Is it possible to pass through a planet? (Many assumptions ahead)

[LLlAMnYP]

Back to the question. Apparently, the Planck time, is the smallest possible unit of time, in that, for events occurring less than one Planck Time apart, no change can be measured or detected. So if you could hurl yourself at a planet fast enough to pass through it in one Planck Time, you would theoretically pass through it unaltered.

Unfortunately, the Planck Time is also defined as the length of time it takes a photon to travel one Planck length - and a Planck Length is a massive 1.6x10 -35 m. So for that to work, you would need to be travelling at around 10 to the power of 42 times the speed of light. So yeah, if you completely ignore relativity it might work. In the real world - not a hope.

How about traveling fast enough for relativistic contraction to make the planet on the order of a Planck's length in thickness?

[WestAir]

How about traveling fast enough for relativistic contraction to make the planet on the order of a Planck's length in thickness?

Just about to say this. If you're going so fast the distance to the furthest galaxy is less than an inch from the nose of your ship due to length contraction, then the width of the earth is probably going to be smaller than the planck length at this crazy velocity. From your perspective, events on Earth can't possibly affect you - right?

[KerikBalm]

You don't have any theories of "verteron space" you have uninformed speculation. They aren't in development, and there is nothing to test.

The interactions are instantaneous, or at least the same speed C.

When one nuclei hits another, you can't just pass through because of C (given the speeds of the nuceli in many fusion events, if this were the case, we'd never have any heavy elements).

You can see how often a stuff gets hit at the atomic level in just a small section of mass with xray scattering for instance.

Also, we have plenty of high energy particle beams... the LHC has no problems getting sub atomic particles to interact with each other at relativistic speeds.

Photons have no problems interacting with things, and they go the speed of light!

I can't comprehend how you can't comprenhend: when you smash things together very fast, they go boom, they don't just pass through each other.

[WestAir]

Xkcd seems to disagree.

[KSK]

How about traveling fast enough for relativistic contraction to make the planet on the order of a Planck's length in thickness?

Because:

Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction. The shortening of an object along its direction of motion as its speed approaches the speed of light, as measured by an observer at rest with respect to the body. Also called length contraction, Lorentz contraction.

Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction - The Free Dictionary

www.thefreedictionary.com/Lorentz-FitzGerald+contraction

It's the fast moving thing that contracts.

[KSK]

Xkcd seems to disagree.

Hmm, having read it, every scenario in that piece ends in a kaboom of greater or lesser extent. None of them end up with the diamond passing through the earth. For the most violent impact:

The diamond meteor, and the cascade of particles it created as it collided with the crust, is spread out throughout the body of our planet. The superheated planet glows brighter than the sun.

Emphasis added.

The only part that I could find where xkcd seems to disagree is:

When it hits the surface, it disintegrates completely, digging downward and outward, carving a cone-shaped path down through the bedrock. The impact depth equation no longer applies, since the atoms are literally passing through each other.

And with the greatest possible respect, at that sort of energy I think you'll have plasma rather than atoms. It would be more accurate to say 'clouds of stripped off electrons and disembodied atomic nuclei that used to be atoms', are literally passing through each other.

[KerikBalm]

The carbon atoms in the ball carry about 70 GeV of energy each. They’re actually moving too fast to fuse directly with the airâ€â€they just pass through it completely. The air molecules punch three meters into the face of the ball before coming to a rest inside it,

3 meters... wow...

For the same speed

"The impact depth equation no longer applies, since the atoms are literally passing through each other."

I think a more correct term is the atoms (nuclei, or subatomic particle) are going past each other. Lets say the impact depth equation is like on bullet hitting a block of lead, and this scenario is like a shotgun blast going through a lead screen (or two shotgun blasts passing each other in mid air).

XKCD is generally pretty reliable, but you shouldn't take it as the verbatim "bible truth" (as you shouldn't really take anything as such)

Again, we have ample evidence that two subatomic particles going at .99c will collide.

[cantab]

Again, we have ample evidence that two subatomic particles going at .99c will collide.

True, buuuuuut, in something like the LHC what percentage of the particles in the beams actually collide?

[KSK]

True, buuuuuut, in something like the LHC what percentage of the particles in the beams actually collide?

A very low one. (http://lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch/lhc-machine-outreach/collisions.htm).

On the other hand, the beam dump is still only 7 metres long (http://lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch/lhc-machine-outreach/components/beam-dump.htm)

Each beam dump absorber consists of a 7m long segmented carbon cylinder of 700mm diameter, contained in a steel cylinder, comprising the dump core (TDE). This is water cooled, and surrounded by about 750 tonnes of concrete and iron shielding. The dump is housed in a dedicated cavern (UD) at the end of the transfer tunnels (TD).

The extremely high destructive power of such a beam imposes an external dump, where the beam must be extracted completely from the LHC, diluted to reduce the peak energy density and then absorbed in a dedicated system.

So even with an LHC grade particle beam, all the particles are stopped in a comparatively short distance.

[Tery215]

Even if you could pass through the planet at speeds far higher (in terms of c - x) than those in the LHC, the effect observed in the LHC probably still applies.

Given a far greater quantity of particles and a far greater collision area, you would either disintegrate or die from the acceleration.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Tery215

[maltesh]

Because:

It's the fast moving thing that contracts.

From the viewpoint of the object, the rest of the universe contracts. Required by the relativity of inertial reference frames, and required because time dilation and length contraction are two sides of the same coin. Both are required to maintain the speed of light as a constant to all observers in all reference frames. For some reason, time dilation gets all the press, length contraction gets glossed over.

And yes, that does mean that, to a photon, the universe has zero thickness.

[KerikBalm]

True, buuuuuut, in something like the LHC what percentage of the particles in the beams actually collide?

A very low one, because there aren't that many particles. The Earth has a whole lot of particles, so many that there's no straight line through without hitting one. That is the same principle as to why it doesn't take much lead to stop most radiation.

When you ave less than a gram of subatomic particles flying at less than a gram of sub atomic particles, if the collision rate is low, that doesn't mean you can expect to travel through the entire earth without having a collision.

Anyway, the point is, that at .99c, these forces are applied fast enough, you can't outrun the interactions.

[KSK]

Maltesh, I stand corrected - thank you. And apologies to LLlAMnYP and WestAir who pointed out the same thing.

From a quick look on the internet, I'm not completely sure about the last part (universe having zero thickness to a photon) but I'll not drag that into this thread, since at this point I'd be moving from 'quoting chunks of text with a vague understanding of what it's talking about' to 'quoting chunks of text with no real understanding of what it's talking about'! Which makes for a flimsy argument at best.

[YNM]

Regarding my saying that anything that moves with speed of light, it will be a light : it's true. Any speed lesser than this (even to the smallest fraction) would mean that the relativistic speed addition yields a result. While light (or anything that moves at the speed of light) will always move at c no matter who measured it.

Regarding lorentz contraction for the path that a particle that moves at relativistic speed : it's true again. The silly case for light itself is, plugging c into the value of v for γ = (sqrt(1-(v/c))) will yields 0 -> nothing (like L0*γ) or undefined (like t0/γ). Nobody knows what happens to it...

Let's walk away from it (?)...

[lajoswinkler]

True, buuuuuut, in something like the LHC what percentage of the particles in the beams actually collide?

LHC deals with extremely rarified beam of protons. The world is made of densely packed atoms connected by electron clouds. Very, very, very different things.

[TheDarkStar]

You could turn yourself into a stream of neutrinos.

[Xannari Ferrows]

I've finally figured it out. It actually is possible. While watching LittleBigPlanet, I was thinking about this for some reason. I constructed a calculator to help me with this, and the end result is scary.

Your velocity, would need to be equal to [approximations used] 3.328 x 10^68... Quintillion C! [three point three two eight, times ten to the sixty eight Quintillionth C]

That is a MASSIVE number. How big, exactly? Well... if you were to take every branch made within the entire multi-verse [assuming true, not saying it is], and convert it into one giant computer that can shoot virtual particles at a given velocity...

There would not be enough bits of data in the whole computer to comprehend what kind of speed this thing is moving at.

EDIT: If you wanted to know what would happen if you happened to be a large object moving at this unfathomable velocity...

If you were an average human size, and mass, you would produce so much energy in megajoules [exactly how much is beyond my capacity for paper], you could probably whip through the Earth, destroy it, and have enough left over to destroy every other planet in the observable universe. That... or if my theory of Verteron space is correct, you would leave a giant rift in space behind you that connects with it, eventually become the rift itself, and transport yourself to this theoretical space. Here, you basically have no physical limits anymore...

Edited February 20, 2015 by Xannari Ferrows

[Iskierka]

Large objects would not be able to pass through the Earth regardless of velocity - this is basic physics-forces fact.

However, small objects can and have been known to pass through the Earth, even some of considerable mass. It is possible ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, which are fairly basic single particles like protons, with energies comparable with small household objects being thrown quite hard, may be able to sometimes pass through without enough interaction to be stopped. Additionally, seismic records indicate a more interesting oddity - a small particle or particle cluster, likely exotic hadron(s) by their mass of around ten tonnes, which passed through the earth in 1993 at a rather slow speed, only around 400 kilometres per second, and successfully left out the other side after a bit less than a minute, relatively unimpeded despite being measurable on seismometers. Link to an article about this unusual impactor, that did exactly what the topic is asking about.

[WestAir]

I've finally figured it out. It actually is possible. While watching LittleBigPlanet, I was thinking about this for some reason. I constructed a calculator to help me with this, and the end result is scary.

Your velocity, would need to be equal to [approximations used] 3.328 x 10^68... Quintilian C! [three point three two eight, times ten to the sixty eight Quintilianth C]

That is a MASSIVE number. How big, exactly? Well... if you were to take every branch made within the entire multi-verse [assuming true, not saying it is], and convert it into one giant computer that can shoot virtual particles at a given velocity...

There would not be enough bits of data in the whole computer to comprehend what kind of speed this thing is moving at.

I wonder if that speed is fast enough to keep up with a photon since the start of the Big Bang. (On the general assumption that 3d space can be quantized),

[ZetaX]

However, small objects can and have been known to pass through the Earth, even some of considerable mass. It is possible ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, which are fairly basic single particles like protons, with energies comparable with small household objects being thrown quite hard, may be able to sometimes pass through without enough interaction to be stopped. Additionally, seismic records indicate a more interesting oddity - a small particle or particle cluster, likely exotic hadron(s) by their mass of around ten tonnes, which passed through the earth in 1993 at a rather slow speed, only around 400 kilometres per second, and successfully left out the other side after a bit less than a minute, relatively unimpeded despite being measurable on seismometers. Link to an article about this unusual impactor, that did exactly what the topic is asking about.

The paper was rejected by Nature. That's generally not a good sign for something as game-changing as this claim (it may simply not contain enough evidence, though). Also, take a look at http://www.geology.smu.edu/~vineyard/herrin.html: "Thus far, after an exhaustive search of the existing databases, there are no certain examples of nuclearite collisions with Earth".

So it should at the very least be seen with a grain of salt; probably many grains until more evidence exists.

Edited February 20, 2015 by ZetaX

[Bill Phil]

Depends on the rate of transfer of information between atoms. Assuming it's light speed, and assuming you can break it, then yes.

[ZetaX]

I wonder if that speed is fast enough to keep up with a photon since the start of the Big Bang. (On the general assumption that 3d space can be quantized),

What do you mean by "keep up"¿ Surely something fast than light can keep up with light, by the very definition of being faster than light. What has quantisation to do with this¿

[WestAir]

What do you mean by "keep up"¿ Surely something fast than light can keep up with light, by the very definition of being faster than light. What has quantisation to do with this¿

If space has a quanta, then you can quantize speed. Speed is determined by distance x time. In this case, meters x seconds. 1 quanta of space, too, is a distance. The difference here is that you can't crunch any information smaller than 1 quanta - so something that's moved 0.1 spacial quanta is in the exact same physical position as something that has moved 0.6 spacial quanta. There's no difference. There is a similar variable for time; if it takes you "the age of the universe" to move 1 meter, then you've moved 1 meter as of today. If it takes you "longer than the age of the universe" to move 1 meter - well you've yet to move 1 meter.

We'll use Planck lengths for this thought experiment (ignoring the fact that it is not a quanta of space). The thought experiment here is that there is a physical, non-infinite energy requirement for an proton to travel 10 plank lengths in 10.5 plank times. However, because you can't fractionate the plank length, both the proton and a photon will have traveled the same physical distance. The thought experiment can be dragged even deeper. Pretend both a proton and a photon began their journey during the birth of the Universe. If the protons speed is slower than a photon by 1 plank length x the age of the universe plus one second, then up until now, it's kept pace with a photon - it's traveled at C, which is impossible, but will become possible in the future when it begins to lose the race.

Essentially we have a sublight particle that will lose a race against a photon, but hasn't yet because it hasn't had enough time to lose the race. The end result is that both the photon and proton have gone the same distance in the same time.

Edit: Though maybe packing that much energy into a proton might not be such a good idea.

Edited February 20, 2015 by WestAir

[Xannari Ferrows]

I wonder if that speed is fast enough to keep up with a photon since the start of the Big Bang. (On the general assumption that 3d space can be quantized),

Oh yes. It can run circles around those, and then some. Of course, you could easily bring relativity into this and completely ruin all my fun, but let's just keep it a single point in space.

[Ravenchant]

While quantum tunneling through an antire planet is technically allowed by the laws of our universe, it's not plausible. It's not even bloody likely on astronomical timescales

QT is possible because particles as such aren't mathematical points but rather "probability clouds" (in atoms) or just "washed out" by the good ol' uncertainty principle. When measured, the probability of the particle being in a certain spot is directly proportional to the magnitude of its probability distribution in that spot (actually the square of that magnitude, but you get what I'm saying). The magnitude, AFAIK, decreases exponentially with distance. It's just enough to allow QT microscopes to work, but the probability of even a single particle, nevermind an entire ship, tunneling through thousands of kilometers of space is so laughably small that we're probably better off trying to invent a hyperspace drive instead