Uranium Fissioning: Is Star Formation Possible?

  • Thread starter chgol5270
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Star
In summary, the conversation discusses the possibility of a fissioning star made of uranium and the laws of physics that may prevent this configuration. It is mentioned that uranium is considered a "transuranic element" and that the natural fusion process in a star stops at iron, with the only way for the process to continue being through neutron-capture transmutation. The idea of a reverse star, or "rats", is proposed and it is noted that the density and temperature needed for fission to take place may prevent a cloud of weapons-grade uranium from condensing into a star. The term "bungee bomb" is coined to describe this potential scenario, and it is suggested that this would not be a desirable planet for life to orbit.
  • #1
chgol5270
6
0
Just curious if uranium could gather in enough quantities so that it's gravity will keep it from blowing apart or will critical mass start a chain reaction and prevent this configuration into a "fissioning" star
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I would think the laws of physics don't forbid this, but considering you need a critical concentration of Uranium 235 to allow a chain reaction to take place, there is probably no gas cloud in the universe pure enough to condense into a weapons-grade uranium star.
 
  • #3
Uranium is by no mere coincidence considered a "transuranic element". The natural fusion process in a star stops at the point where iron is the end product, because there's nothing that you can do to make iron fuse. (It "refuses to fuse", it you'll pardon the term.) The only way for the process to proceed is through neutron-capture transmuting the iron into heavier elements, but even then they pretty much have to then break into smaller components which can then resume fusing.
I'm not expert in this area, but that's my general take on it.
(I'm deliberately ignoring the term "fissioning star" because that is self-contradictory and can't exist.)
 
  • #4
Danger said:
Uranium is by no mere coincidence considered a "transuranic element". The natural fusion process in a star stops at the point where iron is the end product, because there's nothing that you can do to make iron fuse. (It "refuses to fuse", it you'll pardon the term.) The only way for the process to proceed is through neutron-capture transmuting the iron into heavier elements, but even then they pretty much have to then break into smaller components which can then resume fusing.
I'm not expert in this area, but that's my general take on it.
(I'm deliberately ignoring the term "fissioning star" because that is self-contradictory and can't exist.)

I guess we'd have to redefine what a "star" was, or come up with a new name for such a thing.
We did have a naturally occurring nuclear reactor in Gabon a while back.
And I've just read a couple of articles claiming there might be a multi-terawatt sized natural reactor at the core of the earth. (ref. below)
Didn't someone named Dyson talk about an inhabitable sphere surrounding a star?
Perhaps we live on one, only, it's inside-out, and the star is operating backwards.
I nominate "rats" (star backwards), as the new name of our new type of reverse star.
It shall stand for RAdiative Terrestrial Source.

:)Deep-Earth reactor: Nuclear fission, helium, and the geomagnetic field
Nuclear Fission Confirmed as Source of More than Half of Earth’s Heat
 
  • #5
Danger said:
Uranium is by no mere coincidence considered a "transuranic element". The natural fusion process in a star stops at the point where iron is the end product, because there's nothing that you can do to make iron fuse. (It "refuses to fuse", it you'll pardon the term.) The only way for the process to proceed is through neutron-capture transmuting the iron into heavier elements, but even then they pretty much have to then break into smaller components which can then resume fusing.
I'm not expert in this area, but that's my general take on it.
(I'm deliberately ignoring the term "fissioning star" because that is self-contradictory and can't exist.)
Im talking about uranium created during supernovae events (your post suggests this happens during the normal fusion process in stars which I am not aware of) and while the concentrations might not ever get to a point that it condenses i am just curious if there is anything that would prevent this configuration other than the resources needed
 
  • #6
It may also be, that even if you had a cloud of weapons grade uranium vapor, it might never condense into a star since the density and temperature where fission takes place is much lower than what's needed to make the star undergo fusion. The energy released during fission at these low densities would probably blow the cloud apart before it could condense enough to overcome that force. I have no calculations to back this up though, so take it for what it's worth.
 
  • #7
I guess that I was too focused upon the term "star", which is defined as a fusion structure. Sorry. As for a massive fissioning body, I agree that the violence of the reactions would scatter the condensing cloud as quickly as it accumulates. It could end up being something of a "bungee bomb". In a normal star, the density needed to initiate fusion isn't reached until gravity is already firmly in charge.

edit: It isn't something that I would want my planet to be orbiting. oo)
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Danger said:
I guess that I was too focused upon the term "star", which is defined as a fusion structure. Sorry. As for a massive fissioning body, I agree that the violence of the reactions would scatter the condensing cloud as quickly as it accumulates. It could end up being something of a "bungee bomb". In a normal star, the density needed to initiate fusion isn't reached until gravity is already firmly in charge.

edit: It isn't something that I would want my planet to be orbiting. oo)
"Bungee bomb"!? Did you just make that up? It does seem like an appropriate name though.
I also think this would make a great math/physics/computer science simulation homework problem.

But, I agree with you. I can't imagine a fission type star having a Goldilocks zone. It would just be, um, a bungee bomb.

ps. I'm now "following" you too, in case you haven't noticed.
 
  • #9
OmCheeto said:
"Bungee bomb"!? Did you just make that up?
Yeah.
Should I copyright it?
 
  • #10
Danger said:
Yeah.
Should I copyright it?
Yes, you should.

Though I don't think you'll live long enough to see any royalties from it.
They're still pissing and moaning about the "physics" of Interstellar.
Idiots... It was a movie... Where's that "1st world problems" thread...
 
  • Like
Likes Danger
  • #11
:DD
 
  • #12
jfizzix said:
It may also be, that even if you had a cloud of weapons grade uranium vapor, it might never condense into a star since the density and temperature where fission takes place is much lower than what's needed to make the star undergo fusion. The energy released during fission at these low densities would probably blow the cloud apart before it could condense enough to overcome that force. I have no calculations to back this up though, so take it for what it's worth.
I figured that would be the case thanks for the input
 

FAQ: Uranium Fissioning: Is Star Formation Possible?

1. What is uranium fissioning and how does it relate to star formation?

Uranium fissioning is the process of splitting the nucleus of a uranium atom into smaller fragments. This process releases a large amount of energy, which is harnessed in nuclear power plants. In the early stages of star formation, large amounts of energy are also released through nuclear fusion, which is the combining of lighter nuclei to form heavier ones.

2. Can uranium fissioning occur naturally in space?

While uranium is present in space, it is not a common occurrence for uranium fissioning to naturally occur in space. This is because the conditions for fissioning to take place, such as a high concentration of uranium and a critical mass, are not typically found in space.

3. How does uranium fissioning contribute to the formation of stars?

While uranium fissioning itself does not contribute directly to the formation of stars, the energy released from fission reactions can trigger the collapse of gas and dust clouds, leading to the formation of stars. This energy also plays a role in maintaining the high temperatures needed for nuclear fusion to occur in stars.

4. Is uranium fissioning necessary for star formation to occur?

No, uranium fissioning is not necessary for star formation to occur. Stars can form through the collapse of gas and dust clouds without the influence of fission reactions. However, the energy released from fission reactions can contribute to the overall energy balance in the early stages of star formation.

5. How does the study of uranium fissioning help us understand the process of star formation?

Studying uranium fissioning and other nuclear processes can provide insight into the energy sources and mechanisms involved in star formation. By understanding the factors that contribute to the formation of stars, we can gain a better understanding of the universe and how it evolves over time.

Similar threads

I Why Does Gravity Remain when Star Mass Dissipates?
Replies
10
Views
1K
B Why uranium dioxide is used in nuclear reactors?
Replies
2
Views
3K
Shooting blocks of Uranium from planet to planet
Replies
18
Views
4K
How Do HEU and LEU Reactors Differ in Performance and Cost?
Replies
5
Views
3K
Buckyball encased uranium - the smallest possible pebble bed
Replies
2
Views
2K
B How energy is released during nuclear fission?
Replies
4
Views
2K
I Lines of stars that we see in the sky
Replies
26
Views
3K
B Understanding Nuclear Bombs: The Physics Behind Their Devastation
Replies
4
Views
2K
Is the process of fusion really enough to keep stars from imploding?
Replies
5
Views
2K
I J0524-0336, surprisingly high Li concentration
Replies
2
Views
348

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top