Title itself, although I don't know why I used "charged particle accelerator" silly me.
Links:
- https://store.ioppublishing.org/page/detail/Charged-Beam-Dynamics-Particle-Accelerators-and-Free-Electron-Lasers/?K=9780750312394
- https://iopscience.iop.org/book/978-0-7503-1239-4
DOI: 10.1088/978-0-7503-1239-4
Publisher: Institute of Physics Publishing
Series: IOP Series in Plasma Physics
For example, could you pull the black hole around with a positively charged attractor?
You just keep an ion them.
Here is a concept idea for the Death Star in Return of the Jedi -- it seems they use beam focusers for hitting a single target but can also the emitters independently to hit multiple targets within range. Would the concentration of power on one target give them a greater range? Or is that a consideration in space?
What type of laser would you think would be the most practical for a space platform the size of the moon? Would the Death Star's size help or hinder the operation of a large laser and an array of reflectors? I imagine materials like diamond would be best for use on reflective surfacing using that much energy? How much energy are we talking about?
So if I move some charge to somewhere else, let's say very fast, will the field around it drag somewhat behind? Or will it move with the charge regardless of the speed of motion (which would make it seem instantaneous), not being affected by the speed at all?
I noticed that once I have fully upgraded weapons, with maxed ammo powers, then normal weapons just seem to outDPS the Particle Beam, especially if I can score headshots. I'm using Mattock and the Tempest SMG and even the latter seem to outDPS the Particle Beam, even against armored targets, against which the Tempest should be weak against.
I wonder what heavy weapon I should switch to that fulfills a niche my normal weapons don't.
They're cations.
So if I move some charge to somewhere else, let's say very fast, will the field around it drag somewhat behind? Or will it move with the charge regardless of the speed of motion (which would make it seem instantaneous), not being affected by the speed at all?
edit: I have posted this question on /r/askscience as well, but after a few hours I figured they rejected it (this happens often and you dont get a message telling you). So I posted it here as well, after a few hours. Now I see it has been accepted. Sorry for the split up. Here is the other thread: https://old.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/retekl/how_fast_does_the_electric_field_expand_around_a/
Is there any theory behind this or is it just something observed experimentally?
As much as I enjoy how this beloved line of dialogue got turned into an actual piece of kit, I'm a bit at a loss of exactly how PCs are supposed to use it, and how I should play it.
I rewatched the film today to get a look at what these things might look like, and saw Hudson is laying his hand on what looks to be a case of sorts. Since the description says it's a network of 20 weapons, I'm assuming that these are "boxed up" and need to be employed mostly defensively? Like, players need to go out and place the beam emmitters over whatever area they're trying to protect, utilizing a vehicle (probably their APC) as a power source? How long would setting up the array take? Any suggestion on limits to how far away you can "plug in" the guns to any individual power source?
Having utilized vehicles to power comms in field before, the experience has me kinda worried; cabling has a tendency to get damaged unless you dig trenches to protect them, which I imagine can make setting up and tearing down such a system a bitch and a half. Perhaps I can have such as a mechanic; setting up protective measures for cables takes longer on both ends but give explosives (and vehicles noving through) a chance to damahe the weapon if not done? I also figure as an area denial weapon (probably primarily for anti-air duties), the length of cabling would be pretty important to consider, since it limits the weapon's "zone of control". I guess I could allow players to set up the guns to differing power sources to increase the dispersion, and allow wireless networking to the guns for control, but also allow it to be susceptible to jamming (and other Electronic Warfare shenanigans)?
For example, light bouncing from the sun's core to the surface for 100,000 years, or when light had bounced between charged particles in the early universe before recombination.
Do protons absorb a photon and re-emit a new one like electrons do? if so, do such protons get 'excited' but in a different way than electrons? (ike instead maybe a hypothetically 'excited' proton gains kinetic energy until it emits a photon)
Pasted a snippet from a PBS article for reference, below. Are the parts in bold correct?
> From the time of the Big Bang to the era of recombination (when neutral hydrogen atoms formed) some 380,000 years later, the universe was opaque to light. Photons bounced between charged particles and didn’t travel very far. The reason is that charged particles interact with photons—either absorbing or emitting them. Only after the era of recombination could light journey through space. > > That is because photons can pass through neutral hydrogen gas without being diverted.
