🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9969@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>In article <9207251756.AA07822@Ra.MsState.Edu> rsf1@RA.MSSTATE.EDU (Robert S. Fritzius) writes:
>>
>>In article <1992Jul22.150401.15820@news.endg.convex.com> Steve Warren
>>writes:
>> 
>>>...When particles get zinging around near c in, say, the Bevatron
>>>here at Berkeley, not only does it require more enery to accelertate
>>>them, but when they smash into something (...) the energy released
>>>is significantly *more* than can be accounted for by the particles
>>>rest mass...
>
>More importantly, the momentum (hence the magnetic field required to 
>bend the beam) is seen to increase even though the speed does not.

     I am not sure this is a big problem in this context.  One could
     always claim that the field holds the momentum (which it clearly
     does sometimes).  You've localized a bit of it near the particle
     and the magnets are just augmenting it everytime they try to 
     give the particle a whack.  You get radiation when a bit of 
     this localization tries to continue on the straight course it
     loves.  The particle itself, of course, sees little of this
     since everything you send it is extremely doppler-shifted to
     low energy in its local frame.

>>Perhaps for mesons there is a velocity related dwell-time factor
>>at work in their decay mechanism in addition to (or rather than) a
>>time-dilation effect.
>
>It would be rather curious to see how you would get *exactly* the 
>non-linear relationship predicted by relativity and observed in 
>experiment, in particular the same factor as one gets for the mass...

     I don't think that the mass is a problem.  It works out just fine if you 
     take a fixed beast spitting particles at nearly c with respect to 
     the beast accelerating them using something electromagnetic fixed 
     to the beast.  One would be hard pressed to object since we don't know
     what the mass is anyway, just how hard it slams into the target
     (usually interacting electromagnetically as well, though not always).

     The big problem is that if you assume an underlying galilean transform,
     there is no physical time dilation.  One could explain away apparent
     time dilations, but half-lives seem very difficult to handle
     unless you assume either a) we are wrong about where the particle is
     b) somehow, high velocity with respect to a given frame changes 
     the half-life.  Neither is a very appealing option, to say the least.

     There are a number of little problems, but the guy in question 
     died before he could work out anything more than a basic skeleton
     of a response to Lorentz's theories.  Also, he did it mostly to 
     show that there was another way of looking at these things.  However
     science passed Ritz and the work by.  Seems a shame that a man who has 
     a widely used mathematical technique named after him (since he 
     developed it) and was one of the major inspirations for the development 
     of Schroedinger's wave mechanics does not merit a mention in any of 
     the major encyclopedias, and rarely merits mention in any of the
     major scientific biography compilations.

                                    dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926