Still: many chemical reactions occur relatively easily. While things like fission are actually rather difficult to cause (fortunately!) And I don't understand the underlying physical reasons for the difference very well.
-
Show this thread
-
One possible reply - sort of begging the question - is to say "well, the energies involved are much larger". This is true, but not terribly helpful. Why are they so much larger?
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
It's tempting to say: well, the strong nuclear force that binds the nucleus is very, very strong, and that makes the energy scales involved very large compared to a chemical reaction. Again: true, but I guess a much better & deeper answer is possible!
12 replies 0 retweets 16 likesShow this thread -
Michael Nielsen Retweeted Paul Simeon
Good thread discussion with
@PESimeon. Certainly deepened my understanding:https://twitter.com/PESimeon/status/1353531815336665088 …Michael Nielsen added,
2 replies 0 retweets 21 likesShow this thread -
Many anthropic replies, of the form "Well, if they weren't hard, we wouldn't exist". I'm looking for something stronger & more informative than an anthropic explanation. Funny: anthropic e's are a bit like evolutionary just-so stories: v often possible, often not so informative
3 replies 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
Michael Nielsen Retweeted Michael Nielsen
Another framing of the question:https://twitter.com/michael_nielsen/status/1353554665221148672 …
Michael Nielsen added,
Michael Nielsen @michael_nielsenReplying to @michael_nielsen @Cosmic_HorizonsAnother framing: suppose there was a paragraph in the Feynman lectures beginning: "We use chemical reactions routinely, when we cook, breathe, and so on. But nuclear reactions are less ubiquitous, and we think of them as requiring special conditions. The reason is [???]"1 reply 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
Michael Nielsen Retweeted Geraint F. Lewis
Fun related thread from
@Cosmic_Horizons here:https://twitter.com/Cosmic_Horizons/status/1349888514544996354 …Michael Nielsen added,
3 replies 1 retweet 9 likesShow this thread -
Michael Nielsen Retweeted
Great implied question here. One version of the question: is the rate at which atoms on Earth are involved in chemical reactions higher or lower than the rate at which atoms in the Sun are involved in fusion? [I suspect higher, based on ~30secs thought] https://twitter.com/DavidSchaengold/status/1353549367043444737 …
Michael Nielsen added,
This Tweet is unavailable.5 replies 0 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @michael_nielsen
The answer is: ratio of chemical to fusion energy > fraction of sun's light that hits earth. Fusion in the sun releases 3e6 eV per new helium, and assume 1 eV for chemical. Earth gets around 1/2e9 of the sun's energy. So more nuclear.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @tlbtlbtlb @michael_nielsen
Although there are a lot of very low-energy chemical reactions in biology.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
1/2e9 though, that’s a steep factor to overcome. clearly more nuclear, still
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
