Spin Mechanics

So say for example one had an object that was spherical and smaller a pea. So hypothetically a person hits a button and sends this object in a spin, equivalent to 99.9999999 that of light.

What is the result?

a reply to: Kashai
Then you'll have an object smaller than a pea spinning 99.9999999 the speed of light. I hope that helps.

a reply to: Skid Mark

Not really in relation to examining, specifically what occurred. In consideration to Albert Einstein there could be a considerable difference.

The object would in general experience time dilation in fact.

The real problem in relation to relating to this issue is that absolutely everything is in motion.

a reply to: Kashai

Assuming the forces involved don't immediately vaporize it? Because that's what would happen. Chances are, if you were nearby, you'd get a nice tan from the high energy particles released in the process too. Better grab the SPF 100.

a reply to: Kashai

It would disintegrate far before that by centripital force alone... unless made of Unobtanium...

a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

Ahh...yes there is also the possibility that such an object would increate in mass. This due to the fact that such a spin could increase in mass given such an object treated that way.

The idea that such an object would be vaporized but in reality we today have the technology to actually find out what happens.

The problem in relation has something to do with the difference between a static effect and one in motion.

Everything is in motion.

Guys and Galls take into consideration that experimentally this is no different that building a facility like CERN. Except in the case of accelerating a proton to near the speed of light, one does not do so in a Linear way.

a reply to: Kashai

It is experimentally different

In one case you're spinning an object on its axis

In CERN they're accelerating protons to collide into each other

You would ideally want to spin the object in space where Earths gravity cannot influence (it would still be effected by weaker gravitational forces though) and there's no friction in order for it to keep spinning.

If you're going to 99% speed of light then according to Einstein if you were the object you would be in a different phase of time to anything outside of the object

a reply to: Kashai

I never said it would increase in mass. The mass would stay the same.

And we do know it would tear itself apart, both from scientific and practical aspects. Just look at flywheels shattering once they get to certain rotational speeds.

If you want a more technical answer, as the sphere accelerated in its rotation it would begin to bulge at the equator. This would cause the poles to contact. The same mechanics are what cause the Earth (and other celestial objects) to be wider in circumference at the equator than the poles. Eventually, it would bulge and contract too much rip itself apart.

a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

You are postulating from the context of Classical Mechanics, while in a quantum orientation the idea of falling apart takes on a whole different meaning.

Another way of looking at it is that due to momentum mass would increase.

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
a reply to: Kashai

I never said it would increase in mass. The mass would stay the same.

And we do know it would tear itself apart, both from scientific and practical aspects. Just look at flywheels shattering once they get to certain rotational speeds.

If you want a more technical answer, as the sphere accelerated in its rotation it would begin to bulge at the equator. This would cause the poles to contact. The same mechanics are what cause the Earth (and other celestial objects) to be wider in circumference at the equator than the poles. Eventually, it would bulge and contract too much rip itself apart.

Its relativistic mass due to momentum would increase, rest mass would stay the same. The the GR equation is: E²=(mc²)²+(pc)²
where 'p' is momentum (This also explains why Photons can exist, but have zero rest mass).

In actuality, if you spun conventional matter near to light speed, it would disintegrate under centrifugal forces. To bind it together you'd need a force greater than the Strong Nuclear Force - such a force has never been seen.

Kashai has suggested this scenario before, suggesting that spinning a strange quark at that speed might have some non-mundane outcome.

I believe that the energy input to 'spin' a quark like that would actually spawn other quantum particles (most likely different ones, due to Pauli exclusion).

a reply to: chr0naut

But Newtonian physics would have it vaporizing well before any relativistic effects took place.

And as for a quark, I was unaware. The OP stated, "spherical and smaller a pea," so I assumed thaw since a pea was referenced it must not be that much smaller. Though, technically a quark it's smaller than a pea...

a reply to: chr0naut

Based upon what physical evidence?

I have not mentioned the issue of quarks in this thread but thanks for bringing them up.

If you are talking about a classical object, then look up the Ehrenfest paradox. It explains the effects of spinning a rigid object at high speed.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: chr0naut

Based upon what physical evidence?

I have no mentioned the issue of quarks in this thread but thanks for bringing them up.

At the quantum level of quarks, energy converts into mass easily (otherwise the universe of matter wouldn't exist), creating particles and virtual particles of the type we see in accelerator collisions. Supersymmetry suggests that particles would be created in complementary pairs, mostly annihilating, and Pauli Exclusion means that those created particles MUST be different in some way, having different values, to the original quark.

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
a reply to: chr0naut

But Newtonian physics would have it vaporizing well before any relativistic effects took place.

And as for a quark, I was unaware. The OP stated, "spherical and smaller a pea," so I assumed thaw since a pea was referenced it must not be that much smaller. Though, technically a quark it's smaller than a pea...

I agree.

The topic relates to what would happen if one were to spin an object the size of a ball bearing to near of light.

I have requested physical evidence not theoretical mumbo jumbo.

Pauli..... is that not the same person that appeared on the Johnny Carson show repeatedly and insisting high dosages of Vitamin C could cure Cancer?????

Or was that Pauling?

Either way what physical evidence do you have to support your position Sir?

originally posted by: Quaria
It explains the effects of spinning a rigid object at high speed.

Depletes all the mana in a large region, magic won't work there anymore?

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: Kashai

It is experimentally different

In one case you're spinning an object on its axis

In CERN they're accelerating protons to collide into each other

You would ideally want to spin the object in space where Earths gravity cannot influence (it would still be effected by weaker gravitational forces though) and there's no friction in order for it to keep spinning.

If you're going to 99% speed of light then according to Einstein if you were the object you would be in a different phase of time to anything outside of the object

Precisely.