Failed soft scifi writer here: Lasers have been used in controlled environments to split atoms. Would the concept of a beam weapon splitting atoms in a surrounding environment be a viable re-usable nuclear weapon instead of a one time use gun-type fission weapon?

https://www.science.org/content/article/atom-cleaving-light

>>63978928 (OP)
>Achieved using a petawatt laser in laboratory conditions
No, retard

>>63978928 (OP)
nuclear explosion, no.
with that stated, the U.S. military does have laser based point defense systems as one of their defenses against missiles and drones. they'll slice through the missile with a few seconds of exposure.

>>63978928 (OP)
You just wanna use the word 'nuclear' for you slop weapon. Stop it, get some help.

>>63978928 (OP)
>Would the concept of a beam weapon splitting atoms in a surrounding environment be a viable re-usable nuclear weapon instead of a one time use gun-type fission weapon?
The short answer is no.

A nuclear weapon relies on a nuclear chain reaction (either fusion or fission) that releases more energy than it takes to initiate the reaction.
The fuel for this reaction must also be able to sustain and exponentially multiply the reaction, (typically by releasing extra neutrons to initiate more fissions).

In a fission bomb this is achieved by compression (explosives) of a fissile material until it becomes supercritical.

In a fusion bomb this is achieved by extreme compression (fission bomb) of a fusionable material until thermonuclear fusion is achieved.

A laser (even a petawatt one) will not be able to create such a chain reaction in any material in the environment.
Any reaction caused by the laser will not release more energy than it consumes.

>>63978928 (OP)
Hello, I work in this industry and the problem with lasers right now is overheating and power usage. Since Nuclear energy needs certain certifications and licenses I can only state on how the commercial side of the market is doing. Pretty much where we are at is finding a cooling that would prevent overheating from one blast of the laser beam and a power source that won't shut down the whole grid. It'll be a matter of time before the private sector in other nations develop something like minovsky particles

>>63978928 (OP)
On a related note how much power would a shell say the dimension of 1mt in diameter shoot out of a huge tube using a small nuke as charge be when it lands?

>>63979376
It would blow the tube and fuck any electronics in the shell which also wouldn't shoot straight because of the blown tube.

You're asking for a laser that creates usefully powerful explosions as a side effect through whatever physics mechanism just makes atoms explode, and with enough energy release to cause a chain reaction of some diameter, when hit with enough power quick enough. At that point you already have a weapon vastly superior to nukes, and have had that superiority for some orders of magnitude of on target watts per cm^2.

Metal cutters achieve a high production rate for 1/4 inch carbon steel at 5-6kW and a power density on the order of 5-10 megawatt/cm^2
Think about those numbers. Multiply them by ten million and you get to the power density of ICF pulse lasers, which don't atomically explode the hydrogen fuel pellet.

You're asking for stuff > 10^15 watts output, perhaps many orders of mag higher than that.
Who needs a nuke level pop from a laser when you already have a weapon that would cut through a planet in seconds.

>>63979248
>In a fission bomb this is achieved by compression (explosives) of a fissile material until it becomes supercritical.
>In a fusion bomb this is achieved by extreme compression (fission bomb) of a fusionable material until thermonuclear fusion is achieved.
Adding to your post: you can't just fission or fusion anything to get energy either. Fusion at or above iron is actually energy negative. Fission below isn't helpful either. Very far away on the periodic table is where you get the most benefit. That's precisely why we need specific metals for fission to be effective. Such metals are inconveniently rare.

>>63978928 (OP)
you're better off convicing Ramiel to kill your enemies for you.

>>63979719
It's kinda spooky how "cold iron" is the one element that essentially cannot be used to generate any form of atomic power.

>>63978928 (OP)
As >>63979705 points out, if you have a laser that can deliver enough energy to cause atomic fusion in a distant target, you have a laser that's more than powerful enough to cause massive steam explosions not just in the target but along the laser's entire path through a water-rich atmosphere. At that point, why do you even need to split atoms?

It works much better when you run your scenario backwards: an expendable device that uses a small nuke to propel something (photons, plasma, etc.) at a target. This is your X-Ray laser, Casaba Howitzer, and so forth, and is particularly useful in sci-fi as a missile warhead--because it can detonate dozens, possibly even thousands of miles away from the target and still nail it with most of the bomb's energy compared to an impact detonation (as long as you're in vacuum, of course). That makes point-defense considerably more difficult.

>>63980039
>It's kinda spooky how "cold iron" is the one element that essentially cannot be used to generate any form of atomic power.
That actually is kinda amusing given mythology now that you mention it.

>>63978928 (OP)
>Closest realistic option: Trying to achieve point ICF on target
That'll be a hellafukkenlots joule class laser array that can dump that in an whatthefuckshort seconds pulse but soft slop writers don't really give a crap about finer details do they?

>>63978928 (OP)
>rebuild

>>63978928 (OP)
No, the Death Star would not work IRL.

>>63979376
wanna try that in english, you fucking imbecile?

>>63978928 (OP)
There are so many reasons why this isn't viable. But a big one is, if a laser's energy density is too high it will create an opaque plasma that interferes with the beam, there is a hard limit on how powerful it can be in an atmosphere, and that limit would be way lower than the unimaginable insanity that you would need to make a nuclear explosion. Just the beam hitting the air would reflect enough energy back inside the hardware to destroy it.

>>63978928 (OP)
Large atoms release energy from fission by decaying into more stable nuclei, but the majority of environmental materials are made of elements that are >26 on the periodic table.
Unless you can magically tune your laser to split every atom into helium, you are not going to get an effective yield compared to the energy you put into the laser, unless you are in fantastical Sci-fi setting (in which case they would just turn matter into mass directly).

>>63981796
matter into energy directly*

>>63978928 (OP)
writers can make anything happen

lasers can potentially still particles to cause freezing, try that in your writing instead
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_cooling

>>63981796
Actually, I'm retarded.
Splitting any atom below Iron on the periodic table requires more energy than would be released by decaying into the most stable small nuclei (helium).
Unless you manage to hit their stockpile of lead bullets, your laser would only be as powerful as the energy you put into it.

>>63978928 (OP)
Nuclear reactor pumped lasers
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-08882-2

>>63978928 (OP)
The best use for this as a fictional weapon would be as an initiator to induce chain reactions in subcritical masses of fissile material. The energy spent destroying a target with a super fission laser and secondary radiation damage, would be better used on a plain old bullet.

a powerful enough laser will cause fission, but at this point, the effects of the laser itself are the most profound

relativistic projectiles cause fission upon impact at a specific percentage of c

both are unrealistic for the most part in what humans can achieve outside of discovering a new type of hyper dense fuel source [and matter]

>>63978928 (OP)
Try a particle accelerator that beams atomic antimatter at nearly the speed of light. It's practically the same pew-pew as a laser and causes a huge explosion where it hits.

>>63978928 (OP)
Holy shit sci fi faggots are dumb

>>63981843
>>63980039
>>63980059

iron, the tool of humans alone, has the power to kill the source of light and life

>>63978928 (OP)
Lmao is that a fucking scaling picture from a gay redditor power levels discussion?

Those big scaling essays are always wrong by the way, and by a factor of like thousands or millions half the time. Internet nerd "science" is hilariously bad.

>>63988271
>. Internet nerd "science"
Nah, mecha science will never be real science, even among internet nerds

>>63978928 (OP)
Unless you happen to be using a retardedly strong laser to shoot at a lump of highly energetic material, no.
What you're describing is just an atomic bomb with extra steps, like outsourcing the trigger mechanism. You still need material suitable for fission/fusion which will not be found in sufficient quantity/density in the environment. Splitting a bunch of random atoms at the point of impact does not an atomic blast make.

>>63981353
I believe hes talking about "REALLY BIG GUN". A bullet 1 meter in diameter propelled out of a tube using the force of a nuclear explosion as opposed to conventional gunpowder.