I Linear Accelerator Length Contraction

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the impact of relativistic length contraction on electron bunches in a linear accelerator. It highlights that while the lengths of the tubular electrodes may appear constant at relativistic speeds, the gaps between electron bunches do not contract due to the nature of acceleration. The gap is not a rigid structure; instead, it changes dynamically in the rest frame of the bunches as they accelerate. This leads to the conclusion that the observed behavior of the gaps differs from the expected contraction. The complexities of relativistic effects in particle accelerators are emphasized in this context.
Orthoceras
Messages
125
Reaction score
48
TL;DR
Effect of relativistic length contraction on the electron bunches in a linear accelerator?
I am trying to understand the effect of relativistic length contraction on the electron bunches in a linear accelerator. Figure B is for nonrelativistic speeds, successive cylinder lengths are progressively longer. However, wikipedia says "At speeds near the speed of light, the incremental velocity increase will be small, with the energy appearing as an increase in the mass of the particles. In portions of the accelerator where this occurs, the tubular electrode lengths will be almost constant", so it should figure D or E. I expect length contraction to occur, therefore D. However, I don't see why the the gap between bunches does not contract.

Which option is right?

linac5.png

Red: electron bunches; grey: cylinders
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Orthoceras said:
Summary:: Effect of relativistic length contraction on the electron bunches in a linear accelerator?

However, I don't see why the the gap between bunches does not contract.
This has to do with how the acceleration is performed. The gap is not a rigid object (not that rigid objects exist in relativity) that maintains the same rest length. The setup is such that the distance between bunches in the instantaneous rest frame of a bunch increases during the process.
 
In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...

Similar threads