Relativistic speed accelerator for physics experiments in a capsule

[roineust]

Is it technologically feasible today or in the near future, to accelerate in outer space a ~0.1 gram physics experiment lab, inside a cyclic accelerator and shoot it in a straight line at a constant speed of 5%-80% of the speed of light?

That miniature capsule, must include all that is needed in order to execute experiments in many physics fields (magnetism, mechanics, particles and more), 1 experiment per capsule (many capsules) and to receive and transmit data regarding the experiment.

Here is an article i found about the worlds smallest computer:
https://powerpulse.net/worlds-smallest-computer-runs-of-16nw/

How many Gs would such a capsule experience? I read that some artillery electronic circuits, are built to withstand G forces in the order of thousands of Gs.

 

[DaveC426913]

Here' some deets about railguns that might interest you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun#Major_difficulties

 

[zoki85]

Is it technologically feasible today or in the near future, to accelerate in outer space a ~0.1 gram physics experiment lab, inside a cyclic accelerator and shoot it in a straight line at a constant speed of 5%-80% of the speed of light?

It would be very,very difficult and too expensive to build a cyclic accelerator for such purposes .
However, there are other ways to accelerate objects of small mass to 10% + fraction of speed of light.
Laser beam propulsion methods. See:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1708/1708.03556.pdf

 

[ZapperZ]

What is a "cyclic accelerator"? I know if circular accelerators, but never heard of this one.

Zz.

 

[Vanadium 50]

You are talking about a few hundred gigajoules. That's a few hundred thousand sticks of dynamite. So no.

At 1000 G's, it will take several hours to reach these speeds. So no.

In that time, your capsule will need to travel a billion miles - reach the orbit of Saturn. So no.

Over that time, your engine needs to put out millions of megawatts per kilogram. So no.

And I agree with Zz. I've never heard of a cyclic accelerator.

 

[zoki85]

My guess was he/she meant "cyclic accelerator" = cyclotron

 

[roineust]

I wrote by mistake cyclic instead of circular, with no specific kind of accelerator in mind.

 

[PeroK]

Is it technologically feasible today or in the near future, to accelerate in outer space a ~0.1 gram physics experiment lab, inside a cyclic accelerator and shoot it in a straight line at a constant speed of 5%-80% of the speed of light?

That miniature capsule, must include all that is needed in order to execute experiments in many physics fields (magnetism, mechanics, particles and more), 1 experiment per capsule (many capsules) and to receive and transmit data regarding the experiment.

Here is an article i found about the worlds smallest computer:
https://powerpulse.net/worlds-smallest-computer-runs-of-16nw/

How many Gs would such a capsule experience? I read that some artillery electronic circuits, are built to withstand G forces in the order of thousands of Gs.

If the point of this capsule is to help you accept that SR is correct, then a cheaper alternative is to buy a good textbook and study it.

 

[roineust]

If the point of this capsule is to help you accept that SR is correct, then a cheaper alternative is to buy a good textbook and study it.

Yes, but even the way very knowledgeable people, i assume including you, explain to me the 1st postulate of SR, is mostly by saying that i should accept it as a given. Why should i accept it as a given?

 

[PeroK]

Yes, but even the way very knowledgeable people, i assume including you, explain to me the 1st postulate of SR, is mostly by saying that i should accept it as a given. Why should i accept it as a given?

What's the first postulate? Let's make sure we are talking about the same thing.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why should i accept it as a given?

Because that's what a postulate is.

To-wit: If we assume X, then all of Y follows.

All of Y is observable in nature. This suggests that X is a very good candidate for describing nature.

No other competing postulate produces such spectacular agreement with observation.

And that's science, baby. It doesn't state "truth" about reality; it simply provides useful models whose success is dependent on how well they predict reality.And you need not accept it as a given. "All" you need to do is come up with a theory that models nature as good as or better than this one.

 

[roineust]

What's the first postulate? Let's make sure we are talking about the same thing.

" The laws of physics take the same form in all inertial frames of reference. "

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity

 

[anorlunda]

OK, that's interesting. How would such a capsule (if possible) shed light on that first postulate?

 

[roineust]

OK, that's interesting. How would such a capsule (if possible) shed light on that first postulate?

It would enable to accelerate whole experiments to a constant speed, many times faster than any previous attempts.

 

[DaveC426913]

It would enable to accelerate whole experiments to a constant speed, many times faster than any previous attempts.

Our experiments are already moving very very fast - from the point of view of, say, high energy muons plowing into the atmosphere.

 

[roineust]

Our experiments are already moving very very fast - from the point of view of, say, high energy muons plowing into the atmosphere.

But the sensors that are measuring the properties of the mouns plowing into the atmosphere, are not moving at a relativistic speed in relation to Earth as well.

As long as the sensor that is measuring a particle property, is not moving at a relativistic speed in relation to earth, just as the particle which property is measured, is moving in relation to the sensor and in relation to Earth at a relativistic speed, how can we know that the complete experiment equipment will give us the same results at different speed?

As much as i understand, your answer will say that it is a given by the 1st postulate i.e. that by definition, it is not based on any need to have an experiment ratification.

 

[anorlunda]

Have you read about particle accelerators such as the ones at CERN?

They observe particles at extremely high relative speeds.

 

[roineust]

Have you read about particle accelerators such as the ones at CERN?

They observe particles at extremely high relative speeds.

But the sensors that measure particle collision results are not moving at high relative speed as well.

 

[anorlunda]

But the sensors that measure particle collision results are not moving at high relative speed as well.

They are relative to the particles.

It sounds like you are confused by relative motions. Any particle, any object is moving fast relative to some reference frame. There is no such thing as absolute motion, or absolute zero velocity; only relative.

 

[roineust]

They are relative to the particles.

It sounds like you are confused by relative motions. Any particle, any object is moving fast relative to some reference frame. There is no such thing as absolute motion, or absolute zero velocity; only relative.

I think that we are currently in a chicken&egg loop, because next i will be asking you if there is experimental proof for that saying. If you would turn me back to current experiments, i will again ask you about the complete experiment speed.

Your way out of the chicken&egg loop is SR 1st postulate, mine is claiming that there is a huge speed spectrum, that complete experiments, including all experiment parts, were not exposed to.

 

[Vanadium 50]

If this is a device intended to convince the anti-relativity crackpot crowd, this is kind of pointless.

1. No evidence will ever convince this crowd. There will always be a "yeahbut...". SR is literally the best tested theory in physics. If a trillion (actually, it's more) measurements won't convince this crowd, neither will a trillion and one.
2. The idea of using SR as an engineering fact in order to test SR is ridiculous.
3. What hass been proposed is impossible anyway.

 

[ZapperZ]

I think that we are currently in a chicken&egg loop, because next i will be asking you if there is experimental proof for that saying. If you would turn me back to current experiments, i will again ask you about the complete experiment speed.

Your way out of the chicken&egg loop is SR 1st postulate, mine is claiming that there is a huge speed spectrum, that complete experiments, including all experiment parts, were not exposed to.

This is getting to be rather silly.

You posted this in the "General Engineering" forum, and now it has turned into a question on Special Relativity. If you don't think Relativity works, stop using your GPS and don't ever fly in commercial airplanes.

Secondly, I'm going to get back to your original premise, which is the engineering and physics aspect of your question.

First of all, do you know that particle accelerators only accelerates charged particles?

Secondly, do you know how much effort it took just to accelerate particles and nuclei alone? I.e. these are particles such as protons and heavy nuclei such as gold. If you want to know the type of effort needed, please look at the LHC and RHIC. It will give you a very good visual picture of the money, power, effort, etc. to do this.

So now, figure out the mass of these particles with the mass of your "~0.1 gram" object and to accelerate it do such speed. How much bigger of an effort do you think it will take? And when they go around your "cyclic accelerator", for something of that size, and probably with a huge amount of charge, how strong of a magnet, and thus, how big is the accelerator complex to be able to make these capsule to curve?

And yes, I worked in accelerator physics.

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

"The laws of physics take the same form in all inertial frames of reference. "

I think that we are currently in a chicken&egg loop, because next i will be asking you if there is experimental proof for that saying. If you would turn me back to current experiments, i will again ask you about the complete experiment speed.

Your way out of the chicken&egg loop is SR 1st postulate, mine is claiming that there is a huge speed spectrum, that complete experiments, including all experiment parts, were not exposed to.

Are you not aware that the first postulate doesn't come from Einstein, but Galileo? That you use it every day when walking or driving or sitting on your couch?

Yes, Special Relativity is weird, but you are arguing against the wrong part! You are arguing against the part you already know and use and accept!

It would enable to accelerate whole experiments to a constant speed, many times faster than any previous attempts.

Setting aside muon observations, very accurate at lower speed is just as good as less accurate at higher speed. So if you don't already accept the very accurate lower speed experiments (er -- are you even aware of them?) why would you accept the higher speed ones? What, exactly, do you want to see?

 

[weirdoguy]

are you even aware of them?

Probably not, as been shown already here: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-shouldnt-i-be-skeptical-about-sr-postulate-no-1.984403/ The OP has many basic misunderstandings, and it seems that he is unwilling to let them go.

Your way out of the chicken&egg loop is SR 1st postulate, mine is claiming that there is a huge speed spectrum, that complete experiments, including all experiment parts, were not exposed to.

And our way out is supported by zilions of experiments and yours is supported by nothing. Do you understand that right now you are moving with relativistic speeds with respect to a lot of things around the Earth? If not, then you are stuck in the pre-Galilean times. It's ok to sometimes feel uncomfortable with how Universe works, I think we've all been through this, but in the end it's our problem not the Universe's.

 

[DaveC426913]

Do you understand that right now you are moving with relativistic speeds with respect to a lot of things around the Earth?

This is a good point (made by others too, but it kind of simplifies the answer to the OP's question).

Our own Satellites in orbit (indeed, commercial jets) are moving relative to us with a significant enough speed that we observe relativistic effects.

@roineust: What do you hope that a large fraction of c will show that a small fraction of c isn't already showing?

 

[Ibix]

@roineust: What do you hope that a large fraction of c will show that a small fraction of c isn't already showing?

That question is, for good reason, somewhat loaded on PF. Unless @roineust has an acceptable peer-reviewed reference, the only possible answers are "nothing in particular" or "I have this personal theory". The former is just what-about-ery ("I know theory holds up at [maximum velocity experiment we can find], but what about 1m/s faster?" - rinse and repeat) while the latter is plainly against the rules.

The point, of course, is that the only way this kind of experiment is worth doing is if there is some plausible quantitative theory that predicts a measurable difference from relativity theory at some specified velocity. Without those last two criteria it's more or less a waste of time - this is no more likely to reveal a problem with relativity than any other line of investigation, and we always get "...but what if we tried again with slightly more precise kit and just a bit faster...". And the first step in making a theory plausible is getting it past peer review.

 

[zoki85]

Oh dear, I thought he was interested in sending tiny satellites into deep space for normal research purposes...

 

[anorlunda]

I'm afraid this thread went down the rabbit hole. The OP has been told in many ways why his personal logic is wrong.

Thread closed.