Re: David question three: relativistic electron mass
From: jahn (susysewnshow_at_yahoo.com.au)
Date: 12/17/04
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: do a moving black holes eat space?"
- Previous message: jahn: "Re: David question three: relativistic electron mass"
- In reply to: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: David question three: relativistic electron mass"
- Next in thread: stephen_at_nomail.com: "Re: David question three: relativistic electron mass"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 01:03:39 -0500
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:cps8e8$gu7$1@dolly.uninett.no...
> jahn wrote:
> > "DavidBowman" <dt041054@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
You're obnoxious, but not that obnoxious.
Only in the Paul Anderson school of mathematics
can a particle have radiated, unabsorbed
energy, also contribute to it's mass.
http://www.mathpower.com/
Sue...
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: do a moving black holes eat space?"
- Previous message: jahn: "Re: David question three: relativistic electron mass"
- In reply to: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: David question three: relativistic electron mass"
- Next in thread: stephen_at_nomail.com: "Re: David question three: relativistic electron mass"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
