This question got an off-topic slap on the Sci-Fi Stack because I asked about real-world physics, rather than fictional physics. I want to completely disregard the canon. Hypothetically put this into a real-world scenario where someone has somehow fit a power source with the output levels of a nuclear reactor (not a nuclear reactor, just something as strong, but small enough to fit into this scenario) into a hilt and made a lightsaber that looks like one in the movies but functions as a real-world object.

Lightsabers are (seemingly) closely related to plasma, which would be the closest tangible thing to a lightsaber in the modern world. Given the fact that a lightsaber would be a constricted plasma arc, it could reach temperatures of up to 25000°C. Wouldn't a lightsaber end up burning a person based on the heat it gives off?

What about general lightsaber wielding and the light plasma gives off? Plasma cutters reach up to 800 Amperes, and that's a smaller sort of plasma arc. You need specific eyewear for these plasma cutters because it can cause eye damage relatively quickly, right? Lightsabers are three feet of constricted plasma. Wouldn't this have a blinding effect after time if eyewear wasn't worn?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Related question on SciFi.SE. $\endgroup$ – rob May 9 at 3:58
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Dude, I posted that. They took it down for off-topic because of real world physics. I want to disregard the canon here and learn the facts. $\endgroup$ – WG481 May 9 at 4:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Buzz Why would you do that...? $\endgroup$ – WG481 May 9 at 5:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think this questions is too fictional for physics stack , and not fictional enough for sci fi stack . It just falls in between $\endgroup$ – silverrahul May 9 at 5:17
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The problem with this kind of question is it supposes some kind of unknown physics from the start. We can tell you how real-world physics works, but questions in the vein of "suppose impossible thing, what happens then?" aren't really answerable. $\endgroup$ – Chris May 9 at 8:21

Fact 1. One cannot hold a nuclear reactor. What it needs to work is tons and tons of material, mostly for protecting people from radioactivity

enter image description here

Fact 2. Even if technology could come to the point of making a hand held reactor , only a robot could carry it. Unless a lot of material would surround it the human carrier would be dead.

Fact 3. The radioactivity means that it is not just light that comes out of a nuclear reactor, but a lot of particles with velocities that are destructive to the human body.

The news I bring you is that light sabers already exist. There exist hand held lasers and they already are used as weapons, search for "hand held" in the link. One could call these "light sabers" as they consist of light.

Added after edit of question:

If one reads how plasma cutting works,it works only on conducting material, and it is obvious that nuclear reactor energies cannot be attained. As for wearing goggles , when cutting material the eyes are in danger from pieces of matter too.

  • $\begingroup$ What about the burn/blind situation? $\endgroup$ – WG481 May 9 at 5:04
  • $\begingroup$ @WG481 that is the problem for the target, not the handler. It is considered inhumane, so they are not using them but have developed lighter damage ones, if you read the wiki link. $\endgroup$ – anna v May 9 at 5:41
  • $\begingroup$ "consist of light" I supposed constricted plasma, like a plasma cutter, not a laser. $\endgroup$ – WG481 May 9 at 23:41
  • $\begingroup$ You cannot constrict nuclear plasma in the way you think, to allow making a beam, the constricting walls would become plasma together with the holder is what I am saying, unless there is a lot of lead in the constricting wallsI. In any case in a reactor there is no plasma at the core, just a lot of radiation of particles and photons, within the solid fuel rods. You get an atomic bomb when you try to make a nuclear plasma $\endgroup$ – anna v May 10 at 4:05
  • $\begingroup$ Edited post for clarification $\endgroup$ – WG481 May 10 at 5:05

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.