[David Cooper]

My two particles exchange light, and if we suddenly separate them for instance, the light that they were exchanging is no more absorbed by the particles so it escapes from the system. It is that same light that was previously justifying the loss of mass due to their bonding since it was precisely that light that was bonding them.

I can't get that to add up. If that light is bonding them, but they only become bonded once that light has been lost, what is bonding them once they are actually bonded?

Non-bonded particles are made of bonded components that also execute small steps to stay on sync.

But what stops two non-bonded particles from being bonded particles when they get close together?

The light that particles exchange creates a standing wave between them, and they have to stay on the nodes of that standing wave, which is an integer number of wave length away from one another. If the medium is cool, they can stay farther without getting ionized by collisions, otherwise they must stay closer.

Is that in any of your simulations? For example, if you add a "spontaneous quantum leap" routine to move one of the particles to a different distance away from the other without changing it's speed through space, will it automatically move back over time to where it should be to restore the correct separation?

As I said, dilation and contraction must happen at acceleration, and two bonded inline particles can certainly not accelerate at the same time, so at least between those particles, the system must contract the way it does.

I can't remember where we got to, but do any of the simulations show a contraction when you move the leading particle away from the other or do they all produce length extension?

The fact that this kind of contraction does not produce the numbers expected by the experiments is irrelevant. We have the tool to find the truth behind the assumptions, so let's find it.

The failure to produce the right amount of contraction shows that the method is wrong - it isn't just a matter of debugging it. It's just a chance contraction. Correct contraction should result from a balance of forces.

I keep repeating them that acceleration simply determines which twin is moving, and they can't agree because it directly contradicts the idea that motion is relative. If motion was always relative, the twins mind experiment would still contain a paradox.

The accelerations reveal which twin moves more quickly through space on average than the other. Both may be moving.

A simulation simulates the real universe, so if it doesn't give the right numbers, we have to fin the bug, not discard it.

It isn't that simple. A simulation that creates rain by having a god urinate from a cloud may well water the flowers, but it is not a true simulation of the real universe.

[guest39538]

Particles do wait for light to tell them to accelerate, but if there is two particles, we have to apply the force on both of them, so we have to apply twice the force.

Why apply force ?  Is it not best to let the particles do their own thing? 
Couplings will take a lot of time and energy to split, the information of the coupling is ''tight'' by entanglement, perhaps one particle always follows the lead particle by an unseen bond .  Imagine sending four particles at the same time, there is then no contraction to worry about, everything will be synchronized by the constant of light and the lead particle.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

I can't get that to add up. If that light is bonding them, but they only become bonded once that light has been lost, what is bonding them once they are actually bonded?

The light that bonds the particles is the one that succeeded to escape from the bonding between the components. Light can only escape during acceleration, because it is then that the steps get out of sync a bit. Such an acceleration can be due to an external collision, but it is also due to the way the steps between the components are forced to justify the steps of the particle they are part of. The steps of the particles are sinusoidal, they are made of an acceleration followed by a deceleration, and the components' steps must follow that curve since a particle's step is  made of them. During one of the particle's step, its components' steps are thus forced to accelerate to a top speed and then decelerate to rest, so some light escapes from them, but that light isn't lost, it is used further away to accelerate the steps from the other particle's components, and vice-versa. That's what I want to simulate while replacing the particles by two light clocks in my simulation on acceleration, but your question made me realize that I can use your simulation with ten photons to simulate a sinusoidal wave. That's a tricky one, but talking about it evidently helps me to figure it out.

But what stops two non-bonded particles from being bonded particles when they get close together?

Speed, as with atoms in a plasma phase for instance.

Is that in any of your simulations? For example, if you add a "spontaneous quantum leap" routine to move one of the particles to a different distance away from the other without changing it's speed through space, will it automatically move back over time to where it should be to restore the correct separation?

We know that electrons spontaneously get back to a lower level of energy after having been bumped to a higher one, so if that spontaneity is due to quantum chance, then we can use it too for the steps. Notice that if a step suffers such a quantum leap, some light will automatically escape from it since it loses its synchronicity in the process.

I can't remember where we got to, but do any of the simulations show a contraction when you move the leading particle away from the other or do they all produce length extension?

There is only one way to pull two bonded particles away from one another: throw a third particle directly in between them at high speed. If it doesn't brake the bond between the particles, that kind of collision may produce a special kind of motion that we call a vibration, and with the steps as an explanation for motion, such a motion is inevitably made out of steps. Contrary to the steps that produce constant motion though, those steps are made in opposite directions, but as my simulation on acceleration shows, reversing the acceleration does not reverse the contraction, so they should also produce some, what should also affect the time light takes between the particles and between the components. Now, if the third particle hits at an angle at low speed, it could simply be deviated, and if it hits at high speed, it could simply brake the bond. What I mean is that if we can't imagine a way for the particles to pull one particle away without immediately affecting the other, then it may be because it is impossible for them to do so.

The failure to produce the right amount of contraction shows that the method is wrong - it isn't just a matter of debugging it. It's just a chance contraction. Correct contraction should result from a balance of forces.

The method can be wrong, but the logic can't. If we accelerate a firsts particle while its light takes some time to inform the second one that it has moved, then it will have the time to move towards that second one before it moves away, and it will also go on moving towards it during the time the light from that second one will be getting back. The way it moves towards that second one may be wrong though, and that's what I want to study while replacing my two particles by two light clocks. I gave the steps a mean constant speed during their acceleration whereas a step is always made of an acceleration followed by a deceleration, so I need to study that motion more closely. At the beginning, I thought that the particle would make only one step and then stop and wait for the photon to get back, but it didn't work so I let it travel during acceleration. What I could try now is permit the particle to execute its constant motion out of its precedent acceleration instead of its actual one, what should reduce the contraction a bit. I'll try that!

The accelerations reveal which twin moves more quickly through space on average than the other. Both may be moving.

Of course, but I always consider that the twin at rest is at rest with regard to space so that I'm not forced to use the reference frame principle interminable wording.

It isn't that simple. A simulation that creates rain by having a god urinate from a cloud may well water the flowers, but it is not a true simulation of the real universe.

A simulation is at least as good as math at representing the real universe, but as SR shows, the math doesn't need to be logical to give the right numbers, whereas a simulation has. We can't move things on a screen in a way that they can't use, but we can use bad logic to do so in words.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

Particles do wait for light to tell them to accelerate, but if there is two particles, we have to apply the force on both of them, so we have to apply twice the force.

Why apply force ?  Is it not best to let the particles do their own thing? 
Couplings will take a lot of time and energy to split, the information of the coupling is ''tight'' by entanglement, perhaps one particle always follows the lead particle by an unseen bond .  Imagine sending four particles at the same time, there is then no contraction to worry about, everything will be synchronized by the constant of light and the lead particle.

Take a look at my doppler effect explanation hereafter and tell me if you understand something:

Resistance is easier to explain with doppler effect though: whenever we try to accelerate the first particle in my simulations on acceleration, it automatically produces blueshift on the light from the second one, and it is automatically forced to get back where it was, so an opposed force has to be applied on it to keep it there until the photon from the other particle is back with the information that it can stay there. If we stop applying the force though, it doesn't erase the redshift the second particle has imprinted on the photon it has already emitted backward to the first one, which is thus forced to move forward again when that light comes in, and so on for the second particle later on, which produces the constant motion that we can observe when we stop the acceleration.

[guest39538]

Resistance is easier to explain with doppler effect though: whenever we try to accelerate the first particle in my simulations on acceleration, it automatically produces blueshift on the light from the second one, and it is automatically forced to get back where it was, so an opposed force has to be applied on it to keep it there until the photon from the other particle is back with the information that it can stay there. If we stop applying the force though, it doesn't erase the redshift the second particle has imprinted on the photon it has already emitted backward to the first one, which is thus forced to move forward again when that light comes in, and so on for the second particle later on, which produces the constant motion that we can observe when we stop the acceleration.

Could you elaborate more ?  I sort of understand

[David Cooper]

The light that bonds the particles is the one that succeeded to escape from the bonding between the components.

I can't follow the logic of that. If the light has escaped, it can have no further role in the bonding: it can't go on travelling to and fro between the particles to maintain the bond.

During one of the particle's step, its components' steps are thus forced to accelerate to a top speed and then decelerate to rest, so some light escapes from them, but that light isn't lost, it is used further away to accelerate the steps from the other particle's components, and vice-versa.

If it isn't actually lost, then it hasn't been released, so it isn't the energy released by the bond being formed.

But what stops two non-bonded particles from being bonded particles when they get close together?

Speed, as with atoms in a plasma phase for instance.

If it's just speed, then why don't two books bond together when you put them in a bookcase? Why don't the pages all bond together? All the atoms there are bouncing about with the same energy (some going faster than others depending on their mass, but there's no difference between bonded and unbonded ones). You haven't modelled bonding at all.

There is only one way to pull two bonded particles away from one another: throw a third particle directly in between them at high speed.

Picture an air molecule at rest with its two or three atoms aligned vertically. Another air molecule comes in from the left and it's lowest atom hits the highest of the atoms of the first molecule, sending it directly to the right. This kind of collision happens a lot in air without the bonds breaking. The atom that was hit will drag the other atoms in its molecule after it (and the molecule will spin).

but as my simulation on acceleration shows, reversing the acceleration does not reverse the contraction,

And yet it should, so what is it actually simulating? Compression?

The method can be wrong, but the logic can't. If we accelerate a firsts particle while its light takes some time to inform the second one that it has moved, then it will have the time to move towards that second one before it moves away, and it will also go on moving towards it during the time the light from that second one will be getting back.

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.

Of course, but I always consider that the twin at rest is at rest with regard to space so that I'm not forced to use the reference frame principle interminable wording.

Which means that your approach feels closer to the SR one than to LET. With LET, the "stationary" twin is almost certainly not stationary, so it makes no sense to avoid explaining the thought experiment with him moving. You should always consider at least two cases and use the word "if".

[Le Repteux (OP)]

Which means that your approach feels closer to the SR one than to LET. With LET, the "stationary" twin is almost certainly not stationary, so it makes no sense to avoid explaining the thought experiment with him moving. You should always consider at least two cases and use the word "if".

SR people already know that the twins are already moving with the earth when one of them starts to accelerate away from the other, and they also know that the accelerating twin will have to travel twice as fast getting back home if they change reference frames, so the only thing that really differentiates the twins is acceleration. If the twins were in space instead of on earth, without knowing which twin has accelerated, nobody could tell which one has gotten younger without looking at their clocks, and inversely, looking at their clocks would automatically tell us which one has accelerated, except maybe SR people that would probably still stick to the idea that motion has to stay relative whatever the logical problems it causes, and that would still try to explain it using the reference frame principle even if acceleration is involved, thus sweeping it under the rug again. Acceleration is simple to understand and determinant, and if we can't convince them to admit that, then I think it is useless to use a more complicated way like you do. They are experts at complicating things, and logic is not part of their vocabulary, so I prefer to hit the acceleration nail as often as I can. On the other hand, going through their complications like you do at least shows them that they can't win at that game either.

The light that bonds the particles is the one that succeeded to escape from the bonding between the components.

I can't follow the logic of that. If the light has escaped, it can have no further role in the bonding: it can't go on traveling to and fro between the particles to maintain the bond.

It escapes from the components' bonding because it is not constant, but not from the particles' bonding since it is. If I made a simulation with two light clocks representing my two particles for instance, if I would accelerate them for a while and then let them go, and if I gave all the steps a sinusoidal shape, the steps the mirrors would make with regard to one another would not be constant, while the steps the clocks themselves would make with regard to one another would be. The clocks would be executing constant length's sinusoidal steps and the mirrors' steps would have to follow them, thus getting longer and longer until the clock's sinusoidal step gets in its middle, and getting shorter and shorter until the same clock's sinusoidal step ends. Longer steps in the same time means faster speed, and a change in speed means acceleration, so the steps the mirrors would be executing would accelerate and decelerate at a sinusoidal rate, thus losing some light in the process, a light that would necessarily reach the other clock after a while, and that could certainly produce its sinusoidal step since it has escaped from such a step.

If it's just speed, then why don't two books bond together when you put them in a bookcase? Why don't the pages all bond together?

Because molecules don't get close enough for the bonding to take place. Take two metal plates, polish them, hold them together in void, and you will get a bonding between them. If you give them some speed towards one another instead of holding them, they will bounce back instead of bonding. I must admit that speed is not the only parameter though, the strength of the bond is determinant too. If the plates are charged for instance, you will get a bonding even if they don't touch.
 

  but as my simulation on acceleration shows, reversing the acceleration does not reverse the contraction,

And yet it should, so what is it actually simulating? Compression?

Thanks! It's about time I get that one. You're right, contraction should reverse until the particles get at rest on the screen, and it doesn't, so something is wrong with that simulation even if the idea that contraction happens at acceleration is right. Back to the drawing board!

Picture an air molecule at rest with its two or three atoms aligned vertically. Another air molecule comes in from the left and it's lowest atom hits the highest of the atoms of the first molecule, sending it directly to the right. This kind of collision happens a lot in air without the bonds breaking. The atom that was hit will drag the other atoms in its molecule after it (and the molecule will spin).

Rotation is different from constant motion, but I didn't simulate it yet, so I can only imagine it. In my simulation on acceleration, after having been accelerated a quantum bit, the first particle to suffer acceleration has to be held where it is while the photon makes its round trip, and it cannot be held in your example, so it should first get away from the second one and then get back where it was, what should produce a vibration. I have to solve my contraction problem before studying rotation though. I could use the SR equation and contract the system each time it accelerates a quantum bit, but I'm not in a hurry. I still hope to discover the underlying mechanism.

[David Cooper]

It escapes from the components' bonding because it is not constant, but not from the particles' bonding since it is.

If you're going to say the light is lost and that this lost light is related to the bonding energy reducing the total mass/energy of the bonded pair, you can't have the bonded pair keep hold of that energy in any way - it has to radiate off, and then your mechanism has to account for the bonding being maintained without that radiated energy.

Because molecules don't get close enough for the bonding to take place.

Yes they do - they wouldn't be able to conduct heat if the atoms weren't actively bumping into each other, and that bumping isn't enough to create bonds.

Take two metal plates, polish them, hold them together in void, and you will get a bonding between them.

That might be the case in a vacuum, but only because nothing's available to bond with any unbalanced atoms that are left looking for something to bond with until the plates come together.

If you give them some speed towards one another instead of holding them, they will bounce back instead of bonding.

In which case the same would work in air as in a vacuum with the air bouncing off without bonding due to speed. The reality is that bonding is more complicated than your model allows for.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

Resistance is easier to explain with doppler effect though: whenever we try to accelerate the first particle in my simulations on acceleration, it automatically produces blueshift on the light from the second one, and it is automatically forced to get back where it was, so an opposed force has to be applied on it to keep it there until the photon from the other particle is back with the information that it can stay there. If we stop applying the force though, it doesn't erase the redshift the second particle has imprinted on the photon it has already emitted backward to the first one, which is thus forced to move forward again when that light comes in, and so on for the second particle later on, which produces the constant motion that we can observe when we stop the acceleration.

Could you elaborate more ?  I sort of understand

Ask me a question about the part you understand less.

[guest39538]

whenever we try to accelerate the first particle in my simulations on acceleration, it automatically produces blueshift on the light from the second one,

I will start with this part, are you saying that when the observer tries to move away from the observer at rest, the observer at rest pulls back on the observer trying to accelerate away ?

[Le Repteux (OP)]

whenever we try to accelerate the first particle in my simulations on acceleration, it automatically produces blueshift on the light from the second one,

I will start with this part, are you saying that when the observer tries to move away from the observer at rest, the observer at rest pulls back on the observer trying to accelerate away ?

The first particle in my simulation is at the left, and it is accelerated towards the other particle which is at the right. Both particles are continuously exchanging a photon that carries the information on the distance it has traveled, which is the actual distance of the bond, and on the motion of the particle at the moment it was sending the photon, so whenever we try to move the left particle to the right, we have to move it against the force of the incoming photon which is actually trying to keep the right bonding distance while pushing it back to the left. The two forces are thus opposing to one another creating what we call mass. What you are describing happens when acceleration has stopped and particles are on constant motion, except that it is not the observer that pulls or pushes on the other observer like you said, but the light it sends towards it. The photon is emitted during a step, and a particle has already come to a rest when its photon reaches the other particle and vice-versa, which means that the two observers do not actually move at the same time even if they are on constant motion, which also means that when we see something moving, half of its atoms are at rest while the other half is actually making a step forward.

[guest39538]

whenever we try to accelerate the first particle in my simulations on acceleration, it automatically produces blueshift on the light from the second one,

I will start with this part, are you saying that when the observer tries to move away from the observer at rest, the observer at rest pulls back on the observer trying to accelerate away ?

The first particle in my simulation is at the left, and it is accelerated towards the other particle which is at the right. Both particles are continuously exchanging a photon that carries the information on the distance it has traveled, which is the actual distance of the bond, and on the motion of the particle at the moment it was sending the photon, so whenever we try to move the left particle to the right, we have to move it against the force of the incoming photon which is actually trying to keep the right bonding distance while pushing it back to the left. The two forces are thus opposing to one another creating what we call mass. What you are describing happens when acceleration has stopped and particles are on constant motion, except that it is not the observer that pulls or pushes on the other observer like you said, but the light it sends towards it. The photon is emitted during a step, and a particle has already come to a rest when its photon reaches the other particle and vice-versa, which means that the two observer do not actually move at the same time even if they are on constant motion, which also means that when we see something moving, half of its atoms are at rest while the other half is actually making a step forward.

I have discussed this before  and you will find each particle only has 1/2 its measured mass.   Because of F^2 = m

[Le Repteux (OP)]

If you're going to say the light is lost and that this lost light is related to the bonding energy reducing the total mass/energy of the bonded pair, you can't have the bonded pair keep hold of that energy in any way - it has to radiate off, and then your mechanism has to account for the bonding being maintained without that radiated energy.

In my model, radiation happens only during acceleration, and acceleration adds energy to the bonding if it comes from an external collision, which is why that kind of light is spontaneously rejected outside any particles' system after a short while. However, if the acceleration is due to the steps between the components being forced to follow the sinusoidal steps between the particles they are part of, then the energy that is rejected outside the components' system is immediately absorbed by the particles' system later on.

Because molecules don't get close enough for the bonding to take place.

Yes they do - they wouldn't be able to conduct heat if the atoms weren't actively bumping into each other, and that bumping isn't enough to create bonds.

Heat can also prevent particles from bonding, but we're talking about molecules, which can bond through van der Waals forces depending on circumstances that visibly prevent molecules to bond pages of a book. These forces are weak so they are more elastic than atoms' ones, which is why molecules give rise to what we call physical waves instead of producing small steps when they are accelerated.

The reality is that bonding is more complicated than your model allows for.

Of course it is, but since light seems to be able to explain mass and motion while being exchanged between bonded particles, then I think it is worth studying how it can also explain bonding. Simulations are a good tool to study that kind of thing, and I bet scientists are unable to use them since it implies that relativity is wrong, so we have a head start on them. Simulations cannot simulate all what nature accounts for, but they still can give us a good insight on what it does.

[opportunity]

Computers cant test what you are not able to test, right...we the people who program, right?

What are you looking to confirm, right? Maybe deny?

[Le Repteux (OP)]

I have discussed this before  and you will find each particle only has 1/2 its measured mass.   Because of F^2 = m

When I said half of the particles were moving, I was describing constant motion, where the particles are making constant steps at different moments, but it is different when they get accelerated, which is what determines their mass. When we accelerate a particle, it opposes to the light from the other particle, so some mass comes front its resistance to move towards it, but the main part comes from the resistance its components oppose to the light they exchange, because that light is a lot more energetic than the one the particles exchange, so it is a bit more complicated than just considering that half of the total mass is measured. Half of the mass comes from the components, and a bit less than half comes from the other particle because, particles being farther away from one another than the components, the light they exchange loses much more intensity with distance than the light the components exchange.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

Computers cant test what you are not able to test, right...we the people who program, right?

What are you looking to confirm, right? Maybe deny?

Hi Opportunity, welcome aboard!

I'm studying the way light moves between moving bonded particles, and simulations are a nice tool to do so. Math can also do that, but we have to imagine the motion instead of seeing it, which is impossible to do when motion gets a bit complicated. Here is the link to my simulations, try them out and tell me your feeling.

[guest39538]

I have discussed this before  and you will find each particle only has 1/2 its measured mass.   Because of F^2 = m

When I said half of the particles were moving, I was describing constant motion, where the particles are making constant steps at different moments, but it is different when they get accelerated, which is what determines their mass. When we accelerate a particle, it opposes to the light from the other particle, so some mass comes front its resistance to move towards it, but the main part comes from the resistance its components oppose to the light they exchange, because that light is a lot more energetic than the one the particles exchange, so it is a bit more complicated than just considering that half of the total mass is measured. Half of the mass comes from the components, and a bit less than half comes from the other particle because, particles being farther away from one another than the components, the light they exchange loses much more intensity with distance than the light the components exchange.

What actually happens is that when a particle is traversing towards another particle, it inverts the spatial EM field that is relatively traversing towards the oncoming particle.   Imagine two lights that were aligned vertically, one pointing up and one pointing down.  Each light being a different wattage,  now the more powerful light will invert the other light although you would not see this by eye.

Added- Well , actually we do see this in colour and EQL's .


Ab.jpg (199.53 kB . 2524x1880 - viewed 4003 times)

In relation is field density and field convergence , but hopefully you get the points.  In the diagram the inverted light flows ''backwards'' and ''forwards'' at the same time .

[Le Repteux (OP)]

And yet it should, so what is it actually simulating? Compression?

I'm actually working on that simulation. I'll be back in a few days.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

What actually happens is that when a particle is traversing towards another particle, it inverts the spatial EM field that is relatively traversing towards the oncoming particle.   Imagine two lights that were aligned vertically, one pointing up and one pointing down.  Each light being a different wattage,  now the more powerful light will invert the other light although you would not see this by eye.

Two synchronized sources of light create interference patterns like these ones
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Two_sources_interference.gif
The two lights interfere without their information being affected, and you seem to mean that it would. Is that so?

[guest39538]

What actually happens is that when a particle is traversing towards another particle, it inverts the spatial EM field that is relatively traversing towards the oncoming particle.   Imagine two lights that were aligned vertically, one pointing up and one pointing down.  Each light being a different wattage,  now the more powerful light will invert the other light although you would not see this by eye.

Two synchronized sources of light create interference patterns like these ones
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Two_sources_interference.gif
The two lights interfere without their information being affected, and you seem to mean that it would. Is that so?

Yes that is so, the information is not affected if I understand your question right.  A particle for example when it moves away from another particle can easily lose entanglement to the other particle.    The connection is field strength and is wide, but I don't think particles entangle the same information, not all particles are the same.  A beam of particles could soon be lost in space , dissipate without even being seen, its like holding a bunch of all the particles in your hand, some will easily scatter and be lost ,  they only need a direction to travel , you probably just think I am talking rubbish, I probably am . 

To add, do you think a handful of particles will lose more mass or keep more mass?

Or will the hand retain all the mass and none escapes ?  The hand covers the particles so none escape ?

In physics, a free particle is a particle that, in some sense, is not bound by an external force, or equivalently not in a region where its potential energy varies. In classical physics, this means the particle is present in a "field-free" space. In quantum mechanics, it means a region of uniform potential, usually set to zero in the region of interest since potential can be arbitrarily set to zero at any point (or surface in three dimensions) in space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_particle