video then immediately hit the like button. That way you don't forget.
Send them a little $$ too👍
@@veedocaponeand with the sentiment comes the end of the channel that teaches you about science.. they're able to do these because of the patreon members
@@veedocapone Ummmmm. I don't like being a free loader. Many of us make a lot more than Chuck, since you're keeping score.
How the Sun Works
Scientists falsely claim that the Sun is a fusion reactor, constantly emitting photon particles and solar wind.
In fact, all stars are balls of mass, warmer, brighter matter that are oscillating generators and transformers.
Because each atom has its own unique structure, it is an oscillating generator and transformer.
Atoms are eternal generators and transformers
All atoms consist of indestructible, electrically charged hollow spheres and internally charged solid spheres. The so-called electrons are actually negatively charged liquids attached to the surface of the atom.
The hollow sphere has multiple layers, each with an opposite charge.
The inner sphere and inner layers of all atoms have the same charge.
According to Coulomb's law, the inner balls of all atoms oscillate constantly at a natural frequency and never touch the inner layers. Theoretically, the ability of an atom to carry an infinite amount of energy depends on the input.
The more atoms there are, the higher the energy density, the higher the temperature, and the brighter the light. Atoms oscillate at higher voltages.
Stars do not emit energy or photons outward, but induce other masses around them to oscillate at their frequency. This is the true mechanism of light, photons and radiation.
And here's a mind-blowing fact: as powerful as the Fat Man (Nagasaki) bomb was (20 kT yield), only about 30% of the plutonium actually fissioned. By the time that first 30% had "gone off" (a few microseconds after criticality), the sphere of plutonium was beginning to disintegrate and lose it's perfectly spherical shape, resulting in the remaining 70% of the plutonium being ejected in the fireball un-fissioned. The Little Boy U-235 weapon that was dropped on Hiroshima was even worse: only 10% of the fuel fissioned before the core geometry became to disrupted to sustain the chain reaction, with the result that, even though the total mass of U-235 in Little Boy was about 3 times the mass of the Fat Man core, Little Boy only yielded about 15 kT. Of course, it still killed 75,000 people instantaneously and flattened more than 2/3 of the city. In the 1960's just to see how big a blast was possible, the Soviet Union built the "Tsar Bomba", a fission-fusion-fission device that yielded 50 megatons (2,500 times the yield of Fat Man). The fireball was visible some 250 miles away from Ground Zero, the blast wave broke windows 150 miles away, and the crew of the aircraft that dropped the device over Novaya Zemlya was given only a 50/50 chance of survival. They were 28 miles away from the detonation, and the TU-95 Bear they were flying was almost knocked out of the sky - it fell 12,000 feet before the pilot regained control. The crew did survive, just barely. The Tsar Bomba was a one=off experiment, but both the US and Soviet governments had weapons of 15 to 25 megatons in the "active" inventory, meaning ready to use if a war should break out. A 25 megaton air blast on top of downtown Los Angeles, would have caused total destruction and 100% casualties in an 8 mile radius from Ground Zero, and killed anyone exposed outdoors in direct line of sight of the blast out to a radius of about 12 miles. True city killers. During the 10 days of the Cuban Missle Crisis in October 1962, there were about 1,000 such weapons in the inventory, 500 in the US arsenal, about the same number with the Soviets. Fortunately, by the end of the 1980's, it's believed that all weapons over 1.5 megaton yield were decommissioned. We hope.
@@ConontheBinarian At that point you just go full Warhammer and rename them to Exterminatus. They're monstrous enough.
Smaller isn't better. With smaller bombs you can make MORE bombs and overall they're more efficient at releasing energy. So fewer small bombs results in much more damage.
😮😮😮😳😳😳
Missiles started with rockets, and those were stabilized by my man Robert Goddard, Father of Modern Rocketry.
a 30 percent efficiency of conversion of mass into energy. an antimatter bomb would be even greater.
I’ve been waiting weeks for Star talk to talk about Oppenheimer. The movie made me cry. It hurts to know how destructive we humans can be. I thought the movie touched on it showing the scientists confused and mixed reactions to what they had just helped to create. But as Neil says, this was the frontier of physics.
It’s also really fascinating to see the disconnect between the scientists and the people in power. If the people who worked on the Manhattan Project actually had the authority to make the decision to drop the bomb on the people of Japan, I believe they would have not done that. Science, especially physics, is a great example of knowledge is power, and when the power of science isn’t respected and is taken advantage of, it can be dangerous. That’s one of the messages I got out of the movie.
If we didn't do it some other entity would have.
I have loved Niel for a long time but Chuck realy elevates the content! He's gained many new fans from star talk i bet. Please dont ever stop making content!
One thing I thought may have been mentioned is that the fusion bombs use an initial fission explosion to create the necessary temperature/pressure to initiate the fusion part. This is why we are taking so long to utilise fusion for energy generation. The conditions required are very extreme
Yeah, I was surprised Neil didn't mention that.
They've been over that before in an earlier video. Last December scientists were able to initiate fusion using lasers. The energy to create conditions was less than the energy released from fusion
That was a brilliant episode- both Neil and Chuck at their best.
only nukes can bring peace.
The atmospheric ignition discussion in the Oppenheimer movie was the scariest part. Even the thought of it is chilling.
Far less likely than global thermonuclear war.
Yeah, but a non-zero chance is not the same thing as a possible or even probable result. The LHC had a non-zero chance of creating a massive antimatter explosion, or possibly even a stable miniature black hole. Neither possibility was likely, but there was a non-zero chance of it happening.
You have a non-zero chance of spontaneously combusting in the next seven days, and the non-zero chance of it happening between now and day seven statistically increases by a minuscule fraction (non-zero+) every day.
You have an even higher non-zero chance of being hit by a car in the next seven days.
Depending on where you live in the world, or North America, you have a very high non-zero chance of being the victim of gun violence.
And we have a non-zero chance of having all of our civilization wiped out by a massive CME, and at best we'll have hours to prepare for the social and economic catastrophe heading our way.
It was scary because it was meant to be dramatic; . I guarantee you, the scientists barely considered it, even if they had math saying it could happen. Even the calculation said it was a very remote chance: A three parts per million probability that such a chain reaction would occur.
Meanwhile, there is a 12% chance that we get hit with a civilization ending coronal mass ejection.
Every two years, your odds of experiencing a pandemic go up by 2%. And there is a 27.5% chance of a new virulent pandemic emerging, to wipe out swaths of humanity again.
We live with the danger of obliteration from one horrible thing or another every day. Guess what? That's the Human condition.
I've had a long day, and I'm going to bed. Pleasant dreams, all.
9:05 So, not even the sky is the limit.
@@stevenkarmazenuk2540 "Meanwhile, there is a 12% chance that we get hit with a civilization ending coronal mass ejection." ? In what timeframe? Without a timeframe this can escalate very quickly.
@@stevenkarmazenuk2540… “I guarantee you, the scientists barely considered it”.
And how can you “GUARANTEE” this? Were you there? Were you privy to their discussions? Did you read their minds? Were you one of the scientists?
Having read several biographies and autobiographies, and research papers from scientists, engineers and philosophers directly involved with this Project, the sense I get is that many many involved were actually frightened of the possibility of annihilation.
I don’t‘guarantee’ this, but I do bring it forward as my opinion derived from actual writings & musings from people actually involved with the physics, engineering and philosophy of the endeavor, not a dramatized movie script.
Take my opinion as you will, and I suggest you do your own research, and not rely on mine.
BTW, where did the ‘12% chance of civilization-ending CME” come from? Apart from the fact that this has zero frame of reference, and thus the statistics implied have no validity?
This was great, thank you! I never realized antimatter was part of the fusion process.
Also in the fission. Whenever a proton changes into a neutron the positive charge is preserved. This works only if an antimatter electron is released aswell.
@4984christian antimatter electron is a positron, wich is the positive charge of a proton, it just need to come into contact with an electron.
@@chottomatekudasai-kun3887 yes I just don't want to throw words at people. If you say anti-electron they can understand better than the word positron.
Anti matter is not part of all fusion reactions.
@@Evan_BellCan you give me physics lessons? I need a 1 hour lesson where I learn all there is to know about the above topics. Any good youtube videos? 🙂
Just in case someone gets confused at 03:31, Neil was talking in the context of "where did that mass go? oh, it must be through the release of energy then". But from a pure equation perspective, if you just look at E = m * c^2, energy loss means mass loss and vice-versa. So it's lose-lose or win-win, to keep both sides of the equation in balance.
I literally feel myself getting smarter watching StarTalk.
Thank you Dr. Tyson and Chuck.
Nuclear fission and nuclear fusion are two different processes that produce energy from atoms, but they have different characteristics and implications for safety. Nuclear fission is the splitting of a heavy, unstable nucleus into two lighter nuclei, releasing energy and neutrons. Nuclear fusion is the joining of two light nuclei into a heavier nucleus, releasing energy and sometimes other particles. In this essay, I will explain why nuclear fission is more dangerous than nuclear fusion by arguing and showing data and sources.
One of the main reasons why nuclear fission is more dangerous than nuclear fusion is that it produces highly radioactive, long-lived waste that can pose serious threats to human health and the environment. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), nuclear fission generates about 25,000 tonnes of high-level radioactive waste per year worldwide¹. This waste contains many different radionuclides, some of which have half-lives of thousands or millions of years, meaning that they will remain radioactive for a very long time. For example, plutonium-239, a common by-product of fission, has a half-life of 24,100 years². This waste must be carefully stored and isolated from the biosphere to prevent exposure and contamination. However, there is no permanent solution for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste yet, and the current methods of storage are not without risks. For instance, in 2014, a leak occurred at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico, USA, releasing radioactive material into the air and exposing 21 workers³.
On the other hand, nuclear fusion produces much less radioactive waste than nuclear fission, and most of it is short-lived and low-level. The IAEA states that fusion produces only low-level radioactive waste that does not pose any serious danger⁴. This waste consists mainly of contaminated materials from the reactor components, such as protective clothing, cleaning supplies and metal parts. These materials have low levels of radioactivity and decay quickly, so they can be safely handled with basic precautions. The most radioactive element involved in fusion is tritium, a hydrogen isotope with a half-life of 12.3 years⁵. Tritium is used as fuel in fusion reactors, along with deuterium, another hydrogen isotope. Tritium is produced inside the reactor by neutron bombardment of lithium in the wall. Tritium can be recycled and reused as fuel, reducing the amount of waste generated. Moreover, tritium poses less risk than other radionuclides because it emits only low-energy beta particles that can be easily shielded by a thin layer of material⁶.
Another reason why nuclear fission is more dangerous than nuclear fusion is that it can lead to catastrophic accidents or incidents that release large amounts of radiation and cause severe damage to people and the environment. Nuclear fission relies on a chain reaction that can become uncontrollable if not properly moderated and regulated. If too many neutrons are produced and not absorbed by control rods or other materials, the reaction can accelerate and cause a power surge or an explosion. This can result in the melting of the reactor core or the breach of the containment vessel, releasing radioactive material into the surroundings. Such accidents have occurred several times in history, such as at Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011⁷. These accidents have caused thousands of deaths, injuries and illnesses from radiation exposure, as well as widespread environmental contamination and social disruption.
In contrast, nuclear fusion is inherently safe because it requires very specific and extreme conditions to initiate and sustain a reaction. Nuclear fusion requires temperatures exceeding 100 million degrees Celsius and high pressure to achieve enough particle density for the nuclei to fuse⁸. These conditions are very difficult to create and maintain artificially, and any disturbance or deviation would stop the reaction immediately. Therefore, there is no possibility of a runaway chain reaction or a meltdown in a fusion reactor. Even in the event of a loss of cooling or power supply, the reaction would simply cease and the plasma would cool down rapidly without causing any damage to the reactor or releasing any radiation. There has never been a serious accident or incident involving nuclear fusion so far.
In conclusion, nuclear fission is more dangerous than nuclear fusion because it produces highly radioactive, long-lived waste that requires careful management and disposal; it can cause severe accidents or incidents that release large amounts of radiation and harm people and the environment; and it depends on a chain reaction that can become unstable and uncontrollable if not properly moderated and regulated. Nuclear fusion produces much less radioactive waste that is mostly short-lived and low-level; it cannot cause catastrophic accidents or incidents that release radiation or damage the reactor; and it relies on a self-limiting process that requires very specific and extreme conditions to start and maintain a reaction. Therefore, nuclear fusion is safer and more environmentally friendly than nuclear fission as a source of energy.
References:
¹: [IAEA - Radioactive Waste Management](www.iaea.org/topics/radioactive-waste-management)
²: [EPA - Plutonium](www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclide-basics-plutonium)
³: [BBC - US nuclear waste dump leak sparks anger](www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26337232)
⁴: [IAEA - Safety in Fusion](www.iaea.org/bulletin/safety-in-fusion)
⁵: [EPA - Tritium](www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclide-basics-tritium)
⁶: [ITER - Tritium and safety](www.iter.org/mach/safety)
⁷: [Wikipedia - Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents](en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents)
⁸: [BBC - Nuclear fusion breakthrough - what is it and how does it work?](www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63957085)
: [ITER - Safety and Environment](www.iter.org/mach/safety)
Origine: conversazione con Bing, 9/8/2023
(1) Fission and Fusion: What is the Difference? - Department of Energy. www.energy.gov/ne/articles/fission-and-fusion-what-difference.
(2) Fission vs. Fusion - What’s the Difference? | Duke Energy | Nuclear .... nuclear.duke-energy.com/2021/05/27/fission-vs-fusion-whats-the-difference-6843001.
(3) Nuclear Fission vs Nuclear Fusion: Difference and Comparison. askanydifference.com/difference-between-nuclear-fission-and-nuclear-fusion/.
(4) Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents - Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents.
(5) Criticality accident - Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_accident.
(6) Safety in Fusion | IAEA - International Atomic Energy Agency. www.iaea.org/bulletin/safety-in-fusion.
(7) Safety and Environment - ITER. www.iter.org/mach/safety.
(8) Nuclear fusion breakthrough - what is it and how does it work?. www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63957085.
Nice explanation, ty.
Thank you. Well written.
Awesome short essay. Much more detailed and elegant than how I tried to explain this haha.
Egh. Definitely too much.
This looks like an AI generated text.
Well, Neil started it. Dr. Tyson mentioned LA, I grew up in an adjacent berg if you will. And, when I was a kid growing up in the 1960's at school we used to have duck and cover drills. We were taught in case of the Rooskies dropping the big one on us, to get under our desks at school and scrunch up face down with our interlocked hands covering the back of our necks. Our elementary school was pretty much right at the base of the San Gaberial Mountains, and when I was a bit older I thought "Swell, so if we didn't get vaporized then the blast wave would squish us against the mountains." Big diff. And after hearing Dr. Tyson's explaination of how fission and fusion work, now I remember why I never went to CalTech.
I surely was ignorant about this thanks Lord Chuck
I liked the part where NDT explained that fusion is thermonuclear, but was disappointed that it was never mentioned that a fission bomb provides the "thermo" part of an H bomb.
When last year they announced "Fusion energy is imminent! We achieved the break even point! We produced a positive energy balance!", I just smiled.
First, the positive energy balance meant that the the entergy that was injected into a handful of atoms to make them fuse together was less than the enertgy that the fusion process produced.
All the monstrous amount of energy that was required to create the conditions to where that can happen is not included in the energy balance - like the energy in the magnets that hold the fusion material in place, that are superconductors that must be kept cooled down to -200^C or so, and so on.
Second, it was over 40 years ago when our physics class of my school made an excursion to the fusion lab of our Technical University here in Munich (TUM). They had at least 3 experiments running for years, a giant laser shooting Gigawatts at plastic foils, a tokamak and a stellarator (the latter 2 are construction variants of a fusion reactor).
They told us back then it would take some more years to come to a stable fusion reaction, with their experiments they are happy to keep the medium stable for a few milliseconds and heat it up to a few million Kelvin before the process collapses (you need 100 million Kelvin for fusion).
And now, after 40 years, we are so much "farther", for a nanosecond or so they had a positive energy balance. That was it.
To be a FUNCTIONAL source of energy production, you need a CONTINUOUS process, stable for days, months, years, decades.
One where the energy that is needed to operate the whole complex is negligible in comparison to the amount of produced energy.
Just to say it: As far as I know, the termperature inside the sun is far too low for a "clean", complete fusion, "just" a few million degrees.
But the enormous amount of available atoms cause that even though it is so to speak just a rare, accidental event when 2 atoms fuse at so low temperature that it happens often enough to light up our sky since 4.5 billion years.
But for our earthly fusion, we do not have the luxury of "then let's do it with a few billion tons of hydrogen".
I had read that the actual rate of heat production inside the sun is roughly equal to composting vegetation. It is only the volume of it that makes the outside put forth so much.
Your explanation makes me understand why it doesn't all go off at once.
Thanks.
@@mitchellminer9597 It requires a rare quantum tunneling event to allow fusion to occur in the core right now, so it's really not gobbling up hydrogen very fast, tho, not very fast in stellar terms equates to about 5 million tons of hydrogen per second, so.....
@kindlin Thanks. Quantum tunneling, huh? That explains the rarity.
@@mitchellminer9597 Mhmm. The original calculations showed the sun shouldn't be on fire right now, so they had to find a mechanism that allowed the two hydrogen atoms to fuse, even if they didn't have the raw energy required to do it. Enter: fuzzy wave functions and quantum tunneling.
So “this first step didn’t solve the entire problem, so what a waste of time”? It’s a step in the process of science. No one knowledgeable has said “it’s imminent”. It’s a step.
I remember more than a decade ago, Stephen Hawking was on Larry King Live; and Larry asked something like “What technology are you most disappointed we haven’t developed yet?” and Dr Hawking replied “Nuclear Fusion”.
For energy usage
I love these podcasts ! It’s like I’m getting a treat when I find them 😊
chuck’s knowledge on physics has definitely increased by an insane amount after all these years on StarTalk 😂😂😂
From 0 to 0.0000000000001? Neil is talking and they cut to Chuck and he's a blank stare ..
So relevant and Neil is on point as most of the times! Salute for a good episode of StarTalk!
It's awesome how easily Tyson explains complex topics. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and lessons, Chuck really seems to be having fun and learning at the same time. Thank you guys.
Great explanations, and I love that Chuck hasn’t seen Top Gun Maverick. I feel more comfortable not having seen it either.
if you and your channel would have been around, when i was growing up... i would have never left science in college....thanks for all that knowledge
What the human mind can conceive does not necessarily mean we should attempt to bring it to fruition. 😮
Some call it God's Will, but yes. I wonder how Heaven's Gate is doing.
I have probably watched more than thousands of videos on youtube during my 25 years. This is the absolute BEST. NDG explained these terms so greatly even a dog would understand.
I'm way too dumb for this conversation
Your not dumb you just a ignorant ,I mean just like me , kind of dumb but not the way you think you dumb a bit ignorant 😅 in a dumb way
My local lake geologists took some core samples from the silt entering the lake inlet. A geiger counter spiked once they got to the part of the sample from the 1950s. All of the radiation from the Pacific Ocean bomb tests made its way into Minnesota over 10,000 miles away.
That could just from a natural source or from illegal dumping of contaminated material. Most of the airborne fallout from nuclear tests have short half-lives. Only Cesium-137 and Stronium-90 remain long term. To really check you need to use a test to measure the energy levels of the material to determine the source of the radiation.
Another possibility is contamination from coal as coal does contain radioactive elements.
I love the idea of a scientist inventing the bow and arrow. Like some person thousands of years ago is like "Guys I really think I'm onto something this time" "Sigh... What is is this time Grog?"
Like in the B.C. comic "Clams got scruples!"
The military wasn’t satisfied with just a fission-fusion bomb. So modern warheads have a tamper of uranium surrounding the fission material which 1) keeps the fusion reaction going for just a fraction of a fraction of a second which greatly increases its yield and 2) then the tamper itself fissions adding even more.
I always appreciate these videos. Thank you.
I’ve been wondering Chris Nolan is planning to do a sequel called “Teller”, about the development of the hydrogen bomb.
Edward Teller and mention of the fusion bomb were quite prevalent in the film.
so my science teacher got me into watchig neil degrasse tyson from the double slit video, now I always watch your videos
I love you guys!
I've learned so much from your videos (laughed a lot too!). Thank you for the education and entertainment.
Neil missed an opportunity. The hydrogen bomb is only possible because it uses an atomic bomb to generate the required heat and pressure to start the fusion process. So hydrogen bombs are actually two bombs in one. One fission that then triggers a second much bigger fusion explosion
I don’t know if team StarTalk will read this but your guys editing really value adds to the video keep it up 💯
i love this duo man. Chuck and Neil are so great together lol
11:05 This is an interesting and cautionary simulation that assumes a limited nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan showing even in such regional event ash with possible fallout will circulate around the entire globe affecting all of us.
He never answered why fusion is more powerful than fission
Fission is the engine revving down. Fusion is applying the gas.
Thanx, dont have to watch this
9:15
@@Petermihalmao why are you here then?
He did, watch the full video without forwarding
Fusion, which powers the stars, is more powerful than fission because it combines light nuclei to form heavier ones, releasing vast amounts of energy in the process, whereas fission splits heavy nuclei into lighter ones. Harnessing fusion on Earth could potentially offer a nearly limitless and cleaner energy source compared to the splitting of atoms used in fission.
Why does nuclear fusion release significantly more energy per reaction compared to nuclear fission, and what are the fundamental differences in their processes that account for this difference?
Amazing explanation. I actually understood it, reminiscent of hawking radiation where negative mass of quantum jitter falls towards the black hole causing it to lose mass
No; particle and antiparticle appear on edge of BH, one escapes, one falls back in. A particle just escaped the BH.
duh... thats obvious and i dont feel i needed to go into that, anti particle falls into a black hole thus taking mass away from it @@TomiTapio
📌Neil and Chuck's partnership is so perfect. You guys have amazing chemistry.
Physics is really cool, it was so great they made a movie about Oppenheimer. It’s so great to see it spur public curiosity about science. Our species harnessing the power of the Atom was definitely a giant leap for us to take. It’s also interesting to see the difference between fusion and fission.
"Disturbingly amazing" is one of the best ways I've heard of describing the advent of nuclear weapons
On the subject of nuclear winter, one of the unwritten doctrines during the Cold War was M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction) which meant that both sides had to be expert negotiators because given the arsenal that each other possessed, everyone was on edge and the first nuclear warhead to go airborne would basically end everyone involved. The first country to launch also kills themselves because the targeted country would launch back before those first warheads impact. Mutually. Assured. Destruction.
The MAD really comes from all of the nuclear power plant meltdowns. A nuclear bomb may contain several dozen kilograms of fissile material. A nuclear power plant contains several dozen tons of fissile material & heavy radioactive isotopes from the fission products.
13:20 Einstein did send the letter but he wasn't really the one who came up with the warning for Roosevelt. Rather It was Szilard who drafted the letter but then sought Einstein to sign his name on it so as to put more authoritative weight to the warning.
While Einstein's equation was one of the bases that eventually lead to the creation of the atomic bomb he was never even part of the Manhattan Project. In a way that's understandable considering that with his high public profile if he suddenly disappeared into the desert for three years many would have noticed.
Einstein was not acceptable for a security clearance to work on the Manhattan Project, despite having signed Szilard's letter to Roosevelt, because of his politics. It's unclear whether his focus was specific enough for work on the bomb, as his theories were very high level.
@@nonverbal562 Einstein was a pacifist, he wanted nothing to do with weapons development.
Awesome explanation as always from NDT. I can’t help but wonder, at what point do governments start monitoring people with this kind of knowledge?
The complexity of gathering materials and the main engineering behind synchronizing the internal detonation clocks is rocket science alone. It's not like you find this stuff in a pharmacy
"Now that's a fire!" Well placed interjection from Uncle Gus 🤣
I predict that very shortly, Chuck will be submitting his dissertation in applied physics.
I was never good at physics class in high school. However, I was always a bit of a trekkie so science did fascinate me. The work tbat Neil and other scientists is so important. They give people insight into scientific principles in an intuitive manner. Given the lack of basic scientific knowledge by many of our elected officials, this is critical. It might just save our species from killing our planet and ourselves off in the long run.
Dr. Tyson, Dr. Sagan would be proud of his influence on the new communicator of science. You fill his shoes admirably. I thought the movie was well done, and the story fascinating.
Thank you for taking me back to my college physics and updating what I thought I had learned.
Let's also remember that a fusion bomb requires a fission bomb to initiate the reaction. Implode the plutonium using conventional explosives to start the fission reaction, which in turn compresses the hydrogen to the point where it can fuse. Of course fusion is more powerful than fission.
there's more to it than that. the initial fission stage also generates neutrons that react with the lithium of the fusion stage to make the fusion fuel, and excess neutrons from both first two stages to fission u-238 in the tamper which provides around half the actual yield of a thermonuclear bomb
@@Agarwaen thanks for that bit of trivia, it wasn't necessary.
Don't forget to mention the Teller-Ulam design. Fission-Fusion-Fission staging. A fission bomb generates radiation to set off the fusion bomb, which compresses the U238 'tamper' or 'spark plug' contained within, causing it to undergo fission - except nearly complete fission... Staging is how the really large bombs were made (Castle Bravo, Tsar Bomba, US B41)
But Neil, what if fission wakes up one day and decides to be fusion? Who are we to judge? 😂
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
That can't happen - it just means time's going backwards. You have to hit the side of the clock, and it'll start going forwards again.
But if they lie... the centrifuge is today's "rack"...
Was that a joke?
@@dre3k78yes. And a good one at that
Purifying Uranium isn't only to make bombs. It is necessary to run nuclear reactors to produce power. Its just that to produce power a LOT of Uranium needs to be enriched to low concentration (tens of tons @3-5%) while to make a bomb you need 80% U235 concentration but just 50kg suffices to make a bomb.
It's 2kg of plutonium not 50kg of Uranium.
Highly dependent on if you are North Korea or USA. Explosive lens technology and other critical tricks on nuclear weapons construction. @@richardjones7984
Makes complex topics look really easy. Much respect 🙌
The true measure of a wise man is not how much he learns, but rather how well he teaches what he has learned.
Nuclear physics including nuclear weapons have always been a true fascination of mine. There's an "awesomeness" in a really horrifying way in nuclear weapons. The films shot of the many test shots over the years are simultaneously fascinating, awe-inspiring, beautiful, alien, horrific, and utterly terrifying. It's like looking at an all-powerful, unearthly, glowing, monstrous entity. I don't know how many more adjectives I could add here to convey the sensation I feel seeing these films. The physics underlying nuclear reactions is equally as fascinating to me. I just wish I get my head wrapped around the maths that describe it all, I'm just not that smart.
The fission of U235 produces about 200 MeV of power. Fusion of D+T is closer to 18 MeV. But the mass of u235 of much much higher then D+T giving a better mass to energy ration, but fissile material and fertile material is a lot more common then fusible material.
So it’s a tossup.
This is what I LOVE about these two gentlemen.
So serious yet so playful. Ty chuck
I LOVED OPPENHEIMER, the BEST film I EVER saw, period!!! It WILL win OSCARS!!! :D
What's so good about it? I struggled to stay awake.
When it comes to those vanishingly low probabilities, it's sorta like saying you take thousands of decks of cards, shuffle them all, and all the aces show up on top, followed by all the kings, then all the queens, etc. For the atmosphere to ignite, the random motion of particles in our atmosphere would have to happen to put everything in just the right place for things to go wrong.
Neil is great, miss his public performances. Thank you❤
Ok, here are 2 questions.
No#1: the chain reaction in the fission process keeps going thanks to the released neotrons, what keeps the chain reaction going at the fusion process?
No#2: after sustracting the high energy spent to fuse the two hydrogen atoms, is the released energy still higher than the fission reaction for the same mass?
Chuck plays the every man so well.
I will never understand the amount of hate that Neil has to deal with.
Think of him what you want, but at the end of the day, how can you not admire his love for teaching knowledge?!
Can it be a bit much? Yes, I guess so. Sometimes. But I don't think the world would be worse off if we had thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people like him...
I know. Not seen much on this episode, but the absurd accusations that he is an actor reading from a NASA approved script, and knows nothing (by people who really do know nothing), is irritating at the very least. The same people tend to call Einstein, Newton, Darwin and all genuine scientists idiots.
Grrrr.
This was a fantastic primer! The natural segue would be to talk about why fusion reactors are still eluding us. Why do they produce so little net energy? Maybe you already covered this? Searching...
Thank you for explaining The chain reaktion thing. Releiving that it shouldnt happen even if i theorized as much
You theorised that..?
5:00 you are blowing his mind, he's following, but can't believe what you are saying. love it
Watching videos like this is why I have to take anxiety medication but I just keep on watching them.
Chuck should be awarded with an honorary P.HD.
You should follow this up next week on nuclear power plants, both water cooled and also liquid sodium or thorium.
To many people get the bomb and power plants confused
yep...yep....had to use this to show the difference of fission and fusion to my HS chemistry...from subatomic level to high level
Fission: Splitting atoms
Fusion: Combining atoms
@startalk can you explain the difference between the atomic bomb, the hydrogen bomb, and the neutron bomb
I learned something which is rare these days for a you tube.
Easiest way to explain it. Fission is the process of splitting atoms to create energy, while Fusion smashes atoms together. Beyond that simple explanation is Fusion does not create any byproduct, so there is no radioactive waste to worry about and a Fusion reaction can reach a point where it's self sustaining. Our Sun is an example of Fusion.
I love that they used clips of an educational video about the atom. I watched that whole educational video on a mod for fallout 4.
What's also dangerous is sitting in the second row of an IMAX screening of Oppenheimer.
When you see the flash, it's a good idea to get ready to cover your ears.
@@mosquitobight I jumped out of my body!
"You take a match... and Ba-da-bing... you release the energy in the molecules"
That was a crossover I wasn't expecting
Wonderful physics lesson 🎉🎉🎉🎉
Neil, when will you breakdown the movie Oppenheimer?
These 2 are a perfect match to bring knowledge to the world 💪
Japanese split their Uranium and Plutonium projects between their Army and Navy. Did a test detonation in North Korea, deployment plan was to send it on a ship to meet the invasion fleet.
Lol. Chuck was like the dude at the pharmacy going "you know Im asking for that pill for a friend.."
Hope Niel is Very Very Very Well.. Great Human Being.
I love how enjoyable Dr.Tyson makes his explanations. He makes it pretty easy for me to understand too.
Didn’t really get a good explanation for fusion being more powerful than fission. But I’m assuming fusion is much more powerful because it’s more efficient with mass to energy transformation
Not all forms of radioactive decay involve the splitting of a nucleus.
The primary decay mode of uranium does not involve the emission of a neutron.
Fusion bombs weren't tested until the 50s. For all of the 40s, they were far from perfected, nobody was certain if they were even possible.
The concern of a fission bomb igniting a fusion reaction in the atmosphere was nitrogen fusion, not hydrogen fusion in water in the air.
So Much Empathy, Love and Wonder, yet we Use our Intellect to Destroy. Why? We have a Choice. Such a Discovery should’ve been Celebrated and not Remembered as our Darkest Times in Recent History.
I’m getting obsessed with this channel!
I love that Chuck is forever excited for science!
Great vid, as always
Manhattan Project physicists know the Uranium “gun” bomb would work, so didn’t test it. It was dropped on Hiroshima. The Plutonium bomb, especially the compression device to start the runaway chain reaction, did need to be tested: Trinity Site and used on Nagasaki. Physicist Edward Teller realized they could develop an H-Bomb, so they pushed for its development, because if the USA didn’t do it, someone else (USSR) would.
Arvin Ash explains how a fusion bomb works. Gives you the chills
Star talk gets 5 stars from me
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Neil, I got a question. First, you said that you cannot get a runaway fusion reaction in our ocean caused by exploding a nuclear bomb in it because the density is not high enough. HOWEVER, WHAT if you DROP and detonate a nuclear bomb into JUPITER? WOULD that cause a fusion reaction inside Jupiter?
I wish Neil could explain oxidative dephosphorylation for me and medical doctors, he is the best I think. ..❤❤❤❤❤
This is the first StarTalk I had to rewind to make sure I understood what Neil was saying.
I would of been like Chuck and acted like I understood everything. 😂
Its funny to hear something so oversimplified but also awesome. Also laughing he said omg how do you think about that and neil just was like some of us do without saying we all do when we question everything
Very heavy on the chemistry, love it!