Supernovas and supervolcanos, nuclear star motor (paper) & need to build future nuclear reactors subcritical and deep underground

Abstract : Recent astrophysical discoveries, including actinid-rich stars and protostars close to a black hole, as well as geophysical research (for instance the proximity of zirconium and barytine mines, stable decay products of major fission products, to volcanic areas), allow to confirm, rearrange and expand the hypothesis first developed by J M Herndon in the 1990s by adaptating it fully to star cores and linking it to volcanism. This article offers a contradiction of the R-process and of the chondritic model for the Earth’s composition: it claims that U and Th chains are not synthetized in supernovas, but at the origin of stars and planetary cores. It offers a link between nuclear fission and fusion through ternary fission processes, claims that supernovaes are the main factor for super volcanic eruptions and suggests that neutrons expelled by supernovas, accelerated by the disappearance of attraction forces, constitute  accelerated matter explaining gravitational waves. Actinids, or perhaps a single atom as heavy as the Universe, may be the origin of the Big Bang phenomenon.

[submitted to Physics Today, still waiting answer. Link to my paper]

Bonus : rain of U and Th decay products (Pb + Bi) on Venus.

Can we ensure resistance of a nuclear plant to a powerful supernova (like a Type 1A close to Earth) ? This opens obvious questions on the resistance of all nuclear plants, even subcritical. Tchernobyl however may probably not be linked to SN1987A (impact zone : Pacific area). My hypothesis on Tchernobyl (Soviets and sodium). It MAY however be linked (in case neutrons from SN1987A came early – simple explanation in paper, with Baekdu volcano case as example) to K431 accident in Vladivostok area because it was close to surface (so no water barrier for the neutrons) and because, obviously, the radiation shield in a submarine reactor is insufficient. This is a perfect confirmation because the Nevado del Ruiz began volcanic activity in September 1985, only one month after the K431 accident. St Helens would thus I believe be linked to slow magma formation after the 1898 supernova. We may hypothesize impact on 10 August 1985 and beginning of magma formation deep underground in several locations, even though supercriticities (and thus volcanic tremors, “tornillos”) can take time to happen due to the fact that the beginning of nuclear fission will evacuate magma and thus uranium above, reducing the amount of fissile material available, which may then later fall down slowly (whereas lighter elements stay above), propping up again nuclear fission… but once it goes supercritical lots of magma will be generated very quickly and indeed alert must be raised. A quick point : why does K431 goes supercritical and explodes and the much bigger power plant of St Laurent des Eaux (480 MW) goes supercritical as well in 1969 (your typical “supercritical accident” in a nuclear plant) and there is no explosion but only a melting down ? More confirmation that K431 received the external contribution of supernova neutrons, and indication that a more powerful supernova, with more fast neutrons, would mean that enough neutrons would cross through concrete and cuves to produce a similar result in reactors (explosive like K431, not the simple “melting down”). On the Tchernobyl explosion, again, I explain it by sodium in the reactor – see link.

I’d like to insist on the fact that a small supernova like SN1987A (still the biggest that happened in the “nuclear era”, yet Mag +2,9) has nothing to see with what can be a SN1A like, for instance, Kepler’s Star in 1604 (visible in the day sky for several days). Brown stars may be simply hidden in dark clouds, with more clouds barring the path to light in our direction and a violent neutron impact on Earth thus simply unforeseeable.

It is obvious that ALL the fuel of a reactor, including the large stock of U238 or, if used, Th232, may be exposed to fission due to these accelerated neutrons (>100 MeV).

fissile_fertile-1024x492.png

One way to deal with the issue is to bury all nuclear plants under huge, huge pools of water, something like 200 * 200 * 200 meters. This ought to reduce the risk even though complete disintegration by a very powerful supernova (like one we see once in a million years) whose neutrons would come before its own light can always be possible. If two neutrons come successfully once after another, one behind another, the first one will take all the impact, the second one reach successfully the reactor and trigger supercriticity. Oxygen atoms WILL spallate more fast neutrons. Obviously keeping a huge proportion of the kinetic energy.

Nevertheless, under the water dome the confinment structure must be reinforced because in case the explosion is powerful enough to leave water in contact with the core in fission, it will be an even worse explosion.

A long term solution is to build all new nuclear reactors (which I still recommend to be subcritical, article in French) deep underground (1 kilometer underground), and to try to have no humans onboard during the normal functionning of the reactor.

And a quick complement on black matter, black holes and the Big Bang :

Black matter may be easily explained by the variations of speed of light depending on the material in its path (for concrete examples, see above on supernovas and supervolcanos) and thus means that several stars are still to be discovered. The number ought to be elevated, yet finite. Black holes are explained by the mass of photons of visible light (10^-54 kgs). Some agglomerates of very heavy atoms would simple be able to capture their own energy in its entirety. I suggest these may be remains of the pre-Big Bang state, i.e. agglomerates of extremely heavy isotopes dominated by gravity, i.e. where gravity sets a barrier to spontaneous fission and other reactions of radioactive decay / spallation, because it conglomerates atoms in a fixed state. Very heavy neutron stars come obviously to the same effect, explaining the supernova origin of black holes.

The consequence of the two claims is that there is no central time (Einstein’s Relativity), no beginning and end (Lavoisier’s “rien ne se perd, rien ne se crée, tout se transforme”) and that the Big Bang is simply the heaviest known supernova because neutron pushing can easily mean that a lot of matter is very far away, behind dark clouds blocking light.