On the Origin of Inertia
Published in physic.philica.com
In line with Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), where everything is based on particle interactions, I hypothesise that inertia is due to a new particle, named the inerton for convenience.
This theory borrows ideas from chemistry. Usually, physics is used to explain chemistry, but not the other way round. In this theory, some chemical ideas are used to explain inertia.
This theory will also explain to some extent how gravity works, as inertia and gravity may be linked.
1) Bond breaking requires energy.
2) The amount of inertons in a body is directly proportional to its mass. (hence why mass is said to be equivalent to inertia)
Hypothesis for inertia:
Inside a body, there are two kinds of inertons, the positive and the negative. They are not electrically charged particles like electrons or protons. However, they do attract each other, by some other mechanism, that is outside the scope of this paper.
When the body is at rest, the opposite inertons attract, and form a kind of a "bond".
However, moving the body from rest will disrupt them, causing the "bonds" to break.
Bond-breaking is endothermic and requires energy, which explains why the body is reluctant to move at the start.
Once the body starts moving at constant velocity, the opposite inertons are moving around, but very quickly attracts each other back due to the many random collisions that bring one inerton with contact with another.
Hence, the body will continue moving, and stopping it requires a force to break the bonds again. This is because stopping the body will "jolt" the inertons such that the bonds break, which requires energy. This explains why "a body in motion will continue in motion".
As for how this theory explains gravity, it can show how the inertons cause gravity, by instantaneous dipole- induced dipole, an idea in chemistry.
This idea states that in random motion, there is always a chance that on one side of the body there is a higher concentration of positive inertons, for example. This would induce a higher concentration of negative inertons on the other side, causing an attractive force.
This also explains why gravity only attracts, and never repels, as induced dipoles can only attract.
July 18, 2006
Information about this Article
Published on Monday 24th July, 2006 at 11:53:30.
Peer review added 25th July, 2006 at 17:39:05
I am afraid this article is too simplistic, and cannot start to explain the properties of inertia. The extension to gravity is clearly wrong, because the suggested dipole-dipole force cannot be 1/r^2.
Peer review added 19th August, 2006 at 15:41:39
Anyone can dream up a new “particle” to “explain” virtually anything.
Peer review added 27th September, 2006 at 14:49:48
To short, and not nearly enough detail relating the ideas to reality.
Peer review added 8th October, 2006 at 22:48:32
This article does not have enough reality to support the data.
Website copyright © 2006-07 Philica; authors retain the rights to their work under this Creative Commons License and reviews are copyleft under the GNU free documentation license.
Using this site indicates acceptance of our Terms and Conditions.
This page was generated in 0.0842 seconds.