Re: Helical Particle Waves.


"bz" <bz+spr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns98DD4E64C65F3WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Len Gaasenbeek" <gaasbeek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:YZWdnXjuOvbnI0fYnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:


"Len Gaasenbeek" <gaasbeek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:odWdnXC3yq3KJ0fYnZ2dnUVZ_u6rnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It occurred to me that when we are talking about a high energy helical
wave particle, such as an electron or proton that is being accelerated
in a particle accelerator, its kinetic energy will be determined by its
speed as it approaches the speed of light but more so by the frequency
at which it spins around its axis.

This means that the accelerating coil must increase the frequency of
its magnetic field as well, to be able to transmit or transfer
additional energy to the charged particle.

This is done in accelerators. Either by increasing the frequency or
decreasing the length of the alternating zones.

In cyclotrons, the frequency is increased.

In linear accelerators (and linear accelerator segments of syncrotrons)
either or both methods are used.

Because if the spin
frequency of the charged particle is greater than the frequency of the
alternating magnetic field which accelerates it, it will magnetically
decouple.

More correctly, if the driving fields outpaces the particles being
accelerated, it will slow them down.

In other words, as the high energy proton or electron keeps increasing
its spin frequency, the driving magnetic field must also keep
increasing its frequency to be able to transfer additional energy to
the particle. That is
to say, the phrase that the (relativistic) helical wave particle
produces a
back emf which equals the accelerating emf, thereby stopping the field
from further transferring energy to the particle, may not be the best
way of putting it.

It is NOT the best way of putting it because it is demonstrably false.

This in spite of the fact that the particle does
radiate a high frequency magnetic field.

It emits high energy ElectroMagnetic radiation[x-rays] (not a high
frequency
"magnetic field") IF you force it to change its direction of motion
(accelerate it) with a static electric or static magnetic field.

Rather, it is the high
frequency of the particle's magnetic field which outstrips the
frequency of the accelerating magnetic field, which causes it to
decouple from the field.

Nice try on short notice, but still wrong. Do some calculations and you
will
see how wrong you are.

Of course if the magnetic frequency of the charged particle is greater
than the frequency of the magnetic field that tries to accelerate the
particle, the magnetic field of the particle would begin to transmit
power to the accelerator magnetic coil, rather than the other way
around. This can be looked at as a high frequency magnetic back emf.

If you study linear accelerators (and the linear portions of accelerators
like the CAMD accelerator) you will find that they DO vary the frequency
of
the accelerating signal.

They do this at the rate required to give a maximum acceleration to the
particles being accelerated.

For some strange reason, the rate needed seems to exactly match that
predicted by SR.

Since at such high frequencies the impedance of the accelerating coil
would become very high, the power it can transmit would become very
low.

You are incorrect. They design to coils to cover the range of frequencies
that might be required and they leave 'safety margines' in the design that
would allow them to accelerate the particles to well past c, if the
particles
could go that fast.

The difference in transit time (1/frequency) for a particle moving between
..9
c and c is rather small.

The impedance (inductive reactance) of the coils is NOT the limiting
factor.

In other words there is a practical limit to which one can
energize a charged helical wave particle as it approaches the speed of
light because there is a limit to the frequency of the accelerating
magnetic field.

Higher frequencies are easy to attain. Let us calculate the frequencies:

If the accelerating zone were 1 meter long, you would need to drive it
with a
300 MHz signal to achieve a velocity of c for a particle going through it.
For a particle moving at 0.9 c, the drive would need to be at 269.813 MHz.

It is very easy to design equipment that will operate at a range
frequencies
including those.

If the zones were only 1/4 meter long (and thus must be much smaller in
diameter than they could be if the zones were 1 meter long) and you
wished
to accelerate particles from .5 c through .9 c all the way to c you would
need frequencies of 599 MHz, 1.079 GHz and 1.199 GHz at those particular
velocities.

Do you see now why I tell you that the frequency of the drive is not the
limiting factor?

Do you see now why I tell you that neither the 'back EMF' nor the
inductive
reactance of the coils is the limiting factor?

In modern accelerators, the timing of the driving pulse for each segment
can
be controlled. Everything is under computer control.

Often, the computer program monitors the pulses of beam current and
dynamically adjusts the driving signals to maximize the acceleration.

The results are in accordance with SR. Extraordinary results would be
fodder
for a publication and a possible Nobel Prize.

For sure, the scientists and engineers running the accelerators are
looking
for any strange results.

However, at no time will the particle's relativistic increase in mass
keep it from absorbing more energy, because there is no such thing as a
relativistic increase in mass of a high energy helical wave particle.

Emperical data, collected daily, falsify your assertions.

Finally there also is a maximum spin frequency of the particle, beyond
which it would fly apart (disintegrate), as a result of the centrifugal
force which acts upon it.

If that were true, then larger particles such protons or even helium
nuclei
would be flying apart daily, because these and larger particles are
accelerated to significant percentages of c and they 'hang together' until
they hit the target.

Finally, IF photons were helically moving particles they would be strongly
influenced by transverse static magnetic and electric fields.

Just as a gyroscope is strongly influenced by any force that attempts to
change its axis of rotation, there would be precession and the beam of
photons would be deflected, much like a beam of electrons is deflected in
a
CRT)

Last time I tried it, my laser pointer's beam showed absolutely no effect
when passing through very strong electric or magnetic field. In fact,
there
appears to be no effect when passing through an ac magnetic field nor an
ac
electric field EVEN when the frequencies of those fields match the
velocity
of the photons.

If you were right about light being helical waves, every time you use your
2
GHz cell phone, light should be distored within a 0.15 m (0.492 ft) radius
of
the cell phone.



--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+spr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.............................................................
You still don't get my point. The increase in kinetic energy of a particle
that is accelerated from lets say .95c to .99c is minimal due to the
increase in its rate of linear travel of .04c. (as per e = 1/2 m v^2). Most
of its measured increase in kinetic energy is due to the increase of its
spin frequency and nothing else.

To say that the unexplained additional increase of its kinetic mass is due
to a relativistic increase of the mass of the particle is a figment of the
relativist's imagination. They had to resort to this fallacious concept
because they forgot to take the increase of the spin frequency of the
particle into account.

This is such a basic error that it falsifies the whole of relativistic
particle physics.

Your comments as to how particles are accelerated in various particle
accelerators do not alter this fact and consequently are irrelevant.

Len.
......................................................


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: a relative question
    ... Particle accelerators from the time of the first cyclotron ... :> but the experience of the collision. ... :> respondants whether there is experimental evidence that the energy ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Propellantless propulsion fun 2 (particle accelerators are wonderful)
    ... This device is made of 2 mini circular particle accelerators, ... would be configured to spin at the same rate. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: a relative question
    ... Particle accelerators from the time of the first cyclotron ... but the experience of the collision. ... respondants whether there is experimental evidence that the energy ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: a relative question
    ... Particle accelerators from the time of the first cyclotron ... but the experience of the collision. ... respondants whether there is experimental evidence that the energy ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?
    ... ever devised to sum up by integration their total complement of energy, ... the magnetic field of an electron at rest. ... electric and magnetic fields for the particle. ...
    (sci.physics)