https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmdp3jd8rig&t=1897s

This link is for the Bertozzi Experiment.

In the Bertozzi Experiment, the thermal calorimetry experiment was performed for relativistic electrons.

Well, I made a mistake in my derivation of Kinetic Energy. Observations, data is King... There is never BS.

If your ideas don't comply with observations, your ideas are wrong.

So, I still have to find out which mistake I committed in the derivation.

That said, the Absolute-Velocity-Force-Dependence is consistent with all observations. Relativistic particles have higher penetration (without an energy transfer) than non-relativistic particles.

So, my theory explains Anatoli Bugorski's Head Experiment. Relativity (by itself) doesn't.

That said, I will find the error in the derivation and retract the paper and claims of Classical Kinetic Energy.

Thanks

Preston Guynn

I calculated the beam's energy for a one-second exposure. I assumed one-second exposure.

Using Bremsstrahlung, adjusted for protons, total absorption would be within 10 cm (the length of the head).

The energy of the protons in the beam for 1 second is 46 kJ

You can double-check the calculation.

So... Relativity says nothing about changes in cross-sections for scattering and interaction. Because of that, Anatoli's survival is inconsistent with Relativity. He wouldn't survive if his head received 46 kJ of energy.

My theory, on the other hand, tells you that interaction decreases with absolute velocity. So, Anatoli's survival is consistent with my theory.

Even considering my error in the KE calculation, my theory still has something to say about absorption that disagrees with Relativity and observations support that.

References

This equation for the radiation length \( X_0 \) appears to be an empirical formula used in high-energy physics for approximating the mean distance over which high-energy particles (like electrons or photons) lose most of their energy via bremsstrahlung in a material. Its origin lies in the theoretical work on particle interactions with matter, particularly bremsstrahlung and pair production processes.

The specific form of this equation can be found in:

1. **Particle Physics Handbooks**: Such as the *Particle Data Group (PDG) reviews*, which consolidate empirical formulas used for radiation length in various materials.

2. **Classic Textbooks**: This type of equation is derived in works like:

- "Introduction to High Energy Physics" by Donald Perkins.

- "The Physics of Particle Detectors" by Claus Grupen.

- "Passage of Particles Through Matter" section in the *Particle Data Group Handbook*.

The constant \( 716.408 \) and adjustment of \( \ln(287/\sqrt{Z}) \) are empirical fits to experimental data for electrons in various materials and could be adapted slightly for other particles like protons. For a more specific reference, the original derivation and empirical adjustments for electrons are detailed in the *Review of Particle Physics* (RPP) by the PDG, updated annually.

Would you like help in finding a citation from one of these sources or linking this equation to the context of your specific use case?

The time is ok. You cannot place your head in front of a beam and take it off in less than a second or thereabouts.

I have already retracted this article. If the absorption were total, it would have been delivered 46 kJ.

The initial calculation was supposed to be correct (empirically correct). That said, I redid it with the Bethe-Block equation.

This is the n-iteration result:

https://chatgpt.com/share/673e244b-5f3c-8010-86ed-aa4269cf58d0

I summarize it for you.

It happens that applying Bethe-Block equation to this problem is difficult. After a lot of effort, it seems that the absorption is small (around 8.9 Joules).

That is consistent with his survival.

So, the accident doesn't require my prediction of lower interaction. The Bethe-Block equation is enough.

So, the accident doesn't challenge Relativistic Kinetic Energy nor require my theory. For that reason, I retracted the paper.

I was wrong, although I knew I could be wrong here.

Upon relaxing the condition of "thermal calorimetry measurement of relativistic kinetic energy using protons" to electrons, I was able to find the Bertozzi's Experiment.

That is a nail in the coffin. There is nothing to argue and I moved on and retracted the work.

I still went one more time to do Bethe-Block modeling and it yielded small absorption. That was the second nail...:)

I think this subject is very clear to me now...:)