A crazy idea about inertial motion

Not satisfied with quantum theory AI? Try mine: its QT applied to motion! Oh, sorry, I see that you have understanding problems! Begin with the two cars and I will help you through the atoms.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Le Repreaux, I think you really need to have a serious look at the terminology and construction of your OP so that you don't repeatedly defeat your own purpose.
The words you use have specific meaning and in some case a massive body of work behind them.
I am unclear as to what you are actually proposing and I agree with rpenner and other who have noted same.
Try a heading(s) format like:
Introduction:
Preamble:
Process:
Proposition:
Conclusion:
and after you have written your stuff re-appraise it and ask yourself does this make sense [ even if it is wrong at least the reader will be able to make that opinion and offer reasons for it being so]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi QQ,

I read lots of your writings here and appreciated your style, unfortunately, I am afraid I wont be able to compete with you on that ground. On the other hand, I think that I am good enough to be understood. I am not here for a writing contest, I am here for an idea, and the way I had it is the only way I can discuss it. It is natural that new ideas are unclear, mine is unclear even for me. I saw that you had some, and I was interested in what you had to say about them. Of course, I would also have had comments to make if I would not have been that late in the discussions, but constructive ones though, not about the form, and not to tell you which way to go.

History and psychology has proven that it is already almost impossible for a new idea to be understood at first sight. For mine to be, I know its going to take a lot of chance and a lot of time, so I ask everybody to be patient. I have a lot to say about that idea, but I know that I might not be able go through the first psychological step, which is rejection. Some of us take their pleasure from that first step, so permit me to be rude with them, and if you want to help me, try not to follow them in that instinctive drive.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just trying to provide an idea, a way out of the circle I think you are in... maybe inspire a spiral instead...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Of course you can take my idea and put it aside, but I wonder how this is going to aid in MY understanding of what your idea is... after all is it not your intention that I may be able to eventually understand your idea?

 

Yes it is, but for me to help you understand, I have to know about what you don't understand exactly, not about the way I should answer you. I do my best you know, but I am not a writer, and I am afraid I will never be. Did you understand the example of the two cars? Do you agree that they would behave the way I described? If not, can you tell me why?

 

this idea is no where near hard to understand, it's actually quite simple to understand.
it's useless and irrelevant to anything because where this idea is coming from has no understanding of what it supposedly pertains to themselves.

 

Krash, I think that this answer below resumes quite well your behavior here:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/top-5-intriguing-space-discoveries.142827/#post-3234002

 

(shakes head)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

amusing.

 

Well, Le Repteux, I see this thread has developed nicely while I was away in France last weekend.

Do you want to do anything to get it back on course?

 

Hi exchemist, of course we can go on! We were here:

To resume, the principle in question is about the change in an interaction energy produced by the time/distance gap between massive bodies. It is possible to talk about this gap using a small change in the quantum energy levels, but I find it easier to use doppler effect when the wave form of a link is at work, which should be the case for electrons, no?

 

Toad, old bean, I take it that was addressed to me. You may be right, but at least Le Repteux is not so far making an obvious attempt to annoy me. So I don't see blatant evidence of troll behaviour yet. I'm content to persevere a bit longer in explaining some physics and chemistry, though I may get fed up in due course

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Not so fast.

We've got as far as ruling out internal exchange of photons, I think, because we've agreed the electrons stay in their ground states. Right?

Then you asked (if I understand you correctly) by what process a pair of colliding molecules, in which the electron clouds deform on close approach, manages to change the momentum of the nuclei, where most of the mass resides, and thus rebound from one another. That is rather a good question, in my opinion. I think the answer is that the deformation of the electron clouds will tend to reduce the electron density between the nuclei, leading to electrostatic repulsion between them.

I explained earlier that the shape of the potential experienced by the electrons would change, due to the presence of two nuclei, and that this would raise the energy of the bonding electrons. In effect their orbitals would start to have some of what chemists call "anti-bonding" character. An "anti-bonding" orbital is a molecular orbital in which electron density, far from being concentrated between the nuclei, is actually repelled out of the internuclear zone. These are the high energy states in molecules that are not usually occupied - in fact, promoting electrons to these states is a way to break chemical bonds.

So the mechanism of the collision interaction once again comes back to electrostatic attraction and repulsion. None of this requires Doppler effects (we've established there is no radiation), or your "small steps", so far as I can see. So I remain mystified as to what advantage your idea has over normal, well-understood, physics and quantum chemistry.

 

Too fast yourself!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I said that the electrons had to have a tolerance in their link, like any other massive body. Only light has no tolerance. So from that tolerance, they should be able to move a little within this link, but they would have to recover it as precisely as possible.

OK for the added repulsion, though I am not sure they need more to justify the small steps. If electrons from two different molecules encounter, they first should be pushed out of their comfort zone a little, and this should have an effect on the first nucleus in sight, which would then transfer it to the other nucleus by means of the electrons between them. These electrons do not have to get less dense to transfer information, they only have to be approached by a first nucleus, which would change their own comfort zone a little, and then this change would affect the other nucleus the same way the first one was affected by the first electron during the molecules' collision.

I had a look at wiki to refresh my memory on the orbital theory. If I understood well, the anti-bonding structure of the electron helps to explain a certain part of the strength of the bonding, which means that it helps to predict some chemical reactions, but this is not the case for the small steps, because they would not affect significantly the energy of the bonding.

Doppler effect is an easy way to explain the mechanism of the steps by avoiding to use the transfer of energy from the electrons, but it could be the right way too, I mean that this transfer of energy might be quantized. If the small steps exist, as far as chemistry is concerned, they could help us to understand better the electrons, thus the bonds between atoms; as far as physics is concerned, it might help us to understand inertial motion better, the same inertial motion that has led Einstein to imagine Special Relativity, and which still contain contradictions even if it leads to exact predictions; as far as we are concerned, it might help us to understand the link between our automatisms and our imagination, between our unconscious and conscious mind, thus between the past and the future, which would help us to understand time and its corollary: the distance that light has to travel between massive bodies to bring them information.

 

No, sir. That was for him. He came on here with attitude, ready to fight. He posted the same crap on another forum that got his thread locked. Lord knows how many other places have simply banned him for that kind of behavior.

 

I don't understand any of this. Can we start with your first para "I said that the electrons had to have a tolerance in their link, like any other massive body. Only light has no tolerance. So from that tolerance, they should be able to move a little within this link, but they would have to recover it as precisely as possible."

What do you mean by saying electrons have to have a tolerance in their link? What link? Linked to what?

 

I think that the word bond is more appropriate than the word link in english, so I was talking of the molecular bonds. I meant that the bonding energy level cannot be absolutely precise, that there had to be some tolerance in it, even if it is small. Vibrating molecules emit low energy radiation, which means that their electrons change levels, but once initiated, the small steps should not produce any, at least not a detectable one, because inertial motion does not produce any. Nevertheless, there should be a small difference between the energy level and the physical steps. If we take light as a mediator for instance, the physical steps of a nucleus would have to follow the light pulses a bit, because I don't think it could anticipate it. If there is such a time gap, then a photon that produces a step could not be completely used, and some of it should escape from the molecule even if we cannot detect it. It should be the same between the energy levels and the steps, they could not be anticipated by the nuclei, unless atoms could do what we do when we use our automatisms, which is to remember them and execute them subconsciously, thus anticipating them somehow.

 

OK thanks for clarification about link = bond. There is indeed what you might call a "tolerance" in bond length, in the sense that modes of vibration can be excited in molecular bonds, resulting in an oscillation in bond length. But no, the electrons do not change levels. We've been through this a couple of times now.

What happens is the molecule has various quantized vibrational states. This is due to the potential confining the atoms at either end of the bond, a bit like two weights joined by a spring. In molecules with a dipole, changes from one vibrational state to another can occur by emission or absorption of an IR photon. Please note the emission or absorption is due to the change in dipole and this is a function of the whole molecule, i.e. the ensemble of nuclei and electrons together. Molecules - whether they have a dipole or not - can also change vibrational state due to collisions. Such changes do not involve any radiation.

There is no need, in any of this, for a further level of explanation involving imaginary energy exchange between nuclei and electrons.

 

Sorry, this is the first time that I dig that deep into the chemistry of the small steps, and moreover, I hardly remember my chemistry lessons. Thanks again Mr Wiki!

If such a collision can change the direction and the speed of the molecules without them radiating light, then why couldn't it induce the small steps the same way? I mean, if the small steps do not change the dipole moments or the energy levels, they could be at work without us being able to observe them directly, no?

 

Or they could be at work without any detectable result at all, in which case, what evidence would there be for their existence?

What I do not understand is why you think the "small steps" explain anything that cannot already be explained. This is the crux of the challenge you face with your idea. So far, I have provided an explanation of all the phenomena you mention without difficulty and without needing your idea.

 

The small steps explain the most common phenomenon that we can observe: inertial motion. Until now, the only explanation of inertial motion was: inertial motion is due to mass. Massive bodies go straight line and do not change speed because they resist an acceleration when we try to accelerate them. Thats all there is, and its not a physical explanation, its only a deduction from a principle. We are not accelerating them when they are on inertial motion, and they are not resisting to any force, so why are they going on moving?

We cannot detect either what causes gravitation, but we are looking for it because we can observe gravitation at work. Meanwhile, we develop theories that help us understand gravitation. Why not develop theories that can help us understand inertial motion? After all, we can also observe it at work, no? SR was about inertial motion, and it was also about light, why not try to improve it?