One of the mysteries of current physics.
How come an electron can still be an electron if radiates endlessly energy (photons or waves) while being accelerated, like Larmor discovered?
The radiated energy is real, and is perfectly mensurable when a bunch of electrons are continuously accelerated in a synchrotron.
This reality is beyond relativity, and is a proof that E=mc2 is a hoax.
The mystery is: how come the electron conserve its charge e?
Is that it only can emit a limited amount of energy and then is RECHARGED
by the accelerating field?
In this case, the amount of energy supplied for its acceleration is re-irradiated above a certain value, and is the real cause by which the electron can't reach the speed c.
Only slight increments of its speed occur at supply of energy at
extremely high values (GeV, TeV).
Meanwhile, the physics community keep talking about relativity and
Lorentz and ...., while the reality can be much simpler.
I always have this credence. Particle physics is based on deceptive understanding of the quantum world, tied to relativity.
A waste of time, money and brainpower.
One of the mysteries of current physics.Dumbestfuck,
How come an electron can still be an electron if radiates endlessly energy (photons or waves) while being accelerated, like Larmor discovered?
The radiated energy is real, and is perfectly mensurable when a bunch of electrons are continuously accelerated in a synchrotron.
One of the mysteries of current physics.
How come an electron can still be an electron if radiates endlessly energy (photons or waves) while being accelerated, like Larmor discovered?
The radiated energy is real, and is perfectly mensurable when a bunch of electrons are continuously accelerated in a synchrotron.
This reality is beyond relativity, and is a proof that E=mc2 is a hoax.
The mystery is: how come the electron conserve its charge e?
Den 01.05.2023 05:58, skrev Richard Hertz:
Seriously:
The energy of an electron is:
γmc² = mc² + (γ−1)mc², γ = 1/ √(1−v²/c²)
The term mc² is the invariant, 'intrinsic' energy,
the term (γ−1)mc² is the frame dependent kinetic energy.
A synchrotron consists of straight stretches with RF-cavities
which accelerates the electrons, and bends where the the electrons
are deflected by magnetic fields.
In the RF-cavities the electrons are accelerated (longitudinally)
by electric fields, and their kinetic energy increases by the same
amount every time they pass through the cavity.
When the accelerator is going at the top of its performance,
the kinetic energy gained in the RF-cavities will be equal
to the kinetic energy lost as radiation in the bends.
Where is the mystery?
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 7:14:58 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
<snip>
The energy of an electron is:
γmc² = mc² + (γ−1)mc², γ = 1/ √(1−v²/c²)
The term mc² is the invariant, 'intrinsic' energy,
the term (γ−1)mc² is the frame dependent kinetic energy.
Stupid, you have to update your knowledge. It's lagging behind by about 40 years.
MASS DO NOT INCREASE WITH SPEED! MOMENTUM DOES.
the term (γ−1)mc² is the frame dependent kinetic energy.
<snip>
When the accelerator is going at the top of its performance,
the kinetic energy gained in the RF-cavities will be equal
to the kinetic energy lost as radiation in the bends.
Where is the mystery?
The first mystery is why do you persevere sustaining concepts from 1960. Your KE concept is way outdated,
as mass doesn't increase with speed.
The real mystery is that why the angular momentum of the electron fail to be increased beyond certain limit,
due that the increase in velocity reach a barrier no matter how much energy is supplied.
The radiation generated by the electron is caused by the increase of electric energy that's stored in its field.
So, what increases with speed is the density of electric energy per unit volume, and ONLY A PART OF IT is
radiated as EM energy.
The electron resist increases in speed because the VIRTUAL CHARGE that obtain and that generates its electric
field increases, and so does its radiated energy.
Maybe, IT'S THE MECHANISM OF "FOOD" SUPPLY, in the form of electric fields. As speed increases, the formula
for ENERGY TRANSFER fails, as the electron fields is extremely deformed and huge.
One of the mysteries of current physics.
How come an electron can still be an electron if radiates endlessly energy (photons or waves) while being accelerated, like Larmor discovered?
The radiated energy is real, and is perfectly mensurable when a bunch of electrons are continuously accelerated in a synchrotron.
This reality is beyond relativity, and is a proof that E=mc2 is a hoax.
One of the mysteries of current physics.
How come an electron can still be an electron if radiates endlessly energy (photons or waves) while being accelerated, like Larmor discovered?
The radiated energy is real, and is perfectly mensurable when a bunch of electrons are continuously accelerated in a synchrotron.
This reality is beyond relativity, and is a proof that E=mc2 is a hoax.
The mystery is: how come the electron conserve its charge e?
Is that it only can emit a limited amount of energy and then is RECHARGED
by the accelerating field?
In this case, the amount of energy supplied for its acceleration is re-irradiated above a certain value, and is the real cause by which the electron can't reach the speed c.
Only slight increments of its speed occur at supply of energy at
extremely high values (GeV, TeV).
Meanwhile, the physics community keep talking about relativity and
Lorentz and ...., while the reality can be much simpler.
I always have this credence. Particle physics is based on deceptive understanding of the quantum world, tied to relativity.
A waste of time, money and brainpower.
One of the mysteries of current physics.
How come an electron can still be an electron if radiates endlessly energy (photons or waves) while being accelerated, like Larmor discovered?
The radiated energy is real, and is perfectly mensurable when a bunch of electrons are continuously accelerated in a synchrotron.
This reality is beyond relativity, and is a proof that E=mc2 is a hoax.
The mystery is: how come the electron conserve its charge e?
Is that it only can emit a limited amount of energy and then is RECHARGED
by the accelerating field?
In this case, the amount of energy supplied for its acceleration is re-irradiated above a certain value, and is the real cause by which the electron can't reach the speed c.
Only slight increments of its speed occur at supply of energy at
extremely high values (GeV, TeV).
Meanwhile, the physics community keep talking about relativity and
Lorentz and ...., while the reality can be much simpler.
I always have this credence. Particle physics is based on deceptive understanding of the quantum world, tied to relativity.
A waste of time, money and brainpower.
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 7:14:58 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
<snip>
The energy of an electron is:
γmc² = mc² + (γ−1)mc², γ = 1/ √(1−v²/c²)
The term mc² is the invariant, 'intrinsic' energy,
the term (γ−1)mc² is the frame dependent kinetic energy.
Stupid, you have to update your knowledge. It's lagging behind by about 40 years.
MASS DO NOT INCREASE WITH SPEED! MOMENTUM DOES.
The first mystery is why do you persevere sustaining concepts from 1960. Your KE concept is way outdated,
as mass doesn't increase with speed.
The rate of "downloaded energy" to the electron become smaller and smaller with speed. When the electron is traveling near c,
the mechanism of energy transfer by acceleration using electric fields just become INEFFICIENT.
And this effect is not explained by your fucking relativity.
Den 01.05.2023 15:50, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 7:14:58 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
<snip>
The energy of an electron is:
γmc² = mc² + (γ−1)mc², γ = 1/ √(1−v²/c²)
The term mc² is the invariant, 'intrinsic' energy,
the term (γ−1)mc² is the frame dependent kinetic energy.
Stupid, you have to update your knowledge. It's lagging behind by about 40 years.
MASS DO NOT INCREASE WITH SPEED! MOMENTUM DOES.Right. So what is your point?
The first mystery is why do you persevere sustaining concepts from 1960. Your KE concept is way outdated,You have a serious reading comprehension problem.
as mass doesn't increase with speed.
<snip>
The rate of "downloaded energy" to the electron become smaller and smaller with speed. When the electron is traveling near c,
the mechanism of energy transfer by acceleration using electric fields just become INEFFICIENT.
You got it upside down.
The 'downloaded energy' doesn't decrease with speed.
And this effect is not explained by your fucking relativity.
No, because there is no such effect.
KE = (γ−1)mc²
dKE/dv = v⋅m/√(1−v²/c²)³
lim(dKE/dv) = ∞ when v → c
There is no limit for the "downloaded energy", it
increases strongly with speed, but since the increase
approaches infinity when the speed approaches c, the speed
can never exceed c because the amount of energy the accelerating
device can supply is limited.
You will probably not read the following, or if you do,
your reading comprehension problem will probably prevent
you from understand it:
A synchrotron consists of straight stretches with RF-cavities
which accelerates the electrons, and bends where the the electrons
are deflected by magnetic fields.
NOTE THIS:
In the RF-cavities the electrons are accelerated (longitudinally)
by electric fields, and their kinetic energy increases by about
the same amount every time they pass through the cavity.
The gained energy does _not_ decrease when v approaches c.
The gained kinetic energy comes from the RF-power supplied to
the RF-cavities.
In the bends the electrons are accelerated by a magnetic field
which is perpendicularly to their velocity. The acceleration
is a centripetal acceleration, perpendicular to their velocity.
This acceleration is very high and the electrons will radiate
synchrotron radiation (light with a special spectrum). The radiated
energy comes from the kinetic energy of the electrons, so they
will loose energy and speed in the bends. The lost energy will
increase with the speed of the electrons.
When the speed increases, the energy lost in the bends increases,
and when the accelerator is going at the top of its performance,
the kinetic energy gained in the RF-cavities will be equal to
the kinetic energy lost as radiation in the bends.
Synchrotrons do work, and they wouldn't if these question
were not very well understood.
Physicists have learned this through experience, and only
ignorant and naive fools would claim that the physicists
are wrong and that their own fantasies are right.
Are you such a ignorant fool, Richard?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Den 01.05.2023 15:50, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 7:14:58 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
<snip>
The energy of an electron is:
γmc² = mc² + (γ−1)mc², γ = 1/ √(1−v²/c²)
The term mc² is the invariant, 'intrinsic' energy,
the term (γ−1)mc² is the frame dependent kinetic energy.
Stupid, you have to update your knowledge. It's lagging behind by about 40 years.
MASS DO NOT INCREASE WITH SPEED! MOMENTUM DOES.Right. So what is your point?
The first mystery is why do you persevere sustaining concepts from 1960. Your KE concept is way outdated,You have a serious reading comprehension problem.
as mass doesn't increase with speed.
<snip>
The rate of "downloaded energy" to the electron become smaller and smaller with speed. When the electron is traveling near c,
the mechanism of energy transfer by acceleration using electric fields just become INEFFICIENT.
You got it upside down.
The 'downloaded energy' doesn't decrease with speed.
And this effect is not explained by your fucking relativity.
No, because there is no such effect.
KE = (γ−1)mc²
dKE/dv = v⋅m/√(1−v²/c²)³
lim(dKE/dv) = ∞ when v → c
There is no limit for the "downloaded energy", it
increases strongly with speed, but since the increase
approaches infinity when the speed approaches c, the speed
can never exceed c because the amount of energy the accelerating
device can supply is limited.
You will probably not read the following, or if you do,
your reading comprehension problem will probably prevent
you from understand it:
A synchrotron consists of straight stretches with RF-cavities
which accelerates the electrons, and bends where the the electrons
are deflected by magnetic fields.
NOTE THIS:
In the RF-cavities the electrons are accelerated (longitudinally)
by electric fields, and their kinetic energy increases by about
the same amount every time they pass through the cavity.
The gained energy does _not_ decrease when v approaches c.
The gained kinetic energy comes from the RF-power supplied to
the RF-cavities.
In the bends the electrons are accelerated by a magnetic field
which is perpendicularly to their velocity. The acceleration
is a centripetal acceleration, perpendicular to their velocity.
This acceleration is very high and the electrons will radiate
synchrotron radiation (light with a special spectrum). The radiated
energy comes from the kinetic energy of the electrons, so they
will loose energy and speed in the bends. The lost energy will
increase with the speed of the electrons.
When the speed increases, the energy lost in the bends increases,
and when the accelerator is going at the top of its performance,
the kinetic energy gained in the RF-cavities will be equal to
the kinetic energy lost as radiation in the bends.
Synchrotrons do work, and they wouldn't if these question
were not very well understood.
Physicists have learned this through experience, and only
ignorant and naive fools would claim that the physicists
are wrong and that their own fantasies are right.
Are you such a ignorant fool, Richard?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 5:25:39 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 01.05.2023 15:50, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 7:14:58 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:Right. So what is your point?
<snip>
The energy of an electron is:
γmc² = mc² + (γ−1)mc², γ = 1/ √(1−v²/c²)
The term mc² is the invariant, 'intrinsic' energy,
the term (γ−1)mc² is the frame dependent kinetic energy.
Stupid, you have to update your knowledge. It's lagging behind by about 40 years.
MASS DO NOT INCREASE WITH SPEED! MOMENTUM DOES.
You have a serious reading comprehension problem.
The first mystery is why do you persevere sustaining concepts from 1960. Your KE concept is way outdated,
as mass doesn't increase with speed.
<snip>
The rate of "downloaded energy" to the electron become smaller and smaller with speed. When the electron is traveling near c,
the mechanism of energy transfer by acceleration using electric fields just become INEFFICIENT.
You got it upside down.
The 'downloaded energy' doesn't decrease with speed.
And this effect is not explained by your fucking relativity.
No, because there is no such effect.
KE = (γ−1)mc²
dKE/dv = v⋅m/√(1−v²/c²)³
lim(dKE/dv) = ∞ when v → c
There is no limit for the "downloaded energy", it
increases strongly with speed, but since the increase
approaches infinity when the speed approaches c, the speed
can never exceed c because the amount of energy the accelerating
device can supply is limited.
You will probably not read the following, or if you do,
your reading comprehension problem will probably prevent
you from understand it:
A synchrotron consists of straight stretches with RF-cavities
which accelerates the electrons, and bends where the the electrons
are deflected by magnetic fields.
NOTE THIS:
In the RF-cavities the electrons are accelerated (longitudinally)
by electric fields, and their kinetic energy increases by about
the same amount every time they pass through the cavity.
The gained energy does _not_ decrease when v approaches c.
The gained kinetic energy comes from the RF-power supplied to
the RF-cavities.
In the bends the electrons are accelerated by a magnetic field
which is perpendicularly to their velocity. The acceleration
is a centripetal acceleration, perpendicular to their velocity.
This acceleration is very high and the electrons will radiate
synchrotron radiation (light with a special spectrum). The radiated
energy comes from the kinetic energy of the electrons, so they
will loose energy and speed in the bends. The lost energy will
increase with the speed of the electrons.
When the speed increases, the energy lost in the bends increases,
and when the accelerator is going at the top of its performance,
the kinetic energy gained in the RF-cavities will be equal to
the kinetic energy lost as radiation in the bends.
Synchrotrons do work, and they wouldn't if these question
were not very well understood.
Physicists have learned this through experience, and only
ignorant and naive fools would claim that the physicists
are wrong and that their own fantasies are right.
Are you such a ignorant fool, Richard?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Bla, bla, bla, bla, .....
Throw away your kindergarden book on particle physics, and read some serious stuff.
You PERSIST with your fucking KE and E fields regularly causing centripetal acceleration, and the balance between absorbed
and irradiated energy.
Read something about cosmic electrons, accelerated by galactic energies beyond dreams of humans. They travel at c or faster.
On 5/1/2023 4:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 5/1/2023 12:55 PM, Evenezer Nigro wrote:
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
demolished/Scott Ritter: *_'Ukraine_is_Demolished'_*
This is no longer a war, *_this_is_a_humanitarian_crisis_* says
Colonel Douglas Macgregor
https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/04/scott-ritter-ukraine-is-
https://youtu.be/aWLvqPyC0ykHow many photons can an electron emit before it decays into
nothingness?
the atoms emits, decaying, not the electrons. Go kiss a cat.
Does the probability of a photon being emitted by an electron decrease >>> per photon emitted? Say, this electron currently has a 90% probability >>> that it can emit a photon. A photon is emitted, now its 89.999%
probability. The probability decreased.
not sure what to say, it's the atom decaying, not the electron. The
electron is still there. So it depends on the energy state of the atom.
Reinstate the level and it will emit again. This is how my
*_Divergent_Matter_of_the_Moving_Koerper_* works.
Can the atom decay to a point where it can no longer "contain" its electrons?
Without being supplied with external energy, things will tend to wind up
in the lowest energy state possible. Since you have to supply energy to
atoms to wrench their electrons away from them, the lowest state is
normally a neutral atom*, with the electrons in the lowest available orbitals. For example only 2 electrons can be in the lowest energy
orbital, the 1S orbital. A third electron cannot go there. Look up the "ground state" of atoms.
You may look at a diagram of an atom and say "but but what if the
electron crashes into a proton??" yes classical theory says that would
be a lower energy state but quantum theory disallows that, it would need
to do some weak force magic and interact to become a neutron (plus
neutrino) but that's actually a HIGHER energy state so it doesn't
(normally) happen.
Accelerating charges radiate energy away. I don't know the
formula other than in general, the more acceleration, the more energy lost.
On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 5:25:39 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 01.05.2023 15:50, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 7:14:58 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
The energy of an electron is:
γmc² = mc² + (γ−1)mc², γ = 1/ √(1−v²/c²)
The term mc² is the invariant, 'intrinsic' energy,
the term (γ−1)mc² is the frame dependent kinetic energy.
Stupid, you have to update your knowledge. It's lagging behind by about 40 years.
MASS DO NOT INCREASE WITH SPEED! MOMENTUM DOES.
Right. So what is your point?
The first mystery is why do you persevere sustaining concepts from 1960. Your KE concept is way outdated,
as mass doesn't increase with speed.
You have a serious reading comprehension problem.
The rate of "downloaded energy" to the electron become smaller and smaller with speed. When the electron is traveling near c,
the mechanism of energy transfer by acceleration using electric fields just become INEFFICIENT.
You got it upside down.
The 'downloaded energy' doesn't decrease with speed.
And this effect is not explained by your fucking relativity.
No, because there is no such effect.
KE = (γ−1)mc²
dKE/dv = v⋅m/√(1−v²/c²)³
lim(dKE/dv) = ∞ when v → c
There is no limit for the "downloaded energy", it
increases strongly with speed, but since the increase
approaches infinity when the speed approaches c, the speed
can never exceed c because the amount of energy the accelerating
device can supply is limited.
Bla, bla, bla, bla, .....
Throw away your kindergarden book on particle physics, and read some serious stuff.
You PERSIST with your fucking KE and E fields regularly causing centripetal acceleration, and the balance between absorbed
and irradiated energy.
Your description is so infantile that I really think that your prototemporal dementia has really reached a critical point, so you
only understand one or two things.
I told you about the problem with ANGULAR MOMENTUM, and you didn't even care.
As irradiated photons increase their energy, well past visible light, the cumulative recoil effects on the electrons affect their
angular momentum increasingly. You FORGOT the huge magnetic field required to keep electrons in a circular path PLUS
to maintain the beam of electrons as tight as possible.
You also FORGOT the bremsstrahlung radiation, emitted when charged particles are subject to an acceleration perpendicular
to their velocity. You CONFUSED IT with Larmor radiation, which is derived from Maxwell's wave theory of light.
When you try to make a balance of given and radiated energy, do the proper math including ALL THE FACTORS:
One of the mysteries of current physics.
How come an electron can still be an electron if radiates endlessly energy (photons or waves) while being accelerated, like Larmor discovered?
The radiated energy is real, and is perfectly mensurable when a bunch of electrons are continuously accelerated in a synchrotron.
This reality is beyond relativity, and is a proof that E=mc2 is a hoax.
The mystery is: how come the electron conserve its charge e?
Is that it only can emit a limited amount of energy and then is RECHARGED
by the accelerating field?
In this case, the amount of energy supplied for its acceleration is re-irradiated above a certain value, and is the real cause by which the electron can't reach the speed c.
Only slight increments of its speed occur at supply of energy at
extremely high values (GeV, TeV).
Meanwhile, the physics community keep talking about relativity and
Lorentz and ...., while the reality can be much simpler.
I always have this credence. Particle physics is based on deceptive understanding of the quantum world, tied to relativity.
A waste of time, money and brainpower.
Den 02.05.2023 23:43, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 5:25:39 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 01.05.2023 15:50, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 7:14:58 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>
The energy of an electron is:
γmc² = mc² + (γ−1)mc², γ = 1/ √(1−v²/c²)
The term mc² is the invariant, 'intrinsic' energy,
the term (γ−1)mc² is the frame dependent kinetic energy.
Stupid, you have to update your knowledge. It's lagging behind by about 40 years.
MASS DO NOT INCREASE WITH SPEED! MOMENTUM DOES.
Right. So what is your point?
The first mystery is why do you persevere sustaining concepts from 1960. Your KE concept is way outdated,
as mass doesn't increase with speed.
You have a serious reading comprehension problem.
The rate of "downloaded energy" to the electron become smaller and smaller with speed. When the electron is traveling near c,
the mechanism of energy transfer by acceleration using electric fields just become INEFFICIENT.
You got it upside down.
The 'downloaded energy' doesn't decrease with speed.
And this effect is not explained by your fucking relativity.
< snip what Richard Hertz didn't read or didn't understand >
No, because there is no such effect.
KE = (γ−1)mc²
dKE/dv = v⋅m/√(1−v²/c²)³
lim(dKE/dv) = ∞ when v → c
There is no limit for the "downloaded energy", it
increases strongly with speed, but since the increase
approaches infinity when the speed approaches c, the speed
can never exceed c because the amount of energy the accelerating
device can supply is limited.
Bla, bla, bla, bla, .....
Throw away your kindergarden book on particle physics, and read some serious stuff.
You PERSIST with your fucking KE and E fields regularly causing centripetal acceleration, and the balance between absorbed"fucking KE and E fields regularly causing centripetal acceleration" :-D
and irradiated energy.
Wake up! You are dreaming!
I said:
| In the RF-cavities the electrons are accelerated (longitudinally)
| by electric fields, and their kinetic energy increases by about
| the same amount every time they pass through the cavity.
| The gained energy does _not_ decrease when v approaches c.
| The gained kinetic energy comes from the RF-power supplied to
| the RF-cavities.
Let's look closer at these RF-cavities, and see why
the gained energy does not decrease with increasing
speed of the charged particle.
The basic principle is quite simple, see: https://paulba.no/temp/RFcavity.pdf
The cavity is a short, circular waveguide, closed in both ends.
In this waveguide you can have a standing TM01 wave (resonance).
In the centre it is a hole in both end walls where the charged particles
can flow. Energy is coupled into the cavity via a small wire loop
fed by RF power from a klystron (or similar) via another waveguide.
The electric field will be constant along the z-axis, and strongest
in the centre. The E-field will vary sinusoidally with time,
and the phase is synced so that the charged particle (bunch) passes
through when the E-field is at maximum.
The gained energy is ΔKE = F⋅l = q⋅E⋅l
Note that the speed of the particle is irrelevant,
but it will be so fast that E can be considered
to be at the maximum while the particle is in the cavity.
E⋅l is the voltage between the end walls, so the gained energy
is E⋅l eV every time the charged particle passes through the cavity.
It does NOT diminish with increasing speed.
Your description is so infantile that I really think that your prototemporal dementia has really reached a critical point, so you
only understand one or two things.
I told you about the problem with ANGULAR MOMENTUM, and you didn't even care.
As irradiated photons increase their energy, well past visible light, the cumulative recoil effects on the electrons affect theirThis is incoherent babble.
angular momentum increasingly. You FORGOT the huge magnetic field required to keep electrons in a circular path PLUS
to maintain the beam of electrons as tight as possible.
You also FORGOT the bremsstrahlung radiation, emitted when charged particles are subject to an acceleration perpendicularYou have been sleeping again, and haven't heard what I said.
to their velocity. You CONFUSED IT with Larmor radiation, which is derived from Maxwell's wave theory of light.
I said:
| In the bends the electrons are accelerated by a magnetic field
| which is perpendicularly to their velocity. The acceleration
| is a centripetal acceleration, perpendicular to their velocity.
| This acceleration is very high and the electrons will radiate
| synchrotron radiation (light with a special spectrum). The radiated
| energy comes from the kinetic energy of the electrons, so they
| will loose energy and speed in the bends. The lost energy will
| increase with the speed of the electrons.
Synchrotron radiation IS bremsstrahlung.
The charged particles looses kinetic energy and thus speed.
They are 'braked'.
When you try to make a balance of given and radiated energy, do the proper math including ALL THE FACTORS:All you have to know is:
1. The energy supplied by the RF-cavities per passing is constant
and does not diminish with the speed of the particles.
2. The kinetic energy lost in the bends will increase with
the speed of the particles.
So when the accelerator is started, the speed of the particles
will increase until the lost energy is equal to the gained energy.
Neither I nor you are competent to do all the calculations to
make a synchrotron work, but as opposed to you, I know the basic
principles.
And you can't do it without SR.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 4:58:38 AM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:of an electron field, just as a photon is modelled as an excitation of the electromagnetic field, so that using old classical field models may lead to apparent paradoxes that can only be resolved using QFT.
One of the mysteries of current physics.
How come an electron can still be an electron if radiates endlessly energy (photons or waves) while being accelerated, like Larmor discovered?
The radiated energy is real, and is perfectly mensurable when a bunch of electrons are continuously accelerated in a synchrotron.
This reality is beyond relativity, and is a proof that E=mc2 is a hoax.
The mystery is: how come the electron conserve its charge e?
Is that it only can emit a limited amount of energy and then is RECHARGED by the accelerating field?
In this case, the amount of energy supplied for its acceleration is re-irradiated above a certain value, and is the real cause by which the electron can't reach the speed c.
Only slight increments of its speed occur at supply of energy at
extremely high values (GeV, TeV).
Meanwhile, the physics community keep talking about relativity and
Lorentz and ...., while the reality can be much simpler.
I always have this credence. Particle physics is based on deceptive understanding of the quantum world, tied to relativity.
A waste of time, money and brainpower.I think that in 2023, your question has the best chance of being answered by someone who's an expert in quantum field theory, whereas I'm not. But I'll say this which others more expert can correct: Nowadays, the electron is modelled as an excitation
However, it's still possible to create a crude, but workable model in most cases for an electron via a hollow charged sphere, to understand the fundamental physical issues at hand when using classical field theory. For example: when placed in anapplied E field the charge is polarized to one side until the resulting internal E field cancels the applied one so that the net E field inside is zero; the internal energy of the charged sphere has now increased. And if allowed to accelerate while we
"How come an electron can still be an electron if radiates endlessly energy (photons or waves) while being accelerated, like Larmor discovered?"electron as an electron.
So an answer to your question using classical field theory is that the radiated energy comes from the applied electromagnetic field interacting with the electron, with the remaining being used to increase its kinetic energy while maintaining an
Larry Harson
Den 01.05.2023 05:58, skrev Richard Hertz:
One of the mysteries of current physics.
How come an electron can still be an electron if radiates endlessly energy (photons or waves) while being accelerated, like Larmor discovered?
And since the energy that the electron radiates isn't supplied
from an external source, but comes from the electron's endless
supply of energy, the electron is a Perpetuum Mobile.
The radiated energy is real, and is perfectly mensurable when a bunch of electrons are continuously accelerated in a synchrotron.Seriously:
The energy of an electron is:
γmc² = mc² + (γ−1)mc², γ = 1/ √(1−v²/c²)
The term mc² is the invariant, 'intrinsic' energy,
the term (γ−1)mc² is the frame dependent kinetic energy.
A synchrotron consists of straight stretches with RF-cavities
which accelerates the electrons, and bends where the the electrons
are deflected by magnetic fields.
In the RF-cavities the electrons are accelerated (longitudinally)
by electric fields, and their kinetic energy increases by the same
amount every time they pass through the cavity. The gained energy
does not decrease when v approaches c. The gained kinetic energy
comes from the RF-power supplied to the RF-cavities.
In the bends the electrons are accelerated by a magnetic field
which is perpendicularly to their velocity. The acceleration
is a centripetal acceleration, perpendicular to their velocity.
This acceleration is very high and the electrons will radiate
synchrotron radiation (light with a special spectrum). The radiated
energy comes from the kinetic energy of the electrons, so they
will loose energy and speed in the bends. The lost energy will
increase with the speed of the electrons.
When the accelerator is going at the top of its performance,
the kinetic energy gained in the RF-cavities will be equal
to the kinetic energy lost as radiation in the bends.
Where is the mystery?
This reality is beyond relativity, and is a proof that E=mc2 is a hoax.Synchrotrons do work.
Which is as close to a proof of SR as you can get.
The mystery is: how come the electron conserve its charge e?What an idiotic question.
Do you imagine that charge is radiated when an electron is accelerated?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 5:37:31 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 02.05.2023 23:43, skrev Richard Hertz:
Throw away your kindergarden book on particle physics, and read some serious stuff.
You PERSIST with your fucking KE and E fields regularly causing centripetal acceleration, and the balance between absorbed
and irradiated energy.
"fucking KE and E fields regularly causing centripetal acceleration" :-D
Wake up! You are dreaming!
I said:
| In the RF-cavities the electrons are accelerated (longitudinally)
| by electric fields, and their kinetic energy increases by about
| the same amount every time they pass through the cavity.
| The gained energy does _not_ decrease when v approaches c.
| The gained kinetic energy comes from the RF-power supplied to
| the RF-cavities.
Let's look closer at these RF-cavities, and see why
the gained energy does not decrease with increasing
speed of the charged particle.
The basic principle is quite simple, see:
https://paulba.no/temp/RFcavity.pdf
The cavity is a short, circular waveguide, closed in both ends.
In this waveguide you can have a standing TM01 wave (resonance).
In the centre it is a hole in both end walls where the charged particles
can flow. Energy is coupled into the cavity via a small wire loop
fed by RF power from a klystron (or similar) via another waveguide.
The electric field will be constant along the z-axis, and strongest
in the centre. The E-field will vary sinusoidally with time,
and the phase is synced so that the charged particle (bunch) passes
through when the E-field is at maximum.
The gained energy is ΔKE = F⋅l = q⋅E⋅l
Note that the speed of the particle is irrelevant,
but it will be so fast that E can be considered
to be at the maximum while the particle is in the cavity.
E⋅l is the voltage between the end walls, so the gained energy
is E⋅l eV every time the charged particle passes through the cavity.
It does NOT diminish with increasing speed.
This is incoherent babble.
Your description is so infantile that I really think that your prototemporal dementia has really reached a critical point, so you
only understand one or two things.
I told you about the problem with ANGULAR MOMENTUM, and you didn't even care.
As irradiated photons increase their energy, well past visible light, the cumulative recoil effects on the electrons affect their
angular momentum increasingly. You FORGOT the huge magnetic field required to keep electrons in a circular path PLUS
to maintain the beam of electrons as tight as possible.
You also FORGOT the bremsstrahlung radiation, emitted when charged particles are subject to an acceleration perpendicular
to their velocity. You CONFUSED IT with Larmor radiation, which is derived from Maxwell's wave theory of light.
You have been sleeping again, and haven't heard what I said.
I said:
| In the bends the electrons are accelerated by a magnetic field
| which is perpendicularly to their velocity. The acceleration
| is a centripetal acceleration, perpendicular to their velocity.
| This acceleration is very high and the electrons will radiate
| synchrotron radiation (light with a special spectrum). The radiated
| energy comes from the kinetic energy of the electrons, so they
| will loose energy and speed in the bends. The lost energy will
| increase with the speed of the electrons.
Synchrotron radiation IS bremsstrahlung.
The charged particles looses kinetic energy and thus speed.
They are 'braked'.
When you try to make a balance of given and radiated energy, do the proper math including ALL THE FACTORS:
All you have to know is:
1. The energy supplied by the RF-cavities per passing is constant
and does not diminish with the speed of the particles.
2. The kinetic energy lost in the bends will increase with
the speed of the particles.
So when the accelerator is started, the speed of the particles
will increase until the lost energy is equal to the gained energy.
Neither I nor you are competent to do all the calculations to
make a synchrotron work, but as opposed to you, I know the basic
principles.
And you can't do it without SR.
I insist: you are all bla, bla, bla, .....
Get serious, be an adult, and figure out what facts ARE NOT ADDRESSED in this booklet:
https://home.cern/resources/brochure/knowledge-sharing/lhc-facts-and-figures
And, if you can, explain how come Moon's gravity is another cause for loss of energy in accelerated protons (which are used at the LHC).
Also, make some calculations about the compensations for energy losses that HUGE magnetic fields of many kinds being used.
And about RF cavities providing accelerating energy for charged particles (protons in the CERN brochure) by means of 5 Megavolt/mt,
stop being simplistic and tell:
- How come the E field is increased and synchronized with bunches of protons that loop around 11,000 times/sec IF very complex
CORRECTIONS are made by more than 8 types of magnetic fields.
- Why do you refuse to compute the magnetic energy LOST in keeping bunches of 100 billion protons orbiting the LHC.
- Why do you refuse to take into account the increasing loss of energy due to the recoil of emitted photons, as their energy grows.
- How do you compute the energy lost by the technical impossibility of adjusting the peak E field uniformly, along a path of 170 Km
over about 2,808 bunches separated about 20 nsec each. Moving at 0.99999991 c, they are separated no more than 7.6 meters.
- The above is for 7 TeV protons, in the final stage. They are accelerated at the LHC from 0.5 TeV to 7 TeV in 20 minutes. You can
do the math for the radiation lost, as it's not so difficult. What you can't compute is another "hidden" factor, which is photon
scattering within 100 billion protons packed together on each bunch. Not only huge amounts of recoils due to photon emission,
but many other "not told" effect like antiparticles created in such a messy train of protons, compressed in a length of a few cm
and separated nanometers one from each other, per bunch.
When you have the above details understood (read the CERN brochure), and also computed Moon's gravity, try again to post
something for adults, not kinder garden children.
Den 04.05.2023 00:23, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 5:37:31 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 02.05.2023 23:43, skrev Richard Hertz:
Throw away your kindergarden book on particle physics, and read some serious stuff.
You PERSIST with your fucking KE and E fields regularly causing centripetal acceleration, and the balance between absorbed
and irradiated energy.
"fucking KE and E fields regularly causing centripetal acceleration" :-D >>
Wake up! You are dreaming!
I said:
| In the RF-cavities the electrons are accelerated (longitudinally)
| by electric fields, and their kinetic energy increases by about
| the same amount every time they pass through the cavity.
| The gained energy does _not_ decrease when v approaches c.
| The gained kinetic energy comes from the RF-power supplied to
| the RF-cavities.
Let's look closer at these RF-cavities, and see why
the gained energy does not decrease with increasing
speed of the charged particle.
The basic principle is quite simple, see:
https://paulba.no/temp/RFcavity.pdf
The cavity is a short, circular waveguide, closed in both ends.
In this waveguide you can have a standing TM01 wave (resonance).
In the centre it is a hole in both end walls where the charged particles >> can flow. Energy is coupled into the cavity via a small wire loop
fed by RF power from a klystron (or similar) via another waveguide.
The electric field will be constant along the z-axis, and strongest
in the centre. The E-field will vary sinusoidally with time,
and the phase is synced so that the charged particle (bunch) passes
through when the E-field is at maximum.
The gained energy is ΔKE = F⋅l = q⋅E⋅l
Note that the speed of the particle is irrelevant,
but it will be so fast that E can be considered
to be at the maximum while the particle is in the cavity.
E⋅l is the voltage between the end walls, so the gained energy
is E⋅l eV every time the charged particle passes through the cavity.
It does NOT diminish with increasing speed.
This is incoherent babble.
Your description is so infantile that I really think that your prototemporal dementia has really reached a critical point, so you
only understand one or two things.
I told you about the problem with ANGULAR MOMENTUM, and you didn't even care.
As irradiated photons increase their energy, well past visible light, the cumulative recoil effects on the electrons affect their
angular momentum increasingly. You FORGOT the huge magnetic field required to keep electrons in a circular path PLUS
to maintain the beam of electrons as tight as possible.
You also FORGOT the bremsstrahlung radiation, emitted when charged particles are subject to an acceleration perpendicular
to their velocity. You CONFUSED IT with Larmor radiation, which is derived from Maxwell's wave theory of light.
You have been sleeping again, and haven't heard what I said.
I said:
| In the bends the electrons are accelerated by a magnetic field
| which is perpendicularly to their velocity. The acceleration
| is a centripetal acceleration, perpendicular to their velocity.
| This acceleration is very high and the electrons will radiate
| synchrotron radiation (light with a special spectrum). The radiated
| energy comes from the kinetic energy of the electrons, so they
| will loose energy and speed in the bends. The lost energy will
| increase with the speed of the electrons.
Synchrotron radiation IS bremsstrahlung.
The charged particles looses kinetic energy and thus speed.
They are 'braked'.
When you try to make a balance of given and radiated energy, do the proper math including ALL THE FACTORS:
All you have to know is:
1. The energy supplied by the RF-cavities per passing is constant
and does not diminish with the speed of the particles.
2. The kinetic energy lost in the bends will increase with
the speed of the particles.
So when the accelerator is started, the speed of the particles
will increase until the lost energy is equal to the gained energy.
Neither I nor you are competent to do all the calculations to
make a synchrotron work, but as opposed to you, I know the basic
principles.
And you can't do it without SR.
I insist: you are all bla, bla, bla, .....
Get serious, be an adult, and figure out what facts ARE NOT ADDRESSED in this booklet:
https://home.cern/resources/brochure/knowledge-sharing/lhc-facts-and-figuresThere is nothing here which contradicts my explanation of
the basic principles of how a synchrotron works.
Quite the contrary.
But you, Richard Hertz, have documented that you have no clue
about the basics of a synchrotron.
For example, you wrote:
"The rate of "downloaded energy" to the electron become smaller
and smaller with speed. When the electron is traveling near c,
the mechanism of energy transfer by acceleration using electric
fields just become INEFFICIENT."
..which is plain wrong, the "downloaded energy" (kinetic energy)
the RF-cavities supply to the charged particles does not decrease
when the particle speed increases.
And if your reading comprehension problems hadn't prevented
you from understanding my bla bla, you would have known why.
You have also written a number of completely ridiculous
and meaningless statements like:
"The electron resist increases in speed because
the VIRTUAL CHARGE that obtain and that generates its
electric field increases, and so does its radiated energy."
It seems like you don't understand that the energy that is
gained in the RF-cavities and lost as synchrotron radiation
in the bends is simply kinetic energy of a mass.
It is very obvious that the correct equation is:
KE = (γ−1)mc² because there is no limit for the KE.
The Newtonian equation KE = mv²/2 is limited to mc²/2,
which is only a tiny fracton of the kinetic energy in
a particle with speed close to c.
_______________________
And now you, to divert the attention from all the stupid
claims you have made in this thread, pretend that what I
have said about synchrotrons above is wrong unless I can
do the calculations you demand of me below.
I am obviously not competent to do the calculations which
only VERY few people in CERN can do.
I will leave them as a demonstration of your desperation.
And, if you can, explain how come Moon's gravity is another cause for loss of energy in accelerated protons (which are used at the LHC).
Also, make some calculations about the compensations for energy losses that HUGE magnetic fields of many kinds being used.
And about RF cavities providing accelerating energy for charged particles (protons in the CERN brochure) by means of 5 Megavolt/mt,
stop being simplistic and tell:
- How come the E field is increased and synchronized with bunches of protons that loop around 11,000 times/sec IF very complex
CORRECTIONS are made by more than 8 types of magnetic fields.
- Why do you refuse to compute the magnetic energy LOST in keeping bunches of 100 billion protons orbiting the LHC.
- Why do you refuse to take into account the increasing loss of energy due to the recoil of emitted photons, as their energy grows.
- How do you compute the energy lost by the technical impossibility of adjusting the peak E field uniformly, along a path of 170 Km
over about 2,808 bunches separated about 20 nsec each. Moving at 0.99999991 c, they are separated no more than 7.6 meters.
- The above is for 7 TeV protons, in the final stage. They are accelerated at the LHC from 0.5 TeV to 7 TeV in 20 minutes. You can
do the math for the radiation lost, as it's not so difficult. What you can't compute is another "hidden" factor, which is photon
scattering within 100 billion protons packed together on each bunch. Not only huge amounts of recoils due to photon emission,
but many other "not told" effect like antiparticles created in such a messy train of protons, compressed in a length of a few cm
and separated nanometers one from each other, per bunch.
When you have the above details understood (read the CERN brochure), and also computed Moon's gravity, try again to post
something for adults, not kinder garden children.
It his however quite hilarious that you, Richard Hertz, who started
the thread with the proclamation that relativity is wrong (a HOAX),
now use a reference to the Large Hadron Collider at CERN as a proof
that you were right and I was wrong!
Do the LHC prove that relativity is a HOAX? :-D
Maybe you should read it to see what it has to say about relativity?
https://home.cern/resources/brochure/knowledge-sharing/lhc-facts-and-figures
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
On May 2, Volney wrote:
Accelerating charges radiate energy away. I don't know the
formula other than in general, the more acceleration, the more energy lost.
So when a straight wire radio receiver antenna gets hit by
a RF signal, the charges accelerate, and radiate energy away?
On 5/3/2023 1:36 PM, RichD wrote:
On May 2, Volney wrote:
Accelerating charges radiate energy away. I don't know the
formula other than in general, the more acceleration, the more energy lost.
So when a straight wire radio receiver antenna gets hit byI am not familiar with the exact details, but yes I would say that such absorption of RF energy could not be 100% efficient because some of it
a RF signal, the charges accelerate, and radiate energy away?
would have to be radiated away as electrons accelerate.
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:27:55 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
On 5/3/2023 1:36 PM, RichD wrote:
On May 2, Volney wrote:
Accelerating charges radiate energy away. I don't know the
formula other than in general, the more acceleration, the more energy lost.
I believe that a standard method of bug detection is to sweep anSo when a straight wire radio receiver antenna gets hit byI am not familiar with the exact details, but yes I would say that such absorption of RF energy could not be 100% efficient because some of it would have to be radiated away as electrons accelerate.
a RF signal, the charges accelerate, and radiate energy away?
area with RF and to filter the re-radiated energy for odd harmonics
which could be indicative of active electronic circuits. False
positives could be the result of corroded wiring, etc.
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 7:15:20 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 04.05.2023 00:23, skrev Richard Hertz:
https://home.cern/resources/brochure/knowledge-sharing/lhc-facts-and-figures
There is nothing here which contradicts my explanation of
the basic principles of how a synchrotron works.
Quite the contrary.
But you, Richard Hertz, have documented that you have no clue
about the basics of a synchrotron.
For example, you wrote:
"The rate of "downloaded energy" to the electron become smaller
and smaller with speed. When the electron is traveling near c,
the mechanism of energy transfer by acceleration using electric
fields just become INEFFICIENT."
..which is plain wrong, the "downloaded energy" (kinetic energy)
the RF-cavities supply to the charged particles does not decrease
when the particle speed increases.
And if your reading comprehension problems hadn't prevented
you from understanding my bla bla, you would have known why.
You have also written a number of completely ridiculous
and meaningless statements like:
"The electron resist increases in speed because
the VIRTUAL CHARGE that obtain and that generates its
electric field increases, and so does its radiated energy."
It seems like you don't understand that the energy that is
gained in the RF-cavities and lost as synchrotron radiation
in the bends is simply kinetic energy of a mass.
It is very obvious that the correct equation is:
KE = (γ−1)mc² because there is no limit for the KE.
The Newtonian equation KE = mv²/2 is limited to mc²/2,
which is only a tiny fracton of the kinetic energy in
a particle with speed close to c.
_______________________
And now you, to divert the attention from all the stupid
claims you have made in this thread, pretend that what I
have said about synchrotrons above is wrong unless I can
do the calculations you demand of me below.
I am obviously not competent to do the calculations which
only VERY few people in CERN can do.
I will leave them as a demonstration of your desperation.
And, if you can, explain how come Moon's gravity is another cause for loss of energy in accelerated protons (which are used at the LHC).
Also, make some calculations about the compensations for energy losses that HUGE magnetic fields of many kinds being used.
And about RF cavities providing accelerating energy for charged particles (protons in the CERN brochure) by means of 5 Megavolt/mt,
stop being simplistic and tell:
- How come the E field is increased and synchronized with bunches of protons that loop around 11,000 times/sec IF very complex
CORRECTIONS are made by more than 8 types of magnetic fields.
- Why do you refuse to compute the magnetic energy LOST in keeping bunches of 100 billion protons orbiting the LHC.
- Why do you refuse to take into account the increasing loss of energy due to the recoil of emitted photons, as their energy grows.
- How do you compute the energy lost by the technical impossibility of adjusting the peak E field uniformly, along a path of 170 Km
over about 2,808 bunches separated about 20 nsec each. Moving at 0.99999991 c, they are separated no more than 7.6 meters.
- The above is for 7 TeV protons, in the final stage. They are accelerated at the LHC from 0.5 TeV to 7 TeV in 20 minutes. You can
do the math for the radiation lost, as it's not so difficult. What you can't compute is another "hidden" factor, which is photon
scattering within 100 billion protons packed together on each bunch. Not only huge amounts of recoils due to photon emission,
but many other "not told" effect like antiparticles created in such a messy train of protons, compressed in a length of a few cm
and separated nanometers one from each other, per bunch.
When you have the above details understood (read the CERN brochure), and also computed Moon's gravity, try again to post
something for adults, not kinder garden children.
It his however quite hilarious that you, Richard Hertz, who started
the thread with the proclamation that relativity is wrong (a HOAX),
now use a reference to the Large Hadron Collider at CERN as a proof
that you were right and I was wrong!
Do the LHC prove that relativity is a HOAX? :-D
Maybe you should read it to see what it has to say about relativity?
https://home.cern/resources/brochure/knowledge-sharing/lhc-facts-and-figures >>
You keep parroting bla, bla, bla, ....
But YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SQUAT. You're just a parrot, of the kind of lesser gifted parrots. Some are really smart. You are not.
I clearly wrote that experiments IN THE MOST ADVANCED ACCELERATOR IN THE WORLD are based on bunches of NO LESS
THAN 100 BILLION PARTICLES AT A TIME (10E+11), but you (STUPIDLY) insist that relativistic effects ARE SHOWN on any single
fucking particle within the 100,000,000,000 others, which travel together in a "volume" of 10 cm long and a radius of 5 microns.
You are so IMBECILE that you refuse to include the interaction of 100 billion particles packed together, and REDUCE your relativism
to ONE of them, just ONE.
Then, I suggest you to DEVELOP A NEW THEORY: STATISTICAL RELATIVISM, so you can BURY unexplained effects within statistics.
You HAVE NO INFORMATION about the behavior of A SINGLE CHARGED PARTICLE within the LHC. And, as I know, this is the most
powerful machine that exist.
Try to read again the development of this thread, and MAYBE (I doubt it), light will enter into your fucking brain.
There is NOTHING, even with what I cited on purpose, that contradict my initial position. NOTHING.
Now, I'd be glad to observe how do you manage to extract individual behavior of an electron or proton out of the HERD OF 10E+11.
Good luck, and eat fish.
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:27:55 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
On 5/3/2023 1:36 PM, RichD wrote:
On May 2, Volney wrote:I am not familiar with the exact details, but yes I would say that such
Accelerating charges radiate energy away. I don't know the
formula other than in general, the more acceleration, the more energy lost.
So when a straight wire radio receiver antenna gets hit by
a RF signal, the charges accelerate, and radiate energy away?
absorption of RF energy could not be 100% efficient because some of it
would have to be radiated away as electrons accelerate.
I believe that a standard method of bug detection is to sweep an
area with RF and to filter the re-radiated energy for odd harmonics
which could be indicative of active electronic circuits. False
positives could be the result of corroded wiring, etc.
Den 04.05.2023 14:57, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 7:15:20 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 04.05.2023 00:23, skrev Richard Hertz:
https://home.cern/resources/brochure/knowledge-sharing/lhc-facts-and-figures
There is nothing here which contradicts my explanation of
the basic principles of how a synchrotron works.
Quite the contrary.
But you, Richard Hertz, have documented that you have no clue
about the basics of a synchrotron.
For example, you wrote:
"The rate of "downloaded energy" to the electron become smaller
and smaller with speed. When the electron is traveling near c,
the mechanism of energy transfer by acceleration using electric
fields just become INEFFICIENT."
..which is plain wrong, the "downloaded energy" (kinetic energy)
the RF-cavities supply to the charged particles does not decrease
when the particle speed increases.
And if your reading comprehension problems hadn't prevented
you from understanding my bla bla, you would have known why.
You have also written a number of completely ridiculous
and meaningless statements like:
"The electron resist increases in speed because
the VIRTUAL CHARGE that obtain and that generates its
electric field increases, and so does its radiated energy."
It seems like you don't understand that the energy that is
gained in the RF-cavities and lost as synchrotron radiation
in the bends is simply kinetic energy of a mass.
It is very obvious that the correct equation is:
KE = (γ−1)mc² because there is no limit for the KE.
The Newtonian equation KE = mv²/2 is limited to mc²/2,
which is only a tiny fracton of the kinetic energy in
a particle with speed close to c.
_______________________
And now you, to divert the attention from all the stupid
claims you have made in this thread, pretend that what I
have said about synchrotrons above is wrong unless I can
do the calculations you demand of me below.
I am obviously not competent to do the calculations which
only VERY few people in CERN can do.
I will leave them as a demonstration of your desperation.
And, if you can, explain how come Moon's gravity is another cause for loss of energy in accelerated protons (which are used at the LHC).
Also, make some calculations about the compensations for energy losses that HUGE magnetic fields of many kinds being used.
And about RF cavities providing accelerating energy for charged particles (protons in the CERN brochure) by means of 5 Megavolt/mt,
stop being simplistic and tell:
- How come the E field is increased and synchronized with bunches of protons that loop around 11,000 times/sec IF very complex
CORRECTIONS are made by more than 8 types of magnetic fields.
- Why do you refuse to compute the magnetic energy LOST in keeping bunches of 100 billion protons orbiting the LHC.
- Why do you refuse to take into account the increasing loss of energy due to the recoil of emitted photons, as their energy grows.
- How do you compute the energy lost by the technical impossibility of adjusting the peak E field uniformly, along a path of 170 Km
over about 2,808 bunches separated about 20 nsec each. Moving at 0.99999991 c, they are separated no more than 7.6 meters.
- The above is for 7 TeV protons, in the final stage. They are accelerated at the LHC from 0.5 TeV to 7 TeV in 20 minutes. You can
do the math for the radiation lost, as it's not so difficult. What you can't compute is another "hidden" factor, which is photon
scattering within 100 billion protons packed together on each bunch. Not only huge amounts of recoils due to photon emission,
but many other "not told" effect like antiparticles created in such a messy train of protons, compressed in a length of a few cm
and separated nanometers one from each other, per bunch.
When you have the above details understood (read the CERN brochure), and also computed Moon's gravity, try again to post
something for adults, not kinder garden children.
It his however quite hilarious that you, Richard Hertz, who started
the thread with the proclamation that relativity is wrong (a HOAX),
now use a reference to the Large Hadron Collider at CERN as a proof
that you were right and I was wrong!
Do the LHC prove that relativity is a HOAX? :-D
Maybe you should read it to see what it has to say about relativity?
https://home.cern/resources/brochure/knowledge-sharing/lhc-facts-and-figures
You keep parroting bla, bla, bla, ....Quite.
I am parroting people who know how a synchrotron works.
I am not making it up like you did in your original posting.
Richard Hertz fantasized:
"The electron resist increases in speed because
the VIRTUAL CHARGE that obtain and that generates its
electric field increases, and so does its radiated energy."
and:
"The rate of "downloaded energy" to the electron become smaller
and smaller with speed. When the electron is traveling near c,
the mechanism of energy transfer by acceleration using electric
fields just become INEFFICIENT."
You will hardly find support for your fantasies in the discription
of the LHC. :-D
There is nothing below which contradicts my explanation of
the basic principles of how a synchrotron works.
But YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SQUAT. You're just a parrot, of the kind of lesser gifted parrots. Some are really smart. You are not.
I clearly wrote that experiments IN THE MOST ADVANCED ACCELERATOR IN THE WORLD are based on bunches of NO LESS
THAN 100 BILLION PARTICLES AT A TIME (10E+11), but you (STUPIDLY) insist that relativistic effects ARE SHOWN on any single
fucking particle within the 100,000,000,000 others, which travel together in a "volume" of 10 cm long and a radius of 5 microns.
You are so IMBECILE that you refuse to include the interaction of 100 billion particles packed together, and REDUCE your relativismNot quite.
to ONE of them, just ONE.
I wrote:
"The cavity is a short, circular waveguide, closed in both ends.
In this waveguide you can have a standing TM01 wave (resonance).
In the centre it is a hole in both end walls where the charged
particles can flow. Energy is coupled into the cavity via a small
wire loop fed by RF power from a klystron (or similar) via another waveguide.
The electric field will be constant along the z-axis, and strongest
in the centre. The E-field will vary sinusoidally with time,
and the phase is synced so that the charged particle (bunch) passes
through when the E-field is at maximum."
Of course I know that it is one bunch in the RF-cavity at the time,
but that doesnt change the fact that each particle in the bunch gains
the kinetic energy E⋅l eV in a passing.
(See: https://paulba.no/temp/RFcavity.pdf )
And of course I know that there usually are many bunches in
a synchrotron at the time. I also know that there normally
are (several) chains of RF-cavites which are synched such that
there is one bunch in each cavity when the E-field is at maximum.
Then, I suggest you to DEVELOP A NEW THEORY: STATISTICAL RELATIVISM, so you can BURY unexplained effects within statistics.
You HAVE NO INFORMATION about the behavior of A SINGLE CHARGED PARTICLE within the LHC. And, as I know, this is the most
powerful machine that exist.
Try to read again the development of this thread, and MAYBE (I doubt it), light will enter into your fucking brain.
There is NOTHING, even with what I cited on purpose, that contradict my initial position. NOTHING.
Now, I'd be glad to observe how do you manage to extract individual behavior of an electron or proton out of the HERD OF 10E+11.
Good luck, and eat fish.Quite.
Let's leave it at that.
But I have one question.
Now when you have studied the LHC and probably know how it works
much better than me:
Must SR be used to do the calculations that must be made
to make the LHC work?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 5:14:12 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen
wrote:
Now when you have studied the LHC and probably know how it works
much better than me: Must SR be used to do the calculations that
must be made to make the LHC work?
No.
On 5/4/23 3:59 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 5:14:12 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen
wrote:
Now when you have studied the LHC and probably know how it works
much better than me: Must SR be used to do the calculations that
must be made to make the LHC work?
No.
Hertz CLEARLY does not understand how the LHC actually works. Using SR
in its design and analysis is absolutely required [#].
[#] Because the protons go around the rings at speed
indistinguishable from c, rather than enormously
faster than c as Newtonian physics would require
for their observed kinetic energy. This directly
affects the frequency and phasing of the RF cavities.
(Well, I suppose one could use one of the infinite number
of other theories that are experimentally indistinguishable
from SR, but that would be A LOT more work, and nobody
would believe it, anyway.)
Tom Roberts
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:06:35 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 5/4/23 3:59 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 5:14:12 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen
wrote:
Now when you have studied the LHC and probably know how it works
much better than me: Must SR be used to do the calculations that
must be made to make the LHC work?
No.
Hertz CLEARLY does not understand how the LHC actually works. Using SR
in its design and analysis is absolutely required [#].
[#] Because the protons go around the rings at speed
indistinguishable from c, rather than enormously
faster than c as Newtonian physics would require
for their observed kinetic energy. This directly
affects the frequency and phasing of the RF cavities.
(Well, I suppose one could use one of the infinite number
of other theories that are experimentally indistinguishable
from SR, but that would be A LOT more work, and nobody
would believe it, anyway.)
Tom Roberts
What about this theory:
Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 5/1/2023 4:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 5/1/2023 12:55 PM, Evenezer Nigro wrote:
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
demolished/Scott Ritter: *_'Ukraine_is_Demolished'_*
This is no longer a war, *_this_is_a_humanitarian_crisis_* says >>>>>>>> Colonel Douglas Macgregor
https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/04/scott-ritter-ukraine-is-
https://youtu.be/aWLvqPyC0ykHow many photons can an electron emit before it decays into
nothingness?
the atoms emits, decaying, not the electrons. Go kiss a cat.
Does the probability of a photon being emitted by an electron decrease >>>>> per photon emitted? Say, this electron currently has a 90% probability >>>>> that it can emit a photon. A photon is emitted, now its 89.999%
probability. The probability decreased.
not sure what to say, it's the atom decaying, not the electron. The
electron is still there. So it depends on the energy state of the atom. >>>> Reinstate the level and it will emit again. This is how my
*_Divergent_Matter_of_the_Moving_Koerper_* works.
Can the atom decay to a point where it can no longer "contain" its
electrons?
Without being supplied with external energy, things will tend to wind up
in the lowest energy state possible. Since you have to supply energy to
atoms to wrench their electrons away from them, the lowest state is
normally a neutral atom*, with the electrons in the lowest available
orbitals. For example only 2 electrons can be in the lowest energy
orbital, the 1S orbital. A third electron cannot go there. Look up the
"ground state" of atoms.
You may look at a diagram of an atom and say "but but what if the
electron crashes into a proton??" yes classical theory says that would
be a lower energy state but quantum theory disallows that, it would need
to do some weak force magic and interact to become a neutron (plus
neutrino) but that's actually a HIGHER energy state so it doesn't
(normally) happen.
Nothing in quantum mechanics disallows it.
It is just that the neutron has more energy.
It can, and will happen, if you apply sufficient pressure,
like in a neutron star.
It is a reversible reaction,
just like an ordinary chemical equilibrium,
Jan
What about this theory:
The efficiency in energy transfer from RF cavities to the bunch of protons follows the function
Et = η E = E √{[e^(-β+1) - 1]/(e - 1)} ; β = v/c
Give it a try calculating Et for β > 0.9.
You'll appreciate how fast Et declines toward zero, in comparison with 0 < β < 0.9.
Because E fields have problems to what would be a pack of "charged comets" irradiating photons like crazy.
There is a reason by which LHC can't get v > 0.99999991 c, even with E fields of 5 MegaVolts/mt.
And is not due to Lorentz gamma. No relativity involved. Just classic physics.
Den 05.05.2023 05:44, skrev Richard Hertz:
Is the relevant equation KE = (1/√(1−v²/c²) −1)⋅mc²
or is it KE = mc²/2?
On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 3:37:12 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
<snip>
Can you please tell me how a particle with rest mass 938 MeV
and speed 0.999999560c can have an energy 6.8 TeV?
Is the relevant equation KE = (1/√(1−v²/c²) −1)⋅mc² or is it KE = mc²/2?NONE OF THE ABOVE.
AND NOT ANY PARTICLE. ONLY PROTONS. READ ABOUT IT AT CERN.
The values given by you imply an increase of 7,249 time its "energy at rest".
But you are tied to the doctrine of relativity, which don't give a shit about the electrical and magnetic effects, and
about the electromagnetic nature of the mass (the only valid mass).
The electron mass is of electromagnetic nature, pure and exclusively, as Lorentz CLEARLY WROTE in his 1904 paper.
This is the original formula that Lorentz used. It was WIDELY KNOWN since 1893 and the works of JJ Thomson and many others:
mo = e²/(6πc²R) [cgs units]
This is the Searle (1897) formula for electromagnetic energy of an electron in motion, derived after Thomson's discoveries.
E(v) = Eo [1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) - 1]
and like Thomson he concluded: ... when v = c the energy becomes infinite, so that it would seem to be impossible to make a charged
body move at a greater speed than that of light.
QUOTE FROM WIKI:the velocity of a charged body moving through the dielectric beyond that of light.
Thomson (1893) noticed that electromagnetic momentum and energy of charged bodies, and therefore their masses, depend on the speed of the bodies as well. He wrote:[4]
[p. 21] When in the limit v = c, the increase in mass is infinite, thus a charged sphere moving with the velocity of light behaves as if its mass were infinite, its velocity therefore will remain constant, in other words it is impossible to increase
..........
From Searle's formula, Walter Kaufmann (1901) and Max Abraham (1902) derived the formula for the electromagnetic mass of moving bodies:[6]
m(v) = 3/4 mo [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)]/ β²
or
m(v) = e²/(8πc²R) [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)]/ β²
Now, would you care to calculate the KE of the electron moving at v = 0.99999991 c?
OR, if you please, multiply the above result by 1,836 to obtain the KE of a proton moving at v = 0.99999991 c?
And, NO RELATIVITY INVOLVED. This knowledge was of common use by that epoch, only that the cabal buried this with the
shitty movement of relativism, supported by RELATIVISTS (they were called that way for decades).
You'll have your answers, and also explanations about the failure of LHC to provide higher speeds.
But you have to drop your fanaticism with relativity for a while, and think as a normal person.
Can you please tell me how a particle with rest mass 938 MeV
and speed 0.999999560c can have an energy 6.8 TeV?
Is the relevant equation KE = (1/√(1−v²/c²) −1)⋅mc² or is it KE = mc²/2?
On 5/4/2023 11:44 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:06:35 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 5/4/23 3:59 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 5:14:12 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen
wrote:
Now when you have studied the LHC and probably know how it works
much better than me: Must SR be used to do the calculations that
must be made to make the LHC work?
No.
Hertz CLEARLY does not understand how the LHC actually works. Using SR
in its design and analysis is absolutely required [#].
[#] Because the protons go around the rings at speed
indistinguishable from c, rather than enormously
faster than c as Newtonian physics would require
for their observed kinetic energy. This directly
affects the frequency and phasing of the RF cavities.
(Well, I suppose one could use one of the infinite number
of other theories that are experimentally indistinguishable
from SR, but that would be A LOT more work, and nobody
would believe it, anyway.)
Tom Roberts
What about this theory:
What about explaining how protons in the LHC can have energies in the
THz range, but Newtonian math for protons with THz energies and 1/2 mv^2 would require them to have a v many times c?
I wrote the insane imbecility before.
On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 5:29:00 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
I wrote the insane imbecility before.
Yep, you sure did
Drooling imbecile
Asshole!
On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 1:45:29 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
On 5/4/2023 11:44 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:06:35 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 5/4/23 3:59 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 5:14:12 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen
wrote:
Now when you have studied the LHC and probably know how it works
much better than me: Must SR be used to do the calculations that
must be made to make the LHC work?
No.
Hertz CLEARLY does not understand how the LHC actually works. Using SR >>>> in its design and analysis is absolutely required [#].
[#] Because the protons go around the rings at speed
indistinguishable from c, rather than enormously
faster than c as Newtonian physics would require
for their observed kinetic energy. This directly
affects the frequency and phasing of the RF cavities.
(Well, I suppose one could use one of the infinite number
of other theories that are experimentally indistinguishable
from SR, but that would be A LOT more work, and nobody
would believe it, anyway.)
Tom Roberts
What about this theory:
I assume that you meant TeV, not THz-
What about explaining how protons in the LHC can have energies in the
THz range, but Newtonian math for protons with THz energies and 1/2 mv^2
would require them to have a v many times c?
I wrote here the explanation. NO RELATIVITY NEEDED.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/XG48sQO1ATg/m/Im4eC8cYAgAJ
Assuming that an electron's mass is ENTIRELY ELECTROMAGNETIC, this is its KE = 1/2 mv²,
as a function of β = v/c
m(v) = e²/(8πc²R) [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)]/ β²
KE = e²/(16πR) [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)], Isn't this pretty and simple?
On 5/5/2023 8:28 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 1:45:29 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
On 5/4/2023 11:44 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:06:35 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 5/4/23 3:59 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 5:14:12 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen
wrote:
Now when you have studied the LHC and probably know how it works >>>>>> much better than me: Must SR be used to do the calculations that >>>>>> must be made to make the LHC work?
No.
Hertz CLEARLY does not understand how the LHC actually works. Using SR >>>> in its design and analysis is absolutely required [#].
[#] Because the protons go around the rings at speed
indistinguishable from c, rather than enormously
faster than c as Newtonian physics would require
for their observed kinetic energy. This directly
affects the frequency and phasing of the RF cavities.
(Well, I suppose one could use one of the infinite number
of other theories that are experimentally indistinguishable
from SR, but that would be A LOT more work, and nobody
would believe it, anyway.)
Tom Roberts
What about this theory:
I assume that you meant TeV, not THz-
What about explaining how protons in the LHC can have energies in the
THz range, but Newtonian math for protons with THz energies and 1/2 mv^2 >> would require them to have a v many times c?
I wrote here the explanation. NO RELATIVITY NEEDED.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/XG48sQO1ATg/m/Im4eC8cYAgAJ
Assuming that an electron's mass is ENTIRELY ELECTROMAGNETIC, this is its KE = 1/2 mv²,And there is NO WAY to obtain Newtonian ~6 TeV energies for an electron
or proton equal to mv²/2 unless you have a v MUCH larger than c. FAIL.
as a function of β = v/c
m(v) = e²/(8πc²R) [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)]/ β²That looks suspiciously like it was pulled from SR before you gnawed on
it. You even used β = v/c rather than try to hide that by using a new variable.
KE = e²/(16πR) [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)], Isn't this pretty and simple?The parts you pulled out of SR do, but calling the SR momentum increase "mass" is considered obsolete.
LHC: Max energy in each proton: 6.8 TeV Max speed of each proton: 0.999999990c = (1-9.5e-9)c Circumference: 26.66 km
Tevatron: Max energy in each proton: 1.0 TeV Max speed of each
proton: 0.999999560c = (1-4.4e-7)c Circumference: 6.28 km
Why do you think the RF-cavities in the LHC are able to accelerate
the protons to higher kinetic energy and speed than the RF-cavities
in the Tevatron?
On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 12:10:21 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
On 5/5/2023 8:28 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 1:45:29 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:And there is NO WAY to obtain Newtonian ~6 TeV energies for an electron
On 5/4/2023 11:44 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:06:35 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>> On 5/4/23 3:59 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 5:14:12 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen >>>>>>> wrote:
Now when you have studied the LHC and probably know how it works >>>>>>>> much better than me: Must SR be used to do the calculations that >>>>>>>> must be made to make the LHC work?
No.
Hertz CLEARLY does not understand how the LHC actually works. Using SR >>>>>> in its design and analysis is absolutely required [#].
[#] Because the protons go around the rings at speed
indistinguishable from c, rather than enormously
faster than c as Newtonian physics would require
for their observed kinetic energy. This directly
affects the frequency and phasing of the RF cavities.
(Well, I suppose one could use one of the infinite number
of other theories that are experimentally indistinguishable
from SR, but that would be A LOT more work, and nobody
would believe it, anyway.)
Tom Roberts
What about this theory:
I assume that you meant TeV, not THz-
What about explaining how protons in the LHC can have energies in the
THz range, but Newtonian math for protons with THz energies and 1/2 mv^2 >>>> would require them to have a v many times c?
I wrote here the explanation. NO RELATIVITY NEEDED.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/XG48sQO1ATg/m/Im4eC8cYAgAJ
Assuming that an electron's mass is ENTIRELY ELECTROMAGNETIC, this is its KE = 1/2 mv²,
or proton equal to mv²/2 unless you have a v MUCH larger than c. FAIL.
as a function of β = v/cThat looks suspiciously like it was pulled from SR before you gnawed on
m(v) = e²/(8πc²R) [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)]/ β²
it. You even used β = v/c rather than try to hide that by using a new
variable.
KE = e²/(16πR) [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)], Isn't this pretty and simple?The parts you pulled out of SR do, but calling the SR momentum increase
"mass" is considered obsolete.
HAVE YOU EVER CARE TO READ THE CONTENTS OF THE TWO LINKS THAT I DID POST HERE?
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/XG48sQO1ATg/m/hs70bRUZAgAJ
On 5/5/2023 11:31 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 12:10:21 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
On 5/5/2023 8:28 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 1:45:29 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:And there is NO WAY to obtain Newtonian ~6 TeV energies for an electron >> or proton equal to mv²/2 unless you have a v MUCH larger than c. FAIL. >>> as a function of β = v/c
On 5/4/2023 11:44 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:06:35 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>> On 5/4/23 3:59 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 5:14:12 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen >>>>>>> wrote:
Now when you have studied the LHC and probably know how it works >>>>>>>> much better than me: Must SR be used to do the calculations that >>>>>>>> must be made to make the LHC work?
No.
Hertz CLEARLY does not understand how the LHC actually works. Using SR
in its design and analysis is absolutely required [#].
[#] Because the protons go around the rings at speed
indistinguishable from c, rather than enormously
faster than c as Newtonian physics would require
for their observed kinetic energy. This directly
affects the frequency and phasing of the RF cavities.
(Well, I suppose one could use one of the infinite number
of other theories that are experimentally indistinguishable
from SR, but that would be A LOT more work, and nobody
would believe it, anyway.)
Tom Roberts
What about this theory:
I assume that you meant TeV, not THz-
What about explaining how protons in the LHC can have energies in the >>>> THz range, but Newtonian math for protons with THz energies and 1/2 mv^2
would require them to have a v many times c?
I wrote here the explanation. NO RELATIVITY NEEDED.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/XG48sQO1ATg/m/Im4eC8cYAgAJ
Assuming that an electron's mass is ENTIRELY ELECTROMAGNETIC, this is its KE = 1/2 mv²,
That looks suspiciously like it was pulled from SR before you gnawed on >> it. You even used β = v/c rather than try to hide that by using a new
m(v) = e²/(8πc²R) [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)]/ β²
variable.
KE = e²/(16πR) [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)], Isn't this pretty and simple?The parts you pulled out of SR do, but calling the SR momentum increase >> "mass" is considered obsolete.
HAVE YOU EVER CARE TO READ THE CONTENTS OF THE TWO LINKS THAT I DID POST HERE?
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/XG48sQO1ATg/m/hs70bRUZAgAJI already addressed that. All those "betas" (β) equal to v/c already implies SR relationships as none of that is even remotely Newtonian, but
the big one is the implicit squared Lorentz factor term (γ²) or (1/(1-β²)), right out of SR.
In the (unlikely) event that you are correct and this is all pre-SR, it means someone was really onto SR but did not quite make it. Since your equations seem to be SR based, no need to investigate further.
On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 4:12:42 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
On 5/5/2023 11:31 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 12:10:21 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:I already addressed that. All those "betas" (β) equal to v/c already
On 5/5/2023 8:28 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 1:45:29 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:And there is NO WAY to obtain Newtonian ~6 TeV energies for an electron >>>> or proton equal to mv²/2 unless you have a v MUCH larger than c. FAIL. >>>>> as a function of β = v/c
On 5/4/2023 11:44 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:06:35 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/4/23 3:59 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 5:14:12 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen >>>>>>>>> wrote:
Now when you have studied the LHC and probably know how it works >>>>>>>>>> much better than me: Must SR be used to do the calculations that >>>>>>>>>> must be made to make the LHC work?
No.
Hertz CLEARLY does not understand how the LHC actually works. Using SR >>>>>>>> in its design and analysis is absolutely required [#].
[#] Because the protons go around the rings at speed
indistinguishable from c, rather than enormously
faster than c as Newtonian physics would require
for their observed kinetic energy. This directly
affects the frequency and phasing of the RF cavities.
(Well, I suppose one could use one of the infinite number
of other theories that are experimentally indistinguishable
from SR, but that would be A LOT more work, and nobody
would believe it, anyway.)
Tom Roberts
What about this theory:
I assume that you meant TeV, not THz-
What about explaining how protons in the LHC can have energies in the >>>>>> THz range, but Newtonian math for protons with THz energies and 1/2 mv^2 >>>>>> would require them to have a v many times c?
I wrote here the explanation. NO RELATIVITY NEEDED.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/XG48sQO1ATg/m/Im4eC8cYAgAJ
Assuming that an electron's mass is ENTIRELY ELECTROMAGNETIC, this is its KE = 1/2 mv²,
That looks suspiciously like it was pulled from SR before you gnawed on >>>> it. You even used β = v/c rather than try to hide that by using a new >>>> variable.
m(v) = e²/(8πc²R) [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)]/ β²
KE = e²/(16πR) [-1/β ln[(1+β)/(1-β) + 2/(1-β²)], Isn't this pretty and simple?The parts you pulled out of SR do, but calling the SR momentum increase >>>> "mass" is considered obsolete.
HAVE YOU EVER CARE TO READ THE CONTENTS OF THE TWO LINKS THAT I DID POST HERE?
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/XG48sQO1ATg/m/hs70bRUZAgAJ
implies SR relationships as none of that is even remotely Newtonian, but
the big one is the implicit squared Lorentz factor term (γ²) or
(1/(1-β²)), right out of SR.
In the (unlikely) event that you are correct and this is all pre-SR, it
means someone was really onto SR but did not quite make it. Since your
equations seem to be SR based, no need to investigate further.
Stubborn as hell!
The use of β = v/c comes from Wikipedia articles, using modern notation.
Every time you see something like (1-β²), you think about Einstein and Lorentz, because you ARE INDOCTRINATED to think so.
Go back to Voigt, 15 years before 1902, and you have a similar expression, I can't say that it wasn't used before Voigt, but you
are extremely biased with this expression and its relationship with relativity.
Give it up, have a drink and relax. Forget this fantasy of yours.
On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 3:37:12 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Can you please tell me how a particle with rest mass 938 MeV
and speed 0.999999560c can have an energy 6.8 TeV?
Is the relevant equation KE = (1/√(1−v²/c²) −1)⋅mc² or is it KE = mc²/2?
NONE OF THE ABOVE.
AND NOT ANY PARTICLE. ONLY PROTONS. READ ABOUT IT AT CERN.
The values given by you imply an increase of 7,249 time its "energy at rest".
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 26:28:37 |
| Calls: | 6,707 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,239 |
| Messages: | 5,352,566 |