Look ma, no maths!

[Le Repteux]

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?

Edited June 6, 2014 by Le Repteux

[CaptainPanic]

Just a few comments:

 

Firstly, your English is near-Perfect, so don't worry about that.

Secondly, light is not emitted by the nucleus, but instead it is thought that it is absorbed when a photon kicks an electron into a higher orbit (or in the case of ionizing radiation, removed altogether), and light is emitted when that electron falls back to a lower orbit. That is why particular materials emit light at particular wavelengths. But I guess that for the sake of your argument, we just assume you can see the nucleus.

 

I am not sure why the 2nd atom would move as a result of the 1st atom receiving a push according to your idea? Generally it is thought that a number of forces are acting between atoms, and that depending on the distance between the atoms, different forces are dominant (and they can attract as well as repel).

 

Also, welcome to the forum.

[Le Repteux]

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.

[hoola]

I do see the "slinky effect" of pushing one atom and a delay of forces propagates throughout the material of the molecule...reacting from the direction of the push to cause movement of the whole...and that temporary compression of distance between atoms causing a resistance to the push, until a decompression point is reached, and then acceleration ceases and the mass will "coast" if allowed to. The same thing applies as it collides with another mass, the atoms are forced closer together in a temporary way, exerting inertia to the thing it is striking..the normal distances between the molecule's atoms seems to be the mechanism, and any temporary violation of the internal rules causes an attempt to re-establish these distances...according to the particular material's rule set. I can think of space in the same fashion, with the virtual particle pairs performing the same function, allowing the propagation of EMF and gravity waves through space...as the information that describes the fields change the information of the particles slightly, affecting the fleeting particles as they appear and disappear, by alterations of mathematics, which looks like a physical interaction on the macro scale...as say a photon travels through space. I can imagine that the virtual particles are constantly bombarded with fields of many types coming from all directions and that there is an upper limit on how much information can be transferred through a particular virtual pair set in their brief lives...even a kind of "swamping effect" in which, say an overwhelming gravity effect is dominant and reaches the "carrying capacity" of a particular virtual particle set, fixing the attendant math structures into a single mode of operations...this would keep the internal makeup in constant fixed position, and change would be minimized. Any reduction in change marks a reduction in time...so this could be why time slows as gravity of the black hole affects it's immediate region of space...this would also "screen out" other non-gravitational fields from having access to the inner mechanism of the pair, causing light to be dimmed from an outside observer...making the immediate region seem opaque to light, or other EMF waves in their attempt to transfer out of the black hole...

Edited June 6, 2014 by hoola

[Le Repteux]

I do see the "slinky effect" of pushing one atom and a delay of forces propagates throughout the material of the molecule...reacting from the direction of the push to cause movement of the whole...and that temporary compression of distance between atoms causing a resistance to the push, until a decompression point is reached, and then acceleration ceases and the mass will "coast" if allowed to....

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.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Le Repteux

[hoola]

brownian motion is within the object, however it is self-cancelling, offering no overall push. If another object runs into it, the doppler effect, as you term it, causes it to move, but you say the atoms don't "feel" it (the compression) , only the effect. But the effect is transmitted through the material, so it does feel it, or else it woudn't move in response to the stimuli...the doppler effect is one way of looking at the behaviour..however a mechanism must be contrived to do the "work" that shows this behaviour...I see that as the discription of the primary component strings changing each other's math descriptions just enough to describe a force algorithm that acts as a force....but still is only a description of a force...but that force is not described except by very particular rule sets that alter string math content. This content is altered by the physcial proximity of the adjacent strings. In my way of seeing things, all forces as well as materials are information based, so these strings of information are really everything...

Edited June 6, 2014 by hoola

[Le Repteux]

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.

[swansont]

How do you test/falsify your idea?

[Le Repteux]

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.

[hoola]

I meant materials "feel" them in a terribly un-anthroprocentic way...by the forces being carried throughout the material's strings...by violations of their preferred rest relationships...therefore describing new forces to exist within adjacent string components to the extent and the spatial direction the violation calculates to be. This additional "forced sharing" of information usually not present, codes for force. The light idea needs explaining as to how it could have such an effect on it's surroundings...although I agree light is a very special "material"...

Edited June 7, 2014 by hoola

[Strange]

Unfortunately, as my title points out, I have no maths to present

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.

Ho do you propose to do that with no maths?

[Le Repteux]

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.

 

 

The light idea needs explaining as to how it could have such an effect on it's surroundings...although I agree light is a very special "material"...

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.

Edited June 8, 2014 by Le Repteux

[swansont]

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.

 

 

All of which requires math. If your animation was done without calculation, you can make no claim that it represents anything concrete.

[Le Repteux]

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.

Edited June 8, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Mordred]

you don't seem to get it, any representation, whether its a graph, dots on a screen etc in order to be accurate inherently involves math. the last post is an example of one. In order to place any accuracy of doppler etc, the developer used mathematics in the first place, even to program such would require mathematics. If you choose to try and learn physics without the mathematics. You will fail plain and simple. If your trying to convince others your model is correct without mathematics

you will fail.

 

Its amazing how people cannot grasp the simple understanding that any relation regarding physics involves mathematics. I certainly will not pay any attention to any representation without the mathematical relations shown nor will any other physicist.

 

but hey if you wish to continue to foolishly limit yourself, don't expect others to do the same or take any credence in any of your ideas. However if you want to learn the mathematics then there is plenty of people here wiling to help you however you will need to learn the existing models and mathematics first. I for one do not help people develop a model unless they are wiling to understand the models already present. (unless they are willing to make the effort to learn the math and existing models it would be a waste of my time)

Edited June 8, 2014 by Mordred

[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.

[Mordred]

fair enough but you have to realize we have no way of knowing what level your math is at, you will have to help us, to help you by showing some math relations to your model, you can't expect us to translate your ideas by a verbal descriptive. Keep in mind doppler effects and measurements is highly tested. For that matter the doppler formulas aren't particularly complex for the situation between two particles. Part of the reason we stress do the math is that by doing it. You show you understand the basics and more often than not learning to do the math will often result in showing why a personal model is wrong to begin with. or at least help them understand why a model is described in the manner that it is.

 

its always best to understand what is in the box before you think outside the box

 

for example you mention doppler shift which type??

 

there is 3 forms of doppler type shifts in Cosmology applications

 

doppler shift is due to motion

gravitational redshift is due to particles climbing in and out of a gravity well

cosmological redshift is due to expansion.

 

each of these three has its own formulas.

I assume from your descriptive above that this is standard doppler shift

 

[latex]f=\frac{c+v_r}{c+v_s}f_o[/latex]

 

c=velocity of waves in a medium
Vr is the velocity measured by the source using the source’s own proper-time clock(positive if moving toward the source
vs is the velocity measured by the receiver using the source’s own proper-time clock(positive if moving away from the receiver)

 

this has the following relations

 

[latex]\frac{\Delta_f}{f} = \frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o} = \frac{v}{c}=\frac{E_o}{E}=\frac{hc}{\lambda_o} \frac{\lambda}{hc}[/latex]

 

now think of this in your terms of an atom delivering a push in my direction. First off a photon moving towards me shows a blueshift, so it is gaining in energy and frequency (from my view point)

now in order for that photon to push against me it must expend energy to do work. See the problem here ?

 

first off why would the photon interact with me prior to arrival?

secondly how do you propose to measure that loss of energy due to performing work?

thirdly what type of force interaction? gravity, strong nuclear? kinetic energy? friction?

at what range?

 

this is why we need to see your math in regards to your model too many questions are involved in a simple verbal explanation

Edited June 8, 2014 by Mordred

[Le Repteux]

I was not bad at maths, but it was a long time ago. I had one year in engineering before swithching to architecture, and I loved it. I can easily calculate doppler effect using the known formulation, but the small steps are not that easy to formulate, at least for me. Like each one of our own steps, those steps start at zero speed with regard to the other atom at rest, then accererate to a maximum speed, and finally decelerate back to zero. To be computed precisely, I think that they would have to be divided in smaller portions of equal frequency but different length to account for the acceleration. As a matter of fact, this is exactly what the components of those atoms would be required to do if they had to proceed with the same kind of steps between them. But doppler effect does not do the job at the place of the atoms, and if we want to know what happens when the system is accelerated from the outside, we have to add resistance to acceleration into the formulation, which means resistance to a change in the frequency of the steps, which has to stay the same while their length or their direction changes, otherwise the light that the two atoms emit would not keep its frequency. One way of doing this is by waiting for a new step to introduce a change, which would cause a small delay in the acceleration, thus explaining the resistance. I suppose that a good mathematician would already have a good idea of the whole formulation, but I do not.

[Mordred]

Ok one of the problems your having is that you need to understand how forces work. The other problem is that particles have both a wave like and particle like characteristics. In particles there are different forms of interactions. Electromagnetic, chromo-dynamics (color). flavor-dynamics. At the particle level gravity is minimal or near zero.

How these interactions occur is well described by the various quantum field theories. QCD, QED,QFD. Gravity in the same metrics is geometro-dynamics. not to mention QM and standard particle physics
There is numerous problems quantifying gravity at the particle level.

However I would recommend spending some time looking at the particle interactions in the fields I just mentioned.

for example take the case of a neutrino. The neutrino is weakly interactive. It can pass through a 1000 light years of lead without an interaction. Your model idea cannot account for this. However the known partice physics models can. Then the other problem is how your model treats relativistic particles, information cannot travel faster than the speed of light, neither can particles. The forces are mediated from particle to particle via bosons, and the gluon.

 

Photons are the force carriers of the electromagnetic field.
W and Z bosons are the force carriers which mediate the weak force.
Gluons are the fundamental force carriers underlying the strong force.
Higg's Bosons give other particles mass via the Higg's mechanism. Their existence was confirmed by CERN on 14 March 2013

 

so here is the question how is the force to move the particle in your animation applied in the relativistic case? none of these force carriers can move faster than the speed of light neither can the information of momentum be transferred from one particle to another faster then the speed of light. nor can any wave function (hint in the electromagnetic case this is easy ) however your animation has interactions that this isn't the case. (you have particles stopping and starting in a slinky effect) how is the forces being translated when the particles are stopping and starting? how does the lead particle drag the lag particle then you have the lag particle deflect the lead particle.) this type of interaction would be difficult to describe even at the classical sense say using billiard balls

"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."

 

now take what I stated and apply newtons 3 laws of motion to it, you should at least remember enough of the maths for that easy step

 

or if you prefer look over this visual tour of classical electromagnetism, then think of the field lines in your scenario

http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/guidedtour/Tour.htm#_Toc27302306

Edited June 9, 2014 by Mordred

[Le Repteux]

for example take the case of a neutrino. The neutrino is weakly interactive. It can pass through a 1000 light years of lead without an interaction. Your model idea cannot account for this.

My model suggests that the mass of the neutrino comes from the interaction between its components, it says nothing about its interaction with other particles except that any particle resists to change its trajectory when it encounters another one.

Then the other problem is how your model treats relativistic particles, information cannot travel faster than the speed of light, neither can particles. The forces are mediated from particle to particle via bosons, and the gluon.

An interesting deduction from my model is that the small steps cannot overcome the speed of their interaction, which is the speed of light. To keep its frequency constant, a step that increases in length also inceases in speed, and if the maximum speed attained during its acceleration approaches the speed of light, its resistance to further acceleration in the same direction will increase too. In other words, the relativistic effect on the mass of the system will be caused by an internal mechanism, no need for an external reference frame to explain it, thus no need for an external reference frame to explain length contraction and time dilation either.

(you have particles stopping and starting in a slinky effect) how is the forces being translated when the particles are stopping and starting? how does the lead particle drag the lag particle then you have the lag particle deflect the lead particle

I do not know if you noticed this particularity, but once its light has been emitted by one of the two atoms, it becomes independant of its motion, so that this atom can change the direction or the length of its steps while its light pulses travels at a constant pace towards the other atom. To simplify the study, the two atoms of my animation do not rotate one around the other, but they could, and light would then produce a transverse force on their steps because of the aberration effect, this force being delayed as is the force issued from doppler effect because of the time that light takes to go from one atom to the other.

now take what I stated and apply newtons 3 laws of motion to it, you should at least remember enough of the maths for that easy step

The small steps between the two atoms already take into account Newton's laws: they go in strait line and resist to their acceleration, they integrate the forces from all direction at a time, and they react to a similar system of atoms the same way the action/reaction principle works. But we cannot use those laws to calculate the steps because what we need to know is about doppler effect explaining mass. We need a way to formulate small steps composing longer ones, and a way to formulate smaller light pulses composing longer ones, both of them being affected differently by the doppler effect produced at a different time by those different steps. I wonder if a specific simulation software would not be the best way to solve our problem!

Edited June 9, 2014 by Le Repteux

[swansont]

My model suggests that the mass of the neutrino comes from the interaction between its components, it says nothing about the interaction with other particles except that any particle resists to change its trajectory when it encounters another one.

Is there any evidence that the neutrino has an internal structure?

 

An interesting deduction from my model is that the small steps cannot overcome the speed of their interaction, which is the speed of light. To keep its frequency constant, a step that increases in length also inceases in speed, and if the maximum speed attained during its acceleration approaches the speed of light, its resistance to further acceleration in the same direction will increase too. In other words, the relativistic effect on the mass of the system will be caused by an internal mechanism, no need for an external reference frame to explain it, thus no need for an external reference frame to explain length contraction and time dilation either.

How does a system know when it's moving or at rest? What internal mechanism is present in muons and also in atoms that can sense this motion?

 

Why is the earth the reference for this motion? All of the time dilation we observe is relative to the earth, but does not account for the orbital motion of the earth or the solar system. How is that possible? How does this mechanism allow atoms to know that they are traveling east or west?

[Mordred]

 

 

, this force being delayed as is the force issued from doppler effect because of the time that light takes to go from one atom to the other.

The small steps between the two atoms already take into account Newton's laws:

 

doppler effect explaining mass. We need a way to formulate small steps composing longer ones, and a way to formulate smaller light pulses composing longer ones, both of them being affected differently by the doppler effect produced at a different time by those different steps. I wonder if a specific simulation software would not be the best way to solve our problem!

Doppler effect is not a force

 

now to be more clear here which mass are you referring to?

 

inertial mass measures an object's resistance to changes in velocity m=F/a. (the object's acceleration)

Active gravitational mass measures the gravitational force exerted by an object.

Passive gravitational mass measures the gravitational force experienced by an object in a known gravitational field.

Mass-Energy measures the total amount of energy contained within a body, using E=mc²

[Le Repteux]

Hi Mordred, I missed your edition:

now think of this in your terms of an atom delivering a push in my direction. First off a photon moving towards me shows a blueshift, so it is gaining in energy and frequency (from my view point) now in order for that photon to push against me it must expend energy to do work. See the problem here?

As long as this photon can justify the molecular energy that links the two atoms, I do not see the problem. Since the photon is more energetic than needed, the atom will accelerate away to lower its energy, thats all. It is the same kind of step that produced doppler effect on that photon, the only difference being that one of the atoms has to catch time, whereas the other has to lose some.

 

first off, why would the photon interact with me prior to arrival?

It interacts because it has to maintain the molecular link.

secondly how do you propose to measure that loss of energy due to performing work?

There is no energy loss since the work that produces the doppler effect is the same as the one that produces the steps.

 

thirdly what type of force interaction? gravity, strong nuclear? kinetic energy? friction? at what range?

The same type as the one that links the atoms together inside a molecule: EM force between an electron and its nucleus.

Is there any evidence that the neutrino has an internal structure?

This is close to a philosophical question. My answer is that, if the small steps are real, then any particle should have components to justify its mass, which means that, according to the steps, there will always be a smaller particle. Since its seems that neutrinos have a mass, they thus need components to justify it.

 

How does a system know when it's moving or at rest? What internal mechanism is present in muons and also in atoms that can sense this motion?

I explained yesterday how small steps would account for relativity if it is what preoccupies you, but if it is their philosophical part that you question, then my answer is that the atoms do not have to know more than us about their inertial motion to interact together, they only have to take doppler effect for granted. I said that I preferred to wait before introducing the gravity part of the small steps, and this is what is in cause in your question again, so I will give you a hint: since atoms can react to doppler effect, they can react to cosmic doppler effect too, though in a much weaker way because that light is much weaker, so if I elaborate a bit, in the same way that they produce simultaneously the doppler effect that induces their step, they also produce the cosmic doppler effect while they simultaneously try to nullify it with their steps.

 

Why is the earth the reference for this motion? All of the time dilation we observe is relative to the earth, but does not account for the orbital motion of the earth or the solar system. How is that possible? How does this mechanism allow atoms to know that they are traveling east or west?

Doppler effect between them in a molecule produces their inertial motion, and cosmic doppler effect from all around them produces simultaneously all their gravitationnal motions. But if a body can rotate around itself, aberration appears and affects the motion the same way doppler effect does, which is the case for gaseous molecules, for plasma, and of course for stellar and galactic systems.

Doppler effect is not a force

No, but light is.

 

now to be more clear here which mass are you referring to?

Inertial mass to begin with, and if we succed with formulating the maths for those small steps, then it might help us to study their relativist or their gravitationnal effect.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Le Repteux

[swansont]

It interacts because it has to maintain the molecular link.

 

I think the point was that you seem to have the photon interacting before it arrives. How is that possible?

 

This is close to a philosophical question. My answer is that, if the small steps are real, then any particle should have components to justify its mass, which means that, according to the steps, there will always be a smaller particle. Since its seems that neutrinos have a mass, they thus need components to justify it.

That would be a "no", then? But this is a prediction?

 

I explained yesterday how small steps would account for relativity if it is what preoccupies you, but if it is their philosophical part that you question, then my answer is that the atoms do not have to know more than us about their inertial motion to interact together, they only have to take doppler effect for granted. I said that I preferred to wait before introducing the gravity part of the small steps, and this is what is in cause in your question again, so I will give you a hint: since atoms can react to doppler effect, they can react to cosmic doppler effect too, though in a much weaker way because that light is much weaker, so if I elaborate a bit, in the same way that they produce simultaneously the doppler effect that induces their step, they also produce the cosmic doppler effect while they simultaneously try to nullify it with their steps.

No need to invoke gravity at all — this is purely a kinematic, inertial frame issue at the moment. You made a statement claiming that relativity is due to an internal mechanism. How does this internal mechanism keep track of the observer's motion? Different observers will note a different amount of time dilation. If it's due to an internal mechanism, how can I get more than one answer?

 

[Mordred]

Ok the photon is the mediator for the electromagnetic force. Swansort already asked the question how is this mediated prior to its arrival.

 

as far as neutrino mass is concerned, we do have a reason as to why the neutrino gains mass, its called the Higg's boson/field. We have found the Higg's boson so it is now part of our standard model.

 

Swansort also asked the questions in regards to Doppler and relativity effects. How do you intend to explain the observer issues involved and those that he mentioned?