# Force Fields?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/force-fields/509791
**Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
**Created:** [September 12, 2009, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/force-fields/509791 "2009-09-12T03:57:15Z")
**Posts on this page:** 4
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)
#### Post date: [September 15, 2009, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/force-fields/509791/21 "2009-09-15T19:57:12Z")
When Superman was rebooted in the 80s, John Byrne intended to introduce the idea that Superman’s flying, off-balance lifting (and lifting objects that would collapse if supported by a single point) had something to do with psionic powers that he would eventually discover. He teased the idea a bit, but then (or so the story goes) he was told to drop it.
---
### Author:  [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)
#### Post date: [September 15, 2009, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/force-fields/509791/22 "2009-09-15T21:02:09Z")
> [@The Tao's Revenge](#):
>
> Well Superman’s unbalanced lifting ability could be explained by his powerful reactionless flight ability. If he’s accelerating hard into the ground, harder then gravity accelerates the whole bus, then he functionally does weigh more, and can keep his center of gravity over his feet while he picks it up.
Sure, that could work for Superman, but what’s the Hulk’s excuse?
"Er . . . Invisible Woman was actually standing right next to me (invisibly of course), and creating an invisible forcefield just above me . . . and I flexed my super strong shoulder muscles against it, you see . . . "😛
> [@John\_W.Kennedy](#):
>
> When Superman was rebooted in the 80s, John Byrne intended to introduce the idea that Superman’s flying, off-balance lifting (and lifting objects that would collapse if supported by a single point) had something to do with psionic powers that he would eventually discover. He teased the idea a bit, but then (or so the story goes) he was told to drop it.
Wasn’t something like this used with Superboy (the one who first showed up after the Death of Superman storyline?) I remember him having something called “tactile telekinesis”, although I can’t quite remember what it did.
I also think I heard something like that mentioned with Gladiator, one of Marvel’s many superman-analogues. (Technically if the Shi’ar Imperial Guard is analogous to the Legion of Superheroes, I guess he’s a Superboy analogue – but not the same Superboy as mentioned above. Am I allowed to geek out about comics and physics in the same thread?)
---
### Author:  [@signal11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/signal11)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2009, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/force-fields/509791/23 "2009-09-18T02:44:19Z")
> [@tim314](#):
>
> I was talking about linear (as opposed to angular) momentum, so I wasn’t saying anything about how things will spin. At any rate, **Francis Vaughan** ’s post does a good job explaining the issue.
>
> In short: draw a box around the whole ship/shield/shield-generator system. That system’s total momentum will change at a rate given by the sum of the external forces. Nothing you do inside the box can change that.
>
> Of course, if you’re ejecting mass from the box into the outside world, that’s a different story.
Mass ejection was exactly what I was referring to in my previous (badly written) post. Back blast energy is a major issue for utilizing anti-tank weapons in confined spaces, ie urban warfare. There’s several different systems in place to mitigate the blast energy by using a countermass to slow pressure waves.
Of course, the basic issue in this context is relatively easy because you already know in which direction the projectile will be moving.
In a similar vein, the solution for the shield problem is that if your hull or shield mount isn’t strong enough to absorb the energy of the projectile/beam, then you need to dump that energy. Draw your box, you want that energy leaving the box.
Momentum needs to be conserved, yes, but you can reduce your energy ejection mechanism to the freshman pulley problem in terms of direction. Ejection doesn’t necessarily have to take a destructive form.
---
### Author:  [@pan1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pan1)
#### Post date: [September 22, 2009, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/force-fields/509791/24 "2009-09-22T17:52:55Z")
on the plasma field concept.
a billion bullet particles will not do the same damage as the original bullet.
The billion particles do not hit at the same time with the same force. The first wave will hit with a miniscule fraction of the force and probably bounce off or have an effect similar to tattoing the aircraft skin. The second wave will then hit reflected particles and a few will get through to the aircraft skin. Where the bullet would leave a hole, the billion bullet particles would leave a bruise, at best. Any any payload in the “bullet” would be non-functional in particulate, uncontained form.
Again, the drawback to plasma field is in the energy required to make a useful one. It’d have to be pretty darned hot to disintegrate a bullet and something would have to protect the shielded object from that heat.
The problem isn’t in getting field physics to work. We know we can create plasma fields and magentic fields. But making them strong enough takes more power than we can produce in an sufficiently efficient size and manner.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/force-fields/509791.md?page=1)