A theoretical weapon question

[Bloogle]

I'm currently 'developing' a theoretical weapon for a space based forum roleplay. Unfortunately it has come down to a dispute about whether it is possible or not before it gets the ok. The GM decided it would be a good idea for me to post the question here as you guys know your stuff. So here it is:

A 'particle beam' weapon that accelerates the particles to almost the speed of light and strikes the enemy ship. It has an initial surface area of 1 metre squared, if the beam hits then more power is poured into the beam which expands to a surface area of 100 metres squared. The matter of contention is this: the impact of the atomic particles against the hull, in my opinion, would undergo nuclear fusion with the atoms present in the hull, triggering a mini fusion explosion with each successful fuse. Imagine that happening every milli second over a 100 metre squared area and you have an effective weapon.

The GM believes however that fusion wouldn't happen, so no explosions.

So would this work? For the sake of this example, the particles are hydrons (more specifically, the hydrogen nuclei).

[Chaotic Neutral]

Proton beams make a nuclear explosion when you shoot something? That's new.

[CaptainChewbacca]

A neutral particle beam would just hit with a lot of force. To undergo fusion you'd have to have a shitload of energy at the point of reaction, which could be better served to just make a powerful laser.

Also, a hydrogen atom is generally referred to as a proton. A Hydron has very specific properties that would make their use in this manner impracticle. A proton gun (or ion gun) doesn't really deliver the 'oomph' you would want. I'd go with a neutral particle beam.

[Feil]

No, it wouldn't work. Particles blast through and into objects at near-c velocities all the time and they don't fuse. We blast particles into each other at near-c velocities in laboratory environments and they don't fuse. And even if they did, explosions are really bad for energy density because as a matter of definition an explosion is a rapid diffusion of energy. Which means that if any particles did make an explosion, none of the rest would make an explosion. And since you're already going to be breaking and/or vaporizing large sections of hull....

If your sci-fi universe is realistic enough that you're expected to come up with explanations for how things work that are somewhat based in modern science, just stick with the basics: heat it up until it melts or burns (lasers and nukes are good for this); or knock holes in it with a massive, fast-moving object (railguns, guided missiles, old fashioned particle beams).

On the other hand, if your sci-fi universe is such that players are encouraged to invent pseudo-scientific novelty weapons... then make up whatever you want, but don't justify it with physics. Explain it all with a magic word. Useful examples of magic words are "Hypermatter," "Subspace," and "Mass Effect."

On that note, while your 100-meter-square-particle-beam-of-fusiony-doom is pretty cool... I, for one, think that boarding actions (involving space-suited buccaneers equipped with laser cutlasses, swinging over on carbon-mono-filament ropes) would be far cooler. And more realistic, in that they don't actually violate any laws of physics.

Mind you, I like 40k, so anything I say on the matter of what constitutes good sci-fi should be taken with a mountain of salt.

[Bloogle]

If your sci-fi universe is realistic enough that you're expected to come up with explanations for how things work that are somewhat based in modern science, just stick with the basics: heat it up until it melts or burns (lasers and nukes are good for this); or knock holes in it with a massive, fast-moving object (railguns, guided missiles, old fashioned particle beams).

Yeah, I was going for a bit of spice.

Thanks for the help from all of you, didn't expect such a fast response. I shall draw up a more conventional idea to use. Any suggestions you guys have for an effective space weapon would be listened to however

Also, Feil I hope you don't mind if I use that boarding technique you described

[Ariphaos]

If the hull is predominantly iron or heavier (e.g. steel, tungsten, some hypothetical metastable transuranic element) then any fusion reactions that do occur are going to absorb energy from the beam. Even if it isn't, what allows fusion to happen is the energy of the nuclei approaching each other overcomes their natural repulsive effect. This requires an enormous amount of energy (effectively, velocity in your case), so if their armor is made of anything heavier than boron, you don't have a prayer of starting fusion reactions, unless parts of your ship could withstand the interior of a star anyway. In which case, their defenses would need to be similarly impressive in order to pose a threat and probably are not based off of traditional matter.