| General > General Technical Chat |
| Veritasium -- How Special Relativity Makes Magnets Work. |
| << < (33/47) > >> |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: penfold on April 12, 2022, 09:40:54 am --- --- Quote from: aetherist on April 11, 2022, 10:22:56 pm --- --- Quote from: penfold on April 09, 2022, 11:37:28 pm ---Ahh, yes, but the sheild must be transparant to the relativiistic effects as there is no relative motion wrt the fixed charges of the sensor of those of the hard-wired "fabric" elements of the electron beam's circuit... I think... its a bit late for me to be thinking about reference frames. If the shield were a rotating disc or a cylinder rotating about an axis that intercepts that of the electron beam (but not parallel to and the geometry of the cylinder allowing passage of electrons through), the continuous motion of the cylinder (or disc) with facets of it passing through an apparently varying electric field (seeing, relatively, a non-linear beam current), the constant redistribution of charges would constitude a current visible in all reference frames... which might make an aetherist's head explode (the rate of redistribution being higher than drift velocity), but might make for an alternative interpretation of the Faraday disc. --- End quote --- A DC beam in a long glass tube would be simpler.[...] --- End quote --- That it would, but would it really show anything interesting? The reason I suggested the off-axis rotating sheild is that it doesn't rely on metal-metal sliding contacts, so it is an experiment that may (or may not) operate on a similar underlying principal as the classic Faraday disc, but has a very different physical makeup and so relys on different sources of error and discrepancy. --- End quote --- (1) A glass tube would show whether an electron beam makes a similar mmf to what is found around a wire carrying an electric current. Talking bout steady DC current. (2a) A glass tube would show whether an electron beam makes an identical mmf to (2b) what is found around a wire carrying an electric current, if the wire is a part of that circuit. Talking bout steady DC current. Apparently neither test has ever been done. We can be sure of that, koz, if it (one ovem)(or both) had ever been done, then thems who reckon that the sun shines out of Einstein's bum would be crowing about it from rooftops, but they aint, so it haznt. No, i am wrong. They might be crowing if (1) shows an mmf. But they would not be crowing if (2a) equals (2b), koz (2a) has no protons that can length contract. And, if they think about it, they shouldn’t be crowing re (1). |
| TimFox:
The manufacturer of magnetic-field probes for beam diagnostics that I cited above makes probes for both use inside a vacuum chamber and outside a vacuum chamber. I suggest you check their website https://www.bergoz.com/products/ which is quite detailed, or the Fermilab tutorial on how to do such things that I cited https://lss.fnal.gov/archive/2000/conf/Conf-00-119.pdf before you assert that "neither test has ever been done". Locally, you can call the Australian Synchrotron Laboratory https://www.ansto.gov.au/research/facilities/australian-synchrotron/overview and ask how they do beam diagnostics. In large-scale labs, linear electron accelerators are no longer fashionable, but there are quite a few electron synchrotrons about, since they are useful for generating intense x-ray beams, and are good examples of special relativity in action. Serious scientists and engineers do not "crow" about the application of settled physics to practical results, just if they discover something new or contrary to settled physics. Were you expecting a YouTube video: "As expected and predicted, magnetic field detected around high-current charged-particle beam in accelerator!"? Particle accelerators, both linear and circular, are a very mature technology, dating back to Cockroft and Walton (1932) and Lawrence (1929). There are commercial firms that supply instrumentation to the laboratories. |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: TimFox on April 12, 2022, 08:12:07 pm ---The manufacturer of magnetic-field probes for beam diagnostics that I cited above makes probes for both use inside a vacuum chamber and outside a vacuum chamber. I suggest you check their website https://www.bergoz.com/products/ which is quite detailed, or the Fermilab tutorial on how to do such things that I cited https://lss.fnal.gov/archive/2000/conf/Conf-00-119.pdf before you assert that "neither test has ever been done". Locally, you can call the Australian Synchrotron Laboratory https://www.ansto.gov.au/research/facilities/australian-synchrotron/overview and ask how they do beam diagnostics. In large-scale labs, linear electron accelerators are no longer fashionable, but there are quite a few electron synchrotrons about, since they are useful for generating intense x-ray beams, and are good examples of special relativity in action. Serious scientists and engineers do not "crow" about the application of settled physics to practical results, just if they discover something new or contrary to settled physics. Were you expecting a YouTube video: "As expected and predicted, magnetic field detected around high-current charged-particle beam in accelerator!"? Particle accelerators, both linear and circular, are a very mature technology, dating back to Cockroft and Walton (1932) and Lawrence (1929). There are commercial firms that supply instrumentation to the laboratories. --- End quote --- Faraday (Faraday Disc) proved that STR was wrong back in say 1831, 74 yrs before STR was invented in 1905. Michelson & Morley (MMX) proved that STR was wrong in 1887, 18 yrs before 1905. Kennard (Kennard coil version of Faraday Disc) proved that STR was wrong in 1912. And if an aetherist (or anyone else) ever does that there (2a)(2b)(electron beam in glass tube) experiment then that too will prove that STR is wrong. Funny, there is no way that (2a)(2b) can confirm STR, it can only falsify STR. |
| TimFox:
Once again, you are wrong. The diagnostic equipment and beam testing procedures that I suggested you read clearly show that the magnetic field outside a beam of charged particles is identical to that outside a wire. In a particle accelerator, one can compare the current with these magnetic sensors to the current that hits a Faraday cup (which suppresses the effect of secondary emission from the target). Have you ever seen a particle accelerator, or read anything about them? What do your countrymen at the Australian Synchrotron Lab say? PS: doing some elementary Googling, I found an interesting engineering thesis from Georgia Tech back in 1962: https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/14924/lineberger_william_c_196212_ms_69818.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y The author discusses practical methods for measuring the magnetic field induced by a beam of charged particles without interrupting the beam. Since this was already a physical phenomenon applied to practice in engineering, no one needed to crow about it. |
| PlainName:
--- Quote from: TimFox on April 12, 2022, 09:20:53 pm ---Once again, you are wrong. --- End quote --- I have to say that I admire your patience and and continued good humour when engaging with aetherist, who clearly isn't here to learn but merely to tell everyone they are wrong about everything. A lesser person would have said harsh words and/or left to pursue an actual worthy cause many, many pages ago. In fact, the only reason I am still watching this is to find out exactly where your limit is >:D |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |