Could gravitational lensing be used to protect a spaceship from a laser?
$begingroup$
Suppose Ship A is being targeted by Ship B, which intends to use a laser weapon in an attempt to destroy Ship A.
Ship A has special technology that allows it to alter gravity (mainly used for generating artificial gravity for the crew and to lessen the effects of inertia when changing direction), but this device also allows it to increase the gravitational pull of the ship, as if it had more mass.
If Ship B points it’s laser weapon directly at Ship A and fires, and Ship A created a gravity well (similarly to an interdictor from Star Wars), could the gravity produced by the ship shield it from the laser by redirecting it via gravitational lensing?
And if so, would using this trick inadvertently (on the captain’s part) turn Ship A into a black hole?
science-based spaceships gravity astrophysics
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose Ship A is being targeted by Ship B, which intends to use a laser weapon in an attempt to destroy Ship A.
Ship A has special technology that allows it to alter gravity (mainly used for generating artificial gravity for the crew and to lessen the effects of inertia when changing direction), but this device also allows it to increase the gravitational pull of the ship, as if it had more mass.
If Ship B points it’s laser weapon directly at Ship A and fires, and Ship A created a gravity well (similarly to an interdictor from Star Wars), could the gravity produced by the ship shield it from the laser by redirecting it via gravitational lensing?
And if so, would using this trick inadvertently (on the captain’s part) turn Ship A into a black hole?
science-based spaceships gravity astrophysics
New contributor
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
The Impeller Wedges of David Weber's Honorverse work in this fashion to protect starships, but it's way outside the realm of "science-based", and more of a genre convention to make space battle tactics work the way Weber wanted.
$endgroup$
– notovny
11 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Yes. If you have very large Black holes you can shift around your ship this is possible. Why you would fear a laser by that time is a different question
$endgroup$
– Demigan
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Gravitational lensing is caused by light that would have missed, but by a small amount. Increasing the gravity would pull more light toward the ship, making it easier to hit.
$endgroup$
– Mooing Duck
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose Ship A is being targeted by Ship B, which intends to use a laser weapon in an attempt to destroy Ship A.
Ship A has special technology that allows it to alter gravity (mainly used for generating artificial gravity for the crew and to lessen the effects of inertia when changing direction), but this device also allows it to increase the gravitational pull of the ship, as if it had more mass.
If Ship B points it’s laser weapon directly at Ship A and fires, and Ship A created a gravity well (similarly to an interdictor from Star Wars), could the gravity produced by the ship shield it from the laser by redirecting it via gravitational lensing?
And if so, would using this trick inadvertently (on the captain’s part) turn Ship A into a black hole?
science-based spaceships gravity astrophysics
New contributor
$endgroup$
Suppose Ship A is being targeted by Ship B, which intends to use a laser weapon in an attempt to destroy Ship A.
Ship A has special technology that allows it to alter gravity (mainly used for generating artificial gravity for the crew and to lessen the effects of inertia when changing direction), but this device also allows it to increase the gravitational pull of the ship, as if it had more mass.
If Ship B points it’s laser weapon directly at Ship A and fires, and Ship A created a gravity well (similarly to an interdictor from Star Wars), could the gravity produced by the ship shield it from the laser by redirecting it via gravitational lensing?
And if so, would using this trick inadvertently (on the captain’s part) turn Ship A into a black hole?
science-based spaceships gravity astrophysics
science-based spaceships gravity astrophysics
New contributor
New contributor
edited 6 hours ago
Challenger5
32118
32118
New contributor
asked 11 hours ago
Dan PetitDan Petit
361
361
New contributor
New contributor
3
$begingroup$
The Impeller Wedges of David Weber's Honorverse work in this fashion to protect starships, but it's way outside the realm of "science-based", and more of a genre convention to make space battle tactics work the way Weber wanted.
$endgroup$
– notovny
11 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Yes. If you have very large Black holes you can shift around your ship this is possible. Why you would fear a laser by that time is a different question
$endgroup$
– Demigan
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Gravitational lensing is caused by light that would have missed, but by a small amount. Increasing the gravity would pull more light toward the ship, making it easier to hit.
$endgroup$
– Mooing Duck
6 hours ago
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
The Impeller Wedges of David Weber's Honorverse work in this fashion to protect starships, but it's way outside the realm of "science-based", and more of a genre convention to make space battle tactics work the way Weber wanted.
$endgroup$
– notovny
11 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Yes. If you have very large Black holes you can shift around your ship this is possible. Why you would fear a laser by that time is a different question
$endgroup$
– Demigan
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Gravitational lensing is caused by light that would have missed, but by a small amount. Increasing the gravity would pull more light toward the ship, making it easier to hit.
$endgroup$
– Mooing Duck
6 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
The Impeller Wedges of David Weber's Honorverse work in this fashion to protect starships, but it's way outside the realm of "science-based", and more of a genre convention to make space battle tactics work the way Weber wanted.
$endgroup$
– notovny
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
The Impeller Wedges of David Weber's Honorverse work in this fashion to protect starships, but it's way outside the realm of "science-based", and more of a genre convention to make space battle tactics work the way Weber wanted.
$endgroup$
– notovny
11 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Yes. If you have very large Black holes you can shift around your ship this is possible. Why you would fear a laser by that time is a different question
$endgroup$
– Demigan
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes. If you have very large Black holes you can shift around your ship this is possible. Why you would fear a laser by that time is a different question
$endgroup$
– Demigan
10 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Gravitational lensing is caused by light that would have missed, but by a small amount. Increasing the gravity would pull more light toward the ship, making it easier to hit.
$endgroup$
– Mooing Duck
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Gravitational lensing is caused by light that would have missed, but by a small amount. Increasing the gravity would pull more light toward the ship, making it easier to hit.
$endgroup$
– Mooing Duck
6 hours ago
add a comment |
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There are several problems with this.
First of all, when someone fires a laser at you, you aren't going to know it until it hits you, so this would only work if Ship A were CONTINUOUSLY creating a gravity well in between itself and ship B. You couldn't use it reactively without letting it hit you first, although you could potentially limit the damage.
And if so, would using this trick inadvertently (on the captain’s part) turn Ship A into a black hole?
No, but in order to do this you'd have to be able to artificially CREATE a black hole, and a pretty massive one at that, in order to deflect a laser beam any meaningful distance. At that point it'd be simpler to just create the singularity right on top of Ship B and destroy it rather than mess around deflecting laser beams.
TLDR: If you can create a gravity field powerful enough to deflect a laser beam, you're so powerful you don't have to worry about deflecting laser beams.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
This is an excellent example of deep exploration of the ramification of a fictional tech/power - "Tech X does Y... But if we explore it a little more it becomes obvious that doing Z with it instead is infinitely more useful..." Something many sci-fi and fantasy writers fail to do properly.
$endgroup$
– TheLuckless
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
What if you can create a black hole up to 10km away from your ship, but the enemy ship is firing its laser from 11km?
$endgroup$
– Display Name
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@DisplayName I'm not sure how much mass is needed to produce sufficient lensing over a distance of mere kilometers, but if you need at least 0.4 solar masses, the enemy is still inside the event horizon. If you need 3.8 solar masses, you are also inside the event horizon. Coincidentally, 3.8 solar masses is the mass of the smallest known black hole.
$endgroup$
– Ray
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
If the radius of the event horizon was comparable to the radius of the laser beam it wouldn't even need to lens. At 1/10th earth mass the radius is about 1mm. Lensing would serve to reduce the required radius (and thereby the mass) because you could scatter the light around the black hole instead of having to absorb all of it. A small black hole in the center of the laser beam would serve to de-focus it, turning a searing beam into gentle illumination.
$endgroup$
– Display Name
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Not to mention that is the device was already active, B can just shoot A around it anyway just by aiming differently.
$endgroup$
– Draco18s
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Gravity lensing works for light paths skimming the attractor. For light paths crossing the attractor the impact would not be avoided.
So, your device would simply deviate the laser passing around the ship, not the laser hitting in.
Basically, it would work on protecting the ship only if the enemy had a poor aiming.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You're really just objecting to his use of the term 'lensing' though. His idea would still WORK, you'd just put the attractor right next to the direct path between Ship A and Ship B; you would just call it gravitational deflection instead of lensing.
$endgroup$
– Morris The Cat
10 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@MorridTheCat OP specifi ally said his device alters the gravity of the ship. The ship is the attractor.
$endgroup$
– Renan
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Depends on the range and timing.
- Ship B tracks ship A with visual sensors. Ship A has this "gravity shield" running, so the apparent position of A will be distorted.
- Ship B fires a laser at the apparent position of A, and the laser beam is distorted the same way the detection is distorted. The laser hits the actual position of A.
What you describe might work if the distances are high enough to "re-focus" the "gravity shield" between firing and impact. In that case, wouldn't there be time for conventional evasive maneuvering? So your idea calls for long range combined with an inability to dodge. Even with gravity manipulation technology, does A require fuel or reaction mass? Or is it really large?
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Building off Morris The Cat's answer (because I can't comment)
If you can effectively create a black hole to "lens" a laser attack, you can just put said black hole in the path of the laser attack and have the black hole capture the light completely.
New contributor
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Hi, welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! If you havent yet, please take a Tour of our site. There is a reason why new users are not allowed to comment, that being to prevent ‘spam accounts’ from being able to comment on every question and answer. This being said, answers are not meant to be a substitute for getting around being unable to comment yet and this may be deleted. If you post an answer that can stand on its own and recieves upvotes, you will soon be able to overcome being unable to comment.
$endgroup$
– Liam Morris
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
On the other hand, dispensing a cloud of aluminum foil or dust between you and the attacker would also render the laser harmless. Much lower level of entry.
New contributor
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Hi, welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! If you havent already, please read through our Tour page. Your answer seems a little ‘thin on the ground’ which might mean it will be deleted for lacking enough content, can you please edit it to explain how and why this could work? Also, your answer is not currently answering the question. Can you state if you think the OP’s idea would work or not and offer an alternative option (which you already have done) if it would not work.
$endgroup$
– Liam Morris
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm afraid that they won't help. Aluminum foil doesn't have perfect reflective and dust has almost none. The end result of that is that both will absorb light and heat up. Any laser powerful enough to threaten a spaceship would easily vaporize any aluminum foil or dust in it's path. Dust might work if you had enough of it to make a large asteroid out of it, but then it wouldn't be dust...
$endgroup$
– conman
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
L.Dutch is correct in his answer. Increasing the mass of the ship would be useless if the enemy has good aim. It will still be hit at the center.
You could then be smart and fire a mass effect missile. The missile itself becomes more massive and deflects the laser. But how much mass would you need?
Einstein himself calculated that the Sun works as a lens with a focal distance of 542 AU's. The formula is:
$$ lensing space angle = frac{4GM}{rc^2}$$
Where $M$ s the mass of the lens, $G$ is a well known constant, $r$ is the distance from the center of mass and $c$ is the speed of light.
So at for one Earth mass, if the beam passes by the mass at a distance of 100 km:
$$ frac{4 times G times 6 times 10^{27}}{10^5 times (3 times 10^8)^2} $$
That equals a whopping 2,666,666.666 x $G$ degrees. However, G has a 10-11 built into it, so it works out to a fraction that is closer to $frac{1}{100,000}$ degrees. You'd have to go very far for that to cause a miss.
Now think about what you just did. If you are able to summon the mass of an Earth to use as defensive measure, don't use it as a lens, use it as a shield. The Earth has a radius of around 6,400 kilometers. It's more than enough to hide behind if it comes trailing at you, and massive enough that you should not be hit by the laser.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since such a shield would need to be turned on in advance of a laser being fired, it must cover all points of the ship that might be hit, effectively wrapping the ship in a layer dense enough to exert a high enough force on a beam of light so as to effectively make it miss the target entirely. This would place enormous force on the ship itself, as it would basically be drawn to collapse outward into said layer.
Also, as pointed out in o.m.'s post, any changes to the path of an incoming laser beam would also equally change the apparent position of the ship, cancelling out the efficiency of the shield. However, an application of this that fits his parameters of the target being shot at from long distances and being extremely large could be interplanetary laser strikes, so maybe there would be a use. Of course, the ecosystem on the planet would be catastrophically altered by the addition of a black hole layer to the atmosphere.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Dan Petit is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143245%2fcould-gravitational-lensing-be-used-to-protect-a-spaceship-from-a-laser%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There are several problems with this.
First of all, when someone fires a laser at you, you aren't going to know it until it hits you, so this would only work if Ship A were CONTINUOUSLY creating a gravity well in between itself and ship B. You couldn't use it reactively without letting it hit you first, although you could potentially limit the damage.
And if so, would using this trick inadvertently (on the captain’s part) turn Ship A into a black hole?
No, but in order to do this you'd have to be able to artificially CREATE a black hole, and a pretty massive one at that, in order to deflect a laser beam any meaningful distance. At that point it'd be simpler to just create the singularity right on top of Ship B and destroy it rather than mess around deflecting laser beams.
TLDR: If you can create a gravity field powerful enough to deflect a laser beam, you're so powerful you don't have to worry about deflecting laser beams.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
This is an excellent example of deep exploration of the ramification of a fictional tech/power - "Tech X does Y... But if we explore it a little more it becomes obvious that doing Z with it instead is infinitely more useful..." Something many sci-fi and fantasy writers fail to do properly.
$endgroup$
– TheLuckless
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
What if you can create a black hole up to 10km away from your ship, but the enemy ship is firing its laser from 11km?
$endgroup$
– Display Name
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@DisplayName I'm not sure how much mass is needed to produce sufficient lensing over a distance of mere kilometers, but if you need at least 0.4 solar masses, the enemy is still inside the event horizon. If you need 3.8 solar masses, you are also inside the event horizon. Coincidentally, 3.8 solar masses is the mass of the smallest known black hole.
$endgroup$
– Ray
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
If the radius of the event horizon was comparable to the radius of the laser beam it wouldn't even need to lens. At 1/10th earth mass the radius is about 1mm. Lensing would serve to reduce the required radius (and thereby the mass) because you could scatter the light around the black hole instead of having to absorb all of it. A small black hole in the center of the laser beam would serve to de-focus it, turning a searing beam into gentle illumination.
$endgroup$
– Display Name
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Not to mention that is the device was already active, B can just shoot A around it anyway just by aiming differently.
$endgroup$
– Draco18s
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
There are several problems with this.
First of all, when someone fires a laser at you, you aren't going to know it until it hits you, so this would only work if Ship A were CONTINUOUSLY creating a gravity well in between itself and ship B. You couldn't use it reactively without letting it hit you first, although you could potentially limit the damage.
And if so, would using this trick inadvertently (on the captain’s part) turn Ship A into a black hole?
No, but in order to do this you'd have to be able to artificially CREATE a black hole, and a pretty massive one at that, in order to deflect a laser beam any meaningful distance. At that point it'd be simpler to just create the singularity right on top of Ship B and destroy it rather than mess around deflecting laser beams.
TLDR: If you can create a gravity field powerful enough to deflect a laser beam, you're so powerful you don't have to worry about deflecting laser beams.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
This is an excellent example of deep exploration of the ramification of a fictional tech/power - "Tech X does Y... But if we explore it a little more it becomes obvious that doing Z with it instead is infinitely more useful..." Something many sci-fi and fantasy writers fail to do properly.
$endgroup$
– TheLuckless
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
What if you can create a black hole up to 10km away from your ship, but the enemy ship is firing its laser from 11km?
$endgroup$
– Display Name
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@DisplayName I'm not sure how much mass is needed to produce sufficient lensing over a distance of mere kilometers, but if you need at least 0.4 solar masses, the enemy is still inside the event horizon. If you need 3.8 solar masses, you are also inside the event horizon. Coincidentally, 3.8 solar masses is the mass of the smallest known black hole.
$endgroup$
– Ray
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
If the radius of the event horizon was comparable to the radius of the laser beam it wouldn't even need to lens. At 1/10th earth mass the radius is about 1mm. Lensing would serve to reduce the required radius (and thereby the mass) because you could scatter the light around the black hole instead of having to absorb all of it. A small black hole in the center of the laser beam would serve to de-focus it, turning a searing beam into gentle illumination.
$endgroup$
– Display Name
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Not to mention that is the device was already active, B can just shoot A around it anyway just by aiming differently.
$endgroup$
– Draco18s
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
There are several problems with this.
First of all, when someone fires a laser at you, you aren't going to know it until it hits you, so this would only work if Ship A were CONTINUOUSLY creating a gravity well in between itself and ship B. You couldn't use it reactively without letting it hit you first, although you could potentially limit the damage.
And if so, would using this trick inadvertently (on the captain’s part) turn Ship A into a black hole?
No, but in order to do this you'd have to be able to artificially CREATE a black hole, and a pretty massive one at that, in order to deflect a laser beam any meaningful distance. At that point it'd be simpler to just create the singularity right on top of Ship B and destroy it rather than mess around deflecting laser beams.
TLDR: If you can create a gravity field powerful enough to deflect a laser beam, you're so powerful you don't have to worry about deflecting laser beams.
$endgroup$
There are several problems with this.
First of all, when someone fires a laser at you, you aren't going to know it until it hits you, so this would only work if Ship A were CONTINUOUSLY creating a gravity well in between itself and ship B. You couldn't use it reactively without letting it hit you first, although you could potentially limit the damage.
And if so, would using this trick inadvertently (on the captain’s part) turn Ship A into a black hole?
No, but in order to do this you'd have to be able to artificially CREATE a black hole, and a pretty massive one at that, in order to deflect a laser beam any meaningful distance. At that point it'd be simpler to just create the singularity right on top of Ship B and destroy it rather than mess around deflecting laser beams.
TLDR: If you can create a gravity field powerful enough to deflect a laser beam, you're so powerful you don't have to worry about deflecting laser beams.
answered 11 hours ago
Morris The CatMorris The Cat
3,769625
3,769625
2
$begingroup$
This is an excellent example of deep exploration of the ramification of a fictional tech/power - "Tech X does Y... But if we explore it a little more it becomes obvious that doing Z with it instead is infinitely more useful..." Something many sci-fi and fantasy writers fail to do properly.
$endgroup$
– TheLuckless
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
What if you can create a black hole up to 10km away from your ship, but the enemy ship is firing its laser from 11km?
$endgroup$
– Display Name
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@DisplayName I'm not sure how much mass is needed to produce sufficient lensing over a distance of mere kilometers, but if you need at least 0.4 solar masses, the enemy is still inside the event horizon. If you need 3.8 solar masses, you are also inside the event horizon. Coincidentally, 3.8 solar masses is the mass of the smallest known black hole.
$endgroup$
– Ray
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
If the radius of the event horizon was comparable to the radius of the laser beam it wouldn't even need to lens. At 1/10th earth mass the radius is about 1mm. Lensing would serve to reduce the required radius (and thereby the mass) because you could scatter the light around the black hole instead of having to absorb all of it. A small black hole in the center of the laser beam would serve to de-focus it, turning a searing beam into gentle illumination.
$endgroup$
– Display Name
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Not to mention that is the device was already active, B can just shoot A around it anyway just by aiming differently.
$endgroup$
– Draco18s
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
2
$begingroup$
This is an excellent example of deep exploration of the ramification of a fictional tech/power - "Tech X does Y... But if we explore it a little more it becomes obvious that doing Z with it instead is infinitely more useful..." Something many sci-fi and fantasy writers fail to do properly.
$endgroup$
– TheLuckless
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
What if you can create a black hole up to 10km away from your ship, but the enemy ship is firing its laser from 11km?
$endgroup$
– Display Name
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@DisplayName I'm not sure how much mass is needed to produce sufficient lensing over a distance of mere kilometers, but if you need at least 0.4 solar masses, the enemy is still inside the event horizon. If you need 3.8 solar masses, you are also inside the event horizon. Coincidentally, 3.8 solar masses is the mass of the smallest known black hole.
$endgroup$
– Ray
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
If the radius of the event horizon was comparable to the radius of the laser beam it wouldn't even need to lens. At 1/10th earth mass the radius is about 1mm. Lensing would serve to reduce the required radius (and thereby the mass) because you could scatter the light around the black hole instead of having to absorb all of it. A small black hole in the center of the laser beam would serve to de-focus it, turning a searing beam into gentle illumination.
$endgroup$
– Display Name
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Not to mention that is the device was already active, B can just shoot A around it anyway just by aiming differently.
$endgroup$
– Draco18s
2 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
This is an excellent example of deep exploration of the ramification of a fictional tech/power - "Tech X does Y... But if we explore it a little more it becomes obvious that doing Z with it instead is infinitely more useful..." Something many sci-fi and fantasy writers fail to do properly.
$endgroup$
– TheLuckless
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is an excellent example of deep exploration of the ramification of a fictional tech/power - "Tech X does Y... But if we explore it a little more it becomes obvious that doing Z with it instead is infinitely more useful..." Something many sci-fi and fantasy writers fail to do properly.
$endgroup$
– TheLuckless
11 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
What if you can create a black hole up to 10km away from your ship, but the enemy ship is firing its laser from 11km?
$endgroup$
– Display Name
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
What if you can create a black hole up to 10km away from your ship, but the enemy ship is firing its laser from 11km?
$endgroup$
– Display Name
7 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
@DisplayName I'm not sure how much mass is needed to produce sufficient lensing over a distance of mere kilometers, but if you need at least 0.4 solar masses, the enemy is still inside the event horizon. If you need 3.8 solar masses, you are also inside the event horizon. Coincidentally, 3.8 solar masses is the mass of the smallest known black hole.
$endgroup$
– Ray
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@DisplayName I'm not sure how much mass is needed to produce sufficient lensing over a distance of mere kilometers, but if you need at least 0.4 solar masses, the enemy is still inside the event horizon. If you need 3.8 solar masses, you are also inside the event horizon. Coincidentally, 3.8 solar masses is the mass of the smallest known black hole.
$endgroup$
– Ray
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
If the radius of the event horizon was comparable to the radius of the laser beam it wouldn't even need to lens. At 1/10th earth mass the radius is about 1mm. Lensing would serve to reduce the required radius (and thereby the mass) because you could scatter the light around the black hole instead of having to absorb all of it. A small black hole in the center of the laser beam would serve to de-focus it, turning a searing beam into gentle illumination.
$endgroup$
– Display Name
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
If the radius of the event horizon was comparable to the radius of the laser beam it wouldn't even need to lens. At 1/10th earth mass the radius is about 1mm. Lensing would serve to reduce the required radius (and thereby the mass) because you could scatter the light around the black hole instead of having to absorb all of it. A small black hole in the center of the laser beam would serve to de-focus it, turning a searing beam into gentle illumination.
$endgroup$
– Display Name
5 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Not to mention that is the device was already active, B can just shoot A around it anyway just by aiming differently.
$endgroup$
– Draco18s
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Not to mention that is the device was already active, B can just shoot A around it anyway just by aiming differently.
$endgroup$
– Draco18s
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Gravity lensing works for light paths skimming the attractor. For light paths crossing the attractor the impact would not be avoided.
So, your device would simply deviate the laser passing around the ship, not the laser hitting in.
Basically, it would work on protecting the ship only if the enemy had a poor aiming.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You're really just objecting to his use of the term 'lensing' though. His idea would still WORK, you'd just put the attractor right next to the direct path between Ship A and Ship B; you would just call it gravitational deflection instead of lensing.
$endgroup$
– Morris The Cat
10 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@MorridTheCat OP specifi ally said his device alters the gravity of the ship. The ship is the attractor.
$endgroup$
– Renan
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Gravity lensing works for light paths skimming the attractor. For light paths crossing the attractor the impact would not be avoided.
So, your device would simply deviate the laser passing around the ship, not the laser hitting in.
Basically, it would work on protecting the ship only if the enemy had a poor aiming.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You're really just objecting to his use of the term 'lensing' though. His idea would still WORK, you'd just put the attractor right next to the direct path between Ship A and Ship B; you would just call it gravitational deflection instead of lensing.
$endgroup$
– Morris The Cat
10 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@MorridTheCat OP specifi ally said his device alters the gravity of the ship. The ship is the attractor.
$endgroup$
– Renan
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Gravity lensing works for light paths skimming the attractor. For light paths crossing the attractor the impact would not be avoided.
So, your device would simply deviate the laser passing around the ship, not the laser hitting in.
Basically, it would work on protecting the ship only if the enemy had a poor aiming.
$endgroup$
Gravity lensing works for light paths skimming the attractor. For light paths crossing the attractor the impact would not be avoided.
So, your device would simply deviate the laser passing around the ship, not the laser hitting in.
Basically, it would work on protecting the ship only if the enemy had a poor aiming.
answered 11 hours ago
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
90.1k29209436
90.1k29209436
$begingroup$
You're really just objecting to his use of the term 'lensing' though. His idea would still WORK, you'd just put the attractor right next to the direct path between Ship A and Ship B; you would just call it gravitational deflection instead of lensing.
$endgroup$
– Morris The Cat
10 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@MorridTheCat OP specifi ally said his device alters the gravity of the ship. The ship is the attractor.
$endgroup$
– Renan
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You're really just objecting to his use of the term 'lensing' though. His idea would still WORK, you'd just put the attractor right next to the direct path between Ship A and Ship B; you would just call it gravitational deflection instead of lensing.
$endgroup$
– Morris The Cat
10 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@MorridTheCat OP specifi ally said his device alters the gravity of the ship. The ship is the attractor.
$endgroup$
– Renan
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
You're really just objecting to his use of the term 'lensing' though. His idea would still WORK, you'd just put the attractor right next to the direct path between Ship A and Ship B; you would just call it gravitational deflection instead of lensing.
$endgroup$
– Morris The Cat
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
You're really just objecting to his use of the term 'lensing' though. His idea would still WORK, you'd just put the attractor right next to the direct path between Ship A and Ship B; you would just call it gravitational deflection instead of lensing.
$endgroup$
– Morris The Cat
10 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
@MorridTheCat OP specifi ally said his device alters the gravity of the ship. The ship is the attractor.
$endgroup$
– Renan
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MorridTheCat OP specifi ally said his device alters the gravity of the ship. The ship is the attractor.
$endgroup$
– Renan
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Depends on the range and timing.
- Ship B tracks ship A with visual sensors. Ship A has this "gravity shield" running, so the apparent position of A will be distorted.
- Ship B fires a laser at the apparent position of A, and the laser beam is distorted the same way the detection is distorted. The laser hits the actual position of A.
What you describe might work if the distances are high enough to "re-focus" the "gravity shield" between firing and impact. In that case, wouldn't there be time for conventional evasive maneuvering? So your idea calls for long range combined with an inability to dodge. Even with gravity manipulation technology, does A require fuel or reaction mass? Or is it really large?
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Depends on the range and timing.
- Ship B tracks ship A with visual sensors. Ship A has this "gravity shield" running, so the apparent position of A will be distorted.
- Ship B fires a laser at the apparent position of A, and the laser beam is distorted the same way the detection is distorted. The laser hits the actual position of A.
What you describe might work if the distances are high enough to "re-focus" the "gravity shield" between firing and impact. In that case, wouldn't there be time for conventional evasive maneuvering? So your idea calls for long range combined with an inability to dodge. Even with gravity manipulation technology, does A require fuel or reaction mass? Or is it really large?
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Depends on the range and timing.
- Ship B tracks ship A with visual sensors. Ship A has this "gravity shield" running, so the apparent position of A will be distorted.
- Ship B fires a laser at the apparent position of A, and the laser beam is distorted the same way the detection is distorted. The laser hits the actual position of A.
What you describe might work if the distances are high enough to "re-focus" the "gravity shield" between firing and impact. In that case, wouldn't there be time for conventional evasive maneuvering? So your idea calls for long range combined with an inability to dodge. Even with gravity manipulation technology, does A require fuel or reaction mass? Or is it really large?
$endgroup$
Depends on the range and timing.
- Ship B tracks ship A with visual sensors. Ship A has this "gravity shield" running, so the apparent position of A will be distorted.
- Ship B fires a laser at the apparent position of A, and the laser beam is distorted the same way the detection is distorted. The laser hits the actual position of A.
What you describe might work if the distances are high enough to "re-focus" the "gravity shield" between firing and impact. In that case, wouldn't there be time for conventional evasive maneuvering? So your idea calls for long range combined with an inability to dodge. Even with gravity manipulation technology, does A require fuel or reaction mass? Or is it really large?
answered 11 hours ago
o.m.o.m.
62.8k791204
62.8k791204
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Building off Morris The Cat's answer (because I can't comment)
If you can effectively create a black hole to "lens" a laser attack, you can just put said black hole in the path of the laser attack and have the black hole capture the light completely.
New contributor
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Hi, welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! If you havent yet, please take a Tour of our site. There is a reason why new users are not allowed to comment, that being to prevent ‘spam accounts’ from being able to comment on every question and answer. This being said, answers are not meant to be a substitute for getting around being unable to comment yet and this may be deleted. If you post an answer that can stand on its own and recieves upvotes, you will soon be able to overcome being unable to comment.
$endgroup$
– Liam Morris
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Building off Morris The Cat's answer (because I can't comment)
If you can effectively create a black hole to "lens" a laser attack, you can just put said black hole in the path of the laser attack and have the black hole capture the light completely.
New contributor
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Hi, welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! If you havent yet, please take a Tour of our site. There is a reason why new users are not allowed to comment, that being to prevent ‘spam accounts’ from being able to comment on every question and answer. This being said, answers are not meant to be a substitute for getting around being unable to comment yet and this may be deleted. If you post an answer that can stand on its own and recieves upvotes, you will soon be able to overcome being unable to comment.
$endgroup$
– Liam Morris
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Building off Morris The Cat's answer (because I can't comment)
If you can effectively create a black hole to "lens" a laser attack, you can just put said black hole in the path of the laser attack and have the black hole capture the light completely.
New contributor
$endgroup$
Building off Morris The Cat's answer (because I can't comment)
If you can effectively create a black hole to "lens" a laser attack, you can just put said black hole in the path of the laser attack and have the black hole capture the light completely.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 6 hours ago
sekohnkesekohnke
111
111
New contributor
New contributor
1
$begingroup$
Hi, welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! If you havent yet, please take a Tour of our site. There is a reason why new users are not allowed to comment, that being to prevent ‘spam accounts’ from being able to comment on every question and answer. This being said, answers are not meant to be a substitute for getting around being unable to comment yet and this may be deleted. If you post an answer that can stand on its own and recieves upvotes, you will soon be able to overcome being unable to comment.
$endgroup$
– Liam Morris
5 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Hi, welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! If you havent yet, please take a Tour of our site. There is a reason why new users are not allowed to comment, that being to prevent ‘spam accounts’ from being able to comment on every question and answer. This being said, answers are not meant to be a substitute for getting around being unable to comment yet and this may be deleted. If you post an answer that can stand on its own and recieves upvotes, you will soon be able to overcome being unable to comment.
$endgroup$
– Liam Morris
5 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Hi, welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! If you havent yet, please take a Tour of our site. There is a reason why new users are not allowed to comment, that being to prevent ‘spam accounts’ from being able to comment on every question and answer. This being said, answers are not meant to be a substitute for getting around being unable to comment yet and this may be deleted. If you post an answer that can stand on its own and recieves upvotes, you will soon be able to overcome being unable to comment.
$endgroup$
– Liam Morris
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Hi, welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! If you havent yet, please take a Tour of our site. There is a reason why new users are not allowed to comment, that being to prevent ‘spam accounts’ from being able to comment on every question and answer. This being said, answers are not meant to be a substitute for getting around being unable to comment yet and this may be deleted. If you post an answer that can stand on its own and recieves upvotes, you will soon be able to overcome being unable to comment.
$endgroup$
– Liam Morris
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
On the other hand, dispensing a cloud of aluminum foil or dust between you and the attacker would also render the laser harmless. Much lower level of entry.
New contributor
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Hi, welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! If you havent already, please read through our Tour page. Your answer seems a little ‘thin on the ground’ which might mean it will be deleted for lacking enough content, can you please edit it to explain how and why this could work? Also, your answer is not currently answering the question. Can you state if you think the OP’s idea would work or not and offer an alternative option (which you already have done) if it would not work.
$endgroup$
– Liam Morris
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm afraid that they won't help. Aluminum foil doesn't have perfect reflective and dust has almost none. The end result of that is that both will absorb light and heat up. Any laser powerful enough to threaten a spaceship would easily vaporize any aluminum foil or dust in it's path. Dust might work if you had enough of it to make a large asteroid out of it, but then it wouldn't be dust...
$endgroup$
– conman
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
On the other hand, dispensing a cloud of aluminum foil or dust between you and the attacker would also render the laser harmless. Much lower level of entry.
New contributor
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Hi, welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! If you havent already, please read through our Tour page. Your answer seems a little ‘thin on the ground’ which might mean it will be deleted for lacking enough content, can you please edit it to explain how and why this could work? Also, your answer is not currently answering the question. Can you state if you think the OP’s idea would work or not and offer an alternative option (which you already have done) if it would not work.
$endgroup$
– Liam Morris
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm afraid that they won't help. Aluminum foil doesn't have perfect reflective and dust has almost none. The end result of that is that both will absorb light and heat up. Any laser powerful enough to threaten a spaceship would easily vaporize any aluminum foil or dust in it's path. Dust might work if you had enough of it to make a large asteroid out of it, but then it wouldn't be dust...
$endgroup$
– conman
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
On the other hand, dispensing a cloud of aluminum foil or dust between you and the attacker would also render the laser harmless. Much lower level of entry.
New contributor
$endgroup$
On the other hand, dispensing a cloud of aluminum foil or dust between you and the attacker would also render the laser harmless. Much lower level of entry.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 4 hours ago
Rodney BarbatiRodney Barbati
111
111
New contributor
New contributor
3
$begingroup$
Hi, welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! If you havent already, please read through our Tour page. Your answer seems a little ‘thin on the ground’ which might mean it will be deleted for lacking enough content, can you please edit it to explain how and why this could work? Also, your answer is not currently answering the question. Can you state if you think the OP’s idea would work or not and offer an alternative option (which you already have done) if it would not work.
$endgroup$
– Liam Morris
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm afraid that they won't help. Aluminum foil doesn't have perfect reflective and dust has almost none. The end result of that is that both will absorb light and heat up. Any laser powerful enough to threaten a spaceship would easily vaporize any aluminum foil or dust in it's path. Dust might work if you had enough of it to make a large asteroid out of it, but then it wouldn't be dust...
$endgroup$
– conman
1 hour ago
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
Hi, welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! If you havent already, please read through our Tour page. Your answer seems a little ‘thin on the ground’ which might mean it will be deleted for lacking enough content, can you please edit it to explain how and why this could work? Also, your answer is not currently answering the question. Can you state if you think the OP’s idea would work or not and offer an alternative option (which you already have done) if it would not work.
$endgroup$
– Liam Morris
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm afraid that they won't help. Aluminum foil doesn't have perfect reflective and dust has almost none. The end result of that is that both will absorb light and heat up. Any laser powerful enough to threaten a spaceship would easily vaporize any aluminum foil or dust in it's path. Dust might work if you had enough of it to make a large asteroid out of it, but then it wouldn't be dust...
$endgroup$
– conman
1 hour ago
3
3
$begingroup$
Hi, welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! If you havent already, please read through our Tour page. Your answer seems a little ‘thin on the ground’ which might mean it will be deleted for lacking enough content, can you please edit it to explain how and why this could work? Also, your answer is not currently answering the question. Can you state if you think the OP’s idea would work or not and offer an alternative option (which you already have done) if it would not work.
$endgroup$
– Liam Morris
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Hi, welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! If you havent already, please read through our Tour page. Your answer seems a little ‘thin on the ground’ which might mean it will be deleted for lacking enough content, can you please edit it to explain how and why this could work? Also, your answer is not currently answering the question. Can you state if you think the OP’s idea would work or not and offer an alternative option (which you already have done) if it would not work.
$endgroup$
– Liam Morris
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm afraid that they won't help. Aluminum foil doesn't have perfect reflective and dust has almost none. The end result of that is that both will absorb light and heat up. Any laser powerful enough to threaten a spaceship would easily vaporize any aluminum foil or dust in it's path. Dust might work if you had enough of it to make a large asteroid out of it, but then it wouldn't be dust...
$endgroup$
– conman
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I'm afraid that they won't help. Aluminum foil doesn't have perfect reflective and dust has almost none. The end result of that is that both will absorb light and heat up. Any laser powerful enough to threaten a spaceship would easily vaporize any aluminum foil or dust in it's path. Dust might work if you had enough of it to make a large asteroid out of it, but then it wouldn't be dust...
$endgroup$
– conman
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
L.Dutch is correct in his answer. Increasing the mass of the ship would be useless if the enemy has good aim. It will still be hit at the center.
You could then be smart and fire a mass effect missile. The missile itself becomes more massive and deflects the laser. But how much mass would you need?
Einstein himself calculated that the Sun works as a lens with a focal distance of 542 AU's. The formula is:
$$ lensing space angle = frac{4GM}{rc^2}$$
Where $M$ s the mass of the lens, $G$ is a well known constant, $r$ is the distance from the center of mass and $c$ is the speed of light.
So at for one Earth mass, if the beam passes by the mass at a distance of 100 km:
$$ frac{4 times G times 6 times 10^{27}}{10^5 times (3 times 10^8)^2} $$
That equals a whopping 2,666,666.666 x $G$ degrees. However, G has a 10-11 built into it, so it works out to a fraction that is closer to $frac{1}{100,000}$ degrees. You'd have to go very far for that to cause a miss.
Now think about what you just did. If you are able to summon the mass of an Earth to use as defensive measure, don't use it as a lens, use it as a shield. The Earth has a radius of around 6,400 kilometers. It's more than enough to hide behind if it comes trailing at you, and massive enough that you should not be hit by the laser.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
L.Dutch is correct in his answer. Increasing the mass of the ship would be useless if the enemy has good aim. It will still be hit at the center.
You could then be smart and fire a mass effect missile. The missile itself becomes more massive and deflects the laser. But how much mass would you need?
Einstein himself calculated that the Sun works as a lens with a focal distance of 542 AU's. The formula is:
$$ lensing space angle = frac{4GM}{rc^2}$$
Where $M$ s the mass of the lens, $G$ is a well known constant, $r$ is the distance from the center of mass and $c$ is the speed of light.
So at for one Earth mass, if the beam passes by the mass at a distance of 100 km:
$$ frac{4 times G times 6 times 10^{27}}{10^5 times (3 times 10^8)^2} $$
That equals a whopping 2,666,666.666 x $G$ degrees. However, G has a 10-11 built into it, so it works out to a fraction that is closer to $frac{1}{100,000}$ degrees. You'd have to go very far for that to cause a miss.
Now think about what you just did. If you are able to summon the mass of an Earth to use as defensive measure, don't use it as a lens, use it as a shield. The Earth has a radius of around 6,400 kilometers. It's more than enough to hide behind if it comes trailing at you, and massive enough that you should not be hit by the laser.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
L.Dutch is correct in his answer. Increasing the mass of the ship would be useless if the enemy has good aim. It will still be hit at the center.
You could then be smart and fire a mass effect missile. The missile itself becomes more massive and deflects the laser. But how much mass would you need?
Einstein himself calculated that the Sun works as a lens with a focal distance of 542 AU's. The formula is:
$$ lensing space angle = frac{4GM}{rc^2}$$
Where $M$ s the mass of the lens, $G$ is a well known constant, $r$ is the distance from the center of mass and $c$ is the speed of light.
So at for one Earth mass, if the beam passes by the mass at a distance of 100 km:
$$ frac{4 times G times 6 times 10^{27}}{10^5 times (3 times 10^8)^2} $$
That equals a whopping 2,666,666.666 x $G$ degrees. However, G has a 10-11 built into it, so it works out to a fraction that is closer to $frac{1}{100,000}$ degrees. You'd have to go very far for that to cause a miss.
Now think about what you just did. If you are able to summon the mass of an Earth to use as defensive measure, don't use it as a lens, use it as a shield. The Earth has a radius of around 6,400 kilometers. It's more than enough to hide behind if it comes trailing at you, and massive enough that you should not be hit by the laser.
$endgroup$
L.Dutch is correct in his answer. Increasing the mass of the ship would be useless if the enemy has good aim. It will still be hit at the center.
You could then be smart and fire a mass effect missile. The missile itself becomes more massive and deflects the laser. But how much mass would you need?
Einstein himself calculated that the Sun works as a lens with a focal distance of 542 AU's. The formula is:
$$ lensing space angle = frac{4GM}{rc^2}$$
Where $M$ s the mass of the lens, $G$ is a well known constant, $r$ is the distance from the center of mass and $c$ is the speed of light.
So at for one Earth mass, if the beam passes by the mass at a distance of 100 km:
$$ frac{4 times G times 6 times 10^{27}}{10^5 times (3 times 10^8)^2} $$
That equals a whopping 2,666,666.666 x $G$ degrees. However, G has a 10-11 built into it, so it works out to a fraction that is closer to $frac{1}{100,000}$ degrees. You'd have to go very far for that to cause a miss.
Now think about what you just did. If you are able to summon the mass of an Earth to use as defensive measure, don't use it as a lens, use it as a shield. The Earth has a radius of around 6,400 kilometers. It's more than enough to hide behind if it comes trailing at you, and massive enough that you should not be hit by the laser.
edited 5 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
RenanRenan
52.4k15119261
52.4k15119261
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since such a shield would need to be turned on in advance of a laser being fired, it must cover all points of the ship that might be hit, effectively wrapping the ship in a layer dense enough to exert a high enough force on a beam of light so as to effectively make it miss the target entirely. This would place enormous force on the ship itself, as it would basically be drawn to collapse outward into said layer.
Also, as pointed out in o.m.'s post, any changes to the path of an incoming laser beam would also equally change the apparent position of the ship, cancelling out the efficiency of the shield. However, an application of this that fits his parameters of the target being shot at from long distances and being extremely large could be interplanetary laser strikes, so maybe there would be a use. Of course, the ecosystem on the planet would be catastrophically altered by the addition of a black hole layer to the atmosphere.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since such a shield would need to be turned on in advance of a laser being fired, it must cover all points of the ship that might be hit, effectively wrapping the ship in a layer dense enough to exert a high enough force on a beam of light so as to effectively make it miss the target entirely. This would place enormous force on the ship itself, as it would basically be drawn to collapse outward into said layer.
Also, as pointed out in o.m.'s post, any changes to the path of an incoming laser beam would also equally change the apparent position of the ship, cancelling out the efficiency of the shield. However, an application of this that fits his parameters of the target being shot at from long distances and being extremely large could be interplanetary laser strikes, so maybe there would be a use. Of course, the ecosystem on the planet would be catastrophically altered by the addition of a black hole layer to the atmosphere.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since such a shield would need to be turned on in advance of a laser being fired, it must cover all points of the ship that might be hit, effectively wrapping the ship in a layer dense enough to exert a high enough force on a beam of light so as to effectively make it miss the target entirely. This would place enormous force on the ship itself, as it would basically be drawn to collapse outward into said layer.
Also, as pointed out in o.m.'s post, any changes to the path of an incoming laser beam would also equally change the apparent position of the ship, cancelling out the efficiency of the shield. However, an application of this that fits his parameters of the target being shot at from long distances and being extremely large could be interplanetary laser strikes, so maybe there would be a use. Of course, the ecosystem on the planet would be catastrophically altered by the addition of a black hole layer to the atmosphere.
New contributor
$endgroup$
Since such a shield would need to be turned on in advance of a laser being fired, it must cover all points of the ship that might be hit, effectively wrapping the ship in a layer dense enough to exert a high enough force on a beam of light so as to effectively make it miss the target entirely. This would place enormous force on the ship itself, as it would basically be drawn to collapse outward into said layer.
Also, as pointed out in o.m.'s post, any changes to the path of an incoming laser beam would also equally change the apparent position of the ship, cancelling out the efficiency of the shield. However, an application of this that fits his parameters of the target being shot at from long distances and being extremely large could be interplanetary laser strikes, so maybe there would be a use. Of course, the ecosystem on the planet would be catastrophically altered by the addition of a black hole layer to the atmosphere.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 42 mins ago
Goel NimiGoel Nimi
1
1
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
Dan Petit is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Dan Petit is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Dan Petit is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Dan Petit is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143245%2fcould-gravitational-lensing-be-used-to-protect-a-spaceship-from-a-laser%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
$begingroup$
The Impeller Wedges of David Weber's Honorverse work in this fashion to protect starships, but it's way outside the realm of "science-based", and more of a genre convention to make space battle tactics work the way Weber wanted.
$endgroup$
– notovny
11 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Yes. If you have very large Black holes you can shift around your ship this is possible. Why you would fear a laser by that time is a different question
$endgroup$
– Demigan
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Gravitational lensing is caused by light that would have missed, but by a small amount. Increasing the gravity would pull more light toward the ship, making it easier to hit.
$endgroup$
– Mooing Duck
6 hours ago