Re: David question three: relativistic electron mass
vergon_enterprises_at_highstream.net
Date: 12/17/04
- Next message: Tom Capizzi: "Re: A question about physicists and Einsteins SR Theory"
- Previous message: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Two clocks mechanically synchronized but in different gravity."
- In reply to: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: David question three: relativistic electron mass"
- Next in thread: jahn: "Re: David question three: relativistic electron mass"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 16 Dec 2004 18:30:29 -0800
jahn wrote:
> "DavidBowman" <dt041...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1102783527.362887.265290@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>Does an electron have a mass other than the mass-equivalent of it's
>>charge? Is the mass-equivalent of charge relativistic, or does the
>>term refer only to objects moving near the speed of light?
> To accept the notion of "relativtic mass" you must
> also accept that there exist some point in a
> baseball pitcher's swing when the ball becomes
> so massive that the force applied by his arm is
> inadaquate to impart additional energy. AFAIK
> there are no reports of bruises on a pitchers
> hands resulting from the hypothetical effect.
You know of course that this is nonsense,
so I won't comment on it.
> No doubt you have seen particle accelerators or
> cathode ray tubes cited as proof of relativistic
> mass. The correct logic to use is the same as
> the basball pitcher. The accelerating fields can't
> exceed the speed of light wrt the laboratory
> frame of reference so the particle is simply
> "out running" the accelerating fields as it
> nears the speed of light wrt the lab, just as
> the ball is outrunning the pitcher's hand.
The reason why a pitcher cannot accelerate a baseball beyond
the maximum speed of his hand, is obvious.
He cannot transfer more kinetic energy to the baseball
when his hand has reached its maximum speed.
But a particle in an accelerator gains the same amount of
kinetic energy every time it passes through a RF-cavity,
regardless of its speed. Even when the speed of the particle
is only few mm/s below c, it gains the same amount of kinetic energy.
Part of this energy is lost as synchrotron radiation
where the particle trajectories are bent by a magnetic field.
The radiated energy comes from the kinetic energy of
the particles, which therefore loose some energy.
Isn't this a beautiful proof that the RF-cavities keep
putting energy into the particles?
If they didn't, where does then the radiated energy come from?
When the speed of the particle increases, the synchrotron
radiation increases. When the radiated energy is equal
to the energy the RF-cavities put into the particles,
the accelerator is in steady state and have reached
the limit of its performance.
So the RF-cavities never cease to put energy into
the particles regardless of their speed. We can measure
this energy because it is radiated in another part of the circuit.
So your logic doesn't hold.
Yes, I have written this before.
You have fled the discussion before.
Will you flee again?
Paul
Vergon:
Well put. I suspect you have worked on accelerators.
At any rate, I would like to point out the trickyness of nature.
Relativistic mass is m = m_0/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). It has been a
bugaboo in SR
ever since 1905 and it is currently agreed that it doesn't exist. And
it doesn't.
Yet the gain in mass of an accelerated particle in an accelerator is
*exactly* the same.
So if one is considering an accelerator, relativistic mass exists.
- Next message: Tom Capizzi: "Re: A question about physicists and Einsteins SR Theory"
- Previous message: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Two clocks mechanically synchronized but in different gravity."
- In reply to: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: David question three: relativistic electron mass"
- Next in thread: jahn: "Re: David question three: relativistic electron mass"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
