Can a Relativistic Impact Drill a Hole Through Earth?

AI Thread Summary
A hypothetical object with a radius of 100 m and a speed of 299,792,455 m/s could potentially drill a hole through Earth due to its immense kinetic energy, estimated at 1.17x10^10 kg. The impact's outcome would vary significantly based on whether the object is rigid or liquid-like, affecting how it interacts with Earth's material. The energy transfer during impact raises questions about the motion of material in the object's path, with concerns about creating degenerate or neutron matter. The discussion suggests that the object's composition may be less critical than the energy dynamics involved. Overall, the scenario presents intriguing implications for hypervelocity impacts on Earth.
John Clement Husain
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
If I were to have an object that is floating in space, with a radius of 100 m , that is going to crash unto Earth from a distance of 94,725,000 m and a speed of 299,792,455 m/s, how will it affect earth?(in terms of recoil or rebound.)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hmm, let me put that as 1.17x1010 kg
 
Is has enough energy to drill a hole through Earth. It has enough energy to move the whole column of material at 70000km/s in the end (unless I made a mistake, which is likely).
I'm no expert at hypervelocity impacts but I don't think there is enough time for a sideways motion of the material in the path of the Thing. But I also don't see how the energy would get transferred to that column of material. Probably it would create a layer of degenerate or even neutron matter on impact, that would get thicker as the Thing moves through the Earth.
Also I don't think it really matters what the Thing is made of.
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Similar threads

Equations for a mass falling to Earth from a distance
Replies
3
Views
2K
Moment of impact in sports, what's really going on?
Replies
4
Views
2K
B Asteroid 2024 BX1 entered Earth's atmosphere over Germany 21 Jan 2024
Replies
1
Views
2K
B How far away can a World So Newly Born Be at relativistic velocities?
Replies
18
Views
1K
Time to fall through a hole in Earth, but not through center
Replies
1
Views
2K
Velocity required to escape the solar system
Replies
15
Views
1K
Impact Force of a falling object causing it to spread out
Replies
2
Views
3K
Why Does the PREM Model Predict Increasing Acceleration Towards Earth's Core?
Replies
5
Views
2K
Jackhammer on Vehicle Suspension, Unsprung Mass, Tire patch load
Replies
13
Views
3K
I Question on the energy needed to go at a relativistic speed
Replies
30
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top