StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Singular Intellect wrote:So how much of his body mass would need to be turned into directional neutrinos in order to fling him with that kind of force?

If you've got some better idea for what propels him through the air, then by all means, please share it.

PS. If you're accelerating particles to near-c, why would anyone assume that a large amount of mass is required in order to generate substantial momentum?

Darth Wong wrote:

Singular Intellect wrote:So how much of his body mass would need to be turned into directional neutrinos in order to fling him with that kind of force?

If you've got some better idea for what propels him through the air, then by all means, please share it.

PS. If you're accelerating particles to near-c, why would anyone assume that a large amount of mass is required in order to generate substantial momentum?

I'm not suggesting I have a better idea. I'm merely curious how well the math supports your position and what figures on mass your theory would suggest needs to be extracted from Geordi.

I think you guys are looking in the wrong direction regarding the stun setting throwing Geordi around. Rather than causing a relatavistic neutrino stream to thrust Geordi in the opposite direction, isn't is possible that the stun setting instead caused a massive muscle spasm, like an electric shock would? That seems like a simpler explanation to me.

PhilosopherOfSorts wrote:I think you guys are looking in the wrong direction regarding the stun setting throwing Geordi around. Rather than causing a relatavistic neutrino stream to thrust Geordi in the opposite direction, isn't is possible that the stun setting instead caused a massive muscle spasm, like an electric shock would? That seems like a simpler explanation to me.

That's always my preferred explanation for any kind of apparent impulse. Unfortunately, there are certain scenes where that just doesn't work.

Singular Intellect wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:

Singular Intellect wrote:So how much of his body mass would need to be turned into directional neutrinos in order to fling him with that kind of force?

If you've got some better idea for what propels him through the air, then by all means, please share it.

PS. If you're accelerating particles to near-c, why would anyone assume that a large amount of mass is required in order to generate substantial momentum?

I'm not suggesting I have a better idea. I'm merely curious how well the math supports your position and what figures on mass your theory would suggest needs to be extracted from Geordi.

What part of "near light speed" do you not get?

I can't believe I actually have to explain this, but if you accelerate the particles to 0.95c, you obviously don't need much material to produce the kind of impulse we need. Let's say that Geordi's mass is 70kg and he gets 15 m/s² of acceleration from the impulse, which lasts ½-second: the momentum required would be 15(70)(0.5)=525 kg*m/s. That's a pretty powerful kick (it's like a 70kg person running into you at a full sprint), but it's also the same momentum as 0.0006 grams of material moving at 0.95c.

So no, you would not need to turn a huge chunk of Geordi's body into near-c neutrinos in order to propel him through the air. Even if the process wasted a thousand times more material than it used in propulsion, you would still need less than 1 gram.

Darth Wong wrote: What part of "near light speed" do you not get?

I can't believe I actually have to explain this, but if you accelerate the particles to 0.95c, you obviously don't need much material to produce the kind of impulse we need. Let's say that Geordi's mass is 70kg and he gets 15 m/s² of acceleration from the impulse, which lasts ½-second: the momentum required would be 15(70)(0.5)=525 kg*m/s. That's a pretty powerful kick (it's like a 70kg person running into you at a full sprint), but it's also the same momentum as 0.0006 grams of material moving at 0.95c.

So no, you would not need to turn a huge chunk of Geordi's body into near-c neutrinos in order to propel him through the air. Even if the process wasted a thousand times more material than it used in propulsion, you would still need less than 1 gram.

Using the lower bound of the newtonian KE that those neutrinos would have, it requires on the order of 25 GJ to do that though, which is more of a problem in some ways than bringing momentum out of nowhere.

If we restrict our stun setting to outputting no more than 1MJ per shot, then we would need to eject 0.125kg of matter as neutrinos at 4km/s (assuming perfect efficiency and that the neutrino stream has no spreading). This is quite a noticeable quantity of matter, certainly more than just a scorched patch of shirt. We could give the stun setting more energy, but even 1MJ is already a lot more than the kill setting seems to use.
Spoiler

Using the lower bound of the newtonian KE that those neutrinos would have, it requires on the order of 25 GJ to do that though, which is more of a problem in some ways than bringing momentum out of nowhere.

For particles traveling near the speed of light, like neutrinoes usually do in accordance to their vanishingly tiny mass (~2.5 eV), we may make the approximation E ≅ pc. If we take Geordi's momentum to be 525 kg·m/s, then the energy of the neutrinoes (mass energy plus kinetic energy) required to throw Geordi back at this rate is (525 kg·m/s)(300,000,000 m/s) ≅ 157.5 GJ. That's quite a smack.

Wyrm wrote:

Using the lower bound of the newtonian KE that those neutrinos would have, it requires on the order of 25 GJ to do that though, which is more of a problem in some ways than bringing momentum out of nowhere.

For particles traveling near the speed of light, like neutrinoes usually do in accordance to their vanishingly tiny mass (~2.5 eV), we may make the approximation E ≅ pc. If we take Geordi's momentum to be 525 kg·m/s, then the energy of the neutrinoes (mass energy plus kinetic energy) required to throw Geordi back at this rate is (525 kg·m/s)(300,000,000 m/s) ≅ 157.5 GJ. That's quite a smack.

I just used the newtonian KE as I didnt want to bother getting out a calculator as at 0.95c gamma is still quite low (3.2 apparently) and the lower bound was already hugely above a reasonable value.

But yes, if you assume the beam has to create the neutrino mass (instead of converting some shirt/an eyeball) to fit with the observed lack of injury then it does require a shitload more energy.

As far as explaining it via a muscle spasm, I dont think they regularly used big wire-fu setups in TNG did they? So whenever someone is blasted back by a phaser it is just the guy jumping, so it shouldnt be too hard to interpret all the scenes as the stun inducing a spasm...

Would my phaser reaction stats be useful here? I can find some webspace for them.

Here is the original discussion

Steel wrote:Using the lower bound of the newtonian KE that those neutrinos would have, it requires on the order of 25 GJ to do that though, which is more of a problem in some ways than bringing momentum out of nowhere.

Not really, since we know the phaser "eats through" material in some kind of bizarro chain reaction anyway. We have to deal with the fact that it can make a person's entire body disappear, remember?

PhilosopherOfSorts wrote:I think you guys are looking in the wrong direction regarding the stun setting throwing Geordi around. Rather than causing a relatavistic neutrino stream to thrust Geordi in the opposite direction, isn't is possible that the stun setting instead caused a massive muscle spasm, like an electric shock would? That seems like a simpler explanation to me.

That wouldn't be sufficient to pin him against the ceiling, as one phaser stun did in "Samaritan Snare".

Steel wrote:I just used the newtonian KE as I didnt want to bother getting out a calculator as at 0.95c gamma is still quite low (3.2 apparently) and the lower bound was already hugely above a reasonable value.

But yes, if you assume the beam has to create the neutrino mass (instead of converting some shirt/an eyeball) to fit with the observed lack of injury then it does require a shitload more energy.

Er, no. The 157.5 GJ figure was assuming that the neutrinoes' rest energy is insignificant compared to their kinetic energy. That's what allows me to use E = pc. Neutrinoes are such lightweight things that any realistic amount of energy is going to make them relativistic.

As to creation of the neutrinoes from the victim's own mass, realize that the neutrinoes have to either be created in particle-antiparticle pairs, or at the expense of the lepton number of the victim. That is, the victim has scores of his electrons disappear, which can't be good for his chemistry.

Wyrm wrote:As to creation of the neutrinoes from the victim's own mass, realize that the neutrinoes have to either be created in particle-antiparticle pairs, or at the expense of the lepton number of the victim. That is, the victim has scores of his electrons disappear, which can't be good for his chemistry.

It would help explain the sudden incapacitating (and possibly fatal) electrical shock upon being hit with a stun weapon, though.

Darth Wong wrote: I can't believe I actually have to explain this, but if you accelerate the particles to 0.95c, you obviously don't need much material to produce the kind of impulse we need. Let's say that Geordi's mass is 70kg and he gets 15 m/s² of acceleration from the impulse, which lasts ½-second: the momentum required would be 15(70)(0.5)=525 kg*m/s. That's a pretty powerful kick (it's like a 70kg person running into you at a full sprint), but it's also the same momentum as 0.0006 grams of material moving at 0.95c.

So no, you would not need to turn a huge chunk of Geordi's body into near-c neutrinos in order to propel him through the air. Even if the process wasted a thousand times more material than it used in propulsion, you would still need less than 1 gram.

Doesn't this also require the assumption that the process perfectly spreads the particles over his entire body? If it was uneven or concentrated where he was shot it would rip his body to pieces.

Would it? We're talking about a lousy g and a half of acceleration. Yes, the ejecta are damn fast, but there's also damned LITTLE of it. Humans have survived accelerations far higher (if not quite as concentrated).

Batman wrote:Would it? We're talking about a lousy g and a half of acceleration. Yes, the ejecta are damn fast, but there's also damned LITTLE of it. Humans have survived accelerations far higher (if not quite as concentrated).

Spread over the entire body its not a big deal. But take that much energy and focus it on just a portion of the body and what happens?

Nothing much I suspect, given that humans routinely survive 40 gs worth of acceleration when ejecting from military aircraft that are most certainly NOT spread out across the entire body.

Bilbo wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:I can't believe I actually have to explain this, but if you accelerate the particles to 0.95c, you obviously don't need much material to produce the kind of impulse we need. Let's say that Geordi's mass is 70kg and he gets 15 m/s² of acceleration from the impulse, which lasts ½-second: the momentum required would be 15(70)(0.5)=525 kg*m/s. That's a pretty powerful kick (it's like a 70kg person running into you at a full sprint), but it's also the same momentum as 0.0006 grams of material moving at 0.95c.

So no, you would not need to turn a huge chunk of Geordi's body into near-c neutrinos in order to propel him through the air. Even if the process wasted a thousand times more material than it used in propulsion, you would still need less than 1 gram.

Doesn't this also require the assumption that the process perfectly spreads the particles over his entire body? If it was uneven or concentrated where he was shot it would rip his body to pieces.

So ... I pointed out that it would be like a grown man nailing you with a football-style hit, and you declare that "it would rip his body to pieces" if it's not "perfectly spread" over his entire body? Just how fragile are you, that a football tackle would rip your body to pieces? After all, a football player makes no effort to perfectly spread the impact over your entire body (quite the opposite, in fact). Maybe you should see a doctor.

True.

On the other hand, a football player generally hits you over a much wider area than a phaser beam. The closest analogy I know of to having that much force applied to such a small area of your body would be a guy charging you with a spear (OK, a guy charging you with a blunt spear). And that could still impale somebody. I would not want to get hit by a moving object that size carrying enough momentum to fling me into a wall; I'd fully expect it to wind up sticking through my rib cage or whatever.

So, in other words, it's sorta like any modern firearm, where a bullet delivers energy to a body in a very confined space? Isn't that kinda the point of any weapon? Besides, I recall seeing some phaser injuries (that were not set to kill) that left nasty bruises and/or open wounds. In fact, all you'd have to do is look at The Undiscovered Country and take a look at Ens. Burk and Sano, who were killed by a phaser set on stun. They had some nasty headwounds too.

I'm no mathematician, but it makes sense that phasers would cause some localized damage. It's a weapon. It's supposed to do that.

Somebody apparently completely missed the point.
OF COURSE phasers can cause localized damage. We've seen them do so numerous times. The question is can phasers impart the KE/momentum they're shown to WITHOUT causing localized and traumatic damage.

Simon_Jester wrote:True.

On the other hand, a football player generally hits you over a much wider area than a phaser beam. The closest analogy I know of to having that much force applied to such a small area of your body would be a guy charging you with a spear (OK, a guy charging you with a blunt spear). And that could still impale somebody. I would not want to get hit by a moving object that size carrying enough momentum to fling me into a wall; I'd fully expect it to wind up sticking through my rib cage or whatever.

We've seen how phaser effects spread outwards from a point. There's no reason to believe that this effect doesn't also occur with stun beams, albeit even more localized to the surface. The point is simply that it doesn't have to use up a huge chunk of the person's body as propellant, as someone had earlier accused.

If they're a silly chain-reaction that emits invisible particles from the target, the area of that emission could be very large. The visible 'phaser splash' could just the highest intensity reaction. After all, we also see starships shudder under impacts of these beams, which don't cause the FIRING shit to shudder even during hard manouvres.

Already commented by other people.