Look ma, no maths!

[Le Repteux]

Let me repeat my question differently: if a particular inertial motion had an internal mechanism that indicates the speed and the direction of the acceleration that had caused it, would we still need a reference frame to define them?

[swansont]

Let me repeat my question differently: if a particular inertial motion had an internal mechanism that indicates the speed and the direction of the acceleration that had caused it, would we still need a reference frame to define them?

 

Speed and direction in reference to what?

[Le Repteux]

I think that I can answer in reference to light, which would then be a universal reference frame for the atoms. Because if the small steps' frequency of my animation is constant, and if we could observe them, then their length and their direction would indicate respectively the speed and the direction of the system's inertial motion.

[swansont]

I think that I can answer in reference to light, which would then be a universal reference frame for the atoms. Because if the small steps' frequency of my animation is constant, and if we could observe them, then their length and their direction would indicate respectively the speed and the direction of the system's inertial motion.

 

That won't work. The speed in reference to light (to the extent one can make such a statement and have it make sense) will always be c, and that will not give you a direction.

[Le Repteux]

Yes, I know that the speed of light is the same for any observer: this is precisely what causes doppler effect in my animation. But since that speed is not instantaneous, if the atoms have to stay synchronized to stay linked, that speed also causes their small steps if they are accelerated from the outside. If we follow these steps from the outside like on my animation, given their frequency, their speed can be calculated from their length, and their direction is the direction of the straight line which goes from one rest position to another. But if you are one of these atoms, all you can see is doppler effect, and since you try to stay linked as precisely as possible with the other atom, you have to nullify that effect by moving a little at each light pulse that you see. If you are the outsider observer, you are indeed the reference, but if you are one of the atoms, light is the only reference.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Le Repteux

[swansont]

Yes, I know that the speed of light is the same for any observer: this is precisely what causes doppler effect in my animation. But since that speed is not instantaneous, if the atoms have to stay synchronized to stay linked, that speed also causes their small steps if they are accelerated from the outside. If we follow these steps from the outside like on my animation, given their frequency, their speed can be calculated from their length, and their direction is the direction of the straight line which goes from one rest position to another. But if you are one of these atoms, all you can see is doppler effect, and since you try to stay linked as precisely as possible with the other atom, you have to nullify that effect by moving a little at each light pulse that you see. If you are the outsider observer, you are indeed the reference, but if you are one of the atoms, light is the only reference.

 

I'm only referencing your recent contention that you can have some internal mechanism that indicates speed, referenced to light. You say their speed can be calculated from their length, but the atom's length does not change. That would be true for some observer in a different frame measuring it, which is a scenario you have specifically excluded from consideration.

[Le Repteux]

It is the length of their steps that can change, not the length of the link between them. If the atoms stay synchronized, from their point of view, the distance of their link appears to stays the same, even if it does not appear to stay the same from our point of view.

[swansont]

It is the length of their steps that can change, not the length of the link between them. If the atoms stay synchronized, from their point of view, the distance of their link appears to stays the same, even if it does not appear to stay the same from our point of view.

 

How does that tie into velocity?

[Le Repteux]

In my animation, for steps of a given frequency, the longer the steps, the faster the system moves to the right.

[swansont]

In my animation, for steps of a given frequency, the longer the steps, the faster the system moves to the right.

 

"The right" and "faster" only make sense in the context of an external inertial reference frame, which you have disallowed. As compared to light, the relative speed will always be c.

 

Care to try again?

[Le Repteux]

Yes, light will always move at c from the point of view of any of the two atoms, and this is why they will both experience doppler effect, whether the reference frame will be attributed to one atom or the other. It is only from our point of view that the small steps are observed, because from the atoms' point of view, there is only doppler effect that varies constantly with time, and light always coming from the same direction.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Le Repteux]

I repeat a question concerning relativity and the small steps of my animation. Since light would be their mediator, since they would be composed of an acceleration followed by a deceleration, and since they could not change their frequency, the only parameter that they could change is their length, which means that they would have to increase their speed when they would be accelerated from the outside: what would happen to them when their top speed would approach c?

 

Apart from any other question, what do you think of the small steps as an explanation of inertial mass and inertial motion Swantson?

Edited August 17, 2014 by Le Repteux

[swansont]

Apart from any other question, what do you think of the small steps as an explanation of inertial mass and inertial motion Swantson?

 

Swantson isn't here, so I'll answer: You can't look at the result if the construction of the model is flawed, and I've been pointing out flaws in the model. So as an explanation of inertial mass it's a lousy explanation.

[Le Repteux]

Héhé, I would love to hear you pronounce my user name...

 

The small steps respects the laws of physics, no? Doppler effect works the way I present it, no? To me, the only unanswered question of my model is about the mediator, because we know that molecules do not radiate light outside the system, but we also know that electrons do not radiate either when they link atoms, which does not prevent us from accepting them as a mediator. You think that my model does not explain inertial mass properly, which is normally characterized by resistance to acceleration, but what about inertial motion? Have you ever heard of a theory explaining why bodies go on moving at the same speed and in the same direction after having undergone an acceleration?

[swansont]

As long as you are using light as a reference for the motion, you don't have a viable model.

[Le Repteux]

Let us use the wave form of the electrons then, and assume that they will produce doppler effect and carry it to the nucleus if the molecule they are part of is accelerated from the outside. Can you accept that kind of mediation?

[swansont]

Let us use the wave form of the electrons then, and assume that they will produce doppler effect and carry it to the nucleus if the molecule they are part of is accelerated from the outside. Can you accept that kind of mediation?

 

How do they "produce doppler effect"?

[Le Repteux]

If two molecules meet at a certain speed, their electrons meet first, and they carry the motion to their nuclei at a their own speed. Since those electrons can be considered as waves, we can consider that they have their own frequency, and since they interact with the nuclei, we can consider that those nuclei can synchronize themselves with that frequency, but since both have inertia, they cannot change frequency instantly, so that if there is initially doppler effect on the electron waves, the nuclei will have to move away at each electron pulse to stay synchronized with it, thus forcing the electrons to follow them after, which would give the same inertial steps between the nuclei as those of my animation, though I admit, in a more complicated way. To analyze the small steps, it is easier to consider that the waves escape from the nuclei, this is why I was proposing to use light as a possible mediator at first.

[swansont]

If two molecules meet at a certain speed, their electrons meet first,

Do they? is that part of any mainstream science?

 

and they carry the motion to their nuclei at a their own speed.

Same questions.

 

Since those electrons can be considered as waves, we can consider that they have their own frequency, and since they interact with the nuclei, we can consider that those nuclei can synchronize themselves with that frequency, but since both have inertia, they cannot change frequency instantly, so that if there is initially doppler effect on the electron waves, the nuclei will have to move away at each electron pulse to stay synchronized with it, thus forcing the electrons to follow them after, which would give the same inertial steps between the nuclei as those of my animation, though I admit, in a more complicated way. To analyze the small steps, it is easier to consider that the waves escape from the nuclei, this is why I was proposing to use light as a possible mediator at first.

How do you account for motion of particles that lack structure, such as a free electron?

[Le Repteux]

Do they? is that part of any mainstream science?

If the electrons are around the nuclei when two molecules meet, they should be affected first, no? What does the theory say about that?

 

Same questions.

Since, for a given molecule, its electrons hold the atoms together at a fixed distance, if their path is affected from the outside, it will take some time before the nuclei receive the signal to move, and that time will depend on the speed of the electron wave.

 

How do you account for motion of particles that lack structure, such as a free electron?

Good question! I have not succeeded to answer that one yet: how a particle having the properties of solid matter like mass can appear to have no components?

 

Maybe it has and we cannot observe them, maybe it has not because it is only a mediator wave for the atoms when they form a molecule, and stays a mediator even when they are far apart, as within an electron accelerator. With the small steps, resistance to acceleration comes from the synchronism between two nuclei, which comes first from the synchronism between their components, and so on indefinitely, in such a way that the mediator that links two atoms has to affect their ultimate components at first, and precisely because the acceleration that they are undergoing unsynchronizes them, these components let go some of their mediator. This way, electrons could originate from the hart of atoms and be able to interfere back with it to produce motion of all the particles and its corollary: their mass.

 

As with light though, there is still the duality wave/particle to be explained with a physical mechanism.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Le Repteux

[swansont]

If the electrons are around the nuclei when two molecules meet, they should be affected first, no? What does the theory say about that?

I'll take that as a "no".

 

Mainstream theory is quantum mechanics, which does not include such classical notions as the electron having a distinct position. But if it did, what happens to your idea if the electron is on the far side of the nucleus?

 

Since, for a given molecule, its electrons hold the atoms together at a fixed distance, if their path is affected from the outside, it will take some time before the nuclei receive the signal to move, and that time will depend on the speed of the electron wave.

QM has no "path" to affect.

 

 

Good question! I have not succeeded to answer that one yet: how a particle having the properties of solid matter like mass can appear to have no components?

 

Maybe it has and we cannot observe them, maybe it has not because it is only a mediator wave for the atoms when they form a molecule, and stays a mediator even when they are far apart, as within an electron accelerator. With the small steps, resistance to acceleration comes from the synchronism between two nuclei, which comes first from the synchronism between their components, and so on indefinitely, in such a way that the mediator that links two atoms has to affect their ultimate components at first, and precisely because the acceleration that they are undergoing unsynchronizes them, these components let go some of their mediator. This way, electrons could originate from the hart of atoms and be able to interfere back with it to produce motion of all the particles and its corollary: their mass.

So that might render your model moot, if there is some other explanation.

 

As with light though, there is still the duality wave/particle to be explained with a physical mechanism.

And tested. Without a way to test it, any mechanism would be ad-hoc.

[Le Repteux]

Mainstream theory is quantum mechanics, which does not include such classical notions as the electron having a distinct position. But if it did, what happens to your idea if the electron is on the far side of the nucleus?

When a molecule encounters another one, the nuclei do not meet. It means that either the electrons repel each other, either the nuclei do so, either the repelling comes from an alternative EM wave, which should be the case if electrons move much faster than molecules.

 

QM has no "path" to affect.

QM is a theory about electrons, not about motion. If the small steps exist, their study might change the way we understand the quantum steps.

 

So that might render your model moot, if there is some other explanation.

For the moment, apart from saying that it is a property of massive bodies, there is no "other explanation" of inertial motion.

 

And tested. Without a way to test it, any mechanism would be ad-hoc.

Calculations and Occam's razor was the only way to test heliocentrism, what if it was the only way to test the small steps?

[swansont]

When a molecule encounters another one, the nuclei do not meet. It means that either the electrons repel each other, either the nuclei do so, either the repelling comes from an alternative EM wave, which should be the case if electrons move much faster than molecules.

 

Generally speaking these interactions at longer range would be because of some multipole interaction (varying as 1/Rⁿ) and are attractive. It's when they get close that it turns repulsive, but the fields don't just "turn on" which is the only way I can find for your description to make sense.

 

QM is a theory about electrons, not about motion. If the small steps exist, their study might change the way we understand the quantum steps.

 

For the moment, apart from saying that it is a property of massive bodies, there is no "other explanation" of inertial motion.

 

Calculations and Occam's razor was the only way to test heliocentrism, what if it was the only way to test the small steps?

 

QM is a theory about what happens at (generally) small energy scales. Electrons often qualify but QM is certainly not restricted to them.

 

If there's a way to test small steps then lets have it. Saying "Calculations and Occam's razor was the only way to test heliocentrism" means acknowledging that the model included calculations, which agreed with observation. Where are your calculations, and where have you shown how they agree with experiment?

[Le Repteux]

I did not do any calculations yet, but since nobody wants to do them, I think it is time that I try, but do not laugh at me if I am wrong. First consideration: since they concern mass, those calculations should concern resistance to acceleration and inertial motion.

 

 

- Concerning inertial motion.

 

When we walk, the frequency of our steps can remain constant while we change their length, permitting us to change our inertial speed without changing their frequency, which is how I think the atoms proceed: the limit of that speed is then given by the length of our legs and by their strength. In the same way, the length limit of the atom's steps is given by the length of their link, which varies from 100 to 500 picometers (10^-12 m), while the strength of that link varies from 100 to 800 kj/mol. For the frequency of the steps, I will try first the average frequency of visible light, which is around 500 terahertz (10¹² steps/s). At that frequency, if the steps are 500 picometers long, they will travel 1 m in one second, which is a good order of magnitude for the speed we can walk, but THz are not fast enough since the step of each atom should be much smaller than the distance between two atoms. If I use EHz instead (10¹⁸ steps/s), the average distance between two atom would be traveled in 5x10⁸ steps, and the length of each step would be 10^-18 picometer. I note that this order of magnitude for the frequency of the steps, which is in the X rays, includes the frequency of the electron when calculated from its mass. To be more precise, I should take into consideration that each one of the the two atoms has to move one step, but one after the other, for their molecule to move the same distance, so that the latter will take twice the time to travel one meter, but that does not change the order of magnitude, which, by the way, is surprisingly close to what I was hoping.

 

 

- Concerning resistance to acceleration.

 

I have to calculate the energy needed to accelerate a step, to stretch it from zero to 10^-18 picometer long, which should be equal to its resistance to that particular acceleration, but without using the mass of that atom as a given. To stretch its step, this atom has to break the synchronism of the link with the other atom for one second by steps of 10^-18 second, and that link is around 10^-21 kj/atom for a 600 kj/mole atom (1 mole is 6x10²³ atoms), but for the moment, I do not find how to calculate the energy needed to stretch or shrink such an atomic link by only 10^-18 picometer. Do you? If we had that number, we could compare it to the kinetic energy of an atom whose mass is around 10^-27 kg and speed around one m/s, which is .5 x 10^-27 kj.

 

Are you laughing?

Edited August 21, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Le Repteux]

Sorry, the last number is .5 x 10^-24 kj.