At what speed do atoms start tearing apart?

[Dan7777777]

At what speed do atoms start tearing apart?

(The paragraph bellow tells why I want the answer to this question.)
According to Stephen Hawking, when an object approaches the speed of light, the natural forces causes time to slow down so no matter how fast an object goes, it can never reach the speed of light. In my opinion, this is a very interesting idea regarding time travel because if we were to build a spacecraft that can travel 99% the speed of light then even if it literally take hundreds of years for us to reach the nearest star, to us, it would feel like it took a lot less time than it really did since our speed would cause time in our space to slow down. Wouldn't this kill us or would we survive because everything in our space would technically be in slow motion. Maybe we would even be dying in slow motion.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Where does Hawking say that atoms are being torn apart?

 

[falcon32]

Interesting question.
No, time dilation has no bearing on whether an atom can be destroyed or not. To answer your question, let's look at Galactic Cosmic Rays, mostly highly accelerated protons from supernovas. These have been observed to have speeds of up to 99.999% of the speed of light. These protons have not flow apart into gamma rays yet. That's not to say they wouldn't, but it's highly unlikely.
Why? For something to fly apart, there needs to be internal resistances at work. I suspect that a highly accelerated particle moving through empty space encounters no resistance. In fact, we can be pretty sure that the proton will fly through space forever in a straight line, unless something like a magnetic field affects it.

Hope this answers your question. :)

 

[Isaacsname]

Interesting, I have a question/s that's related to this, I think..

For the twins paradox, this involves one twin moving in a direction away from their twin at the speed of light, than traveling back to that original point in space-time, this apparently allows time dilation ( if I understand it correctly ).

What happens if the same twin were shrunk to the size of a particle, pick a particle, and accelerated in a circular track at light speed next to their twin on Earth ?

Would time dilation still occur without the one twin traveling away from the other, but merely traveling at the same speed of the twin in the original paradox ?

I'm confuzzled

 

[loveman]

It doesn't matter about the direction, it is only the speed that is needed for the twins paradox.
Interesting that you mentioned trying it out with particles. This has been done using muons. Muons only normally exist for a few millionths of a second (you can create them by smashing other particles together in a collider). If the muons are accelerated up to close to the speed of light then they live a lot longer before decaying, this is proof of time dilation. By the way, to the original poster dansevensevens, i don't think stephen hawking would lay claim to the theory of relativity!

 

[loveman]

Anyway, back to the original question - it might be that eventually, space will be expanding so rapidly that particles do get torn apart. Google for 'the big rip' to read about that one.

 

[Drakkith]

Dan, look at it from the atoms frame of reference. To the atom, it can easily say that it isn't moving at all, but it is the rest of the universe that is moving. There is no difference in velocities for its components as a whole, so there is no force to tear it apart. Also, for anything traveling at near c speeds, they don't perceive time as being slow for themselves.

 

[HallsofIvy]

At what speed do atoms start tearing apart?

(The paragraph bellow tells why I want the answer to this question.)
According to Stephen Hawking, when an object approaches the speed of light, the natural forces causes time to slow down so no matter how fast an object goes, it can never reach the speed of light. In my opinion, this is a very interesting idea regarding time travel because if we were to build a spacecraft that can travel 99% the speed of light then even if it literally take hundreds of years for us to reach the nearest star, to us, it would feel like it took a lot less time than it really did since our speed would cause time in our space to slow down. Wouldn't this kill us or would we survive because everything in our space would technically be in slow motion. Maybe we would even be dying in slow motion.

This is a very old idea- used in many science fiction stories. The whole point of "relativity" is that in the frame of the space ship, everything appears to be in normal time. It is only "relative" to 'motionless' things, such are the Earth or the star you are going to (since you are moving near the speed of light relative to them) that you will appear to have slowed.

 

[KBT]

At what speed do atoms start tearing apart?

This is a good question. It depends on what reference frame the atoms are moving with respect to. I'm moving at nearly the speed of light with respect to some reference frame, and the atoms that I am composed of aren't tearing apart. (I hope.) But now suppose a composite atom is moving at high velocity with respect to the cosmic microwave background.

I suspect that a highly accelerated particle moving through empty space encounters no resistance. In fact, we can be pretty sure that the proton will fly through space forever in a straight line, unless something like a magnetic field affects it.

To the atom, it can easily say that it isn't moving at all, but it is the rest of the universe that is moving. There is no difference in velocities for its components as a whole, so there is no force to tear it apart.

How about the electromagnetic field of a highly doppler shifted CMB photon? The CMB counts as a part of the rest of the universe, correct? It's also rather hard to avoid when moving through the universe. If an atom was moving fast enough to see the CMB ahead of it as a bath of gamma radiation, it might induce photodisintegration.

Take a typical CMB photon at 160 GHz. How fast would the atom have to move to see it blue shifted to 10²⁰ Hz? (I don't know if this is enough energy to induce photodisintegration in an atom, but it's gamma ray energy, probably close enough for illustration purposes.) A quick calculation shows that v/c would differ from one by only ~10^-18.

Needless to say, this is a very high energy atom. It wouldn't need to be so high to just get knocked out of it's straight line path though, rather than photodisintegrate.

Just my thoughts.
KBT

 

[HallsofIvy]

The fundamental error in this thread is that there is a speed at which things "start tearing apart". Again, speed is relative. If you are moving at very high speed through the air, then, yes, that difference in speed can start tearing things apart- and if you trying to move through the earth, or bricks, or another vehicle, the "tear apart" speed isn't all that high!

But it isn't the speed alone that causes any difficulty- it is crashing into things (even if only molecules of air) that causes thing to "break apart".

 

[mquirce]

I think that the mass particles have a pecularity, they have a kind of own velocity :
Vg= (G*Mx/Rx)^0.5. From the velosity of particle in space particle not disintegrated but tend toward mini so called black holes. Modern physics negate the mass became larger and radius smaller from the velocity but maybe this is wrong.
About the relativity of mass particle in space i supose that exept relativity toward other object
the particle has a relativity between own gravity velosity and the velocity of light. When the particle with mass reach the velocity near the velocity of light it becomes a so colled black holes with mass not infinit but M0 * Vg/C.
Isn't this a posibility?

 

[Drakkith]

When the particle with mass reach the velocity near the velocity of light it becomes a so colled black holes with mass not infinit but M0 * Vg/C.
Isn't this a posibility?

Negative. This does not happen. The rest mass of an object does not increase. The momentum of the object does however. An object traveling at 99% the speed of light does not produce more gravity than it does if it is at 1% the speed of light. It will never collapse into a black hole.

The concept of increasing mass is a misunderstanding I believe. The momentum has increased which means that it has more inertia, but not mass.

 

[Isaacsname]

It doesn't matter about the direction, it is only the speed that is needed for the twins paradox.
Interesting that you mentioned trying it out with particles. This has been done using muons. Muons only normally exist for a few millionths of a second (you can create them by smashing other particles together in a collider). If the muons are accelerated up to close to the speed of light then they live a lot longer before decaying, this is proof of time dilation. By the way, to the original poster dansevensevens, i don't think stephen hawking would lay claim to the theory of relativity!

Interesting. Thank you.