"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Franz Heymann" wrote:

"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Franz Heymann" wrote:

"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Franz Heymann" wrote:

[snip]

I was quite precisely specific. If you do not understand
what I
wrote, the fault lies with your powers of comprehension.

Franz

***{He understands that you are refusing to do a specific
calculation comparing the relativistic and non-relativistic
velocity additions, and he assumes, quite reasonably in my
opinion, that your reticence is due to fear that you will
get
yourself into hot water.

I have told him how to do it. If he is unable to do so, he
should
not be posting on the topic.

***{You claimed that the decay of a pion into a muon and a
neutrino
produced results that could be correctly calculated only by
means of
relativistic velocity additions. He said, in effect, "Prove it."
To
which you replied that, in essence, it is he, and not you, who
has
the burden of proving your claim. The question is, what's wrong
with
this picture? :-) --MJ}***

What is qwrong with your picture is the fact that you do not
understand that I told him how to do the calculation. If he does
not
know enough kinematics to do this simple problem for himself, he
should not be posting nonsense on the topic.

***{That is laughable. It was you who posted a claim on this topic.
He
merely asked you to back up your claim. The subject here is Franz
Heymann's claim and whether he can defend it, not whether Vertner
Vergon
can do the standard relativistic velocity addition calculations
which
are explained in detail in thousands of textbooks.

Stop playing silly buggers.
I actually gave him the complete details of how to do the calculation.
All he had to do was to do it.

The question is, why you are struggling so mightily to escape the
burden
of proving your assertion?

I am not struggling at all.
I gave him complete details of how to do the calculation. If he, and
you, are not able to actually do it, hard luck on both of you.

The likely answer is that you were shocked to
notice, after having already shot off your mouth on this subject,
that
if you applied standard relativistic velocity addition calculations
to a
pion decay, that in itself would do nothing to support your claim.

Balls. Having reconstructed large numbers of pion and Kaon decays in
my life, and having told Vergon how to do the job he wanted done, I
have plenty to support my claim.

Why
not? Simple: you did not claim merely that applying the standard
relativistic calculation would give an answer, but that the answer
in
question would be the CORRECT answer. Hence to defend your claim,
you
would have to do the following:

(1) Describe a concrete example of a pion decay into a muon and a
neutrino FOR WHICH THE RESULT OF A VELOCITY ADDITION HAS ACTUALLY
BEEN
MEASURED.

(2) Show, by a concrete calculation, that the relativistic velocity
addition formulas give an answer WHICH MATCHES WHAT WAS ACTUALLY
MEASURED.

(3) Show, by a concrete calculation, that the non-relativistic
velocity
addition formulas give an answer WHICH DOES NOT MATCH WHAT WAS
ACTUALLY
MEASURED.

That was precisely what I told Vergon to do. I also told him that the
non-relativistic reconstruction would fail to conserve momentum and
energy, whereas that is *not* the case for a relativistic
reconstruction.

For those who wonder why the burden of proof assumed by Franz may
pose a
problem for him,

I have no problem. It is you and Vergon who have problems in actually
executing the calculations, th principles of which gave in great
detail.

the answer is that a method of calculating a physical
result becomes accepted only after it has been tested against
measurements in a number of critical cases, and has passed those
tests.

Yes.

In the test cases, the result of the calculation is compared to
actual
measurements. But after the formula has been accepted, it is then
used
to calculate results in thousands of concrete cases for which there
are
no measured results. That, indeed, is the major benefit of the
formula:
once it has been thoroughly tested and accepted, it relieves its
users
of the necessity to keep doing measurements, over and over and over
again, in tens of thousands of workaday cases.

You are repeating yourself. It nauseates.

And therein lies the rub, as far as Franz is concerned: by claiming
that
pion decay data prove the validity of the relativistic velocity
addition
formulae, he has implicitly claimed that pion decays have the
characteristic of test cases--which means: they involve actual
measurements of the parameters which the velocity addition formulas
calculate. And that, of course, is far from a trivial claim.

No. I told Vergon how to do the calculations both
non-relativistically and relativistically. I told him that he would
find that a non-relativistic reconstruction would not conserve energy
and momentum, whereas the relativistic reconstruction does.

My own attitude toward this stuff is simple:

That neceaasrily has to be so, considering your level of stupidity.

I seldom argue against
generally accepted physics formulae, whether in the area of
relativity
or elsewhere. The reason is that they have for the most part been
verified to good accuracy by the consideration of test cases. Thus
my
objections to such formulae, if any, tend to lie in the area of
*interpretation* rather than in denial that they produce correct
answers. For example, when I first pointed out in this group, years
ago,
that particle accelerators could not test the claim that no material
object could exceed lightspeed, because the pushing forces used in
accelerators themselves moved at the speed of light,

You are an ignorant fool.
The particles have to match the *phase velocity* of the accelerating
field.
It is dead easy to make EM fields propagate with phase velocities
greater than c.
It is only the group velocity which has an upper limit.

there was no
implication that the relativistic velocity addition formulae did not
correctly predict accelerator results. The implication, instead, was
that the interpretations of those formulae were in many ways
incorrect.

It was a crass implication which flies in the face of one hell of a
lot of experimental evidence.
I have also already indicated that in both linear accelerators and
circular accelerators it is easy to show that it is impossible to get
the particles to move faster than c.

As to whether Franz is correct in thinking pion decays have the
characteristics of test cases, where the velocity addition formulae
are
concerned, I had no opinion when he made his original assertion.

It is utterly irrelevant whether or not you have an opinion on any
matter concerning physics.

However, his subsequent attempts to escape the burden of backing up
his
claim have made me increasingly suspicious that he is, as usual,
just
blowing smoke.

I have not tried to escape any burden. I have given the details of
how to do the calculations of which I spoke. If you and Vergon are
too stupid to actually get down to doing it, that is your problem

Now bugger off.

Franz

In article ,
"Franz Heymann" wrote:

Stop playing silly buggers.
Balls.
That neceaasrily has to be so, considering your level of stupidity.
You are an ignorant fool.
It was a crass implication which flies in the face of one hell of a
lot of experimental evidence.
It is utterly irrelevant whether or not you have an opinion on any
matter concerning physics.
If you and Vergon are
too stupid to actually get down to doing it, that is your problem
Now bugger off.

***{I'll be happy to, Franz, but first one of the following conditions
must be met:

(1) I'll have to be convinced that you are not an ignorant, arrogant,
pretentious asshole.

(2) I'll have to be convinced that you are not stupid and intellectually
dishonest.

(3) I'll have to be convinced that you would rather deal with me than be
chain-dragged across the Arizona desert.

(4) I'll have to be damn good and ready.

Since (1) through (3) will not happen while the sun yet shines, I guess
you'll just have to wait for (4). :-)

--Mitchell Jones}***

Franz

"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Franz Heymann" wrote:


Get stuffed.

Franz

Mitchell Jones wrote:

My own attitude toward this stuff is simple: I seldom argue
against generally accepted physics formulae, whether in the
area of relativity or elsewhere. The reason is that they have
for the most part been verified to good accuracy by the
consideration of test cases. Thus my objections to such
formulae, if any, tend to lie in the area of *interpretation*
rather than in denial that they produce correct answers.
For example, when I first pointed out in this group, years
ago, that particle accelerators could not test the claim that
no material object could exceed lightspeed, because the
pushing forces used in accelerators themselves moved at
the speed of light...

Franz Heymann wrote:

The particles have to match the *phase velocity* of the
accelerating field It is dead easy to make EM fields propagate
with phase velocities greater than c. It is only the group
velocity which has an upper limit.

***{It is "dead easy" to make the intersection point of a pair of
scissor blades travel faster than light also, if the scissors are long
enough and are closed quickly. But, of course, nothing material moves
faster than light in that situation, because the intersection point is
not a material entity. By the same token, it takes a mere flip of the
wrist to make the spot of light projected by a laser pointer travel
faster than light, if the surface upon which it is projected is far
enough away. But, again, the spot of light is not a material entity.
Both the intersection point of the scissors blades and the spot of light
are ghosts that have been decreed into existence by an act of
stipulation. They represent mere objects of thought, and neither is
capable of exerting force on anything that exists.

Why not? Because all forces are exerted by particles in collision, and
in neither of these cases are there particles which move faster than
light. Particles are real entities that have mass and occupy space, and
unless you allege that the phase velocity of an electromagnetic wave
represents the motion of real entities traveling faster than light, your
argument fails. The reason it fails is that ghosts are incapable of
exerting force on things which are real. Only real entities can do that.
That means an accelerator can test the theory that nothing can travel
faster than light only if it strikes the ions which it accelerates with
particles that are themselves moving faster than light.

Bottom line: to make your argument work, you would have to allege that a
phase velocity in excess of lightspeed represents real entities moving
faster than light. And, of course, if you do that, you would refute the
very point you are trying to prove--to wit: that nothing can travel
faster than light.

It's real sad! :-)

--Mitchell Jones}***

On 6/18/2004 1:37 AM, Mitchell Jones wrote:
***{It is "dead easy" to make the intersection point of a pair of
scissor blades travel faster than light [...]
By the same token, it takes a mere flip of the
wrist to make the spot of light projected by a laser pointer travel
faster than light,

Right.


Bottom line: to make your argument work, you would have to allege that a
phase velocity in excess of lightspeed represents real entities moving
faster than light.

Not true.

Consider a particle traveling westward. If the EM field is generated by
structures to the west of the particle and anticipating its arrival, then those
structures can arrange IN ADVANCE for the E field to keep up with the particle's
motion and accelerate it. In principle this could handle particles traveling
faster than c; in practice that never happens.

In real particle accelerators this sort of thing occurs -- the RF is ready in
advance of the particles' arrival. There is feedback due to longitudinal
focusing that ensures that the particles arrive at the proper phase of the
accelerating field, as they accelerate; the phases of successive RF cavitries
must be set properly to account for the actual travel time of the particles, of
course. Accelerators like synchrotrons and linacs could not work without this.

[If the accelerator had to work during the initial start-up of the RF, then this
could not work. But the RF is a continuous wave, and one can arrange the phases
appropriately for particles traveling in the accelerator after the RF is
established.]


Tom Roberts

"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
Mitchell Jones wrote:

My own attitude toward this stuff is simple: I seldom argue
against generally accepted physics formulae, whether in the
area of relativity or elsewhere. The reason is that they have
for the most part been verified to good accuracy by the
consideration of test cases. Thus my objections to such
formulae, if any, tend to lie in the area of *interpretation*
rather than in denial that they produce correct answers.
For example, when I first pointed out in this group, years
ago, that particle accelerators could not test the claim that
no material object could exceed lightspeed, because the
pushing forces used in accelerators themselves moved at
the speed of light...

Franz Heymann wrote:

The particles have to match the *phase velocity* of the
accelerating field It is dead easy to make EM fields propagate
with phase velocities greater than c. It is only the group
velocity which has an upper limit.

***{It is "dead easy" to make the intersection point of a pair of
scissor blades travel faster than light also, if the scissors are
long
enough and are closed quickly. But, of course, nothing material
moves
faster than light in that situation, because the intersection point
is
not a material entity. By the same token, it takes a mere flip of
the
wrist to make the spot of light projected by a laser pointer travel
faster than light, if the surface upon which it is projected is far
enough away. But, again, the spot of light is not a material entity.
Both the intersection point of the scissors blades and the spot of
light
are ghosts that have been decreed into existence by an act of
stipulation. They represent mere objects of thought, and neither is
capable of exerting force on anything that exists.

I know. However, you don't appear to appreciate that your
analogies fail. The object whose phase I am discussing is an electric
field, which is a force per unit charge. it is the phase of this field
which is important for accelerating a particle. It iis very easy to
make an EM wave with a longitudinal component of E to propagate with a
phase velocity les than, equal to or larger than that of light in free
space. That longitudinal component is what provides the accelerating
force on a charged particle. It has been found possible to make a
particle and an RF wave have matched velocities less than c. It has
not beem found possible to make the velocity of a particle match that
of an RF wave with a phase velocity greater than c.

Why not? Because all forces are exerted by particles in collision,
and
in neither of these cases are there particles which move faster than
light.

You have now entered drivelling mode.
Dragging in quantum mechanical concepts into a purely classical
situation shows either a severe lack of understanding or a wilful
attempt at throwing sand into the eyes of your readers.

Particles are real entities that have mass and occupy space, and
unless you allege that the phase velocity of an electromagnetic wave
represents the motion of real entities traveling faster than light,
your
argument fails.

An EM field is a real entity. It is dead jammy to obtain
circumstances in which an EM field has a phase velocity less than,
equal to or larger than c.
The only thing that has failed so far is you, failing to understand
the argument.

The reason it fails is that ghosts are incapable of
exerting force on things which are real. Only real entities can do
that.
That means an accelerator can test the theory that nothing can
travel
faster than light only if it strikes the ions which it accelerates
with
particles that are themselves moving faster than light.

Balls.

Bottom line: to make your argument work, you would have to allege
that a
phase velocity in excess of lightspeed represents real entities
moving
faster than light.

Yes, the real entity being phase of the the EM field.
And, of course, if you do that, you would refute the
very point you are trying to prove--to wit: that nothing can travel
faster than light.
It's real sad! :-)

I have maintained that for continued acceleration in an EM wave, a
particle must move with the wave in such a way that maintains a
position at a constant phase in the wave. That is correct.
I have maintained that if the velocity of a piont of constant phase in
the wave is less than that of light, it is possible for the particle
to maintain a position of constant phase in the wave. That is
correct.
I have maintained that if the phase velocity of the wave is greater
than that of light, the particle is unable to travel at a phase
velocity which matches the phase velocity of the wave. That is
correct

Franz

In article ,
"Franz Heymann" wrote:

"Mitchell Jones" wrote:

[snip]

Bottom line: to make your argument work, you would have to allege
that a phase velocity in excess of lightspeed represents real entities
moving faster than light.

Yes, the real entity being the phase of the the EM field.

And, of course, if you do that, you would refute the very
point you are trying to prove--to wit: that nothing real can
travel faster than light.
It's real sad! :-)

I have maintained that for continued acceleration in an EM wave, a
particle must move with the wave in such a way that it maintains a
position at a constant phase in the wave. That is correct.

I have maintained that if the velocity of a point of constant phase in
the wave is less than that of light, it is possible for the particle
to maintain a position of constant phase in the wave. That is
correct.

I have maintained that if the phase velocity of the wave is greater
than that of light, the particle is unable to travel at a phase
velocity which matches the phase velocity of the wave. That is
correct

***{And you have also maintained (see above) that a real entity--to wit:
the phase of the EM field--sometimes moves faster than light. Result:
your position is in ruins.

Would you like to retract your statement that the phase of the EM field
is a real entity which sometimes moves faster than light?

--Mitchell Jones}***

Franz

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ...
"V ertner Vergon" wrote in message
om...
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
m...
(V ertner Vergon) wrote in
message
. com...
"Franz Heymann" wrote in
message ...

Apparently the people running the accellerators "which only work
with
a phase which produces c" have not realised that a car being
towed
will NOT exceed c, if the tow-truck is limited to c (no matter
how
many horses are under the bonnet)

Wrong.

In an electron linear accelerator, the electron is accelerated by
a
slow-wave structure in which the phase velocity of the wave is
continually matched to the velocity of the electron as it travels
along the tube. I take it that you are not aware of the fact that
if
the final phase velocity exceeds c, the electron falls out of step
with the field and ceases to be accelerated.

In a synchrocyclotron, the magnetic field is increased steadily as
a
function of time and sensors determine the RF frequency required
to
keep the orbits central in the vacuum chamber. If the particle
bunches needed a frequency corresponding to a speed greater than
c,
the feedback system would automatically supply it. Surprise,
surprise, the frequency automatically asymptotes to that
corresponding
to a particle travelling at c.

In a microtron, the electrons are left free to choose their own
stable
orbits. Surprise, surprise, as they get very energetic, they end
up
by moving on orbits on which they have a velocity c.

Franz

Vergon:

Nothing you say here changes the fact that Jim is correct. A
particle
can go no faster than the force impelling it.

It is the phase of an RF field which determines whether the particle
is accelerated or retarded. The phase velocity of an electric field
is not limited to c. It is easy to make a linear accelerator in which
the phase velocity exceeds c. The trouble is, if you do so, the
particle falls out of step.

The mass of the particle increases because it absorbs part of the RF
impelling it.

Simple energy conservation. So what?

The collision is part elastic and part inelastic.

What collision? What does part elastic and part inelastic mean?
An interaction is either elastic or inelastic.

Vergon:

Wrong. See the analysis of the Compton effect given below.


THE COMPTON EFFECT

(illustration below)


A 1 MeV photon in a direct collision (scattering angle 180 deg) with a
free electron (considered at rest) will impart a recoil velocity to it
such that E_k = .797 MeV -–
[[ Scientific Encyclopedia, Van Nostrand, 5th ed.p. 638 ]]--

Converting the 1 MeV to ergs and utilizing nu = E/h , we ascertain
the
frequency of the incident photon to be 2.418024 x 10^20.

To ascertain the frequency of the recoil photon we utilize



[Eq. 2]
mc^2
h nu' = ------------------------
mc^2
1 - cos theta + ------
h nu
(m = electron mass)

( Continued below after illustration )
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

A mass m_q may be assigned to each cycle of frequency which in turn
is
representative of one individual quantum.

m_q = quantum mass = 7.3720385 x 10^-48 gr
m_ph = photon mass
m_e = electron mass R = Lorentz
transformation
= sqrt (1 - V^2/c^2)
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````

In this work there are a few fundamental physical constants used in a
variety of relationships that may not be the same as more modern
determinations.

Often one that is quite accurate in one relationship does not maintain
that accuracy in another but are acceptably close. They a


h = 6.625661 x 10^-27 m a d t (erg second) (momenton light
second)

c = 2.9979254 x 10^10 cm/sec

m_e = 9.1089534 x 10^-28 gr (mass of the electron)

m_q = 7.37203854 x 10^-48 gr ( mass of the quantum )

`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````


MASS AND ENERGY TRANSFER IN A COMPTON COLLISION
[Fig. 1]
E = h nu = 1.602101 x 10^-6 erg
nu = 2.418024 x 10^20
m_ph = 1 MeV = 1.782576 x 10^-27 gr

CAPTION FOR Fig. 1

BEFORE AND AFTER COLLISION OF A 1 MeV PHOTON WITH AN "AT REST"
ELECTRON.

The two spheres at the top are at the moment of contact; those at the
bottom are immediately afterward. The incident photon (top left) has
almost twice the mass of the electron. The shaded portion is the
portion
of the incident photon that transfers to the electron on contact.
Having
mass, this portion carries momentum and energy with it. The
quantitative
results are exactly the same as those given by relativistic mechanics.

_ - - _ ph
- |. . . . . . . - e
nu = 2.418024 x 10^20 - _
- |. . . . . . . . . . - - -
- |. . . . . . . . . . . .- - -
- |. . . . . . . . . . . . - - -
- |. . . . . . . . . . . . .- - -
3.62763 | . . . . . . . . . . . . .-- -
x 10^-28 | 1.419814 x 10^-27 gr . . -- 9.108953 x 10^-28 gr
- gr | . . . . . . . . . . . . - - -
- | . . . . . . . . . . . . - - -
- | . . . . . . . . . . . - - -
- | . . . . . . . . . . . - - -
- | . . . . . . . . . . - - -
| . . . . . . . . . - \ - -
- _ _ _ - \ E_k = 0
nu - nu' = 1.925945 x 10^20 \
: \ /\m
: \
: _\| e'
: - - - _
nu' = 4.920785 x10^19 - . . . . . . |-
_ - . . . . . . . . |-
- - - . . . . . . . . | -
- - - . . . . . . . . . | -
- - \ / - . . . . . . . . . . | -
- - --* -- - . . . . . . . . . . | -
- 3.62763 x 10^-28 - / \ - . . . 2.330709 x 10^-27 gr -
- gr - - . . . . . . . . . .| -
- - - . . . . . . . . . . | -
- _ - - . . . . . . . . . . | -
- . . . . . . . . . | -
- . . . . . . . . . | -
(prime indicates recoil condition) - . . . . . . . . | -
- . . . . . . . | -
E_ph x .7964954 = E_k_e' - _ . . . .| _ -
m_ph x " = /\m - -
nu_ph x " = /\nu


E_ph x .2035046 = E_ph'
m_ph x " = m_ph'
nu_ph x " = nu_ph' v = .9204658 c
E_k = .7965 MeV
(1/R - 1)m_e = /\m = 1.276066 x
10^-6 erg
m_e v^2 = /\m c^2
(1/R - 1)m_e c^2 = E_k_e'= --------
R + R^2


m_e' = m_e + /\m = 2.330709 x
10^-27 gr
m_e
---- = m_e' nu e' = 3.161554 x 10^20
R




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

( Continued from above )

We find the frequency of the scattered photon to be 4.920785 x 10^19,
a
frequency loss nu - nu' of 1.925946 x 10^20. Since each element of
the
frequency represents a quantum, this figure represents the quantity of
quanta n lost to the photon and absorbed by the electron. Thus

(nm_q) = /\ m_ph = /\ m_e = 1.419814 x10^-27 gr

and is the mass transferred. The energy of this mass is
(nm_q^c2) = 1.276066 x 10^-6 erg (h nu) which manifests as kinetic
energy
transferred to the recoil electron. This converts to .7965 MeV which
agrees quite well with the .797 MeV of experiment.

The only energy imparted to the electron is that contained in /\ m_ph.

Thereby /\ m_ph c^2 is converted to

(1/R - 1) m_e c^2 [Eq. 3]


Thus /\ m_ph c^2 = (1/R - 1) m_e c^2 [Eq. 4]



Therefore /\ m_ph = (1/R -1) m_e [Eq. 5]



Finally /\ m_ph = (m_e/R - m_e) = /\ m_e [Eq. 6]


which clearly demonstrates that the relativistic expression in the
center is nothing other than the mass, /\m_ph, absorbed from the
photon and which carries the total kinetic energy now resident in the
recoil electron (on the assumption that the free electron is
considered essentially at rest.

For clarification, we can write Eq. 6 as

[Eq. 6A]
m_e
--- = (m_e + /\ m_ph) = (m_e + /\m_e)
R


Hence the term "increase in inertial mass" has a clear mechanistic
explanation not forthcoming in relativity theory. Note, this is so
only
for e.m. accelerated particles.

We also note from Eq. 6A that the ratio of the electron mass before
and
after absorption is equal to the Lorentz transformation:

m_e
---------------- = R .
m_e + /\ m_e


and Eq. 5 shows that (1/R -1) m_e is the quantity of mass
transferred
in the collision.

We summarize the conditions:

If the quanta absorbed by the electron is nu - nu' = nu'' = n ,

then E_k = h nu'' = (nm_q) c^2 = /\ m_ph c^2 = (1/R - 1) m_e c^2 .

from which we can readily calculate R and v.

The shaded portion of the incident photon is the /\ m_ph that
transfers
in the collision, imparting a velocity of 92% c.

The rebounding photon, having suffered the loss of /\ m has a
frequency
that is lowered by /\ m/m_q.

The percentage loss of mass by the photon is /\ m_ph/m_ph x 100.
This is a 79.65 % inelastic collision. Consequently, that is the
Percentage of the photon mass transferred

m_ph x .7964952 = 1.419814 x 10^-27 gr = /\m











Do you actually have any inkling of what you are posting about?

And in case you are not aware, you lost the argument re the addition
of velocities.

Nope.

Franz

"Mitchell Jones" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Franz Heymann" wrote:

"Mitchell Jones" wrote:

[snip]

Bottom line: to make your argument work, you would have to
allege
that a phase velocity in excess of lightspeed represents real
entities
moving faster than light.

Yes, the real entity being the phase of the the EM field.

And, of course, if you do that, you would refute the very
point you are trying to prove--to wit: that nothing real can
travel faster than light.
It's real sad! :-)

I have maintained that for continued acceleration in an EM wave, a
particle must move with the wave in such a way that it maintains a
position at a constant phase in the wave. That is correct.

I have maintained that if the velocity of a point of constant
phase in
the wave is less than that of light, it is possible for the
particle
to maintain a position of constant phase in the wave. That is
correct.

I have maintained that if the phase velocity of the wave is
greater
than that of light, the particle is unable to travel at a phase
velocity which matches the phase velocity of the wave. That is
correct

***{And you have also maintained (see above) that a real entity--to
wit:
the phase of the EM field--sometimes moves faster than light.
Result:
your position is in ruins.

Just as an example, the phase velocity of any EM wave in a normal
rectangular waveguide with plane surfaces is always larger than c.
You have made it clear that you have no notion of the propagation of
EM radiation.

Would you like to retract your statement that the phase of the EM
field
is a real entity which sometimes moves faster than light?

Of course not.
What you need to bone up on is precisely what SR says can not move
faster than light.
The indications so far are that you have not a clue about the
situation.

Franz

"V ertner Vergon" wrote in message
om...
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...
"V ertner Vergon" wrote in
message
om...
"Franz Heymann" wrote in
message
...
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
m...
(V ertner Vergon) wrote in
message
. com...
"Franz Heymann" wrote
in
message ...

Apparently the people running the accellerators "which only
work
with
a phase which produces c" have not realised that a car
being
towed
will NOT exceed c, if the tow-truck is limited to c (no
matter
how
many horses are under the bonnet)

Wrong.

In an electron linear accelerator, the electron is accelerated
by
a
slow-wave structure in which the phase velocity of the wave is
continually matched to the velocity of the electron as it
travels
along the tube. I take it that you are not aware of the fact
that
if
the final phase velocity exceeds c, the electron falls out of
step
with the field and ceases to be accelerated.

In a synchrocyclotron, the magnetic field is increased
steadily as
a
function of time and sensors determine the RF frequency
required
to
keep the orbits central in the vacuum chamber. If the
particle
bunches needed a frequency corresponding to a speed greater
than
c,
the feedback system would automatically supply it. Surprise,
surprise, the frequency automatically asymptotes to that
corresponding
to a particle travelling at c.

In a microtron, the electrons are left free to choose their
own
stable
orbits. Surprise, surprise, as they get very energetic, they
end
up
by moving on orbits on which they have a velocity c.

Franz

Vergon:

Nothing you say here changes the fact that Jim is correct. A
particle
can go no faster than the force impelling it.

It is the phase of an RF field which determines whether the
particle
is accelerated or retarded. The phase velocity of an electric
field
is not limited to c. It is easy to make a linear accelerator in
which
the phase velocity exceeds c. The trouble is, if you do so, the
particle falls out of step.

The mass of the particle increases because it absorbs part of
the RF
impelling it.

Simple energy conservation. So what?

The collision is part elastic and part inelastic.

What collision? What does part elastic and part inelastic mean?
An interaction is either elastic or inelastic.

Vergon:

Wrong.

No, I was right. You need to learn something about kinematics and
about interactions before deeming yourself educated enough to spout on
the subject. In the meantime, you are simply emitting horse dung.

See the analysis of the Compton effect given below.


THE COMPTON EFFECT

[snip]

You simply cribbed that calculation which I snipped from somewhere
without knowing what
you cribbed, otherwise you would have realised that the interaction
you were talking about was a perfectly elastic interaction.

Do you know what the definition of an elastic interaction is?
Do you know what the definition of an inelastic interaction is?

Do you actually have any inkling of what you are posting about?

And in case you are not aware, you lost the argument re the
addition
of velocities.

Nope.

Franz