neuvophysics.com

 

 

 

A G-THEORY ANALYSIS OF SYNCHROTRON, FEL and XFEL MECHANICS and their lack of support for the theory of relativity.

 

 

 

FUNDAMENTAL NOTE

 

Almost everything in physics is described by mathematics and the math is never seen to be the cause of any phenomena. Why then is it that when it comes to relativity then suddenly the math becomes the agent of cause rather than being similarly seen as just the describer.

The Synchrotron is hailed as being a proof of relativity. It is a good support for the validity of the relativistic mathematical model but it doesn't prove that relativity -of any stripe- is an actual force effect in the universe. To do so is acting in violation of the laws of physics as well as common sense.

It may be no proof but I wish to make it well known from the outset that G-theory particle physics theory PREDICTS ALL THE EXTRANEOUS AND EMITTED PARTICLES OBSERVED during the operation of a synchrotron. Relativity can predict nothing.

 

 

ASSERTATION

 

That the G-theory model of the mechanics of synchrotron light generation and alteration is a viable fact fitting model which still allows for the relativistic mathematical treatment it is so eminently given. There is little doubt that the Lorentzian mathematics is correct.

 

 

This following analysis is in no small way attributable to the observance by others of inverse Compton scattering dynamics that occurs in the superluminal flares of black holes. These flares have been shown to emit electron synchrotron typical radiation along their whole length, as was first observed in the flare of M87. High energy physicists should note well, that it is profoundly significant for G-theory that NO hard x-ray emission is noticed from these flares.

Firstly we need to revisit some components of G-theory. In the first instance we need to understand that any sub boson particle thought to have velocity in the eos is conditionally able to be considered as stationary. If you have been able to subjectively accept Einstein's relativity you should have no problem accepting this true cosmean relativity. Also to be noted is the impossibility for q-g plasma (baryons) to form ions or even a single nucleon in a synchrotron which is operating in a low GD or GSe (Earth's gravity). There is no quantum loop to be had.

It is likely that the P mass of sub particles is able to be considered as dimensionally subjugated perturbative mass. In such a situation it must be expected to still be a conditional component of N mass and therefore also conditionally subject to F=ma. In addition to that it remains a contention of this theory that such mass may therefore be perturbatively affected by velocity related GTDv, such that we may truly state that it is impossible for any object or particle at or above the generational level of quarks to travel faster than 'c' in the known universe. However, light photons themselves are not similarly constrained by anything other than dimensional constraints. Note: gravitons being causative of GTD are also exempt. Trions (neutrino-leptons) have no typical mass whether produced either directly or by perturbation other than the fundamental biracial attractive force resonance. In that way a trion has a notional p-mass that's removable by it's transference into the eos as BBR whereupon it is able to travel with instantaneous motion without inertia according to universe state restricted cosmean law. This is all occurring under balanced system symmetry statistics; the only true M-E equivalence. At the level of a bound trion biracial pair (gluon) this is no longer the case so SBF is not directly transferable as SBE which is also not able to be considered as being equivalent to missing mass. Note also: A single trion existing in the eos also remains in its own biracial dimension and is unlikely to ever be reunited as a greater particle again.

Having previously studied the most likely mechanical construct of electrons according to the G-theory quantum model we can easily see that if we spin them up to near the speed of light around a small circle, which doesn't take much energy or time because of their insignificant mass, they will likely fly apart at critical and various points within the parameters of the non stable but adjustable dynamics inside a synchrotron, and it is likely to be this same effect which occurs by cosmo-universal laws in black hole flares.

This is because the electron's theorized component quarks (actually false baryons in an electron) which would be considered to only have an infinitesimal magnetic dipole moment would be far more affected by the centripetal force rather than the synchrotron's magnetic field -because of their P/N mass facilitated inertia. The opposite is the case for the magnetic dipole of the electron which is of course very much more attracted to the synchrotron's magnetic field.

So we now have the situation whereby the magnetic dipole of the electron is being constrained -after betatron etc emission- to the bending ring magnetic field while the 'false baryon' part is being far more violently affected by inertia at the chosen wiggler frequency because it is already straining to depart tangentially at the most fortuitous opportunity. The electron is being torn apart. Note: Synchrotrons split the electron! Unfortunately I can't see any possibility for a chain reaction or power generation from this. It would appear that the efficiency is less than unity.

We can consider from an analysis of the theorized but fact fitting electron particle structure earlier in this chapter (G-theory thesis), that when such centripetal force occurs -and especially when encouraged by extra inertial force in wigglers- the electron will at some point be likely to fly apart (annihilate/decay) and throw off its baryonic matter part  (i.e. q-g plasma) -almost tangentially- now at close to the speed of light. This has strong similarity to the q-g plasma that has also been observed emanating from black holes along magnetically modulated flare lines. Note: Hard x-rays from black hole flares would not be expected to be observed unless perhaps the flare had been pointing in the direction of earth at a relevant time in the past.

In the case of the synchrotron; this highly energized q-g plasma begins to strive for parity (cool) at an extremely rapid rate and in both cases photons of all descriptions are emitted because of the now lower Sp of this lesser baryonic particle (not geometrically triune) which -I theorize- forms another definable particle.

Whoops I almost forgot: The remaining electron dipole would be then likely to come apart (decay) and -according to the G-theory model- form non magnetic gamma particles which exit the scene ditto. These are well noted as Bremmstrahlung radiation but are prevented from causing damage by the necessary shielding. Note: Even according to current theories, gamma particles are known to be decay products of electrons and they are a recognized hazard while a synchrotron is in operation. This phenomenon offers very strong support for this G-theory assertation. Otherwise how the hell an indivisible lepton -as the electron- is able to shed gamma particles is beyond me!

It should be well noted -with raised eyebrows- that under current understanding, Klystrons (as well as microwaves) are also thought to destroy electrons as well as emit beams of baryons. In both cases the baryons are still able to be magnetically manipulated because when the baryon comes apart from the electron its magnetic 'spin' moment remains the same as the electron it was derived from*. I.e. h/2. It is however a regrettable yet understandable mistake for scientists to inadvertently assume that in the case of the synchrotron they are now dealing with an electron beam line instead. In synch with that conclusion then please explain how point source--- like-charge particles are able to remain in a focused beam without any coulombic divergence even though not being magnetically focused. This phenomenon is especially problematic for a FEL (free electron laser). However that is over come by the utilization of electron bunches in entanglement.

No answer? Moving on: It should be a self evident fact that photons are NOT able to be affected by undulators and according to G-theory (and compounding the problematic case for any supposed electron beam mechanics) electrons (proper) are hereby proposed -according to the facts- to be unable to emit photons. Therefore even though you are assuming high energy hypervelocity electrons to be on the move here, the prevalent contemporary quantum physics explanation of this phenomenon is hereby considered to be specious because of the proofs being offered.

However strangely enough in G-theory the electron's baryon decay products are able to be so affected and they would now also be capable of emitting photons because of the strong likelihood that they have been almost instantaneously reformed back into pseudo-quark lattices -with an attaching gluon reconstituted by Bremmstrahlung gamma quantum from the left over W and not W bosons under the energetic conditions they are encountering- and they would then have incrementally gained Sp* -which legally forces the emission as photons- by absorbing many of the gamma particles as well as other 'energy' (read particles) from the bending ring's power source. This is the positive side of a proposed but 'limited quantum loop'. This is what physicists have been searching for.

*There must be enough time before reconstitution occurs for the spun off ' plasma ' to exit the scene before regaining a magnetic dipole.

Also refer to the relevant chapter. Ref.(Sp) Specific sub fermion particle density.

 

If you take a look at the G-theory diagram of the electron you should notice that the new baryonic pseudo-quark particles would still maintain the same e-1 charge as well as a quark lattice type 'tier' magnetic dipole and –apart from their mass- they would then falsely appear to any detector to be true electrons. However because they are now a completely different baryonic entity I have already referred to them as negatrons in the thesis. Note: Not to be confused with either a 'particle transformer' or some not herein proposed antiparticle of a positron. Neither are they beta particles or -ve muons even though in the standard theory they would be a type of lepton. They would not however be thought to be common except from the flares of black holes. Their decay statistics is unknown.

Once the beam of negatrons passes down a beamline through an undulator the (relatively)** centimeter scale undulation frequency causes a modulation of the shape of the emission velocity geometry of photons being emitted by the negatrons at that particular juncture of motion*** -all according to the standard undulator equation for constructive interference, and because the eos doesn't know or care (in general) whether the emitting negatrons are moving or not, it always causes emission of photons to the photos at URF 'c' by cosmological law ('c' constancy). This causes a false but notionally relativistic affect with which we are mathematically and subjectively familiar, but in this case NEITHER WAVE NOR RELATIVISTIC THEORY (INCLUDING LORENTZ CONTRACTION) IS REQUIRED to be the objective reality****. Only the eos relatable pseudo-relativistic phenomenon is, and because of that it would be the contention of G-theory that the emitted light photons are being emitted from the negatron reference frame at c-< v where < v is the varying vector velocity of the negatrons relative to 'c' in order to keep the photon's constant velocity in the universal reference frame ---not the Earth/synchrotron reference frame but close enough. This undulation will also cause the further energizing of the negatrons -that gain energy by force causing motion as power drawn from the undulator coils- resulting in higher energy photon emissions relative to the electromagnetically controlled spatial position of the negatrons within the beam.

If we analyse this we should imagine that -with a variously energized/focused undulator- we should be able to manipulate the statistical variation of the behavior of those particles and vary the proportionality of the energy of the photon emissions. It actually turns out that the undulator is a veritable creator of patterning and not just a vehicle of frequency change as is thought.* The frequency is a direct result of the energy inserted at any given point in the undulator relative to constructive interference etc. In G-theory this becomes interference of energy -particle emission as photons- and not light waves. The former is proposed to be a sub quantum effect.

*The Russians in particular have created a wide array of startling patterns with synchrotron beams.

 

Note 1: Refer also to the subject of G-theory BBR emission and reception mechanics to consider that the negatrons are -should be- extremely receptive to the universal BBR field whereby the electromagnetic force of the undulator also results in the reception of BBR particles into the negatrons, thus increasing their energy. THIS IS A WORKABLE AND SUBSTANTIVE PHENOMENOLOGY Where is the upholding of the second law of thermodynamics in the relativistic solution?

Note 2: When particle separation like this occurs there is no fission type of energy release because there is no empirically required Sp solution, as when nucleons are involved and whole neutrons and relatively massive lumps of matter are ejected which then energize more fission.

Note 3: Apart from the G-theory mechanics of photon emission from nucleons where 'c' is a universal reference frame constant and the photon frequency is dis-related from the emission speed, and if we are to believe that electrons emit light then we should ask ourselves why light is NEVER shown to be emitted from an electron beam in a vacuum even at one tenth of the speed of light? Surely there should be some at that elevated energy level!? Or show me the PEP level at which an electron will emit a photon. I'll belt one with a positron and get you a couple of gamma particles--- but where are the positrons here? No answer?

Note 4: Applied relativity and G-theory are two opposing conceptualisms. G-theory aligns with historical intuitive thought while relativity is based on reverse logic which appears to require intellectual dexterity and mathematical acumen and that replaces actual proof. I would like to point out that I have presented a comprehensive theory in about thirteen hundred pages that billons of pages of relativity espousing explanations have been unable to achieve. Where is Occam's razor!?

*The reformation into a negatron caused the slightly delayed realignment of the Q-L quark magnetic moments in order to recreate the g-factor magnetic moment of h/2. This is very similar to the moment of an electron as well as a single quark, and that is also the vector resultant of the triune quark lattice. In the normal electron’s baryon-component-linear-construct state, the individual psuedo-quark moments almost cancel out and the electron derives the bulk of its magnetic dipole moment from the two biracial-magneton-particle monopoles (gamma---anti-gamma) which configuration can only form a dipole when unified in the linear geometric state by a gluon. N.B: It must also be clarified that a negatron is VM dimensionally shifted so it now has no ability to affect or ever re-absorb photons. In that case all of the emitted photons are deemed to be volatile which goes a long way to explaining the intensity of the light produced. In any normal case the left over negatrons would be quickly absorbed by the nearest protons but in this case they are being constrained to beamlines--- Initially and continuously by inertia and also by dynamic electromagnetic fields.

**Not relativistically. Also not requiring significant (any) focusing because of the imbalanced arrangement of the biracial quark charges that constitute the -1 coulombic charge of a negatron.

***The negatron is able to be magnetically undulated because of the weaker quark magnetic dipoles in the negatron baryon. According to G-theory; photons always travel at URF 'c' (non relativistically) but because the emission velocity then has variable dependence on the velocity of the emitting source the emission spectra will be varied accordingly.

****In fact what we see purported in the relativistic explanation is a non cohomologous postulation that can't be unified with physics. If light is an emr then it already operates according to the emr tensor statistics. If the electrons moving at 'relativistic' speeds supposedly cause the emission of different frequency light by variations of the undulator frequency--- In that case we have a number of problems most of which I will address in the relevant assertation. Here I will just address this relativistic problem. Note: Collimization is not any evidence of relativity!

Here is the problem: Mathematics is once again required to be the magical provider of the energy -in violation of the second law which requires energy of the system to be utilized- which is inherent in the supposition that the Lorentz contraction causes a frequency change to a HIGHER energy wave function which is not thereby energy relative (equal) to the energy transferred by the lower energy undulator wave function! So here we go being expected to believe that mathematics can create energy from nothing. Be aware, God's name is not spelt M-a-t-h! Or is it a supposition that relativity causes it but it somehow draws the energy from the undulator. More magic! I suppose you believe in charge-matter and energy-matter too! How about magnetic matter, and gravity matter and oh it doesn't matter. LMOA!

This philosophical drive towards the acceptance in physics of 'energetic action from fictitious forces' and fictitious matter is indicative of the philosophical thrust which is driving quantum physics in a similar direction in search of the Higg's boson -which in and of itself is a valuable project. Apart from an ostensible program to find the cause of mass and tie gravity to quantum physics (which by the way: 1/ I have already done and 2/I prove in the following paragraphs respectively), the scientists are looking to prove that mass is made of energy and if they can find a theorized boson that can draw other energy particles together to accrue mass and complete the quantum loop at least back to back to form a hadron, they will then have provided strong support for the idea that the universe was able to be auto-created. Note: magical or miraculous causes are able to be held as beliefs but only if they don't trample the known physics underfoot.  

By contrast once again; G-theory provides a substantive mechanics which relates to the math. This new theory promises to provide a clash of the titans in that even though G-theory states that matter is made from nothing except energy relatable to biracial force at the level of the gluon, the fundamental difference is that G-theory contends that the biracial force is cosmean in nature; that the Higg's boson will never be discovered as anything more than a glorified gluon and that the quantum loop is not able to be completed to create a nucleon in this universe by any phenomenology.

Once a nucleon is decayed it can never be reconstituted and I have already explained where the extraneous matter ends up. Nucleons as praetoms were only ever formed in the cosmea. G-theory contends that intelligent design from outside the universe is the cause of origins while other scientists are busting their buns and burning through tons of cash to not only try and prove (but even cause) matter creation by the universe itself. They are already behind the eight ball because they even confuse matter with mass and mass with energy!

While they are thoroughly involved in chasing down a fools errand, the true science is lying here ready to be picked up and run with, and perhaps for the benefit of mankind rather than to chance on some philosophical agenda-ists pipe dream. Get over it! God might indeed be necessary: So what?

The other problems are practical and are related to the currently postulated phenomenology in ways you will notice.

 

When the electron was destroyed (annihilated) in the ring line the instantaneously realized magnetic state of the released baryon was almost zero*. Thus it was then able to be tangentially emitted by inertia without undergoing any further magnetic affects even though Q-L reformation and reformation of a magnetic dipole was likely to be almost instantaneous but by then our forming negatron had escaped. The newly reconnected lattice's magnetic dipole was by then too far way to become re-attracted to the bending magnets but happily enough it was now in a state that allowed the newly formed negatron to be affectable by undulators.

*Except for a vector summed quark dipole relationship.

 

So we are now able to conclude that it is NOT electrons which are being tangentially emitted in order to be relativistically beamed towards the targets. Better still, they are now no longer speciously required to have their light emission frequency be affected by the magnets of the undulators by some sort of magic. Otherwise we would have to imagine that if electrons were to be the emitters of light in the real world then they would be expected to vibrate at the different relative frequencies of every photon (wave) frequency that they are thought to emit there as well. Note: electron beams are not otherwise known to emit light in a vacuum! Also do the electrons transform themselves into light by an unknown process?

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

It turns out then that it is most likely to not be an electron but rather a negatron that's being undulated and/or wiggled and the externally induced magnetic resonance affects the quantum Sp states and the consequential emission frequency and by extension the 'wavelength' of the emitted x-ray or other frequency photons.

By G-theory the light frequency shifts are caused by DOPPLER shifts because the emission speed of the light relative to the moving electron reference frame is now much-much slower than 'c' ---and the speed and motion of the negatrons is being affected in a wavelike (or other) manner but this is not the basis of the mechanics of light emission. The energy is not being derived by the mathematics it all comes from the synchrotron itself as kinetic energy of linear and vibrational field motion. This all initially raises the temperature of the negatrons which causes an 'Sp resolution' effect* which in turn requires quantum stepped photon emission should there be cooling or increased energy input.

*ctrl click here--- http://neuvophysics.com/index.php?p=1_70

 

Now the photon frequencies are as normally expected at the temperatures realized but because the emission velocity is much slower in order to keep the speed of the beamed light at 'c' then by consequence we see a frequency elevation to higher frequencies. This results in a higher photonic energy state which is mostly emitted with an absolute highest vector resolution -also via constructive interference- being from the very center of the front of the beam. Note: This is only consistent with a sine wave undulation.

That's observational relativity derived from non relativistic URF 'c' constancy. Light is emitted all around but it is collimized because of the velocity and as well as that; light which is say emitted in the reverse direction will likely be in the lower infrared range while light emitted during the undulations peaks will cause variable vector related emissions to the target in the uv to visible range on a more or less even basis. The actual energy usage of synchrotrons is well known! You can't have it both ways. It's either math or physics. Math doesn't require any energy from any damn system- Feh! ---but physics? Well--- go figure ---is it to be math or physics?

Back from the digression: If all the photons were being magically relativistically beamed then you wouldn't notice any un-beamed Bremsstrahlung radiation (which is definitely an observed hazard) and this comes as a matter of profound significance: Such radiation is arguably not predictable by relativistic beaming theory but it is totally predictable by G-theory. Note: It is highly likely that solar flares consist of magnetically contorted q-g plasma which somewhat regenerates as negatrons (partial quantum loop). In all the dynamics just analyzed it is noticeable that it takes very few electrons to annihilate in the manner theorized to form a lot of emitted photonic energy. Such energy is rate amplified and utilized in (so called) free electron lasers as well. The FEL or XFEL phenomenology is different. In that case electrons are indeed travelling but they become undulated in a linear fashion and they come apart and emit their gamma particles according to the same statistics being analyzed here but this time the gammas are being beam lined ahead and mistakenly referred to as hard x-rays. Regulations regarding gamma rays are probably tighter than those for x-rays LOL*. The fact that high gamma peaks of B radiation occur at bunch compressors and which attenuate by inverse law -and not inverse square law as expected- is significant data for this interpretation.

*The real reason will be explored in the following section.

Synchrotron (betatron actually) radiation noticed from ion beam channels may also be caused by such negatron plasma being perturbativly vibrated by high energy electrons which negatively perturb their own wiggling affect onto the plasma, and once again relativity is no longer required as an explanation. Even though the relativistic math is eminently useful for the purposes, it is single minded and any proposed effectiveness is illegally magical and it can never lead to any real phenomenological mechanics for anything in the universe.

The reason that the light is formed into any kind of (torchlight like) beam is problematic for relativistic theory. I can think of no possible reason under the current relativistic theory of the phenomenology whereby all the emitted light in every direction is able to be declared to always be traveling at the currently accepted emission speed of 'c' in the same direction, so some normal light should be seen going in all directions or at the very least in a less than forty five degree cone of observation.

Under the auspices of G-theory we have room for an explanation: Collimization is explainable without too many mental contortions -or relativistic manipulation of both emission speed and doppler effect which all seems to be a long hand way of looking at things. Not to mention illegal--- Occam would be having a fit!

 

 

EXPLANATION 1a

 

The light which has been emitted in the reverse direction may also have been Doppler shifted down into sub infrared frequencies of undetectability. Light emitting to the side in front of an approximately 45 degree cone will be absorbed and generalized within the undulator. Most of the light is vector beamed to the front due to the e.m control of the negatron's spatial displacement behavior. Bremsstrahlung radiation at high frequencies going in all directions is an acceptable result by G-theory but not by the Lorentzian contraction theory of light. That's not possible! Light itself doesn't emit itself, and it's only the 'electrons' being emitted in a beam and not light!

Now we come to the most difficult part of the analysis which was touched on in the previous paragraphs. How can G-man really explain the noted beaming of the light in the forward direction?

 

 

EXPLANATION 1b

 

The light being emitted in the forward direction is being Doppler shifted vectorally with the higher Doppler shifts occurring closer to the line of forward travel. That's where you would expect to find a band width of x-rays. Yes at the very center with vuv radiation around it. This is exactly what is observed.

The undulator allows a modification of this vector emission and the frequency cone can be manipulated in many geometric ways -even to providing patterns at the target. This of course includes decelerating and re-accelerating the negatrons because the undulator is able to be configured as a linac.

What happens to these negatrons? I don't know but it is likely that they become absorbed by nucleons -especially protons- which would probably cause a more significant temperature rise in the target. Ask yourself: What happens to any number of conceivable particles flying around out there? Ditto! The more important question is: What affects are the negatrons themselves having on your experiments that you may be unwittingly attributing to light waves? This then begs the question: Are negatrons a quantum tool that can be utilized in any positive scientific manner? Also What happens to the electrons in the traditional argument?

Another question could relate to a muon: A -muon also has a net negative 1 charge yet strangely enough it is not detectable as being an electron; why is that? Answer: A muon is supposedly a lepton which doesn't act like an electron when it strikes an electron detector. In fact it has an anomalous magnetic dipole moment and it is so dimensionally shifted that like a neutrino, it would be likely to go right through the detector. Note: A muon can hold a couple of hydrogen protons together for a short duration. NB Here: If the negatrons are able to fuse hydrogen at the end of the beam line. We still have no fusion energy source but it could be a tool!

Relativists have another problem to answer: You have declared that the centimeter wave of the undulator causes the electron to produce a light wave which (because of the resultant of the magnetic undulation of its (electron's) velocity trajectory) at almost 'c' is relativistically translated by Lorentzian contraction up to x-ray frequencies. If that's the case it would have to also be postulated that the 'electrons' begin to emit light (visible even duh!) from the moment they leave the bending ring, as well as when passing by wigglers and just before the undulators; THEN BECAUSE THOSE EMISSIONS MUST ALSO BE CONSIDERED TO BE SUBJECT TO THE LORENTZIAN CONTRACTION*, PLEASE EXPLAIN: WHY DON'T THEY RELATIVISTICALLY TRANSFORM THEIR VISIBLE LIGHT UP INTO X-RAY FREQUENCIES AS WELL? AFTER ALL; AREN'T THOSE ELECTRONS ALSO TRAVELING AT AROUND 'c' AT EMISSION?  SO WHY IS THE LIGHT -THEY 'SHOULD BE EMITTING' IN THE FORWARD DIRECTION- EXEMPT FROM RELATIVITY UNTIL THEY REACH THE UNDULATOR WHERE IT IS THEN PURPORTED TO BE THE LIGHT-EMISSION-MODULATING GIGAHERTZ-UNDULATOR-FREQUENCY WHICH IS THE WAVE THAT'S BEING RELATIVISTICALLY UP-SHIFTED AND NOT THE LIGHT FREQUENCY PER SE!?**

The problem is that your undulators are supposedly causing the electrons to vibrate in a sinusoidal manner which somehow changes the emission frequency of the light in the forward direction (tangentally) so it can be relativistically up shifted? However relativity must begin back at the wiggler point of tangential emission at close to 'c', so the frequency*** must also be relativistically related to the light velocity and we are forced to recognize a zero sum game. Explaining that another way: The time contraction applies to both the electron velocity and the light frequency. How can you logically divorce the two from the common relativistic effects without any arbitrary sleight of hand?

How is the centimeter wave even able to be reverse modulating the light supposedly being emitted from electrons -traveling at almost the same speed-non relativistically? This would be like a carrier wave being of a lower frequency than the modulating wave in the radio sense, or the 'rf' bucket filling frequency being less than the bucket frequency in the synchrotron case. In any case the forward linear velocity of the electrons would be slowed if anything because vibrational forces are not able to cause an increase in linear velocity. However visa versa is OK and any change of linear motion to vibrational (or angular) will result in energy gain which of course will cause emission of particles -due to the laws of thermodynamics and the law of energy conservation- in this case photons.

The standard explanation of synchrotron mechanics appears to simply be a case of arbitrary subservience to an ad hoc theory. It's more than that. It is proposed to be the standout proof of Lorentzian and perhaps S-relativity.

*The Lorentzian contraction of light waves being emitted from moving emission sources was only subjectively applied to high velocity light emitting particles in the first instance because Lorentz knew nothing about undulators! So in that case it must be reasonable to suggest that the Lorentzian contraction theory has been disproved by synchrotron phenomenology, so Lorentzian relativity is now unable to be reasonably considered to be the real or additional cause of the observed frequency up-shift.

**This is not a relativistic problem per se, rather a phenomenological one.

***Light can't ever be emitted at gigahertz frequencies!

 

With similar regard to both the Lorentzian and the G-theory case, we should consider that another theory often put forward, to wit; that light is able to be emitted from moving emission sources without seeing a change in its observed frequency is absolutely debunked! The synchrotron disproves it by empirical observation as hard data. The fact is, that Doppler shifts are able to be observed from moving emission objects whether they are deemed to be relativistically up-shifted or not.

G-theory commits to never defying the results of such experiments; it simply provides a more reasonable force and particle phenomenological approach as a way of explaining the observations. I trust by now that it may be convincingly concluded that both the theories of relativity as well as wave theory are only mathematical describers which are quite inept subjective beliefs being replaced by real substantive mechanics eminently presented in G-theory. I.e. Deep reality physics.

G-theory is the only one which allows the possibility of URF 'c' constancy as well as Doppler shifts because of variations in emission velocity from the reference frame of the emitting/re-emitting (reflecting) object because the emission frequency also changes with proportionality to the velocity. The Doppler shifts are only noticeable from the external reference frame. That is proven science.

I think there's a fair degree of unmitigated gall, in that scientists are often noticeably guilty of willingly discounting unfavorable facts and observations from any and all of the physics, including those facts that are raised in their own experiments. Such blatant oversights they are all too often apt to engage in. This is not to underestimate their penchant for blithely switching from one non unifyable theory of relativity to another whenever it suits their fancy as well. I must consider such laxity to be purposeful, because these scientists are far from stupid.

I know: The old wine bottles are too large and plentiful in the cellar for any rational consideration of throwing them out and procuring new ones for the pouring in of new wine. Perhaps the old adage 'You have made your bed, so lie in it,' is painfully appropriate, and if that dictum should rule the day then science may be unable to advance much further. The mathematical models are not causative!

I won't accept that science has gone past the 'point of no return' because the journey of scientific discovery is endless. I predict that at some stage in history a consensus will in the end be forced to 'bite the bullet'! Look it's almost high noon and the stage is rolling into Dodge. Why not catch it?

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

Please draw your own.

 

 

 

 

MORE CREATIVE EXPLANATIONS and fact avoidance with the FEL; in particular the XFEL. Refer here. CAVEAT--- possible new and unexplored science and technology.

 

Now a free electron laser (FEL) emits x-rays also. Unfortunately those x-rays relating to an XFEL are quite different and they are really in the gamma frequency range. Unfortunately for the standard theory; gamma waves are only produced upon electron decay or electron positron annihilation. So to be able to accept the normal lasing of photons phenomenology the trick here is to utilize a sleight of hand by simply calling the gamma rays--- x-rays! Indeed they must be if they are to be produced coherently by free electrons. Oh how we can fool ourselves by interpretive agendas. G-theory however allows -no predicts- the existence of the ultra short wavelength gammas.

Of course the operation of the FEL is dutifully described by the faithful as operating by way of new relativistic affects. Although how the following is relativistic must depend on which cheek you have your tongue in.

Here is the first new relativistic affect--- "Free electron laser collective instability." Wow with a name like that it must be relativistic!! This is somehow caused by the magical self organization of electrons in a relativistic beam. My; that's news. At what speed does a beam become relativistic? I must ask that because I have proof herein that high energy electrons travel in discrete packets and that's not referring to electron bunch compression in X-FELs.

There are so many interesting explanations and theories surrounding all the problematic discoveries being made with FELs that everyone seems to be trying to outdo each other in the fanciful explanations stakes. Inventions of novel and unsupported phenomenologies abound. However; check out the following rather dubious explanation.

"---the relativistic contraction factor is inversely proportional to the square of its energy."

You are being played folks! That’s because the Lorentz contraction doesn't predict that behaviour. It's not relativistic at all.

 

So of course it is once again incumbent upon me to offer the answer from G-theory.

 

A bunch of hyper-speed electrons is passed through an undulator. The electrons are already near their maximum kinetic energy. In the prior analysis of the synchrotron we saw how they flew apart around the bending magnets with the gammas being emitted spuriously to the side with resulting hyper-speed negatron being carried tangentially forward.

This time however rather than being confined to the bending magnets of the synchrotron the electrons are being sent down a linear beam path and are forced to travel a sinusoidal path in the centimeter range by an undulator.

Once again we can imagine or -calculate if you like- the inertial force being realized. The negatron part now leaves the scene tangentially straight ahead. Or if the undulator power is adjusted down a bit then the -ve negatrons will emit at some angle and the gammas will leave straight ahead. I haven't driven one of these but I would predict that the undulator power would have to be experimented with to get thing working at all.

So if we keep the undulator power there at the prime value and we control the power of the beam to proportionally control the gamma energies; or as they put it shorten the wavelength we can get realizable and variable gamma radiation and focused in a beamline to boot.

The principle method including photon emission statistics at first appears to be similar to the synchrotron above. I.e. an XFEL is just a more refined and controllable HIGH POWER DEATH RAY GUN.

OK It's a bit big to carry around but you get the idea.

However the results are surprisingly not the same. The same electrons are being beamed in but the result through the undulator is different. What is going on? If that's not enough; the wildly different and -unachieveable with synchrotron electrons*- stimulated emission of x-ray radiation is the next problem to be explained and I'm not avoiding it like you all thought. An XFEL can emit short bursts of coherent stimulated photons.

*This is strong evidence for G-theory. The negative particles being beamed by a synchrotron are different than the negative particles from a FEL; yet they are supposed to be electrons both!

 

Before we analyse any of this we first need to appeal to physics law and discover some likely statistical limits.

There will be a limit to the frequency of the gammas.

There will be a limit to the intensity of the gammas.

Not all electrons will be involved in the process, and some gammas may cause spurious matter change effects even in the electrons and negatrons.

This may cause anomalous power input calculations especially at the bunch compressors where the gamma radiation actually begins at lower frequencies and coherence is not really expected.

The bunched electrons are gradually accelerated into an ever increasing amplitude waveform over several meters of undulator length and steps. When the tuning- beam power v undulator energy- is right they will eventually reach the point of particle annihilation and subsequent negatron and gamma emission. Note: This is fact fitting and totally non-relativistic.

Statistically this will occur at exactly the same point in the undulator for every electron which becomes physically separated AT THE REQUIRED ENERGY LEVEL TO CAUSE THE SUPPOSED STIMULATION OF RADIATION. This is not similar to the stimulation of photonic radiation. Therefore -rather than occurring by any atomic geometrics which applies to photons- the emission statistics in this case is expected to be according to the particle entanglement and momentum geometrics and the final results would require fine tuning by new and refined processes. Here we have new science in its infancy.

Any energy level under or in excess of requirements would likely result in nil or spurious gamma radiation. Therefore -even when operating successfully- I would predict spurious gamma peaks in two locations. That is at the bunch compressors and around the undulator.

Let's check that here. OK we get peaks in the vicinity of the bunch compressors as expected. How about at the undulator itself? I couldn't find any data on that but I still predict it and fully expect that to be the case. I am confident in that because this theory hasn't let me down yet. Note: Photo neutrons are to be expected.

Now the electron bunch length is pretty much determined by the RF bucket filling statistics. And that determines the pulse length of the correlated beam. A significant duration of pulse length will be required to cause the necessary interaction between all the electrons in the bunch. This will cause many of them to act in unison and simultaneously fly apart over a series of undulator steps. This behaviour is conditionally 'packet entanglement' with the result being very similar on this small scale to toggling type behaviour we see in the larger scale classical physics. Even here in the undulator we have a very small energy window of opportunity which will allow this XFEL to work at all.

The undulators control the frequencies of the gammas. On the other hand we are able to adjust their energy by adjusting the energy of the beam.

This predicates -in G-theory- that the frequency/energy state of gammas is unrelated to any variations in their particulate n state so their energy is mostly kinetic. Gammas therefore are not photons or x-rays which are n state quantifiable; -and they don't operate under any G statistics or PEP so they are not fermions but purely bosonic. This declaration is required to fit with the rest of the theory. I have shown that it does but that's really for you to judge.

In any case this difference in negative particle species is also the reason why there is a well known overlap in x-ray and gamma wavelengths. The difference between the two is in their derivation and even though this is a known fact. That fact is what is being purposefully avoided in the sneakily convenient labeling of these gammas as x-rays. OMG when will they ever drop the relativity bundle?

 

 

CONCLUSIONS:

 

Synchrotrons fire x-rays and FELs -including XFELS- beam gammas. Neither synchrotrons nor XFELs provide any evidence of relativity. In fact the contraction data doesn't support the relativistic predictions and there are those pesky laws of physics to contend with.

Rather than run away from the gammas why not embrace this as a remarkable new technology. This is the world's first gamma accelerator. Then why not embrace checking G-theory out?

 

 

FUNDAMENTAL NOTE:

 

In Laser wake-field acceleration: Again that's probably not electrons being beamed at 'c'. In any case please tell me how a wake field is able to exist under Lorentzian relativity--- hypervelocity particles yes. The whole idea was to remove such field wakes from hyper velocity particles in the first place. G-theory predicts wakes of extremely short length. Much less than that expected at 'c'. However G-theory allows the motion of particles but not 'field wakes' per se. Also the 'observed' -ve 1 particles are not necessarily electrons.

 

 

 

 

neuvophysics.com