Look ma, no maths!

[Le Repteux]

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

Oh! You meant when I said that it was as if an atom could prewiew a light pulse I suppose. I was saying that to explain that there was no resistance within the steps because they represented an inertial motion. In fact, I do not think that the steps can accelerate without spending energy, but since they have to decelerate right after, I suppose that they would reabsorb the energy that they spent while accelerating. It is the first time that someone forces me to look that precisely at the steps, so my answer is improvised, but it seems logical to me, is it for you?

 

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

I was not looking at it this way, in fact, I do not like the word prediction because one of its meaning is that you poped something out of a hat by magic, but if you insist...

 

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?

I said that there had to be relativistic effects in the steps between the two atoms because light was concerned, but I also said that I was taking the point of view of one of the two atoms involved, which meant that the observers were no more humans, but atoms, and for them, a step is not an internal mechanism when they look at the other atom, it is internal only when they look at what is happening to the steps between their own components. If you take the point of view of their molecule though, you have to account for gravity, and this is why I did so, because we know that molecules do not proceed with small steps between them except maybe when they propagate a physical wave, and because we know that they are affected by gravity.

 

Edited June 10, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Mordred]

there was another reason I mentioned neutrinos, your trying to define the mass of the neutrino from the photon which is an electromagnetic interaction. However the neutrino does not interact with the electromagnetic force.

[swansont]

I was not looking at it this way, in fact, I do not like the word prediction because one of its meaning is that you poped something out of a hat by magic, but if you insist...

 

This being a science discussion site I think you'll find that any definition that invokes magic is one that does not apply to the conversation. One hallmark of science, and the reason you need mathematical models, is that you need to make specific predictions that you can test. Neutrinos being composite particles is a prediction, though without the detail of a model would not distinguish itself from any other model that requires it to be a composite particle. One advantage of a specific prediction is one could then look for specific signatures of the breakup of a neutrino.

 

 

I said that there had to be relativistic effects in the steps between the two atoms because light was concerned, but I also said that I was taking the point of view of one of the two atoms involved, which meant that the observers were no more humans, but atoms, and for them, a step is not an internal mechanism when they look at the other atom, it is internal only when they look at what is happening to the steps between their own components. If you take the point of view of their molecule though, you have to account for gravity, and this is why I did so, because we know that molecules do not proceed with small steps between them except maybe when they propagate a physical wave, and because we know that they are affected by gravity.

 

Another advantage of having math is (to borrow an explanation I read on SFN recently) that moving the goalposts is a lot harder. This sounds like an enormous hand-wave, "nothing to see behind the curtain" but the problem is you have to show what's behind the curtain, which means specifics. And I already said we can consider situations where gravity can be ignored, which is almost always anyway.

[Le Repteux]

there was another reason I mentioned neutrinos, your trying to define the mass of the neutrino from the photon which is an electromagnetic interaction. However the neutrino does not interact with the electromagnetic force.

No, but if neutrinos have components that interact by means of quantised energy, then there must be doppler effect between them, which means that they might obey to the principle of the small steps.

 

This being a science discussion site I think you'll find that any definition that invokes magic is one that does not apply to the conversation. One hallmark of science, and the reason you need mathematical models, is that you need to make specific predictions that you can test. Neutrinos being composite particles is a prediction, though without the detail of a model would not distinguish itself from any other model that requires it to be a composite particle. One advantage of a specific prediction is one could then look for specific signatures of the breakup of a neutrino.

The problem of the components will never be solved since, when a new particle is found, you cannot tell if it has some or not until you can break it. It is almost a philosophic question.

 

Another advantage of having math is (to borrow an explanation I read on SFN recently) that moving the goalposts is a lot harder. This sounds like an enormous hand-wave, "nothing to see behind the curtain" but the problem is you have to show what's behind the curtain, which means specifics.

To my opinion, the small steps do no change the goalposts at all: there is no new physical law involved, no new particle, no new energy, the only thing hidden behind the curtain are the steps, because we cannot see them, at least for the moment. Discovering that they are real would thus not change the things we know, but it might change the way we look at things, for instance the way we look at our brain, which is an interacting body too, and which visibly resists to change while evolving at a constant pace, but this is a different subject.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Le Repteux

[swansont]

No, but if neutrinos have components that interact by means of quantised energy, then there must be doppler effect between them, which means that they might obey to the principle of the small steps.

"by means of quantized energy" is a nonsensical expression. Do you mean their internal states are quantized? What interaction is taking place?

 

More important would be to discuss the ramifications of what we expect to see, but that's only possible if you have a model.

 

The problem of the components will never be solved since, when a new particle is found, you cannot tell if it has some or not until you can break it. It is almost a philosophic question.

 

To my opinion, the small steps do no change the goalposts at all: there is no new physical law involved, no new particle, no new energy, the only thing hidden behind the curtain are the steps, because we cannot see them, at least for the moment. Discovering that they work would thus not change the things we know, but it might change the way we look at things, for instance the way we look at our brain, which is an interacting body too, and which visibly resists to change while evolving at a constant pace, but this is a different subject.

 

I don't understand what your "steps" are. But if we can;t see them, or the effect of them, then the idea is not testable, so discussion is moot until you can falsify it.

[Mordred]

No, but if neutrinos have components that interact by means of quantised energy, then there must be doppler effect between them, which means that they might obey to the principle of the small steps.

 

irrelevant all forms of measurable Doppler effect is via the electromagnetic spectrum of sound and light. All forms of measurable Doppler effects is observer dependent. The neutrino does not interact with any form of the electromagnetic spectrum nor does it interact with the strong force it operates primarily with the weak force. The weak force is 10,000 times weaker than the electromagnetic force, around 10^-18 meters.

 

"Neutrinos do not carry electric charge, which means that they are not affected by the electromagnetic forces that act on charged particles such as electrons and protons. Neutrinos are affected only by the weak sub-atomic force, of much shorter range than electromagnetism, which is relatively weak on the subatomic scale. Therefore a typical neutrino passes through normal matter unimpeded."

 

to be honest I have no idea how they can measure the weak force, I'm not a particle physicists, I've merely studied 13 related textbooks on the subject lol. However I seriously doubt you can use Doppler effect at least not at the individual particle level we can measure its effects on nuclear decay but that is not the same as measuring the weak force itself

Edited June 11, 2014 by Mordred

[Le Repteux]

"by means of quantized energy" is a nonsensical expression. Do you mean their internal states are quantized?

Yes, if neutrinos have components, then these components have their own components, and their smaller steps will produce the quantized light (or energy) pulses that the neutrino's components need to stay linked.

 

More important would be to discuss the ramifications of what we expect to see, but that's only possible if you have a model.

The only model I have for the moment is my hand simulation, and my main argument is that it explains mass and motion at the same time, so the only thing that we can do now, besides interesting someone to make the calculations, is try to imagine how the doppler effect could produce the steps, and imagine how a push could change them.

 

I don't understand what your "steps" are. But if we can't see them, or the effect of them, then the idea is not testable, so discussion is moot until you can falsify it.

We are in the situation of Copernic thinking that heliocentrism was interesting but having only concentric circles to show. We need a Kepler to beleive he was right and to do some more precise calculations, and then a Galileo to make more precise observations with new instruments. He saw more stars, Jupiter's satellites, phases of Venus, spots on a rotating sun, mountains on the moon, all these observations telling him that the sky was not more perfect than the earth. But how come don't I feel the earth's motion, he told himself, and he imagined relativity and inertia, and scientific method. At first, this heliocentric stuff was only a difference in the point of view, but it took a long time before it was accepted. The small steps are also issued from such a small difference, but they might take the same time to be accepted even if they are real. What could have been done to accelerate heliocentrism's acceptation? Probably nothing.

[Mordred]

the problem is the neutrino is an elementary or fundamental particle by definition it has no components. fundamental particles do not even have quarks and gluons in their makeup.

"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."

 

above from OP

 

ok lets look at the simulation you had

 

the 3 laws of inertia is as follows

 

First law: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force.
Second law: F = ma. The vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object.
Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.

 

now lets start with 2 particles at rest. in your simulation first stage.

 

particle a= left particle particle b=right particle.

 

now f=ma.

 

particle b moves x distance then stops (why did it stop what force stopped it?

particle b moves x distance then stops same question. (from the above you have some synchronism connection between the two) the problem is your basing this synchronism connection on the electromagnetic force.

 

problem 1) not all particles interact with the electromagnetic force

problem 2) a particles individual inertia does not depend on who observes it. the particle doesn't give a whoot who observes or measures it.

problem 3) how would you add Heisenburg's uncertainty principle to this problem?

problem 4) lets say there is a connection between the two particles based on observation. wouldn't both particles observe each other at the same time? in that case both particles would move toward each other at the same time.

problem 5) in the case of photons already moving moving at light speed, how could the rear particle possibly see the lead particle?

problem 6) why would these particles move at relativistic speeds if they have the added delay of communicaton between them, by the very nature of communication delay of information (information cannot move faster than light speed) these particles would have no choice but be slower than light speed.

problem 7) particle A exerts a force, on particle b but that same force is exerted on particle a so particle a will also move (see third law)

problem 8) what is the delay time to go from full stop to the particles max velocity? or the delay time to stop?( cannot be instant)

 

 

particle a tells particle b to move,(sychronized) but when it moves x distance tells it to stop (loss of synchronization) so this equals communication distance 2D where d equals x distance of particle movement. the information would have to travel 2d distance to communicate the needed information with max speed of light this means these particles would travel at maximum 1/3 the speed of light roughly (changing the step size will not change this problem)

 

oh wait I forgot the time needed to relay a loss of synchronization information, well you get the idea (I hope) after all the first particle will keep moving until told it detects a loss of synchronization

 

see what happens when you apply a little physics and actually think of the math?

from an earlier post you wanted to examine this by baby steps, well wish granted I just covered one combined step of movement, (in very simple mathematics I might add)

Edited June 11, 2014 by Mordred

[Le Repteux]

particle b moves x distance then stops (why did it stop what force stopped it?)

It accelerates to nullify doppler effect, and it slows down for the same reason. If it comes to a stop, it is because particle a was at rest when it began mooving.

 

particle b moves x distance then stops same question.

I will guess that you are talking of particle a this time. So, particle a does the same thing as particle b, it acts to nullify doppler effect, and if it comes to a stop, it is because particle b came to a stop before.

 

problem 1) not all particles interact with the electromagnetic force

No, but as I said, any constant interaction should produce doppler effect if it is not instantaneous.

 

problem 2) a particles individual inertia does not depend on who observes it. the particle doesn't give a whoot who observes or measures it.

This is exactly what the small steps mean: the inertia of a particle is given by the light itself, not by the other particle. Once it has emitted its light, the other particle can desappear and the light it had already emitted will do the job nevertheless. It is the same for gravity: a planet can desappear and its gravity will continue to act on other planets untill there is no more action comming in.

 

problem 3) how would you add Heisenburg's uncertainty principle to this problem?

This is an interesting one: I think that this principle does not apply to a particle as seen from other particles, because I think that particles are able to exchange their own information better than we can extirp it from them. On the other hand, I cannot see how they could overcome any resistance to a change in their steps without the hasard being involved somehow, which might explain some of the uncertainty we observe.

 

problem 4) lets say there is a connection between the two particles based on observation. wouldn't both particles observe each other at the same time? in that case both particles would move toward each other at the same time.

Yes they both simultaneously see the other, but if one of them moves, it sees doppler effect immediately, whereas the other does not.

 

problem 5) in the case of photons already moving moving at light speed, how could the rear particle possibly see the lead particle?

The same way we see a moving light source departing from us: doppler effect on its light pulses.

 

problem 6) why would these particles move at relativistic speeds if they have the added delay of communicaton between them, by the very nature of communication delay of information (information cannot move faster than light speed) these particles would have no choice but be slower than light speed.

Exact! This is why I said that they would face mass increase if we tried to accelerate them close to the speed of light, which is the case for the energy needed to accelerate particles when they reach their peak.

 

problem 7) particle a exerts a force on particle b, but that same force is exerted on particle a, so particle a will also move (see third law)

I do not get that one, can you elaborate a bit.

 

problem 8) what is the delay time to go from full stop to the particles max velocity? or the delay time to stop?( cannot be instant)

For the atoms, I think that this delay should be half the energy of their molecular link transformed in frequency, but for their components, it should be much shorter.

 

particle a tells particle b to move,(sychronized) but when it moves x distance tells it to stop (loss of synchronization) so this equals communication distance 2d where d equals x distance of particle movement. The information would have to travel 2d distance to communicate the needed information with max speed of light, this means these particles would travel at maximum 1/3 the speed of light roughly (changing the step size will not change this problem)

Changing the length of the steps changes the speed of the molecule the atoms are part of.

 

Your 2d distance is calculated as if particle a could drive particle b, but this is not the case, because as soon as its light has left a particle, it becomes completely independant of that particle. Remember that you must take the place of one of the particle to understand what it sees, and that it cannot see the relative position of the other particle as we see it on the screen: it only sees doppler effect, because it only sees light penetrating directly into its eyes, if I can say so.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Le Repteux

[swansont]

Yes, if neutrinos have components, then these components have their own components, and their smaller steps will produce the quantized light (or energy) pulses that the neutrino's components need to stay linked.

 

If they are linked, why don't neutrinos interact very much? if they are linked via photons, why don't they interact with a 1/r^2 relationship, as required by the electromagnetic interaction? Why don't they interact electromagnetically?

[Le Repteux]

I was talking of the neutrino's components, not the neutrinos themselves. The same thing happens with molecules, who do not proceed by small steps with one another, but whose components, their atoms, does. Now, the reason why molecules do not emit sufficient light to produce small steps is more difficult to answer, except in saying that the electrons that links them do not radiate any light because they are on a stable path, which does not explain why they do not radiate.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Le Repteux

[swansont]

I was talking of the neutrino's components, not the neutrinos themselves. The same thing happens with molecules, who do not proceed by small steps with one another, but whose components, their atoms, does. Now, the reason why molecules do not emit sufficient light to produce small steps is more difficult to answer, except in saying that the electrons that links them do not radiate any light because they are on a stable path, which does not explain why they do not radiate.

 

The force that holds atoms and molecules together is electromagnetic, and they interact electromagnetically: you can excite and even disassociate them with photons. Neutrinos do not interact this way. They interact only via the weak force. So how can they have an internal structure that involves photons.

[Le Repteux]

I use the term light to characterise the mediator of the small steps, even when we know that, for atoms, it is supposed to be electron's job, simply because it is easier to imagine doppler effect with light than with electrons. If neutrinos have components, what links them should produce doppler effect, which could explain their mass if the small steps are real.

[swansont]

I use the term light to characterise the mediator of the small steps, even when we know that, for atoms, it is supposed to be electron's job, simply because it is easier to imagine doppler effect with light than with electrons. If neutrinos have components, what links them should produce doppler effect, which could explain their mass if the small steps are real.

 

The force between the electron and a nucleus is electromagnetic. Thus, the system interacts with photons, and the EM force is mediated by photons. You can't use photons as a catch-all for meaning whatever you want it to mean. If you have some new mechanism to introduce, you can't co-opt terminology that already has a well-defined meaning. If you don't mean photons, don't say photons.

 

What interaction, in your view, is present between an electron and a nucleus, and how do ionization, excitation and de-excitation occur when we shine light on an atom?

[Mordred]

whats difficult to understand about problem 7?

 

this is Newtons 3rd law

 

any body that applies a force, will experience that same force in an equal but opposite direction.

 

think of a gun firing and recoil.

 

so if particle A emits a force to move particle B, whatever that force may be, particle A will also have that force applied to itself.

 

end result particle A emits force to particle b in direction 90 degrees, particle b will move in direction 90 degrees, however particle a the emitting particle will have also moved the same amount in direction 180 degrees. if one particle is larger than the other it will only move a smaller amount but it will move if enough force is applied.

 

your model has the inherent problem with interaction time regardless of how you wish to describe those interactions is irrelevant, the maximum speed of any form of information exchange is the speed of light.

If particle motion is influenced by the particles observation relative to another in any shape or form, then those particles CANNOT move at light speed. I have have shown you a very basic example of that above

 

"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"

 

this example of synchronization and loss of synchronization, by its very descriptive shows shared information.

 

how would one particle know or feel the effects of loss of synchronization if there is no shared information? how will they know they are synchronized without shared information?

 

your descriptive is clearly shared information exchange. therefore the rate of information exchange and the speed limit of information exchange MUST be accounted for

 

the other problem is the (particle resisting that motion ie gains mass), would not be able to move at light speed.

 

photons move at light speed as its mass is effectively zero if photons were to gain any mass it would no longer be able to move at light speed.

 

so if your model is exchanging mass from particle to particle whichever particle has the mass would no longer move at light speed, This problem of exchanging mass alone should tell you that these particle ie a photon beam would be slower than light speed.

 

however you cannot clearly define your model in a manner that is not subjective to misunderstanding. Even when we ask for clarification.

I use the term light to characterise the mediator of the small steps, even when we know that, for atoms, it is supposed to be electron's job, simply because it is easier to imagine doppler effect with light than with electrons. If neutrinos have components, what links them should produce doppler effect, which could explain their mass if the small steps are real.

 

 

this reply is a clear example of not sufficiently explaining your model, it also shows a clear example of information exchange by whatever hand wavy mechanism

 

now if you want an example of how interactions slow light, look at how light slows down in a medium or fluid. This is a clear example of how the rate of interactions slows down the photons rate of travel.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Mordred

[Le Repteux]

What interaction, in your view, is present between an electron and a nucleus, and how do ionization, excitation and de-excitation occur when we shine light on an atom?

Of course, the theory says that electrons jump to a more energetic quantum level, and emit light while getting back spontaneously on a the less energetic level. The kind of light that they emit at that moment has the property of exciting another atom the same way. But we do not know what happens to the electrons when they are not excited, for example when their molecule is on inertial motion. The only thing we know is that it does not emit light, but it does not mean that there is no light exchanged between the atoms at that moment, it might be that this light is spent to induce the small steps, the residual light being too weak to be detected, or being different from the light we can observe with our instruments, a kind of light that can only produce motion, as for gravitationnal motion for instance.

[Mordred]

a kind of light that can only produce motion, as for gravitationnal motion for instance.

 

 

a kind of light that can only produce motion????

 

you really need to correct your terminology. light is well described in physics.

 

light is electromagnetic, there are particles that DO NOT interact with the electromagnetic, therefore they cannot be influenced in any way shape or form by light.

 

clear example is the neutrino.

 

however your argument is that your light is not the same as light in physics, in that it has mysterious properties that is not the same as regular light.

 

Its your job to convince us that your model has validity. You cannot do that if you keep making up new forms of particles or new forms of light.

light is photons. Photons have known properties.

however your light doesn't follow these known properties.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Mordred

[Le Repteux]

whats difficult to understand about problem 7?

this is Newtons 3rd law

any body that applies a force, will experience that same force in an equal but opposite direction.

think of a gun firing and recoil.

OK Mordred, I think I see what you meant. The problem is that this law applies to molecular matter, but not to atoms. If you throw an atom on another one, it might link with it instead of bumping away, and this is precisely why the steps are possible between atoms, but not between molecules.

 

how would one particle know or feel the effects of loss of synchronization if there is no shared information? how will they know they are synchronized without shared information?

Sorry, I was not clear enough in my premisses. The reason why particles can see doppler effect is that they were synchronized at the origin, and that they managed to stay synchronized since then while nullating doppler effect as soon as it manifested itself. In other words, if all atoms of the same kind actually caries the same frequency spectrum, they can use that spectrum to detect doppler effect. When we detect doppler effect from galaxies, we need to proceed this way, we need to know the right frequencies of the atoms we are observing. To do so, we only have to register their frequencies when they are at rest with regard to our intruments.

 

so if your model is exchanging mass from particle to particle whichever particle has the mass would no longer move at light speed,

I never said that particles could exchange mass, but that with the small steps, mass was the product of their interaction. More precisely, particles exchange energy that caries information, and transform that energy and information in motion.

 

however you cannot clearly define your model in a manner that is not subjective to misunderstanding. Even when we ask for clarification.

I am trying to, and I try to be as clear as possible, but it is normal that we cannot evolve instantly since our interaction is not instantaneous.

however your argument is that your light is not the same as light in physics, in that it has mysterious properties that is not the same as regular light.

I compare the light that produces the steps between the atoms to the non radiating electrons that links atoms in a molecule. If we accept that we do not see this interaction when we observe a molecule though we know the link is at work, then I guess we can accept that we cannot see the light that produces the steps even if they are real.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Le Repteux

[swansont]

Of course, the theory says that electrons jump to a more energetic quantum level, and emit light while getting back spontaneously on a the less energetic level. The kind of light that they emit at that moment has the property of exciting another atom the same way. But we do not know what happens to the electrons when they are not excited, for example when their molecule is on inertial motion. The only thing we know is that it does not emit light, but it does not mean that there is no light exchanged between the atoms at that moment, it might be that this light is spent to induce the small steps, the residual light being too weak to be detected, or being different from the light we can observe with our instruments, a kind of light that can only produce motion, as for gravitationnal motion for instance.

 

Unless you are proposing some new interaction we do know that light is not exchanged. To exchange a real photon it has to be on resonance, and energy has to be conserved. You would need to explain why we can't see these photons, since spontaneous emission can go in lots of directions (typically a dipole pattern) and where the energy comes from.

[Mordred]

Swansort beat me to it lol, I was about to ask the same thing but his wording is better

 

the other question I have is how does your model differ from the momentum formulas for particle interaction than what we already know?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

 

http://www.thp.uni-koeln.de/alexal/pdf/advqm.pdf

Edited June 11, 2014 by Mordred

[Le Repteux]

Unless you are proposing some new interaction we do know that light is not exchanged. To exchange a real photon it has to be on resonance, and energy has to be conserved. You would need to explain why we can't see these photons, since spontaneous emission can go in lots of directions (typically a dipole pattern) and where the energy comes from.

What we know is that electrons are exchanged, and we also know that they are not absorbed by the nucleus, so what moves the nucleus whent we push on a molecule is not the electrons themselves, but a force between the electrons and the neucleuses, which means there is some kind of energy traveling between electrons and nucleuses. What we do not know is how that energy, which should also go in all directions, is not observed outside the molecule. What I suggests is that if this energy can link the neucleuses, then it should be able to produce their steps.

the other question I have is how does your model differ from the momentum formulas for particle interaction than what we already know?

For the newtonian mechanics, the formulation is the same, but I think that we can replace m with r, which would represent the resistance to the change in the step's frequency. Do you think we can? How about trying to formulate the steps since we are there? How about an endless loop like the software ones? Do we need a new calculus notation to do that?

Edited June 11, 2014 by Le Repteux

[swansont]

What we know is that electrons are exchanged, and we also know that they are not absorbed by the nucleus, so what moves the nucleus whent we push on a molecule is not the electrons themselves, but a force between the electrons and the neucleuses, which means there is some kind of energy traveling between electrons and nucleuses. What we do not know is how that energy, which should also go in all directions, is not observed outside the molecule. What I suggests is that if this energy can link the neucleuses, then it should be able to produce their steps.

 

We do "know" this, i.e. there is a physics model that works. Quantum electrodynamics. It works quite well. But it's part of the mainstream physics that also tells us that the electron and neutrino have no structure.

[Le Repteux]

Again, the question of the origin is a philosophical one. Not being able to observe the internal structure of a particle might mean that we are not looking at the phenomenon the right way. The small steps mean that doppler effect is a cause instead of being only an effect, but they also mean that they are the cause of the doppler effect. Doppler effect would thus be part of an induction phenomenon instead of being only a relative one. And it is the same for aberration if you consider that it participates to the induction of the small steps, because the direction of the incident light pulses would then be given by the direction of the steps accelerating simultaneously towards direct and indirect light: direct light inducing their inertial motion, and indirect light inducing their rotational motion.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Le Repteux]

 

 

This animation that I borrowed from wiki gave me an idea: if the black dot could make small steps instead of going at a constant pace, we could see the doppler effect varry with the steps, and if we could place another dot somewhere in front of it, and give it the possibility to move with small steps too, we could see it follow the doppler effect and produce its own waves at the same time it feels the incomming waves. Anybody knows somebody who is able to make the algorithm?

Edited June 13, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Le Repteux]

Ok, since nobody seems to be struck by the evidence that my bone is interesting, I will add some more flesh around it. What about the Twins Paradox?

 

That paradox is due to the lack of a universal reference frame, but the small steps of my animation could indicate the direction and the speed of the motion if we could see them, thus giving us the possibility of knowing which one of the twins moves with regard to the other.

 

What do you think of that flesh? Smells good, no?