[guest49538]

Just that question. Why?

Of course that relativistic physics put a stop to this when velocity increases about 0.05 c, and Lorentz kicks off.

But, meanwhile, how come mass and energy of an electron is preserved while giving off energy continuously?

And what happens with electron accelerating toward almost "c" speed? Charge/Mass ratio is conserved?

Also, do you think that the electron charge will remain as a single unit or has undiscovered sub-components?

[evan_au]

relativistic physics put a stop to (slowly accelerated electron radiates energy) when velocity increases about 0.05 c,

No it doesn't - the reason that linear accelerators tend to be used for high-energy electron beams is that electrons radiate considerable amounts of energy when their path is bent in a circle.

Not that it is impossible - you can use a very large ring so the bending is very subtle...
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Electron%E2%80%93Positron_Collider

relativistic physics put a stop to (preserve charge) when velocity increases about 0.05 c,

The charge on an electron is the same before and after it passes through an accelerator.
I'm unsure why you would think it changes.
 

relativistic physics put a stop to (preserve mass&charge) when velocity increases about 0.05 c,

The mass of an electron is the same before and after it passes through an accelerator.
But I can understand why you would think it changes - there are two different things that people sometimes call "mass".
- As I understand it, modern physicists say that the real mass is the one you measure when the electron is stationary in your lab (before or after you accelerate it)
- The thing that we sometimes confuse with the mass is the relativistic mass, which you measure when the electron is stationary or moving relative to you. (If it is stationary, mass=relativistic mass.)

do you think that the electron charge will remain as a single unit or has undiscovered sub-components?

The charge on quarks is 1/3 or 2/3. But the rules seem to forbid non-integer charges being exposed at any energy that we can reach.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark#Electric_charge

[Colin2B]

To add to what @evan_au is saying:

Of course that relativistic physics put a stop to this when velocity increases about 0.05 c, and Lorentz kicks off.

Actually, Lorentz kicks off as soon as the electron starts moving. Not sure how it puts a stop to anything, unless I misunderstand your question.

But, meanwhile, how come mass and energy of an electron is preserved while giving off energy continuously?

In, say, a cyclotron, the electron is accelerating so energy is being input. Interestingly the radiated em has momentum which causes a recoil in the opposite direction and in case of a cyclotron gives a braking action.

[guest49538]

I was preparing an answer, but I dropped it. I give up.

I was talking about the 1897 Larmor's formula for radiating power (non-relativistic), which is P=2/3q^2.a^2.c^-3. Note: in cgs units.

This formula, modified for relativistic effects in a syncrotron or radius R is modified as:

                                         P = 1/6.q^2.v^4.Gamma^4.c^-3.R^-2.Pi^-1.Epsilon_0^-1
                                         Note: in SI units (MKS)

When I said "Lorentz kicks off" it's because for Beta < 0.05, Gamma is almost 1, not considering sixth decimal and lower decimals.

As I'm forced at this forum to post a topic as a question, it has a great impact on the way I have to "word" it.
Also, there are other drawbacks like:

1. If I post something that looks like an "assertion" and it's agains "stablished knowledge", it will be moved to
    other site at this forum (like "Strange ideas" or something similar).
2. When I post here, I'm not asking! I don't need to. I enhanced my universitary level knowledge by self-learning.
    I want to post here to debate something, as I can find easily any answer to any question by myself.
   But it's frustrating for me that the way I have to express my position (in terms of original doubts) open the door
   to explanations of which I'm previously aware (I don't mean to disrespect anyone's effort to reply my OP).

   I can't find the way to present a topic, so we can go to the core questions, like:

           - Why is it sustained that the electron is an elementary particle in the SMEP?
           - What is needed to break down the electron in more subparticles? More energy? More technology? Ideas?
           - How is the charge distributed on the 3D space that an electron occupy? Is it isotropic? Is it a function of
             the electron's velocity, as a theory that lasted 122 years suggest (Larmor)?
           - Etc., etc.,..

I've been reading the history of posts of relevant members, like you both, and I've found that the ratio of OP/answers is very low, so there is a trend to produce answers instead of create topics.

This is not my personality, as I'm not an opinionated person who enjoy talking about whatever. I'm focused on math
and physics by now, so I post at this section only. This is a problem, due to the low traffic of forists writing here, even when I can watch that this section is highly populated by "observers", but very few of them post OPs or answer.

I apologize you both for my inability to express myself correctly, specially because I'm far from mastering English, which is not my native tongue.

I'll revisite if I keep posting OP,  because I'm not able to express them as I'd wish.

Thanks very much for your efforts till now.

[guest49538]

I forgot the main issue at my OP:

1) How can be asserted that the mass and charge of an accelerated electron is preserved as fundamental quantities?

2) If I keep circulating a bunch of electrons at high speeds at a syncroton for an enormous amount of time (say 1 year), will mass and charge still be the same that when I started the experiment?

3) If this is so, does it means that the electron under an electromagnetic driving force that kept them going, absorb and emit equal quantities of energy, as a perfect quantum blackbody? IF TRUE, is this the fundamental reason by
which an electron (or any charged particle) can't break the speed of light?
Please, don't use the Lorentz argument. I invite you to think beyond that and relativity.

4) In cosmic electrons, where forces to produce acceleration are extraordinary (magnetic ones), is it possible that
the physics that we know today breaks down, changing the known values of mass and charge of these electrons?

That's the kind of debate I was looking for, without dogmas and with an open and scientific approach to unknown frontiers of our human science.

[Bored chemist]

How can be asserted that the mass and charge of an accelerated electron is preserved as fundamental quantities?

Because, if they weren't conserved things like the colours of emission lines from elements would change.

If I keep circulating a bunch of electrons at high speeds at a syncroton for an enormous amount of time (say 1 year), will mass and charge still be the same that when I started the experiment?

How could they not be?
More importantly,  any eletron you choose has a different history from the others round it.
So, if you measure the charge and mass, how come you get a single precise value not a range?

If this is so, does it means that the electron under an electromagnetic driving force that kept them going, absorb and emit equal quantities of energy, as a perfect quantum blackbody?

No they absorb and emit a very particular spectrum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation

In cosmic electrons, where forces to produce acceleration are extraordinary (magnetic ones), is it possible that
the physics that we know today breaks down, changing the known values of mass and charge of these electrons?

Again, why, when we measure the charge and mass, don't we see these "wrong " values?

[Colin2B]

As I'm forced at this forum to post a topic as a question, it has a great impact on the way I have to "word" it.

This forum is intended to support science questions raised by members of the public in response to the TNS podcasts https://www.thenakedscientists.com/podcasts/naked-scientists-podcast and articles.
These are usually straightforward science questions and we try to answer according to the level of understanding of the questioner; for example for someone of secondary school education we would provide a more basic answer than for someone of degree level. For complex questions we do our best to answer, but cannot guarantee to do so, it depends who is available and how much free time they have at that moment - some answers may require more explanation than we have time to give.

1. If I post something that looks like an "assertion" and it's agains "stablished knowledge", it will be moved to
   other site at this forum (like "Strange ideas" or something similar).

Our New Theories section is not intended as a strange ideas platform, but as a place where a wider discussion can take place, particularly speculation on what might be, rather than as currently accepted. Sometimes it does attract those who want to disprove for example, QM or relativity (2 popular targets), but many of the posters let themselves down by not understanding the topics in question and so making very basic errors.

2. When I post here, I'm not asking! I don't need to. I enhanced my universitary level knowledge by self-learning.

Then you really don’t need us at all. We are only here to answer questions.

[guest49538]

Quote from: rhertz on Today at 18:27:35

    How can be asserted that the mass and charge of an accelerated electron is preserved as fundamental quantities?

1) Because, if they weren't conserved things like the colours of emission lines from elements would change.
Quote from: rhertz on Today at 18:27:35

    If I keep circulating a bunch of electrons at high speeds at a syncroton for an enormous amount of time (say 1 year), will mass and charge still be the same that when I started the experiment?

2) How could they not be?
More importantly,  any eletron you choose has a different history from the others round it.
So, if you measure the charge and mass, how come you get a single precise value not a range?


Quote from: rhertz on Today at 18:27:35

    If this is so, does it means that the electron under an electromagnetic driving force that kept them going, absorb and emit equal quantities of energy, as a perfect quantum blackbody?

3) No they absorb and emit a very particular spectrum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation
Quote from: rhertz on Today at 18:27:35

    In cosmic electrons, where forces to produce acceleration are extraordinary (magnetic ones), is it possible that  the physics that we know today breaks down, changing the known values of mass and charge of these electrons?

4) Again, why, when we measure the charge and mass, don't we see these "wrong " values?

First at all, I've added to the post that you quoted the units system used. I made a mistake by not expliciting them, as there are difference in the formulae is cgs units are used (first equation) or SI MKS units are used (second equation, relativistic).

Regarding your answer 1) I am not writing about the original use with elliptic orbits of electrons around a nucleus, by which Larmor was trying to explain the Zeeman effect, observed one year before. Even when this was a quite advanced theory for the time being, it was proved later that the electron would lose all of its energy, spiraling down to the nucleus.

I'm talking about its use in large particle's accelerators, like the LHC, far from atomic distances. In such devices, the radiation has a broad spectrum from microwaves to X-Rays and this loss is a problem for physicists, unless they are specifically studying synchrotron's radiation (I wrote synchrotron with the "h" now).

So, in this scenario, there are not spectral lines of radiation but a broad spectrum, whose area gives the total power radiated.
Same thing applies with the use of Larmor's formula in astrophysics, where synchrotron phenomena was found many decades later.
My doubt still applies for long duration experiments, which I doubt were being carried (like 1 year of sustained measurements).

Regarding your answer 2), I don't understand it. I'm talking about average values, not individual values. And my doubts are originated by the fact that electrons (or any charged particle) is losing energy constantly while being accelerated. As per Larmor's formula, if acceleration ceases (a = 0), radiated power also ceases (P = 0).
If I have to accept the original Einstein's 1905 paper about dm = dE/c^2 then, after a while, the particle giving out power for a period T of time should lose an amount of mass dm = P.T = dE/c^2. It's Einstein who wrote that, not me.
Given a period T long enough, the mass would be depleted as it was being given away as radiant power (P=dE/dt).

This would happen unless, by unknown means, wasted energy per unit time is being given back through magnetic energy at the particle's accelerator.

Regarding your answer 3), I made a mistake by using black body analogy at an atomic level. This was wrong, but I was trying to describe a mechanism by which the energy radiated by  the accelerating electron is replenished by (in this case) the continuous presence of a magnetic field (which causes electrons to accelerate). As far as I could understand, there is not an exchange mechanism in terms of radiating energy coming out and going back at the electron. There are two different physical mechanisms for the energies involved.

Regarding your answer 4), when I mentioned cosmic electrons, I was talking about something that happens in the vast outer space and that is analyzed by astrophysicists. This is why I mentioned extraordinary amounts of energy that happens there, which are very far from being reproduced here at Earth.
In this case, I doubt that mass and charge can be measured for events billions of years light far away.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At any case, I thanks you for troubling answering me.
Let me say that IS NOT that I'm asserting that masses and charges of elementary particles have to change in extreme conditions. I'm just wondering if those values will be preserved everywhere, no matter what is done and for how long.

Still, the case of an accelerating electron that radiates power for a long period of time without any changes puzzles me. Which is the mechanism by which the electron regain the lost energy, under magnetic fields which accelerate them?

As simple as that are my doubts.

[evan_au]

1 year of sustained measurements

It's quite difficult to have the same bunch of particles circulating for a year.

Tiny amounts of air in the vacuum chamber scatter particles; some run into the walls, and even a short power failure will kill it.

In practise, the LHC takes about 8 hours to get particles up to maximum energy, and they start again after about 12 hours, as they have depleted the number of particles in the beam so that experimental rates drop.

the energy radiated by  the accelerating electron is replenished by (in this case) the continuous presence of a magnetic field (which causes electrons to accelerate).

In a particle accelerator, the increase in velocity is achieved by an electric field, which is arranged so that the particle thinks it is being attracted by a voltage of the opposite polarity.

Generating voltages more than a couple of million Volts causes problems with indoor lightning, so modern particle accelerators use microwaves, which continually switch polarity, so the voltage doesn't get so high. The accelerating particles are protected in a "drift tube" so it doesn't see the reverse polarity.

However, a magnetic field is used to bend the path of a charged particle. It doesn't increase the particle's speed, but does change its direction. And when you change the direction of a particle, you "accelerate" it: the direction is different. And because charged particles radiate energy when they are accelerated, the particle actually slows down.

So in a magnetic field, "accelerate" actually results in a reduction of speed.
That is why in a circular accelerator, straight lengths of microwave sections are connected by magnetic sections that bend the path into the next straight microwave section.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_accelerator#Linear_accelerators

[Kryptid]

- What is needed to break down the electron in more subparticles? More energy? More technology? Ideas?

We don't know if that's even possible. As best as experiments can tell, the electron is a fundamental particle without any substructure. The preon model proposes that electrons do contain smaller particles, but none have been detected yet.

[Bored chemist]

First at all, I've added to the post that you quoted the units system used.

It's good to know that you recognise that you were wrong.
None of my comments was particularly related to units.

I am not writing about the original use with elliptic orbits of electrons around a nucleus, by which Larmor was trying to explain the Zeeman effect,

That's good- because they never existed.
However, the point I made remains valid.
If there were electrons that had lost weight - whether that was because of weird acceleration, or a low fat diet- that change  would still affect the spectra of things.

Regarding your answer 2), I don't understand it.

Fair enough.
What am I meant to do about your lack of understanding?

loss is a problem for physicists,

Yes, but it's ****ing great for crystallographers.

when I mentioned cosmic electrons

The universe is pretty old. All electrons are "cosmic".