It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do particle beams warp space?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   
I was just thinking about the rule that says something like, "as matter approaches the speed of light it becomes infinitely heavy."

So if a particle beam is pushing particles near the speed of light, then the particles, which have mass, should become infinitely heavier.

When something is infinitely heavy, does that mean the mass goes up but the amount of space it occupies does not? And if this is so, then what amount of mass would a particle get to?

Infinite mass to me means more than can be measured. If it is that massive, it should create gravity, which should distort space time. If the particle distorts space time, then it should basically go into warp like on star trek.

So, when a particle beam sends a particle, does the particle arrive where the beam arrives, or does it vanish because it was either warped away or possibly destroyed.

I guess what im getting at is, if a particle beam can distort space, would that be the method to create warp drive?




posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
The "heavy" mentioned is really a references to the amount of energy required to increase it's speed to the next increment.

To take an atom with the mass of 1 to the speed of light, it requires 'infinite' energy. This is because atoms with the mass of 'zero' hold maximum velocity at that rate.


ie: The reason you cannot travel the speed of light is there is hypothetically-not enough energy in the universe. This lead sci-fi people to invent warp field etc..

Would it warp space? Depends on what you mean.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by robwerden
 


I think you have create warp field first before you try it out, with out time hole to warp in, I don't think it will work.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by robwerden
 


Do particle beams warp space?

errm I guess they do, (I can only manage a short answer
)

I think everything warps space to some degree, defiantly everything that has mass. So yes particle beams (IMO) would warp/'bend'/curve space.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by robwerden
I was just thinking about the rule that says something like, "as matter approaches the speed of light it becomes infinitely heavy."

So if a particle beam is pushing particles near the speed of light, then the particles, which have mass, should become infinitely heavier.

When something is infinitely heavy, does that mean the mass goes up but the amount of space it occupies does not? And if this is so, then what amount of mass would a particle get to?

Infinite mass to me means more than can be measured. If it is that massive, it should create gravity, which should distort space time. If the particle distorts space time, then it should basically go into warp like on star trek.

So, when a particle beam sends a particle, does the particle arrive where the beam arrives, or does it vanish because it was either warped away or possibly destroyed.

I guess what im getting at is, if a particle beam can distort space, would that be the method to create warp drive?


Yes I just did quick check and it would be infinitly heavier, but would need Black Hole or Super massive object to obtain such speeds.

E=Mc sq. Try mass times 2 googolplexs= E

In theory it would occupy more space, but would look like it did not if you were moving with object, depends on particle of what type?

Not sure of equations to convert energy in to gravaity, if had weight could convert to joules, but also need to know size of particule.

Beam would be group of particules. Should arrive as wave.

To travel at wrap speed you would need to warp time, so would need warp feild to travel in. Create time hole.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by robwerden
I was just thinking about the rule that says something like, "as matter approaches the speed of light it becomes infinitely heavy."

So if a particle beam is pushing particles near the speed of light, then the particles, which have mass, should become infinitely heavier.

When something is infinitely heavy, does that mean the mass goes up but the amount of space it occupies does not? And if this is so, then what amount of mass would a particle get to?

Infinite mass to me means more than can be measured. If it is that massive, it should create gravity, which should distort space time. If the particle distorts space time, then it should basically go into warp like on star trek.

So, when a particle beam sends a particle, does the particle arrive where the beam arrives, or does it vanish because it was either warped away or possibly destroyed.

I guess what im getting at is, if a particle beam can distort space, would that be the method to create warp drive?


Congratulations on thinking critically. (No, this is NOT sarcasm, I mean it). You've realized, in some way, how things are "said" to work at a superficial level, aren't actually how they work.

The answer is in college-level physics classes, where all this stuff is actually figured out correctly. Which really means "getting what Einstein really said".


Misleading phrase: "as matter approaches the speed of light it becomes infinitely heavy."

That's not the right way to think about it. The right way to think about it is that "as matter approaches the speed of light its momentum keeps on going up, but its velocity does not." As a particle gets close to the speed of light, you can give it more and more momentum, but the "effect" of that on increasing the speed goes down. If you insist that the factor connecting those two is just "mass" then you get the misleading statement above. Thinking that way confuses other issues. Modern physicists say that the "mass" is the "rest mass" and stays constant. It's the linear relationship between momentum and velocity which was true in Newtonian physics is no longer true at very high speeds.

Now that's Special Relativity (e.g. freshman physics for science majors).

The "origin" or "source" of gravitation however, is described by General Relativity, which is much, much more complex and subtle. (This is upper division or graduate level physics). In a nutshell---in GR---just about everything contributes to gravitation, i.e. the 'origin' of the warping of space which is interpreted by us as the effect of gravity that we feel. We all know of course mass makes gravity---as Newton said. But the true term in GR is the "stress energy tensor". This has mass in it, and pressure, and local kinetic & potential energies. It will have say, electromagnetic fields. So that an electromagnet will, in fact, create a little bit more gravity when it's energized and turned on (resulting in a free space magnetic field) than off, all else being equal.

Now, in practice, the physics size of those other terms besides mass is utterly infinitesimal and nearly always completely unmeasurable. Very *roughly* you convert the equivalent energy to it's mass equivalent value with E=mc^2 (not exactly true but right order of magnitude) and that is the mass equivalent.

1 kilo of matter equals a titanic amount of energy (like H-bombs worth). How much gravity does one kilo of matter *create* (not respond to). Almost nothing.

So, the energy in stuff that we can manipulate gravitates in practice enormously less than mass, and mass is pretty damn small anyway. After all, the Sun, with it's enormous mass, can warp space enough only to deflect light by a tiny fraction of a degree.

So, yes particle beams do cause gravitation as we know it. No it doesn't work for warp drive because the size of the gravitation is utterly infinitesimal. For warp drive, we would have to discover some fundamentally new physics, new particles or fields or something which function as "source terms" in GR many jillions of times stronger than anything we know today. Haven't seen anything yet, unfortunately.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by mbkennel]

[edit on 16-2-2009 by mbkennel]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join