From: sdr57@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: A nuclear question...
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:11:33 GMT

In article <6400@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
>
>       Here's a question that pertains somewhat to SF:
>
>       I've seen it written many times (in stories, popular articles,
>etc) that at the time of the first atomic bomb test there were some
>respected scientists who were of the considered opinion that detonating
>the  Bomb could cause a self-sustaining nuclear chain  reaction
>(Which would either then just sit there and glow in atomic brilliance
>for eternity, or propogate across the world and blow it to pieces).
>
>       This is really a two part question -- first, is this true --
>that there were some eminent and competent experts who held these
>views?

Yes. It was thought to have a low probability, but it couldn't be
rejected. I'll get back to you on names. They weren't sure of
a lot of values at the time.
>
>       Second, and more to the SF point -- was there, AT THAT TIME,
>good reason to hold that view? In other words, was the fact that
>nuclear chain reactions of the sort they feared could not happen
>something that COULD NOT have been known at that time -- that could
>only be known through research done later?

That it wouldn't happen was established when they set the bomb off
and the atmosphere didn't ignite.
>
>       As a corollary to this -- in view of the answers to the
>above questions, is it possible from an SF standpoint to have
>a scientific advance whose science is sufficiently understood to
>produce a desired engineering result -- a device based on this new
>principle -- but whose science is at the same time so LITTLE understood
>that the device could have any one of several radically different
>outcomes upon operation? Or is the apparent existence of this condition
>in the atomic bomb case just a sort of intellectual illusion -- that
>is, that those who held that view were ignoring inarguable, complete
>proof that their views were wrong?
>
Lots of things are engineered empirically - most metallurgy
before the 1950s was done with little understanding of what was
actually happening. Even now, there is a lot of art in alloys.

Well, things will probably only work one way - but if you are
wrong about how it works, the way it works may be different from
the way you predicted it would work...

The people who proposed the chain reaction weren't ignoring
any kind of complete proof that their ideas were wrong. They were
working from information with large uncertainties - if you happened
to be at the wrong end of the error bar, then the world would go
boom. The chances of that *were* recognized to be very small.

>       (This train of thought was started while re-watching an episode
>of Ren & Stimpy: the "History Eraser Button" -- Stimpy: "So... what'll
>happen?"  Ren(crazed):"That's just it! WE DON'T KNOW! Mayyyybe something
>bad.... mayyybe something good!..."   (From the episode "Space Madness"))
>
>                                 Sea Wasp
>                                   /^\
>                                   ;;;

******************************************************************************
Renegade academician. They're a dangerous breed when they go feral,
academics are...a chemist, too.
		    -(James P. Blaylock in "Lord Kelvin's Machine")

My organization hasn't agreed with any of my opinions so far, and
I doubt they'll start now.

Stanley "Ya nee speon" Roberts

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.startrek.tech