Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
We have a low common denominator: 2

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                     

Arclyte Gravity 2

Distortion at Lighspeed
  (+1, -2)
(+1, -2)
  [vote for,
against]

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.

arclyte, Jul 12 2003

Cornell University's Special Relativity Course Notes http://instruct1.ci.../astro101/lec21.htm
[st3f, Oct 04 2004]

[link]






       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.)
lurch, Jul 12 2003
  

       So you're suggesting that as an object approaches light speed, it's mass increases? I don't think that's a new concept.
phoenix, Jul 12 2003
  

       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 :(
nomel, Jul 02 2004
  

       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.
st3f, Jul 02 2004
  

       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.
Detly, Jul 05 2004
  

       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
Arcanus, Apr 23 2010
  

       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.
MaxwellBuchanan, Apr 23 2010
  

       //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?
lurch, Apr 23 2010
  

       or just has broken transport.
wjt, Apr 24 2010
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle