Shipboard Planetary Destructors
- Thread starter Captain Bob of the LEXX
- Start date
ChaserCaffey
SOC-12
What Imix was pointing out was that in real physics, it's not possible to predict when a given meson is going to decay. While accelerating them to relativistic speeds would slow down the apparent decay of the mesons, the mesons generated by your gun are not all going to decay at the same time, which creates a problem for the idea of the shot decaying inside the target's armor.Originally posted by Piper:
re meson guns: I thought that accelerating the mesons to relativistic speeds took care of the decay problem through time dilation?
Still and all, the near-C rock seems the best way.
There are two solutions to this, really:
1) The meson gun generates a stream of mesons accelerated at a relativistic speed such that there is a high probability that a significant number of mesons will decay while inside the target's armor. Since half-life decay is a logarithmic process, careful management of the time dilation imposed by the gun could try to ensure that your meson stream was in its period of maximum decay (i.e. the portion of the decay graph where the slope of the line is steepest). Thus, enough mesons will probably decay inside the target to cause damage. Mess that up, and...well, we always wondered what happened when you failed a Meson Guns skill check, right?
2) *Thwack* (This is the sound of the RCES standard-issue Physics-B-Gone stick hitting the inconvenient science problem. Caution: overuse may mean you're no longer in a hard science mileu) In other words: ignore it, and game on.
Welcome aboard by the way, Imix. Take a look at TNE sometime- frankly, the novels are just about the worst possible way to be introduced to the setting, and you might think it's cool. There is one planet in the published setting that makes heavy use of a deep meson gun, but there's also plenty of other places to explore if that's not your speed.
As for the fault lines idea, a buddy of mine and I came up with it about a year ago. (I'm sure it's been independently thought up before that, though) There was a brief effort to design a ship to carry an appropriately sized meson gun using FF&S1, but it foundered on the sheer size of the thing. Maybe I'll give it another shot...
ChaserCaffey
SOC-12
What Imix was pointing out was that in real physics, it's not possible to predict when a given meson is going to decay. While accelerating them to relativistic speeds would slow down the apparent decay of the mesons, the mesons generated by your gun are not all going to decay at the same time, which creates a problem for the idea of the shot decaying inside the target's armor.Originally posted by Piper:
re meson guns: I thought that accelerating the mesons to relativistic speeds took care of the decay problem through time dilation?
Still and all, the near-C rock seems the best way.
There are two solutions to this, really:
1) The meson gun generates a stream of mesons accelerated at a relativistic speed such that there is a high probability that a significant number of mesons will decay while inside the target's armor. Since half-life decay is a logarithmic process, careful management of the time dilation imposed by the gun could try to ensure that your meson stream was in its period of maximum decay (i.e. the portion of the decay graph where the slope of the line is steepest). Thus, enough mesons will probably decay inside the target to cause damage. Mess that up, and...well, we always wondered what happened when you failed a Meson Guns skill check, right?
2) *Thwack* (This is the sound of the RCES standard-issue Physics-B-Gone stick hitting the inconvenient science problem. Caution: overuse may mean you're no longer in a hard science mileu) In other words: ignore it, and game on.
Welcome aboard by the way, Imix. Take a look at TNE sometime- frankly, the novels are just about the worst possible way to be introduced to the setting, and you might think it's cool. There is one planet in the published setting that makes heavy use of a deep meson gun, but there's also plenty of other places to explore if that's not your speed.
As for the fault lines idea, a buddy of mine and I came up with it about a year ago. (I'm sure it's been independently thought up before that, though) There was a brief effort to design a ship to carry an appropriately sized meson gun using FF&S1, but it foundered on the sheer size of the thing. Maybe I'll give it another shot...
Well, the meson gun itself fails this test. Given that meson guns operate as described elsewhere in Traveller, the DSMG makes sense.
Traveller mesons apparently decay in a manner which is not a half-life. Otherwise, a meson gun would simply produce a diffuse beam of energy going out from the beam collision point, strongest right in front of the muzzle and gradually weakening.
Well, the meson gun itself fails this test. Given that meson guns operate as described elsewhere in Traveller, the DSMG makes sense.
Traveller mesons apparently decay in a manner which is not a half-life. Otherwise, a meson gun would simply produce a diffuse beam of energy going out from the beam collision point, strongest right in front of the muzzle and gradually weakening.
What Imix was pointing out was that in real physics, it's not possible to predict when a given meson is going to decay. While accelerating them to relativistic speeds would slow down the apparent decay of the mesons, the mesons generated by your gun are not all going to decay at the same time, which creates a problem for the idea of the shot decaying inside the target's armor.Originally posted by ChaserCaffey:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Piper:
re meson guns: I thought that accelerating the mesons to relativistic speeds took care of the decay problem through time dilation?
Still and all, the near-C rock seems the best way.
There are two solutions to this, really:
1) The meson gun generates a stream of mesons accelerated at a relativistic speed such that there is a high probability that a significant number of mesons will decay while inside the target's armor. Since half-life decay is a logarithmic process, careful management of the time dilation imposed by the gun could try to ensure that your meson stream was in its period of maximum decay (i.e. the portion of the decay graph where the slope of the line is steepest). Thus, enough mesons will probably decay inside the target to cause damage. Mess that up, and...well, we always wondered what happened when you failed a Meson Guns skill check, right?</font>[/QUOTE]Understood, and thanks, particle physics is not my strong suit.
I did some searching around though and found the half-life is something around 8 light-meters. If I'm understanding this, that means half of the particles will decay in something like 25 feet. If they're subject to time dilation effects and you control the beam so the decay intesects the target, doesn't that mean that most of the decay happens inside a 25' radius sphere?
http://www.stephenbrooks.org/ral/report/2002-1/offline.html
edit: I think that "pions" are what they're calling pi neutral mesons nowadays. If I messed up, feel free to kick me in the RCES.
What Imix was pointing out was that in real physics, it's not possible to predict when a given meson is going to decay. While accelerating them to relativistic speeds would slow down the apparent decay of the mesons, the mesons generated by your gun are not all going to decay at the same time, which creates a problem for the idea of the shot decaying inside the target's armor.Originally posted by ChaserCaffey:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Piper:
re meson guns: I thought that accelerating the mesons to relativistic speeds took care of the decay problem through time dilation?
Still and all, the near-C rock seems the best way.
There are two solutions to this, really:
1) The meson gun generates a stream of mesons accelerated at a relativistic speed such that there is a high probability that a significant number of mesons will decay while inside the target's armor. Since half-life decay is a logarithmic process, careful management of the time dilation imposed by the gun could try to ensure that your meson stream was in its period of maximum decay (i.e. the portion of the decay graph where the slope of the line is steepest). Thus, enough mesons will probably decay inside the target to cause damage. Mess that up, and...well, we always wondered what happened when you failed a Meson Guns skill check, right?</font>[/QUOTE]Understood, and thanks, particle physics is not my strong suit.
I did some searching around though and found the half-life is something around 8 light-meters. If I'm understanding this, that means half of the particles will decay in something like 25 feet. If they're subject to time dilation effects and you control the beam so the decay intesects the target, doesn't that mean that most of the decay happens inside a 25' radius sphere?
http://www.stephenbrooks.org/ral/report/2002-1/offline.html
edit: I think that "pions" are what they're calling pi neutral mesons nowadays. If I messed up, feel free to kick me in the RCES.
Yeah, but all said and done it doesn't sound like the decay is linear over the life of the beam, but rather a logarithmic curve centered on the "target" area of the decay.
So, while it may not be a particularly precise weapon, it doesn't sound like it's really a "beam" either.
Sure, some particles will decary along the path, but it all really depends on the how wide this curve is. Since a typical TNE encounter is measures in 1/10th light seconds, or 30,000km, that has to be a REALLY wide curve to have the dramatic affect the was originally proposed.
Even at 300 Km it would have to be a pretty wide curve.
So, I'd think that this explanation suits canon and the harsh task mistress of physics. Just treat it as a burst weapon when it hits. A big ball of overly excited particles.
If you want to be overly picky, give it a minimum engagement range so you don't bake the civilians on the surface.
So, while it may not be a particularly precise weapon, it doesn't sound like it's really a "beam" either.
Sure, some particles will decary along the path, but it all really depends on the how wide this curve is. Since a typical TNE encounter is measures in 1/10th light seconds, or 30,000km, that has to be a REALLY wide curve to have the dramatic affect the was originally proposed.
Even at 300 Km it would have to be a pretty wide curve.
So, I'd think that this explanation suits canon and the harsh task mistress of physics. Just treat it as a burst weapon when it hits. A big ball of overly excited particles.
If you want to be overly picky, give it a minimum engagement range so you don't bake the civilians on the surface.
Yeah, but all said and done it doesn't sound like the decay is linear over the life of the beam, but rather a logarithmic curve centered on the "target" area of the decay.
So, while it may not be a particularly precise weapon, it doesn't sound like it's really a "beam" either.
Sure, some particles will decary along the path, but it all really depends on the how wide this curve is. Since a typical TNE encounter is measures in 1/10th light seconds, or 30,000km, that has to be a REALLY wide curve to have the dramatic affect the was originally proposed.
Even at 300 Km it would have to be a pretty wide curve.
So, I'd think that this explanation suits canon and the harsh task mistress of physics. Just treat it as a burst weapon when it hits. A big ball of overly excited particles.
If you want to be overly picky, give it a minimum engagement range so you don't bake the civilians on the surface.
So, while it may not be a particularly precise weapon, it doesn't sound like it's really a "beam" either.
Sure, some particles will decary along the path, but it all really depends on the how wide this curve is. Since a typical TNE encounter is measures in 1/10th light seconds, or 30,000km, that has to be a REALLY wide curve to have the dramatic affect the was originally proposed.
Even at 300 Km it would have to be a pretty wide curve.
So, I'd think that this explanation suits canon and the harsh task mistress of physics. Just treat it as a burst weapon when it hits. A big ball of overly excited particles.
If you want to be overly picky, give it a minimum engagement range so you don't bake the civilians on the surface.
ChaserCaffey
SOC-12
Sigh.
Considering that it hasn't been that long since I took physical chemistry, I really, really should have remembered that little factoid. The decay is logarithmic, but after looking at a graph it looks as though your maximum rate of decay will always be at time 0.
And I was so proud of myself, too. Ah well, time for Option (2)
*Thwack*
ChaserCaffey
SOC-12
Sigh.
Considering that it hasn't been that long since I took physical chemistry, I really, really should have remembered that little factoid. The decay is logarithmic, but after looking at a graph it looks as though your maximum rate of decay will always be at time 0.
And I was so proud of myself, too. Ah well, time for Option (2)
*Thwack*
Okay, if I'm following this: decay is a logarithmic curve with the highest rate at Time=0. At Time=1 light meter, 50% of the particles have decayed.
I was assuming the decay was a bell curve with the peak decay topping out at Time=1 light meter. But that won't work because it would mean that decay would start at zero and increase over time until the curve topped out. And all relativity will buy you is a stretch on this, not a shifting in time of the curve.
Am I thinking right on this?
I was assuming the decay was a bell curve with the peak decay topping out at Time=1 light meter. But that won't work because it would mean that decay would start at zero and increase over time until the curve topped out. And all relativity will buy you is a stretch on this, not a shifting in time of the curve.
Am I thinking right on this?
Okay, if I'm following this: decay is a logarithmic curve with the highest rate at Time=0. At Time=1 light meter, 50% of the particles have decayed.
I was assuming the decay was a bell curve with the peak decay topping out at Time=1 light meter. But that won't work because it would mean that decay would start at zero and increase over time until the curve topped out. And all relativity will buy you is a stretch on this, not a shifting in time of the curve.
Am I thinking right on this?
I was assuming the decay was a bell curve with the peak decay topping out at Time=1 light meter. But that won't work because it would mean that decay would start at zero and increase over time until the curve topped out. And all relativity will buy you is a stretch on this, not a shifting in time of the curve.
Am I thinking right on this?
ChaserCaffey
SOC-12
Correct. Most decay processes are logarithmic curves, such that the rate of decay continually decreases as time progresses. It's not a bell curve, since the rate of decay only decreases as time goes on. Relativistic speeds would "stretch" the decay curve, since the apparent time would be longer, but wouldn't alter the shape of the graph.
Please ignore option (1) in my post above. It's rather embarassingly wrong, especially given that I really should have known better.
I can really only conclude that Traveller mesons must be special...ChaserCaffey
SOC-12
Correct. Most decay processes are logarithmic curves, such that the rate of decay continually decreases as time progresses. It's not a bell curve, since the rate of decay only decreases as time goes on. Relativistic speeds would "stretch" the decay curve, since the apparent time would be longer, but wouldn't alter the shape of the graph.
Please ignore option (1) in my post above. It's rather embarassingly wrong, especially given that I really should have known better.
I can really only conclude that Traveller mesons must be special...Well, we already knew traveller mesons were special, as real mesons also get stopped by matter just fine (they have comparable penetration to other particles which are subject to the strong force interaction, including protons at the power levels required for significant time dilation on a pion).
Well, we already knew traveller mesons were special, as real mesons also get stopped by matter just fine (they have comparable penetration to other particles which are subject to the strong force interaction, including protons at the power levels required for significant time dilation on a pion).
Similar threads
