Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

To Begin With, Why Is There Any Motion At All!


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#18 QuantumTantrum

QuantumTantrum

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts

Posted 01 June 2015 - 12:38 AM

Fundamentally motion occurs because no system can be an analogue state of a pure frozen system: there are two reasons for this, one lies in the uncertainty principle which states no particle can at any time have a definitive position, which must induce motion.The second is the temperature argument, no system can reach an absolute zero state. 



#19 LeRepteux

LeRepteux

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts

Posted 01 June 2015 - 10:44 AM

Hi QT, what if I replaced motion by change in your phrase?

 

To me, motion is a state, whereas change means a change in that state. To change the state of motion of a body means to change its direction or its speed. In that sense, the uncertainty principle and the temperature can effectively change those parameters, but only because all the bodies of the universe are already moving with respect to one another at any scale. If bodies were not already moving, thus if they did not possess their own mass, there would be no temperature and no uncertainty principle for us to measure. Motion is already there, we can observe it, and we can observe mass also, but we cannot observe the link between those two phenomenon.

 

To me, it is not sufficient to say that mass induces motion to explain that link, we also have to find the hidden mechanism. The small steps are material, they cover a distance with time, its a real mechanism. They still have to be proven, but they explain motion as a real phenomenon, not only as an abstraction.



#20 engcat

engcat

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts

Posted 01 June 2015 - 02:20 PM

I thought it was all about the force, since Newton. Even on quantum level, it is all about force. In that sense even quantum mechanics are Newtonian, everything is predicated on force.

#21 LeRepteux

LeRepteux

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts

Posted 02 June 2015 - 07:22 AM

Force develops between two bodies that already carry a mass, and it can initiate motion between them, but once motion is set, no force is needed to keep them going on. Its only reversal reasoning to think that these bodies keep going because there is no force applied on them. To be observable, mass must depend on a physical mechanism, and since there is a strong conceptual link between mass and motion, to me, that mechanism must explain both phenomenon. The Higgs explains mass, but it doesn't explain motion, what lets me think that there might be something fishy going on with that explanation. Have a look at my OP if you didn't, and tell me what you think of that possibility: the illustration of the small steps that I am talking about at the end is here.



#22 engcat

engcat

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts

Posted 02 June 2015 - 10:14 PM

I suspect, if your theory is taken to mathematical scrutiny, it will encounter instability problems. In other words, I would expect that if motion is to be explained as subatomic particles working in synch as gears to propel its larger body, the theory would fail to explain many motion patterns. At least until after years and decades of research some stabilizing factors were introduced.

For now, it is unnecessary to take motion of a body as a sum of its subatomic parts, because of the strong forces. Nor do I see a reason to postulate that excited subatomc parts of a body are the engine and gears that move that body, mainly because observation, evidence, make it unnecessary.

#23 LeRepteux

LeRepteux

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts

Posted 04 June 2015 - 01:23 PM

My proposal is only an hypothesis Engcat, but it is a fundamental one, so its is important to consider that, if it works, it might change the way we think particles are acting. We had to develop quantum mechanics because of the data, and we also have a lot of data about mass that doesn't fit with the theory, beginning with the one about the loss of mass when two massive particles link. Saying that energy and mass are the same doesn't show how the particles are acting: its not a mechanism. The small steps is a real mechanism, and it can explain mass, motion, and loss of mass at the same time. Mass is as evident as motion, and it is probably why we did not look behind mass to define motion, but now that we have a possible mechanism for both, why not inspect it more closely?


Edited by LeRepteux, 04 June 2015 - 01:26 PM.


#24 LeRepteux

LeRepteux

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts

Posted 28 September 2015 - 07:09 PM

Anybody wants to resume this discussion with me?