If the speed of light (c) was 10x bigger, would atom bombs be 100x more destructive?

Why is it E=mc^2 in the first place? Sure the units work out, but why not E=mc^2/2, or E=mc^2 * (1/137) or something?

Trying to understand Einstein wrote:

Is it a 1-1 relation between E=mc^2 and the atom bomb potential? Or do the self-sustaining chain reactions have an effect too?

I would like to know what the bomb making potential of nuclear fusion is? Apparently MIT and others are very close to being able to produce effective fusion generators, apparently providing practically limitless energy.

If nuclear fusion can produce so much more energy than present nuclear fision reactors, wont that mean that nuclar fusion bombs will make present nukes look like firecrackers? And what will that mean when the likes of Kim Jung Dong get their hands on them?

Fusion bombs have been around since the 1950s. That’s what an H bomb is

Coevett wrote:

Trying to understand Einstein wrote:

Is it a 1-1 relation between E=mc^2 and the atom bomb potential? Or do the self-sustaining chain reactions have an effect too?

I would like to know what the bomb making potential of nuclear fusion is? Apparently MIT and others are very close to being able to produce effective fusion generators, apparently providing practically limitless energy.

If nuclear fusion can produce so much more energy than present nuclear fision reactors, wont that mean that nuclar fusion bombs will make present nukes look like firecrackers? And what will that mean when the likes of Kim Jung Dong get their hands on them?

Sorry, Coevett, but you win the prize for the dumbest post of the year.

This was the biggest Hydrogen bomb ever detonated, 50 megatons, 1570 times the combined power of the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

Your prize depends not only on that mistake but also on the notion that MIT and others are very close to being able to produce effective fusion generators. No, they are not. Effective fusion reactors may not be fifty years away any more, but they are probably another 20 years away.

Coevett wrote:

I would like to know what the bomb making potential of nuclear fusion is?

I don't know how you can ask this question and not already know the answer. But here we go.

1. Uranium bombs are the easiest to make, but it's difficult to get enough of the right kind of Uranium. You "just" need to slam two pieces of the right type of Uranium together.

2. Plutonium bombs are harder to make, but the potential to make more bombs as the right Plutonium can be made out if Uranium (not the special Uranium from above, but more abundant ordinary Uranium). This needs to be in a ring with a coordinated implosion of the ring. This and the above are limited by size because you can only have so much Uranium or Plutonium around and handle it safely before too much radiation, let alone accidental chain reaction during manufacture.

3. Hydrogen bombs are nearly theoretically limitless. You basically just pack a bunch of hydrogen next to a fission bomb. The fission generates enough energy to start fusion in the hydrogen. Ka-boom.

I suspect that if light travelled 10 x faster than it does we would be blind, since our eyes are unable to detect electromagnetic radiation at those frequencies. and since a blind monkey is not a very clever mammal, it is unlikely that atom bombs would exist.

cheers.

Trying to understand Einstein wrote:

Is it a 1-1 relation between E=mc^2 and the atom bomb potential? Or do the self-sustaining chain reactions have an effect too?

Hmmm. The chain reaction very fast. The problem with having 100x the energy would mean the implosion of Plutonium would have to be coordinated even more precisely. I'm going to say probably yes, in a theoretically universe with all other things being equal, a 10x in c would only effect the other side of the equation in bomb making potential.

Of course, this universe would never form, as the energy of the big bang wouldn't be able to generate enough matter to make Earth.

Coevett wrote:

If nuclear fusion can produce so much more energy than present nuclear fision reactors, wont that mean that nuclar fusion bombs will make present nukes look like firecrackers? And what will that mean when the likes of Kim Jung Dong get their hands on them?

all you small hands westerners are always thinking "bigger" rather than smarter

what if speed of light (c) was 10x smaller, would your so-called "bombs" be 100x more puny then?

vxcxcvcvvc wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

In the fusion bomb, all the energy goes into making the mushroom cloud for cutesy photo-ops, while with fission it gets distributed more widely (the radiation kills more than anything else).

Arbitrary scaling wrote:

Why is it E=mc^2 in the first place? Sure the units work out, but why not E=mc^2/2, or E=mc^2 * (1/137) or something?

Why are a lot of functions in the natural world are either n^2 or n^3 and not n^(2.y) or n^(3.7) or n^(n.n)?

Yes.

And you could fly to the moon in a helicopter if it was solar powered or some sh!t.

Trying to understand Einstein wrote:

Is it a 1-1 relation between E=mc^2 and the atom bomb potential? Or do the self-sustaining chain reactions have an effect too?

I guess maf ain't yo fastest skil.

Jack Handy's deep thoughts wrote:

Why are a lot of functions in the natural world are either n^2 or n^3 and not n^(2.y) or n^(3.7) or n^(n.n)?

Almost everything either exponentially increases or decays.

Until some natural limitations set in.

Differential equation pro wrote:

Jack Handy's deep thoughts wrote:

Why are a lot of functions in the natural world are either n^2 or n^3 and not n^(2.y) or n^(3.7) or n^(n.n)?

Almost everything either exponentially increases or decays.

Until some natural limitations set in.

You didn't answer the question. Why integer exponents, specifically n^2, rather than n^3...n^4, etc, or a decimal exponent?

The acceleration of gravity is measured at ft/sec^2, not cubed and not decimal exponents.

In stats varience and Std is neasured by squaring and square roots and not other integer exponents. Seems odd.

Another question: would particle accelerators have to be 10x bigger to retrieve the same experimental concepts?

There is no "if".

How do you know it isn't 10 times bigger, sometimes? The only light that has had its speed measured is observed light, by virtue of having its speed measured. That tells you merely how fast it was going at the end of its journey, or in your reference frame. Maybe it goes faster the rest of the time, and then slows down when it gets observed.

Light that came from very far away is presumed to have traveled at most c the whole way, but just how far away it came from is predicated on that very assumption. It's supposed to go that fast relative to all observers, even observers that didn't exist yet when it was first emitted. How did light from a "10 billion light-year" distant galaxy know the Earth would be spawned into existence one day, in order to start moving at c towards it?

Quantum theory tells us speed of light (c) is merely an observed average. Light takes all paths (QED) and cancels phase-wise to get the right answer.

c is everything wrote:

Another question: would particle accelerators have to be 10x bigger to retrieve the same experimental concepts?

The linear accelerators (SLAC) would indeed only need to be 10x bigger.

But the circular ones (LHC) would need to be 100x as large.