Linear acceleration Vs angular acceleration

[dleviwing]

Lecture 1, pg 52 reference is made to the phenomena of radiation of an accelerated charged particle. This is a phenomena related to cyclotrons and is associated with angular momentum. This is why "LINEAR" accelerators are used. Acceleration equivalence due to gravity is "LINEAR". The remainder is an appropriate interpretation of spin-down or angular momentum radiation.

[baudrunner]

One could argue that even "LINEAR" acellerators do not provide inertial frames of reference since they exist in a dynamic environment, on the surface of a rotating sphere. A sensitive enough instrument should in theory be able to detect the sideways redshift of the radiation produced by acellerating charged particles because of it, although that's probably a pretty long shot were any practical attempt made to determine this. I think that what might be happening is that since there really is no such a thing as an inertial frame of reference, neither is an orbiting body's trajectory circular, or the earth's rotation uniform but rather influenced by precession which in turn acts on the dynamics of its gravity field, and that it is these and other factors such as the dynamics of a constantly changing gravity environment influenced by all the other bodies in our space that might be what in combination are causing the discrepency between predicted and observed data, in fact probably are. The fact is that we are dealing with extremes of velocity and distance, where fractions of an arc second translate into large differences when correlated with these two variables. That is why I see changes in ground position coordinates while I am sitting still while at the same time all those satellites are wizzing around the world really high above me providing me with my location information.

[nanuqq]

Lecture 1, pg 52 reference is made to the phenomena of radiation of an accelerated charged particle. This is a phenomena related to cyclotrons and is associated with angular momentum. This is why "LINEAR" accelerators are used. Acceleration equivalence due to gravity is "LINEAR". The remainder is an appropriate interpretation of spin-down or angular momentum radiation.

After reading the "Bremsstrahlung" article in wikipedia, I'd say that this is not quite correct. Accelerated particles emit radiation. In a Synchrotron it happens that the particle is constantly under heavy acceleration, to have its direction changed, and emits lots of it. This is, as you say, why linear accelerators are used.

[mkirkpatrick]

After reading the "Bremsstrahlung" article in wikipedia, I'd say that this is not quite correct. Accelerated particles emit radiation. In a Synchrotron it happens that the particle is constantly under heavy acceleration, to have its direction changed, and emits lots of it. This is, as you say, why linear accelerators are used.

What are you tring to say here!

kind regards michael.

[dleviwing]

After reading the "Bremsstrahlung" article in wikipedia, I'd say that this is not quite correct. Accelerated particles emit radiation.

Basically nanuqq, you are wrong. I suggest you review the design requirements of these accelerators for a better understanding before challenging those of us who have been in the field of applying the technology. There are however, propagations due to the motions of the Earth.

[nanuqq]

A charged particle undergoing an acceleration radiates photons. A ready example of this is when electrons moving back and forth in an antennae produce electromagnetic radiation, such as transmitted by radio stations.

[dleviwing]

nanuqq;
An antenna is not a particle accelerator. The behavior of electrons traveling within a conductor is far different than those traveling within a vacuum of an accelerator. As you stated "back and forth" is a change in the direction of the electrons and thus it is change of the direction of momentum that promotes propagation.

[baudrunner]

I would like to add for the benefit of both of you that linear and circular acellerators each have their own purpose related to the quantum thresholds of energy that they are engineered to produce. The SLAC at Stanford was originally designed to acellerate bunches of electrons and was one of the early acellerator designs, and has still contributed the bulk of the background data upon which subsequent designs are based. Since then, it has inspired the likes of FERMI, since it confirmed that quantum thresholds of energy produced certain effects that could be predicted from the energy requirement calculations. The budgets for these toys are horrendous, so they were pretty much designed on a step by step basis. In circular acellerators the collision happens on a straightaway for the sake of conformity of the particle package, which can be better alligned when passed through the linear portion of the toy.

[dleviwing]

If this website is an example of the premise of the book, then we are in from more intellectual gibberish attempting to give entity status to a term used to quantify motion. Enough is enough. I may take a look at the library's copy but I see no reason to think it will present any useful new information.

[baudrunner]

What book???

What the hell are you trying to say?

Are you new to the practice of sitting in front of a word processor with a botte of hootch at your side? If so, you've started in this game way too late and I suggest that you put the bottle down and do some serious thinking on more practical matters because we are not in any book related thread, neither is this particular discussion which you started, I may add, about anything other than the evolution of particle colliders, or, to the more feeble-minded of us, the merits of linear particle acellerators versus circular particle acellerators, which is a mundane thread starter at best.