Being hit by a fast particle - What would happen?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter antd
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Particle
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the effects of being hit by high-speed particles, particularly in the context of particle accelerators like the LHC. Participants explore the implications of such impacts on human health and the differences in energy levels of particles traveling at relativistic speeds.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that being hit by a proton traveling at 99% the speed of light would likely be fatal, although the exact consequences depend on various factors.
  • One participant references the case of Anatoli Bugorski, noting that while he was hit by a proton, the circumstances were unique and may not represent typical outcomes.
  • There is a distinction made between particles traveling at different speeds, with one participant emphasizing the significant difference in energy between particles at 99% and those at 99.9999991% of the speed of light.
  • Another participant points out that cosmic neutrinos, which travel at nearly the speed of light, interact very weakly with matter, suggesting that not all high-speed particles have the same effects.
  • Concerns are raised about the health risks associated with radiation exposure for individuals frequently in high-altitude environments, such as pilots and astronauts, although the link to cosmic radiation remains unclear.
  • One participant elaborates on the mechanisms of radiation damage, including the potential for secondary ionizations and spallation reactions caused by high-energy particles.
  • There is a discussion about the varying effects of radiation depending on the specific body part affected and the dose received.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the consequences of being hit by high-speed particles, with some agreeing on the potential fatality of such an event while others highlight the complexity of interactions and health risks associated with radiation exposure. No consensus is reached on the overall implications of these interactions.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the effects of radiation exposure can vary significantly based on factors such as the type of particle, energy levels, and the specific biological tissues affected. The discussion includes references to specific cases and studies, but limitations in understanding the full implications of these interactions remain evident.

antd
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
I believe we are being hit by some rays which approach the speed of light. Although I'm not sure.

However, what would happen if I was standing inside the LHC and one of their protons which is going 99% c hits me in the head?

How about an atom of iron traveling that speed? How big/dense would something need to be before it kills me traveling at 99% of the speed of light.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Note that there is a huge difference in energy between a particle traveling at 99% speed of light and one traveling at 99.9999991% of light at LHC.

The Bugorski case is probably the only case where someone has actually been hit (and that was a small accelerator), but accidents with equipment does happen. I've heard of one case at Fermilab a few years ago where the beam hit a detector and essentially drilled a hole in it. There aren't that many particles in the beam so the mass is very small, but each particle carries a LOT of energy.

Hence, if you were to get hit in the head at LHC my guess it that you would die pretty quickly.

And yes, we are constantly being hit by particles from space but the atmosphere protects us from most of it.
It is known that e.g. pilots, air stewardesses etc that spend a lot of time at height altitudes have a somewhat increased risk of cancer, although it is not quite clear if this is related to cosmic radiation or not.
 
It's not the question of being hit by such particles, but more of a "coupling strength". For example, we are being bombarded by cosmic neutrinos that travel essentially at c all the time. Yet, these are particles that interact very, very weakly with matter such that it can pass through the Earth without even noticing the Earth is there. So being hit by such a thing certainly produces no significant effects.

Zz.
 
f95toli said:
It is known that e.g. pilots, air stewardesses etc that spend a lot of time at height altitudes have a somewhat increased risk of cancer, although it is not quite clear if this is related to cosmic radiation or not.
Aircraft crews have high probability and incidence of cataracts, as well as certain cancers. Astronauts also have a greater risk of occular problems.

The effect of radiation depends on where in the body, or what vital organ is affected, and what dose. If Bugorski's brain stem or spinal cord had been irradiated, he would have died very quickly, perhaps instanteously. He was probably irradiated in the cerebellum (front/forehead) and face. Also, it was not just one proton, but a current of protons. In addition to ionizing atoms/molecules, the protons or other high energy particles displace nuclei which cause secondary ionizations over tens of microns from the particle track. Add to this the X-ray and gamma radiation (brehmsstrahlung).

In addition, high MeV particles can cause spallation reactions in which nucleons (e.g. neutrons, protons, and even deutrons, alphas, . . . . ) are ejected from the nuclei.

Standing in the path of LHC beam would likely be fatal.
 
Astronuc said:
Aircraft crews have high probability and incidence of cataracts, as well as certain cancers.

Interesting. The occupational limits for radiation exposure to the lens of the eye are 3x higher than the whole body dose. I had always assumed this was because the eye was more radiation tolerant than other tissue (e.g. bone marrow) but maybe this is the wrong conclusion and I am being misled by two factors: in a whole body exposure, many different things can go wrong, and cataracts are less serious than, say, pancreatic cancer.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K