
Photo of a Nuclear Explosion Less than 1 Millisecond After Detonation - ColinWright
http://www.petapixel.com/2011/12/09/photo-of-a-nuclear-explosion-less-than-1-millisecond-after-detonation/
======
DanielBMarkham
I love this photo. If I'm not mistaken, you can pick out the internal
structure of the bomb. You can also see the plasma (?) running down the
support structures ahead of the fireball.

Incredible photograph. Wish we could go back and re-shoot this same stuff in
5K stereo. Looking at this reminds me of the picture of the cosmic background
radiation that one physicist called the "face of God" For some reason I
intuitively feel that there's some deep mystery in this picture.

For any of you in the vicinity of New Mexico, I encourage you to go visit the
Atomic Museum, which is now known as the "The National Museum of Nuclear
Science & History"

<http://www.nuclearmuseum.org/>

~~~
MichaelApproved
There's also the National Atomic Testing Museum in Las Vegas
<http://www.nationalatomictestingmuseum.org/>

~~~
goostavos
Oh! I was just there! That place is a lot of fun. Unfortunately a bit smaller
than I would have liked; it doesn't take long to get through it all, but
still, lots of cool stuff to look at.

Plus, they sell "Communist mints" in the gift shop, which are pretty awesome.
I also picked up my girlfriend a pair of fatman and littleboy earrings, which
are equally awesome.

------
jpxxx
The spikes on the bottom are the support wires for the staging tower
vaporizing a bit faster than the atmosphere.

~~~
mathcomm
Something to do with the electromagnetic heating of the wire being quicker
than the energy capture and incandescence of the air?

~~~
sp332
Right, the wires are more opaque in every part of the spectrum compared to
air, so they soak up energy a lot faster.

~~~
mathcomm
Ah. I suppose being a conductor in normal conditions isn't a factor in this
situation (plasma is plasma is plasma). Opacity being the main factor in
heating makes sense.

------
aw3c2
Aggregator spam, actual (MUCH more verbose and in-depth) source is
[http://www.damninteresting.com/rapatronic-nuclear-
photograph...](http://www.damninteresting.com/rapatronic-nuclear-photographs/)

That source is even linked at the here submitted page as source.

~~~
ColinWright
Thanks for the pointer - in case people want to see it and comment on it, now
submitted over here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4759908>

------
tokenadult
It's interesting to see the lack of symmetry in the photograph. I wonder how
much of that results from the initial arrangement of fissile materials in the
bomb, and how much from turbulence as the explosion occurred?

Photographs taken years ago at this level of time resolution must be helpful
today in validating computer simulations of nuclear explosions. Simulations,
rather than actual tests, are how the ongoing safety of the nuclear arsenals
of the major nuclear powers is currently assessed.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing>

~~~
DanBC
The mottling is apparently from the bomb casing.

([http://www.damninteresting.com/rapatronic-nuclear-
photograph...](http://www.damninteresting.com/rapatronic-nuclear-
photographs/))

> _The resulting extraordinary photographs revealed intricate details of the
> first instant of an atomic explosion, including a few surprises such as
> irregular “mottling” caused primarily by variations in the density of the
> bomb’s casing. It also showed the detail of the “rope trick effect,” where
> the rapid vaporization of support cables caused curious lines to emanate
> from the bottom of an explosion._

The camera is interesting - using an electronic not mechanical shutter. This
was around 1944. (Bell Lab's transistor was around 1947.)

~~~
peejaybee
More interesting still -- the mottling is from the remains of the casing and
the shot cab (the little building the bomb was housed in at the top of the
tower) splashing against the shock front at the fireball's boundary.

(<http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Tumblers.html>)

------
guelo
This Wikipedia article explains the shape of the fireball
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope_trick_effect>

The source article has more information about the camera and the inventor
[http://www.damninteresting.com/rapatronic-nuclear-
photograph...](http://www.damninteresting.com/rapatronic-nuclear-photographs/)

------
tarice
So, if the article is correct that the explosion is ~20m in diameter, and the
photo was taken 0.001 seconds after detonation...

Then the explosion is expanding at an instantaneous rate of:

(10 meters [radius] / 0.001 sec) = 10,000 meters per second = ~6.2 miles per
second.

Obviously it won't sustain that velocity, but still. That's insane(ly
awesome).

~~~
lmkg
The way the explosion works isn't exactly a single, expanding nucleus of hot
material. It's pretty complicated, but what's going on at this point is that
the bomb is giving off x-ray radiation, which is absorbed the air, heating it
up. As a consequence of air absorbing the radiation, air further from the bomb
is shielded from the radiation. The sphere that you see is, approximately, the
air close enough (un-blocked enough) to absorb enough heat to glow in the
visible spectrum.

The upshot of this is that the entire sphere that you see comes into existence
in a roughly simultaneous fashion, not in an expanding fashion. If you watch
slow-motion videos, you will see that sphere stay at the same size and
transition from dark to light, rather than start light and transitioning from
small to large.

The explosion itself comes later, as that air (which is around 9000F) obeys
basic gas laws, and tries to expand.

------
btilly
This is blogspam. Can we please instead link to the much better
[http://www.damninteresting.com/rapatronic-nuclear-
photograph...](http://www.damninteresting.com/rapatronic-nuclear-photographs/)
?

~~~
ColinWright
Yes, that was pointed out by aw3c2 here:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4759809>

It's too late, but I have submitted that link here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4759908>

Doesn't do any good, the discussion is here already, and there's no way to
merge or migrate.

------
MarlonPro
It says, "the fireball...is three times hotter than the surface of the sun".
Won't you get toasted from only 7 miles afar? Or, maybe the fireball is
ephemeral so the heat the fireball produced doesn't do damage?

~~~
Firehed
The intensity of that heat is going to drop off rapidly with distance. I'm no
physicist, but I'd bet it follows the Inverse-Square Law
(<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law>) just as light does.

Meaning that at 20m from the center of the explosion (the fireball was 20m
diameter, or 10m radius) it should already be at 1/4 the intensity, already
less than the surface of the sun. At 7 miles or 11200m, you're talking
1/(1120^2) or 7.97e-7 of the original intensity - effectively zero - if I've
done that math right.

~~~
sliverstorm
Let's not forget, apart from distance, the fireball is expanding in all
directions. At 1" from the center, you're exposed to half the fireball. At 1
mile from the center, you're exposed to a tiny spherical arc of the fireball.

The energy is going in every direction, not just at you. With distance, you
will receive a smaller portion of whatever energy made it 7 miles out.

~~~
gnaritas
That's what he just said, the inverse square law. You're describing the same
phenomenon.

~~~
sliverstorm
Oh, I thought he was talking about energy dropping off with distance the way a
bullet loses speed with distance.

------
colkassad
I thought that was an awfully large explosion for one millisecond until I
realized that light would travel 30,000 times that far in that time frame.

------
callmeed
I'm not sure if it was permanent, but there was an awesome H. Edgerton exhibit
at the MIT Museum I remember visiting roughly six years ago. (he developed the
camera that took this photo).

If you're in Boston and it's still there, definitely go check it out.

~~~
ghaff
I don't think there is a current Edgerton exhibit at the MIT Museum although
there may be some photos. Strobe Alley (fourth floor of Building 4) does
however have a permanent exhibit of photographs and some other things.

(For others, the context here is that in addition to his work photographing
and filming nuclear explosions, Edgerton also developed the electronic strobe
along with developing lots of other interesting things, and going on Jacques
Cousteau expeditions. (Also a wonderful teacher and person.)

------
danbruc
Somewhat related - imaging at a trillion frames per second.

[http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=trillion+fr...](http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=trillion+frames+per+second)

~~~
megrimlock
That (very nifty) technique only works for periodic phenomena, so it seems
hard to apply here.

------
goronbjorn
It looks like a metroid!

[http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20071202052451/metroid...](http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20071202052451/metroid/images/c/c6/A-metroid.jpg)

------
bigiain
If you like that pic, there's a wonderful coffee table book full of them:

<http://www.michaellight.net/work100suns.html>

I got it for xmas from the girlfiend a few years back, she knows exactly he
sort of combination of beautiful and eerie that I like...

------
001sky
The time-sampling rate vs photo-sensitivity would seem difficult to get right
without some trial and error. Is it pure luck to get an image of this quality?
Its fascinating regarless, however.

------
kristopher
I have to admit that I misread the title the first go around as "Nuclear
Explosion Less than 1 Mil[e outside of ...]" Being at the top of HN did not
help much.

------
the_mitsuhiko
So what's the tickrate for nature's physics simulations? I want to see it one
tick after inception.

~~~
damon_c
I might be wrong but I think it's this:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time>

...which if my math is right, comes out to 1/100,000,000,000,000,000th of the
amount of time post explosion of this photo...

I don't think it would like much!

~~~
chii
its really interesting that a discrete time unit exists. Perhaps this could be
construed as evidence that the world we live in is actually a simulation.

------
AmVess
Pic could also be a Monday morning beer fart in a crowded elevator.

You just never know.

------
macey
Chilling.

------
smoyer
I just have to point to that thread's best comment!

Dave said:

"This is one of those images that is equally beautiful/horrible. Kim
Kardashian pics are the same way......."

