[Harri (OP)]

At CERN super conducting magnets are used in the LHC to propel particles at speed. Is it possible to use this method to propel bigger objects at these speeds?

[alancalverd]

Yes and no!

Maglev and magnetic propulsion systems are used for all sorts of vehicles up to large passenger trains, but accelerating anything heavier than a nucleus to relativistic speeds demands rather more power than is available on this planet.   

[Harri (OP)]

If we cannot accelerate anything bigger than a nucleus to such speeds are there experiments to show just what would happen if we could? Otherwise is the fact that mass increases infinitely along with the energy required based on math and theory ? And the mass accelerated close to the speed of light slows to a standstill in time, is this based on math and theory too?

[Bored chemist]

At CERN super conducting magnets are used in the LHC to propel particles at speed. Is it possible to use this method to propel bigger objects at these speeds?

The magnets aren't really used to accelerate things (in the conventional sense) .
They are used to steer the particles in a circle.

[Origin]

Otherwise the fact that mass increases to infinite along with the energy required is based on math and theory is it?

Just a theory indicates you don't understand what a theory is.  In layman's terms you can equate theory as meaning fact.  There have many thousands of experiments (CERN is one) that shows relativity is correct.

Plus as the speed of light a mass would not be affected by time?

It is not possible for matter to move at the speed of light, so the question is moot.

[Harri (OP)]

Origin you are correct. I have a laymans interpretation of 'theory'.

I have a theory concerning relativity - I go away and test that theory - the theory proves to be correct - then I have a fact.

I have a theory concerning quantum mechanics - I go away and test that theory - the theory proves to be correct - then I have a fact.

As a layman, the 'fact' that they cannot be unified means that they remain theories.  So I guess my issue is I have problems unifying theory and fact?

And yes matter cannot travel at the speed of light so the question is debatable.

[Halc]

Is it possible to use this method to propel bigger objects at these speeds?

Rail guns have been proposed to launch ore from the moon, to launch rockets (up the side of Hawaii say) a good deal of the way into orbit, and as weapons on modern navy vessels.

'At these speeds' is the sticking point. Something like any accelerator gets objects up to just under the speed of light. Any addition energy put into them (at LHC for instance) just adds mass to the particles without making them move appreciably faster.  No, you're not going to get something as large as a bullet to move that fast. There's nowhere near enough energy in the planet for that, and the object would vaporize immediately if not in a vacuum.

[Halc]

And the mass accelerated close to the speed of light slows to a standstill in time, is this based on math and theory too?

Proper time for any object is unaffected, meaning anybody riding along will not see a slowdown of the clock. As always, in the frame of the relativistic bullet, it's everybody else's clock that slows down.

Yes, time dilation has been repeatedly demonstrated by accelerating crude clocks to near light speed. Don't even need expensive equipment to do it. The muon measurements are evidence enough. Muons make excellent teeny clocks.

[Halc]

I go away and test that theory - the theory proves to be correct - then I have a fact.

Doesn't work that way. Passing the test makes it more likely to be fact, but 'fact' implies a proof of sort, and there's no proof most of the time. Most of empirical evidence lends abductive evidence for a theory, but abduction isn't proof. So it's sort of fact until demonstrated otherwise.

As a layman, the 'fact' that they cannot be unified means that they remain theories.

That the can't be unified means they're both incomplete, descriptive of special cases only, even most of them, but not all cases. It means there's work to be done, and when they finally come out with a unified theory, it will still be a theory, not fact.

[alancalverd]

I have a theory concerning relativity - I go away and test that theory - the theory proves to be correct - then I have a fact.

No. The facts are what you observe. The theory is how you think the observations are linked to other facts.

[evan_au]

At CERN super conducting magnets are used in the LHC to propel particles at speed.

What actually accelerates the particle is an electric field.
An atomic nucleus (eg a proton) has a positive charge, and is attracted by a negative charge.
By arranging many high-powered microwave ovens around the LHC ring, they can arrange it so that the proton sees a negative voltage just in front of it (so it goes faster), but when the microwaves reverse polarity, they shield the protons in a "drift tube". That way, the proton keeps going faster and faster.

The protons actually lose energy when they reach a magnet, because bending the path of the protons causes them to emit electromagnetic energy and lose speed. So there has to be an accelerator stage between each bending magnet.
This whole operation consumes about 200 MegaWatts of electricity which amounts to a fair fraction of a nuclear power reactor.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_accelerator#Linear_accelerators

LHC to propel particles at speed. Is it possible to use this method to propel bigger objects at these speeds?

Most of the time at the LHC is spent accelerating protons (hydrogen nuclei) up to nearly the speed of light.

But part of each year is spent investigating Quark-Gluon plasma, a condition which is thought to have existed at the earliest moments of the Big Bang. They do this by accelerating lead nuclei up to nearly the speed of light. Since a lead nucleus has a mass about 207 times bigger than a proton, and a volume about 207 times bigger than a proton, you could certainly describe this as "something bigger".

https://scitechdaily.com/creation-without-contact-in-the-collisions-of-lead-and-gold-nuclei/

bigger objects

Try this for size:

 

[Harri (OP)]

Watching that film made me wonder. Particles have different masses. Those particles that have the heaviest masses. Do they not offer more resistance when accelerated? So if we were to find a way of accelerating something anywhere near above the maximum limits experienced today then wouldn't it fall apart? Heavier particles being left behind?

[Halc]

Watching that film made me wonder. Particles have different masses. Those particles that have the heaviest masses. Do they not offer more resistance when accelerated?

Mass and inertial are equivalent, yes. So for the same acceleration, it takes more energy to give it the same exit velocity. The device can only expend so much energy at a time, so there's a mass limit for a given exit velocity.

So if we were to find a way of accelerating something anywhere near above the maximum limits experienced today then wouldn't it fall apart? Heavier particles being left behind?

I imagine that if the projectile was made of multiple materials, some more responsive to the magnetic field than others, then yes, the difference in force on these materials would separate them. That would be a poor choice of projectile materials I'd think.

It isn't like gravity which exerts the same acceleration on all parts, regardless of mass, density, charge, etc. And even gravity rips stuff apart just like the poor moon that got too close to Saturn, and Phobos around Mars which is beginning to rip apart even now.

[evan_au]

The video is about quite large "projectiles" that can punch a hole in the side of a ship many kilometers away.
I'll relate the following question to subatomic particles (eg hydrogen & lead nuclei) in a particle accelerator.

Particles have different masses. Those particles that have the heaviest masses. Do they not offer more resistance when accelerated?

Yes, a lead nucleus has more inertia than a proton (about 207 times the mass).
But the positive charge of a fully ionised lead nucleus is only 82 times as much as a proton.
The Charge/mass ratio is 40% of a proton.
So in the same electric field, the lead nucleus will have 82 times more kinetic energy of the proton, but will experience only 40% of the acceleration and will reach  36% of the speed (if I've done the sums correctly).

The LHC pumps more energy into the nuclei over time, as they race around the 27km circle billions of times, continuously seeing an attractive negative voltage just ahead of them...

The LHC doesn't change the velocity very much in absolute terms:
- The protons already have an energy of 450GeV when the protons are injected into the LHC (compared to a rest energy of 1 GeV), which means they are already traveling at 99.9998% of c when they enter the LHC, or 740m/s less than c..
- But then the LHC boosts them to 6500 GeV, at which time they are traveling at 99.999999% of c, or around 3 m/s less than c.

The real limitation is in the bending magnets, because the strength of the magnetic field must increase as the particle gains more energy, to keep bending the path into a circle. The LHC magnets can generate magnetic fields over 7 Teslas, which required developing new technology. The magnetic field will reach its maximum limit when lead nuclei are traveling at a lower speed than the protons.

If they tried to get the lead nuclei up to the same speed as protons, the lead nuclei wouldn't disintegrate. But the bending magnets would not be able to bend the beam enough, and the beam would run into the walls of the beam tube. At full power, the beam carries a similar amount of kinetic energy as a 747 jet on landing. You do not want to have an accident like this inside a sensitive piece of equipment costing billions of dollars!

This amount of energy could punch a hole in the side of a ship. But the ship would first have to sail to the Swiss/French border, and snuggle up to the underground beam tube.

So if we were to find a way of accelerating something anywhere near above the maximum limits experienced today then wouldn't it fall apart?

With current magnet technology, you can get superconducting magnets stronger than those in the LHC. Developing ITER (the latest prototype fusion reactor) also pushed the development of more advanced superconducting magnet technology.

I am sure that a "next generation" LHC will use some of these more advanced magnets. But the easiest way to go to higher energies is to build a ring with a greater diameter. Instead of 27km circumference, they might consider 100km. Here the problems are more mundane - where do you get the money to build a tunnel 100km in length, and how long will that drilling take?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Circular_Collider

There are other types of particle accelerators that don't suffer from this problem with bending magnets - linear accelerators could be made longer, and development is ongoing into "desktop accelerators" that can achieve moderately high energies in a small space, using a plasma wakefield.
See survey at: https://www.nature.com/collections/cajfiddcee

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

You (@evan_au ) seem to be asking for a check on the Maths...

The Charge/mass ratio is 40% of a proton.

Seems OK.

So in the same electric field, the lead nucleus will have 82 times more kinetic energy of the proton, but will experience only 40% of the acceleration and will reach  36% of the speed (if I've done the sums correctly).

  I don't know.   Is the lead nuclues in the same electric field for the same TIME as the proton,   or  so that it covers the same DISTANCE  as the proton  covered?
    I reckon you're using    acceleration =  (Electric field Strength) . ( Charge )  /  (Mass).
   So, we have    accel. of Lead =     40% of  accel.. of proton         in the same   E  field.

After that.... we need to know something else,   is it accelerating for the same time OR over the same distance?   If it's allowed to stay in the ring for as long as you like and do as many loops as required, then anything goes.   The bending magnets are the limiting factor as you said later in your post.
- - - - - - -
None of this affects the spirit of what you've said and the rest of the post is good.

Best Wishes.