You read my mind :0), that's what Cooper told me about this kind of contraction, and I gave him the point, because the only way out was that nothing could pull a particle, that particles could only be pushed around, and I was unsure about that. Of course, I had a second thought, and I figured that even if we could pull an atom away from the other atom in my example, its components would still be pushed one against the other, so they would still suffer that kind of contraction if whatever bonds them is not instantaneous. What would happen then during acceleration is that the distance between the atoms would stretch, while the distance between their components would contract, which incited me to have a closer look at the way atoms get pushed: in my example, an atom that is part of a molecule is pushed by another atom that is part of another molecule, thus it is whatever bonds two molecules that tells their atoms not to penetrate further into the other molecule, or not to get away from it.BurtJordaan » July 22nd, 2017, 5:30 am wrote:Inchworm » 21 Jul 2017, 15:17 wrote:I showed one lately here for length contraction but you did not comment, it happened between two accelerated bonded atoms, and it was due to information taking time to accelerate the second one. Here it is again in case you would like to comment it:
Question, if instead of 'pushing' particle A, you were 'pulling' particle B, would you then have a lingering length expansion instead of lingering contraction?
That kind of bonding is the same as atoms' bonding, it's electromagnetic, and it's a standing wave phenomenon. If we put two sources of identical waves at their standing wave nodes, we get a bonding between them, and if we push or pull one them around, the standing wave will bring them back at the nodes, and it doesn't matter what side of the wave is acting, it is always pushing towards the node. So if we would push or pull one of the sources long enough, it is the other source that would be pushed towards the node after a while, and its motion would push the first source away later on, but the damage would done, contraction or stretching would be done, and only an opposed acceleration could undo them.
That's what would be happening to the atoms of an interferometer if we would accelerate it, so let's analyze that situation, but since we are looking for what is happening at the atom's scale, let's reduce it to three atoms that form a right angle, let's accelerate the vertical arm made of two atoms towards the third atom for a while, and let the system travel by inertia after (we will do the pulling later on). Of course, that arm will move towards the other atom before the information from that motion has the time to move that other atom, so the distance between the arm and the third atom will contract, but the information also takes time between the atoms that form the vertical arm, and if we accelerate its two atoms at the same time, because of the beaming phenomenon, the light that already forms their standing wave will automatically be sent sideways to the motion, and it will hit them exactly at their usual node, which means that their timing would not change during acceleration, whereas the timing between the atoms of the other arm would, and it would stop changing as soon as the acceleration would stop to be replaced by the atoms constantly trying to follow the other atom with a delay. The information that tells the atoms how to move would then be conserved in the form of doppler effect between them, it would thus belong to their standing wave. This way, after acceleration would have stopped, a signal sent from the middle atom to the two other atoms would take the same time to do the roundtrip because light would already be synchronized both ways with regard to the same middle atom.
Now that the pushing is better explained, the pulling part is easier to figure out, no need to describe the whole process, we know that the atoms would move to stay synchronized even if the distance between the two atoms of the lower arm would get stretched during the pulling of the third atom, and we know that they would still move to stay synchronized after the acceleration would have stopped, what would also entertain their inertial motion. If I had the knowledge to build simulations like Cooper's ones, it would be easier to illustrate what I'm saying, but I hope it's still digestible enough for you to be able to discuss it. Notice that even if it seems off mainstream, the way light moves between moving atoms is still an SR issue.
C is impossible to measure one way even during acceleration, so I guess it is impossible to tell the direction of acceleration only while observing light, but we can observe the direction of the force, and we can remember that direction with a light gyroscope, so I figure that the atoms can do that too. With a GPS, we can even know the directions we took all year long, so I also figure that the atoms can do that. The motion an atom has now depends on all the accelerations it has suffered since it is born, so it is a kind of memory of those accelerations, and the way light behaves between my two atoms shows that this memory could be due to the constancy of the only two parameters of light: its direction and its speed.Burt wrote:Whatever the doppler effect though, as Cooper's simulation on MMx shows, the two way light would still take more time between the two particles once they would be in motion.
During acceleration, the two-way speed of light depends on the direction relative to the acceleration, but once the acceleration stops, the two way light speed returns to its normal 'c', even in LET.