Radiation energy of a moving particle

[tenzin]

Should not tenzin be explaining to the rest of us what his/her meaning of this word (If) is?, in relation to the rest of the sentence?

What do you mean by 'is'?

I would be quite happy if (
) tenzin provides the mathematical proof of the word if!..or if that's asking just a tad to much.. if 'If' (word) exists , then where? and how?..and what this if can be?

Please explain what you mean by the work 'if' as in 'if that's asking just a tad to much.'

The only thing I personally do not understand from tenzins original post are the words [If] and the word [Does]? and their relationaship to the rest of the question, I freely admit this may be due to my own deep understanding of einstein..Feynman..Born..Bohr..and others..but its definatly..(well..definite maybe!) not due to my understanding of tenzin.
[/b/

I am not surprised you don't understand me. If you keep working hard someday you will be as smart as me.

 

[ranyart]

[/b]
Please explain what you mean by the work 'if' as in 'if that's asking just a tad to much.'


I am not surprised you don't understand me. If you keep working hard someday you will be as smart as me. [/B][/QUOTE]


The only thing I personally do not understand from tenzins original post are the words [If] and the word [Does]? and their relationaship to the rest of the question, I freely admit this may be due to my own deep understanding of einstein..Feynman..Born..Bohr..and others..but its definatly..(well..definite maybe!) not due to my understanding of tenzin.

I only say this with the LEAST!, definite of the Most Probable Certainty according to the Understanding Principle, based on nothing but good intentions!

You may want to read the posts again, as some of them have an inbuilt Time-delay-Mechanisim, based on Sarcasm?

 

[tenzin]

You are an idiot. Why don't you waste someone else'e time. The people I want here are intelligent.

 

[ranyart]

Originally posted by tenzin
You are an idiot. Why don't you waste someone else'e time. The people I want here are intelligent.

Tenzin, you are one of those people who THINK you know everything, and are really starting to Annoy those of who do!

Coming to an office near you soon :Eagles may soar high, but weasels don't get sucked into Jet engines! David Brent 'THE' office Philosopher.

America look out!


http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/theoffice/characters/profile_david.shtml

And here is the Ultimate Mr Spock Question:http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/theoffice/clips/series1/clip6.shtml

As defined by the One and Only DB.

 

[odiedog]

I didn't ask for your advice, I asked you a question. Keep you advice to yourself.

I am very sorry. I only tried to be helpful.

Second if velocity is a construct maybe you should step in front of a car in trafic.

Speed in Newtonian physics seems quite simple - being a subject our mind is well adjusted to. The concept of speed on the quantum level, especially when you start mixing it up with relativity, is not. Along with concepts like causality, spatial determination (but you know all this).

If both mass and speed are constructs why is one not important but the other happens?

Not important? Very much important even really trully! You don't understand.
We were talking about the concepts, which are far removed from what one could consider everyday experience. Electron is a particle, as well as wave-function. This is weird. This is modelling to fit what we can observe.
So going back to CERN - when one accelerates (adds kinetic energy to) the electron, its kinetic energy continues to mount, but its speed starts to lag behind. This is what happens. Did its mass increase? According to the law of maximum conservation of physical formulae - it does.

Where did I give the formula for COE?

My dear, COE is a formula, saying Energy(System,time1)+Energy(Universe/System,time1)= Energy(System,time2)+Energy(Universe/System,time2)

I am glad you have finally reached the level of a the Christians. Why don't you just tell me to read the bible.

LOL. What are we but Newton-Einstein- Bohr-...-ians. We have our faith in science, in scientific method. We believe in statistics and Gaussian (Poisson, beta,...) distrubution. This is just what you need to see for yourself. This is what mr. Popper was talking about (plus introduced some pretty fresh concepts like falsifiability).

 

[tenzin]

Originally posted by odiedog

Speed in Newtonian physics seems quite simple - being a subject our mind is well adjusted to. The concept of speed on the quantum level, especially when you start mixing it up with relativity, is not. Along with concepts like causality, spatial determination (but you know all this).

Regardless of what science 'says' they must be a relation between the everyday world and the quantum world. The same laws must apply. Reason is more powerful than observation. If science's picture of reality contradictions valid logic and reasoning it is wrong. Since perception can be fradulent it is not a valid basis to establish something as true.

Not important? Very much important even really trully! You don't understand.
We were talking about the concepts, which are far removed from what one could consider everyday experience. Electron is a particle, as well as wave-function. This is weird. This is modelling to fit what we can observe.
So going back to CERN - when one accelerates (adds kinetic energy to) the electron, its kinetic energy continues to mount, but its speed starts to lag behind. This is what happens. Did its mass increase? According to the law of maximum conservation of physical formulae - it does.

The electron is a particle. It is not a wave because something can not be both.

My dear, COE is a formula, saying Energy(System,time1)+Energy(Universe/System,time1)= Energy(System,time2)+Energy(Universe/System,time2)

No, COE is an principle that can be shown to hold mathematically. The COE itself is not an equation. If you can even separate the two you are really stupid.

LOL. What are we but Newton-Einstein- Bohr-...-ians. We have our faith in science, in scientific method. We believe in statistics and Gaussian (Poisson, beta,...) distrubution. This is just what you need to see for yourself. This is what mr. Popper was talking about (plus introduced some pretty fresh concepts like falsifiability).

Don't include me in your 'we' above. I am not a hero worshiper. I believe in myself and my abilities to understand through reason. I think you should spend more time with the christians. They are more into the preaching that you seem to like.

 

[BigRedDot]

Stop feeding the troll! Just ignore it and it will go away.

 

[odiedog]

Mmm. Right.

 

[tenzin]

Is that all you do when someone asks questions you can't answer. This seems like a very totalitarian way of doing things.

It is not something to be ashamed of that you don't understand my posts. What is shameful is that you really don't want to learn.

The reason you don't understand what I write is because you have this attitude.

 

[dlgoff]

tenzin,

I am curious. I see from your profile that you are a physics teacher. May I ask what grade? Surly it isn't college is it?

 

[tenzin]

Originally posted by dlgoff
tenzin,

I am curious. I see from your profile that you are a physics teacher. May I ask what grade? Surly it isn't college is it?

What the hell does this mean? It is clear you have no understanding of teaching. What I am doing is exactly what a good teacher does.

 

[lethe]

Originally posted by tenzin
What the hell does this mean? It is clear you have no understanding of teaching. What I am doing is exactly what a good teacher does.

well i really hope he s not a high school teacher...

 

[tenzin]

typical. Statement with no reason.

 

[dlgoff]

Originally posted by tenzin
What the hell does this mean? It is clear you have no understanding of teaching. What I am doing is exactly what a good teacher does.

Never had a good teacher I guess. At least on that talks so much without teaching me anything.

 

[1100f]

Originally posted by tenzin
If you can even separate the two you are really stupid.

Originally posted by tenzin
What the hell does this mean? It is clear you have no understanding of teaching. What I am doing is exactly what a good teacher does.

 

[tenzin]

Originally posted by dlgoff
Never had a good teacher I guess. At least on that talks so much without teaching me anything.

I can't teach if you don't listen.

 

[Sammywu]

Hi, Tenzin, I am a layman.

Your question interests me a lot. Two electrons, one at rest and one at moving at constant speed. From a relative point of view, both are at rest to their own observations. I can't see why their energy shall be different. But some told me the moving one shall be radiating the photon in order to lower its energy dow to the lower state.

Well, I can see an accelerated electron will need to radiate photons to lower its energy down to a stabler state. I have problem seeing an electron in constant speed movement will have additional energy need to be released.

Now going a step back, an electron is usually caught in the molecular EM force or field. Its energy could be increased when a photon hits it and if the photon has the right frequency. Now when the photon has high enough frequency taht can shake photon out of the trap, we can see a free electron. I can't imagine a free electron truly at rest except those static electrons collected at the surface of metal.

Any way, back a bit, when a electron was knocked out of its trap, it now possesed more energy than its lowest state; with the energy state usually want to go lower, the electron with a moving speed will tend to release photons in order to shake out the additional energy. Does this click?

 

[Arcon]

Originally posted by tenzin
If an electron gains mass as it moves towards the speed of light where does this mass-energy come from? Does this not violate conservation of energy?

Consider an electron in a static electric field E in an inertial frame of reference. As the electron accelerates work is being done by the field (the following does not address the energy of the radiation from the accelerating charge). As such the kinetic energy increases while the potential energy decreases. The total energy, W, remains constant. I.e.

W = T + E₀ + V = constant

where

T = Kinetic Energy
E₀ = Rest Energy
V = Potential energy


For a derivation of the above relation please see the gory details at
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/em/relativistic_charge.htm

The inertial energy, E, of a particle is defined as energy sum of the kinetic energy and rest energy, i.e.

E = T + E₀

where

m = \frac {m_{0}}{\sqrt {1 - \beta^{2}}}

For derivation please see
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/inertial_mass.htm


E = mc^{2} = \frac {m_{0}c^{2}}{\sqrt {1 - \beta^{2}}}

The mass-energy relation is with respect to inertial energy, not total energy. Therefore inertial energy is not conserved just as kinetic energy is not conserved. Only the total energy of a paritlce in a conservative field is conserved.

Long story short - An increase in mass-energy is compensated for in a decrease in potential energy.

 

[Sammywu]

Arcon, Thank you for your lesson. I just have some questions.
Does this mean we always assume that there is a certain background electric field E in space?

Or, are we assuming electromagnetic force is the only way to accelerate an electron? Is it possible we can accelerate an electron by gravity?

Tenzin, Is this your question?

Back a small step, I would just say somethings I know of an electron. First radio wave is basically generated by moving a free electron back and forth or around a circle, in that way, it's under an acceleration and return to the original state usually. Is this right?

The manmade acceleration to a free electron usually has a low frequency and lon wavelength. Visible lights are produced in different ways. From the Sun or the heated bulb. Why? Xray came out from radiation and Gamnma ray came from an even higher radiation. Actually, a gamma ray can split into an electron and positron. Why?

Time for my diner. Continue when I have free time.

 

[Sammywu]

Tenzin, Any way, what is your question exactly? Are we just llok at an accelerated free electron?

Or if Arcon already answer your question, I will stop here and not waste my time any more.

 

[Arcon]

Originally posted by Sammywu
Arcon, Thank you for your lesson. I just have some questions.
Does this mean we always assume that there is a certain background electric field E in space?

No. This was just one way to explain it and it was the simplest way. The whole notion is the same as it is in Newtonian physics - When a body is accelerated it's kinetic energy increases. For energy to be conserved that energy must come from somewhere else and as such there is a decrease in some other form of energy. Kinetic energy is not conserved. Potential energy is not conserved. Only total energy is conserved. You can push a charged ball by hand and the work you do on the ball is at the expense of the energy which came from your muscle's which comes from [ATP = "Adenosine triphosphate"

For info on ATP see
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/sports-physiology2.htm

The magnitude of the eletric field is relative so in some situations there can be an electric field in one inertial frame of referance and no electric field in another frame of referance.

Is it possible we can accelerate an electron by gravity?

Yes.

 

[tenzin]

The magnitude of the eletric field is relative so in some situations there can be an electric field in one inertial frame of referance and no electric field in another frame of referance.

How can this be?

 

[Sammywu]

Tenzin,

I am not sure where you want to lead to. Before I do something, I have a dumb question.

My friend, an EE master, told me that there will be photon ( EM wave ) radiation from a constantly moving free electron.

I thought only acceleration of a free electron can do that.

What do you think? Any answer about that?

Back to your question, are you trying to refer to the effect of magnectic force generated when an electron is in relative movmement which triggered Einstein's SR theory and the main part of ite SR electrodynmamic theory?

 

[Arcon]

Originally posted by tenzin
How can this be?

Think of it like this: Consider an inertial frame, S, in which there is only a uniform magnetic field given by B = B₀ e_x where B₀ = constant. If there is a charge at rest in S then there the force on the charge is zero in that frame. If a test charge, q, is at rest in this frame then the value of the electric field in that frame is E = F/q = 0. Now consider the same test particle moving in S. There is now a force on that charge due to the magnetic field of B = qvxB as measued in S. If there is a force on a particle in one inertial frame then there is a force on the particle in all inertial frames.

Now change your frame of referance to the rest frame, S'. Note that the particle is moving in S and at rest in S'. In S' the force is b]F[/b] and this is non-zero. The electric field in S' is E' = F'/q != 0

Therefore in S there is no electric field where there is an electric field in S'.

Arcon

 

[Sammywu]

Arcon,

Thank you for your lesson.
Apparently, you are very knowlegeable about SR and ED ( Electrodynamitcs).
In another thread titled 'SR and the earth, sun and galaxy' in subsection 'Special & General Relativity' of the section 'Astronomy & Cosmology', Edwin raised a question related to Lorentz force, ED and SR. Would you mind helping me and him there. Thanks

 

[Arcon]

Originally posted by Sammywu
Arcon,

Thank you for your lesson.
Apparently, you are very knowlegeable about SR and ED ( Electrodynamitcs).
In another thread titled 'SR and the earth, sun and galaxy' in subsection 'Special & General Relativity' of the section 'Astronomy & Cosmology', Edwin raised a question related to Lorentz force, ED and SR. Would you mind helping me and him there. Thanks

Sure. I'll give it a try. Glad to help. Can you boil it down to one question since that thread is getting pretty long? I'd rather not have to read that whole thread if I don't have to, especially if you can simplify to a single simple question.

Thanks

 

[Jwprox]

On subject, don't know if this has been posted yet

Conceptually these are some answers to your questions that do not even require math. (Although a thorough understanding of the algebra in special relativity will formally show you)

Think of 3 things:

1. Definition of mass.
2. What happens when a photon hits a massive object.
3. What will never happen when massive object is trailing a photon.

1. Mass is anything with resistance to acceleration, acceleration is change in velocity... You can not accelerate something with a constant velocity like light can you?

2. Light is absorbed or reflected by mass, but that does not mean it has changed velocity. Either it gets taken in or spit out. So there is no real way to "push" light around, just abosorbtion or redirection.

3. A massive object can never catch up with light to apply force to accelerate it.

Finally, just use your imagination why something with mass can not reach the speed of light. If the speed of light is always observed to be constant IN EVERY FRAME OF REFERENCE a massive object could possibly have, then how is anything going to catch up with it. To clarify, picture a monkey chasing a dangling banana that is just out of his reach because it's attached to a helmet on his head. No matter how fast that monkey goes he'll never get that banana.

 

[ranyart]

Originally posted by Jwprox
Conceptually these are some answers to your questions that do not even require math. (Although a thorough understanding of the algebra in special relativity will formally show you)

Think of 3 things:

1. Definition of mass.
2. What happens when a photon hits a massive object.
3. What will never happen when massive object is trailing a photon.

1. Mass is anything with resistance to acceleration, acceleration is change in velocity... You can not accelerate something with a constant velocity like light can you?

2. Light is absorbed or reflected by mass, but that does not mean it has changed velocity. Either it gets taken in or spit out. So there is no real way to "push" light around, just abosorbtion or redirection.

3. A massive object can never catch up with light to apply force to accelerate it.

Finally, just use your imagination why something with mass can not reach the speed of light. If the speed of light is always observed to be constant IN EVERY FRAME OF REFERENCE a massive object could possibly have, then how is anything going to catch up with it. To clarify, picture a monkey chasing a dangling banana that is just out of his reach because it's attached to a helmet on his head. No matter how fast that monkey goes he'll never get that banana.

There are monkeys that eventually give up chasing dangling banana's, they get together and some of them obstruct the banana's path by forming a perfect circle around the monkey that has a banana dangling from its helmet, one monkey take's position at the centre of the circle of monkeys, then as the monkey with the nana rebounds off the circle, eventually the monkey with nana will cross the central monkey's path, he then just picks the fruit when it comes to him!

 

[Jwprox]

Stupid Monkeys

If only we could explain the whole of physics using monkeys and bananas.

You can quote me on that.

 

[raptor5618]

I read this thread with a great deal of amazement. To think that someone would ask a question, get an answer and then say that's not it stupid is just a bad joke. Ok maybe the answer did not seem right but they did not counter it with reasons for feeling they were wrong and in some cases just saying why which is very much like a child. A discussion does not include ridicule or personal insults. To ask for help and receive it only to personally put down the person trying to help shows that this person is totally without class. They have worked on this for 10 years so why are they not explaining the answer to his own questions. Also I was just reading that a theory or proof cannot come to be unless there is a way to try and prove it wrong. So to say that the laws that have been created might be wrong well my thought on that is NO Kidding. Based upon what was observed and studied to day they seem pretty good and may continue to be good but who knows what the future will hold that may explose errors in what today seems perfect. He wants logical proof well protons go the speed of light. Why because they can. Why can't an object with mass go the speed of light. Never saw any going that fast so it must be impossible. No math not fancy manipulations.

Yep he may know more, be smarter, have the formulations that will turn physics on it head and you know what I think about that. Good for you. Because if you act in your life like you do here my guess is that you never have talked to anyone for more than a few moments where they were not trying to get away from you. There is far more to life than what degrees you hold, how high your IQ is and all the books your read and understand no matter how easy or hard. I am thankful that there are people who put forth this effort and work to understand the world around us. But at this point in time I think that it is foolish to think that we know more than a tiny bit of how everything works. So in the scheme of all knowing we know very little. even you.

I would think you are a self proclaimed teacher as no real teacher would use your techniques. Ridicule is not a motivator. I also have seen a total lack of reasoning behind why you feel an answer is flawed. Kind of remindes me of the old skit from Monty Pythong. "Yes it is, no it isnt"