John Ye

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

Your assertion is that the negative acceleration causes the radiation, correct? What is the external interaction that is giving you this acceleration?

The interaction is electron with magnetic flux line, which makes electron be deflected, and lose energy.

If no additional energy is given, the electron will finally stop circling.

In any term, we say that electron has a minus acceleration value.

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

So solid you can't actually point to any evidence for it, or any mainstream physics that would back it up. 

Nor have you been able to back up your claim that only deceleration gives radiation, or why circular motion gives radiation, when no decelerating force exists.

All you've given us is assertion, and you have had ample chance to provide evidence, or some actual physics to ponder. But...nothing.

One more chance to provide evidence or some physics.

My assertion is not the same as those in main stream textbook. If the same, we are not necessary to discuss the topic here.

Go back to the simplest case, you said radiation, I said no. I give linear accelerator as evidence. I think you had better to give experimental evidence, not what main stream textbook says.

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes.

What is the force causing the acceleration that makes it slow down?

Specifically, the acceleration.  

Your assertion is that the negative acceleration causes the radiation, correct? What is the external interaction that is giving you this acceleration?

We agree that you have said this. Again and again; assertion without justification. But you are wrong — it will radiate. I gave a link to the physics some time ago.

Electrons in linear accelerator don't radiate, electrons in cyclotron do.

This is a solid fact.

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

Because it radiates. Because it is accelerating.

There is no external force on it causing it to slow down. If it did not radiate, it would not slow.

In fact, it will slow down. Do you agree this? 

We can say that it slows down because it emits energy. Or we can say that it radiates because it has a minus acceleration value. 

The physical nature is that the interaction between electron and magnetic field makes it radiates energy

39 minutes ago, swansont said:

Because they radiate. Because they are accelerating.

Any radiating charge in magnetic field only (without other field) will be slowing down and finally completely stop. Its acceleration value must be below zero.

47 minutes ago, swansont said:

Because it radiates. Because it is accelerating.

There is no external force on it causing it to slow down. If it did not radiate, it would not slow.

Because they radiate. Because they are accelerating.

There is no external force on them causing them to slow down. If they did not radiate, they would not slow.

 

None of this supports your claim.

Or, the anode must be moving fast enough when it hits a stationary electron. Speed is relative.

In John's example they are. It's a thought experiment.

Yes. But one can choose a frame where the electron is at rest, and is accelerated by the collision, and the result is the same — you get radiation. The notion that acceleration and deceleration have some fundamental difference is naive from a physics standpoint.

Swansont, let's begin from the simplest case. It is easy to figure out. When a electron was attracted by only one non deflection force, it is moving in straight line with a plus acceleration value, it goes faster and faster. I said, it Will NOT emit energy. Do not agree this?

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Did you miss the point, or are you ignoring it?

Do you really not understand the idea of relative velocity?

John, I did not miss your point.

For generating X ray, electrons must be running fast enough toward anode and hit anode. Do you agree this?

So the meaningful speed is electron's velocity relative to anode.

Each one's speed relative to other is not meaningful.

The electrons will not emit energy before hitting anode.

the electrons constitutes so called cathode  ray, and they are not having exactly  the same velocity. some of them may slower than others.

from one electron's point of view, other electrons is not stationary,  acceleration and velocity varies.

but these values make no sense. 

the meaningful value is the speed relative to anode.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

So you agree, the acceleration occurs before the collision, and your previous claim was in error.

Repeating this does not make it true. You need to provide e v i d e n c e.

Moving is a circle is an acceleration, and not a deceleration — though physicists rarely use this term, since acceleration is a vector; it's simply a matter of your choice of coordinates and frame of reference. One frame's acceleration is another frame's deceleration, and this is a trivial way to know that you are wrong, as John describes above. 

 

moving electron entering  magnetic field leads to a circle movement. As I said previously, it will slow down, and finally it will stop.

Many experiments can serve as evidence.  Electrons in cyclotron will finally stop after switching off the electric field while keeping magnetic deflection.

5 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

 

Imagine two electrons travelling down an X ray tube, They both reach the anode. One hits something- another electron for example, and comes to a halt (emitting Xrays).

 

Now look at it from the point of view of the other electron. 

It is watching its friend as they both pass down the tube.

Suddenly another electron rushes up and crashes into  it and causes it to accelerate and emit Xrays.

 

It's the same event and the same Xray emission

But from one point of view, it's acceleration- and from the other perspective it is deceleration.

So, how can there be a distinction between the two since it's just a matter of perspective?

 

 

Both electrons' speed is relative to the anode, each relative to other one does not make any sense.

For X ray can be generated only by this speed.

It is the interaction between electrons and anode that makes them to reduce speed and release energy.

6 hours ago, studiot said:

Neither velocity (nor momentum) is a Force.

You specifically said more than one force, which excludes all other vecotors.

So yes, thank you Ghideon, I still await a proper explanation of this claim.

+1 for reminding me.

Running ( been accelerated or not) electrons hitting something, their acceleration value is changed, their velocity value is changed. They emit energy. If no this interaction, they will continue to run in a constant speed, without energy emitted.

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, the magnetic force is perpendicular to the motion. It does no work on the particle. 

If they did not radiate, they would emit no energy. The fact that they do, and that you admit that they do, is in complete contradiction to your position.

Prove it. Give me evidence.

Show this happening. Resulting in a pure sine wave of constant amplitude.

 

Because the amount of power you radiate depends on the acceleration, which is much larger in the target.

An electron in a CRT is not being accelerated while it collides. That part happens earlier in the process.

In CRT, electron is attracted by anode screen, at the same time, is deflected by deflection magnetic field or deflection electric field. So it will emit radiation before hitting screen, and on hitting screen.

Or we can put it this way: for an electron running in a straight line, accelerating one will not emit energy, decelerating one will. 

So the free falling change will not emit radiation.

10 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Please explain how the two forces does not combine vectorially, I fail to get that from the discussion so far. See studiots comment:

Velocity is combined when electron hitting tube glass.

Let's think a running car hits a big tree.

If car  crashes to the tree while  driver is still stepping on accelerator pedal, the car has two forces on it. One is engine force, the other is tree's reaction force.

The result is a bad car and hurting driver.

Combined velocity is very very big, of course a minus value.

While car hits wall, cara's kinetic energy is converted to other forms and  suddenly released, thermal, probably light, sound, electromagnetic radiation, etc.

5 hours ago, studiot said:

A cathode ray is accelerated by only one force in a simple cathode ray tube and is yet known to emit (dangerous) Xrays.
This is direct observational evidence against your proposal.

Electrons hits glass, and hits gas atoms.

The tube is not 100% vacuum.

The electrons hitting something are exerted two forces, not one. 

38 minutes ago, studiot said:

Your claim right there that the only EM radiation occurs at the anode and nowhere else is the problem.

I don't disagree that radiation is generated at the anode, and never have done.
Of course it will, the anode accelerates the electrons, as does striking the glass tube or any phosphor.

Note the difference between at the anode and your 'from the anode'.
X rays from the anode are not from the cathode rays!
 

Why do the electrons striking the glass, not emit Xrays?
These come from the glass/phosphor itself.

But it is generated elsewhere as well.

Read the Wiki article properly

X ray from anode falls into two categories. On is emitted by the suddenly broke high speed electrons (continuous spectrum), the other is emitted by anode material's atom electrons' transition, which has discrete spectrum.

Both metal anode and glass covered anode generate X ray. But glass hitting is less effective, because glass is more sparse than metal.  It's not effective to beak electrons, generate less x ray. 

Because glass is less effective to break the electron, it generates less X ray (than metal, heavy metal) , more violet and ultraviolet rays. If electron runs fast enough, we can detect X.

1 minute ago, studiot said:

What evidence do have for this assumption on your part?

It can be analyzed by the experiments done before. So it is actually not an assumption.  If someone wants to make new experiment to prove it, the test must be redesigned for that purpose.

Past experiments have already shown that the X ray is coming from anode, not in the accelerating midway

38 minutes ago, swansont said:

An electron moving at constant speed (i.e. no force on it) enters a magnetic field. It will experience a magnetic force and beging to move in a spiral, and emit cyclotron radiation.

This case can be considered as a deceleration. Their speed(direction part) is changed by magnetic field, and emit energy, their tangent speed will become less and less, they can't run forever.

46 minutes ago, swansont said:

Explain how radio waves from an antenna are continuous. Explain further how the spectrum does not have all of the higher-frequency harmonics you would expect if you did not have a sine wave source.

Evidence would be preferred.

When a half sine oscillation stimulates water, water wave is continuous. Because the stop time is too short, indide one wave period. 

Similarly, we keeps throwing stones into water, we can adjust the repeating time interval, get a continuous water wave.

3 hours ago, studiot said:

A cathode ray is accelerated by only one force in a simple cathode ray tube and is yet known to emit (dangerous) Xrays.
This is direct observational evidence against your proposal.

Yes. They emit X ray because they hit metal anode, and be suddenly stopped. Their kinetic energy is released in the form of X ray

Before hitting anode, they gain energy from electric field. In accelerating state, no X ray is released.

Without considering Earth magnetic field(the charged ball is only attracted by gravity), It does not emit radiation.

The key point is: any charge accelerated by only one force will not emit energy.

IT emits energy only when it's being decelerated.

Or when it's being exerted by more than one force. A typical case is that the charge is running in circular track.

The charge gains energy while being accelerated, releases energy while being decelerated.

Without considering Earth magnetic field(the charged ball is only attracted by gravity), It does not emit radiation.

The key point is: any charge accelerated by only one force will not emit energy.

IT emits energy only when it's being decelerated.

Or when it's being exerted by more than one force. A typical case is that the charge is running in circular track when it's being affected by both electric force and magnetic force. Electrons in cyclotron radiate energy.

In general, the charge gains energy while being accelerated, releases energy while being decelerated.

When an electron is circulating proton, it's only exerted one force---the Coulomb force, it does not emit energy.

Based on one force rule,  an electron is not emitting energy  while circulating proton. It's only exerted one force---the Coulomb force.

7 hours ago, swansont said:

That's your assertion, which is unsupported by physics. The radiation should be related to the acceleration, which is much larger at the stopping part of the experiment, than the "getting electrons up to speed" part of the experiment.

Which is why I suggested the antenna as an example.

Because it's a small amount and will be hard to detect. Take Phi's direction and go open a thread in speculations with the details of an an experiment that will show that the radiation is zero

OK, thanks. I will stop here, and open another speculation thread then we discuss this there.

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Deceleration is lay terminology. Acceleration is acceleration. The direction is a mere detail. 

Radiation from antennas is continuous, meaning it radiates while the charges speed up, and while they slow down.

Which is obviously not true. See comment above.

And of course we also have cyclotron radiation, in which the radiation is perpendicular to the velocity.

Cyclotron's electrons are not driven by only one force. Two forces are involved: electric force, and magnetic force. So the are circular moving, and are radiating energy.

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Radiation from antennas is continuous, meaning it radiates while the charges speed up, and while they slow down.

In one wave period, stopping radiation will not make the wave stop. Just like that we use a half sine wave to stimulate water, as long as the half sine keep repeating, the water waves continue.

We keeps throwing rocks into water, if repeating frequently enough, we can get a continuous wave. 

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

I already provided the link that shows that the radiation in a linac is small but nonzero. The stopping distance is much smaller than the acceleration distance, which is why you get all that radiation.

You mean that radiation is small (non zero) when accelerating and  large when decelerating. They are not equal in quantity? That might be true due to non ideal experiment environment. If absolutely ideal, the radiation should be zero at accelerating stage.

We can make real experiments. Detect radiation in each stage, radiation in   accelerating stage will not be detectable.

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Then open a thread in Speculations and support that argument, but don't do it in someone else's mainstream thread. You've been warned about hijacking before.

 

OK. I will obey your order.

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Quote

When accelerating, they are absorbing energy from power supply, when decelerating, releasing the energy to air in electromagnetic mode. 

Which is obviously not true. See comment above.

It is true. Textbook gives wrong explanation. This can be tested and proved by detecting the radiation in a linear accelerator, and a linear decelerator. 

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

Um, no. How do antennas work, if accelerating a charge does not radiate?

Electrons in antenna are not keeping accelerating. They are accelerating then decelerating, that is oscillation. 

When accelerating, they are absorbing energy from power supply, when decelerating, releasing the energy to air in electromagnetic mode. 

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

Quantum systems won't radiate when there is no lower energy state for them to go to.

Yes. An electron goes from infinite far (highest energy level) to a lower energy level position, it must be suddenly stopped, and emits its extra energy. Decelerated electrons emit energy, accelerating ones don't.

This process is transition, I described it in my that script we have discussed few days ago.

On 2018/8/30 at 8:07 AM, quiet said:

I will express my conviction. The charge radiates only in the conditions that break the object. In cases that do not cause breakage, the charge not radiate. Why ? Because to break and to radiate, a contribution of energy is necessary. And only the own acceleration corresponds to an energy received by the object that is broken or by the load that radiates.

I agree with you. Both detectors will not detect any radiation in either case.

At the moment that the ball crashes to ground, both detectors will if they are still functioning.

The key is this: accelerating charge driven only by one force will not emit radiation. Decelerating charge will.

For example, electrons in linear accelerator will not emit energy while being accelerated. They absorb energy at this stage.

Btw, a charge producing magnetic field does not necessarily mean it emits radiation. Magnetic Fe is producing magnetic field all the time, by no energy is emitted. The same is as a superconductor wire current, which can keep flowing for years, generating magnetic field but not radiation.

On 2018/8/28 at 8:03 AM, MigL said:

It  is not a problem with classical mechanics, but rather a problem with frames of reference.
The radiation, like energy, is frame dependent, and so, is different in differing frames.
If you are not measuring an acceleration of the charge, in the particular frame you are measuring from, then the charge needs not  radiate. But if you are measuring an acceleration of the charge, from whatever frame you are in, you will also detect radiation.

If each detector is installed a radiation detonated explosive, how about the outcome?

3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Laugh out loud.

So, you claim to know better than everyone else- but you have not bothered to find out what everyone else knows.

 

Do you realise how silly that makes you look?

I said I know more about the physical meaning of quantum H solution than anyone else. I didn't say about all other things. OK?

You must know more about this. I haven't read textbook for long time.

OK. You have a good day. I am going to sleep.

4 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

LOL

I don't know lol, guess it's bad word. 

It's OK for u to use any word, I will not feel unhappy. 

What is the explanation of thermal radiation? Can u give me?

9 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

That is not what the experimental evidence says.

If your model does not agree with the experimental observation then it is not because reality has made a mistake.

Experiments do not make mistake. People's explanation do.

I already said satellite model is a joke, and explained to you why it's joke. I think you can understand my words and agree me.

Another assertion is this:

Quantum model is not a joke, it's a very useful math tool. Its results are OK and used in scientific work everywhere.

But, its explanation is a joke too. I know the physical nature of quantum solution of H atom. I know it more than anyone else.

Quantum explanation is not physical nature of atom. My model is.

8 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

It may be browser dependent.

If I drag the mouse cursor across some text in an earlier post  a little box appears with "Quote this" in it.
Clicking on that box generates a quote for me in the reply box at the end of the thread and I can add my reply there.

It is hard to accept because:

(1) it contradicts experience- for example it wouldn't allow diamagnetic materials. and

(2) You have provided no evidence, or theoretical justification for it.

 

Unless there is a day in the future when you resolve those issues you are wrong. Your day will not come.

No contrary at all.

My model is easier and more precise  to explain the magnetism than quantum model.

and also to explain 1st kind of superconductivity

Give you an example, how to explain thermal radiation in current textbook?

It's 90% wrong.

We have wrongly explained a lot of things due to wrong atom model. 

7 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Weird, I'm using chrome; it works for me.

Failing that, use the "quote" link at the bottom of the post and edit what it says.
The forum will join together posts if nobody posts anything in between them.

I see a plus sign, which can be changed into MultiQuote. this may be the function.

I am not very familiar with this forum. just a newbie.

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

It may be browser dependent.

If I drag the mouse cursor across some text in an earlier post  a little box appears with "Quote this" in it.
Clicking on that box generates a quote for me in the reply box at the end of the thread and I can add my reply there.

It is hard to accept because:

(1) it contradicts experience- for example it wouldn't allow diamagnetic materials. and

(2) You have provided no evidence, or theoretical justification for it.

 

Unless there is a day in the future when you resolve those issues you are wrong. Your day will not come.

I see. thanks. I use chrome, can't do that.