The Fermi Paradox

@Krumple,

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/BertozziExp.svg

Data of the Bertozzi experiment show close agreement with special relativity. Kinetic energy of five electron runs: 0.5, 1, 1.5, 4.5, 15 MeV (or 1, 2, 3, 9, 30 in mc²). Speed: 0.752, 0.828, 0.922, 0.974, 1.0 in c² (or 0.867, 0.910, 0.960, 0.987, 1 in c).

Bertozzi experiment:
an experiment specifically aimed at demonstrating the relativistic effects in a very direct way was conducted by William Bertozzi (1962, 1964).[10][11] He employed the electron accelerator facility at MIT in order to initiate five electron runs, with electrons of kinetic energies between 0.5 and 15 MeV. These electrons were produced by a Van de Graaff generator and traveled a distance of 8.4 m, until they hit an aluminium disc. First, the time of flight of the electrons was measured in all five runs – the velocity data obtained were in close agreement with the relativistic expectation. However, at this stage the kinetic energy was only indirectly determined by the accelerating fields. Therefore, the heat produced by some electrons hitting the aluminium disc was measured by calorimetry in order to directly obtain their kinetic energy - those results agreed with the expected energy within 10% error margin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_relativistic_energy_and_momentum#Bertozzi_experiment

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

As you must know, this is correct in Gallilean mechanics but not in Einstein's relativity, which states that it would take infinite energy for any mass to reach C. Assuming an interstellar spaceship could possibly reach 1/2C for a 1/3 of its trip (acceleration time 1/3 of trip length, 1/2C for 1/3, and deceleration for 1/3) , a trip of 10 lightyears would take what, 30 years to complete?

I used only the definition of acceleration. I didn't comment on the degree of difficulty doing it.

For constant acceleration:

a = (v2 - v1)/(t2 - t1)

This is a definition and, therefore, always correct.

The calculation I gave is correct according to the definition of acceleration, other than the fact that you cannot actually reach the speed of light. If you prefer, consider the time I gave to be the time required to reach 99.99% the speed of light if you were able to maintain an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2, which, of course, would be tantamount to impossible. Indeed, if you were able to maintain this acceleration up to 99.99% of the speed of light and do the same in decelerating, a trip of 10 light years would take about 12 years from the point of view of an Earth bound observer. From the point of view of the travelers, it would take a much shorter amount of time, per the equations for time dilation.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Doesn't heat and humidity make a difference?

2 Replies

@oralloy,

The claims I read about Biefeld/Brown propulsion indicate that superluminary speeds should be fairly easy with it. Relativity, of course, is a pile of **** just like evolution; there is no basic law of physics to prevent superluminary speed.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

A difference to what?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

A difference to what?

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

It’s times like this that I wish your views held some credibility.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Kinetic energy. https://www.reference.com/science/temperature-relate-kinetic-energy-c7c65dcf5fe026bbhttps://www.reference.com/science/temperature-relate-kinetic-energy-c7c65dcf5fe026bb

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

One take on what is more or less known:

http://www.bearfabrique.org/Misc/electrogravitics.pdf

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

These things (accelerating particles) are done in a vacuum. And in a vacuum, there, no water vapor and almost no heat to speak of.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

If they are done in a vacuum, what value does it have?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

If they are done in a vacuum, what value does it have?

Humanity gets to explore and learn about other planets/star systems. And one day in the distant future, hopefully colonize them.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

The claims I read about Biefeld/Brown propulsion indicate that superluminary speeds should be fairly easy with it. Relativity, of course, is a pile of **** just like evolution; there is no basic law of physics to prevent superluminary speed.

I don't think we're going to be able to exceed the speed of light. No matter what method someone comes up with to get around it, I think the universe is always going to step in and say "nope".

But in a way that's a good thing. The speed of light can prevent a vastly more powerful alien race from coming to wipe us out.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

The value of fundamental research about how the universe works. Eg here, testing the theory that the speed of light is a sort of limit, a speed impossible to surpass by any object of any dimension.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

What's not correct in your reasoning is thecidea that a constant acceleration can be obtained by a constant propulsion force (engine thrust). That's only true in classic mechanics, but in Relativity, the mass of an object increases as its speed becomes significant relative to the speed of light, ie when the quotient V/C is not negligeable.

If the relativist mass of a spacecraft increases with speed, the engine thrust you need to maintain constant acceleration also increases with speed. And the theory predicts that to reach the speed of light would require an infinite amount of energy, because the object's relativist mass would become infinite, reason for which an object with any mass cannot reach the speed of light.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

What's not correct in your reasoning is thecidea that a constant acceleration can be obtained by a constant propulsion force (engine thrust). That's only true in classic mechanics, but in Relativity, the mass of an object increases as its speed becomes significant relative to the speed of light, ie when the quotient V/C is not negligeable.

If the relativist mass of a spacecraft increases with speed, the engine thrust you need to maintain constant acceleration also increases with speed. And the theory predicts that to reach the speed of light would require an infinite amount of energy, because the object's relativist mass would become infinite, reason for which an object with any mass cannot reach the speed of light.

I neither said nor implied that a constant acceleration can be obtained by a constant propulsive force.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Posters voting down facts... I guess that will make facts go away?

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

My bad, you indeed didn't imply that.

0 Replies

Came across this. It seems a little far fetched.

The Berserker hypothesis, also known as the deadly probes scenario, is the idea that humans have not yet detected intelligent alien life in the universe because it has been systematically destroyed by a series of lethal Von Neumann probes.[1][2] The hypothesis is named after the Berserker series of novels (1963–2005) written by Fred Saberhagen.[1]

The hypothesis has no single known proposer, and instead is thought to have emerged over time in response to the Hart–Tipler conjecture, the idea that an absence of detectable Von Neumann probes is contrapositive evidence that no intelligent life exists outside of the Sun's Solar System.[3] According to the Berserker hypothesis, an absence of such probes is not evidence of life's absence, since interstellar probes could "go berserk" and destroy other civilizations, before self-destructing.

In his 1983 paper "The Great Silence", astronomer David Brin summarized the frightening implications of the Berserker hypothesis: it is entirely compatible with all the facts and logic of the Fermi paradox, but would mean that there exists no intelligent life left to be discovered. In the worst-case scenario, humanity has already alerted others to its existence, and is next in line to be destroyed.

0 Replies

The Fermi Paradox

Quick Links

My Account

able2know