wat is the strong nuclear force?
914923
The Strong Nuclear Force is the force that binds the protons and neutrons in the nucleus together.  Otherwise the protons would be likely to repel each other away.  The Strong Nuclear Force has a very limited range which is less than the length of an atomic nucleus
171241
The previous answer explained very well why it is important that the strong and weak forces are stronger than the electromagnetic force.  I will address *why* it's a good thing that gravity is weaker than the electromagnetic force, which also extends to an infinite distance.  That is because, while the electromagnetic force is sometimes attractive, sometimes repulsive, depending on the charges involved, gravity is always attractive.  Thus, while the electromagnetic force between any two fundamental charged particles is comparatively strong, overall, electromagnetism is weak, because the attractive and repulsive forces balance out.  Another way of saying the same thing is to note that overall, most macroscopic objects are electrically neutral, they have an equal number of positive and negative charges.  Even highly "charged" objects have overall only a tiny percentage more of positive charges than negative charges, or vice versa.  If gravity were as strong as E.M., then the universe would quickly collapse (or more properly, never would have formed) as all the particles in it would be too tightly bound together.
20032
The weak nuclear forces are the ones that bond atoms to atoms (rather than the strong nuclear forces that bind the atom together).  These Electromagnetic Forces can be as weak as static electrical forces that make balloons cling to walls, or can be the attraction between Hydrogen and Oxygen in water that can be broken down by the application of low voltages.
872488
A nuclear bomb is a weapon which derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions of fission or fusion. As a result, even a nuclear bomb with a relatively small yield is significantly more powerful than the largest conventional explosives, and a single bomb is capable of destroying an entire city.
1130985
Most nuclear weapons rely on fission (the breaking down of a nucleus into smaller nuclei).  This breakdown releases the energy that would otherwise go into holding the nucleus together.  That's not much energy for one nucleus, but breaking a few nuclei releases stray particles that bump into other nuclei and break them  -- which releases more energy, and more stray particles which bump into still more nuclei, and so on.  That's a chain reaction.  This reaction isn't limited to weapons; it also occurs in peaceful uses of nuclear technology such as reactors.  A nuclear weapon simply releases all of the available energy all at once.\n  As to predicting the reaction products, that's largely a function of what fissionable material you start with.  Nuclear physicists (which I am not) know what materials result from the nuclear decay of specific radioactive elements.  How you achieve fission is also a factor; a nucleus will break differently when hit by a fast neutron than it will when hit by a gamma ray.  Fusion is much simpler; if you start with hydrogen, the result is always helium.
3398
the nuclear fision is mainly carried out in an atomic reactor. It is an process in which a nucleus of heavy atoms like Uranium splits into two nuclei of smaller masses and a large amount of energy is produced. This energy is known as nuclear energy.\nThe Nuclear Fusion is the process in which the nuclei of two different elements fuse or combine to form one and huge amount of energy is produced. This process takes place in Sun.
14668
There is not an equal amount, despite what the first responder said. The question of why there is so little antimatter is a key problem for cosmologists today. There is, as yet, no completely satisfactory solution to the problem. The weak nuclear force clearly affects antimatter differently than matter, in a way that has caused the symmetry to fail. This only accounts of a miniscule fraction of the extra matter in the universe.
268969
not regurgitating from wikipedia, which isn't always correct OR understandable OR contains little information on the topic, here I go.\n\nUranium, as it's been said is a big atom which contains a whole lot of little pieces. There is something called "binding energy" that keeps all these little pices together. When a big atom undergoes all of this radioactive decay it goes from a smaller mass to a large mass. THe numbers are really small, but using Einstien's E=mc^2 any change of mass no matter how small will produce some meaningful amount of energy. Now, for 238 grams of Uranium, there are 6.023*10^23 atoms. So, you multiply the little miniscule energy emission by a very large number and you get a pretty big amount of energy.\n\nSo, short answer, becuase it is a big atom, it contains a lot of binding energy that is released when the atom splits.
203163
it holds the nucleus together. there is a another force acting that is stronger than the repulsion of the protons for each other known as strong nuclear force
1165718
The key to understanding fission and fusion is to understand what is known as the "binding energy per nucleon" or "mass defect." The force (attractive force) that keeps the nuceii of atoms together, called the strong nuclear force, acts differently depending on the configuration of the nucleus. If we divide the total binding energy of this nuclear force for a particular nucleus by the number of nucleons (i.e., protons + neutrons added together), we get a measure of how "stable" the nucleus is.  The more binding energy per nucleon, the more stable the nucleus is - that is, the more tightly bound the particles are. \n\nSimilarly, the mass defect represents the difference between the relativistic mass of the nucleus and the rest masses of the particles - another way of looking at the binding energy in relativistic (E=mc^2) terms.\n\nCertain nuclei are more stable than others. Ordinary hydrogen, for example, consists only of a single proton - so there is no binding energy per nucleon. Very large nuclei - such as uranium and plutonium - are very unstable because as the nucleus becomes larger, the relative effect of the nuclear force (the "binding energy per nucleon") becomes less and the electromagnetic repulsion of the protons becomes greater.\n\nOur universe tends toward greater stability. When large relatively unstable nuclei such as Uranium or Plutonium are bombarded by free neutrons, there is a probability that some of the nuclei will split into two more stable nuclei (i.e., nuclei with greater binding energy per nucleon). This is fission.  The difference in binding energy is converted to kinetic energy (heat) and radiation (gamma rays, light). \n\nSimilarly, some very small nuclei such as hydrogen have less binding energy per nucleon than larger nuclei such as helium.  When these smaller nuclei are forced together within the range of the strong nuclear force, there is a probability the nuclei will combine (fuse) into a more stable nucleus with greater binding energy per nucleon.  This is fusion.  Again, the difference in binding energy is converted to kinetic energy (heat) and radiation (gamma rays and light).\n\nFission and fusion are only sustainable if the resultant nuclei are more stable than the initial nucleii - i.e., if the binding energy per nucleon increases.  Also, fission and fusion require some energy input to get them started - Uranium and Plutonium have lower initial energy requirements, so it is easier for them.  Similarly, hydrogen fusion into helium is "relatively" easy compared to fusion of other nuclei.
208985
The force of gravity has to do with an attraction of objects due to mass. The nuclear force has to do with attraction or repulsion of nucleous at very small distances. Electric Force is attraction or repulsion due to the charge of the object, and is very important in the actual structure of an atom. Inertia has to do with the continued movement of an object (an object in motion continues to move unless another force acts upon that object.)\n\nYou might think that gravity is a strong force, because you see it's effects all the time - however, the strongest forces will either be the nuclear force or electric force. If gravity is stronger than electric force, then you get black holes.
30388
Gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and electromagnetic force.
730167
Very close to the mass of a proton.  It is about 1.6749 x 10^-27 kg, 1 u, or 939.57 MeV/c^2.
445580
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb.htm
391725
In physics, nuclear fusion is the process by which multiple nuclei join together to form a heavier nucleus. It is accompanied by the release or absorption of energy depending on the masses of the nuclei involved. Iron and nickel nuclei have the largest binding energies per nucleon of all nuclei and therefore are the most stable. The fusion of two nuclei lighter than iron or nickel generally releases energy while the fusion of nuclei heavier than them absorbs energy; vice-versa for the reverse process, nuclear fission.\n\nNuclear fusion of light elements releases the energy that causes stars to shine and hydrogen bombs to explode. Nuclear fusion of heavy elements (absorbing energy) occurs in the extremely high-energy conditions of supernova explosions. Nuclear fusion in stars and supernovae is the primary process by which new natural elements are created. It is this reaction that is harnessed in fusion power.\n\nIt takes considerable energy to force nuclei to fuse, even those of the least massive element, hydrogen. But the fusion of lighter nuclei, which creates a heavier nucleus and a free neutron, will generally release more energy than it took to force them together — an exothermic process that can produce self-sustaining reactions.\n\nThe energy released in most nuclear reactions is much larger than that for chemical reactions, because the binding energy that holds a nucleus together is far greater than the energy that holds electrons to a nucleus. For example, the ionization energy gained by adding an electron to a hydrogen nucleus is 13.6 electron volts -- less than one-millionth of the 17 MeV released in the D-T (deuterium-tritium) reaction shown to the top right.\n\nThe steps of the main cycle of nuclear fusion in stars were worked out by Hans Bethe.
658056
The Schwarzschild radius(for those who want to be a pain in the butt, yes this is a simplified equation for a nonrotating mass but for our purposes should be a good approximation) is 2GM/c^2 where G is the gravitational constant 6.67e-8 dyne cm^2 g^-2, M is the mass of the object, and c is the speed of light(use cm/s^2 as units).  Basically when all the mass is contained within a radius smaller than this value, the gravitational metrics go a little crazy and this is defined to be a black hole.\n\nI leave it to you to do the math, see whether the accepted radius of a nucleus is within this radius or not and there is you answer.  There are other forces at play that cause the strong attractive forces within a nucleus, particularly strong nuclear force.  If this was gravity(which from above you should see the radius is a lot smaller than the radius of the nucleus in order to cause such effects), then the electrons would be sucked into nucleus as well, since you would have both an attractive coloumb force and an attractive strong gravitational force.\n\nThat being said, you would not see radiative activity if the nucleus was a black hole.
608028
At high enough energies the weak force and the electromagnetic force combine (only observed fairly recently), which gives us three forces: electroweak, strong, and gravitational. The theory is that the strong and the electroweak force also combine at even higher energies (which we have not achieved in particle accelerators yet). Since the gravitational force is so weak, it's hard to say if that can also be incorporated into the strong-electroweak force lol. I assume at insanely high energies (that existed during the creation of the universe in the big bang) this is very possible though. So there probably was one force, which split into other ones once the energies got less (after fractions of a second).