Mass-giving particles slow clocks

1. Aug 4, 2004

kurious

If particles like quarks and electrons get rest mass by interacting with electrically charged particles that fill space,we can imagine them being surrounded by a cloud of such mass-giving particles.Let's postulate that for a force carrier like a photon to exert a force on a quark,for example,the photon
collides with the mass-giving cloud and compresses it.The mass-giving particles will thus increase in density and the speed of them and the quark will increase.Also we would expect by relatvity theory that the mass of the quark would increase i.e the smaller, denser cloud is associated with a greater mass (the length of the cloud will be inversely proportional to its mass under special relativity).A small clock placed in the cloud and moving with the cloud would be expected to run more slowly than a clock at rest
in some frame.Could the greater density of the mass-giving particles in the cloud be slowing the clock down somehow.If we think of a clock as being a photon bouncing between two mirrors, then the answer is surely yes,
because a greater number of mass-giving particles between the mirrors
would mean that the photon would be absorbed and scattered more times and so would take longer to travel from one mirror to the other.

2. Aug 4, 2004

Vern

The cloud as well as the clock moving with the cloud would only run slower (clock) and be more massive ( cloud ) for an observer who was not moving with the cloud. For an observer moving with the cloud, the mass of the cloud and the speed of the clock would be exactly the same, no matter its speed through space.

That's one of the things that make relativity interesting

We've been working on those ideas.

Keep on chuggin !!

Vern

3. Aug 4, 2004

kurious

Vern:
The cloud as well as the clock moving with the cloud would only run slower (clock) and be more massive ( cloud ) for an observer who was not moving with the cloud. For an observer moving with the cloud, the mass of the cloud and the speed of the clock would be exactly the same, no matter its speed through space.

Kurious:
That is right but so also is my idea!And it provides a physical cause for relativistic effects.There will be a limit to how much the cloud can be compressed and hence to the mass of the quark in it.This limit will come about because the number of mass-giving particles in the universe is finite and so the cloud which is a tiny fraction of the total number cannot be pushed against something infinite and immovable and be squashed to a point.However, the clock must tick at the same rate for all wavelengths of light.This means that the mass-giving particles must come in different sizes that interact with different wavelengths.

Last edited: Aug 4, 2004
4. Aug 4, 2004

Vern

I don't think any more mass giving particles need be added to the cloud for it to become more massive. The particles in the cloud become more massive themselves without the addition of anything from outside the local frame. So, I don't see the limiting factor.

Keep on chuggin !!

Vern

5. Aug 4, 2004

kurious

Vern:
The particles in the cloud become more massive themselves without the addition of
anything from outside the local frame

Kurious:
The particles in the cloud push against the other mass-giving particles of the entire universe.The cloud is just a local density fluctuation in the cloud of mass-giving particles which fills the entire universe.

6. Aug 4, 2004

kurious

If the cloud of mass-giving particles can't be compressed beyond a certain density ( because the cloud is made from electric charges of the same sign we would need an infinite force to compress the cloud to infinite density)then the moving clock
would never stop ticking - it would not get an infinite time dilation - just a very large time dilation.This could be represented by:

t1 = t2 / [(1 - v^2/c^2 + small constant)^1/2]

7. Aug 4, 2004

Vern

This cloud of mass giving particles must be something you have figured out yourself; I've never heard of the concept. Your moving cloud would be more massive even if there were nothing else in the universe but the observer and your cloud. IMHO

I agree that you would never get to infinite density, only a little greater, a little greater on and on, never quite get there.

Keeo on chuggin !!

Vern

8. Aug 4, 2004

kurious

Vern:
I agree that you would never get to infinite density, only a little greater, a little greater on and on, never quite get there.

Kurious:
In fact you would get a definite finite maximum value which I think is about 10^19 times the rest density. The small constant would have a value in
m = mo / [(1 - v^2/c^2 + small constant)^1/2]
of 10^ -38.
This is so the maximum time dilation in the universe given by
t1 = t2 / [(1 - v^2/c^2 + small constant)^1/2]

cannot exceed the age of the universe which is currently about 10^19 seconds.

9. Aug 4, 2004

kurious

A source of gravity such as the Earth would increase the density of the mass-giving particles and slow a clock down too e.g a photon bouncing between mirrors would have to scatter off more particles in the gap between the mirrors.These mass-giving particles are consistent with special relativity and general relativity.The gravitational force carrier would increase the density of mass-giving particles by colliding with them. If the mass-giving particles don't cause mass by attaching themselves to quarks by the electric force, perhaps they use a new short range force.Whatever the nature of the attaching force the hypothesis of a cloud of mass-giving particles does seem to be a fruitful path to follow.

Last edited: Aug 4, 2004
10. Aug 4, 2004

Vern

The concept of a cloud of mass giving particles doesn't help me understand the universe or relativlty. I think H. Ziegler had it figured out pretty well about a hundred years ago. In a meeting with Einstein and Planck, Ziegler advocated that if the constituents all moved at the non varying speed of light, relativity would be a natural result. Relativity then works with classic non-varying space-time.

We're coming full circle now. More and more folks are coming around to Zigler's view. I'm leaning toward Ziegler's view myself.

Keep on chuggin !!

Vern

11. Aug 4, 2004

kurious

Vern:
The concept of a cloud of mass giving particles doesn't help me understand the universe or relativlty

Kurious:
The concept is an attempt to unify relativity with an alternative to Higgs theory.
I don't think the Higgs theory is right because it has been formulated to go with the standard model from which gravity - a theory about mass - is excluded! I'm also trying to put forward the idea that a singularity can be removed from a black hole if particles such as protons move at the singularity's positon at the speed of light with a diameter for the proton of:
L2 = L1 (1 - v^2/c^2 + 10^-19)^1/2
putting in L1 = 10^-15 metresfor the proton gives L2 = 10^ -34 metres.
So a singularity is not smaller than 10^-34 metres which is just bigger than the planck length of 10^-35 metres.

Last edited: Aug 4, 2004
12. Aug 5, 2004

kurious

The decay of muons in the upper atmosphere of the Earth could be prolonged because the fast moving muons would have a dense cloud of mass-giving particles around them and this could make it less likely that a w particle would get close enough to the muon to change it into an electron - the muon would remain intact for longer.The effect from general relativity of frame dragging (where the spinning Earth drags space-time with it and creates a vortex)might be explained by the idea that the mass-giving particles attached to the Earth rotate with the Earth and drag other particles which create space-time with them
( dark energy could be space - space and dark energy increase together -
and the interaction of dark energy particles with all other particles that exist in space, could be space-time - this is like saying the rubber sheet analogy often used for spacetime is correct:spacetime like rubber is made from particles).
The equivalence principle will also hold for the mass-giving particles:
a platform accelerating and compressing the cloud of mass-giving particles,
will be equivalent to the compression of the cloud around a platform caused by the pressure from gravitational force carriers in a gravitational field.
In both cases a clock will run slower.

Last edited: Aug 6, 2004
13. Aug 7, 2004

Vern

I can visualize your concept but I don't know if the mechanics would work out. It seems to be an overly complicated way to get the clocks to run slower. I guess the fact that we know that GR is real but don't know why it is real sends us on this kind of search.

I have a similar hypothesis; to me it is more simple way to get relativity out of nature

Keep on chuggin !!

Vern

14. Aug 8, 2004

kurious

Checked your web reference Vern.But I have the oppposite view to the idea that an electron is a photon.I think that photons are made of particle-antiparticles like positron-electron pairs.But I do think that all particles have electric and magnetic fields
even the apparently neutral ones.This makes it easier to see how they relate to one another in the physical world.

15. Aug 8, 2004

Chronos

Hmm, I don't think Vern is saying electrons and photons are one in the same. I thought the Ziegler thing would be easy to refute. Unfortunately, it is not [Help!]. The spherical standing wave concept of matter is also troubling. Changing perspective from a vector to scalar solution is uncomfortable. Strangely enough though, it permits GR and QT to coexist. Weird.