h a l f b a k e r yIf ever there was a time we needed a bowlologist, it's now.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
I have read about how the mass of objects traveling at the upper scale of the speed of light can be distorted (I'm not sure if this is relativity or whatever else). I don't know if "distorted" is the same as actually being "changed," but none the less...
Within a torus (donut-shaped) container (diameter
is completely open to suggestion), an atom is accelerated to near lightspeed velocity. We have particle (proton) accelerators already, so atom accelerators should also be possible.
Its mass is distorted by its speed as per the teaching pointed to in the opening note.
I am thinking that it's mass could become sufficiently distorted to generate a gravity feild in space through mass-distortion of space-time. The torus I suggested would be but one of many coupled together not unlike chainmail, creating an expanse of netting able to generate gravity (if this effect would be produced) over a wide area. And perhaps large numbers of these would have a cumulative affect and could result in lower velocities demanded of each atom working in unison.
Cornell University's Special Relativity Course Notes
http://instruct1.ci.../astro101/lec21.htm
[st3f, Oct 04 2004]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
Yes, atom accelerators are baked. However, the observed mass increase for a particle in any accelerator is incredibly tiny compared to the mass of the accelerator itself. Has to be, otherwise it would be like having a concrete block in your washing machine on spin-dry. |
|
| |
(Actually, that would produce gravity waves as well - and far larger than the particle accelerator - but still too small to detect by any means we know.) |
|
| |
So you're suggesting that as an object approaches light speed, it's mass increases? I don't think that's a new concept. |
|
| |
I think you'd get a lot greater mass by using a brick of lead than creating a huge chain of particle accelerators ;) Theoretically, it should work..but practically, it's doesn't have much worth. Sorry :( |
|
| |
A cute idea. Sounds horribly
impractical, though. |
|
| |
Remember that as the mass increases,
so will the
energy required to accelerate the mass
further and the energy needed to
contain the mass in the torus. You may
find that any accelerator that makes any
useful gravity effect will need a small
sun to power it. |
|
| |
Rather than accelerate a massive object to close to the speed of light, accelerate a really light one. Presto - your massive object will be travelling close to the speed of light. |
|
| |
Relatively speaking, of course. |
|
| |
theoretically when a mass approaches the speed of light its mass reaches near infinity, thus needing infinite energy to accelerate it. I believe the answer to things already travelling at light speed is that they are non-mass forces or particles. One might think that by somehow slowing a light speed particle down one might not only lower its mass but release a lot of energy. its been claimed that supercolliders and such have put protons at .99c i wonder if their mass changed enough to be detected to prove the theory of mass and the speed of light. maybe light particles because they are already at the speed of light are alo locked in time and thus immune to mass? no, light beams can be bent by high gravity we've seen that so they do have *some* mass....headache |
|
| |
Particles in accelerators do, as far as i know, demonstrably
increase in mass. If I remember correctly, the accelerator
has to compensate for this in the forces it applies to keep
them going in a circle. (The particles also experience time
more slowly, so that short-lived particles live longer.) |
|
| |
What I don't know (and here my head aches too) is
whether the increased mass of the particle is detectable
as an increased gravitational pull. I would think it must
be, since its inertial mass has increased. |
|
| |
On the other hand, I have a gut feeling that the internal
movements of a closed system should be non-detectable
from outside the system. The gravitational pull of the
accelerated particles would violate this vague principle:
someone standing outside the particle accelerator could
tell if the particles inside it were moving rapidly or not, by
measuring the gravitational pull of the accelerator, which
seems wrong. |
|
| |
On yet another hand, of course, you can tell if a gyroscope
in a closed box is spinning or not by measuring the
torquing resistance of the box, so maybe the vague law
postulated above is wrong. |
|
| |
I have now run out of hands. But arclyte's idea is
interesting. If the accelerator were linear instead of
circular, and if pairs of particles were somehow
accelerated in opposite directions at the same time, there
would be no "washing machine with a brick in it" effect. |
|
| |
I think what we need at this juncture is someone who
actually knows what they're talking about. |
|
| |
//what we need at this juncture is someone who actually knows what they're talking about.// |
|
| |
And what would we do with this putative informationally-endowed person? Make him a target? Or just wonder if he's seriously lost, to end up here? |
|
| |
or just has broken transport. |
|
| |