Le Repteux

Hi Mordred, At Swansont's remark that my idea did not represent anything concrete till it had maths in it, I answered "exact"! It means that I understood exactly what he said, so why do you have the feeling that I did not get it? I am here for two reasons: first, I want to check if the idea is interesting at first sight, second, if it seems interesting, I hope to catch the interest of somebody who can throw some maths in it. It is not that I do not like maths or that I do not think they are usefull, it is because I think that it will go faster if I find someone to elaborate them instead of having to get back to school. Joining together is often more efficient than going alone. I can understand equations when I read them, but I am far from being able to elaborate them myself. Now if you mean that those small steps are not worth a penny, I will add your opinion to that of those who did not like the idea at first sight.

Exact: it only represents the time lap between the dots, what doppler effect needs to manifest itself. This animation does not show either what started the steps, or what could change them: it does not show the resistance to a change of the step's frequency that would occur if a push was given to such a system, what we feel when we apply a force on a body: mass. But these data that we have about atom's mass are one of the most concrete data that we can get from a measure, and they should be part of any simulation or calculation of the steps.

Hi Strange, I said that I had no maths to present, not that it would not be interesting to develop some. In fact, I am here to interest people to find some way of testing the small steps, because I did not find anything else than logic and using physical interaction and coping to observations to test them. From my point of view it seems to work, but this is only the first necessary step for testing a new idea. Of course, if everybody agrees that the idea is interesting, this would help, but that would not prove it is right. We know that light has physical properties, electromagnetic motors for example, and that the more it is intense and the more it is energetic, the more it is powerfull. The links between the atoms nucleusses, which we attribute to the sharing of electrons, must have an EM component. It is this component that is important to test, where it originates from is less important because, if the interaction is not instantaneous, there must be doppler effect. For instance, we might ask ourselves how nucleuses at rest can exchange light pulses without our observations being able to detect any, but the electron theory cannot really explain either why the electrons do not radiate when they are on a stable path. If the small steps are right, they may help to discover why, but for the sake of testing if these small steps work, it is less important.

Hi Swantson, Since it does not concern new observations, I think that my idea can be tested the same way heliocentrism was tested: by calculating a new model from the same data. If the new model is simpler, or if it explains more directly some observations, it might be usefull, otherwise it is superfluous. A computer simulation of the small steps using doppler effect as the only data could be a good start. What I did to make my animation was a kind of simulation, because I had to move the dots by hand one by one to simulate each step, but a real simulation would inform us a lot better of what is happening really, if it is really happening I mean.

Hi Hoola, I like the idea that atoms would feel the doppler effect the same way we fell things, and that they would respond to a difference in their habbits by resising to the change just as we do, their habbits being the direction and the length of their small steps, but I am afraid that physicists here might not agree with such an anthropocentric comparison, though psychologists might be. I have developped that idea a bit, and imagined some interesting stuff about our behaviors that I will discuss here as soon as the discussion about mass has arisen some interest. The main reason why the atoms do not feel the compression is because they do not see it from a distance like we do when we observe them at work in my animation. This is also the main difference between my approach and Einstein's one: Einstein was observing things at a distance, whereas I tried to observe them from their own point of view. You say that the effect is transmitted through the material, I agree, but that material is light, which makes it a special material. As a matter of fact, if every atom of the universe really adapts its steps to stay synchronised with any incoming light, then light might well be a universal reference frame for them all, and if it really is for them, we can make use of it too.

Hi Hoola, While trying to understand the principle of mass that I try to explain here, you must try to forget about the one you are used to. Those small steps between the atoms explain constant motion of the molecule they are part of, but there is no resistance to acceleration during the steps since that molcule is not accelerated. It is only when a change in speed or in direction happens to the molcule that the atoms resist acceleration, and they resist in the direction of the new push because the doppler effect concentrates in the direction of the motion. The compression of the distance that my animation shows during a constant motion is not seen by the atoms, all they see is doppler effect, and their steps are made simultaneously with the effect in such a way that there is no resistance to them, as if they could anticipate them. This is for the mass due to the interaction between the atoms which is weak compared to that of their nucleuses, so you might now ask how I explain this heavier mass, and my answer is: the same way, but with the interaction between their components, and considering that this interaction is much shorter, so is the wave lenght of the light they exchange, which gives these much smaller steps a much more important resistance to acceleration, thus a much more important mass, and adds a lot of precision to the steps between the atoms, because one of their steps is actually composed of the billions of smaller steps between their components, and this must be so because the mass of the atoms is mainly made out of the mass of their components. I hope I don't go too fast, but if it is the case, we can discuss the longer steps without the shorter ones.

Hi Captain, and thank's for reassuring me. The main reason for the second atom to move if a push is given to the molecule is that a molecule is supposed to move as a whole, but the reason why it does not move at once is that because the interaction cannot be instantaneous. Even when the link between the two atoms is considered to comme from electron sharing, the two nucleuses cannot move at the same time, and if this sharing is quantized, there must be some kind of doppler effect. I chose to illustrate my idea using light as a medium because it is easier to understand the doppler effect this way, but it also works with electrons. We can allready discuss the different forces that affect the atoms using the same principle if you wish, like gravity for instance, because it explains gravitationnal mass the same way it explains inertial mass, but I think we better make sure that the principle itself is not flawed before doing that.

Hi everybody! I was looking for a french scientific forum which would accept a speculative theory on mass and could not find any, so I decided to look for an english one, and there you were. Unfortunately, as my title points out, I have no maths to present, but still I hope that my point of view will interest some of you. Mass has always been considered by the scientific community as an intrinsic property of matter, except for Mach who considered that it was due to the interaction between bodies of the entire universe. What I figured out has ended close to Mach's ideas, but the kind of interaction that I propose explains the two properties of mass, motion and resisting to acceleration, whereas Mach's explains only resisting to acceleration, what is also called forces of inertia. Though it is intuitive to think that a push on a massive body will give it motion just because it is massive, what I imagined shows that such a principle might not be as natural as we thought it was. Motion exists, this is what we observe in all our experiments, and this is what Einstein tried to theorise while considering that our observations depended on the speed of light. If we need to consider the speed of the information in our observations, then the atoms had to be affected the same way he thought, and he tried to illustrate his thinking in his mental experiment with the mirrors in motion with regard to an observer. I had the same reasonning, except that instead of observing a motion at a distance, I tried to take the point of view of an atom while a tiny push was given to the molecule it was part of. Lets take a two atoms molecule and see what happens if it is accelerated and I am one of them. First, lets take for granted that I can see the other atom, and that if I can see it, it is because it emits light constantly in my direction, and that this light comes from its nucleus, whatever the way it is produced. Second, lets take for granted that I emit the same light, at the same frequencies and the same intensity, directly from my nucleus. Third, lets suppose that the two atoms can move independantly from one another to emit their light pulses exactly at the moment where they see the pulses of the other atom, so that because they are already at rest from one another, they can stay synchronized if they stand at the right distance, which means that this is the distance where they link together. Finally, let the other atom undergo a push directly in my direction and see what happens. As soon as it is pushed, the other atom will loose its synchronism with me, and it will thus resist to move, but since the push is strong enough, it will nevertheless have to move, so that as soon as the push is over, it will stop moving and try to get back to its previous position if it can. Because light is not instantaneous, I see nothing different at first, then for the same reason that we hear doppler effect in sound, I begin to see doppler effect in the incoming light pulses, so to stay synchronized, at each light pulse that I emit, I have to move a little bit away from these incomming light pulses, thus stretching them a bit, and I finally have to move the same distance away from the other atom than the distance it has moved towards me, though these two different moves do not happen at the same time. For the same reason, when I move away from the other atom, the light pulses that I emit bacwards to it will carry doppler effect, and this other atom will also have to move after me to stay synchronized with the incomming light pulses. If this atom did not have time to get back to its previous position before it had to move after me, in other words if it was pushed long enough, the doppler effect produced by this initial push will perpetuate endlessly between us, thus entertaining the constant motion of the molecule we are part of. Which means that we have here the two properties of mass, constant motion and resisting to acceleration, united in the same principle. Here is a small animation I made of the motion I am talking about. http://www.imabox.fr/a1/1330012244GUqjJs19.swf I hope that some of you will like this idea, so that I can get help to improve it. By the way, I am not used to write english and I would appreciate a corrector, but I cant find any. Is there a corrector on the forum?