If you were shot by a grain of sand(at lightspeed)

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: ironwing
:music:
Shot through the heart
With small quartz grain;
darkxshade, you give love
A bad name.

[shakes fist @ ironwing] damn you!...damn you to hell!...now I'll have that dumbass song in my head for the rest of the day.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Kazaam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoli_Bugorski

Seeing as PROTONS caused that much damage, I'd be willing to bet a grain of sand would decimate a person at the impact point. Grain of sand is much larger than a proton, and would be able to impart much more energy to the target. I.e. it would destroy wherever the person was hit. Would it kill them? Depends on where (foot/hand might not kill a person, but any torso/head shot would).


As a side note, are the Russians that stupid as to work on running machines/reactors (this and Chernobyl) on a regular basis? It seems as though anytime you hear about those "freak" science accidents, it's always in Russia.

 

[invidia]

Originally posted by: tfcmasta97
Are you guys fucking morons? bounce off of your skin?

The hadron collider is smashing what, 2 protons together in a vacuum? [not nearly the speed of light] and the force of those 2 are to be equal to some ship traveling on the ocean [weird analogy but yeah that's what was said]

Would you die? depends on where you get hit id guess

Bounce off the skin?? LMAO, where's the idiot who said that?

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Eli
No. No matter where it went through your body, the number of cells a single grain of sand would kill would be pretty insignificant.

It wouldn't take very many to prove lethal though.

Although, a grain of sand moving at the speed of light would probably make a pretty nasty exit wound. But as far as just passing through you, I don't think it would be lethal.

if the grain of sand is really traveling at light speed (or close enough to it), it's essentially been converted to energy.

A small nuclear bomb turns roughly 1 gram of mass into energy, giving about 20kt of explosive yield. A grain of sand weighs say, half a milligram. So this grain of sand would have the energy content of about 1/2000 of a nuclear weapon. Meaning somewhere in the range of a few tons of explosive yield. I doubt you'd find so much as two cells stuck together after that.

 

[BlackTigers]

Originally posted by: invidia

Originally posted by: tfcmasta97
Are you guys fucking morons? bounce off of your skin?

The hadron collider is smashing what, 2 protons together in a vacuum? [not nearly the speed of light] and the force of those 2 are to be equal to some ship traveling on the ocean [weird analogy but yeah that's what was said]

Would you die? depends on where you get hit id guess

Bounce off the skin?? LMAO, where's the idiot who said that?

Originally posted by: hiromizu
I think you guys are thinking way too scientifically to the point where you can't even get realistic answers. In reality, you'll feel a small pinch and the grain will bounce right off. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Eli
No. No matter where it went through your body, the number of cells a single grain of sand would kill would be pretty insignificant.

It wouldn't take very many to prove lethal though.

Although, a grain of sand moving at the speed of light would probably make a pretty nasty exit wound. But as far as just passing through you, I don't think it would be lethal.

if the grain of sand is really traveling at light speed (or close enough to it), it's essentially been converted to energy.

A small nuclear bomb turns roughly 1 gram of mass into energy, giving about 20kt of explosive yield. A grain of sand weighs say, half a milligram. So this grain of sand would have the energy content of about 1/2000 of a nuclear weapon. Meaning somewhere in the range of a few tons of explosive yield. I doubt you'd find so much as two cells stuck together after that.

That'd be crazy - floating along in space in your spacesuit, like in LEO, and one of these things hits the guy next to you.
One minute you're working on a satellite, the next, your buddy exploded.

(Explosive decompression? Or maybe just explosive disemboweling.)

Originally posted by: mjrpes3

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Did you not read the part that it was hypothetical???

You can't make hypothetical what is illogical. Positing an object moving at the speed of light is like positing a triangle with two right angles. It's just not logically possible and the triangle ends up not being a triangle anymore.

Think like a mathematician:

"Assume a triangle can have two right angles."
The continue your argument as if this wasn't any big deal. 😛

 

[JTsyo]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: mjrpes3

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Did you not read the part that it was hypothetical???

You can't make hypothetical what is illogical. Positing an object moving at the speed of light is like positing a triangle with two right angles. It's just not logically possible and the triangle ends up not being a triangle anymore.

Think like a mathematician:

"Assume a triangle can have two right angles."
The continue your argument as if this wasn't any big deal. 😛

Or just draw the triangle on a sphere 😉

 

[Phokus]

We should email a physicist and ask him.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Kazaam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoli_Bugorski

Seeing as PROTONS caused that much damage, I'd be willing to bet a grain of sand would decimate a person at the impact point. Grain of sand is much larger than a proton, and would be able to impart much more energy to the target. I.e. it would destroy wherever the person was hit. Would it kill them? Depends on where (foot/hand might not kill a person, but any torso/head shot would).


As a side note, are the Russians that stupid as to work on running machines/reactors (this and Chernobyl) on a regular basis? It seems as though anytime you hear about those "freak" science accidents, it's always in Russia.

Have to keep in mind that in a collider, we're essentially talking about a continuous beam. I seriously doubt the guy's face was absolutely still while a continuous beam of energy (high energy particles) bored holes through him. It'd be like you trying to walk through a continuous laser beam. Moving causes more damage than staying still.

A single grain of sand moving at the speed of light is going to cause instantaneous damage about the size of the grain of sand, along with cauterization of the wound due to high energy thermal reaction.

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
it would vaporize you and the earth and the entire universe. The gravity generated from the infinite mass would immediately implode everything.

Wrong. The particle of sand doesn't have infinite mass. It requires infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light, as well as maintain said momentum.

 

[sdifox]

I hope Dr. Pizza doesn't show this thread to his goats. They will faint.

 

[Modelworks]

Would the grain of sand continue on a straight path or would its path change when it contacts the body ? Resulting in not a straight hole passing through but a slightly curved one.

 

[TridenT]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Would the grain of sand continue on a straight path or would its path change when it contacts the body ? Resulting in not a straight hole passing through but a slightly curved one.

It'll go straight.

 

[Matthiasa]

As said already, any percentage of infinite is still going to be infinite.
Let?s just assume that grain of sand is not traveling at C, maybe it?s only traveling at .999999999C and that it weighs 6.7*10^-5 kg. At that speed the kinetic energy of the grain of sand would be something like 1.346*10^17 J

Originally posted by: mjrpes3

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Did you not read the part that it was hypothetical???

You can't make hypothetical what is illogical. Positing an object moving at the speed of light is like positing a triangle with two right angles. It's just not logically possible and the triangle ends up not being a triangle anymore.

You can have a triangle with 2 right angles though, unlike a piece of sand traveling at C.

 

[swaytech]

Originally posted by: Train
plus we dont know the physics of being in proximity of mass traveling the speed of light. Science as we know it today says mass CAN'T travel that fast.

If you think about a hyper sonic bullet, (50 cal) it can travel past you (technically not touching you) yet still rip you in half because of the vaccum it creates.

This is what I was thinking. Would the vacuum from the grain of sand own you?

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: Matthiasa

Originally posted by: mjrpes3

Originally posted by: zerocool84
Did you not read the part that it was hypothetical???

You can't make hypothetical what is illogical. Positing an object moving at the speed of light is like positing a triangle with two right angles. It's just not logically possible and the triangle ends up not being a triangle anymore.

You can have a triangle with 2 right angles though, unlike a piece of sand traveling at C.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *****gasp***** HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


You fail at geometry. :laugh:

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: Matthiasa

You can have a triangle with 2 right angles

Eh?

 

[Gothgar]

the grain of sand is traveling at the speed of light relative to you or some other object in space?

Maybe he meant the grain of sand is traveling the speed of light relative to the farthest outreach of the universe, which is expanding at the speed of light (theoretically) then.... ooohhhh my brain hurts

 

[Matthiasa]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: Matthiasa

Originally posted by: mjrpes3

Originally posted by: zerocool84
Did you not read the part that it was hypothetical???

You can't make hypothetical what is illogical. Positing an object moving at the speed of light is like positing a triangle with two right angles. It's just not logically possible and the triangle ends up not being a triangle anymore.

You can have a triangle with 2 right angles though, unlike a piece of sand traveling at C.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *****gasp***** HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


You fail at geometry. :laugh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...e#Non-planar_triangles
More like you do :laugh:
Oh and that's not even counting lines which can also be thought of as triangles with 2 right angles.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: Gothgar
the grain of sand is traveling at the speed of light relative to you or some other object in space?

Maybe he meant the grain of sand is traveling the speed of light relative to the farthest outreach of the universe, which is expanding at the speed of light (theoretically) then.... ooohhhh my brain hurts

There is no relative when it comes to the speed of light. it's one of the oddities of the universe, and this fact is what makes the general theory of relativity true.

EX: if you're on a train that's moving at .8C, and you shine a light to the back of the train, it's still going to reach the back of the train at 1C, not .2C. Galilean kinematics does not compute.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: nineball9

Originally posted by: Arkaign
A similar concept is the interaction between us and neutrinos. These are exceptionally tiny particles that travel at incredibly high velocities, and they pass through us constantly without any discernible damage whatsoever. They do have mass as well, albeit they are still relatively tiny in scale :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File😛roton_proton_cycle.png

Neutrinos vary rarely interact with other matter all because they interact through the Weak Force. They don't "pass through space in atoms" as someone posted - they simply do not interact with other matter except rarely. Every day collisions you see on a macroscopic level interact through the electromagnetic force.

When a batter hits a baseball, the ball is hit because of electromagnetic force interactions between the bat and the ball. A hypothetical baseball made of neutrinos would be impossible to hit.

It was me. I know they interact through the Weak Force, the point being that because it is so weak (10^-13 times the force of the Strong Force) it has a pitiful range ~10^-17 m. For comparison a helium atom is 6.2 x 10^-11 m in diameter, of which the nucleus is about 10^-15 m. So the nucleus represents 0.001% of the total atom diameter.

For the neutrino to have any chance of interacting it has to hit the nucleus. Which most of the time it will not.

I just couldn't be bothered explaining all that at the time.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: JTsyo

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Think like a mathematician:

"Assume a triangle can have two right angles."
The continue your argument as if this wasn't any big deal. 😛

Or just draw the triangle on a sphere 😉

Euclid would not approve.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: Matthiasa

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: Matthiasa

Originally posted by: mjrpes3

Originally posted by: zerocool84
Did you not read the part that it was hypothetical???

You can't make hypothetical what is illogical. Positing an object moving at the speed of light is like positing a triangle with two right angles. It's just not logically possible and the triangle ends up not being a triangle anymore.

You can have a triangle with 2 right angles though, unlike a piece of sand traveling at C.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *****gasp***** HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


You fail at geometry. :laugh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...e#Non-planar_triangles
More like you do :laugh:
Oh and that's not even counting lines which can also be thought of as triangles with 2 right angles.

Maybe a picture will be helpful as well
http://www.math.cornell.edu/~mec/tripleright.jpg

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: Matthiasa

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: Matthiasa
You can have a triangle with 2 right angles though, unlike a piece of sand traveling at C.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *****gasp***** HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


You fail at geometry. :laugh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...e#Non-planar_triangles
More like you do :laugh:
Oh and that's not even counting lines which can also be thought of as triangles with 2 right angles.

Maybe a picture will be helpful as well
http://www.math.cornell.edu/~mec/tripleright.jpg

Ouch, a non-Euclidean bite in the ass, delivered fresh to SunnyD.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

And, would you cut it out already? Mass CANNOT travel at the speed of light. As soon as you say that it is traveling at the speed of light (hypothetically), you are imparting INFINITE MASS AND ENERGY to the sand. So, for the "it'll only impart a small percentage of its energy" camp: what's a small percentage of INFINITE??

The only thing that relativity says about travelling at the speed of light is that you can not conventionally accelerate the grain of sand up to the speed of light.

Essentially FTL travel isn't theoretically impossible (but that is another discussion).

"Any finite number divided by infinity is as near nothing as makes no odds." 😉

Thus infinity divided by a finite number is as near infinity as make no odds.

 

[mjrpes3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...e#Non-planar_triangles
More like you do :laugh:
Oh and that's not even counting lines which can also be thought of as triangles with 2 right angles.

Silly boy... didn't think it necessary to preface my example with "given a Euclidean space and three points on a plane... etc etc" 🙂