Re: [sl4] giant planets ignation - one more existential risk

From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue Dec 16 2008 - 14:34:48 MST


Alexei Turchin wrote:
> The main problem with giant planet explosion is that people think that
> it is ridiculues before considering arguements. So they don''t
> consider arguments and don''t find that they are much more convicing
> than they thouight a priori. The same problem is with strong AGI.
>
> Samanta: On what basis? I estimate (with no basis but light knowledge
> of astronomy and gravitational pressure for hydrogen to fuse) that
> this is at least several orders of magnitude too high.
>
> In the mentioned article "detonation of plane atmospheras" was told
> that 1 to 300 concentration is enogh for detontion of oceans on the
> earth. The pressure in the bowels of Jupiter is much higer.
>
> Samanta: any planet?
>
> Yes, we can even detonate some ammounts of heavy water on the Earth,
> if we find large deposits. Such deposits could be on the bottom of
> Arctic ocean, where conditions are good for separation of heavy water.
> (Because heavy water is 10 percent havier then ordinary water and
> freeze on +4 C).
>
> Samanta: we would do it because?
>
> Because it is exellent Doomsaday machine for blackmail of all Solar
> system, but it also could happened occasionaly.
>
> Samanta: 1 to 300. That is much, much richer than any naturally
> occurring body we know of.
>
> Yes, we don''t know any object with such concentration (except some
> nebulas of interstellar gas), but it doesn''t prove that such objects
> are impossible. And they are quite probable because deiterium easily
> separats from common hydrogen in many natural processes, like
> freesing, mass separation and vaporation.
>
> And about the nebula was said: "e.g., the D:H concentration ratio in
> the ~10**2 Great Nebula in Orion is about 1:200. " in the article
> about theromonuclear detonation.
>
> Samanta: And how would you bring it up to such a concentration exactly
> or have it spontaneously become that concentrated?
>
> If in the upper atmosphere of Jupiter the concentration is 1 to 1600,
> then in the lower layers it is higher because of mass separation,
> which is proved for helium, - helium concentration is lowered in the
> upper level of of Jupiter and Saturn atmospheres.
>
>
>
> Petter Wingren-Rasmussen :What are exactly the risks involved here?
> Having a brief second sun in the sky wouldn't cause much in terms of
> permanent damage to the planet.
>
>
> If all deiterium in the Jupiter reacts it would relize energy of 30
> 000 years of Sun work in less then 10 seconds.
> In this case the Earth will lose its atmosphere and several kilometers
> of upper curst.
>
> This risk is different from others, because it will affect ALL Solar
> system, and NO spase bases on the Moon etc will save humanity.
>
> Petter Wingren-Rasmussen: However, lets assume its a real risk -
> wouldnt it be (relatively) easy to solve by detonating Jupiter while
> its on on the opposite side of the sun from earth?
>
> No, becasue the reaction will result in huge nucler radioactive
> fallout which would reach the Earth after several days or weeks.
>
> On 12/11/08, Petter Wingren-Rasmussen <petterwr@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As far as I understand the question the risk is definitely questionable, and
>> OT too for this mailinglist.
>>
>> However, lets assume its a real risk - wouldnt it be (relatively) easy to
>> solve by detonating Jupiter while its on on the opposite side of the sun
>> from earth? The first blastwave would hit the sun and after that it would
>> just be a second sun for some period of time.
>>
>> This is wild speculations on my part - my astronomical knowledge is pretty
>> much based on popular science books.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/11/08, Stuart Armstrong
>> <dragondreaming@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Side-stepping the probabilities issues, two points:
>>>
>>> 1) What are exactly the risks involved here? Having a brief second sun
>>> in the sky wouldn't cause much in terms of permanent damage to the
>>> planet. Even a longer lasting Jupiter detonation will cause major
>>> ecocological damage, but will be survivable.
>>>
>>> 2) If the risk is of a deliberate detonation as an act of war, or
>>> terrorism, then we needn't bother much; we should be working on the
>>> political or surveillance situation for the human species, as I don't
>>> see how a detonation of Jupiter would be more of a risk than the other
>>> weapons people will have develloped in the meantimes.
>>>
>>> Stuart
>>>
>>>
>>
It seems to me that were your assertions correct, then we would have had
working hydrogen fusion decades ago. As such I find myself compelled to
presume that either your sources (for conditions of detonation) are
incorrect, or that you have grossly misunderstood what they were
saying. I know for a (reported, not witnessed) fact that heavy water
has been used as a coolant in fission reactors. It didn't explode.

Now I'm not capable of doing the calculations to determine conditions
for the fusion of Deuterium, but the popular reports that I have read
all indicate that it requires something that would cause the nuclei to
collide with considerable force. Such force that we have not been able
to manage it (to a significant degree) on purpose except with the assist
of a fission bomb. As such, I'm rather certain that you have
misunderstood the conditions required for detonation.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:03 MDT