How close to the light speed would, say an electron (the lightest particle with a measured nonzero mass of (511 keV/c²) travel if you pumped all the mass-energy in the observable universe into it (4×10 to the 69th power Joules)?Just curious, as these particle speeds may have been in the first moments after Big Bang.

BTW. when after the BB did the leptons form?I have info about quarks and atoms, but no idea about leptons.

Conjecture is that leptons and antileptons formed around 1 second out.

__________________
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana

GORT. Said conjecture has no basis in experimental physics for being true, as the observed excess of electrons over positrons being formed remains unexplained experimentally. Cosmic ray showers, and decays of their secondaries, first viwed in the dense silver bromide emulsions of the twenties and thirties...showed associated production of pairs...for every proton, an anti-proton....for every electron, a positron. Without exception. The presently observed universe, with it's huge excess of protons over antiprotons, and it's strangely mirrored effect in electrons' excess over positrons, to the same exact perfect degree.....remains without explanation.One of the great mysteries that lays before us. pete

__________________
A third rate theory forbids.
A second rate theory explains after the fact.
A first rate theory predicts.
A. Lomonosov

Very, very, very close. Asymptotically close to c.

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

How to calculate the speed to which you will accelerate something if you apply some amount of energy?

E=(gamma)mc^2

where E is total energy (rest mass energy plus kinetic)

Gamma is the lorentz factor (1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))

m is mass
c is speed of light in vaccum
v is object velocity

As a very crude estimate to answer the OP, if you have E=10^69 J then the velocity of your object is on the order of 10^-60 m/s slower than the speed of light.

This link could also be of help.

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

Thanks, and would the electron basically shrink to infinitely small size because of relativity contraction?And how it would lag behind the light if it is just 10 to the minus 60th power m/s slower than light, as then the distance that it would lag is much lower than Planck lenght?Would it appear to be going at the speed of light compared to the light beam that was emmited at exactly the same moment as the electron given that you cannot have distances shorter than the Planck's lenght, or would it just appear to be lagging 1.6 × 10 to the −35th power (exactly the Planck lenght) of metres behind the light beam?

Or would it just collapse into a black hole?I remember something from a science book about that when you have more than certain stupendous amount of energy in a small space, it would instantly create an event horizon and collapse into a black hole.

BTW, if the BH that can be manifactured in LHC by proton collisions at high speed would last about 10 to the -100th power of seconds, does mean that it would disappear instanteously as there cannot be shorter time moment than Planck time?

Are these planck constants the fundamental quantitizations in physics or are they simply the scalles beyond which we don't know how it will behave?

Well, let's see...

99.99999999999999999999999...(continued on page 4.38884752 E 437)...

...(continued from page 1)% of the speed of light.

That's just a wage, mind you...

Seriously - it would be as close as one could get.

__________________
"Toward no crimes have men shown themselves so cold-bloodedly cruel as in punishing differences of belief." - James Russell Lowell

Relativistic mass does not cause objects to collapse. If an object is not a black hole in its frame it won´t be a black hole in any other frame.

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

So when do these small black holes form?

Actually "just" around 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999 % of the speed of light , as previously said here.

Closest?Not even remotely, converting the WHOLE universe into energy and using it to accelerate a single electron would maybe enough for me

Are you talking about particle collisions [something a la LHC]? Case yes, if the energy density is enough the spacetime will be curved and a [short-lived] black hole will form.

Now, the relativistic mass of a moving particle/object is a measurement effect - observer dependent. It does not 'add' mass to a particle in its own frame.

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

Wouldn't this electron collapse into a BH during the acceleration process as extreme energy would be pumped into it?

Well, no. Its mass is invariant in its own frame, so, no Black Hole.

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

i am amazed that fastest object still in2008 having only velocity of 252,792 km/h (70.2 km/s). as mentioned on http://www.isuvidha.com/infocontrol/...an-made-object
how much time we required to attain velocity that is sufficient for inter star traveling.

We could certainly have designed and launched a craft that would have a top relative velocity many times that of 70.2 km/s, if that had been a design consideration.

Since it wasn't, we're stuck with the slow pokes.

__________________
"Toward no crimes have men shown themselves so cold-bloodedly cruel as in punishing differences of belief." - James Russell Lowell

If setting a speed record had been a sole mission objective, we could have used a Saturn V to launch a multistage vehicle that would have accelerated a small arms bullet to much higher speeds than anything we actually achieved. Of course, Congress would have balked at funding such a boondoggle.

Interestingly, Hornblower, White Sands operates a hypervelocity testing lab, in which light gas gun projectiles reach velocities of 7.5 km/s (16,800 mph) over a length of about 1 m.

The high-speed cameras used to record the events range up to 200 million frames per second.

__________________
"Toward no crimes have men shown themselves so cold-bloodedly cruel as in punishing differences of belief." - James Russell Lowell

A Combination of static and explosive energy can give us good velocity, i mean to say that at the time of satellite launch we can use a static energy stored in some type of spring or bended plate than just after getting some initial speed from that the engine of rocket can be ignited to propagate the satellite further the energy saved by that static projection can be used to speed up the rocket speed further.

Energy stored in a spring can be added to that provided by the rocket to further increase the satellite's speed.

Is that what you are saying?

yes i am saying like bow used a static energy to project arrow like the same can we use a initially static energy and after that explosive energy to propagate rocket ,coz we can compensate with all we have on earth but not in space. but problem is only to find out proper material and technology.

Hema... welcome, and we have learned that we can not get some thing from nothing. If energy is stored then it was not being used as would be the design such rocket or spring... Explosive energy can and is channeled into a directional force. A look at the solid fuel boosters of the shuttle program... If you are suggesting a catapult or slingshot... You are not gaining anything. Any catapult would need energy to load it. There are problem with the delivery of such energies. To much force on a weak structure or body could be a problem. Getting into orbit with your head still attached is the best plan... If this is not what you are asking of, please explain...It looks to be a 'Against the Mainstream' Idea. We have a special page just for this sort of thought... mark.

Your writing style is making it difficult to follow your line of thought.

If you are considering achieving a major portion of the final velocity by using a spring as a substitute for an additional rocket stage, I don't think you will succeed. The spring would have to do all of its work in a fraction of a second, while a rocket could spread it out over a few minutes as needed. Even if we had spring materials capable of the task, the jolt from such a rapid acceleration would be hard on the payload.

I disagree with you entirely, Astromark. A simple nested collapsable tube (10 sections, each 12 feet long, for about 100 feet of acceleration). Propulsion system? Compressed air. G's? Let's say 5 Gs (most satellites can handle that).

5 Gs for 100 ft. How much delta-V would that provide? Would it be worth the weight (probably 250 lbs), or could we do much better with an ion engine over a much longer duration?

It's not ATM. It's simply a different look at getting a satellite headed in the right direction.

__________________
"Toward no crimes have men shown themselves so cold-bloodedly cruel as in punishing differences of belief." - James Russell Lowell

Energy density (basically in this case delta-v per kilo) is the killer here, I think. I dont think that compressed air compares well to standard rockets.

I agree! My point to Astromark is that suggesting a different form of propulsion which is solidly grounded in very well known physics is by no means any sort of candidate for ATM, even if it's less efficient than other known means.

It merely shows that the poster was thinking outside the box.

__________________
"Toward no crimes have men shown themselves so cold-bloodedly cruel as in punishing differences of belief." - James Russell Lowell