At what speed do atoms start tearing apart?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Dan7777777
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Atoms Speed
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the question of at what speed atoms begin to tear apart, exploring the implications of high-speed travel, time dilation, and the behavior of particles at relativistic speeds. Participants examine theoretical scenarios, including the effects of cosmic rays and the twins paradox, while also referencing concepts from relativity and particle physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the connection between speed and the destruction of atoms, suggesting that time dilation does not directly affect atomic integrity.
  • Others propose that highly accelerated particles, such as cosmic rays, do not disintegrate despite their high speeds, indicating that internal forces are necessary for tearing apart atoms.
  • A participant raises a hypothetical scenario involving the twins paradox and asks whether time dilation would still occur if one twin were shrunk to the size of a particle and accelerated at light speed.
  • Some argue that the reference frame of the atoms matters, as they may perceive themselves as stationary relative to the universe, which could influence whether they experience forces that would tear them apart.
  • One participant introduces the concept of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and questions how high-speed motion relative to it might lead to phenomena like photodisintegration.
  • Another participant emphasizes that speed alone does not cause tearing apart; rather, it is the interaction with other matter that leads to disintegration.
  • A claim is made regarding the peculiar behavior of mass particles and their velocity, suggesting a relationship between their own gravitational velocity and the speed of light, although this is met with skepticism.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the relationship between speed and atomic integrity, with no consensus reached. Some agree that speed alone is not sufficient to cause disintegration, while others explore various theoretical implications without settling on a definitive answer.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on reference frames, unresolved assumptions about particle behavior at high speeds, and the complexity of interactions with external fields or particles. The discussion remains open-ended regarding the conditions under which atoms might tear apart.

Dan7777777
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
At what speed do atoms start tearing apart?

(The paragraph bellow tells why I want the answer to this question.)
According to Stephen Hawking, when an object approaches the speed of light, the natural forces causes time to slow down so no matter how fast an object goes, it can never reach the speed of light. In my opinion, this is a very interesting idea regarding time travel because if we were to build a spacecraft that can travel 99% the speed of light then even if it literally take hundreds of years for us to reach the nearest star, to us, it would feel like it took a lot less time than it really did since our speed would cause time in our space to slow down. Wouldn't this kill us or would we survive because everything in our space would technically be in slow motion. Maybe we would even be dying in slow motion.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Where does Hawking say that atoms are being torn apart?
 
Interesting question.
No, time dilation has no bearing on whether an atom can be destroyed or not. To answer your question, let's look at Galactic Cosmic Rays, mostly highly accelerated protons from supernovas. These have been observed to have speeds of up to 99.999% of the speed of light. These protons have not flow apart into gamma rays yet. That's not to say they wouldn't, but it's highly unlikely.
Why? For something to fly apart, there needs to be internal resistances at work. I suspect that a highly accelerated particle moving through empty space encounters no resistance. In fact, we can be pretty sure that the proton will fly through space forever in a straight line, unless something like a magnetic field affects it.

Hope this answers your question. :)
 
Interesting, I have a question/s that's related to this, I think..

For the twins paradox, this involves one twin moving in a direction away from their twin at the speed of light, than traveling back to that original point in space-time, this apparently allows time dilation ( if I understand it correctly ).

What happens if the same twin were shrunk to the size of a particle, pick a particle, and accelerated in a circular track at light speed next to their twin on Earth ?

Would time dilation still occur without the one twin traveling away from the other, but merely traveling at the same speed of the twin in the original paradox ?

I'm confuzzled
 
It doesn't matter about the direction, it is only the speed that is needed for the twins paradox.
Interesting that you mentioned trying it out with particles. This has been done using muons. Muons only normally exist for a few millionths of a second (you can create them by smashing other particles together in a collider). If the muons are accelerated up to close to the speed of light then they live a lot longer before decaying, this is proof of time dilation. By the way, to the original poster dansevensevens, i don't think stephen hawking would lay claim to the theory of relativity!
 
Anyway, back to the original question - it might be that eventually, space will be expanding so rapidly that particles do get torn apart. Google for 'the big rip' to read about that one.
 
Dan, look at it from the atoms frame of reference. To the atom, it can easily say that it isn't moving at all, but it is the rest of the universe that is moving. There is no difference in velocities for its components as a whole, so there is no force to tear it apart. Also, for anything traveling at near c speeds, they don't perceive time as being slow for themselves.
 
Dan7777777 said:
At what speed do atoms start tearing apart?

(The paragraph bellow tells why I want the answer to this question.)
According to Stephen Hawking, when an object approaches the speed of light, the natural forces causes time to slow down so no matter how fast an object goes, it can never reach the speed of light. In my opinion, this is a very interesting idea regarding time travel because if we were to build a spacecraft that can travel 99% the speed of light then even if it literally take hundreds of years for us to reach the nearest star, to us, it would feel like it took a lot less time than it really did since our speed would cause time in our space to slow down. Wouldn't this kill us or would we survive because everything in our space would technically be in slow motion. Maybe we would even be dying in slow motion.
This is a very old idea- used in many science fiction stories. The whole point of "relativity" is that in the frame of the space ship, everything appears to be in normal time. It is only "relative" to 'motionless' things, such are the Earth or the star you are going to (since you are moving near the speed of light relative to them) that you will appear to have slowed.
 
Dan7777777 said:
At what speed do atoms start tearing apart?

This is a good question. It depends on what reference frame the atoms are moving with respect to. I'm moving at nearly the speed of light with respect to some reference frame, and the atoms that I am composed of aren't tearing apart. (I hope.) But now suppose a composite atom is moving at high velocity with respect to the cosmic microwave background.

falcon32 said:
I suspect that a highly accelerated particle moving through empty space encounters no resistance. In fact, we can be pretty sure that the proton will fly through space forever in a straight line, unless something like a magnetic field affects it.

Drakkith said:
To the atom, it can easily say that it isn't moving at all, but it is the rest of the universe that is moving. There is no difference in velocities for its components as a whole, so there is no force to tear it apart.

How about the electromagnetic field of a highly doppler shifted CMB photon? The CMB counts as a part of the rest of the universe, correct? It's also rather hard to avoid when moving through the universe. If an atom was moving fast enough to see the CMB ahead of it as a bath of gamma radiation, it might induce photodisintegration.

Take a typical CMB photon at 160 GHz. How fast would the atom have to move to see it blue shifted to 1020 Hz? (I don't know if this is enough energy to induce photodisintegration in an atom, but it's gamma ray energy, probably close enough for illustration purposes.) A quick calculation shows that v/c would differ from one by only ~10-18.

Needless to say, this is a very high energy atom. It wouldn't need to be so high to just get knocked out of it's straight line path though, rather than photodisintegrate.

Just my thoughts.
KBT
 
  • #10
The fundamental error in this thread is that there is a speed at which things "start tearing apart". Again, speed is relative. If you are moving at very high speed through the air, then, yes, that difference in speed can start tearing things apart- and if you trying to move through the earth, or bricks, or another vehicle, the "tear apart" speed isn't all that high!

But it isn't the speed alone that causes any difficulty- it is crashing into things (even if only molecules of air) that causes thing to "break apart".
 
  • #11
I think that the mass particles have a pecularity, they have a kind of own velocity :
Vg= (G*Mx/Rx)^0.5. From the velosity of particle in space particle not disintegrated but tend toward mini so called black holes. Modern physics negate the mass became larger and radius smaller from the velocity but maybe this is wrong.
About the relativity of mass particle in space i supose that exept relativity toward other object
the particle has a relativity between own gravity velosity and the velocity of light. When the particle with mass reach the velocity near the velocity of light it becomes a so colled black holes with mass not infinit but M0 * Vg/C.
Isn't this a posibility?
 
  • #12
mquirce said:
When the particle with mass reach the velocity near the velocity of light it becomes a so colled black holes with mass not infinit but M0 * Vg/C.
Isn't this a posibility?

Negative. This does not happen. The rest mass of an object does not increase. The momentum of the object does however. An object traveling at 99% the speed of light does not produce more gravity than it does if it is at 1% the speed of light. It will never collapse into a black hole.

The concept of increasing mass is a misunderstanding I believe. The momentum has increased which means that it has more inertia, but not mass.
 
  • #13
loveman said:
It doesn't matter about the direction, it is only the speed that is needed for the twins paradox.
Interesting that you mentioned trying it out with particles. This has been done using muons. Muons only normally exist for a few millionths of a second (you can create them by smashing other particles together in a collider). If the muons are accelerated up to close to the speed of light then they live a lot longer before decaying, this is proof of time dilation. By the way, to the original poster dansevensevens, i don't think stephen hawking would lay claim to the theory of relativity!

Interesting. Thank you.
 

Similar threads

High School Let me ask a thing about the Speed of Light
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
High School How to add an object's multiple relativistic speeds from x, y, and z?
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
Graduate On the relativity of time and speed
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Graduate What is the fastest speed we can travel in space?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
High School Special relativity thought: Traveling to the future relative to a particle
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
Undergrad A question about the speed of light and electromagnetism
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
Undergrad Remark on centrifugal force in Heino Falcke's black hole book
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
Undergrad Is the concept of a one-way speed of light meaningful and measurable?
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
Why can’t we observe all regions of the universe?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
763
Undergrad Atomic Clock Speed graph between two stationary masses
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K