johann1301 said:
Then why do they use the formula:
F=((lorentz)mv^2)/r
for circular accelerators? The force in these cases are always transverse to the motion...
Read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force
[tex]\vec{F}=\frac{d \vec{p}}{dt}[/tex]
1. In Newtonian physics
[tex]\vec{p}=m \vec{v}[/tex]
so
[tex]\vec{F}=m\frac{d \vec{v}}{dt}=m \vec{a}[/tex]
2. In reality, SR teaches us that :
[tex]\vec{p}=m \frac{\vec{v}}{\sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}}=m \gamma \vec{v}[/tex]
Therefore:
[tex]\vec{F}=m \gamma \frac{d \vec{v}}{dt}+m \vec{v} \frac{d \gamma}{dt}=\gamma m \vec{a}+\gamma^3 ma\frac{v\vec{v}}{c^2}[/tex]
so, force has not only a component along the acceleration but also one aligned wit the velocity, unlike in Newtonian physics where force is aligned with the acceleration.
The above complicates the equations of motion for particle accelerators because we have to solve a very complicated set of differential equations produced by the fact that
[tex]\vec{F}=q(\vec{E}+\vec{v} \times \vec{B})[/tex]
In other words we need to solve:
[tex]q(\vec{E}+\vec{v} \times \vec{B})=m \gamma \frac{d \vec{v}}{dt}+m \vec{v} \frac{d \gamma}{dt}[/tex]
If [itex]\vec{E} \ne 0[/itex] the resulting equation is very tough to solve (symbolic solutions still exist). On the other hand, if [itex]\vec{E} = 0[/itex] then the force is perpendicular on the speed and the equation is much easier to solve (for details, see Bill_K's post below).