sci.physics.research

Robert Clark wrote:
[snip]

> But shouldn't this distance be frame dependent? If the protons are
> aimed toward a nucleus but to be a longer distance away, shouldn't
> they regard the distance to be Lorentz contracted at sufficiently high
> velocity?
> If the proton beam say was aimed to skirt the outside of an atoms
> electron cloud at about 10^-10 m away from the nucleus, shouldn't a
> Lorentz contraction factor of 10^5 cause the protons to regard the
> distance to be within the 10^-15 distance to the nucleus at which the
> strong force is active?
[snip]

1) Lorentz contraction is external viewer perspective not a local
physical alteration. The wheels of a relativistic choo-choo are not
elliptical.

/Students/
The distorted cube

2) Lorentz contraction is the body coming right at your nose. A
grazing miss is Terrell rotation instead.

/abstract/PR/v116/i4/p1041_1
Lit. cite
/~cass/courses/m309-01a/cook/
/lunar/school/library/
/wiki/Terrell_rotation

3) At relativsitic velocities electric and magnetic fields swap
identities. You've got a lot more calculation to do.
--
Uncle Al
/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
/uncleal/ #a2