[Info-vax] [OT] Moore's Law dead within a decade

[AEF]

On Sunday, September 29, 2013 5:22:28 PM UTC-4, AEF wrote:
> On Sunday, September 29, 2013 4:24:29 PM UTC-4, JF Mezei wrote:
> 
> > On 13-09-29 12:02, AEF wrote:

> > > An accelerator accelerates subatomic particles just like a rocket engine accelerates the fuel,
> 
> > > or exhaust. 
> 
> > Nop.  A rocket engine takes fuel that is travelling at same speed as the
> 
> > rocket and accelerates it. No matter how fast the rocket is travelling
> 
> > at, accelerating fuel and dumping it overboard in one direction will
> 
> > always result in the rocket accelerating in the other direction.


The speed will increase and asymptotically approach  c ,  while the total mass 
approaches infinity. 


> The accelerator takes an electron that starts essentially at rest relative to the accelerator, and accelerates it. 
> 
> You are making the fallacy that there exists a preferred inertial reference frame. Fast? Fast relative to what?
> 
> > An accelerator is different because a particle is being pushed by a
> 
> > external force which is constant speed.
> 
> Forces don't move. This doesn't make any sense to me. I addressed what I think your point is here in a previous post. Please don't repeat the same point (if this is what that is) without addressing my addressing your previous post.

OK, I think I'm beginning to follow your line of argument here. The "external 
force" is provided by the accelerator. The accelerator recoils. You can think 
of the electrons as fuel pellets being expelled to push the accelerator the 
other way. So the accelerator carries its own fuel, the electrons.

Now, in the case of the rocket you're interested in the rocket's speed. In the 
case of the accelerator you are interested in the fuel pellet's (the 
electron's) speed. If you ignore which of each pair you have interest in, it's 
the same thing, aside from the masses and speeds.

Carrying the fuel along actually makes things worse! This is because you have 
to accelerate all the unused fuel. (Well, you have to accelerate each fuel \
pellet along with the rocket until the fuel pellet is expelled from the 
rocket.) That's why it takes a humongous rocket to 
get a tiny space capsule to the moon. 

In the accelerator and electron case the electron _is_ the fuel (for the 
accelerator), so it's much easier to accelerate than the accelerator. The fuel 
is actually extra baggage that after being accelerated _with_ the rocket, now 
has to be accelerated in the opposite direction. You see how wasteful this is. 
Unfortunately, we presently have no better way to get things up into space. 

In Newtonian mechanics it is possible to supply enough energy to propel a body 
to faster than light. But this same amount of energy won't do that in reality, 
because of relativity. It simply increases the "mass" of the body instead. The 
body simply acts as if it were that much more massive, with the extra mass 
being the kinetic energy plugged into E=mc**2, i.e., M = m_0 + K.E./c**2 where 
m_0 is the rest mass. 

[...]

> > Similarly, once a particle in an accelerator has reached whatever speed
> 
> > 
> 
> > magnetic fields travel at, it won't accelerate any further.


A particle doesn't ride an electromagnetic wave like a surfer. Electromagnetic 
waves travel at  c , a speed which the electron will never go. Magnetic fields 
cannot do work on charged particles. Check out the Lorentz force as to why.


> I thought I explained why this is wrong in my last post. 
> 
[...]

AEF