I was wondering if the rotation of star alone would generate synchrotron radiation, since it is essentially a collection of plasma accelerating (traveling in a circle).
I can’t seem to find WHY ions moving in a helical motion produces a different type of radiation.
So, for electrons moving in vacuum in circles there is that phenomenon called synchrotron radiation. Which, theory says, is caused by the Abraham–Lorentz force or the "self-force". So the electrons lose their energy in a synchrotron because of it. But what about a superconducting coil? If the coil has a stable superconducting current, than there is the contradiction with the theory: electrons move with acceleration (in circles), but do not lose their energy because of the self-force! So there must be some kind of radiation and thus resistance in superconductors. Right?
So I read about the white dwarf pulsar in the Crab Nebula generating synchrotron radiation in the optical and infrared lighting up the expanding gas cloud.
First of all, I don’t understand synchrotron radiation. I read that it is generated when an electron travels in a circle in a magnetic field and radiation is given off in some manner. Can anyone explain this to me using undergraduate level physics?
And also while we are on the subject, where do the radiation jets come from in a pulsar? Is this the synchrotron radiation? I understand that the pulsar has strong magnetic fields but where does the EM radiation come from?
If I have a permanent magnet and a beam of electrons passing by it the electrons will be accelerated and thus emit radiation. This radiation obviously contains energy so some other part of the system must lose energy.
But the electrons are accelerated radially so they shouldn't lose any kinetic energy. Does it come from the magnet? If so, how? Would it get weaker over time?
The ions in the accretion disk move in a helical orbit around the disk and gradually lose rotational energy and get pulled into the black hole. So would it be possible for the ions to emit synchrotron radiation? They're moving in a helical orbit and losing energy which according to bremsstrahlung means synchrotron radiation should be produced.
Howdy folks,
I just learned a bit about synchotron radiation, but it doesn't make intuitive sense to me.
In a classical intuitive sense/conservation of energy-wise, it seems impossible for radiation to be thrown forwards from a charged particle. In the relativistic sense, the only way I can rationalize this is that the radiation is emitted backwards but the particle is catching up to it? But that doesn't quite add up either because both the radiation and particle are moving at similar speeds, and it doesn't explain why it makes sense that the radiation patterns are tilted forwards.
Here's the relevant page from Jackson. I understand how denominator (1 - \beta cos(\theta))^5 in Eq. 14.39 mathematically means that the radiation pattern tilts forwards a la Fig 14.4 when \beta --> 1. But where does that come from?
I've asked multiple people, and they've replied saying that it behaves that way because it's relativistic; but I'm not really comfortable with that because all the relativistic effects I've learned so far do have some sort of reasonable intuition behind them. I'd appreciate any discussion here!
Thanks!
An accelerating charged particle emits radiation, right? So do all rotating objects radiate? What is the approximate radiation power for say a 1kg 1m radius object for a given angular velocity?
So, I get that synchrotrons are used for diffraction. A lot. I also get that they're very bright x-ray sources. However, I don't understand the reason for using synchrotron radiation for x-ray diffraction experimentation over "typical" tube-type x-ray generation. I mean, in a theta/theta setup, there is still error resulting from rocking the sample and detector. Is the increased brightness really better than just running a super-slow powder scan?
Any enlightening links/information would be greatly appreciated...this has been bugging me for a while.
When a charged particle undergoes acceleration, it emits synchrotron radiation. It seems to stand to reason that a single quark would also exhibit this characteristic, so what about a neutron?
A neutron has no charge overall, but the three quarks that make up a neutron are all charged.
Pretty self explanatory. Was wondering if synchrotron and cyclotron radiation can be in all frequencies/wavelenghts e.g can it also be visible light, or is it always high energy radiation like gamma?
