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

[LeRepteux]

Hi everybody,

We take for granted that movement is intrinsic to massive bodies, but here is a mind experiment that shows it might be different from what we thought, more precisely, it shows that inertial movement could be due to time, not the time it takes for a body on inertial movement to move from one point to another, but the time it takes for whatever bonds their atoms, to travel between them, and inform them that they have to move with regard to the other atoms.

Here is the general idea: since, at the atomic scale, energy is always quantized, I suggest that motion could be.

 

I begin with a mind experiment that has nothing to do with atoms:

- Imagine two cars at rest on the same straight road but one km away from one another and heading in the same direction.

- There is an emitter and a receiver in each car and the signal exchanged between them is about the speed from their speedometer.

- One of the cars accelerates and decelerates for 10 seconds, so a signal is emitted every fraction of second indicating the speed at which the car is going.

- Lets us admit that the signal will take more time to travel one km than the time it takes for the car to accelerate and decelerate to rest.

- When the signal will arrive at the second car, at each fraction of second, its receiver will indicate exactly the speed at which it has to accelerate and decelerate.

- While it does so as precisely as it can, its own emitter will transmit the signal to the other car, which will repeat exactly the same move forward, and so on for the next car, indefinitely. If the energy to move the cars could be infinite, the signal absolutely precise, and the steps absolutely precise, this slinky kind of movement would never end and would never change, which is the very definition of inertial movement.

 

Now, replace the cars by two identical atoms linked together to form a molecule, and imagine that the energy they exchange to maintain their bond is quantized, which means that it would have the form of a signal, which would have to be constant for their bond to be constant. These two atoms, represented by their nuclei, are very far apart, like the two cars, far enough for the signal to take more time to travel that distance than for a nucleus to make a step towards the other nucleus. Lets assume now that one of them is forced to make such a step because it undergoes a push, and that the signal does not have time to reach the other nucleus before the step is finished.

Since the energy of their bond has to stay the same, won't the two nuclei be forced to proceed exactly like the two cars, which is to make small slinky like steps whose direction and length will never change unless they are forced to?

Edited December 13, 2014 by LeRepteux

[Racoon]

Well you say it is a Mind experiment nothing to do with Atoms,

 

Then you say its Atomical... So It sounds like a load of Rubbish..

[sanctus]

It seems to me that you are just describing the compression of a material before it's starting to move.

 

 

Rac, this is posted in alternative theories where it should (so far at least) so be kind ;-)

[LeRepteux]

Hi Sanctus,

 

Got a problem controlling the aggressiveness of your racoon pet? Try these new video games where they kill each other: they love it so much that they leave us alone for a while!

 

Yes, my idea looks like a kind of compression, but applied to the bond between atoms where friction is null, so there is no loss of kinetic energy with time, which is the case for inertial motion in empty space. Do you like the idea?

[sanctus]

Exactly the same problem as with the new reptile, if you insult him (no matter how it was meant) ;-)

 

Anyway, your thought experiment does not hold because it does not seem to explain why a body keeps moving after getting the initial push, while I gathered that you wanted to explain that.

[LeRepteux]

Whenever I face an aggressive pet, I play his game for a while until he gets tired and starts to play for fun. It takes time, but I am not aggressive for real, so it is not dangerous for him and it often works in the long run.

 

The two cars keep moving because they are programmed to do so, and they never stop because they have endless energy supply. For the atoms, its a bit different: no supply of energy needed and no programming either apart from timing, in such a way that for one of them to make one step, in the same time, its components would have to make billions of steps one before the other, and so on for their own components. This idea is an explanation for inertial motion, but as you may have also gathered, it is also one for mass, because to change the direction or the length of a particular step by pushing on an atom, we would have to desynchronize this step from the information that creates it, thus creating simultaneous resistance to that change, which is the very definition of mass.

Edited November 7, 2014 by LeRepteux

[CraigD]

We take for granted that motion is intrinsic to massive bodies, but here is a mind experiment that shows it might not be, more precisely, it shows that inertial motion could be due to time, not the time it takes for a body on inertial motion to move from one point to another, but the time it takes for whatever bonds their atoms, to travel between them, and inform them that they have to move with regard to the other atoms.

...

I begin with a mind experiment that has nothing to do with atoms

...

LeRepteux, you appear to be describing a conundrum that vexed physicists from about 1680 until the 1950s, when it was conclusively solved in by the theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED).

 

The real application of QED to atoms in a molecule is more complex than in your thought experiment, for two main reasons

• Atoms are not discrete bodies like the cars in your though experiment, but consist of may sub-particles, principally protons and electrons.
• QED is a quantum mechanical, not a classical mechanical, theory, so its calculations must involve an infinite number of possible interactions. (being able to do this with a practical, finite number of calculations is what makes QED a theory considered a work of genius, and worthy of the 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics!)

According to QED, changes in the velocity of protons and electrons are caused by interactions between them carried by photons, analogous to the signals sent by the cars about the speed from their speedometers, indicating how they need to accelerate or decelerate, in your though experiment.

 

I see a critical difference QED and your thought experiment: In your example, the energy (the potential to do physical work) of the signal can be much smaller than that needed to change the cars’ velocities. According to QED (and, as it described physical reality well, in reality), the energy of the photons is exactly that needed to change the protons’ and electrons’ velocities. So, in your example, the sending of a signal doesn’t immediately change the velocity of the car sending it. In reality, the emitting of photons by protons and electrons does.

[LeRepteux]

Hi Craig,

 

For the first time in two years on the net, a scientist tells me that my idea might have something to do with science: cheers.

 

The main argument against the possibility of the small steps was about real photons not being emitted between atoms of the same molecule, and my principle needs a constant source of photons since the signal that I am talking about is given by a very well known phenomenon: doppler effect. If we take for granted that the steps are synchronized with the light that produces them, then with doppler effect, any change in the frequency of the steps would simultaneously produce a resistance to their execution.

 

For the two cars at rest in the beginning of the experiment, any acceleration from one of them would tell him to get back to its previous position, because the signal from the other car would immediately indicate that it has to do so, which means that if we had to push him ahead, we would have to push against the power of the car. Atoms are not supposed to carry that kind of power, but nevertheless, with their small steps, they would resist an acceleration the same way if they had to work against doppler effect. 

 

You say that, according to QED, the virtual light that atoms are exchanging is energetic enough to produce their motion, and this is exactly what I had in mind for the small steps. The only difference between QED and the small steps would thus lie in the way mass is considered: for scientists, mass is inherent to matter and motion is only its side effect, for me, mass could be due to doppler effect which would also be a cause for motion. From what you know of QED's maths, do you think that my principle could be integrated to it or is it too different?

Edited December 6, 2014 by LeRepteux

[LeRepteux]

After having revisited Wiki about heliocentrisim, I revive the debate on the small steps.

Without an improved telescope, nothing could prove that heliocentrism was the solution, and nobody could suspect that it would help us understand gravitation. Heliocentrism became evident only when Galileo saw that the moon was irregular, that Venus had phases, that Jupiter had moons, that the size of the planets were changing with time, etc. Because of that lack of technology, it took 100 years before heliocentrism was accepted as a fact. Einstein was luckier, it took only a couple of years before the next eclipse showed the bending of starlight by the sun's mass. How long will the small steps stay unexamined? Bets are opened!

I said somewhere else that the small steps were unobservable since we had to use light from the atoms to observe them, and that we already know it is impossible to observe the inertial rotation of the earth this way. Trying to detect earth's rotation while observing the small steps that produce it would resume to repeat the Michelson/Morley experiment. But if this rotation is really due to the small steps, then it seems to me that the null result of the M/M experiment could be explained by the steps, thus giving some credit to that hypothesis.

For instance, if we detect a light ray actually traveling in the direction of earth's rotation, the atoms that we use to detect that light would actually be making their steps away from that light, which would retard its detection, and if the light ray that we detect would be going against the rotation, the steps would be going against the light, which would advance its detection. But since light would be emitted by atoms that are actually making the same steps as the ones that detect it, the retard from one atom would be nulled by the advance from the other and vice-versa, making it impossible to observe earth's rotation.

The small steps would have implications on the relativity principle if they were real, because SR has been developed from the null result of the M/M experiment, but what if they were? Even if you are convicted that relativity is true, can you imagine these implications? Would you still conclude that time is slowing for molecules on relative motion one before the other for instance? And if so, can you imagine how the small steps from their atoms would justify that slowing?

[CraigD]

You say that, according to QED, the virtual light that atoms are exchanging is energetic enough to produce their motion, and this is exactly what I had in mind for the small steps. The only difference between QED and the small steps would thus lie in the way mass is considered: for scientists, mass is inherent to matter and motion is only its side effect ...

The most fundamental definition of motion is “the rate of change in position”, conventionally mathematically written

[math]v = \frac{\Delta x}{\Delta t}[/math]

Note that this definition contains no reference to mass, or “matter”, which isn’t a fundamental quantity, but a category used in a less fundamental branch of physics. Therefore, I think “mass is inherent to matter and motion is only its side effect” isn’t an accurate natural language description of any scientific theory.

... for me, mass could be due to doppler effect which would also be a cause for motion.

The Doppler effect is a very fundamental observation about the relationship between frequency.

 

Frequency is most fundamentally described as “the rate of occurrence of something”, mathematically

[math]f = \frac{n}{\Delta t}[/math]

. Though frequency can apply to anything countable, it’s most commonly applied to waves, which may be considered measurable “occurrences” with a given separation, known as wavelength, and a common velocity, known as phase velocity, so it can also be described

[math]f = \frac{v}{\lambda}[/math]

 

The Doppler effect, then, described the difference in frequency measured by 2 “counters”,

[math]f_2 (v+ v_1) = f_1 (v + v_2)[/math]

 

Note that again, no mass term exists in any of these definitions, so I think “mass is due to Doppler effect” isn’t an accurate description of any scientific theory. It’s not in any way I’ve been able to imagine physically sensible.

 

From what you know of QED's maths, do you think that my principle could be integrated to it or is it too different?

Unless you are able to make a measurable physical prediction using explicit assumptions derived from it, “your principle” isn’t a scientific principle at all, so can’t be described scientifically.

 

Without an improved telescope, nothing could prove that heliocentrism was the solution, and nobody could suspect that it would help us understand gravitation. Heliocentrism became evident only when Galileo saw that the moon was irregular, that Venus had phases, that Jupiter had moons, that the size of the planets were changing with time, etc.

This isn’t historically accurate. As the Wikipedia page you linked summarizes, heliocentrism is known to have existed as an explanation for the movement of the Sun, Moon, and planets, around 270 BC, about 1800 years before Copernicus an Galileo.

 

Copernicus’s 1543 AD heliocentric model predates the first optical telescopes (of whom Galileo was one of the first makers and users for astronomy) by about 60 years. Around 150 AD, Ptolomy and other astronomers were making precise astronomical measurements using instruments with no light-bending parts in them, and over the next 1500 years, many astronomical observatories gathered large amounts of valuable and precise data using such instruments.

 

... How long will the small steps stay unexamined? …

“The small steps” seem to me to be a personal term of yours, LeRepteux. Until you explain your ideas in terms used by others, others are unlikely to understand them, and more importantly, you won’t be able to compare your ideas of existing scientific theories. I suspect that if you were better acquainted with conventional science, you would find that your ideas have long been considered and either explained.

 

Trying to detect earth's rotation while observing the small steps that produce it would resume to repeat the Michelson/Morley experiment

Although I don’t understand how your “small steps” have relevance to Though in principle observations from any labs with difference velocities can be used to conduct the Michelson Morley experiment, because it is about 64 times greater, the original and later MM experiments attempted to detect change in velocity of the Earths revolution around the Sun after about 6 months, not the difference in motion of points on opposite sides of the Earth due to its rotation about its axis.

 

For instance, if we detect a light ray actually traveling in the direction of earth's rotation, the atoms that we use to detect that light would actually be making their steps away from that light, which would retard its detection, and if the light ray that we detect would be going against the rotation, the steps would be going against the light, which would advance its detection.

Because, in general, higher power light is easier detect than lower, it generally true that it’s easier to detect light when moving toward its source than away, because of the change in frequency, and thus energy (which are relate by the Planck’s famous equation, E = hf ) due to the Doppler effect.

 

This is a very well theoretically explained effect, though, so I don’t see any need for a new idea such as your “small steps” to explain it, LeRepteux.

[LeRepteux]

Thanks for your kindness Craig, I've been on a few scientific forums before and it doesn't seem easy for the administrators to deal with what appears to be crazy ideas. I hope you don't mind that I finish explaining my thoughts though. I will answer your first comment on mass, but let me explain first how the small steps would produce mass increase when we accelerate particles.

Atoms' steps follow the information carried by light, and they are made of accelerations from rest followed by decelerations to rest (for atoms, rest here means no doppler effect to account for), which means that their speed increases to a top and decreases to zero. Their length and their direction can change, but not their frequency, thus for a molecule accelerated in a given direction, only their length can change. For a molecule to gain the same final speed, that length increases constantly if the acceleration is low but constant, and it increases abruptly if the acceleration is high. The longer a step, the faster its top speed will be if atoms cannot change the time it takes to make it. When the molecule would get to a certain speed close enough to the speed of light, the top speed of the steps would thus exceed the speed of light, which is impossible if their speed depend on light's information, and which means that the molecule would resist increasingly to be accelerated, what we interpret as mass increase for accelerated particles.

Now, if the frequency of the steps could change, atoms could increase it instead of resisting increasingly to acceleration, which means that if it was an atomic clock that was accelerated, it would run faster, which would unfortunately contradict SR. Since we can measure mass increase each time we accelerate a particle, I am incline to believe that, if the steps really exist, their frequency would not change, but it also means that we would have to interpret SR experiments differently since their internal mechanism would no slow down as the theory predicts.

 

I think “mass is inherent to matter and motion is only its side effect” isn’t an accurate natural language description of any scientific theory.

Let me put it differently: what if I said that, with the actual explanation of inertial mass, we can feel its mass when we get in contact with a body, but that we cannot feel it when it passes by, so that we can only imagine that it is still there, but that we cannot prove it. With the small steps (sorry if I use that term, but its the shorter and the more descriptive I could find), we can see the mechanism at work, so that we know why the steps are constant when no acceleration is happening, and we know why they develop resistance when we accelerate them. With them, its not mass that produces constant motion, its the steps, and as long as there is no acceleration, there is no mass.

 

Let me add something about the measures that we make. To measure a distance, we use a known length that we divide in smaller ones until the division is small enough for the precision that we need. But to measure that distance, we have to travel for real from point A to point B, thus we have to accelerate from point A and decelerate to point B, exactly like the atoms would have to do with their small steps. The difference is that we can take the time we want to measure a distance, whereas the atoms could not. When we decelerate at point B, we can give as much precision to our measure as we need by dividing our rule in small parts, which is also the way atoms proceed, because they can always rely on the steps from their own components to travel smaller distances.

Edited December 7, 2014 by LeRepteux

[CraigD]

Thanks for your kindness Craig, I've been on a few scientific forums before and it doesn't seem easy for the administrators to deal with what appears to be crazy ideas.

You’ll notice that hypography’s moto, invented more than a decade ago, is “science for everyone”. We try to be encouraging and inclusive of people from many different cultural and educational backgrounds, “crazy ideas” and all, so long as we all share a common interest in science.

 

That said, you should try your utmost to express yourself in a way that doesn’t make your ideas seem crazy. The scientific process loves ideas that challenge its consensus and paradigms, but after analyzing them, discard nearly all such ideas. One of the most difficult personal lessons I’ve learned in my long love affair with science is that ideas of mine that seem very original rarely are, and that to truly challenge the scientific consensus, one has to first understand it well. Understanding science requires a lot of well-ordered, systematic work.

 

It’s kinda’ like jazz music – to do it, you’ve got to deeply master conventional music, learning its most subtle and secret rules in order to be able to break them. Otherwise, you’re not playing jazz, just making noise. Worse, it doesn’t sound like noise to you, making it difficult to understand why conventional and jazz musicians snub you as a duffer.

 

Atoms' steps follow the information carried by light, and they are made of accelerations from rest followed by decelerations to rest (for atoms, rest here means no doppler effect to account for), which means that their speed increases to a top and decreases to zero.

According to QED, the charged particles in atoms interact quickly with those in the same and other atoms via the electromagnetic interaction, which can be explain, in simple but poorer way, as a series of exchanges of single photons, or in more complicated but better way as collection of an infinite number of exchanges of photons, each with a distinct probability, the sum of those probabilities being 1. These photons are called “virtual”, because they are detectable only by their effect on the charged particles for which they carry the EM interaction.

 

These interactions approximately, but almost exactly so, follow the classical law of conservation of momentum and (with complications) energy. Electrons bound in atoms must follow an additional, quantum mechanical law, that requires the path they can be described as following around the atom’s nucleus to have a length that’s an integer multiple of the wavelength of their quantum wave function. To follow all of these laws, particles, most often electrons, must emit photons other than those that quickly carry interactions. These photons are not virtual, because they can be detected by their effect on charged particles long after and far away from where they are emitted. Such photons can be called “actual”, or more commonly, light.

 

The “step like” requirement imposed by quantum mechanics on the location of electrons within atoms applies only to most electrons within atoms, not entire atoms or other charged particles.

 

So, the first part of you statement, LeRepteux, “atoms' steps follow the information carried by light”, could be made accurate by changing it to “charged particles movement follow the information carried by photons.”

 

There is no theoretical requirement or experimental evidence that all or some of the particles in atoms “accelerate from rest” then “Decelerate to rest” as you assert. QED predict and experiments show that they don’t. More simply, the special “rest” velocity of 0 in your assertion cannot, both by the newer theory of Relativity and the older theory of Galilean relativity, exist – that is, it’s not a sensible concept. The idea of a “privileged” or “special” “rest frame”, which is related to that of a fixed “luminous aether”, is rejected by science, because theories containing it are incompatible with current best theories, and the predictions of “privileged frame” theories have been strongly contradicted by experimental data.

 

Defining “rest”, as you do, as “for atoms, rest here means no doppler effect to account for”, isn’t sensible, because for there to be “no Doppler effect”, there would have to be at least 2 atoms or other photon detectors, none with other than with zero relative velocity, which doesn’t make sense in the context of describing the motion of a single atom.

[LeRepteux]

One of the most difficult personal lessons I’ve learned in my long love affair with science is that ideas of mine that seem very original rarely are, and that to truly challenge the scientific consensus, one has to first understand it well. Understanding science requires a lot of well-ordered, systematic work. It’s kinda’ like jazz music – to do it, you’ve got to deeply master conventional music, learning its most subtle and secret rules in order to be able to break them.

I'm aware of the feeling you're talking about, because I've been in the invention business for a while. You think you have a good idea, you test it for a while, and you realize that it wasn't that good, and you get back to the drawings. Here is the best success I had in my life, www.paraskiflex.com , and I succeeded without complete knowledge of the fields I was working in, only the main principles, exactly like for the small steps. The only idea that stood all along the process was that it should be possible to hold a kite in our hands and sail with it on snow or water. It took 20 years to complete the invention, and after 10 years, looking on Internet, I realized that two other inventors were developing an analogous system in France and in Australia, but with different structures.

 

I often take the example of Jazz for explaining part of my theory that applies to mind. I agree that its better if you know the field you're working in, but if you know the basis, and if you like searching and learning, you might develop good inventions too. Lots of inventors are self made individuals, and lots of inventions are made by them. I catch your Jazz example in flight to illustrate what I mean: I don't play any instrument, but I can easily play Jazz in my head and sing it. It means that I have a good sense for music and that I can invent some without having learned that much about its principles. I know I can be completely wrong with my ideas, I'm used to it, but I know I might be right too, especially if I am lucky.

 

So, the first part of you statement, LeRepteux, “atoms' steps follow the information carried by light”, could be made accurate by changing it to “charged particles movement follow the information carried by photons.”

Of course it would be more accurate, but it would not help me to explain the mechanics of the steps, which is necessary if I want people to understand them. It is easy to teach children because they usually trust adults, but its difficult to get trusted by adults when you want to teach them something they did not decide to learn, or worse, when they are convinced that it is useless for them.

 

Defining “rest”, as you do, as “for atoms, rest here means no doppler effect to account for”, isn’t sensible, because for there to be “no Doppler effect”, there would have to be at least 2 atoms or other photon detectors, none with other than with zero relative velocity, which doesn’t make sense in the context of describing the motion of a single atom.

For the cars of my mind experiment, rest is when the signal from the other car indicates no speed. For the atoms, it's when the signal from the other atom indicates no doppler effect. Its only a definition, like the one for the top speed gained at the middle of a step. Its an impulse, and it has a beginning, a middle, and an end, like any other impulse. SR is not concerned with relative impulses, it is concerned with relative speeds. I showed how the steps would account for mass increase of particles, which is a relativistic phenomenon for the steps, but I cannot see how their frequency would be a relativistic phenomenon, even if it is one for SR. Since the steps explain inertial motion instead of only observing it like SR, I think that we cannot directly apply SR to them, that we have to find how the properties of light would affect them. Don't you think?

Edited December 8, 2014 by LeRepteux

[ErlyRisa]

Hi everybody,

 

We take for granted that motion is intrinsic to massive bodies, but here is a mind experiment that shows it might not be, more precisely, it shows that inertial motion could be due to time, not the time it takes for a body on inertial motion to move from one point to another, but the time it takes for whatever bonds their atoms, to travel between them, and inform them that they have to move with regard to the other atoms.

 

 

Here is the general idea:

Since, at the atomic scale, energy is always quantized, I suggest that motion could be.

 

 

I begin with a mind experiment that has nothing to do with atoms:

 

- Imagine two cars at rest on the same straight road but one km away from one another and heading in the same direction.

 

- There is an emitter and a receiver in each car and the signal exchanged between them is about the speed from their speedometer.

 

- One of the cars accelerates and decelerates for 10 seconds, so a signal is emitted every fraction of second indicating the speed at which the car is going.

 

- Lets us admit that the signal will take more time to travel one km than the time it takes for the car to accelerate and decelerate to rest.

 

- When the signal will arrive at the second car, at each fraction of second, its receiver will indicate exactly the speed at which it has to accelerate and decelerate.

 

- While it does so as precisely as it can, its own emitter will transmit the signal to the other car, which will repeat exactly the same move forward, and so on for the next car, indefinitely. If the energy to move the cars could be infinite, the signal absolutely precise, and the steps absolutely precise, this slinky kind of motion would never end and would never change, which is the very definition of inertial motion.

 

Now, replace the cars by two identical atoms linked together to form a molecule, and imagine that the energy they exchange to maintain their bond is quantized, which means that it would have the form of a signal, which would have to be constant for their bond to be constant. These two atoms, represented by their nuclei, are very far apart, like the two cars, far enough for the signal to take more time to travel that distance than for a nucleus to make a step towards the other nucleus. Lets assume now that one of them is forced to make such a step because it undergoes a push, and that the signal does not have time to reach the other nucleus before the step is finished.

 

Since the energy of their bond has to stay the same, won't the two nuclei be forced to proceed exactly like the two cars, which is to make small slinky like steps whose direction and length will never change unless they are forced to?

 

 

You have a n interesting concept.

I reccomend (although I don't like doing this) - you take a look at bird flight in flocks. It maybe an eye opener.

[LeRepteux]

Hi Earl, thanks for the compliment!

 

You mean like this one for instance?

In fact, one of the reasons for that kind of figures is that the interactions between the birds are not instantaneous, which is exactly why the atoms would be forced to proceed by steps. If all the birds would move exactly at the same time and in the same direction, there figures would not be so diversified.

 

Earl, you say you have an avid interest in flight, do you fly or is it only for birds? I bought a para-motor this summer, and I am waiting for the lake to freeze to try it on skis.

Edited December 10, 2014 by LeRepteux

[ErlyRisa]

Hi Earl, thanks for the compliment!

 

You mean like this one for instance?

In fact, one of the reasons for that kind of figures is that the interactions between the birds are not instantaneous, which is exactly why the atoms would be forced to proceed by steps. If all the birds would move exactly at the same time and in the same direction, there figures would not be so diversified.

 

Earl, you say you have an avid interest in flight, do you fly or is it only for birds? I bought a para-motor this summer, and I am waiting for the lake to freeze to try it on skis.

 

Yeah that too - but the eye opener is about watching the V shaped cruisers.

 

-both, but the breasted variety that like to peck alot is better.

Edited December 10, 2014 by ErlyRisa

[LeRepteux]

The birds that fly in a V shape gain energy while surfing on the wave from the precedent bird. Its also a form of synchronism where the action is not simultaneous because it takes time for the wave to move from a bird to the other. Here is a small animation of the synchronous motion between the atoms that I am talking about. Its simplistic, but its explicit enough.

 

http://www.imabox.fr/a1/1330012244GUqjJs19.swf

Edited December 10, 2014 by LeRepteux