View Full Version : Question about relativistic effects at synchrotons

SergioPL

12-12-2007, 01:53 AM

This Question is about the magnetic field which is needed to keep electrons in uniform circular movement (UCM) when their speed is not negligible compared with the speed of light.

If we ignore relativistic effects, magnetic field will take the following value:

B = (v*m)/(r*q) Where v is linear electron speed, r is the synchroton radius and m q are the electron mass and electric charge respectively.

If we include relativistic effects, I think special relativity cannot explain this experiment because the difference of speed is not the same seen from the electron’s instantaneous inertial frame of reference (IFR) than from the laboratory’s IFR. That is because of Thomas Precession.

Nonetheless, I have been working with a model that is able to determine magnetic field needed to keep electrons in UCM when they reach relativistic speeds. The result I get is the next:

B = (v*m)/(r*q) * ( 2*k^2/(k+1) )^(1/2) k = 1/(1-v^2)^(1/2)

If you know, theoretically or experimentally, the magnetic field need to keep the UCM you will make me a great favour telling me it so I will know if my model is working or not.

Don't forget about the mass increase! === kvt

SergioPL

12-14-2007, 01:47 AM

The mass increase is like the time increase, so the period a force acts over a body is longer when you see it from another inertial frame and the force is constant.

The problem is based on the next: Let's supose 3 bodies, A, B and C so A and B are in the same inertial frame and C is moving at v x from A or B.

If B "boosts" dv (dv << 0) in direction x, so that now B is moving from A with speed dv x then B will be moving from C with speed (-v +dv/gamma^2)x and C will see B moving with speed -(-v +dv/gamma^2)x so Vbc = - Vcb. (B seeks C moving with the oposite speed than C seeks B).

But if B "boosts" dv (dv << 0) in direction y, so that now B is moving from A with speed dv y then, according to relativity B will see C moving with speed (v x - dv y ) whereas C seeks B moving with speed (- v x + dv/Gamma(v) y).

You easly see that Vbc no longer = - Vcb but the acceleration looks bigger for the one that accelarates. This phenomena is related with Thomas precession but with my model it disappears.

DraganT

12-14-2007, 10:20 AM

I think you are tracking very interesting line of thoughts and I hope the papers/books of J. J. Smulsky regarding the exact semi-classical calculation of electromagnetic force(s), even for accelerators, can be helpful:

http://www.smul1.newmail.ru/Smulsky_eng.dhtml

The author's approach is similar to Weber's force law except his force doesn't depend on acceleration and because of that, quantitatively, it is more with Heaviside (later Jefiemnko retarded potential approach). There is no "mass increas" or "time dilation".

Besides, it could be interesting to see an approach of Soukhorukov at all (in Russian) where they are showing that so-called textbook calculations of particles energy using STR are a prejudice.

However, in my opinion, both Newton and Einstein mechanics are not sufficient for an exact description of a realistic physics of Nature.

Regards,

Dragan N. Turanyanin

"Wave Cosmodynamics"

SergioPL

12-17-2007, 11:05 AM

Hello Dragan,

I have read some Smulsky paper at http://www.smul1.newmail.ru/Smulsky_eng.dhtml. He talks about syncrhotons but I haven't been able to find some result about the magnetic field inside syncrhtons. I read that in a monografy he showed how calculate it, but the monografy doesn't appear in the Web (there is only an abstract) and you have to find the monografy and buy it.

But the most important is that Smulsky develops a model completly diferent to SR and it sounds like he doesn't belive in SR at all whereas, since many experiments agree with SR I think it's basically correct but needs some revision to be able to manage accelerated systems without gravity.

I assert that the problem is that tranformation of vectors that connect events in particles from another inertial reference system (IRS) doesn't have to be plain boosts. Plain boost is only good when the vector is typical of yourt IRS (i.e. connects event from your IRS).

I have developed an algorithm with matlab to transform speeds without need of a rotation of the spatial axis. You can view it in my page-FTP :) http://sergiopl81.googlepages.com/home. I have also a document explaining the theory but it's in spanish, I will add in a short time an abstract of it in English.

Unfortunately I don't have to much time to work in this :).

DraganT

12-18-2007, 05:24 AM

Hi Sergio,

I am glad you have examined, at least in general, the provided link. Yes, Prof. Smulsky rejects SR and his main idea is to show that semi-classical Newton’s frame with forces which are dependent on v is enough for a correct description of even the “near c” phenomena being electromagnetic, gravitational or nuclear. There also are other interesting approaches (Heaviside-Jefimenko field retarded concept, Wesley-Bergman-Kanarev semi-classical modeling of electron outside both QM and STR, Klyushin hydrodynamic alternative for fields and particles, Rybczyk’s reanalysis of kinematical relativity, Hamdan dynamic approach etc.).

My insights goes much beyond both Newton and Einstein paradigm, because I have all reason to believe that neither G nor c are the natural constants and as such those two are existing as constants in our basically “Ptolemaic physical picture” only. Many recent phenomena I think strongly support my results/insights that, among different possibilities (G/c^n, n = 1,2..), the real electro-gravito-dynamic constant in fact is the Hea (in honor to great O. Heaviside)

Hea = G/c^2 ~= 7.4E-28 m/kg

and I tend to see it as a part of a fundamental paradigm shift.

Anyway, I still think your research is interesting and I have a priori sympathy for it because the hyperbolic relativistic motion was, now long ago :), in my focus of personal math-phys investigations. During that time I read with pleasure articles of Vladimir Varicak and Oscar Klein regarding the hyperbolic motion and I also reached, in collaboration with my schoolmate Dr. Simonovic, some relations for free fall with a constant g. In fact, it could be interesting for you to try to play a little with gravity and those kind of motion. It might be open some interesting new perspectives ;-)

Well, I am going to download your Mathlab routines and even the Spanish doc :) and I will examine it at home with pleasure although also being very short with time - some “dilation” would be more than welcome :)

Best Regards, Dragan

SergioPL

12-28-2007, 11:01 AM

Hello Dragan,

Sorry for the time passed to answer you, I haven't paid attention to the forum these last days, I am very happy to know that you will test my scripts. If you give me a opinion about them I am sure it will be very useful.

And thanks too for the authors you have told me. I will read about Vladimir Varicak and Oscar Klein and also of O. Heaviside.

If you don’t know Spanish, I think the article won’t be helpful but I have uploaded another article in English which is shorter (6 pages) and goes directly to the main question. The article is the one called "Summary of the Model". There is other article explaining the basis of the algorithm.

Best regards

Sergio

cincirob

01-02-2008, 02:47 PM

This Question is about the magnetic field which is needed to keep electrons in uniform circular movement (UCM) when their speed is not negligible compared with the speed of light.

cinci: I'm not very good with magnetic field theory but did atend a seminar last year at Fermilab where they disucssed the upcoming accelerator work at CERN and a proposed linear accelerator. From what I could gather, the circular accelerators are best with heavier particles like protons, gold nuclei, etc. I'm gussing a bit but I think charged particles travelling in a circle radiate and if you have a small mass, then the speed you can achieve is reduced, perhaps significantly. In any case, the reltivistic mass must be accounted for since particles are accelerated very close to c.

The idea behind linear colliders for electrons is two-fold. First, it eliminates the radiatin problem noted above. Secondly, the electron is a simple particle and when collided with positrons (which is the plan), you get pure energy from the collision. Because the speed of the particles can be adjusted, the energy produced by the collisions can be predicted accurately. So if you're trying to produce a particular particle for study, you can tune the collider so that the energy equivalent ot the mass of the desired particle is produced many times. Colliding protons and atomic nuclei cannot be so tuned and collisions can be glancing and you may not convert the entire particle to energy, but simpy break it into pieces. So you get a lot of junk and finding the reaction you're looking for can be difficult.

You might try contacting Fermilab with your question.

SergioPL

01-08-2008, 09:32 AM

Thanks very much for your answer cincirob! Radiation at circular accelerations becomes a great problem to accelerated charged particles until some speeds. I don't know much about synchrotons and I thought this experiment could be a good way to prove my "theory". I will contact with Fermilab.

Sergio

SergioPL

01-15-2008, 12:20 PM

I asked the fermilab and they gave a response, the empirical result is the same that the one that theory predicts.

F = dp/dt = gamma * mr * vi^2 / r

I want to say that I make a mistake, the value I wanted to put was B = (v*m)/(r*q) * gamma * ( 2*gamma^2/(gamma+1) )^(1/2) gamma = 1/(1-v^2)^(1/2). But that's still true.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2021 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.