Particle accelerator fits on the head of a pin
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
I'm only half-joking here. In my copious spare time, I sometimes wonder how one could approach building something resembling a phaser. The most recent question I've added to my "to investigate" list is, is there a way of sending energy (either as photons or via larger particles) that would avoid scattering off targets? Scattering is a problem with lasers - if you take one that's powerful enough to be interesting and use it in enclosed space, you'll get everyone in the room not wearing eye protection blind before the target starts to heat up.
It's a bit like a space invasion - if you plan on invading another planet, just accelerate for the first part of the trip, point the engine to the destination and fire it for the rest of the trip. When you arrive, there will probably be no armies, of lifeforms, to resist you.
OTOH, you may need to wait a couple million years before the planet is cool, or inhabitable again.
2. Garbage hits planet at relativistic speed.
3. Profit.
Well, we're getting there. We do have laser rifles, though they're a little pathetic compared to an AR-15.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BeTq99LqUo
They were talking about this kind of particle accelerator in the 90s back when I used to hang out with accelerator physicists. Though back then it was going to be terahertz waves rather than lasers. Still got to power it with something.
IMO best mad scientist weapon is something like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARAUDER
Beyond obvious military application, imagine this as an alternative to laser engravers and cutters that would need no light-absorbing enclosure and light-absorbing glasses.
1) Dust — anything in the range 1mm to 1nm, depending on what properties you want it to have. Give it a small electric charge and accelerate it conventionally, perhaps in a vacuum with a plasma window at one end.
2) A relativistic beam of something that quickly decays in a way that doesn’t emit much EM radiation. (Would muons fit this description? I don’t know, I’m relying on what Wikipedia says).
[0] https://pureadmin.qub.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/124726142/... [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21935245 [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016943321...
"Particle Beams and Saucer Dreams" https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/area-51-and-other-strang...
"So ya don’t believe it was a proton beam, eh?" https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/area-51-and-other-strang...
Wouldn't work well against dry kevlar, but I suppose you just bring the right tools for the job. I think it's worth exploring polymers, though a dissolvable polymer sounds like microplastic hell.
A lot less exiting than techcrunch says, but I wouldn't know why I expected better.
For reference, in a typical electron microscope, accelerating fields might reach a 1 MeV/m gradient. In these cases, it's usually an anode (-200kV) and cathode (0V) closely separated. High vacuum is required, it's large, power supplies are enormous, etc.
Scaling the results of this paper, especially after a working prototype, will be more interesting to the general population. But the key discoveries are already here. Scaling becomes an engineering concern.
The design shown in this paper is specific to an initial electron energy of 83keV. That means that chaining identical parts wouldn't work, but you could have an array of similar parts with slightly different properties at each "stage".
As I am not a biologist, I have no idea if that is actually a useful way to deal with tumours, but regardless of the specifics I definitely expect it to enable things that are not currently practical.
1. can one build a viable rocket engine out of an array of these? if it runs on IR, can one reuse the heat it generates to improve its own efficiency?
2. can one build a handheld/mounted particle beam weapon with these?