Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests

Particle beams

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: Particle beams
Post by Louis R   » Mon Feb 13, 2017 1:17 pm

Louis R
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1293
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 9:25 pm

It's a lot more complex than that.

Particles moving at the speed of light have no mass, and therefore don't respond to gravitational fields directly. What they do do is follow a straight line - regardless of whatever peculiar behaviour 'straight lines' happen to be indulging in at that point in space. And they can get up to some really peculiar antics indeed under the influence of gravity. Massive particles, even near c, _do_ respond directly to the field as well as following the geodesic, and so are always deflected more than photons are. It's the nature of the particle that matters, not the velocity per se.

WLBjork wrote:Possibly.

However,I would submit we see a certain consistency all the same.

The thing is, sidewalls (and the particle and radiation screening that fill the rest of the volume between ship and sidewall) aren't "hard" energy shields, but gravitational fields.

Slow moving particles, such as missiles and even plasma torpedoes get torn apart and deflected from their course. That will not require additional energy or effort.

Particles traveling at light speed, such as photons,are fast enough to get through with only minor deflection/dispersion. Thus a nuclear weapon that generates a lot of gamma radiation that is carefully focussed can penetrate a sidewall.


Of course, whether gravity can really be focussed so precisely in that way is another question entirely. They've managed it in the fictional Honorverse though, and that's all that's important.
Top
Re: Particle beams
Post by Weird Harold   » Mon Feb 13, 2017 8:08 pm

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

Louis R wrote:Particles moving at the speed of light have no mass, ...


1: particles can't move at the speed of light, they can only approach light-speed.

2: as an object (particle) approaches the speed of light, its mass approaches infinity.
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top
Re: Particle beams
Post by Tenshinai   » Mon Feb 13, 2017 9:03 pm

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

Weird Harold wrote:
Louis R wrote:Particles moving at the speed of light have no mass, ...


1: particles can't move at the speed of light, they can only approach light-speed.

2: as an object (particle) approaches the speed of light, its mass approaches infinity.


I believe he is referring to the duality of photons?
Top
Re: Particle beams
Post by Louis R   » Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:13 am

Louis R
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1293
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 9:25 pm

photons, in the Standard Model - and all the others i know of - _are_ particles. as it turns out, the only known massless particles. there is, however, no reason in principle why there shouldn't be others. it's only recently [relatively speaking] that it's been demonstrated that neutrinos aren't, and various others have been components of assorted extensions of the SM.

it can be shown, BTW, that c is the only possible velocity for massless particles.


Tenshinai wrote:
Weird Harold wrote:1: particles can't move at the speed of light, they can only approach light-speed.

2: as an object (particle) approaches the speed of light, its mass approaches infinity.


I believe he is referring to the duality of photons?
Top
Re: Particle beams
Post by WLBjork   » Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:30 am

WLBjork
Commander

Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:45 am

Louis R wrote:photons, in the Standard Model - and all the others i know of - _are_ particles. as it turns out, the only known massless particles. there is, however, no reason in principle why there shouldn't be others. it's only recently [relatively speaking] that it's been demonstrated that neutrinos aren't, and various others have been components of assorted extensions of the SM.

it can be shown, BTW, that c is the only possible velocity for massless particles.


That was my thinking. Just because currently we only know about photons, and we currently don't have a hypothesis that would allow light speed travel doesn't mean that can't change in the future.
Top
Re: Particle beams
Post by Louis R   » Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:13 pm

Louis R
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1293
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 9:25 pm

Actually, we do have hypotheses that allow travel at the speed of light [or faster]. All of them, however, TTBOMK, involve scrapping causality. That makes them rather unpopular, if not downright scary - and suggests that they're incorrect into the bargain. That, though, remains to be demonstrated

WLBjork wrote:
That was my thinking. Just because currently we only know about photons, and we currently don't have a hypothesis that would allow light speed travel doesn't mean that can't change in the future.
Top
Re: Particle beams
Post by Tenshinai   » Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:16 pm

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

Louis R wrote:Actually, we do have hypotheses that allow travel at the speed of light [or faster]. All of them, however, TTBOMK, involve scrapping causality. That makes them rather unpopular, if not downright scary - and suggests that they're incorrect into the bargain. That, though, remains to be demonstrated


That is entirely incorrect. Frankly i don´t know about any seirous FTL proposal that "involve scrapping causality".

And why would it? That´s just showing off that they are unable to understand what they´re talking about.

You do not go back in time by going FTL, that´s just using math badly.
Top

Return to Honorverse