# Naked Science Forum

## On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Le Repteux on 08/12/2014 18:47:17

Title: Inertial motion, from atoms' viewpoint
Post by: Le Repteux on 08/12/2014 18:47:17
Hi everybody,

Here is a theory of mine about the link between inertial mass and inertial motion, thus about the conservation of momentum.

We take for granted that motion is intrinsic to massive bodies, but here is a mind experiment that shows it might not be, more precisely, it shows that inertial motion could be due to time, not the time it takes for a body on inertial motion to move from one point to another, but the time it takes for whatever bonds their atoms, to travel between them, and inform them that they have to move with regard to the other atoms when they are accelerated.

Before applying my theory to the complex mechanics between the atoms, I begin with a simplified mind experiment that has nothing to do with them:

- Imagine two cars at rest on the same straight road but one km away from one another and heading in the same direction.

- There is an emitter and a receiver in each car and the signal exchanged between them has exactly the same frequency.

- One of the cars accelerates and decelerates for 10 seconds, so a signal is emitted every fraction of second indicating to the other car, by means of doppler effect, the speed at which it is going.

- Lets us admit that the signal will take more time to travel one km than the time it takes for the car to accelerate and decelerate to rest.

- When the signal will arrive at the second car, at each fraction of second, its receiver will indicate exactly the speed at which it has to accelerate and decelerate.

- While it does so as precisely as it can, its own emitter will transmit the same signal to the other car, which will repeat exactly the same move forward, and so on for the next car, indefinitely. If the energy to move the cars could be infinite, the signal absolutely precise, and the steps absolutely precise, this slinky kind of motion would never end and would never change, which is the very definition of inertial motion.

- Without any force from the outside though, the cars would stand still, but if a force could move one of the cars, it would automatically start the process. But if such a force would move one of the cars, this car would immediately get the signal from the other car to accelerate backwards, which would oppose to the force in question, and produce a specific resistance to the external acceleration, thus the same kind of resistance that massive bodies oppose to their acceleration. Nevertheless, if the external force was greater than the force of its engine, the car would move forward, and it would decelerate to rest if the force stopped acting because, that way, the signal would contain no more doppler effect.

Now, replace the cars by two identical atoms bonded together to form a molecule, and imagine that the energy they exchange to maintain their bond is quantized, which means that it would have the form of a signal, which would have to be constant for their bond to be constant. Like the two cars, these two atoms, represented by their nuclei, are very far apart, far enough for the signal to take more time to travel that distance than for a nucleus to make a step towards the other nucleus. Lets assume now that one of them is forced to make such a step because it undergoes an external push, and that the signal does not have time to reach the other nucleus before the step is finished.

If the energy of their bond is quantized and has to stay the same, won't the two nuclei be forced to proceed exactly like the two cars, which is to make small slinky like steps whose direction and length will never change unless they are forced to, and to resist an acceleration the same way the two cars would, which is to work against the external force? Here is what those steps would look like:
(https://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/377553animationpetitspas.gif) (https://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=377553animationpetitspas.gif)
Title: Re: Inertial motion, from atoms' viewpoint
Post by: PmbPhy on 08/12/2014 19:27:36
Quote from: Le Repteux
We take for granted that motion is intrinsic to massive bodies, ..
What is that supposed to mean?
Title: Re: Inertial motion, from atoms' viewpoint
Post by: Le Repteux on 08/12/2014 20:02:35
Hi Pmb,

It simply means that we have no other way of explaining inertial motion than to say that it is due to mass: massive bodies conserve their speed because they are massive. Its a circular answer, but it is the only one available. You have a better one?
Title: Re: Inertial motion, from atoms' viewpoint
Post by: Le Repteux on 12/12/2014 16:20:58
The fundamental question that my Op is raising is the following: could light be a cause for motion instead of only being an effect? Humans use the properties of light for their own needs, but what if particles would also be doing so? Isn't it curious that resisting to change applies equally to mind and to bodies? If mind works the same as bodies as far as resistance is concerned, could it work the same as far as inertial motion is concerned? Our automatisms do not change if a force isn't applied to them, aren't they doing the same as bodies on inertial motion? Light forces us to move as much as it shows others that we move: what if it was the same for atoms?
Title: Re: Inertial motion, from atoms' viewpoint
Post by: jeffreyH on 13/12/2014 15:26:01
You make some interesting points but you are certainly not being scientific. You should start reading up on the areas that pertain to your theory before pursuing it. You will learn a lot of interesting physics and it may help you to come up with something new. It may also show you that you have gone wrong. Always listen to criticism too. There are some very intelligent people here who are willing to answer your questions. Especially while you are learning. What they aren't willing to do is debate with you unless you have put in some effort.
Title: Re: Inertial motion, from atoms' viewpoint
Post by: Le Repteux on 14/12/2014 14:15:04
Hi Jeffrey,

What are the points that you find interesting?
Title: Re: Inertial motion, from atoms' viewpoint
Post by: Le Repteux on 20/12/2014 18:35:47
Not much interest, isn't it! OK then, lets see if I can catch some with this: here is how the small steps would produce mass increase.

Atoms' steps follow the information carried by light in the form of doppler effect, and they are made of accelerations from rest followed by decelerations to rest (for atoms, rest here means no doppler effect to account for), which means that their speed increases to a top and decreases to zero. Their length and their direction can change, but not their frequency, thus for a molecule accelerated in a given direction, only their length can change. For a molecule to gain the same final speed, that length increases constantly if the acceleration is low but constant, and it increases abruptly if the acceleration is high. The longer a step, the faster its top speed will be if atoms cannot change the time it takes to make it. When the molecule would get to a certain speed close enough to the speed of light, the top speed of the steps would thus exceed the speed of light, which is impossible if their speed depend on light's information, and which means that the molecule would resist increasingly to be accelerated, what we interpret as mass increase for accelerated particles.

Now, if the frequency of the steps could change, atoms could increase it instead of resisting increasingly to acceleration, which means that if it was an atomic clock that was accelerated, it would run faster, which would unfortunately contradict SR. Since we can measure mass increase each time we accelerate a particle, I am inclined to believe that, if the steps really exist, their frequency would not change, but it also means that we would have to interpret SR experiments differently since their internal mechanism would not slow down as the theory predicts.
Title: Re: Inertial motion, from atoms' viewpoint
Post by: Mayflow on 04/01/2015 17:36:45
Are you attributing a sort of intelligence to atoms? a sort of consciousness? I find this very interesting. I've read and thought some about Leibniz' s ideas of monadology where there are basic consciousnesses to all things. I think ever since I heard of the double split experiment I have wondered if atoms and subatomic particles may have decision making capabilities, and may not be also (or either) influenced by our thoughts and expectations.
Title: Re: Inertial motion, from atoms' viewpoint
Post by: alancalverd on 04/01/2015 19:15:00
I think the OP has discovered, by a some what roundabout route, the reason for the finite speed of sound. Quite what this has to do with conservation of momentum is far from clear, however.
Title: Re: Inertial motion, from atoms' viewpoint
Post by: Mayflow on 06/01/2015 00:06:05
I think the OP has discovered, by a some what roundabout route, the reason for the finite speed of sound. Quite what this has to do with conservation of momentum is far from clear, however.

I am not really sure how you came up with that. I have never heard of anything that is theorized to have infinite speed - Sound we think has an upper speed limit, but we think light does as well.
Title: Re: Inertial motion, from atoms' viewpoint
Post by: jeffreyH on 06/01/2015 01:09:25
I think the OP has discovered, by a some what roundabout route, the reason for the finite speed of sound. Quite what this has to do with conservation of momentum is far from clear, however.

I am not really sure how you came up with that. I have never heard of anything that is theorized to have infinite speed - Sound we think has an upper speed limit, but we think light does as well.

Alan wrote finite speed not infinite speed.
Title: Re: Inertial motion, from atoms' viewpoint
Post by: PmbPhy on 06/01/2015 04:43:40
Quote from: Le Repteux
It simply means that we have no other way of explaining inertial motion than to say that it is due to mass: massive bodies conserve their speed because they are massive. Its a circular answer, but it is the only one available. You have a better one?
All the phrase inertial motion means is that a body is moving at constant speed in an inertial frame. There is no cause to that so it needs no explanation.
Title: Re: Inertial motion, from atoms' viewpoint
Post by: Le Repteux on 08/03/2015 18:23:49
Hi Jeffrey, sorry for the delay.

This is what I thought too before hitting the small steps by chance. Inertial motion seems obvious, and it has been accepted as a given until now, but what if it was not? If its obvious, then the small steps would be useless, but if not, wouldn't these steps help us understand motion?
Title: Re: Inertial motion, from atoms' viewpoint
Post by: Le Repteux on 08/03/2015 18:55:34
Are you attributing a sort of intelligence to atoms?
Sort of, if we take into consideration that intelligence is mainly about the perception of time flowing, thus about the future, which is unpredictable. Because then, within our mind, there would be a mechanism for it to be able to cope with the hazard from its environment, thus a mechanism for it to be able to produce some, like the mutation/selection one. Which reduces our intelligence to the capacity to produce chance, and to be able to check out if what it thinks is what it gets when it executes its ideas for real. Atoms are not executing ideas, but they are moving, and they are able to react to others. They do that simultaneously with their perceptions, whereas we can recall perceptions that we had years ago to execute some actual ideas. From that viewpoint, intelligence is not what she thinks she is.
Title: Re: Inertial motion, from atoms' viewpoint
Post by: Le Repteux on 28/09/2015 19:55:24
Quote from: Le Repteux
It simply means that we have no other way of explaining inertial motion than to say that it is due to mass: massive bodies conserve their speed because they are massive. Its a circular answer, but it is the only one available. You have a better one?
All the phrase inertial motion means is that a body is moving at constant speed in an inertial frame. There is no cause to that so it needs no explanation.
Hi PmbPhy, sorry for being late!  [;)]

I don't know for you, but I have a problem conceptualizing inertial motion, and it seems that I am not the only one if I refer to the thousands of discussions about SR on the web. The definition of inertia is not clear to me either: on one hand it is a force, and on the other its a motion without a force. In my OP, I show that motion and force were possibly hard to distinguish until now because they come from the same internal mechanism.

The principle on which this mechanism is based is simple: when they link to form a molecule, two atoms have to stay synchronized together even if what links them is not instantaneous. So, since a force cannot be applied to both atoms at a time, they get out of sync when they get accelerated, because the first one to be accelerated experiments doppler effect from the second one, which forces it back to its previous position during its acceleration, and which offers a resistance to the body that is pushing on it. This is for the force part of inertia. Now for the motion part.

Because it takes time for light to travel between atoms, once doppler effect has been introduced between the two atoms, it produces a slinky type of motion between them, and this motion goes on as long as light is produced by them. Here is that shifted motion again:
(https://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/377553animationpetitspas.gif) (https://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=377553animationpetitspas.gif)
Title: Re: Inertial motion, from atoms' viewpoint
Post by: Le Repteux on 13/09/2017 22:14:51
For those who will fall on that thread in the future, here is the follow up:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71122.0