0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I'm just trying to understand your point in case it would help me to simulate motion. I still think that light drives the way motion is executed by the particles. At first, I thought that we could easily simulate doppler effect, but it turned out not to be that easy, so I'm trying to simplify the problem, and you seem to be complicating it. It is no use trying to complicate things at the beginning of a research, we got to stay simple and wait till people start to understand to start complicating them.
The main difference between my theory and others is that I consider light as a motion producer whereas all others only consider it as an information carrier. It is certainly an information carrier at our scale, but when we get down to particles, we discover that it could also move them. I might still be wrong, but it is certainly interesting to study that possibility. As you can see though, scientists are not easier to interest than laymen. :0)
You also have good detectors to observe information, and you can clearly observe that this information produces motion. Why would the information that we exchange produce motion while the one that particles exchange would not?
That is what happens with compression, but it's temporary - it runs into a strengthening force opposing that movement as it gets closer to the other particle. You need to think carefully about the difference between length contraction and compression and make sure you're able to model both. Imagine a pair of particles moving at 0.866c to the left. The length contraction on those will be to half the rest separation. If you nudge the left-hand particle repeatedly until the pair are at rest, the length contraction will be completely gone by that time. If you continue to nudge the left-hand particle until the pair are moving at 0.866c to the right, the length contraction to half the rest length will have returned. If your model doesn't produce that pattern, it isn't modelling length contraction. Each nudge will lead to temporary compression, but the pair will find that compression "uncomfortable" and will re-establish correct separation. Before that correct separation is restored, there will be some vibration until that energy is radiated off as heat. Again, your simulation needs to handle all of that. What you actually have now is the start of a model of compression, but it soon goes wrong because you don't have any balance of forces playing out between the particles.
In the twins mind experiment for instance, the traveling twin must start getting younger and getting contracted at the beginning of his acceleration since it is there that he begins getting speed,
and the theory predicts that he must stay younger when he loses all his speed at the end, so why wouldn't he stay contracted since he got contracted the same way he got younger?
To me, time dilation is as weird as length contraction. The only difference is that contraction is considered not to be observable. It may not be observable for real particles, but it is certainly observable in a simulation.
The muon experiment is a one way measure on a particle that is almost as fast as light, so it is as biased as any one way measure of light, and we didn't yet send a clock for a round trip in deep space to check if it really ages less than the one at rest. All we have is a round trip made by fast particles in an accelerator to check if their decay rate is the same as when they are slow, but we don't even know why they decay, so we can't even simulate it. I simply don't trust experiments that I cannot simulate.
Now about compression: in my simulations, if we start accelerating a particle and let it go before the light from the acceleration of the other particle is back, it should immediately get back to its previous position, which is similar to compression, but if we keep exerting a force on it instead, it should increase its speed each time a photon from the other particle would strike it. Saying that, I realize that it never moves backward one step when we stop the acceleration and it should, so I could correct that, but it wouldn't change the contraction rate, it would only induce a small vibration between the particles as soon as we would stop accelerating them.
ending up "younger" than his twin (although in reality he remains the same age and has merely "weathered" less due to slowed overall functionality).
Once he's back co-moving with his twin, his rate of ageing will be the same as his twin's. He doesn't stay the same age forever at the end of the trip, and he doesn't remain more contracted than his twin.
Particles actively maintain their separation to each other, moving closer together if they're too far apart and moving further apart if they're too close together, but you don't have any of that
The model needs to include the option to bond particles to each other, and I have no idea how that bonding occurs.
You need a much more complex model
Are you only saying that to conquer the relativists that may read the thread, or do you really think that getting weathered is different than aging more?
I think that what you are describing is vibration, and I just said that I could easily add it to my simulations if I wanted, but that it wouldn't resolve the contraction problem, which is that it doesn't reverse when I reverse the acceleration while it should. There is probably a flaw in my logic, and it must be quite subtle otherwise you would have spotted it.
I chose to include motion as a constraint to reduce the possibilities, and I got that doppler effect alone could explain both mass and motion. Of course I may be wrong, but the principle is so easy to understand that it's hard to believe that it is completely wrong. With doppler effect, bonding can be a standing wave issue where particles have to move to stay on the nodes.
It wouldn't produce any contraction, but it would produce speed, and if we would stop the acceleration after a while, the photon would still take less time to make its round trip than when the system was at rest, so there would still be some time dilation even if there is no contraction. If we would let the system contract just the right amount though, it would automatically produce the right time dilation, but as I usually say in this case, we need to find the underlying mechanism, not to add an SR equation to the simulation.
I think that the principle must stay simple. Evolution of species may very well be complex for instance, but the mutation/selection principle is still simple.
It can stay simple, but so far you're been trying to use aspects of compression to try to recreate length contraction, and that won't work because the particles should always try to remove that compression and get back to a comfortable separation. Length contraction comes out of changes in the comfortable separation distances.
If you're going to produce proper length contraction, you have to adjust all accelerations to take into account relativistic mass (because not all the energy added translates into speed of the particle being accelerated - the extra energy has to carry its own mass along for the ride too).
If standing waves are part of the real mechanism for maintaining particle separation distances, you need to have that acting to adjust the positions of the particles, but you don't appear to have modeled that yet.
If you simulated the forces that enable vibration, the separation between particles as you accelerate them would continually adjust back to the most "comfortable" separation where the forces are balanced properly. That will eliminate all the false contraction that your model generates, and then it will allow you to introduce real length contraction when you model those forces correctly.
"Ageing" is ambiguous. It can either refer to the amount of time that someone has been around for or to the amount of "weathering" they've been exposed to, and by that I mean the amount of wear and tear due to the rate at which they function. Slowed functionality leads to less ageing (weathering) but not to less ageing (exposure to time).
If we accelerate one end of a spring, it will contract during acceleration, and then spring away from us at the end while also oscillating.
Then I would have to find a simulable mechanism for relativistic mass too, because using any equation would be cheating.
Since it is the time the photons take to make a round trip that determines the resistance the particles oppose to their steps being accelerated,
If we hit the "nudge both together" button five times as fast as we can in your simulation with ten photons, we get a vibration, and I could do the same with my simulations, which means that light can produce a vibration even if it has no mass providing we nudge the particles both at a time. If we nudge only one, then we only get motion in one direction.
To me, weathering faster is the same as ageing faster since both are directly related to the time light takes between my two particles. If light takes less time compared to the time it takes in an observer's similar light clock, then the particles age faster and weather faster than him, and the inverse if it takes more time.
Correct, but the other meaning of age refers to the amount of time that has actually passed, and in that sense, both twins remain the same age no matter how much the physicists prod them around, so I used the word weathering to rule out that interpretation of ageing in order to avoid ambiguity.
It isn't good enough just to get a vibration out of a simulation - it needs to be the right kind of vibration if it is going to maintain correct average particle separation.
What happens if you only accelerate one particle? No resistance? No mass?
The resistance comes from the directionality of the energy tied up in matter - if it was all trying to go in the same direction, the whole thing would become radiation moving at c. It can only be matter because some of the energy tied up in it is trying to go in a different direction. The resistance to acceleration comes from that component of energy that is going in the opposite direction from the one you're trying to accelerate it in. The mass is the total energy in the matter, and if it's all moving in the same direction it will be moving at c as radiation and will officially have no mass, but the mass is really still there - we just stop calling it mass.
QuoteKeeping the particles on sync while they are being accelerated is precisely what a standing wave would do. Ivanhov and late Lafresnière have already studied the standing wave model, and Ivanhov even thinks that, on that precise point, our two theories work the same.I'm open to that possibility, but I haven't read up on it enough to see how it would work, but it should be an interesting thing to write a simulation for it if it looks viable - this would keep adjusting the particles to the correct "comfortable" separation (or at least to oscillate around it).
Keeping the particles on sync while they are being accelerated is precisely what a standing wave would do. Ivanhov and late Lafresnière have already studied the standing wave model, and Ivanhov even thinks that, on that precise point, our two theories work the same.
If you imagine a stationary planet spinning round with an object on the end of a long pole such that the object is moving at 0.86c. Now imagine the same system with the planet moving through space at 0.86c. The object will now be stationary relative to space when it is at one side of its orbit, and at the opposite side it will be moving at a speed lower than c rather than 2 x 0.86c. This adjustment of speed is the cause of length contraction - it is not possible for the object to move at 2 x 0.86c.
You can't simulate length contraction on that scale though without modelling the movements of such parts of "fundamental" particles, and that means guessing their nature (because science has yet to pin their nature down) and then simulating the entirely hypothetical model that comes out of that guess.
Sorry, I see no ambiguity.
While executing their steps, the particles move to absorb doppler effect, so from their viewpoint, they are always at the right place at the right time whether they execute their steps in the same direction or in opposite ones as it is the case for vibrations.
When we accelerate a particle on the screen, in reality, what we accelerate are its components, and the main part of the resistance is then due to the steps between those components refusing to get accelerated instantly, which is also because information takes time to make a round trip between them.
Mass is measured while we try to give some speed to a body in a particular direction, and that's precisely the same definition with the steps, it is measured while we try to give some speed to the steps in a particular direction, a speed they get while increasing their length since their frequency has to stay the same for them to be able to get synchronized.
You seem to be assimilating light to massive particles moving at c, and massive particles to light moving at less than c,
If the two theories really work the same, then we can consider that, in my simulations, the particles are located on the nodes of their standing wave.
In a simulation with two particles, ...would effectively accelerate it backwards...
I can't simulate the motion of electrons using the steps between their components since they are considered not to carry any, so I can't use those steps to explain their mass either.
In LET, time flows at a constant rate for all things, but apparent time varies when functionality is slowed by movement (increasing round-trip communication times)
What happens if you accelerate all the components at once though? You should get no vibration generated in the object, so all the energy goes into acceleration of the object. No resistance? No mass? Because all the components can be accelerated simultaneously, the mechanism for resistance or mass has to apply to the acceleration of a single particle without any of your steps being involved.
When are they ever synchronised?
An object changing speed whenever it happens to be hit by a photon isn't really synchronisation.
all the energy is trying to move in the same direction, whereas in the latter case some of it is trying to move the opposite way
Where are the nodes? Where are the standing waves? Have you produced any? Have you got a simulation that displays them so that I can get some idea of where they are?
Quote from: Le RepteuxI can't simulate the motion of electrons using the steps between their components since they are considered not to carry any, so I can't use those steps to explain their mass either.And that's the big problem with modelling things that go beyond scientific understanding. All matter can decay into radiation (components), but we have no idea how the components are tied together to create the "fundamental" particles that are built out of them. All we can do is create speculative models, or models that fudge the issue and just apply rules without the full mechanism being simulated.
Is there a paper that explains what you mean?
Except for electrons, there is no single particle, everyone of them has components, and it is most improbable that the smallest of them could all get accelerated at the same time. With the steps, acceleration begins at the smallest scale and migrates to the larger ones.
When particles are on constant motion, when no acceleration happens to them, they then go on making steps that are perfectly synchronized.
The speed of the particles depends on the length of their steps, and during constant motion, that length stays constant, and the steps then dovetail the sinusoidal shape of the photons, in such a way that an observer on one of the particles would observe no doppler effect at all.
The energy you're talking about, to what is it linked? What makes it turn around and move in the opposite direction?
Ivanov did. He tested how a moving standing wave would behave while placing two sound emitter/receiver at a few meters away from one another, and he measured the displacement of the nodes when it was windy. He observed that the standing wave was contracting whatever the direction of the wind, and he suggested that it would be the same for light, what would explain the relativistic contraction. Lafrenière comments this point on the page where I referred you.
I didn't remember about the contraction observation, but I think I might be able to use it directly in my simulation without having to simulate it. I could simply use the equation since it is the result of an experiment. If you take a look at the page, you will notice that some of the links to specific animations don't work. Ivanhov imported Lafrenière's pages when he died, and I think he couldn't handle those links. Maybe he still has them in his computer though. Thank's to you, I might have made a huge step here! :0)
However, the light pulses have traveled the same distance through space, so how much time has passed for the photons?
Lots of people call quarks fundamental too, but when antimatter meets matter, pouf! They all turn to radiation. Same thing happens when an electron meets a positron - instant conversion to components.
Quote from: Le Repteux When particles are on constant motion, when no acceleration happens to them, they then go on making steps that are perfectly synchronized.That doesn't really work though, because if you teleport one of them to increase or reduce the separation, they continue to be "synchronized", so it has no control over the distance between them.
When particles are on constant motion, when no acceleration happens to them, they then go on making steps that are perfectly synchronized.
all the energy that's in there is bound together such that it doesn't just break up and turn to radiation flying off at c in different directions.
I'm glad you found this stuff - it may open some doors for me into an area I've avoided because I don't want to get bogged down in the complexities of small-scale physics, but I've seen something now which might just hook me in (because it may not be as time-consuming as I was expecting, and that means it might not get in the way of my work).
Time stops flowing for a light clock that gets at the speed of light with regard to ether, so a photon can't experiment time. The time a photon takes is not measured with regard to itself, it is measured with regard to a clock made out of matter, and the distance itself also needs to be delimited by matter. You seem to be assimilating matter to energy to light, and I can't, otherwise I couldn't simulate their interaction. If it is not to convince SR people more easily, then you probably have a more fundamental reason to do so. Do you?