0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
Non-bonded particles are made of bonded components that also execute small steps to stay on sync.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A simulation simulates the real universe, so if it doesn't give the right numbers, we have to fin the bug, not discard it.
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.
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?
But what stops two non-bonded particles from being bonded particles when they get close together?
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?
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 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 accelerations reveal which twin moves more quickly through space on average than the other. Both may be moving.
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.
Quote from: Le Repteux on 09/07/2018 14:24:14 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.
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.
The light that bonds the particles is the one that succeeded to escape from the bonding between the components.
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.
Quote from: David Cooper on 09/07/2018 22:00:01But 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.
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.
but as my simulation on acceleration shows, reversing the acceleration does not reverse the contraction,
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.
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".
Quote from: Le Repteux 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.
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?
Quote from: Le Repteux 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?
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).
It escapes from the components' bonding because it is not constant, but not from the particles' bonding since it is.
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.
Quote from: Le Repteux on 10/07/2018 19:06:29Resistance 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
whenever we try to accelerate the first particle in my simulations on acceleration, it automatically produces blueshift on the light from the second one,
Quote from: Le Repteux on 12/07/2018 12:18:39 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 ?
Quote from: Thebox on 12/07/2018 13:14:10Quote from: Le Repteux on 12/07/2018 12:18:39 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.
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.
QuoteBecause 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.
The reality is that bonding is more complicated than your model allows for.
I have discussed this before and you will find each particle only has 1/2 its measured mass. Because of F^2 = m
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?
Quote from: Thebox on 13/07/2018 14:34:16I 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.
And yet it should, so what is it actually simulating? Compression?
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.
Quote from: Thebox on 14/07/2018 15:44:26What 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 oneshttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Two_sources_interference.gifThe two lights interfere without their information being affected, and you seem to mean that it would. Is that so?
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.