# Thread: Unbelievable velocity mass variation!

1. You said you thought you could restore the nonrelativistic energy formula to one experiment you looked at, and that you thought the same approach would work everywhere else. At the energies at the LHC this would meen the protons were actually moving at over 80 times the speed of light! At LEP it would have meant the electrons were moving at over four hundred times the speed of light. I told you that at these kinds of accelerator sites the people working there had various ways of knowing both the energies and the velocities of the particles there. Do you think I'm just making this up?
I can't imagine how you arrived to that values but surely you did something wrong. I said I obtained the same results as with the relativistic formulas and this of course means the upper limit of c on reachable velocities not also remains but also by the effect of the same factor, the Lorentz's factor 1/root(1-v2/c2).

2. Originally Posted by OnlyMe
Przyk, did not drag you into a particle physics discussion, it seems to me the whole issue your raised is one of particle physics.
To clarify, this distraction with particle physics is starting up because martillo has no understanding of how science works.

In science if you're proposing a new theory that's supposed to replace existing theories, the burden is on you to show that your new theory is an improvement over what we already have. Specifically, that means being able to show that the new theory can account for all the results of the old one. That's what you see if you look at past revolutions in physics:

• Relativitistic physics is easily shown to recover Newtonian physics in the low velocity limit. Take any relativistic formula and for $v \,<<\, c$ you can recover the corresponding Newtonian version as an approximation.
• In the low velocity, weak field limit, you can recover Poisson's equation from the Einstein field equation, showing that you can recover all of Newtonian gravity from general relativity.
• You can recover classical physics "on average" from quantum physics for example via the Ehrenfest theorem.

That's what physics looks like when it's done by physicists who actually know what they're doing. martillo does nothing like this. Instead he ignores what's probably the single largest experimental field that routinely relies on relativity, and effectively tells us to... have faith (?) that it will all work out. Science just doesn't work like that.

3. Originally Posted by martillo
I can't imagine how you arrived to that values but surely you did something wrong.
You just "know" this do you? Without knowing what I actually did?

I'll use LEP as an example. At LEP electrons were accelerated to energies of 45 GeV. The (rest) mass of the electron is about 511 keV/c2. Plug that into $E = \frac{1}{2} m v^{2}$ and you find $v \approx 420 c$. So either the electrons were travelling at over 400 times the speed of light, or they weren't actually accelerated to 45 GeV, or the classical energy formula is wrong.

4. I had some problems because we were posting at the same time. I'll wait a little now...

5. You just "know" this do you? Without knowing what I actually did?

I'll use LEP as an example. At LEP electrons were accelerated to energies of 45 GeV. The (rest) mass of the electron is about 511 keV/c2. Plug that into and you find . So either the electrons were travelling at over 400 times the speed of light, or they weren't actually accelerated to 45 GeV, or the classical energy formula is wrong.
You didn't do anything wrong then.
I know is not so easy for you but can you for a moment let me doubt about the value of 45 Gev you mention? Please take a little time to give me a chance. I think currently the value would be obtained by considering the current definition of the electric and magnetic fields in a similar way the energy is obtained in the Davisson-Germer experiment by measuring the voltage (electrical potential) with a voltmeter between the accelerator plates. Now I propose that actually the Lorentz's factor belongs to the electric and magnetic fields what means that while velocity increases the forces decrements to even zero if the c limit could be reached someway. If this were the case the measurement of the voltmeter would give a wrong value (I talk about this in my text) and so the value of the energy deduced for the electrons. That's why I propose to add a velocity selector in the Davisson-Germer apparatus to determine more directly the velocity of the electrons.
So my question to you now is: Is the 45 Gev value of the energy you mention obtained from measurements in the electric and/or magnetic fields of the acceleration mechanism? In this case I could have a chance.
You know, the Lorentz's factor in the electric and magnetic fields can change it all!

6. Originally Posted by przyk
You just "know" this do you? Without knowing what I actually did?

I'll use LEP as an example. At LEP electrons were accelerated to energies of 45 GeV. The (rest) mass of the electron is about 511 keV/c2. Plug that into $E = \frac{1}{2} m v^{2}$ and you find $v \approx 420 c$. So either the electrons were travelling at over 400 times the speed of light, or they weren't actually accelerated to 45 GeV, or the classical energy formula is wrong.
So what do you think really happened?

7. So what do you think really happened?
Didn't you read my post above?

8. Originally Posted by martillo
So my question to you now is: Is the 45 Gev value of the energy you mention obtained from measurements in the electric and/or magnetic fields of the acceleration mechanism? In this case I could have a chance.
Not really. I'm sure that when accelerating particles they base the stated energy at least partially on theory, but the point is the energy can be confirmed directly and it would be very visible if the particles were much less energetic than expected. As you probably know, the point of an accelerator like LEP or the LHC is to smash particles (in the case of LEP, it was electron-positron pairs) and detect what the collision produces. To do this they build large detector arrays like DELPHI around the collision point. Such detectors commonly include different kinds of calorimeters which stop particles and measure the energy deposited, and if the collisions were really much less energetic than expected they'd see it right there. One of the simpler events at the LEP was $e^{+} e^{-} \rightarrow e^{+} e^{-}$, and in many of these cases the detector system would find an electron and a positron and a total energy deposit very near the centre of mass energy of 90 GeV.

Also I don't know about LEP, but certainly at the LHC they get another easy confirmation of just how powerful the beams are from the beam dumps. Basically after several hours of use, the beams are disposed of by firing them into a big block of carbon and fresh beams are injected. During a tour at the LHC a few years ago I learned that they actually had to defocus the beam and move the aim around while they were disposing of it (see the "dilution" part of the page I just linked to) just to prevent it from boring into the beam dumps too quickly.

9. I keep this:
I'm sure that when accelerating particles they base the stated energy at least partially on theory...
So I think I still have the chance for the things be as I believe.

In relation to the rest argumentations I have no way to analyze them properly. I'm not able to refute them now. I know those arguments unfortunatelly could not let you (and others) take my propositions more seriously.

Anyway, a direct verification of De Broglie law at relativistic speeds is missing in Physics. I will wait for it because whatever would be the way it would be done I think it could undoubtelly demonstrate Relativity Theory wrong. I will wait for it, just for the case... In that case I think I have an excellent "start-point alternative" to offer...

10. Originally Posted by martillo
Didn't you read my post above?
of course i did , but I thought Przyk (PK from now on) was going to tell me.

11. Originally Posted by martillo
In relation to the restargumentations I have no way to analyze them properly. I'm not able to refute them now. I know those arguments unfortunatelly could not let you (and others) take my propositions more seriously.
Of course not. There is nothing particularly complicated here: these accelerators are equipped with calorimeters that absorb particles produced during collisions and can measure the energy deposit. There are also other indications of how powerful these beams are as I indicated with the beam dumps. I think there was also an incident at the Tevatron in 2003 where the beam got misdirected and caused significant damage. Here there's nothing subtle: you're getting a measure of how powerful the beams are from their raw destructive power.

For comparison, you're saying that the electrons at LEP had energies of only about 250 keV instead of 45 GeV. That's a huge discrepancy. Also worth keeping in mind is that LEP wasn't operated at a centre of mass energy of 90 GeV its entire life. In the last few years of operation the energy was gradually increased up to 209 GeV, and I'm sure the experimenters saw the difference. Yet according to you there should have been no difference because the electrons were always travelling at the same speed (just under the speed of light) and should always have had the same energy. By the same reasoning the LHC shouldn't be any more powerful than the Tevatron, which in turn shouldn't have been more powerful than the Super Proton Synchrotron, which was CERN's biggest accelerator in the early 80s. The particles move at the same speed (practically the speed of light) in all these experiments.

Your idea that the beams are significantly weaker than the operators think they are just isn't realistic.

12. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
So what do you think really happened?
The classical energy formula is wrong, obviously. As we've known for over a century now.

13. Of course not. There is nothing particularly complicated here: these accelerators are equipped with calorimeters that absorb particles produced during collisions and can measure the energy deposit. There are also other indications of how powerful these beams are as I indicated with the beam dumps. I think there was also an incident at the Tevatron in 2003 where the beam got misdirected and caused significant damage. Here there's nothing subtle: you're getting a measure of how powerful the beams are from their raw destructive power.

For comparison, you're saying that the electrons at LEP had energies of only about 250 keV instead of 45 GeV. That's a huge discrepancy. Also worth keeping in mind is that LEP wasn't operated at a centre of mass energy of 90 GeV its entire life. In the last few years of operation the energy was gradually increased up to 209 GeV, and I'm sure the experimenters saw the difference. Yet according to you there should have been no difference because the electrons were always travelling at the same speed (just under the speed of light) and should always have had the same energy. By the same reasoning the LHC shouldn't be any more powerful than the Tevatron, which in turn shouldn't have been more powerful than the Super Proton Synchrotron, which was CERN's biggest accelerator in the early 80s. The particles move at the same speed (practically the speed of light) in all these experiments.
The link you posted about the beam dumps talks: "The nominal LHC beam contains an unprecedented stored energy of 350 MJ, contained in 2808 bunches with a beam sigma of the order of 0.3 mm."
Comes clear that the power of the beams depends on two things, the energy of the individual electrons and the density of electrons in the beam, so it is possible that those effects you mention could actually be related to the fact that much more dense beams are being produced in those cases.

I still have a chance...

14. Originally Posted by martillo
The link you pósted about the beam dumps talks: "The nominal LHC beam contains an unprecedented stored energy of 350 MJ, contained in 2808 bunches with a beam sigma of the order of 0.3 mm."
Comes clear that the power of the beams depends on two things, the energy of the individual photons and the density of electrons in the beam, so it is possible that all those effects you mention could actually be related to the fact that much more dense beams are produced in those cases.
No, you're ignoring that the calorimeters resolve energies for individual particles and collision events. My point about the beam dumps was only of secondary importance. You also ignored that the people at accelerator experiments have had ample opportunity to see that changing the energy of the experiment made a difference.

This is just so silly. You know barely anything about what goes on at CERN and you have no independent reason to believe the experimenters there are measuring anything different than what they say they're measuring. The only reason you're being "skeptical" is personal prejudice: you don't like relativity.

That's what your whole stance is based on: ignorance and prejudice. You're engaging in nothing more than wishful thinking here.

15. No, you're ignoring that the calorimeters resolve energies for individual particles and collision events.
I can't believe in this. What kind of calorimeters would they be? Do you mean that calorimeters with the dimensions of the individual particles like electrons have been constructed?

You also ignored that the people at accelerator experiments have had ample opportunity to see that changing the energy of the experiment made a difference.
This is just an speculation. You don't know how the differences really are. May be there are differences accordingly to the small changes in the velocities of the particles not as big as the differences in the calculated values of the energies you mention. This is in agreement for example that with the fact that afterall nothing really new has been discovered at LHC.

This is just so silly. You know barely anything about what goes on at CERN and you have no independent reason to believe the experimenters there are measuring anything different than what they say they're measuring. The only reason you're being "skeptical" is personal prejudice: you don't like relativity.

That's what your whole stance is based on: ignorance and prejudice. You're engaging in nothing more than wishful thinking here.
Please mantain a good level in the discussion.

My chances are getting better...
The Lorentz's factor in the electric and magnetic fields can change it all!

16. People, this is ridiculous. When more energy is pumped into the beam the velocity of the beam does change. But because it is near lightspeed these small velocity changes require massively more energy to accheive(IE the velocity change is very small but the energy required is very large). This would lead to an infinite energy being required to reach lightspeed, even if you start at 99.99999%. Just like Relativity says. This is because energy has mass, a particle with more energy masses more(or, as some have pointed out, it has a rest mass PLUS an energy mass, a distinction without much difference IMHO), requiring more and more energy to accelerate in smaller and smaller amounts.

And the LHC does not use electrons to accheive these high energies It is the Large HADRON Collider, a Hadron is a proton or a nucleus of an atom. Being much more massive than electrons it is "easier" to gain high energies at slower speeds(only slightly slower actually, due to being Relativistic), and you get much richer "debris" from the collisions of heavier particles.

I've pointed out to martillo several times that what he is saying is not true has been proven to be true in particle colliders since the very first ones were built. They demonstrated that the amount of electric power pumped into a beam is a direct measurement of the energy of the particles in the beam(confirmed by measuring energy at the target). Other than the energy required for the magnets it is a direct, one to one relationship. And the Relative effects have been shown to be true to such an extent they can only be denied by those ignorant of the facts or prejudiced against accepting those facts. I think marillo is of both persuations.

Grumpy

17. People, this is ridiculous. When more energy is pumped into the beam the velocity of the beam does change. But because it is near lightspeed these small velocity changes require massively more energy to accheive(IE the velocity change is very small but the energy required is very large). This would lead to an infinite energy being required to reach lightspeed, even if you start at 99.99999%. Just like Relativity says. This is because energy has mass, a particle with more energy masses more(or, as some have pointed out, it has a rest mass PLUS an energy mass, a distinction without much difference IMHO), requiring more and more energy to accelerate in smaller and smaller amounts.
Everybody knows that. the difference is that currently the Lorentz's factor is not being considering belonging to mass as you stubbornly insist. In modern Relativity it would be caused by the space-time curvature as it appears from the Lorentz transform. For me it belongs to the electric and magnetic fields having this the same dynamics' results as the equations can show (see for instance: http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinp...xperiments.htm) .

I've pointed out to martillo several times that what he is saying is not true has been proven to be true in particle colliders since the very first ones were built. They demonstrated that the amount of electric power pumped into a beam is a direct measurement of the energy of the particles in the beam(confirmed by measuring energy at the target). Other than the energy required for the magnets it is a direct, one to one relationship. And the Relative effects have been shown to be true to such an extent they can only be denied by those ignorant of the facts or prejudiced against accepting those facts. I think marillo is of both persuations.
Just tell us how that measuring of the energy at the target is done, because I don't think is too easy. The unique experiment I saw a direct measure of particles' energies is made is that at the Mit Junior Lab I have mentioned (http://web.mit.edu/8.13/www/09.shtml) which uses very modern PIN diodes detectors at target. Let me say that the equations with the Lorentz's factor in the electric and magnetic fields are totally compatible with those deduced with Relativity shown in the pdf guide of the lab.

18. Originally Posted by martillo
I can't believe in this. What kind of calorimeters would they be? Do you mean that calorimeters with the dimensions of the individual particles like electrons have been constructed?
Why would they need to build detectors the size of individual particles? As far as I can remember the calorimeters don't have especially good spatial resolution, but that's not what they're designed for and they're not the only detectors available. Events are reconstructed from information collected from a number of different types of detector. The best spatial resolution probably comes from the trackers, which are designed to measure the trajectories of charges passing through them.

Information about how the detectors are arranged is readily available if you're really interested in it. Here's an overview for DELPHI for example. You might also want to browse their event gallery to get an idea of what reconstructed events look like.

This is just an speculation. You don't know how the differences really are.
But when you speculate that the energies of particles at accelerators could be completely different than they are without anyone in the field ever noticing, that's OK, is it?

In any case you see differences just from the gallery I linked to above: they started seeing different events when they increased the energy. For example above 160 GeV or so you start seeing W+W- candidate events, which are kinematically impossible below that energy (the W bosons have a mass of just over 80 GeV).

This is in agreement for example that with the fact that afterall nothing really new has been discovered at LHC.
What??? You didn't think they'd just flick the switch and start getting new results on day one, did you? Data is collected over a period of years in this type of experiment, and relatively speaking the LHC is still in its early days of operation. It isn't even operating at full power yet. And even there, see here: quark-gluon plasma, some hints of the Higgs, and a new particle.

My chances are getting better...
The Lorentz's factor in the electric and magnetic fields can change it all!
You are hopelessly deluded.

19. “ Originally Posted by martillo
I can't believe in this. What kind of calorimeters would they be? Do you mean that calorimeters with the dimensions of the individual particles like electrons have been constructed? ”

Why would they need to build detectors the size of individual particles? As far as I can remember the calorimeters don't have especially good spatial resolution, but that's not what they're designed for and they're not the only detectors available. Events are reconstructed from information collected from a number of different types of detector. The best spatial resolution probably comes from the trackers, which are designed to measure the trajectories of charges passing through them.

Information about how the detectors are arranged is readily available if you're really interested in it. Here's an overview for DELPHI for example. You might also want to browse their event gallery to get an idea of what reconstructed events look like.
Thanks for the links. There it is said that "electromagnetic calorimeters" (something new for me) are detecting the energies of individual particles.
I don't know how they really work but you know from the name I can see they are based in electric and magnetic fields and so the same argument could apply, I mean to consider that actually the Lorentz's factor could belong to the electric and magnetic fields what would make them give wrong values since they would be "calibrated" (to say it shortly) with the classical definition of the E/B fields.

In any case you see differences just from the gallery I linked to above: they started seeing different events when they increased the energy. For example above 160 GeV or so you start seeing W+W- candidate events, which are kinematically impossible below that energy (the W bosons have a mass of just over 80 GeV).
Well, I really cannot analyze this. I have no clue what you are talking about I admit. I can just wonder how their masses was measured. May be through some intervention of the electric and magnetic fields what makes us return to the same subject again?

You know, everything in the CERN, LHC etc is strongly based in the classical definition of the electric and magnetic fields. As I said, the Lorentz's factor in the electric and magnetic fields can change it all!

You are hopelessly deluded.
I hope not.

20. Originally Posted by martillo
I don't know how they really work but you know from the name I can see they are based in electric and magnetic fields and so the same argument could apply, I mean to consider that actually the Lorentz's factor could belong to the electric and magnetic fields what would make them give wrong values since they would be "calibrated" (to say it shortly) with the classical definition of the E/B fields.
They're called "electromagnetic" calorimeters because they trigger electrons and photons into starting electromagnetic showers. In the end all the energy from a single electron or photon gets converted into a cascade of lower energy electrons and photons, and it's actually the energy of all these lower energy particles that's measured.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•