Boris Dmitriev
___________________
WHAT IS MOTION
Kyiv, 2010
ISBN 9667613429
Translated from Russian by N. Kozlova, 2010
This book was being written over more than thirty years. The
author has made an effort to create the universal theory of motion
meeting the requirements of natural science that continuously grow. A
reader is supposed to have sufficient knowledge of general problems of
modern physics to comprehensively read this theoretical study. However,
anyone reading this book will undoubtedly feel reverence for the
greatness and beauty of the Universe, the Lord predestined all of us to
live in.
Personal Website: BorisDmitriev.org
email: borisdmitriev@ukr.net
... 22.2
ISBN 9667613429 © Dmitriev B., 2010
All rights reserved
PREFACE
The title of this book reflects, in a rather unambiguous manner,
its principal contents and destination. In the course of reading the
proposed work a reader will get to know what is motion as the author
interprets it, and how is it realized in the world around us. In the
preamble I would like to mention, probably, the most unexpected
aspect of this theoretical study.
The creative search got along in such a way that to successfully
solve the set problems which lead to motion understanding, the
author had to face the problem of the Universe beginning. All the
attempts to adapt the emerging mechanics of motion to the widely
used 'Big Bang' modern scientific theory did not give any positive
results. Philosophical and physical texture of this popular
cosmological hypothesis was helpless to assign such conceptual
contents to the fundamental categories of the Universe, such as
'substance', 'space', 'time', which could be conducive to develop
the comprehensive theory of motion and satisfy the most exacting
requirements. The grade of our penetration into the secret of motion
impressively depends on the quality of notion status of the aforesaid
fundamental categories. According to scientific ideas, any motion
can be realized only in the interaction between these concepts.
After long and rather complicated reflections I came to a firm
conviction that the most reasonable and constructive scenario of the creation of the world was proposed in remote past by Prophet Moses
in the First Book, called Genesis. In contrast to the 'Big Bang'
scenario the Bible version of the creation of the world proved to be
extraordinary flexible and fruitful. It allowed to theoretically fill the
fundamental categories of the Universe with renewed physical
contents and real prerequisites to build universal, quantum
relativistic theory of relativity appeared.
The reader will be demonstrated later on, in the proper place, the
way of how the Moses narration evaluates up to the fundamental
physical consequences. Here I would like to draw reader's attention
to the revealing prospect of the unity of the Holy Scripture doctrines
with the experience of the modern natural science. It is impossible to
overestimate this prospect, because any progress in this field has
unique significance for the whole elucidative culture. The author
really hopes that it is this circumstance that will be his greatest
creative success.
The thing is that today the Christian part of the humanity, for
example, disposes, supposedly, of two independent concepts of
creation and existence of the Universe. On the one hand, we have
Godinspired books of experience generalization. It is supposed that
any scientific model responds the requirements of human thoughts
much more strictly compared with the Holy Writ, if we base on the
criterion of the external justification, that is, on the compatibility
with the observed reality.
Traditionally, our world view is built, mainly, on the basis of one
of the aforesaid concepts, the Holy Writ, which include rather perfect
picture of the surrounding world functioning, free of internal
contradictions. In addition, this picture allows us to almost
completely satisfy the necessities of the human spirit. On the other
hand, in the course of the long history of its evolution human
community elaborated its proper scientific model of the Universe
existence, based on everyday and sometimes they are in violent
antagonism to each other. Though, in effect, science and religion
solve the same problem. Both of them help a man to maintain
intellectual and psychological equilibrium, living in this 'beautiful
and violent world', as poets say. Science copes with its problems,
basing on its starryeyed idea of the Universe constructed with the
account of our cognitive abilities, and the efforts of human mind
allow us to logically comprehend it in full. Religion, in its turn,
adheres to the respectful conviction of a man conceived and 'made'
in such a manner as to subordinate and subject his private life to the
Supreme Will which governs the Universe. In contrasting a man and
the outer space, the science ranks first the individual with his
personal pretensions and methods of selfaffirmation. At the same
time, the religion calls to entrust one's destiny, with resigned
humility, to the hands of the Divine Providence. Strictly speaking,
here one can see the roots of the elucidative culture split.
We know not for how long the cleavage has taken place, and
whether an untroubled harmony existed in the mind and souls of
people with respect to the comprehension of the global picture of the
Universe, and place and predestination of a man in it. However, there
are no doubts that the modern science, deprived of immortal
aspirations and hopes on eternity, as well as religion dogmatics
groundlessness, is not capable to separately lead the mankind to the
comprehensive truth that uniquely can bring us total satisfaction.
Indeed, uncompromising confrontation between science and
religion, whose witness and active participants during a long period
of time is a mankind, promoted, in a certain manner, in the course of
progress, the formation of religious, social and naturalscience ideas.
At the same time, we must not ignore or reject the perniciousness of
nonavailability of a unique system of fundamental knowledge about
life and sense of the Universe existence, in human community.
Tragic discord between spirit and mind which relentlessly pursuits
any thinking person and humanity as a whole, is a direct
consequence of lack of the higher harmony in our comprehension of
the Universe. The aspiration of such a harmony is natural and
ineradicable as a life itself.
A great latent danger exists in the fact that we, in reality, do not
imagine what grade of conflict a person is able to accept this
confrontation to. Natural sciences continuously develop. Religious
conviction also acquires deeper forms. The contradictions between
them fatefully and persistently rend souls and hearts of men. The
possibility for a man to be cracked by the force of this confrontation
becomes more threatening with every passing day. In this anxious
situation, the necessity of searching ways for unity of the Holy
Scriptures doctrines and the experience of modern natural science
becomes extremely actual.
The source of hope and optimism in the issue of our
comprehension of the Universe harmonization is the obvious non
naturalness of the situation when the two branches of fundamental
culture, which serve as a sign of civilization evolution, have no
common points of intersection in our understanding. Such a situation
contradicts the fundamental principle of knowing the real world,
which results from the condition of global unity of the universe and,
respectively, global generality of laws which regulate its existence.
The world is single and indivisible, and consequently, contradictions
which appear in connection with satisfaction of necessities of human
spirit and mind, have, mainly, subjective origin. Their reasons are in
us, better to say, in the system of our knowledge of the Universe.
CREATION OF THE WORLD
Proposing two independent concepts of the Universe creation and
functioning, we bear in mind that they possess, in principle,
absolutely equal rights (if we analyze them basing on the wide
gnosiological standpoint). Positionally, these two visions are seen
'fiftyfifty', as we use to say. The science, using reasonable
methods, cannot find incontrovertible arguments prohibiting
existence of the Divine Providence in the Universe. Religion, in its
turn, is not able to present categorical evidences of its dogmatic
pillars objectivity. Meanwhile, the negation of God on the only
reason that nobody has ever seen Him, is untenable just like the
doubt in existence of the stationary magnetic field at the surface of
our planet. Nobody has seen this field and one can scarcely be
honoured with such a fate.
As a rule, adherents of the scientific picture of the world make
references to experimental evidences in similar situations. For
instance, they believe that readings of compass needle which is
always oriented towards the North pole, can serve as objective
argument confirming existence of the stationary magnetic field at the
surface of the Earth. In such a case a person with religious conviction
has the right to make reference to the sacred image of the Most Holy
Mother of God. The image of the Mother of God, in its turn,
indicates the authenticity and confirms trustworthiness of the
historical origin of the evangelic text.
Objections may arise, which state that the image on an icon is a
matter of human fantasy, mind and hands. However, in such a case
one must think that magnetic compass is also a matter of human
creative fantasy, mind and hands. And research complex in
Serpukhov where the secrets of the microworld are being studied, is
a matter of human mind and hands to the same degree as Troitse
Sergiyeva Lavra – centre of ecclesiastic mysteries and trust in
Christian decease of our life. We must clearly realize that the
experience of a Christian, in its essence and according to its results,
does not differ from the intrinsic position and experience of a
scientist. We do not have any objective evaluation criterion which
could allow us to compare merits and adequacy of church hermit
persuasions with a pride of scientific conviction of a Nobel Laureate
in Physics.
Well, and what is this scientific experiment? All the history of
natural science progress proves the impossibility to get solid
axiomatic fundamental for theoretical science basing on experiments.
Our ideas about physical reality are always incomplete, hence,
imperfect. We are permanently able to change these ideas, change
axiomatic fundamental of physics to interpret recently discovered
facts in the most natural and consistent manner. In the first turn, it
happens because the science does not dispose of any inductive
method leading directly to the fundamental concepts which could
help us to comprehend and speculatively reproduce the real picture
of the world. Our thinking is of a deductive nature, it develops on the
bases of hypothetic ideas and axioms. As a result, we are not given to
know whether the degree of their reliability and trustfulness is
sufficient to reflect real, true state of affairs.
In contrast to science, the Holy Scripture is a system of
knowledge which is apprehended as once ascertained given, which is
not subject to and does not need any adjustment and improvement. In
this sense, the Holy Scripture, as compared with science, looks like
more mature and selfsufficient system of the world view. The style
of application and quality of theological knowledge are marked with
particular transcendent specifics. Science is dedicated to reasoning
nature of material objects, while religion, mainly, helps a man to
maintain psychological equilibrium between finiteness of his
terrestrial life and infinity of the Universe. That's why, we can say,
nobody is going to groundlessly raise electromagnetic field to the
level of the Holy Spirit. However, nobody has the right to deny the
possibility to bring axiomatic fundamentals of a science and its
logical structures into accord with the Holy Scripture doctrine.
Probably, among all the subject matters of the Universe existence,
the interpretation of the most mysterious and grand act known as
'creation of the world' reveals an irreconcilable stand of science and
religion. The adequate theoretical scenario of the Universe birth has a
very important cognitive importance. Pursuant to its instructions the
fundamental conceptual arsenal, which characterizes principal
categories of the Universe, namely, 'substance', 'space', and 'time',
is laid. We associate objective perception of the outer space with
registration of these comprehensive categories. And it is always
desirable that the origin of the proposed fund of fundamental
categories of the Universe bases on the least possible number of
logically independent principles, embracing, however, as wide range
of natural phenomena as possible.
Therefore, it is safe to assert that the deep understanding of how
the events in the Universe at the early stages of its existence evaluate,
is of exclusive importance for the successful formation of global
conception of the Universe existence. If the initial information we get
about the Universe existence is wrong, then the fundamental
conceptual arsenal becomes doubtful, and all the further huge logical
constructions which seem to reflect the true physical picture of the
universe, only aggravate the initial inferiority of our comprehension
of the Universe. It is not occasional that the First Book, called
Genesis, by Moses, which is the beginning of the Holy Scripture,
starts with the narration of creative and foundational acts of the
Divine Universe.
Let us think of the first day of the creation of the world according
to Moses:
'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face
of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light
from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness
He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one
day.'
In this unpretentious manner and with perplexing sincerity the
Holy Scripture brings us into the mystery of the Universe creation.
Voluminous bibliography related to the Bible version of the
Universe creation, including critical one, is known. Theology states
that the Hebrew word 'bara' meaning 'to create from nothing', in
contrast to the other word, 'assa', which means creation from any
material substance, is used in the expression 'created'. Creation of
the world from nothing assumes the action of the Divine Providence,
which does not need any additional improvised means. This is the
main point of God's sovereign power and His allessence.
It is difficult to find in the Books of the Bible more tasty morsel
than the creation of the world by Moses, which serves for those who,
at any time and being adepts of any philosophical school, try to
overwhelm theological doctrines 'by stock order'. A critical mind
finds the most vulnerable side of the Moses narration in these acts of
creation of 'everything from nothing'. A weak point of the Bible
version results from the unavailability of a clear motivation of
definitions: What is everything? And what is nothing?
Convincingness of the Old Testament scenario of the creation of the
world depends exclusively on our ability to find answers to these
sacramental questions. To reconcile scientific idea with the religious
standpoint concerning the creation of the world the theology needs to
know to illustrate physical mechanism of substance beginning from
nothing – according the Hebrew word 'bara' interpretation.
As we know, the modern natural science disposes its own scenario
of the creation of the world, which is independent of the Holy
Scripture. This scenario, in the final analysis, comes to the effect of
the Big Bang. The science invites us to come back to the past, to the
events which happened billion years ago, and consider the situation
when all the matter of the Universe was concentrated in a limited
zone of space. Once a tremendous explosion of this matter occurred,
and the matter scattered in the empty Universe in different directions
like in a globe which is blowing uniformly. All the cosmic
conglomerates – galactic masses, planets, and interstellar dust
appeared as a result of such a universal expansion. In short, we mean
absolutely everything, which we characterize as material objects.
According to recent cosmological evaluations, the first milliseconds
of the existence of the Universe corresponded to the appearance of
elementary particles, later on, in several seconds, the formation of
atomic structures took place. Hence, any elementary particle of the
matter may be considered as spectator and eyewitness of those
remote exotic events. Easily observed red shift of spectral lines of
light signal emitted by distant galaxies confirms the truth of the Big
Bang theory. In brief, this is the scientific version of the Universe
appearance.
The scientific scenario of the creation of the world also abounds in
sacramental questions. A scientific thought, for example, is
hampered by incomprehensibility of substance appearance and
existence before the moment of the universe explosion. It is
absolutely unclear, what has happened later, after the Big Bang.
Where did, in fact, once exploded substance appear from? Moreover,
many questions are associated with very complicated and diverse
problems which emerge in the connection with this explosion if
moving towards the commencement (when time t = 0).
As it often happens in our activity, a peculiar vogue takes place. It
was time when the science considered convenient to present before
theexplosion substance as a global cosmic egg. It is difficult to
deliver from a sound wish to look at that amusing bird that managed
to lay such an egg. At present, the hypothesis of the Universe
substance originating from the quantum jump as from nothing,
strengthens its positions. In fact, it is approaching to the Bible
version of the creation of the world. Sometimes one can observe
attempts to get round cosmological difficulties by developing the
pulsing model of the Universe on the basis of the repeating principle
that underlies the famous Russian children's song 'about the priest
and his beloved dog'. But such a manoeuvre by no means touches
upon the crucial question of the universe fate at early stages; it only
stimulates its solution. Therewith, the closed oscillating model of the
Universe faces serious difficulties because of the infinite growth of
entropy, which is inevitably associated with such a closed physical
system. In general, the situation with the scientific scenario of the
creation of the world becomes deadended and dramatic, as it is
found after Moses' words 'Let there be light'. The reason is that the
number of unsolvable questions following the scientific version of
the creation of the world, obviously, prevails over quality and
quantity of answers to them.
To accept scientific scenario of the creation of the world, the
theology formulates a prerequisite: scientists must answer a simple
question – who or what is an author of all those complicated
processes and manipulations which have taken place and are
continually observed in the Universe? None normal person with
his/her incomprehensibility of the own life, can accept the idea of
his/her appearance in this world as a result of any thoughtless
circumstances. Can one indifferently accept any thoughtless model of
scientific and theoretical schemes applied to the scale of all the
Universe existence? A tendency to search the secret of the creation of
the world basing on any simplified, initial plasma state of the
Universe, or anything else, looks too doubtful.
Moreover, why shall we only simplify the issues? Why is it this
area of search that is chosen? Who has decided that one must
advance towards the alphas of the Universe existence exclusively
through the primitivism, that is, by resolving it into the simplest
components? What can one say about a man, resolving him into
elementary particles the substance consists of? Following this way
we shall simply destruct the object of study itself. It goes without
saying that a person, eventually, consists of a very large number of
microstructural combinations, but they do not determine the
phenomenology of any individual being. These microparticles, any
concrete person consists of, have always existed on the Earth, they
have existed before the appearance of this person in the Christendom,
and they will remain in full after the person dies. Therefore,
elementary particles of any substance are not related to the
phenomenon of human nature. Even if one day we succeed to
formulate the comprehensive theory of physics of the microworld,
things will not budge an inch to understand the supreme sense and
predestination of the human life.
Is it not the same that happens when we try to perceive the great
mystery of the creation of the Universe by reducing this act to the
appearance of primitive material formations, to the physics of the
microworld? In this connection it would be useful to thing, whether
it is possible for the Universe not to exist, isn't it a vain pastime – to
arrange a birthday for the Universe? Isn't it more reasonable and
reliable matter to dedicate our attention to some higher ideas and
everlasting substances which embody really creative principles? We
mean those ideas which are capable to give internal harmony and
supreme reasonability to our conception of the Universe life. In any
case, we must recognize that while the science looks for the secret of
the creation of the world by simplifying the Universe, the religion
turns to the higher creative forces, that does it honour.
Naturally, mutual pretensions and requirements brought by
science and religion, must not lead to the point of absurdity. Because,
upon atheist's barbaric request to show him the bedchamber of the
Lord of Sabaoth, a Christian can always ask an atheist to demonstrate
stool's ability to sing 'Faust', in the light of evolution logics of
dialectic materialism. However, we see that any confrontation
between science and religion, in particular, in the sphere of the
creation of the world, is rather uncompromising and doubleedged.
It is already mentioned that the problem of the Universe
appearance is characterized with extraordinary heuristic features,
because as the result, the principal categories of the Universe,
namely, 'substance', 'space', and 'time', get their physical meaning.
Logical series of the inverse sequence allows us to believe that the
depth of our penetration into the great mystery of the creation of the
world substantially depends on the grade of our attempts to
adequately attribute the principal categories of the Universe.
Moreover, the quality of all the collection of physical regulations
governing the life of the Universe is determined, in fact, by the
possibility to adequately attribute the categories of 'substance',
'space', and 'time'.
Intuitively, we imagine that spacetime properties of the Universe
framework, and the properties of any substance which is its material
filling, must be interdependent and closely related to each other. In
particular, it means that space and time, which possess their given
properties, may include a filling of a definite character. And vice
versa, given properties of any substance do not admit any
arbitrariness in the choice of spacetime framework. There is no
doubt that certain relationship between the principal categories of the
Universe exists, but it is not an easy task to disclose its character. To
solve this problem, we must make a small historical review, which
allows us to track the process of scientific view formation for the
categories of 'substance', 'space', and 'time'.
When fundamental problems become an object of theoretical
studies, the factor of finding a correct way to formulate a question
related to the object of interest, acquires special importance. The
ability to correctly put questions to the nature is highly appreciated in
the science, and this requirement becomes even stricter for major
tasks. The more crucial the status of the object of interest and wider
the range of its application, the more diverse the scope of subjects
included into the research process. Therefore, we need to know to
select the most essential and critically important issues of this
diversity. It is impossible to find any sphere in physics which, in one
or another way, does not relate to the problem of attribution of the
principal categories of the Universe. Any physical subject has the
right to pretend to an outstanding part in the issue of adequate
attribution of substance, space, and time. Prior to beginning the work
with these categories, we must determine formal platform which
could adequately confine such an infinite diversity of possible
variation of approaches to the given subject matter.
If the assumption that any science develops towards the increasing
simplicity of its logical fundamentals is true, we can, in principal,
choose a formal platform consisting of four theoretically acceptable
statements, and in the framework of these statements a research
thought is capable to analyze the categories of 'space' and
'substance' from the standpoint of their possible material attribution.
In this context, we bear in mind those four theoretically acceptable
combinations when substance and space may be alternately
considered as matter or another physical substance.
Let us write in compact form these four theoretically acceptable
statements in the following order:
Firstly, we can assume that the notion of substance, even if it is an
elementary particle, is matter. And space isn't a matter, in other
words, it is void.
Secondly, we can accept space as matter, and elementary particles
of substance being holes in void.
Thirdly, we can define space and the simplest elements of
substance in it, as two absolutely different and independent kinds of
matter;
And finally, we have the possibility to declare space and
substance in it as the derivatives of the unique material substratum,
as the derivatives of matter, which can take different qualitative and
distinctive forms depending on the peculiarities of its actual physical
conditions.
The idea of four formally acceptable statements noticeably
restricts the sector of search for an adequate theoretical equivalent
for the principal categories of the Universe. These statements don't
allow us to lead the research thought away, towards abstract and
farfetched constructions, which do not correlate with our speculative
imagination. Naturally, in reality, the character of interrelations
between space and substance is much more complicated than one can
deduce basing on suggested basic wordings. However, in principle,
any other variants are the work of the devil, one can say. In the
course of consistent analysis our logical constructions, even being
manipulated in any manner, inevitable go back to the crucial question
of what is 'space' and what is 'substance' in their primordial
physical sense. Is it matter or void?
Democritus, for instance, while creating his philosophy, carefully
comparing and generalizing existing everyday experience, came to a
conclusion that only two original categories, or arches – atoms and
void – function in nature. Atoms are indivisible particles of matter,
they are eternal and move continuously, and combinations of atoms
of different shapes and dimensions form various bodies. Void is
interpreted as space. Being applied to four formally acceptable
statements for possible attribution of the principal categories of the
Universe, Democritus's philosophy obviously correlates with the
first suggested wording. It assumes that the category of 'substance'
is matter, and category of 'space' is void. Nevertheless, the mirror
image or the image with opposite sign, of Democritus's division of
the world into two original categories, is fixed in the second principal
statement. According to this statement, we can consider space as
matter, and elementary particles of substance – as holes in void.
During many centuries Democritus's philosophy firmly
dominated in natural sciences, it determined the strategy of evolution
of our attitude to reality. The principal merit of this scientific system
consists in the fact that, being based on rough everyday experience,
on information available in the course of our direct observations; it
allowed the scientist to operate concepts, which could easily be
introduced into the imaginary speculative visualization. The division
of the world into void and matter gave an ideal possibility to
figuratively interpret any form of motion and explain any process
taking place in the Universe. It is very important that Euclidean
geometry and Democritus's empty space symmetrically superpose;
according to Euclid the shortest distance between two points is a
straight line. That's why the scientists' concept of free motion was
compatible with geodesic lines of Euclidean geometry and was
interpreted as uniform straightline motion. Democritus's philosophy
got its perfect scientific representation in the Newtonian classical
mechanics.
There are three basic conceptual categories in this mechanics:
absolutely empty space, absolutely uniform time and massive
material objects of substance, which, by the way, in Newtonian
mathematical apparatus are considered as mass points. Massive
bodies, according to Newton, may interact with each other, coming
into direct contact. In case of gravitational attraction, the forces of
instant remote action intervene. During long period of time it seemed
that such a universal conceptual arsenal was absolutely sufficient to
describe any natural phenomenon. However, mysterious forces of
gravitational longrange interaction caused certain inconvenience,
but, in general, the theoretical foundation of science seemed rather
convincing and problemfree. Many thought that another small effort
was needed to make the nature to open the last unread pages.
When the science just started to research electromagnetic
processes, the position of the investigators radically changed. The
scientists immersed in the sphere of phenomena which were
hopelessly closed for direct observations, and above all, they
couldn't correlate with usual pictorial view of world division into
two arches. All the attempts to choose an adequate physical image
for registered electromagnetic processes within the framework of
Democritus's philosophy, did not give expected results. Electric and
magnetic forces did not find in our imagination any adequate
physical equivalent, either as void or substance.
Soon it was clarified that the allpowerful Newtonian mechanics
fails in describing recently discovered objective realities. At first,
certain efforts were done to imagine electric charges as material
masses of special form with certain forces existing between them,
which are similar to gravitational forces. But this special kind of
matter didn't manifest its principal and fundamental property,
namely, inertia. And the forces acting between the charges and
weighty matter remained unknown. In addition, polar character of
electric charges wasn't compatible with the classic framework of
Newton's mechanics. Unexpectedly, the scientists found themselves
in the state of a blindfold pedestrian pushed out to the driveway.
Nobody could properly explain how the electromagnetic interactions
were realized and what physical processes were hidden behind these
phenomena. Nobody knew whether the newly discovered interaction
was a manifestation of certain properties of the space, or it was the
result of action of any kind of substance; if so, than what should be
called 'space' and 'substance'?
It is considered that the science succeeded in finding solution in
such a difficult situation owing to the theory of electromagnetic field
elaborated by Faraday and Maxwell. An innovation of Maxwell's
theory consisted in the fact that the interaction between test bodies
caused by electric and magnetic charges resulted from the processes
which propagated in space at finite speed; this interaction wasn't
caused by mysterious forces of instant reaction as it was assumed by
the Newtonian mechanics. However, the behaviour and typical
features of these objectively registered interactions correlated with
none of already known fundamental categories. Then a decision to
introduce a new, the fourth basic conceptual category was taken; this
category was called a 'field' and added to previously known three
categories: 'substance', 'space', and 'time'. Thus, the field took a
firm position in the theoretical schemes associated with
electromagnetic processes, together with mass points, representing
substance mass in Newton's mechanics.
We must say that from the philosophical standpoint, the idea of
electromagnetic field propagation in the empty space realized in
Maxwell's theory was none other than transposition of the well
known Kant's definition number one from his 'Metaphysical
Foundations of Natural Science'. Immanuel Kant affirmed that
'Matter is anything moving in space. That space which is unsteady
itself is called material or relative space, and that space where, finally,
any motion might be imagined (that's why such a space is
immovable in any sense), is called pure or absolute space.' Further,
in his annotations to the definition, Kant developed this idea,
affirming that the absolute space was not an object because one
couldn't perceive it as an object of a direct experiment. It is anything
which might be conceived out of limits of a given or really observed
space. Space, which is really perceived on the basis of the
experiment, must be material; this idea admits existence of another,
wider space, and the abovementioned space can be realized in it.
Electromagnetic theory, in full compliance with Kant's
philosophy, interpreted electric and magnetic fields as a special kind
of relative material space, which was 'placed' into a wider and
absolutely empty space. One cannot deny that mathematical form of
Maxwell's equations doesn't contemplate existence of any new
conceptual substance other than reflection of space and time.
Probably, authors of electromagnetic theory would better introduce
the wording of a 'relative electromagnetic space', instead of a newly
introduced concept of a 'field', which considerably complicated our
ideas of physical status of principal categories of the Universe.
Though, a rather mysterious definition of an unknown essence was
launched into the scientific language. Till nowadays nobody can
accessibly explain what is it, this electromagnetic field. How does it
look and what is the difference between field and space or substance?
Of course, here we don't take into account various hypothetic
inventions, which, as usual, imply or insinuate anything, but are built
on such doubtful assumptions and suppositions that it becomes
impossible to consider them as prerequisites to declare a new
fundamental category.
It is believed that there are two circumstances which played a
principal part in the decision to turn to the concept of the 'field'.
Without any doubt, it is a special difficulty resulted from the obvious
selectivity of electromagnetic forces. Not all the bodies experience
their impact, hence, it is inconvenient to directly unite
electromagnetic processes with the concept of 'space'. But it is even
more important that the application of a new conceptual category
would exempt investigators from the necessity to attribute recently
discovered physical reality within tough frameworks of Democritus's
world division into the arches. It is always rather easy to think up a
new conceptual definition (which, in fact, neither expresses nor
explains anything) for an unperceived phenomenon than bring it into
accord with a strictly limited circle of logically independent arches.
We mean the arches which are similar to those briefly formulated in
the aforesaid four principal statements for material attribution of
fundamental categories of the Universe. In any case, in the case of
the electromagnetic theory the science followed the way of the least
resistance, and as it usually happens, it wasn't the most worthwhile
way.
A very big shortcoming of the new theory consisted in the fact
that it even didn't make any attempt to propose any efficient
interpretation for physical nature of the electromagnetic field origin.
Maxwell's differential equations only related space and time
derivatives of the parameters of electric and magnetic fields, as to
electric charges – they were considered as regions with electric field
divergence other than zero. In fact, this theory rather gave a rational
mathematical form to the physical processes related to
electromagnetic interactions, than described them.
A crucial turn in the history of science development was caused
by the appearance of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory. It was that
time when the scientists soundly rejected the idea of searching a
specific physical image reflecting objective reality, and became
satisfied with its mathematical spacetime analogue. Lack of visual
speculative image for this recently discovered and undoubtedly
objective physical reality initiated the beginning of a very perfidious
conceptual crisis in the matter of attribution of principal categories of
the Universe. This crisis, as we shall see further, didn't loose its
actuality till nowadays. The reason is that the crisis, in fact,
penetrated into all the spheres of modern physics and the concept of
'objective reality' itself became a subject of very serious
discrepancies.
The thing is that mathematical language, per se, doesn't imply any
stating of semantic, conceptual definitions. It goes without saying
that mathematical analysis is capable of projecting internal logics of
physical phenomena onto it, and provides significant advancement
on the way of truth comprehension. Our skill to give quantitative
assessment to physical processes substantially enriches researcher's
cognition, but never any mathematical frameworks could substitute
conceptual fundamentals of any science. In the end, the objective of
any cognition process consists rather in understanding of 'what?'
and 'why?' than in answering the question 'how many?'
Summarizing, we can say that a new fundamental conceptual
category, 'field', became current in science due to Faraday and
Maxwell electromagnetic theory. One of the direct consequences of
this innovation consisted in the inevitable growth of conceptual crisis
which affected cognitive fundamental of natural sciences. The thing
is that the new conceptual category was declared without prior
arrangement or any acceptable theoretical basis. As a result,
sacramental question was accentuated and remained open: indeed,
what is 'space', and what is 'substance', and what is 'field' in their
original physical meaning? How do these fundamental physical
categories differ, coexist and interact, and which of them is void and
what is matter? As to matter – how many kinds of matter exist? What
is its structure? How is it related to energy? And what is inertia? And
many other questions appear.
Any reconstruction of electromagnetic theory creation cannot be
complete if it ignores an outstanding contribution of Dutch scientist
Hendrik Lorentz. In reality, this scientist paved the way for
Einstein's electrodynamic theory of moving bodies which later
became known as 'Special Theory of Relativity'. That's not the only
point that all principal relativistic effects of special theory of
relativity result from Lorentz's transformations. Lorentz's principal
merit consists in getting system of equations which relates space and
time coordinates of the same event in two different inertial frames of
reference. Moreover, their solutions were written as transformations,
the equations of electrodynamics are invariant relative to. There
remained one thing to do for Einstein – to expand the idea of
electromagnetic processes invariance with respect to Lorentz's
transformations and apply it to all physical processes, without any
exception. The author of the relativistic theory brilliantly did it on the
basis of a subtle analysis of the well known identity of
electromagnetic and optical phenomena.
We must say that at the moment of special theory of relativity
creation the situation with attribution of fundamental categories
dramatically aggravated due to negative result received in the course
of experiments aimed at etheric wind discovery. The scientific world
anticipated the results of those experiments. The results seemed to
put an end to a jumble with respect to definition of the physical status
of the category of 'space'. However, the results of the experiments
did not contribute to solution of the problem of reliable attribution of
this category, in contrast, they utterly complicated the matter. The
principal result of these experiments was the contradiction between
discovered physical properties of circumterrestrial space and general
principle of classical mechanics concerning addition of velocities.
This rule which allows us to pass from one inertial frame of
reference to another, evidently contradicted the principle of constant
speed of light propagation in vacuum.
The results of experiments on etheric wind registration revealed a
pressing need to review our attitude to the category of 'space' and
directly motivated the development of relativistic theory of motion.
To a certain extent one can state that Albert Einstein, using his theory
of relativity, hoped to arrange a reliable attribution of the category of
'space' and eliminate accumulated differences and contradictions,
which ruin the theoretical fundamental of mechanics of motion.
However, it may be sound ironic, but the scientist made attempts to
review the conceptual status of the category of 'space' through a
physical concept, whose conceptual and mathematical apparatus was
fully adopted from electromagnetic theory, which initiated the
conceptual crisis concerning the attribution of fundamental
categories of the Universe.
The succession of the theory of relativity couldn't be limited by its
mathematical essence. Lack of conceptual arsenal of electromagnetic
theory, together with equations, inevitably moved to it. Both the
theory of motion proposed by Einstein and electromagnetic theory
didn't suggest any ideas with respect to real physical meaning of its
conceptual basis. In other words, the theory of relativity didn't
propose any conceptual equivalents to reflect actual physical
properties of substance, space, and time. The utmost thing Einstein
succeeded to do, was the statement of light postulates, which reflect
objective physical properties of a real spacetime. But the nature and
origin of these postulates were out of reach for relativistic theory
cognition, and light postulates became one of its most
incomprehensible aspects.
Nevertheless, the creative power of Einstein's intelligence played
a very important part in that extremely contradictive situation.
Perhaps, the outstanding imagination of the author of the relativistic
theory was revealed, at the most, in acknowledgement of objective
ambiguity when determining simultaneity of two events which occur
in different points of the space. After a deep analysis of the
procedure of observations and measurements of registered physical
processes, Einstein rejected the Newtonian view of space and time
absoluteness. The scientist proved their objective relativity basing on
witty thought experiments. Once the time loses the quality of
absolute, uniformly flowing substance, then our attitude to the world
around us radically changes. Hence, it became obvious that the
separate existence of space and time in motion description
contradicts experimental logics, thus, it doesn't possess any
theoretical grounds.
The theory of relativity convincingly demonstrated that the unique
possible interpretation of spacetime relations is the fourdimensional
interpretation; moreover, it allows to effectively comment negative
results of experiments on etheric wind registration. The introduction
of another conceptual category, known as 'fourdimensional space
time', into the scientific language is the result of Einstein's creative
efforts. Its existence allowed the scientists to exclude the problem of
separate attribution of 'space' and 'time' categories from the agenda.
Einstein didn't put a lot of work to compile a needed
mathematical expression to unite space and time into the unique
texture. The science had already known the equation proposed by
German Minkovskiy, which offered solution of the problem.
However, the task to extrapolate this mathematical structure to valid
conceptual fundamental was difficult. The thing is that the physical
properties of the minimum interval of space and time are quite
different. Their matching needs any specific, unknown theoretical
calculation. It isn't random that the fourdimensional interpretation
of spacetime relations is one of insuperable (for our speculative
perception) aspects of the relativistic theory. Of course, the
relativistic theory, as any other theoretical generalization, has its
cognitive limit. Behind this limit questions appear, whose reasonable
solution and interpretation is impossible in the framework of this
theory. Later on, we shall analyze in details certain problems related
to motion, which are not solved in the framework of the relativistic
theory. Now we shall pay attention to the conceptual insufficiency of
its spacetime arguments only.
It's curious, but Einstein himself was extremely careful while
gleaning wordings and definitions. In case of any doubtful,
ambiguous situation he made the best use of his skill to shift the
physical problem to mathematical grounds, but steadily lead his ideas
to outlined target. The methodological credo of the theory of
relativity is compactly formulated in the introduction to the famous
Einstein paper 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'. In
particular, it is written there that 'The theory to be developed is
based – like all electrodynamics – on the kinematics of the rigid body,
since the assertions of any such theory have to do with the
relationships between rigid bodies (systems of coordinates), clocks,
and electromagnetic processes.' In this literally reprinted scientist's
declaration one can easily notice intentional tendency to accurately
avoid the direct use of the expression 'space'. One would think, how
can we argue about the kinematics of the rigid body without regard
for the category of 'space'? Nevertheless, the author of the
relativistic theory prefers to prudently get round this perfidious
definition.
Einstein in his guideline declaration substitutes the wording
'systems of coordinates' for the concept of 'space'. As a result a
subtle maneuver is made, ant it allows to transfer a purely physical
category to the mathematical sphere. Doing so, the necessity of its
physical attribution automatically disappears. Beyond any doubt, this
effective research method – to describe physical realities using
mathematical tools – serves as a central axle, the whole theory of
relativity is mounted on. However, it doesn't mean that we must be
led implicitly by the relativistic theory against common sense, which
doesn't allow any total substitution of physical reality by
mathematical constructions owing to the jeopardy of losing any
control over the knowledge itself. Moreover, the method of
transformation of purely physical problems into the sphere of
abstract mathematical solutions adopted from Maxwell's
electromagnetic theory, indicates the inability of a research thought
to present adequate conceptual equivalents for the observed reality.
The thing is that in the objective world the motion is realized in
the framework of interaction between space, time, and substance,
without involvement of any mathematical means. For this reason the
choice of mathematical apparatus and procedure of its application are
always coupled with certain arbitrariness. The exhaustive theory of
material objects displacement relative to each other must reflex the
objective reality and describe, in the first place, the qualitative aspect
of motion as a result of interaction between two fundamental
categories of the Universe. And then the quantitative assessment of
the results of such a motion must be done using mathematical tools.
In this sense, the relativistic theory isn't unstained. It tries to
persistently get round the qualitative aspect of motion and reduce our
knowledge about it to quantitative assessment using mathematical
analogue related to a physical law.
Without any doubt, Einstein was the first to know weak aspects of
his relativistic theory. For this reason he dedicated many years of his
creative biography to the problem of unified field theory
development. The idea is that this theory must reduce fundamental
categories of the Universe to the unified field substance and find
such mathematical expressions for it, which could describe any
actual type of physical interactions. And at the same time, it is
needed to stop with the deep conceptual crisis affecting the natural
sciences.
It is already mentioned that physical properties of spacetime
framework and its material filling are closely interconnected and
don't tolerate any arbitrariness in their selection. That's why,
logically, the burst conceptual crisis concerning issues of the world
spacetime framework description, inevitably shifted onto its
material filling. That is, onto our capacity to adequately attribute
material objects expressing the category of 'substance'. Firstly, it
was discovered that elementary components of a substance weren't
simple material particles, but they may and must be considered as
wave formations. Secondly, it was found that we were not able to
give unambiguous mathematical definitions for those things that
exist and occur with substance in space and time, in contrast to
classical mechanics. Instead of it, the quantum physics offered us the
probability partition for possible changes and states depending on
time.
Therefore, our penetration into more complicated realities of the
world around us resulted in the fact that the actual state of the science
became characterised by the presence of two independent theoretical
systems – the theory of relativity and quantum theory. It is
significant that each of these two scientific generalizations,
separately, describes certain groups of phenomena quite satisfactorily.
However, the applicability of any of them is rather problematic
beyond this bounded area. It seems that both concepts include
components of the aspired comprehensive theory, and the only thing
we must do is to find logically correct steps leading to unify the
relativistic theory and quantum physics. Without any doubt, the
relativistic theory must maintain its actuality, being the science
which upholds the description of natural laws by spacetime relations
(to say the truth, we don't have any alternative). Apparently, the
relativistic theory must do it without use of any differential equation
having regular solution, but establishing quantum spacetime
characteristics for observed physical processes. At least, we may
hope that fulfilment of this condition becomes a logical connective
leading to a wanted synthesis of the theory of relativity and quantum
regularities.
Neither the future successes of the theoretical physics are based
on adaptability of the relativistic theory to quantum regularities, nor
does the quantum physics adapt logics of Einstein's spacetime
relations. The attempt to get quantum regularities as the relativistic
theory corollary may be an example of this statement. Numerous
elaborations of more complicated spacetime geometries with the
hope to expand them over a wider sphere of natural phenomena were
made. But the attempt to construct a complete system of opinions
failed, and this fact proved usefulness of such efforts.
To naturally combine these two fundamental theoretical
generalizations, it would be more useful to step back to the initial
line and try to formulate the optimal conceptual basis in the very
sources of our knowledge. We need to fill our ideas about 'space',
'time', 'substance', and 'field' with the renewed conceptual
contents, which could allow us to simultaneously adjust both
opposing concepts. At the same time, they will organically combine
into a unique scientific texture. When the scientists achieve a
prospective level to succeed in making attribution for the principal
categories of the Universe, the effective model of the creation of the
world will be elaborated. The attribution of real physical contents to
these categories takes place directly in the course of realization of the
scenario of the world creation.
It is no mere chance that we made a brief review of formation of
fundamental conceptual definitions in modern science. We needed to
make this historical excursus to wider understand the general
situation concerning the attribution of fundamental categories of the
Universe and impartially assess the situation for formation of
scientific concept of the creation of the world. It follows from the
aforesaid that this situation was characterized by longterm
conceptual crisis which affected theoretical assessment of the
fundamental categories of the Universe. This crisis inevitably
transformed into the scientific vision of this great creative and
generating act, which is called 'the creation of the world'.
Hence, there are two theoretical scenarios of the world creation –
Devine and scientific – before us. Moreover, we have the really
functioning Universe in its unique copy and with its evolutionary
development which leaves no alternative. Let's try to understand
which of these two scenarios corresponds to the results of
experimental observation for sure, unifies our thinking and contains
the least number of logically incomplete initial principles, whose
combinatorics make possible to establish the relationship between all
physical regularities which govern the existence of the Universe.
First of all, let us attentively consider the scientific version of the
creation of the world, following the scenario of the Big Bang. Let us
recall the origin of this theory. Once the American astronomer Edwin
Hubble while observing the Universe through the telescope
discovered the red shift of spectral lines of light signal emitted by
remote galaxies. It was natural to explain the registered red shift by
the Doppler change of light signal emitted by galaxies moving at a
great velocity away (from us and, in general, from each other). The
series of observations proved that the law of recession of galaxies in
any direction is universal and general; it seems that the Universe
expands as a whole. The other important discovery is related to
velocities of receding galaxies, which are proportional to the distance
to these objects. Taking into account the laws of formal logics, one
must assume that certain time ago all the substance in the Universe
was concentrated in a bounded region of the cosmic space. This
assumption resulted fructiferous, and the science turned to the theory
of the Big Bang.
We give this historical information about the formation of the Big
Bang theory with the purpose to demonstrate a purely accidental
character of its appearance. No mention was made of a
comprehensive research and deep, systematic analysis needed to
formulate such a wideranging generalizations as the theory of the
creation of the world. In fact, the problem was formulated in a very
simple way: it was needed to explain unexpectedly discovered red
shift of spectral lines emitted by remote galaxies. The solution of this
problem which looked as a 'singlepass' one, resulted in appearance
of the global scenario of the world creation.
For justice' sake we must mention the professor of the Petrograd
University Aleksandr Fridman, who found nonstationary solutions
of gravitational equations of the general theory of relativity prior to
Hubble's discovery. Hence, Fridman pointed out the possibility of
existence of a nonstationary Universe. However, Fridman's works
for certain reasons didn't directly affect the appearance of the Big
Bang theory.
Nobody disputes the objective interrelation between the whole
and its parts in nature. The correct distribution of these relations may
serve as certain basis providing the successful mastery of the internal
contents of the object of our interest. The usual mistake in
speculations about the whole and its parts is the statement when
particular attributes are deemed governing arguments, which
determine general properties of the phenomena under research. When,
for example, basing on the colour of the sea wave a man starts to
comment the history of the origin of the Indian Ocean. Such a
methodology is categorically nonapplicable, moreover, it is
absolutely nonapplicable when working over the construction of
such a quasiscale generalization as the theoretical model of the
Universe. In no way one can agree with the explanation of the shift
of spectral lines of light signal emitted by remote galaxies basing on
the presented new theory of the creation of the world. But it
happened in the case of the Big Bang. It is allowed to advance from
the whole to the particular, but not vice versa.
Unfortunately, all the complicated construction of our knowledge
about the life of the Universe was erected mainly using this faulty
method – from the specific to the whole. As a result, we continuously
adjust and infinitely correct our vision of the life of the Universe
taking into account recently discovered particulars. Imaginary unity
of a reconstituted physical picture of the world, in reality, is unstable.
The centuriesold experience of the natural sciences complex
development with its neverending amendments and reconstructions
proves it. It happens, in the first place, because till now we don't
understand the final goal of the cognition itself, which lasts for
several millennia according to the principle – from the specific to the
general. But what shall we say about goals, if we don't know
whether the chosen course of natural sciences development is correct.
It is not ruled out that all the theoretical schemes we use to orient
ourselves in the visual environment have no relation to the reality,
but are a product of our intellectual selfexpression.
In this respect, the Holy Scripture offers us a unique chance to
build an optimal model of the Universe with observance of the most
prospective methodology of passing from the general to the specific.
The Book of Genesis from the first page shows us the integer scheme
of appearance of the Universe in its final form. It is a unique and
unparallel possibility for us to reconstruct the complete theoretical
scheme of the Universe origin basing on the firm, once and for all
laid grounds. It goes without saying that science must not strike a
wounded pose, it must respectfully try and grasp the meaning of the
Prophet Moses Book. It is needed to take into account the époque,
the Book has been written, and the intellectual level of a potential
reader. And the main thing: we must try to choose the adequate
physical equivalent to the events of the first days of the creation
described in the Book of Genesis. Moreover, we don't have the right
to neglect such a unique opportunity: the Holy Scripture enjoys a
very high, unique authority.
Going back to the Big Bang theory we can note, that taking into
account the aforesaid four principal statements whose frameworks
allow the theoretical thought to materially attribute the categories of
'space' and 'substance', this concept obviously adheres
Democritus's division of the world into two arches – 'matter
substance' and 'spacevoid'. The most primitive, antique
philosophical statement invisibly exists in the Big Bang scenario.
The scientific version directly states that some time ago all the
substance in the Universe was concentrated in a bounded region of
the cosmic space and suddenly scattered in the void in any direction
as a result of a gigantic explosion. It stands to reason that any of four
principal statements has the right to aspire to exclusive attention in
the course of possible attribution of principal categories of the
Universe while elaborating the theoretical scenario of the creation of
the world. In this respect they posses equal rights in full. However,
the statements which divide the world into two arches are inevitably
hampered by fateful questions: Who has made this division? What is
the purpose for it? When did it happen? How did it occur? If we
assume that the world always consisted of two independent arches,
we definitively deny the idea of reducing principal categories of the
Universe to a unique conceptual substance, hence, we deny the
possibility to elaborate the unified field theory forever.
Now, where is such a luxury from? All the centuriesold
experience proves the contrary. Practically at every step we
encounter the extreme stinginess of the creatornature. Then the
extravagant theory of world division into two arches seems very
irrational. Especially as there are no positive reasons prohibiting the
Universe to reduce to an integrated material substance.
Comparing the accumulated data we conclude that the galaxies are
distributed nonuniformly in different zones of space of equal
volume, taken in depths of the visually graspable outer space, in
different directions from the Earth. Moreover, in largescale velocity
measurements the recession of galaxies in different directions is the
same and depends exclusively on the distance to the observed object.
Hence, the conclusion about the uniform and isotropic visible part of
the Universe is made. But such a conclusion seems too unexpected in
case of explosion origin of the Universe. Then, to make fragments
thrown out from the epicentre of the Big Bang to uniformly and
isotropically distribute in the outer space, a very specific
organization of the initial conditions of the explosion must be
realized; but it is difficult to naturally explain it.
We must keep in mind that in all the elaborated dispositions of the
Big Bang, the initial stage of the event terrifically depends on the
selection of certain special conditions. It includes parameters fitting
to the unique physical accuracy. The impression is that the
Providence took care of forming favourable conditions for
appearance of nearly any elementary particle. And according to our
estimations, there are almost 1080 elementary particles only in the
visible part of the Universe.
Speaking of the extraordinary accuracy of parameters fitting at the
early stage of the Universe development, we can think of the
'cosmological constant problem'. It consists in fantastic assumption
that the initial energy of vacuum must differ from zero and have the
accuracy of the order of 10106. This requirement results from the
compensation mechanism of vacuum density jumps occurring
because of phase transitions in gauge theories of a grand unification.
There is no need to explain the complete mechanism of this
unyielding magnitude calculation in details; we shall limit ourselves
by statement of the fact of its existence.
Now, it should be mentioned a riddle of an unbelievable proximity
of the Universe to the threedimensional space (k = 0) at its early
stages of existence. This riddle is known as the 'problem of a plane'.
It is caused by the circumstance that the Universe needs a very fine
parameter fitting for its successful evolution from the moment of
explosion up to the present time (
OO is the ratio of the average energy
density in the Universe and so called 'critical density'). Einstein's
equations, the actual cosmological models are based on, are written
in such a way that the problem of whether the Universe expansion
changes for its compression or continues without end, depends on the
value of O. For the Universe to develop in accordance with the
scenario of the Big Bang and exist till nowadays (as the theoretical
predictions state), the Oparameter fitting must be no less than 1059
at the early stage. If this condition is not met, the expansion of the
closed Universe will change for its compression within Plank's
interval of time or so, and the open Universe will expand so swiftly
that the considerable masses of substance will not have time to be
formed. There is no necessity to describe the complete calculation of
this incredible small magnitude; we mention only the fact of its
existence.
The existence of unparallel, fantastically small magnitudes in the
theory of the Big Bang is the most mysterious aspect of this event
and makes up to be careful not to deal with an artefact. There is a
bundle of examples of such a succession when firstly a preconceived
idea appears and then, justificative arguments are gleaned to please it.
As a rule, these arguments, due to a farfetchedness of the general
idea, possess extraordinary, unique character. Usually the adepts of
the Big Bang theory refer to the uncommonness of the event, its
exclusiveness, hence, the possibility to introduce certain
'peculiarities'. To put it bluntly, they try to choose rules of play
which are convenient for them, and using these rules they play the
Universal patience. Though, the fundamental problem of the
cosmology consists in constructing such a theoretical model where
the Universe exists and develops to its actual state absolutely
independently of the peculiarities of initial conditions, obeying the
fundamental laws of physics only.
It is considered that the possibility to return in time to the very
beginning of the Universe existence (when time t = 0) directly
depends on our knowledge in the sphere of interaction of elementary
particles having high densities and energies. Here the cosmologic
problems directly border on physics of the microworld. It is non
random that all the dispositions of the Big Bang scenarios are built
on the following basis: t ~ 0.3 sec., temperature T ~ deg.,
density P ~ 107 g/cm3 (we believe that when the density P ~ 107
g/cm3 a neutrino leaves a nucleon and practically lives till nowadays).
On making acquaintance with such a dashing reconnoitring, one
becomes deep in thoughts. If we venture to bank in a heap, at one
stroke, all the substance existing in the Universe and arrange
grandiose cosmic fireworks, then after such a breathtaking flight of
fantasy we must know exactly what are the ordinary elementary
particles, so to say, the most primitive peaces of substance. However,
we are far from it. Just now we face the greatest difficulties. It is
easy and lightheartedly to discuss the things which happened in the
Universe billions of years ago (due to remoteness of events and
unavailability of witness, as the saying goes), but it is much more
difficult to examine the things on your writing desk.
10103×
To tell the truth, today none of the scientists is able to clearly
explain what the ordinary electron is. What is its real physical
essence? Actually, we cannot deny any real objective environment to
electron. The theoretical thought is quite helpless, and any
considerations about any quasiprocesses which took place billions
of years ago in the Universe, seem too premature. Without any doubt,
we can and must elaborate various scenarios of the creation of the
world, but at the same time we must not loose sense of harmony. Can
we speak about modes of substance functioning in the Universe, if it
doesn't lead us to the understanding of elementary, primary elements
of this grandiose aggregation?
The principal shortcoming of the Big Bang theory is its
undisguised nonproductivity. Nothing resulted or followed from this
theory some day. The science cannot mention at least one physical
idea based on this conception. The red shift of spectral lines emitted
by remote galaxies was registered before the Big Bang theory. The
relict emission was also discovered absolutely unexpectedly and
quite independently of the Big Bang conception. The wellknown
formula: 'the mountain has brought forth a mouse', in reality, is
more fruitful than the scenario of the creation of the world the
science offers for consideration. The global theory intended to
interpret the greatest act of the 'birth of the Universe' cannot exist as
a 'thing in itself' and 'for its sake'. The theory must lead to
principal problems of the modern natural sciences and offer their
solutions.
In particular, it would be very convincing if the accepted theory of
the creation of the world finds the explanation of one of the most
universal and allembracing physical interactions known as the
'universal gravitation'. It is desirable that the scientific conception
of the creation of the Universe should include the ideas which could
help to systemise various and, sometimes, contradictory information
concerning the microworld, for instance, corpuscularwave duality.
It goes without saying that such a theory must contribute to
overcoming the acute conceptual crisis related to attribution of the
principal categories of the Universe. One would like to expect many
other important conclusions basing on the valuable theory of the
creation of the world. But the Big Bang hypothesis rather actively
creates new questions than answers ours. And it is inadmissible for
such a reputable cosmological generalization. As a result, a very big
number of questions without answers which appear from the Big
Bang theory cross out the cognitive value of the interpretation of the
red shift of light signal emitted by remote galaxies basing on
Doppler's effect. It happens any time when an attempt to explain any
complicated and abstruse thing using more complicated or very
obscure arguments, is made.
At the same time, as we have already mentioned, we have the
scenario proposed by the Holy Scripture at our disposal, which can
offer a consistent and fruitful picture of the creation of the world if
supplemented with adequate physical ideas. And from this picture,
efficient ideas serving as a basis to solve actual problems of natural
sciences will naturally appear. In this context we have in mind those
events of the first days of creation, described by Moses in the Book
of Genesis. Those days, when God created earth and heaven, likely,
from nothing.
Taking into account the four principal statements for possible
attribution of the categories of 'space' and 'substance', the Bible
version of the creation of the world well agrees with the fourth
variant of the considered set of theoretically acceptable statements.
According to this variant, space and material objects of the substance
are the derivatives of the integrated material subject. They are
different modifications of matrix space of the Universe which can
take qualitatively distinctive forms depending on peculiarities of
actual physical conditions and functioning modes.
The objective interaction of a man with the outer space and the
centuriesold experience solidly fixed the division of the world into
'void' and 'matter' in our conscience. To conform our perception of
the world around us to the fourth statement we need to make a
speculative effort and try to imagine all the diversity of the world as
manifestation of different physical states of the absolute matrix space
of the Universe. Let us illustrate this idea.
Imagine a homogeneous physical medium, let it be common water
and an ice sphere of a football diameter in it. Water will represent the
space, and the ice sphere acts as a substance. As to its material
interpretation, the ice sphere is a qualitatively distinctive form of the
local zone of the medium it exists in. Both water and ice are usual
molecules H2O. It is the difference of their temperatureenergy levels,
or qualitatively distinctive state of H2O molecules that allows us to
clearly distinguish between these two forms of material constructions.
This is a visual model that illustrates the character of interrelations
between space and substance in accordance with the fourth principal
statement for the possible material attribution of the fundamental
categories of the Universe. This model perfectly meets the
requirements of the Bible version of the world creation. In
concordance with this version a spontaneous possibility to create
substance from matrix space exists, and no additional material tools
are needed.
If we need to choose names for the fundamental categories of the
Universe again, then in accordance with the requirements of the
fourth principal statement it would be reasonable to reserve the
traditional definition of the 'space' for absolute matrix space of the
Universe. It should be mentioned that the physical state of the matrix
space is taken as a zero normal. Then all the other states of the matrix
space, being deviations from the zero normal, must be called 'contra
space' and combine the exposed material world in the form of
'field', 'substance', and 'time'. But we shall keep to the historically
established names for fundamental categories, taking in mind that all
of them express different states of the matrix matter of the absolute
space of the Universe.
An extremely important and irreplaceable advantage of the fourth
fundamental statement, which considers space and substance as
derivative of a single matrix matter, is its utmost inclination to
evolution. This statement implies the objective possibility for self
appearance of massive material objects directly from space
substratum. In this case the substance may appear in any zone of the
space and be relegated to obscurity in quite calm and understandable
way, like ice formation and melting. Then it is no need to invent
noisy illuminations of the Big Bang type. It is important that in the
context of the fourth principal statement, the Holy Gospel according
to Saint John, which begins with sublime verse: 'In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God',
acquires more deep and fructiferous cognitive weight than other
pseudoscientific conclusions.
The whole point is that in the verses of Saint John the Evangelist
the expression 'Word' – which is also 'Logos' – is given an
extremely lofty, hypostatic meaning. And it is not strange that this
key biblical definition is written with a capital letter. In compliance
with the fourth principal statement about the possible attribution of
the categories of 'space' and 'substance', the appearance of
substance with the help of God's 'Word' may be interpreted as a
wideranging crystallisation of substance from the matrix space at
behest of the Supreme ecumenical will. Envoys of the Supreme
ecumenical will may be inoculating 'ideascrystals', as well as any
elementary particle possessing its rest mass. Their presence in the
concentrated material space may disturb from the state of equilibrium
and provoke the beginning of crystallization reaction. Hence,
considerable masses of substance, like stars, planets and galactic
systems, must be formed. The crystallization process in concentrated
media is well studied and accessible to our understanding.
Therefore, we have every reason to assume that the 'Word' really
was at the source of our planet birth, and the idea itself deserves
scientific attention. Saint John's statement that 'In the beginning was
the Word' fully corresponds to Moses' narration about the first days
of the creation of the world due to the efforts of the Providence. This
creation took place according to the Hebrew word 'bara', which
means 'create from nothing'. The act of creation of everything from
nothing is the token of infinite variety of forms of the Universe
existence. Because embodied initial material would limit the range of
material world manifestations. In the Universe constructed in
accordance with the theological scenario, any fixed forms of material
structures existence actually are not available. The continuous
process of space transition into substance and vice versa takes place
in it.
Recall the Universe model according to the Big Bang scenario. It
is utmost static, though seems to be dynamical. The only variable is
the distance between masses of substance. The principal components
of the Universe, or its embodied component are present in the Big
Bang theory in once given stationary forms. One can say that it is an
undisguised mechanical model with a strong accent on Democritus
world division into two arches: mattersubstance and spacevoid.
The scientific optimism of the Big Bang theory is based on the
firm belief that the nature is a naturalized execution of a certain
unyielding logical scheme, when all future states of a physical
system definitely result from the state of this system at a certain
moment of time. This theory reflects the most primitive dialectics of
a standard human thinking based on causeeffect relationship. We
have already got accustomed to interpret any event as inevitably
necessary and obeying the law of causeeffect relationship between
phenomena in full. As if only they may reflect objective regularities
of the outer world evolution.
Meanwhile we know for certain that the laws of nature are of no
casual but, mainly, statistical character. The continuous change of
possible states probabilities takes place in the physical world around
us. That's why there is no reason or need to speak about rigorous
causeeffect, definite relations. While the adepts of the Big Bang
theory use such relations to advance towards the early stages of the
Universe life.
In fact, there is no necessity for us to know the reasons for
appearance of unstable state of the matrix matter and beginning of
largescale substance crystallization at any zone of the cosmic space.
It is much more important for us to get understanding of the
possibility for substance appearing from matrix matter of the space
itself. The matrix matter constantly balances near the mark
corresponding to the possible initiation of the largescale
crystallisation of the substance or, vice versa, the transformation of
substance into the space matter. But for very persistent atheists or
adepts of the determinism we can offer consolatory assumption
stating that intertransformation between space and substance takes
place due to constant movement of galactic masses. In this case the
nulling mechanism of symmetrical distribution of masses of
substance in the cosmic space becomes activated.
We believe, that, firstly, the possibility for spontaneous self
appearance of substance from the matrix matter of space allows us to
find accord between the Bible and scientific versions of the creation
of the world. Secondly, space and substance reduction to an
integrated material substance gives the possibility to take natural
sciences out of the complicated conceptual crisis pursuing attribution
of fundamental categories of the Universe. And the principal thing is
the prospect to create universal quantumrelativistic theory of motion
on the basis of renewed fundamental conceptual arsenal.
PERSONAL SPACE – TIME CONTINUUM,
WHAT IS IT?
The assumption of a universal material substance standing behind
the category of 'space' is not new. For the first time this idea
appeared when wave properties of light were discovered. Realization
of wave processes implies the existence of a physical system or
medium capable of being in the state of wave excitation and carry
energy. Pursuant to these ideas the wave attributes of light may be
naturally explained by the existence of a certain type of luminiferous
ether, which expresses definite properties of material space
guaranteeing the process of light waves propagation. For long years
the idea of the luminiferous ether ranked solidly in theoretical
reasoning, and it seemed sufficient to fix the priority of this
hypothesis on the basis of some supplementary experimental
observations. Various models (sometimes, they were clumsy) of
'gaseous' or 'jellylike' state of ether were proposed, they
corresponded to longitudinal or transversal character of light waves
propagation.
We understand quite well that the idea of luminiferous ether gives
physical space its qualities of objective reality, and these qualities
can be observed and registered together with material objects. In
such a case, motion must be considered not only as a visible
displacement of material objects with respect to each other, but also
as controllable displacement of material objects with respect to the
observed space, which plays a part of luminiferous medium. Then
any attempt to consider material space as absolute and fixed frame of
reference suitable for different measurements and observations,
seems quite logical. At the end of the nineteenth century the
physicists, including the experimenters Michelson and Morley, were
absolutely sure that onland instruments must register the velocity of
the orbital motion of our planet about the Sun with respect to the
luminiferous ether.
Being adepts of the idea of the luminiferous ether, these scientists
endowed the absolute space with certain hypothetical properties
allowing the space to be in the state of wave disturbance and function
like mechanical lighttransferring medium. Then the velocity of light
signal near the surface of the Earth must differ in different directions
and depend on orientation of planet's motion in the absolute
luminiferous space. In other words, a simple rule of addition of
velocities must be true; this rule takes into account the velocity of
light propagation in hypothetical ether and the velocity of the planet
relative to the luminiferous space. It was expected to find the
absolute velocity of the Earth relative to the luminiferous space of
the Universe, comparing the sum of the aforesaid velocities in
different directions.
When Michelson and Morley took a decision to conduct their
famous experiments to discover the effect of the ether wind, they,
supposedly, were encouraged by Foucault's experiments. These
experiments allowed the scientist to observe the Earth rotation about
its axis using laboratory method. As it was possible to register the
results of such rotation with the help of onland devices, it seemed
logical to observe the planet motion relative to the absolute
luminiferous space acting as a universal frame of reference. The
velocity of the Earth motion in its orbit was known to be about thirty
kilometres per hour.
The scientists brilliantly prepared and performed a series of witty
experiments, and, in their opinion, the experiments had to register the
existence of the ether wind. But the disappointment of the scientists
was very great when the devices failed to give expected results. The
speed of light signals propagation in any direction was the same. It
seemed that the Earth maintained the state of rest relative to the light
ether and there were no evidences of the effect of velocity addition.
The negative results of the experiments on ether wind registration
caused deep confusion. Introduction of an active space material
medium in the scientific use was urgently needed. Such a medium
could exercise its waveforming function, which is very important in
the light of an impressive manifestation of the wave nature of the
microworld physics. The other reason consisted in a great wish to
have a reliable universal frame of reference related to universal space
and time framework. This frame of reference, in reality, should be
allembracing, and it would become possible and convenient to show
the global picture of the world from any point in the Universe.
However, insuperable logic of experimental results in every possible
way impeded any realization of these apparently sound expectations.
Though, the situation required adoption of any effective and
satisfactory explanations. The thing is that negative result of
experiments is also a distinctive outcome, and as any outcome it
needs relevant comments. It is necessary to say that sometimes we
are mistaken while extolling the role of experiments in science.
Really crucial decisions are taken rather on the basis of explanations
which follow experiments than the experiments themselves. But
certain interested parties are present here, as it happens in any man's
activity. They can interpret the same event or phenomenon in a way
which is convenient for their worldview and reflects their subjective
creative aspirations. It can be easily seen in the debates on the results
of the experiments performed by Michelson and Morley.
Now let us formulate a question: how did Albert Einstein make a
categorical declaration that luminiferous ether didn't and couldn't
exist in nature, if he based on the results of the experiments which
did not confirm existence of the ether wind? Such a conclusion isn't
indisputable, as it may be seen at first sight. Michelson and Morley
formulated a concrete problem for themselves: they tried to register
an effect of the ether wind. But the results of their experiments were
negative. They clearly fixed absence of any ether wind in the vicinity
of the surface of the planet. This statement constitutes and limits
indisputable conclusions based on the results of the experiments
commented upon. Einstein, in his turn, arbitrarily develops this
statement and makes a step which is far from irreproachability, if
basing on the logical standpoint. He declares that as the ether wind
doesn't exist, hence, no luminiferous ether may exist. Formally, a
faulty practice was actuated, and the wellknown principle 'if the
facts are against us, then it is worth for these fact' prevailed.
In fact, let us think, why did Einstein inseparably linked the
existence of the luminiferous ether and the effect of the ether wind?
These selfreliant physical arguments may have their independent
selfexpression. The idea of light ether existence itself is not obliged
to definitely lead to the effect of the ether wind. We know that for the
ether wind to appear, two principal requirements must be strictly met.
Firstly, the existence of the luminiferous ether, and secondly, the
existence of two relative velocities (constant velocity of light signal
propagation in void and the velocity of the Earth motion relative to
the luminiferous space) is needed. Noncompliance with any of these
two mandatory conditions results in negative results in the
experiments on the ether wind discovery. Einstein based his
reasoning on the simplest fundamental laying practically on the
surface. He supposed that the ether wind didn't exist because of the
deficit of the luminiferous ether, and declared this principle to be the
core requirement for his relativistic theory functioning. However, the
other way to interpret the results of the experiment made by
Michelson and Morley was needed, though this approach didn't get a
due progress. The alternative variant is formulated in the following
way: the ether wind doesn't exist because of absence of one of two
relative velocities, the fact of their availability being the mandatory
condition for the appearance of the ether wind effect. In other words,
the principally needed speed of the Earth motion relative to the
luminiferous space is missed.
The planet in fact rotates about the Sun, but it doesn't imply that it
definitely moves relative to the luminiferous space. The statement
'the Earth moves relative to the light ether at a speed of thirty
kilometres per second' makes real physical sense if we know to
demonstrate that the metric structure of the universal luminiferous
ether is firmly bound to the solar mass. If this key requirement isn't
met, any experiments aimed at detection of the ether wind effect,
cannot and will not lead to positive results. However, we don't have
any cogent arguments to absolutize solar mass and consider it as a
privileged material object in the Universe, the light ether metric
being related to it. Therefore, there are no reasons to link the speed of
the planet motion in its orbit about the Sun to the speed of the Earth
motion relative to the luminiferous space.
One must note that the science repeatedly made attempts to
remove one of the two speeds providing the opportunity to register
the ether wind effect. As a rule, it was related to the idea to
gravitationally bind the luminiferous ether to the mass of the planet.
The scientists supposed that the Earth, during its motion in the
absolute space, carries the spacious luminiferous shell along with it,
as it carries the atmosphere along. It is clear, that such a version
eliminates the factor of the Earth displacement relative to the
luminiferous ether and allows developing of counterEinstein's
interpretation of the results of Michelson and Morley experiments.
The principal weak point of the idea consists in various 'technical'
difficulties arising in the course of realization of the model of the
appropriate luminiferous ether, capable to displace relative to the
absolute space together with the mass of the planet.
Meanwhile, the theoretical statement itself, making emphasis
rather on personally oriented luminiferous space organically linked
with the mass of the object under investigations, than on the absolute
luminiferous ether, is in good compliance with Einstein's light
postulates. In fact, one can assume that every material object with
rest mass, for instance, our planet, acquires its personally oriented
luminiferous space because of its interaction with the absolute
material space of the Universe. It is the existence of the personal,
fourdimensional spacetime, which is metrically related to the centre
of mass of the planet, that makes the light postulates true and
impedes appearance of the ether wind effect.
If we generalize this statement and declare that not only the Earth,
but every material object with rest mass possesses its personal
luminiferous spacetime, then the law of constant light speed in void
becomes mandatory for an observer related to any body of reference.
Then one and the same light ray has the same speed for various
observers moving with their devices relative to each other. The idea
of personal luminiferous ether existence is in good compliance with
Einstein's light postulates, though the author of relativistic theory
categorically rejected the existence of the luminiferous ether.
It is obvious that the task to give concrete physical meaning to the
idea upholding the existence of the personal luminiferous spacetime,
develop it and obtain fundamental, mathematical consequence is
much more difficult than the way of luminiferous ether negation
chosen by Einstein. Nevertheless, we emphasise that repeatedly
confirmed results of the experiments on ether wind existence, in
principle, allow us to elaborate counterEinstein theory of motion,
which doesn't contradict the presence of the luminiferous ether.
Later we shall show that such an etheracceptable conception of
kinematics of motion helps to move the theory of relativity to a more
substantial level and then it becomes possible to use quantum
regularities.
It was already mentioned that quite a contradictory situation was
formed with respect to the attribution of the category of 'space'
(because of the results of MichelsonMorley experiments) at the time
when the special theory of relativity intended for description of
inertial state of physical systems was developed. On the one hand,
experiments soundly demonstrated unavailability of the ether wind.
On the other hand, the same experiments expressively indicated that
circumterrestrial space belonged to the observed material substance,
because the space under investigation possessed a set of specific
physical properties. These properties were compactly formulated by
Einstein as his light postulates. It is clear that light postulates look
like intellectual ghosts beyond material attribution, and we simply
must relate the circumterrestrial space together with the light
postulates to observed material substance. As a result, a very serious
dilemma appears: whether it was necessary to reject the idea of the
luminiferous ether or find such a theoretical conceptual interpretation
for the circumterrestrial space which could unite seemingly
incompatible properties. The thing is that the imaginary
circumterrestrial space must obey the light postulates and, hence, be
subject to the material attribution. At the same time, the imaginary
circumterrestrial space must reject the ether wind phenomenon.
Ii is wellknown than in such a contradictive situation Einstein
didn't follow the way of looking for adequate physical image for the
circumterrestrial space, which could satisfy the results of Michelson
Morley experiments. He decided to simplify the situation and
rejected the idea of the luminiferous space itself. However, rejecting
the idea of luminiferous ether he didn't propose any acceptable
alternative instead of it to attribute the circumterrestrial space with its
light postulates. The author of the relativistic theory put himself in an
exclusively difficult situation. There was nothing else left for him to
do but to transform this mainly physical question into a mathematical
sphere. The scientist threw a fourdimensional coordinate grid over
the circumterrestrial space and began to use it as a universal space
time framework which served as a background for his picture of the
world. Einstein had to do an unprecedented step to give the status of
objective reality to this mathematical coordinate system and make it
compatible with the results of the experiments on the ether wind
discovery. The mathematical structure was given physical properties,
which were compactly formulated in light postulates.
Of course, we must appreciate the decision of the scientist, who
ventured to raise a mathematical structure to the level of physical
argument, but at the same time we must clearly realize that such a
situation isn't standard. Without any doubt, any substitution of
physical reality by mathematical constructions is a forced procedure;
it needs persistent search of real physical essence behind all these
abstract constructions, especially, in the course of solution of
fundamental problems. A latent danger of carrying our knowledge
into the sphere of artificial intellectual maxims always exists.
Naturally, we must hope that the deducted mathematical regularities
reflect real state of things in the world and may act as consequences
of observed mathematical phenomena. But in no case any
mathematical construction may act as a cause, which determines
objective physical properties itself. The thing is that two apples plus
two apples is, of course, four apples. But to get together four apples
we need to do certain work related to overcoming the inertia, for
instance. The apples themselves, at the command 'two plus two'
jump only in the circus.
It goes without saying that any physical idea which is expected to
correspond to objective reality, must be followed by mathematical
corollaries. Mathematical equations, though being absolutely abstract,
possess internal rigor. In their interaction with conceptual statements
they seem to control the truth of our theoretical structures and detect
any logical arbitrariness. Meanwhile, this statement must not take a
form of a contrary dependence when mathematical construction is
raised to the level of physical arguments. Without any doubt, the
methodology of mathematical structures aimed at an intentional
taking of mathematical structures to the level of physical realities, is
a forced procedure. It is a direct consequence of the deficit of the
conceptual arsenal, which is used in modern scientific circulation.
Such a spontaneous presentation of mathematical solutions and
their further application to physical consequences are clearly seen in
the logical texture of the theory of relativity. That's how matters
stand with light postulates when they are associated with four
dimensional coordinate grids, or with general theory of relativity
when Riemann spacetime geometry is raised to the level of the
gravitational field. What is the use of such a method?
Assume that Einstein has found a mathematical expression, which
helps to consider time in the united mathematical manifold along
with space dimensions. But it doesn't mean that this expression can
give us any intelligent idea about the matching of these different
physical categories. To speak formally, the equations of the special
theory of relativity don't give rise to doubts, but at the same time, do
not budge things an inch on the way of understanding the physical
nature of the fourdimensional spacetime, even if the light postulates
are applicable to it. It happens because Einstein always used bare
mathematical structures as fundamental for his theoretical
constructions. It would be better to introduce a suitable conceptual
context, and then elaborate them up to desirable mathematical
corollaries.
Without any doubt, Einstein's scale and level of creative efforts
was so high that he couldn't make any declarations because of his
inattentiveness or thoughtless. However, we permit ourselves to
indicate certain incompliance between the logics of mathematical
tools used in the relativistic theory and Einstein's conceptual context.
It is known that the key equation of the special theory of relativity
in the most general case is written as follows:
()()22222zyxctS++=. (3.1)
It is believed that equation (3.1) is originated from the four
dimensional spacetime coordinate systems. Such coordinate systems
appear as a result of combining three space coordinates axes with
another or the fourth time dimension. The geometry where a distance
between two points is determined by equation (3.1) is called
Minkowski geometry. Minkowski geometry reflects a combined
spacetime topology, because along with space distances it also
includes time intervals. That's why it is considered that the theory of
relativity is the theory of motion of material objects in four
dimensional spacetime, in contrast to Newtonian mechanics, which
describes motion in space and time taken separately.
It is obvious that the right side of equation (3.1) includes two
substantially autonomous physical arguments. Usually the first
member in the right side of this equality, (, is identified with time
coordinate axis. The second member,
)2ct(2x+)22zy+, is related to
combination of three space dimensions. The difference between these
two membersarguments is a solution for a fourdimensional space
time interval, , limited by two check points on the trajectory of a
test body. The majority of researchers relate the expression
2S()2ct)2ctto
the fourth time dimension. More cautious scientists call (the
'fourth imaginary coordinate'.
But if we analyze the dimension of ()2ct, which is secsec/m×secsec/m×, it
is safe to say that this expression in no case may be identified with
coordinate dimension only. A coordinate axis, in the strict sense, is a
consecutive series of points in the space or moments in time. And the
dimension of (allows us to naturally and truly consider this
expression as still unknown threedimensional function in a
respective threedigit coordinate system, having axes as
)2ct.
It is impossible to overestimate the level of understanding
physical nature of the expression ()2ctbecause it is this argument that
concentrates the relativistic essence of the theory of relativity. When
we identify this expression with one coordinate axis and call it the
'fourth coordinate', an unfortunate inaccuracy takes place. Of course,
it is possible to call anything as you wish, but we must aspire to use
definitions reflecting the real character of the phenomena we study.
In this sense, all known speculations about the 'fourth' or
'imaginary' coordinate axis in equations of the theory of relativity,
look absolutely unsatisfactory. To accept the onedimensional
interpretation of the topology of ()2ctwe need to try to find, as
minimum, an explanation of metric threedigits for this exotic
coordinate dimension. Following an openminded logics and
agreeing with obvious treedigit metric structure of the expression
, we must try to clarify, what, in fact, is hidden behind this
mysterious argument of the famous equation by Hermann
Minkowski.
()2ct
It happened that the theory of relativity didn't develop along the
way of the adequate interpretation of the true topology of the
expression , hence, of the adequate interpretation of the true
metric of equality (3.1). We continue to use this equation and
understand it as equivalent for interval definition in a supposed four
dimensional geometric manifold, which allows us to determine
mathematical dependence of the results of relative motion. However,
all the attempts to represent a universal geodesic line in Einstein's
fourdimensional spacetime, and represent it figuratively or
graphically, always failed.
()2ct
There is no need to prove that unavailability of a clear idea about
the true topology of chosen mathematical method essentially restricts
its cognitive value. Thus, the traditional onedimensional
interpretation of a metric structure of the expression ()2ctisn't only
imperfect. Undoubtedly, Minkowski's equation interpretation in such
a geometrical expression impedes the further development of the
theory of relativity itself. Moreover, it definitely witnesses the
serious insufficiency of the theoretical conceptual arsenal used in it.
The problem does not consist in the narrowmindedness of our
imagination, as some authors assert. First of all, the problem consists
in conceptual groundlessness of the notional background for the
reconstructed picture of kinematics of motion.
When Einstein began to develop his general theory of relativity
destined to describe nonuniform motion, and at the same time, solve
problem of gravitational interactions, it was discovered that the
nature of universal gravitation is tightly linked to geometrical
properties of spacetime. This link was soundly expressed in the
equivalence principle, which stated absolute identity of inertial and
gravitational masses. The idea of curved spacetime existence
extremely aggravated the problem of finding an adequate physical
image for this absolutely objective reality. It became inconvenient to
limit oneself by mathematical coordinate grinds only. The matter is
that here we deal with global physical forces and interactions, and
any fundamental physical factor must be related to it.
Deficit of an adequate conceptual filling in interpretation of the
topology of the fourdimensional spacetime in the special theory of
relativity and sound failure in explanation of the physical nature of
light postulates inevitably transformed into conceptual context of the
general theory of relativity. The conceptual deficit became an
insuperable obstacle on the way of establishing the real physical
status of the category of 'spacetime' and its role in gravitational
interactions realization. In this fuzzy atmosphere the author of the
theory of relativity decided to use the idea of gravitational waves as
the most reasonable one. But in reality, this idea only emphasised
and aggravated unfoundedness of Einstein's conceptual arsenal.
In fact, a strange and absolutely useless duality takes place. If a
curved fourdimensional spacetime is an objective reality destined
to guarantee universal gravitation, then what shall we do with
gravitational waves? On the other hand, if gravitational waves is an
objective reality, then what shall we do with the curved four
dimensional spacetime? This tricky duality when describing the
nature of the gravitational field, serves a true signal of troubles
existing in our imagination of universal gravitation origin.
Such an ambiguous interpretation of the gravitational interaction
origin is caused by a deficit of a reliable conceptual basis the author
of the relativistic theory used when applying to pseudoRiemann
geometry. What are real tools that make the fourdimensional space
time be curved? It is beyond our comprehension. Hence, till now we
don't understand the origin of the metric tensor in equations of the
general theory of relativity.
We must note that the theory of relativity itself owes gravitational
waves absolutely nothing. It perfectly functions even without their
existence. The problem is that a fundamental physical idea cannot be
perfect without a reliable conceptual basis. Thus, beyond the words
'curved fourdimensional spacetime' a really existing physical
factor (and not a simple mathematical manifold) must stand. In fact,
how is it possible to seriously speak about a curved void? Lack of a
comprehensive semantic equivalent for a curved spacetime triggered
the author of the relativistic theory to look for additional conceptual
means capable to compensate functional insufficiency of its
theoretical arsenal. Einstein imagined that gravitational waves,
whose unsuccessful searches continue till nowadays, might be such
an additional instrument.
It seems that Albert Einstein, who declared curved spacetime as a
physical reality, was astonished by this discovery and being
somewhat disappointed, urgently began to invent gravitational waves
with the aim to maintain traditional 'electromagnetic' distinction for
his general theory of relativity. But an appeal to gravitational waves
is a direct rollback to Lorentz's standards in definition of conceptual
status of the category of 'space'.
Lorentz considered that there was an empty space capable to
function as a carrier of the electromagnetic field between material
particles, which were carriers of electric charges. Electromagnetic
field could be present or not in the empty space, but such an empty
space itself always exists. It may be filled with electromagnetic field
or emptied, in full compliance with Kant's definition of absolute and
relative space. The only difference is that relative space was called a
field. The same syndrome of a double standard is well seen in the
idea of gravitational waves existence. This idea provides for
existence of heavy masses – carriers of gravitational charges and an
expanded empty space where gravitational waves emitted by these
charges can propagate. In any case, the hypothesis of gravitational
waves existence expressly parodies the electromagnetic theory where
two spaces, absolute and relative, exist.
By the way, the behaviour of a pendulum in Foucault's
experiment totally discredits the idea of existence of gravitational
waves similar to electromagnetic waves. We know that when a
source of electromagnetic field rotates about its axis, emitted force
field rotates together with the mass generating it. Then the
gravitational field of the Earth must rotate together with the mass of
the planet, like electromagnetic field does it. However, the behaviour
of Foucault's pendulum proves the contrary. The experiments show
that the Earth really rotates about its axis, but it doesn't result in
gravitational field rotation. Should the gravitational field rotate
together with the mass of the Earth, the trajectory of Foucault's
pendulum oscillations shall be invariable relative to the surface of the
planet. Then it follows that the nature of the gravitational field has
nothing in common with the nature of the electromagnetic field.
Hence, we see that the Achilles heel of the theory of relativity is
conceptual insufficiency of its spacetime arguments. These principle
categories of the Universe look too abstract and somewhat isolated
from real physical conceptions. In addition, the situation with
declared onedimensionality of the expression ()2ct , which is the
main link in the relativistic equations of motion, looks rather
problematic.
It would be incorrect to think that the present theoretical
investigation, which stands for the Bible version of the creation of
the world, is aimed at substitution or abolition of the relativistic
theory. The main line of the exposition is the deepening of the
relativistic theory of motion, exclusively. But we shall not
complicate it with mathematical solutions, when one seeks for
sophisticated geometries leading to more complicated coordinate
systems. This process, in fact, is endless. If there is a will, we can
always find a desirable trajectory of motion which doesn't match
with the known coordinate systems, and then new spacetime
manifolds appear. The effective prospect for the development of the
theory of relativity, in our opinion, is related to its principal equation
(3.1).
Anticipating things, we can say that we consider the famous
equation by Hermann Minkowski in a signature which allows to
represent the basic member of this equality, we mean ()2ct, as a
threedimensional function which agrees with the dimension of this
expression. It contradicts the traditional and, in our opinion,
inadmissible identification of metric structure ()2ct with only one
coordinate axis. We shall do it in nontraditional way, when they
propose to complicate the spacetime geometry of the relativistic
theory in a signature ()N+4, here 4 stands for fourdimensional
coordinate system of the theory of relativity, and N corresponds to
additional coordinate dimensions. We shall link equation (3.1) to an
effective and analytically controllable signature which agrees with
the dimensions of all membersarguments written in this equality. It
allows introducing quantum regularities into the theory of relativity,
and drastic expanding of its cognitive possibilities.
Beginning to expound this quantumrelativistic theory of relative
motion we shall follow the historical context of modern ideas about
mechanics of motion. Thus, let us start with the analysis of
experimental results on the ether wind detection. It seems to us that
the unconditional conclusion based on the results of these
experiments consists in the indication that the circumterrestrial space
belongs to the observed material substance. If the space directly takes
part in experiments and is subject to registration procedure (light
postulates prove it), then, by definition, such a space is material. It
acts as a controlled physical reality along with material objects of
substance. We adhere to the undeniable persuasion that observability,
in fact, means materiality.
As the space proves to be a material medium, a problem to
identify the character of interrelations between such a space and
substance arises. These relations must obviously differ from
Democritus presence of substance in void. For example, we must
know to distinguish between substance and space. We must know to
differentiate these material formations. In the previous chapter we
demonstrated the expected character of interactions between the
space and substance taking a closed physical system 'water – ice' as
an example. Then it is necessary to construct an absolutely specific
mechanics of motion that allows the two material categories to
effectively and consistently interact in the process of motion. There
are two different concerns: when objects of substance displace in an
empty Democritus space and when the motion takes place in a
material medium. Any motion of inertial interpretation, when a direct
substance transfer from one zone of the space to another is observed,
faces certain difficulties in a new situation. Then quality of a total set
of physical regularities governing the life of the Universe must be
adjusted in accordance with conditions of interactions between
material space and substance.
It was already said that according to accepted principal statement
for material attribution of fundamental categories of the Universe the
interrelations between space and substance are well illustrated by the
physical system 'water – ice'. Water, as well as ice, as to its material
content, is a set of a very big number of ordinary molecules, H2O.
Only the difference of temperatureenergy levels between molecules
of water allows us to draw a distinguished boundary separating these
two types of material formations.
Drawing an analogy between the 'space' and 'substance' it is
natural to assume that the fact of existence of elementary particles of
substance in the cosmic space is caused by variation of energy levels
for matter which belongs to the check microparticle, and matrix
matter of space. If we liberate the particle of substance from the
energy , the matter which belongs to the elementary particle
appears on the same energy level as a matrix matter of space. A
microparticle seems to transform into the spacious matter, like
melted ice transforms into water.
2mcE=
Going back to the ice sphere immersed in water, we must say that
the isolated physical system 'water – ice' belongs to the class of
nonstable systems. The thing is that within certain time the ice
sphere melts (we assume that water mass is big enough and its
temperature is high). Ice transformation into water is followed by
entropy increase, the closed system 'water – ice' tends to its state of
equilibrium when the further energy exchange becomes impossible.
Then the closed physical system 'space – microparticle' must be
unstable. Elementary particle must dissipate energy which causes its
existence in the matrix matter of space. It also expresses the tendency
of the isolated physical system 'space – microparticle' to reach the
state of equilibrium when any energy exchange is prohibited.
Dissipation of proper energy of the elementary particle in matrix
matter of space is realized through expansion of this microparticle in
any direction from its centre. Elementary particle seems to grow like
a sphere which is uniformly blown. It tends to 'dilute' and occupy
the same energy level of the matrix matter of space.
In accordance with Newton's laws, two mass points interact with
forces which are numerically equal and directed in opposite
directions. In such a case, if an elementary particle expands at certain
speed in any direction from its centre, the material space starts to
displace at the same speed in the direction towards the centre of the
microparticle. The particle tends to dissipate in the space, but the
reverse displacement of the matrix matter compensates this
dissipation and controls the object in a stable state.
Therefore, we are witnesses of the situation when elementary
particles of substance are present in the cosmic space of the Universe
like astrophysical black holes – they absorb the surrounding material
space. It is natural that any massive body consisting of a big number
and variety of elementary particles, due to the fact of its existence in
the space of the Universe, absorbs the matrix mater of the space. In
this context all massive bodies operate like black holes in the space
of the Universe, they continuously absorb the surrounding material
space.
Cosmological red shift of spectral lines of light signal emitted by
remote galaxies is a convincing proof of matrix matter absorption by
massive objects of substance. If all the massive bodies in the
Universe absorb surrounding material space, its continuous extension
must take place. Then the distance between two check points of the
space must continuously increase. The greater the distance between
two points selected for our observations, the greater the speed at
which these points move away from each other. As a result, though
our galaxy and remote galaxies maintain relative state of rest, light
signals reaching us from distant cosmic objects pass through
continuously extending material space. It is this process of space
extension due to its absorption by massive material objects that
results in effect of cosmological shift of spectral lines from distant
galaxies.
Speed of a check point of space moving into the zone of the mass
of the object under investigation due to matrix matter absorption, is
determined by wellknown Newton's expression:
2""
RMvD.= (3.2)
But we must note that the dimension of the Newtonian
gravitational constant is / m3, kg1, sec2 / , while the dimension of
'D' constant in equation (3.2) is / m3, kg1, sec1 /.
To give proof of equality (3.2) let us show the logics of its
derivation without using Newtonian constant.
The energy of dissipation of any elementary particle possessing
rest mass and tending to dissipate in matrix space, has constant value
and is quantized:
htEp=. (3.3)
here is the energy, the elementary particle dissipates within
one second;
tE.hp is the product of 'pi' number by Planck's constant.
Let us write (3.3) as
htmcvp=. (3.4)
Here m is the rest mass of the reference microparticle; c is the
light speed in vacuum; v is the speed of the particle expansion in the
space. On the other hand, v is the speed of matrix matter which enters
the zone of classical radius of the observed microparticle and keeps
it in a stable state; t. equals one second.
From (3.4) we find v:
tmchv.=
p
(3.5)
To determine the speed the matrix space enters the zone of the
material object, which possesses a considerable mass and consists of
a big number and variety of elementary particles, we must substitute
the proportionality ratio into the right side of equation (3.5). This is
the ratio of mass and radius squared of the investigated object (M,
R2) and mass and classical radius squared of any elementary particle
(m, r2). Assume that a particle is an electron. Then:
222tRcmMhrv.=
p
(3.6)
If we eliminate all constant values from the right side of equation
(3.6), then we get the value of the Newtonian gravitational constant
'D' prime.
tcmhrD.=22""p. (3.7)
Simplifying (3.6) we get the expression similar to (3.2):
2""
222RMtRcmMhrvD.p=
.= (3.8)
It is needed to make a special note concerning the use of classical
radius of the elementary particle in the equations. The classical
radius of an electron in these solutions isn't a physical quantity
which characterizes its absolute size. Nobody identifies the radius of
the Earth as an absolute volume occupied by planet substance in the
cosmic space. The substance constituting the mass of the planet, may
be concentrated in a more or less compact form depending on
particular conditions. The density may vary from that of a neutron
star to gas cloud. The radius of the observed cosmic object subject to
registration also varies in the same wide range. We use classical
radius for the electron, and believe that its value, in accordance with
scale invariance, is compatible with the scale level of quantities
written in equation (3.6) and satisfies their solution.
In reality, elementary particles (electron among them) may have
complicated internal structure at a quark or even finer level. But by
no means has it influenced the actuality of our solutions. The
proposed mathematical apparatus describes displacement of the
check point of matrix matter of space beyond the classical radius of
investigated objects.
We must note that the given equations allow overcoming classical
boundaries and penetrating into finer structures. For instance, it is
possible to determine so called 'classical radius' of elementary
particles of substance. Speaking about critical radius we mean the
value, when matrix matter of space penetrates into the zone of
investigated elementary particle at a speed of light. Taking into
account the fundamental significance of this speed, we can
reasonably assume that the real frontal opposition between the micro
particle tendency to dissipate, on the one hand, and return motion of
the matrix space, on the other hand, exists exactly on the level of the
critical radius of elementary particles. In some respect the critical
radius of the elementary particle is an absolute quantity. In none case
its value may be less than this limit. One can calculate the critical
radius from equation (3.5).
To do it we substitute light speed, c, for v in the left side of
equation (3.5). In the right side we write the ratio of the square of
classical radius, r2, and the square of critical radius, . Then (3.5)
may be written as:
2.crr
2.22crtrcmhrc.=
p. (3.9)
From (3.9) we get , .crr
tcmhrrcr.=222.
p. (3.10)
We believe that the critical radius of elementary particles of a
substance plays an important restricting role for our capacity to
penetrate into the depth of the microworld. This radius outlines the
microhorizon of events, and the physical reality existing beyond it is
always hidden for our observations. We loose, one can say, any
possibility to get any information about the events which take place
beyond this horizon. The thing is that the speed of matrix matter
intrusion into the limits of a microparticle completely neutralizes the
speed of information propagation from the profoundness of the
reference particle of substance. The similar things, but having the
scale of the macrocosmos, take place with the expanding Universe.
When the speed of the Universe expansion reaches and overcomes
light threshold, we become completely isolated from the information
originating from remote galaxies. In this case opposite extremes link
together, as it often happens.
As all massive material objects of substance are present in the
space of the Universe as consumers of matrix matter, we get a unique
possibility to create a very dynamic mechanism of the Universe
functioning, which ensures continuous selfrenewing of the Universe.
It this favourable cosmological conditions the possibility of existence
of any fixed forms of material constructions, specified once and for
all, is completely excluded. We refer to a very broad range of such
constructions, from the simplest elementary particles of substance to
combined galactic configurations. In essence, we find ourselves in a
qualitatively different world, which is more natural and dynamic than
that which corresponds to the Big Bang statements. But the most
important thing is that in these conditions of qualitatively renewed
ideas about the physical status of the fundamental categories of the
Universe, we get good prerequisites to update our understanding of
mechanics of motion. We get the opportunity to find more dynamic
theoretical grounds for relative motion, with sound mathematical and
conceptual contents.
So, we consider that the presence of material objects in the space
of the Universe is caused by spread of energy levels between the
matter which belongs to these objects, and matrix matter of the space.
In its turn, this energy levels spread is followed by absorption of the
material space by masses of substance. The interpretation of the
infinite space as an absolute material medium results in putting a
question about motion relative to this absolute space, which seems to
be able to function as a universal frame of reference. Let's analyze
this issue with more details.
While imposing the function of universal frame of reference on an
absolute material space one must not miss the following
circumstance. The matrix space itself, being a homogeneous and
continuous medium, in principal, cannot operate as a universal frame
of reference. The latter assumes the existence of reference marks, all
the measurements and observations be made relatively to. The
acceptance of any reference mark in the real space is realized through
assignment of a certain physical meaning to it. This is the only way
to mark such a point out of a material medium. In such a case we
must consider the selected point rather as an independent material
object than as an element of the absolute space. Then all the
measurements made with respect to the selected point have actual
value relative to this point as an independent objective reality, but
not with respect to the absolute space.
Prior to considering the motion relative to the absolute space, we
must mention the marking procedure, which allows us to select
reference points in this space and perform all possible measurements
with respect to them. At the same time the marking procedure must
maintain the state of the zero normal of matrix matter, or, in other
words, it must not destruct the state of space continuity and
homogeneity. It is obvious that these requirements are unrealizable in
principle. Thus, all the discussions about the absolute motion with
respect to infinite space taken as a universal frame of reference seem
to be meaningless.
However, let us try to analyze the circumstances which allow the
material space to acquire all necessary features to function as a valid
frame of reference where light postulates are true, as a physical
system, whose material structure is able to acquire the state of wave
disturbance and operate as hypothetic luminiferous ether.
It is known that the principal prerequisite to wave disturbance
propagation is the existence of a certain stable system or medium
carrying any regulated stable state in its structural memory. If we
disturb such a system or medium from its position of equilibrium
though impulse disturbance, it starts to harmonically oscillate tending
to return to its initial stable state.
It was mentioned earlier that the matrix material space isn't that
physical system or medium, whose structural memory keeps any
regulated stable bonds. It is absolutely homogeneous medium
without any marks, and because of the unavailability of stable
structural bonds there is nothing to become in the state of wave
disturbance. For this reason any idea of imposing functions of the
luminiferous ether on the matrix space cannot be seriously
considered. However, the question of how the light wave signals
propagate near the Earth surface and what is the part of the matrix
material space in this propagation, is still open.
Is we solve equation (3.2) substituting the values for M and R2
which correspond to the Earth, then we find that the matrix matter of
the space flows into the limits of the Earth classical radius at a speed
of approximately 9.8 m/sec. In fact, it means that all the infinite
space of the Universe is oriented towards the centre of the Earth and
is stable with respect to it, according to equation (3.2).
The displacement of matrix matter towards the centre of the Earth
imparts objective qualities of physical reality to the space, the reality
possessing internal metric consistency. Each point of this regulated
structure acquires a specific dynamic load. If we disturb such a
dynamically consistent space from the given regulated position by
light impulse, its metric background becomes disturbed and as a
result, the space has to acquire the state of wave disturbance. The
similar things are observed when a stone is thrown into the calm
water and then wave disturbances are generated on its free surface.
Therefore, we have all grounds to consider absolute space rushing
towards the centre of the Earth as really marked medium capable to
carry electromagnetic information and perform its duties of the
luminiferous ether.
All the aforesaid allow us to formulate a principally important
generalization: as the Earth absorbs the matrix matter of the absolute
space of the Universe, then so called 'personal spacetime
continuum' (PSTC) must be formed. A unique important physical
property of the terrestrial PSTC is its capacity to acquire the state of
wave disturbance and carry electromagnetic energy at a constant
speed, which has the same value in any direction. When we say that
the speed of light near the surface of the Earth equals 300,000 km/sec,
we must keep in mind that we speak about the speed of light waves
propagation as on the luminiferous normal level of the Earth personal
spacetime continuum. The latter was successfully detected in the
experiments performed by Michelson and Morley, which proved the
circumterrestrial space capacity to perform luminiferous function.
In contrast to the author of the theory of relativity, we do not
simply declare light postulates, but try to assign full motivation to the
law of light speed constancy for any coordinate system related to any
chosen body of reference. The important advantage of the proposed
theoretical choice is its tendency to consider the categories of
'space' and 'substance' in continuous relationship with each other.
We mean not only the close interaction between the personal space
time continuum and substance, but principal impossibility of their
independent existence as well. While according to Einstein, such a
real interdependence between space and substance doesn't actually
exist. Hence, reliable prerequisites to unite the theory of relativity
with quantum regularities aren't available.
Unlike Einstein's fourdimensional spacetime, the personal
spacetime continuum isn't an abstract mathematical construction
which doubtfully includes light postulates, but objectively existing
physical reality, whose properties we can easily understand and
discover basing on the experiments done by Michelson and Morley.
But the most important thing is that this reality can be reasonably
understood. We can perceive that the terrestrial personal spacetime
continuum may be used as a valid spacetime framework and it is
reasonable to perform different measurements and observations
against its background or, if we want to be more exact, on the
luminiferous normal level.
If we project a threedimensional Cartesian coordinate system on
a terrestrial PSTC in such a way that the origin of the terrestrial
personal continuum (centre of mass of the Earth) coincides with the
point of intersection of three coordinate axes, then the four
dimensional nature of this objective physical reality becomes
imaginable. Three spacious and one time dimensions organically
interlace in the personal continuum due to matrix matter sliding
along the spacious coordinates axes. The motion is that unique state
when space and time become inseparably linked with each other. As
we see, to illustrate fourdimensional spacetime we don't need to
refer to any puzzling combinations seeming to be independent of our
imagination. It is needed to possess clear idea of the object of
investigations and be guided by the sole desire to understand its real
physical essence.
It is obvious that not only the Earth, but any massive body
possesses its personal spacetime continuum in the absolute space of
the Universe. If we have a system of two or more massive bodies,
any PSTC may be successfully used as a universal spacetime
framework, and it looks reasonable to perform various measurements
and observations against its background. In this aspect all the
personal spacetime continuums are equivalent, and there is no
privileged frame of reference. However, in each specific case of
choosing the frame of reference, the decision word is that of the
observer. It is location of the observer that determines the choice of a
personal spacetime, when the global picture of the Universe
becomes clear on the luminiferous normal level.
For example, for us who live on the Earth any information about
the events taking place in the surrounding cosmic infinity, comes and
manifests itself on the luminiferous normal level of the terrestrial
personal spacetime. This circumstance causes the personal targeted
orientation of the global picture of the Universe registered by the
observer on the Earth. In particular, we must clearly imagine that the
centre of mass of the planet, being the original point of the terrestrial
PSTC, regularly seems to be the centre of the Universe for the
observer on the Earth. It is only an intellectual way which leads to
understanding of how the Earth rotates about the Sun. It is
impossible to register this motion by performing experiments on the
Earth, and the results of observations made by Michelson and Morley
prove it. Hence, our forefathers haven't sinned against the truth
believing that the world exists as we see it and the Earth is the centre
of the Universe. The Earth together with its personal spacetime
continuum is the only and firm universal framework for us, and we
register any event taking place in the Universe against its background.
It's just the right time now to think of the Holy Scripture and
address the Prophet Moses. It is written in the First Book, called
Genesis, that the first day of creative and foundational acts of the
Divine Universe, Heavens, Earth and light were created. There are
the words 'one day' at the end of the verses dedicated to the first day
of the creation of the world. It is known that in the original text
written in Hebrew, the words 'one day' have rather quantitative than
ordinal number interpretation. For this reason all declarations with
respect to the first day of the Great Creation must be understood as
an inseparable creative and forming act. It is incorrect to use our
common chronometry of 24 hours of day and night. Nothing is said
in the Bible whether the first day of creation was long or not. But it is
important to understand that everything occurred that day must be
interpreted as a combined oneact action, and the independent
appearance of Heavens, Earth or light in isolation from each other
isn't acceptable.
The onset of light on the first day of the creation of the world was
criticized more than once; it cast doubt on the Divine Providence
logics. According to Moses' narration the creation of the heavenly
bodies occurred on the fourth day of creation, it is directly indicated
in the verses dedicated to the fourth day. Than an inevitable question
arises: what is the day the Holy Scripture speaks about, if on the first
day of the creation of the world there were no heavenly bodies? To
suspect the Prophet Moses of lightmindedness would be too naïve
business.
In accordance with the logics of this theoretical research we can
assume that, narrating the creation of the Heaven, the Earth and light
on the first day, the Prophet declares the onetimeonly creation of
the Earth, its personal spacetime continuum with its capacity to
carry luminiferous information. The existence of the terrestrial PS
TC in the absolute space of the Universe, and its capacity to operate
as a luminiferous medium is impossible without the existence of the
Earth mass. Just as the existence of the Earth is also impossible
without its personal spacetime continuum together with light
postulates. These three physical categories are organically
interdependent. None of them assumes its autonomous existence in
the Universe, and the Prophet Moses knew it. The Bible tells us that
God separated the light from the darkness. In other words, He created
the luminiferous spacetime medium of the matrix matter of the
absolute space (which is darkness, because it isn't capable to carry
electromagnetic information). Should the Earth be created without its
personal spacetime continuum, it shall not be able to give or receive
any information. In such a case it would be isolated from the outer
world, being relegated to oblivion.
It would seem how could Moses know these subtleties of the
Universe operating? However, this is the great mystery and exclusive
Godinspiration of the Holy Scripture. By God's grace, the prophets
knew those innermost depths of the being that we try to find out by
grains at the cost of incredible efforts. The ability to perceive the
Earth and its luminiferous spacetime medium as an inseparable
physical system was one of those mysteries within the power of the
prophets. Besides, the prophets knew that the appearance of such a
physical system in the matrix space of the Universe occurred at the
onetimeonly principle; it is this idea that is proved by the statement
of the 'one day'.
However, Moses wasn't alone to narrate mysteries of light mains
laying in the Holy Scripture! Let's think of the Book of Job, in
particular, its 38th chapter, when the Most High examines Job's
knowledge of the innermost mainsprings regulating the life of the
Universe. In the 19th verse God asks Job: 'Where is the way where
light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof?' And
then in the 24th verse He asks: 'By what way is the light parted,
which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?'
Let us analyze the question 'By what way is the light parted?'
Isn't it the principal idea of Einstein's light postulates making the
most inconceivable aspect of the theory of relativity? One thing is to
declare that the speed of light is the same in any coordinate system
and possesses the same value in different directions at any zone of
the coordinate system. But the other thing is to know to suggest
physical grounds for such a declaration. Einstein in his relativistic
theory doesn't even endeavour to answer questions resulting from the
light postulates, though his world vision is based on the declaration
that the light speed is absolute.
The factor of light speed constancy (firstly, in inertial frames of
reference only) plays a key part in the theory of relativity and serves
as its physical grounding. We don't have any doubt that the success
of the electromagnetic theory by Maxwell and Lorentz inspired faith
in Einstein that the statement of the constant speed of light in the
space was true. The experiments on the ether wind discovery
redoubled his conviction. Einstein's merit was to apply the law of
light speed constancy to all inertial frames of reference as a principle.
Prior to appearance of the theory of relativity it was known that
Maxwell's equations, thus, the law of the constancy of the velocity of
light in vacuum is invariant with respect to Lorentz transformations.
This fact allowed Einstein to come to a conclusion that a transition
from one inertial frame of reference to another must take place
according to Lorentz transformations applied to thee space
coordinates – X1, X2, X3, and one time coordinate – X4.
Then, basing on the obvious requirement that the laws of physics
must be the same in all inertial systems of coordinates, Einstein
found necessary to declare that all physical equations, which reflect
the general laws of nature, were invariant with respect to Lorentz
transformations. Hence, the essence of the special theory of relativity
may be formulated in one phrase: all physical laws and equations
which result from them must be expressed in a way which implies
their covariance with respect to Lorentz transformations.
Later, Einstein decided to expand the idea of light speed
constancy over any coordinate systems, including those moving with
acceleration. It meant that according to the fundamental principle of
equivalency, the idea of considering equivalent inertial systems only
was unreasonable. We must agree that nonlinear transformations of
X1, X2, X3, X4 coordinates are also considered equivalent. If we make
such a transformation of rectilinear coordinates of the special theory
of relativity, then metric becomes Riemannian. Einstein selected
such a special group of continuous transformations of coordinate
functioning as Lorentz transformations in special theory of relativity,
which could assure relative covariance of fundamental equations of
physics when passing from one accelerated coordinate system to
another.
It made possible to generalize the idea about unavailability of any
physically preferential state of motion in nature. Hence, there are no
preferential frames of reference, and equations of physics must be
covariant with respect to any point transformations of the four
dimensional spacetime continuum. The author of the theory of
relativity makes this statement the fundamental principle of
covariance, serving as a unique possible solid foundation to construct
the physical science structure over.
It goes without saying that the general principle of relativity,
stating that the laws of physics must be covariant with respect to any
transformation of a coordinate system, is a true and limiting principle.
Possibly it is similar to that principle lying as basis for
thermodynamics which impedes perpetuum mobile operating. This
general principle of relativity requires all physical laws of nature be
invariant for observers in any coordinate system. One can think that
the principle of general covariance exists independently of the theory
of relativity, because it is caused by the nature of matters itself.
However, a great and crucially important question arises: whether
Einstein's equations contain real limitations for physical laws or they
are purely mathematical combinations working for themselves.
It is known that any physical law which is true for any coordinate
system may be reformulated in such a way that its new expression
has a general covariant form. Always there are a big number of field
equations which accept such a general covariant formulation. Of
course, the theory of relativity proposes solutions which seem to be
simple enough, though they are general covariant. But this advantage
itself cannot guarantee adequacy of Einstein's systems of equations.
In this situation we formulate the principle question: what physical
properties of space and time are taken as fundamental basis which
makes possible to establish the general covariance of physical laws
while passing from one coordinate system to another? And then it is
natural to put another question: what must be the mathematical
character of the equations which meet requirements of fundamental
physical properties of space and time? Or, using other words, the
only firm guarantee for the complete compliance of equations of the
theory of relativity with objective reality is the clear presentation of
physical processes behind their mathematical representation.
Eventually, real life in the Universe is the interaction of physical
regularities exclusively, not mathematical ones.
In this context, the theory of relativity is extremely restrained,
because it never proposes anything else but light postulates which
express real physical properties of the fourdimensional spacetime
and ensure general covariance of Einstein's equations. The
declaration of light speed constancy and identity in any coordinate
system is a pure declaration only. Such a declaration cannot satisfy
our natural desire to perceive its real physical substantiveness.
Moreover, we cannot accept light postulates as an absolutely true
idea. They have never been verified, and have absolutely empiric
nature. Nobody has ever tried to measure speed of light in any
coordinate system. One cannot guarantee that the light speed on the
surface of the Moon equals the light speed on the surface of the Mars.
That's why light postulates in their general application are, in fact,
wishful thinking.
In general, one can speak about constancy of light speed more or
less definitely in inertial frame of reference only, in the absence of
gravitational fields. In this case the complete geodesic coincidence of
light signal path exists and it becomes possible to compare the two
trajectories superimposing them. The other way is to compare these
trajectories with any rigid model. Such a procedure faces certain
difficulties in accelerated frames of reference. In this case we cannot
interpret coordinate axes using rigid selfcongruent standards and
isochoric clock. Hence, the task to compare light signal trajectories
as well as their velocities while passing from one frame of reference
to another becomes rather problematic or even impossible.
And even if, in reality, the speed of light is constant and has the
same numerical value for any coordinate system, we need to know
why it happens. We must know to answer the question put to Job by
the Almighty in the Old Testament: 'Where is the way where light
dwelleth?' Without answering this very important and complicated
question the real physical value of the theory of relativity seems
rather relative.
It isn't a secret for anybody that certain assumptions lie in the
depth of the fundamental science, and sometimes they don't result
from the experiment. Strong evidence is the assumption of constancy
and equality of light speed for all coordinate systems. It happens
because we never can comprehend the physical picture of the world
around us. And within our cognition, assumptions which make more
or less logically completed theoretical system of scientific ideas
about the world around us appear. In these circumstances the
question is how deeply and haw widely do these assumptions
embrace a range of multiform natural phenomena? An assumption is
acceptable till the moment when new experimental and theoretical
results allow formulating more general assumption which includes
the previous as a particular case with restricted applicability.
We believe that the results of experiments on the ether wind
discovery served as experimental basis for light postulates
acceptation. However, the idea of constancy and equality of the
speed of light for any coordinate system doesn't obligatory result
from the experiments performed by Michelson and Morley. We have
already mentioned that the single reliable conclusion which directly
results from these experiments is that speed of light in the personal
spacetime continuum of the Earth equals 300,000 km/sec. But the
constancy of light speed in the PSTC of the Earth doesn't imply free
extrapolation of this constant over all other spacetime continuums.
Moreover, we have every reason to believe that this numerical value
of the speed of light, 300,000 km/sec, is applicable to the personal
spacetime continuum of the Earth only. It characterizes physical
properties of the personal spacetime continuum just of the Earth.
Thus, if we consider a local terrestrial gravitational field as a
uniformly accelerated frame of reference, according to equivalence
principle, then we can reason as follows. Acceleration is the rate of
change of velocity of a check body with respect to an external frame
of reference or initial conditions of the experiment. The thing is that
acceleration may be registered irrespectively to any external
reference points. Besides, it is known that, according to the
equivalence principle, an isolated observer cannot distinguish
between acceleration and the presence of the gravitational field. In
such a case a classical observer isolated in the terrestrial gravitational
field (let him be closed in an empty lift) at any moment of time may
switch on his measuring devices and determine his state as a
continuous increase in his velocity with respect to initial conditions
of the experiment with the acceleration of 9.8 m/sec2. There is no
contradiction in this experiment because the principle of equivalency
allows the observer isolated in the terrestrial gravitational field, to
consider his own state as uniformly accelerated motion with
acceleration of 9.8 m/sec2. It happens though the observer is in state
of rest relative to the surface of the Earth.
And now a question arises: how long can an isolated observer
register his acceleration if it follows from the theory of relativity that
nothing can move faster than at light speed? Earlier or later the
classical observer, grounding on readings of his devices must register
that he reaches and exceeds the speed of light respective to initial
conditions of the experiment.
In this connection let us clarify what is the interval of time needed
for the classical observer to register the fact that he reaches the speed
of light. The value we get equals the lunar Islamic calendar year:
gct=. (3.11)
Here t is the interval of time which contains twelve lunar or
synodic months (every synodic month lasts 29 days, 12 hours, 44
minutes and 2.9 seconds); c is the speed of light in vacuum; g is the
acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth.
It is known that the Islamic year is based on the lunar cycle and
corresponds to the interval of time the Moon needs to return to its
initial position. If an observer synchronizes the beginning of the
experiment with the position of the Moon on the vault of heaven,
then when his speed reaches the speed of light he finds that the Moon
has returned to its previous place. The situation is similar to that of a
traveller trying to reach the end of the Earth.
The Moon is a natural satellite of the Earth and its trajectory
essentially depends on the intensity of the terrestrial gravitational
field. The fact that the observer isolated in the terrestrial gravitational
field, according to the equivalence principle reaches (to a high
accuracy) the speed of light in a lunar calendar year is hardly
occasional. This circumstance indicates the existence of still
unknown deep interrelation between the spacetime topology of the
terrestrial gravitational field and characteristic of velocity of light
signal in it. It is probable that the numerical value of light in vacuum,
300,000 km/sec, isn't an absolute and universal value for the whole
Universe. It is possible that this value reflects personal metric
properties of the terrestrial PSTC only, and is actual exclusively for
terrestrial gravitational field.
It stands to reason that this assumption needs a serious study;
however it is critically important for us to know to explain the origin
of equation (3.11). This equality is too exact and convincing to be a
simple coincidence of chances. And the most important thing is that
according to Einstein, physical properties of the fourdimensional
spacetime are stipulated by light postulates in their traditional
statement, but the reality may be absolutely different. It is not ruled
out that the registered speed of light in vacuum is, in fact, the
expression of a metric structure of a specific gravitational field, or
specific accelerated frame of reference. Because it follows from
(3.11) that
gtc×=. (3.12)
The uniqueness of this equality consists in the fact that it allows to
prove the known value of the speed of light in vacuum with the help
of gravitational potential of the terrestrial personal spacetime.
It may happen that we have to deny Einstein's light postulates in
their general categorical statement. Then a new theory of relativity
will be created, and in this theory the general covariance of principal
equations of physics will be true due to the change in the velocity of
light in different coordinate systems and not to its constancy. In any
case, the problem of the velocity of light as a basic element of the
theory of relativity, needs great attention.
There is nothing else left for us to do but construct our worldview
on the basis of Eisntein's light postulates. Especially as the terrestrial
spacetime continuum in full measure meets all there requirements
and allows us to comprehensively describe the general picture of the
world around us.
QUANTA OF MOTION
The theory of relativity is mainly intended to comprehensively
illustrate results of different types of motion. We know that a man
lives in the continuously changing world, in the world of
kaleidoscopic displacement of various material objects with respect
to each other. To reduce the dynamical picture of the world around
us into a certain coordinated state we need to freely and adequately
know to describe motion and orient in it. For this purpose the theory
of relativity uses fourdimensional coordinate grids with three space
and one time dimension. Fourdimensional coordinate systems
operate like world spacetime framework in it, and process of motion
is realized against its background.
Einstein was the first to realize that time propagates in space at a
finite speed, which is the speed of electromagnetic field expansion in
Maxwell – Lorentz equations. As time looses its absolute character
because of its impossibility to cover space distances infinitely
quickly, then the fourdimensional spacetime perception of reality
becomes the only possible thing. In special theory of relativity the
linear fourdimensional coordinate systems are used. They meet
requirements of the spacetime geometry by Minkowski when
Euclid's geometry axioms are true. In the general theory of relativity
the curved coordinate axes are used, which result in appearance of a
curved spacetime with pseudoRiemann metrics, which is contrary
to Euclid's geometry.
Location of a test body is called 'event' in physics; it is
understood as a point argument and determined by a set of real
numbers – projections of the check point on four coordinate axes.
The theory of relativity tracks out the trajectory and determines the
speed of a moving observed object in the spacetime coordinate
frame of reference with the help of the square of the interval, dS2,
between two arbitrary close events, taking into account the way of its
solution.
When Einstein formulated the problem to find the trajectory of a
test body in a free gravitational field, he assumed that, basing on the
requirements of the principle of equivalence, the trajectory of the
check body shall be fully determined by the geometry of the curved
spacetime and described through the solution of the interval dS2.
Therefore, from the mathematical standpoint, Einstein's theory of
relativity, in fact, is a theory of the differential spacetime interval,
dS2, solution. We can add to it, that the interval between two
arbitrary close events is solved through the Pythagorean theorem,
which states that in any right triangle the square of the hypotenuse
equals the sum of squares of the remaining sides of the triangle.
Speaking about the conceptual substantiveness of the theory of
relativity we must recognize that it radically expands the limits of our
ideas about the general picture of the external world due to revision
of the physical status of the fundamental categories of the Universe.
Einstein managed to deprive space and time of their casual
absoluteness when they were the only factors affecting position of
massive bodies, being unyielded themselves. The theory of relativity
revealed the deep interrelation between massive bodies and metric
structure of the surrounding spacetime. However, it didn't put any
conceptual equivalents concerning actual character of this
interrelation or its actual physical content, at our disposal.
The thing is that the use of mathematical fourdimensional
coordinate grids, in itself, cannot clarify the nature of space and time
unification in a single topological matter. And no coordinate systems
can provide understanding of the principles of interrelation between
fourdimensional spacetime and masses of substance. On the
contrary, the use of fourdimensional coordinated grids in the theory
of relativity aggravated the situation. In accordance with the specifics
of the conceptual contest of the theory of relativity, abstract
mathematical manifold substituted for physical spacetime reality.
By the way, this mathematical manifold is isolated from the
reasonable comprehension and till nowadays it doesn't have any
physical attribution accessible to our imagination. We don't know
what stands behind the fourdimensional spacetime continuum of
the theory of relativity and what the solution of the interval dS2 is. In
such a case we cannot, with certainty, present this solution as a
unique true and correct description of results of motion, which
cannot be intentionally changed or cancelled.
In fact, we don't know whether our mathematical constructions
reflect the objective picture of the deep processes taking place on the
mysterious infiniteness of the material world. Imaginary identity of
physical reality and its mathematical equivalents is rather unstable,
and the whole history of the development of natural science is its true
witness. That's why it becomes very important for our mathematical
computations not to burden vacillating conceptual theoretical basis of
physics with additional contradictions. And in this sense, the theory
of relativity has its fault. We can mark out at least three serious
problems which cannot be logically understood, with respect to
application of the interval dS2 and interpretation of its components –
point ideas about the concept of the 'event', in the theory of
relativity.
Let us arrest our attention on these problems and carefully analyze
each of them separately.
It is considered that Einstein interpreted the unified theory of field
developed by him as universal physical conception applied to any
type of interaction (strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational
interaction). Such a vision is reasonable and we would like to see a
new comprehensive theory explaining different kinds of interaction
and possessing a reliable mathematical ground. But it was rather
another idea that didn't give a moment's peace to Einstein and
provoked his creative work. The main purpose of the author of the
theory of relativity, who tried to demonstrate new solutions of
equation of motion, consisted in his wish to exceed the limits of
interpretation of dS2 as a measure of spacetime relations and expand
it over material objects of substance. Let us look into the essence of
matter.
In Figure 1 one can see two positions of a steel sphere moving
along the Xaxis, at two fixed instants of time.
Fig. 1
In the theory of relativity and in Newtonian mechanics as well,
massive material objects are considered as mass points. Then the
distance between two fixed locations of a steel sphere moving along
the Xaxis, is S – the interval between two points, O1 and O2. In
classical mechanics this interval, S, is a mathematical measure of
distance between points O1 and O2. Theoretically, it is quite
acceptable and absolutely sufficient for Newtonian mechanics
functioning. However, in the theory of relativity the situation differs.
In this theory the distance between O1 and O2 is interpreted not as a
conventional mathematical measure of distance but as a natural
spacetime interval with its real physical properties as a moving
material object possesses them, which directly results from light
postulates.
In Figure 1 one can easily notice that, strictly speaking, the space
time interval between two fixed locations of a steel sphere moving
along the Xaxis is the distance S1 and no more than that. Otherwise,
is we consider S as a real spacetime interval, we need to ground the
fact of reduction of the mass of the steel sphere to its status of space
time argument together with light postulates. Hence, the necessity to
solve the problem of difference (S minus S1) arises. We must clarify
the situation with this difference and attribute it either to substance or
to spacetime. The theory of relativity keeps silence with respect to
this problem, though when interval S approaches the differential
expression the problem becomes even more critical and unsolvable.
If we consider the difference between O1 and O2 in the framework
of differential calculus, then the interval dS2 is found inside the steel
sphere. In this case it is not a measure of space and time, but a
measure of distance between two points of substance, O1 and O2 (Fig.
2). Then it would be reasonable to call the interval O1O2 a four
dimensional 'materialspacetime' argument. By the way, it isn't
related to light postulates, because within the mass of a steel sphere it
is really difficult to hold light postulates.
Fig. 2
In Figure 2 we can clearly see that the interval between O1 and O2
is a measure of distance between the points of substance. If we say
that this interval is a spacetime quantity, then we bereave substance
of its quality of objective physical reality. On the other hand, if we
expressly declare the interval between O1 and O2 as a measure of
distance between two points of substance, then we must deny forever
the possibility to consider this interval as a spacetime argument. If
doing it, the theory of relativity will be bereft of all its logical
foundations, and it will become impossible to use it as a theory
operating spacetime relations.
Einstein was aware of his theory applicability exclusively for
point, hence, incorporeal ideas about material objects. For lengthy
bodies the differential interval between two events looses its space
time reality, but becomes a measure of distance between points of
substance. In reality we live in the world of corporeal, lengthy bodies.
Hence, an inevitable question arises: how can substance pass into
spacetime, and is such a transition possible? The theory of relativity
keeps silence with this respect. Einstein didn't solve, let us say, the
first problem of the interval dS2. It is related to the transition of
substance into spacetime or, vice versa, with the transition of space
time into substance.
The author of the theory of relativity hoped to solve this problem
with the help of the unified theory of field. It was suggested that
spacetime and substance may function as derivatives of the unified
universal field in this new universal theory of motion. It would allow
us to naturally operate with the interval dS2 for categories of
'substance' and 'spacetime'. Einstein hoped to get this result
basing on the unified theory of field. The thing is that without
understanding of what does the interval dS2 characterize – the
distance between two points of substance or two points of spacetime,
it was impossible to determine the grade of objectivity of the theory
of relativity. And only later, one can say, in the background, it was
thought about the capability of the unified theory of field to describe
different types of motion.
The second problem of the interval dS2 isn't less acute and
principal than the first one. It appears in the theory of relativity
because of our contradictory attitude to motion as it is. The essence
of the problem is as follows. It is known that the trajectory of the
moving object consists rather of a continuous succession of events
than of a set of intervals dS2. That's not only the point that the
interval is a secondary notion relative to the concept of event, though
it makes deep sense. The thing is that, in fact, we can observe only a
singular event at any fixed instant of time. The presence of the
second event which closes the interval dS2, is of intellectual origin
only. At a moment of its registration the second event exists
exclusively in our intellectual imagination. In principle, it is
impossible to observe interval dS2 without involvement of past or
future time. Therefore, such an interval is rather a product of our
intellectual capacities than reflection of objectively existing realities
taken at any fixed instant at present. However, the laws of nature
must act on the level of actually existing phenomena and quantities,
independently of our imagination. It is a circumstance of a
fundamental order – we either describe real processes or start to
investigate products of our intellectual selfexpression.
The complicacy of motion registration within the limits of a
separate event was discovered for the first in famous Zeno's aporia.
Recollect one of his aporia – that with the flying arrow, when its
head passes points A, B and C which are close to each other both in
space and in time. Zeno constructed a logical series: in a moment
when the head of the flying arrow is at a point B, it isn't already at a
point A, and isn't at a point C yet. And in the actual, escaping, zero
long border between the past and the future, at a point B, the head of
the arrow is within zero interval of time, or, in other words, it isn't
there. Using time and distance division Zeno tried to approach the
ideal, instantaneous motion within the limits of a point. The thinker
believed that without such a motion within the limits of a point
interval of space and time, the course of motion itself looses its real
sense.
In effect, the question about location of the head of a flying arrow
and other relative paradoxes is reduced to a problem of a proper
attribution of the concept of 'event'. Point interpretation of the
concept of 'event' accepted by Zeno and existing till nowadays was
formulated on the principle of Democritus ideas about the space and
time. Classical Newtonian mechanics strengthened these ideas by
giving them a mathematical ground. The theory of relativity filled the
categories of 'space' and 'time' with a new relativistic content. But
the concept of 'event' itself in Einstein's worldview kept the
features of old classical mechanics. It happened because Einstein
failed to illustrate the transition from the state of rest to that of
motion in the framework of a single event. An event, in the
interpretation of the author of the theory of relativity, maintains its
point character independently of kinematics, independently of
whether the head of the arrow is in its state of rest or motion.
Without any doubt the optimal theory of motion must proceed
from a rule stating that the equations of mechanics adequately
correspond to their direct destination if the motion is given within the
framework of a separate event. The possibility to change the state of
motion at any fixed moment of time by another state following
immediately the first one is needed. Otherwise, we never get to know
to track a continuous trajectory of a moving object.
The theory of relativity considers the existing interval between
two events, which is the true result of motion. Both relativistic theory
and Newtonian mechanics pay no attention to the dynamical moment,
which is the transition from one event to another. Any reference to
differentiability of the interval dS2, references to the level of
infinitesimal quantities, by no means help to understand kinematics
of motion but drive the subject matter into a corner. An event is one
event, and the interval dS2 corresponds to two separate events having
different coordinates. The theory of relativity knows nothing about
the mechanism of transition from one point event to another, in fact,
it is in captivity of Zeno's aporias. It is incapacity of the theory of
relativity to describe motion in the framework of a separate event
that makes content of the second problem of the interval dS2,
resulting from Einstein's fourdimensional coordinate systems.
The third problem of the interval dS2 results from the evident
contradiction between the principle of equivalency and point
approach to the concept of 'event'. This problem emerges in the
following way.
It follows from the general theory of relativity that the existence
of the gravitational field is caused by the existence of the pseudo
Riemann metrics in the fourdimensional spacetime. Topological
structure of this curved spacetime is described with the help of the
same differentiated square of the interval dS2. Its existence is
associated with fourdimensional coordinate grid put over
gravitational field, and arbitrary selection of two infinitely near
check points. It is clear that the procedure of selecting two points at
the extremes of the interval dS2 is of an absolutely speculative origin.
However, it makes possible to digitally mark the given spacetime
structure and find adequate mathematical expression for its check
interval.
If we place a test body into the curved spacetime, according to
principle of equivalency, it will experience universal gravitation. We
realize that in reality, at any specific instant of time, a point event
may be located at a single point of the curved spacetime. To make
the observed event be governed by geometrical settings and
transported from one point of the curved spacetime to another, let us
say, initial point, the original event has to know to receive
topological information about the spacetime which surrounds it.
However, we know that a point, by definition, is neutral with respect
to any geometrical structures, because it is impossible to say a part of
what geometrical structure this point is. An event of point
interpretation, in principle, cannot accept topological information
about the surrounding spacetime, hence, cannot be governed by its
metric settings. Incapacity of a point event to react on the curved
spacetime casts doubt on the possibility of interval dS2 appearance,
which corresponds to the given metric structure. And becomes
unclear, how can the interval dS2 appear as a result of the test body
presence in the curved spacetime.
Therefore, we can state the existence of the explicit contradiction
between the principle of equivalency and point conception about the
notion of 'event'. To overcome this contradiction we need to take
the concept of event out of limits of a point and provide it with
theoretical basis, which allows the event to accept topological
information about the surrounding spacetime and be governed by its
metric settings. Then the spacetime interval dS2, which corresponds
to the given metric structure, can appear. In fact, this is the third
problem of the interval dS2 in Einstein's theory of relativity.
Albert Einstein, during all his creative life, consistently defended
the belief that all physical laws must have spacetime expression. He
insisted that any law could be expressed in the language of space
time relations. It is difficult to object to this statement, but it doesn't
follow that the laws of nature must have just that spacetime
presentation as the theory of relativity offers. In particular, it isn't
necessary to define a minimum element of motion by the solution of
the differential interval dS2, that is, using equations having regular
continuous solutions. The modern physics convincingly proves that
mainly periodic elementary processes are realized in nature. They, in
principle, are not subject to differential fragmentation and posses
exclusively quantum character. In this connection it is natural to
assume that spacetime characteristics of the minimum element of
motion must have a certain finite value and not be subject to infinite
fragmentation.
Newton in his time laid down the foundations of differential
calculus to give exact mathematical assessment of a relative velocity
and acceleration. Differential equations gave him the opportunity to
track continuous geometrical trajectory of an idealized mass point in
an idealized Democritus space and time. In fact, nothing prohibited
Newton to carry on an infinite fragmentation of a minimum interval
of motion in an imaginary empty space and absolute time, which
don't carry any physical interpretation. Classical ideas about space
and time gave the possibility to consider material objects in the form
of mass points because the idealized space and time with their
physical properties couldn't be applied to volumetric masses. And
real dimensions of material objects had no significance. The thing is
that these geometrical shapes belong only to them and nothing could
fill their place with another physical content. Logical completeness
of classical mechanics is caused by the fact that the same check
masses act as a unique reason for interaction between masses in
classical mechanics. And the imaginary universal space and time
framework was that ideal background which couldn't be objectively
registered and didn't object to its infinite fragmentation.
Einstein set himself much more complicated task. He combined
space and time in a single geometrical manifold, and assigned
specific physical properties to this metric structure, together with
massive material objects. These properties, though in the only form
of light postulates, were fixed for the fourdimensional spacetime.
This decision wasn't a free expression of scientist's will; it was
predetermined by the general course of physics development and, in
particular, by the results on detecting the ether wind. The
experiments irrefutably proved that the fourdimensional spacetime
functions in the mode of light postulates. Therefore, it acts as an
objective physical reality, as masses do it. In such a case the motion
itself must be considered rather as a result of special kind of
interaction between moving material object and physically active
fourdimensional spacetime than a simple classical substance
transfer from one zone of the empty space and absolute time to
another.
While an empty space and absolute time in classical mechanics
admit application of any mathematical solutions provided that they
allow tracking the imaginary trajectory on the observed object in the
emptiness, then now the situation radically changed. In the
conditions of renewed conceptions of the principal categories of the
Universe, the mathematical apparatus used to describe motion, must
respond to physical interaction between the active fourdimensional
spacetime and material object moving in it. This interaction must be
natural and noncontradictory; it doesn't admit existence of any
paradox mentioned in the course of analysis of three critical
problems resulting from the use of the differentiated interval dS2.
We don't have any doubt that the most vulnerable element of the
theory of relativity is its fatal adherence to the Newtonian differential
calculus. It happened due to successful development of the theory of
electromagnetic field by Faraday and Maxwell. In the
electromagnetic theory the field acts as a physical reality carrying
energy. This reality is described by continuous functions of
coordinate systems. The principal conclusion of the theory of field
consists in the statement that the interaction between check objects is
realized through the processes propagating at constant speed in the
space, but not with the help of the instantaneous forces acting
between them.
While the electromagnetic field, together with electric charges,
occupies the place of reality in the electromagnetic theory, the four
dimensional spacetime is present instead of the electromagnetic
field in the theory of relativity. It acts as a central acting personality
in all relativistic constructions. In this connection it seemed natural
for Einstein to apply the method of differential calculus which was
successfully used in the electromagnetic theory of the field, to the
theory of relativity created by him. In addition, the supposed identity
of electromagnetic and optical processes factually predetermined the
use of equations of electromagnetic theory, including the Lorentz
transformations of coordinate systems in Einstein's theory of
relativity.
Honestly, we must say that Einstein never blindly championed
ideas related to mathematical solutions of the electromagnetic theory
by their mechanical transfer into the relativistic theory of motion.
Suffice it to mention that he persistently selected geometrical
equivalents for these solutions with the hope that the geometry would
be capable to project objective physical properties of the four
dimensional spacetime and formulate the unified theory of field.
One means the comprehensive theory where the fourdimensional
spacetime and material objects would coexist harmonically,
permitting to interpret any physical interaction using some universal
metric relations. What shall we say? It is obvious that one can deem
geometry as a science capable to project the logics of physical
interactions taking place between material bodies in spacetime, and
consider them in a topological expression. However, the topology of
the theory of relativity in fourdimensional geometry doesn't make
this theory free of a complex of problems arising from the solution of
the interval dS2, taken from Einstein's fourdimensional spacetime.
To exempt the theory of relativity of the necessity to use the
differentiated interval dS2, it isn't needed to perform any
sophisticated multistep operations with it. It is sufficient to take the
concept of 'event' out of limits of a point and assign it a quantum
spacetime definition. If we succeed in filling the concept of 'event'
with quantum content, we shall be able to consider the check event as
a minimum element of motion, a quantum of relative velocity.
Quantum event will allow once and for all put an end to the
necessity to use differentiated interval dS2 when describing motion.
In this case the spacetime characteristics of one check event are
sufficient to qualitatively estimate the relative speed.
Giving the interval dS2 up, we, firstly, remove the problem of
transition of this spacetime interval into substance, or, vice versa, of
substance into spacetime. We have already spoken about this
problem, and we want to emphasize once again that it is a
godforsaken place for the theory of relativity.
Secondly, when we remove the concept of 'event' out of limits of
a point, we get the opportunity to track translational motion at any
fixed moment of time. A lengthy quantum packet will envelop the
location of a check event. Hence, the statement that the head of a
flying arrow may be found at a certain local, mathematical point
makes no sense at all. The location of the head of a flying arrow
becomes an undividable quantum event and we finally put an end to
the paradox of motion formulated by Zeno as long ago as in ancient
time.
And thirdly, an event in its quantum form may naturally react on
spacetime topology. In other words, the check event will be able to
accept metric settings of the curved spacetime and be subject to the
influence of its topology. It corresponds to the principle of
equivalency in full.
Experimental physics convincingly demonstrates that in the
microworld the existence of material objects is subject to
corpuscularwave regularities. Then the comprehensive theory of
displacement of material objects with respect to each other must
reflect this objective reality and organically combine two forms –
both corpuscular and wave motion. But the theory of relativity
unreservedly 'ignores' corpuscularwave duality; it seems that it has
nothing to do with this obvious physical reality. Einstein, being a
very consistent scientist and applying to care of experiments tried to
do his best to eliminate such an obvious contradiction between his
theory of motion and logics of direct experiments.
A logical interest with respect to reasons which impede the author
of the theory of relativity to use quantum regularities in this theory
appears. What prevented him from considering the category of
'event' out of limits of a geometrical point and ascribe quantum
theoretical interpretation to the 'event', which would make possible
to avoid the differentiated interval dS2. In fact, such a reason exists; it
is hidden behind the choice of the mathematical apparatus of the
theory of relativity and interpretation of its topological basis. To find
the origin of these reasons we must analyze whether the metric
signature of spacetime relations considered in the theory of relativity,
is fair. In other words, we must clarify, whether the spacetime
topology of equations of the theory of relativity is really an
expression of the fourdimensional geometric manifold.
In this respect, let us try to examine, what is the reason for the
number 'four', why just four coordinate axes represent spacetime in
the theory of relativity? It is used to thing that Einstein's four
dimensional coordinate grids appear as a result of addition of three
space coordinate axes and one time axis. However, the theory of
relativity categorically states that neither threedimensional space,
nor absolute onedimensional time exists. In such a case we must
believe that the fourdimensional coordinate systems appear as a
result of addition of geometrical dimensions of physical categories
which don't exist in reality. The number 'four', which characterized
the signature of equations of the relativistic theory, is accepted as a
result of addition of metric dimensions of geometrical configurations
which don't exist in nature. We add anything which doesn't exist in
nature, but we wish to get anything absolutely real.
The choice of mathematical and conceptual apparatus both in the
theory of relativity and in physics, in general, is closely related to the
choice of geometry, with the selection of the metric signature for
physical equations and its conceptual statements. It gives rise to the
special responsibility of this subject matter. It seems absolutely
impossible for us to take any incomprehensible matter and add it to
the equally incomprehensible something with the aim to determine
the geometrical signature of the spacetime manifold under
examination. Any consideration of the Minkowski equations in four
dimensional metric signature is equally impossible. Let's write once
again this equality:
()()22222zyxctS++=.
We have already mentioned that this equation referencing to four
coordinates axes logically contradicts with the dimension of the
expression . Any ambiguity is impossible while determining
geometry of the applied mathematical apparatus. And it is absolutely
unclear, how can the coordinate axis declared as the 'time axis',
have the dimension of m · sec /sec. In accordance with the dimension
of it would be logical to consider this expression as still
unknown threedigit function in threedimensional coordinate system
having its axes with dimension of m · sec /sec. Then an assumption
can be made: metric configuration of the Minkowski equations is
()2ct()2ct
based on six (not four) coordinate dimensions. This is the sum of
three coordinate axes from the expression ()2ct and three Cartesian
space coordinates ()222zyx++.
To determine the true topology of the Minkowski equation and
find its true signature we must thoroughly analyze the origin and
predestination of this equality.
Speaking about the origin of the Minkowski equation (as well as
any physical equation) we must take into account that it should not
be supposed that mathematical solutions are direct analogue models
of the objective reality. All equations of physics are direct analogues
of certain measuring procedures the researcher use to have contact
with the world around us. Experimental measuring procedures
underlie the whole process of cognition. They make possible the
interaction between the scientist and reality and the choice of proper
conceptual and mathematical equivalents. Therefore, equations of
physics act rather as mathematical copies of results of some
instrumentalmeasuring manipulations allowing us to quantitatively
estimate the observed natural phenomena than as mathematical
copies of objective reality as it is.
Usually we don't think about it, but the most ordinary physical
statement: 'long loaf weights one kilogram' in fact means that we
have measuring procedure at out disposal and according to this
procedure the given mass of bread may be put in equilibrium with a
kilogram weight standard. Without the measuring procedure the
statement: 'long loaf weights one kilogram' doesn't possess any
physical sense. The same thing is when we say that 'spacetime of
the theory of relativity is the expression of the fourdimensional
geometric manifold', it must mean that, in fact, we have any
objective instrumentalmeasuring procedures, which make possible
to determine the fourdimensionality of the geometric topology of the
given spacetime. And the number of coordinate dimensions of
spacetime under investigation, will correspond to the four
dimensional mathematical manifold only in the case when the
metrics of the laboratory instruments which permit to find geometric
properties of this spacetime, includes four independent coordinate
axes.
The famous equation of Hermann Minkowski is based on the
measuring procedure which supposes that specific laboratory tools
equivalent to each of its membersarguments, are available. For
example, the argument ()222zyx++ is associated with Cartesian
coordinate system consisting of three space coordinate axes.
Cartesian coordinate system is a geometrical measuring instrument
consisting of three linear metric standards, which are at right angles
to each other. Any event or check object subject to be measured with
the help of these simple tools may be represented and described as an
element of the threedimensional space geometric manifold.
The argument ()2ctin the Minkowski equation is associated with
two independent laboratory instruments – light signal and traditional
chronometer. These two laboratory instruments allow us to fix check
points in space and establish lightlike relations between them using
light signal and isochronous clock. The ability to establish lightlike
or, which is the same, timelike relation between two points in the
space allows determining motion as a result of propagation in time
metric aspect.
Classical mechanics described motion in space and time taken
apart because it couldn't reduce space and time to a single
mathematical texture. Isaac Newton didn't know how to add metres
to seconds or subtract them, and without this operation it was
impossible to combine elements of space and time in a single
mathematical solution. When we knew to establish timelike relation
between two points in space multiplying speed of light and certain
time interval, we got the possibility to transform time interval into
space interval. As a result, it became possible to subtract
()222zyx++ from the period of time ()2cttransformed into the
space interval. It is the comparative mathematical analysis of the
results of motion in the time interval transformed into space and in
Cartesian coordinate system that is present in the mathematical
texture of the Minkowski equation.
We see that the topology of equation (3.1) assumes the presence
of three measuring instruments. It is the Cartesian system of space
coordinate axes, light signal and reliable chronometer. The use of
three laboratory devices let the investigator combine relative motion
in space and time. As a result a combined spacetime interval
appears, and it characterizes the numerical value of the relative
speed.
()2ct
Now, guided by common sense stating that any coordinate system
of coordinate axis is a mathematical analogue of certain measuring
tools, we shall try to clarify the true signature associated with
equation (3.1). In other words, we shall try to find the number of
coordinate axes in equation (3.1) and their real topological essence.
Usually we consider that the Minkowski equation is composed
according to the signature (3 + 1), here 3 is the number of three
Cartesian space coordinate axes, and 1 is the time coordinate axis. It
is supposed that the topology of the trajectory of light signal in the
expression seems to disintegrate and become projected on one
space coordinate of the Cartesian coordinate system and on time
coordinate axis. In this case a conclusion that the signature of
equation (3.1) corresponds to a certain fourdimensional geometric
manifold and consists of four coordinate axes, is made.
()2ct
But a very perfidious methodological error is hidden in this
logical consideration. It leads us away from the correct interpretation
of the topology of the Minkowski equation. This error is an arbitrary,
ungrounded division of the metrics of the light signal trajectory into
one Cartesian coordinate axes and time coordinate axes.
The light speed in all relativistic equations is not a result of our
fantasy but objective physical reality fixed by light postulates. In the
Minkowski equation this objective reality acts as a reliable
measuring instrument together with Cartesian coordinate system and
laboratory clock. Every measuring instrument is a standard metric
measure, one can say, a 'veritable truth' which doesn't need any
additional measurement using other measuring standards. Hence,
every measuring instrument possesses its proper metric topology
irrespectively to the metrics of other laboratory devices used in the
experiment.
When a researcher arbitrarily assigns any topologic parameters of
other laboratory means to a measuring instrument, he commits a
destroying action. Bereaving light signal trajectory of its proper,
standard spacetime metrics, we remove light signal from a series of
laboratory instruments objectively participating in the experiment.
The procedure of registration of space interval which is present in the
expression doesn't assume presence of any linear standard. Such
a registration is made by the method of marking two check points of
space with the help of light signal and laboratory clock. An
absolutely special measuring instrument is used in this case, it has
nothing with linear metric standard, hence, Cartesian coordinate axes.
That's why any attempt to bind the metrics of light signal path to the
Cartesian space coordinate axis looks absolutely unfair.
()2ct
It is not needed to think of anything supernatural to keep metrics
of light speed indivisible. One just has to know to apprehend the
trajectory of light signal as combined twodigit coordinate axis with
dimension of m/sec. One must admit that the topology of light signal
trajectory in principle cannot de metrically delimited and must be
always considered as twodimensional geometric reality, which
consists of two coordinate axes of space and time which seem to be
combined.
All the heuristic relativistic sense of equation (3.1) is caused by
the existence of light signal trajectory in it, and the spacetime
topology of this signal acts as indivisible, twodimensional geometric
reality. It takes only to distribute the topology of light signal
trajectory over separate coordinate dimensions of space and time,
and our worldview immediately will be concentrated in the
framework of the Newtonian mechanics. The combined spacetime
metrics of the light signal trajectory act as an interlink, which helps
to overcome classical ideas about space and time as physical
categories existing separately.
Returning to the issue of true topology determination for the
Minkowski equation, we must agree that the general metrics of the
expression must be identified with threedimensional geometric
manifold consisting of twodimensional trajectory of light speed plus
time coordinate axis, but not with one coordinate dimension. In such
a case we can say with certainty that the true geometry of the key
equation of the theory of relativity bears no relation to the four
dimensional coordinate systems. The thing is that the first term in the
right side of equation (3.1), we mean (, contains three metric
()2ct)2ct
, includes three
coordinate dimensions which have independent interpretation. Then
the complete signature of the Minkowski equation must be
interpreted as (3 + 3), and it corresponds to sixdimensional
geometric manifold.
dimensions, and the second term, ()222zyx++
)2ct)2ct
It is important that the sixdimensional interpretation of the key
equation of the theory of relativity allows us to consider this solution
in the framework of corpuscularwave regularities. In accordance
with relativistic view, equation (3.1) determines the trajectory of
material object displacement in the spacetime metric manifold. The
displacement in topological space is realized along three Cartesian
coordinate axes. The displacement in time metrics is realized in
threedigit coordinate system with the dimension of the expression
. While the motion is realized on the basis of corpuscular
regularities in three Cartesian coordinate dimensions, when a
classical transport of substance from one zone of the space to another
takes place, then the displacement in time metrics must be realized in
accordance with wave regularities. It happens because any
displacement in time is a qualitative change of the physical state of
the observed object. Anyone, living his life from childhood to old
age, is a good example of qualitative changes in time. In mechanics,
the motion based on qualitative change of the physical state of a
system or medium is typical for wave processes.
()2ct
The dimension of the expression ( convincingly proves the
wave nature of the relative motion in the time metrics of the key
equation of the theory of relativity. In compliance with this
dimension the geometric equivalent for ( must be interpreted as a
wave function in the respective coordinate system with axes of m ·
sec /sec dimension. Then the true meaning of equation proposed by
Hermann Minkowski consists in the fact that the required interval of
observed relative motion, S2, may be determined by subtracting the
space interval from the length of the wave function in coordinate
system of dimension. ()2ct
From the aforesaid we can conclude that the Minkowski equation,
more that any other equation of the quantum physics, corresponds to
the mode of corpuscularwave duality. To consistently comprehend
and discover the nature of the relative motion, we must activate in
our theoretical considerations two selfsufficient conceptions of
relative motion realization – corpuscular and wave, which are related
to each other by a wellknown principle of complementarity. The
relation between these two theories of motion, according to the rule
of quantum uncertainty, must be compatible with the idea that the
more distinctly we incline to corpuscular or wave motion, the farther
we go away from the opposed dynamic form.
The theory of relativity in Einstein's conceptual and mathematical
interpretation is, mainly, a theory of motion of a corpuscular sense. A
moving material object acts in it as a stationary formed mass of
substance. This mass in the course of motion is removed from one
zone of the fourdimensional spacetime and placed into another
zone. Then, in accordance with the wave regularities, the moving
mass of substance must be interpreted as a running, disturbed local
region of the given spacetime continuum, which carries energy. And
at any new moment of time the next local region of spacetime will
serve as a material platform for displacing mass of substance.
The aim of this theoretical research is to develop a wave theory of
relative motion, which according to the rule of quantum uncertainty
organically supplements the traditional, or, we can say, corpuscular
theory of relativity. While the traditional theory of relativity is
expressly based on the corpuscular forms of motion that may be
visually represented in the space metric plan ()222zyx++, the wave
theory of relativity is mainly based on wave regularities operating
successfully in time topologic plan of the metric structure of the
expression . Then we shall consider the expression itself as a
wave function the wave relative motion is realized in accordance
with. If we know the characteristics of this wave function, we shall
be able to find phase, as well as relative speed of displacement of the
material object in the stated personal spacetime continuum.
()2ct
As our target is to expressly formulate the wave conception of the
relative motion, which corresponds mainly to wave regularities, it
seems reasonable to consider the simplest case of wave disturbance
propagation on the free surface of water, and to refresh our ideas
about physics of wave processes. Let us project the Cartesian system
of coordinates on the disturbed water surface in such a way that X
axis indicates the direction of the phase velocity, Yaxis is oriented
along the front of wave propagation, and Zaxis is at right angles to
Xaxis and Yaxis (Fig. 3)
Fig. 3
In general case, the propagation of wave disturbances on the free
water surface is associated with the bending of twodimensional
mirror oriented into the third dimension. Observations of the check
point on the disturbed water surface in the Cartesian coordinate
system prove that the motion of a corpuscular type, which is direct
transport of substance from one region of the space to another, takes
place only in one dimension, along Zaxis. Any displacement of
water along Xaxis isn't observed at all, however, this fact doesn't
impede the appearance of the phase velocity of a running wave just
in this direction.
The corpuscular displacement of a check point on a disturbed
water surface is characterized by its acceleration with respect to quiet
mirror with negative and positive signs. In Fig. 3 acceleration is
directed along the arrows, and for waves of 'gravity' it equals the
acceleration due to gravity in the given gravitational field, if we
neglect forces of surface tension. Simple calculations are known to
find the function of the plane wave packet ABC marked at certain
characteristic points with respect to Zaxis, if the phase velocity of
wave disturbance propagation along the Xaxis and acceleration
along the Zaxis are given.
We can add that, if we know characteristics of the plane wave
packet ABC, in particular, its length, and if we set a gravitational
potential, then we can find the value of the phase speed of wave
disturbance propagation on the free water surface. For the waves of
'gravity' the phase speed is determined as follows:
p.2gvphase=. (3.2)
Here g is the gravitational potential, . is the length of the wave
packet.
From this picture of wave disturbance propagation on the free
water surface we can mark out the following.
Firstly, let us take into account that there are three independent
velocity factors in wave disturbances on water surface. It is the phase
velocity of wave disturbance propagation along Xaxis, and
acceleration along Zaxis. The third velocity factor, whose existence
is of a special importance for us, is the initial velocity at negative
acceleration and final velocity at positive acceleration of the check
point of a progressive wave directed along Zaxis. This velocity
corresponds to the moment when initial impulse causes the
appearance of wave disturbance. It is similar to that moment when a
stone falls on the quiet water surface. It is at this moment that certain
initial velocity is given, and firstly, the gravitational potential makes
it to decrease, and then, after passing the zero level of the state of rest,
it increases up to the initial, in the ideal case, value.
And secondly, we must recognize that the plane wave packet ABC,
which appears when wave disturbances propagate on the free water
surface, in fact, plays a part of an extreme metric formation, and the
curved water surface is gauged according to it. While determining
the plane wave packet ABC as an extreme metric formation, we base
on the idea that the category of 'wave' is an indivisible quantity. We
can mathematically resolve the wave function into separate
fragments, but this procedure cannot be done in real physical
situation. We can perform very sophisticated experiments, but it is
impossible to get neither a part of a wave, nor a point of it. Any wave
exists as a whole, it is a quantum formation, that's why the plane
wave packet ABC on the disturbed water surface is an extreme and
indivisible quantity.
To determine the configuration of the asked wave function
responsible for relative motion on the basis of wave regularities, we
need to analyze the process of material object displacement in the
given PSTC with respect to the time component of the Minkowski
equation. In other words, we need to describe relative motion as a
result of wave disturbance propagation in the threedimensional
coordinate system having the dimension of ()2ct. While doing it we
shall apply the useful experience based on observations of wave
disturbances on the free water surface. The acquired experience
proves that the appearance of the plane wave packet ABC responsible
for gauging the wave disturbance, is followed by the existence of
three speed factors. It is natural to assume that the appearance of
wave function which allows us to calibrate the relative motion in
time metrics is also associated with three independent speed factors.
The wave function corresponding to the expression ()2ctis shown
in Figure 4 in threedimensional coordinate system with axes having
m · sec /sec dimension.
Fig. 4
The coordinate system shown in Fig. 4 consists of twodigit X/t
coordinate axis, which is identified with the trajectory of light signal
propagation, and time t coordinate axis. The positive direction of the
time t axis corresponds to the future, its negative direction
corresponds to the past, and point O (point of intersection of
coordinate axes) corresponds to the present. The peculiarity of the
chronometric version of the time t coordinate axis consists in the fact
that all qualities of past, present and future time act as equivalent
arguments. It means that any time series projected on the time axis
consists of equivalent points without any exclusion.
In the Figure we can easily see that the wave disturbance, which
characterizes the displacement of material object in time metrics of
the given PSTC is followed by acceleration of the check point of the
wave function along the time axis. Similar to wave disturbances on
the water surface, this acceleration may acquire positive or negative
values depending on its direction, but it always equals the value of
the light speed in vacuum (+gc or –gc). Note that this acceleration is
the first speed factor of the set of three independent speeds,
following the appearance of the wave disturbance. The initial
velocity at the negative acceleration and the final velocity at the
positive acceleration, being the primary impulse for wave process
appearance (it is analogous to the moment when a stone falls over a
calm water surface), correspond to corpuscular relative velocity of
the material object displacement in the given PSTC. Let us
determine the relative velocity, v, as the second speed factor causing
the origin of the wave disturbance. The phase velocity of wave
disturbance propagation along the X/t axis always equals the light
velocity in vacuum and acts as the third speed factor needed for the
wave process progress.
We have marked three characteristic points of the wave function
along taxis in the same Figure. Points A, B and C limit the plane
wave packet, which appears when the material object displaces in
time metrics of the given PSTC and is the extreme metric formation
for given wave disturbance. We take into account that the wave
packet is a quantum quantity which is not subject to further
fragmentation.
A is the amplitude of the plane wave packet ABC, whose
projection on the time axis (distance A1C1) has time dimension and is
determined by the solution of three aforesaid speeds,
cgvccA22
=. (3.3)
Here c is the phase speed, which is equal to the speed of light in
vacuum; v is the corpuscular speed of the displacement of a material
object in the given PSTC; gc is the acceleration of the check point of
the wave function in time coordinate dimension, which equals the
light speed in vacuum.
If v = 0 the solution of equation (3.3) becomes zero, which
conforms the theoretical premise about the appearance of the plane
wave packet ABC when a material object displaces in the time
metrics of the given PSTC. If v = c the amplitude of the wave
packet reaches its maximum value of unity. If the speed of the
relative motion exceeds the speed of light, v > c, the initial speed at
the negative acceleration along the taxis, being the primary impulse
for wave disturbance appearance, exceeds the rate of change of the
acceleration itself, and the wave disturbance isn't realized in the time
metrics of the given PSTC. A moving material object just shoots
through the given spacetime continuum without registration because
the plane wave packet ABC which gauges the wave disturbance has
no time to form. That's why the theory of relativity puts limitations
and prohibits increase in relative velocity over the value of light
velocity. It is clear that the displacement of material objects with
respect to each other may occur at any high velocity. But only that
material object whose relative speed doesn't exceed that of light,
may be registered in the specific PSTC, i.e. pass the state of wave
disturbance in its time metric plan.
The plane wave packet ABC shown in Figure 4, in fact, is a
geometrical justification for relative motion wave conception
functioning, which is based on a time component of the Minkowski
equation. In accordance with the wave theory of relativity, when a
material object moves uniformly along straight line in given personal
spacetime continuum, the wave disturbance of a material platform
of the moving object in a time metric plan of the given PSTC takes
place. This wave disturbance is gauged in accordance with the
configuration of the plane wave packet ABC, suitable for the
expression . For any accelerated relative motion the
configuration of the wave packet ABC transforms from its plane
symmetry into a curved, but in this context the talk turns to the
inertial motion.
()2ct
We remember that the category of 'wave' is an indivisible
quantity, and we have to consider a plane wave packet ABC shown in
Fig. 4, as an indivisible quantum of the event, because it is an
extreme geometric formation. If we know the characteristics of this
quantum of the event, we can determine the relative velocity of
material object displacement in the given PSTC. The latter directly
results from equation (3.3). For example:
()ccAgcAgv=2. (3.4)
It was already noted that our ideas about the relative notion in
accordance with quantum regularities must meet the requirements of
the corpuscularwave duality. That's why we cannot present its
comprehensive description using only corpuscular or wave
mechanics of relative motion. When relative displacement of the
material object in the given PSTC becomes object of observations,
we need to combine elements of two dynamic types of motion and
get a resulting. The combination must be made in such a way that the
relative motion in the space metric plan should realize in accordance
with corpuscular regularities, and in time metric plan – according to
wave regularities. The famous equation written by Hermann
Minkowski suggests such an averaged corpuscularwave
characteristic of relative motion. Pursuant to this equality the true
relative velocity of material object displacement in the given PSTC
is the difference between the length of the wave packet responsible
for calibration of the relative motion in the time metric plan and
space interval, which is the result of relative motion in the space
metric plan.
To better imagine the actual combination of wave and corpuscular
signs of the relative motion we need to apply to the wellknown
Zeno's aporia with the flying arrow. Let us analyze the situation
when the head of the flying arrow consequently passes closely set
points A, B and C in the personal spacetime continuum.
Fig. 5
With this aim let us place the trajectory of Zeno's arrow into the
twodimensional coordinate system consisting of one space
coordinate axis, Xaxis, and one time, t, axis (Fig. 5). In fact, the
flight of Zeno's arrow with respect to the given PSTC takes place in
the sixdimensional geometric manifold. To visualize our
considerations we use only one coordinate axis, Xaxis, taken from
the space metrics, and time, t, coordinate axis, taken from the time
metric plan of the given PSTC. Nevertheless, we shall continuously
take into account that it is a combined spacetime coordinate system
where both corpuscular and wave signs of motion are realized.
The logical reasoning proposed by Zeno and stating that at the
moment when the head of the flying arrow is at the point B, it is no
longer at the point A, but not yet at the point C (Fig. 5), is based on
classical ideas about space and time absoluteness. Antique
philosopher imagined relative motion exclusively as a corpuscular
process. But in fact, in accordance with the quantum regularities the
statement that at any fixed moment of time the head of the flying
arrow is at the point B doesn't possess any physical meaning. In view
of corpuscularwave ideas about relative motion, the head of the
arrow at any fixed moment of time is present at the same time at the
wave function A1BC1 as a whole, which acts as an indivisible
quantum of relative motion. The only reserve must be made: at a
segment from A1 to B the head of the flying arrow is present in past
time, at a segment from B to C1 it is present in future time, and only
at the point B the location of the head of the flying arrow
corresponds to the present moment of time. Besides, we must clearly
realize that the head of the flying arrow at one time objectively is
present at the wave function A1BC1 as a whole in past, present and
future quality. There are wave regularities that prohibit us to tear
these time qualities due to existing impossibility to divide wave
packet A1BC1 into separate and independent fragments.
Therefore, all the paradoxes formulated by Zeno in his famous
aporias, result from incorrect understanding of nature of motion. As
soon as we take the concept of 'event' away of the point limits and
give it spacetime definition, these paradoxes will be resolved by
themselves.
Relativistic effects serve as reliable evidence of the fact that the
displacement of material objects in the given PSTC is realized in
accordance with corpuscularwave regularities. In particular, we can
mention the Lorentz contraction of registered length of the moving
object. In fact, if we place a newspaper sheet on the disturbed water
surface, we can find that the projection of the sheet on the coordinate
axis directed along the phase velocity of wave disturbance
propagation is less than the length of this sheet in its free state. The
greater the phase velocity, the bigger the curvature of the wave
disturbance and the shorter is the length of the projected newspaper
sheet. Similarly, the projection of the length of a material object
moving in the given PSTC on the space coordinate axis indicating
the direction of the relative velocity is less than the length of the
same object in the state of rest.
Geometrical dependence of Lorentz contraction of the length of a
flying arrow with respect to the amplitude of the plane wave packet
which gauges the relative motion, is shown in Fig. 6 in two
dimensional spacetime coordinate system. Similar to the previous
experiment with the flying arrow, to make our considerations more
obvious, we take only one space coordinate axis, X, and time axis, t,
of the sixdimensional metric manifold which corresponds to the
metrics of the given PSTC. As a result, we get a combined space
time coordinate system shown in the Figure.
Fig. 6
Let the distance AC along the Xaxis correspond to the length of
the flying arrow in the state of rest, L0. Then the two legs of the
triangle ABC show all possible values of the relativistic length of the
flying arrow projected on the Xaxis, depending on the value of the
relative velocity. One of them is shown as a segment A1C1 parallel to
AC, and other values are found in the range from the base of the
triangle AC up to its vertex. This distance decreases when we
approach point B. The value of the length of the flying arrow
registered by immobile observer is determined in this Figure by the
amplitude of the plane wave packet represented in the Figure by a
small wave function. The amplitude of this wave packet, the distance
DD1, marks the level of space coordination of the projection of the
length of the flying arrow on Xaxis. For example, when v = c, the
amplitude of the plane wave packet used to calibrate relative motion
has its maximum value which equals 1. Then the relativistic length of
the flying arrow projected on the Xaxis is point D or practically
equals zero.
To determine the relativistic length of the flying arrow one must
find the distance A1C1 in Fig. 6. The procedure is as follows:
111BDCABDAC=;
BDBDACCA111×=;
()
BDDDBDACCA111×=.
(4.5)
We can write (4.5) as:
tgvcctLLl.
.×=
220.
(4.6)
Determine in equation (4.6) as rate of change of velocity and
make the substitution. Then:
lg
220222022022022011111cvLcvcLvccLcvccLttcvcctLL×=

×=
=..
.
..
.+×=
=..
.
.
..
.
.
×=
=
..
.×=
(4.7)
As we see, in the result of these calculations we get Lorentz
transformation for the length of the flying arrow which was used by
Einstein in his theory of relativity.
INERTIA
Any mechanics which pretends to be a comprehensive theory of
motion, must be, in the first place, a theory of matter and explain its
basic property – the inertia. For this purpose it must have an effective
conceptual arsenal capable to adequately attribute the nature of
principal categories of the Universe and comprehensively describe
their functional contribution to different states related to dynamics of
motion. In principle, we can mention four absolutely independent
states of the test massive material object in the given personal space
time, each of them having its independent physical concept which
distinguishes them from other states. Let us indicate these states and
name them 'four problems of Newtonian apple'.
The first state corresponds to the situation when the apple hangs
on the tree branch and maintains its state of rest relative to the Earth.
Physical sense of such a state is determined by the interaction of the
check apple and the terrestrial gravitational field. As a result the
apple hanging on the tree acquires a reserve of potential energy.
The second state of the apple may be registered during its free fall
in the terrestrial personal spacetime. In this situation the apple seems
to be released from the 'arms' of universal gravitation and accepts
its metric settings. But at the moment when the apple loses contact
with the tree the mysterious transformation of the potential energy
into kinetic energy takes place. And we don't know what happens at
this moment to the check apple, and how does the energy
transformation occur.
The third state was registered by Isaac Newton at that time. This
state corresponds to the moment when the falling apple reaches the
surface of the Earth. Then the kinetic energy is released from the
apple and it transforms into impact, heat, sound energy, etc. In other
words, the kinetic energy of the falling apple seems to crumble to
various kinds of different energies. And again, we know absolutely
nothing about these energy reincarnations. The thing is that we don't
know the kind or form of energy accumulated in the falling apple
before its 'crumbling' to variety of energies.
The fourth state of the apple is associated with the forced
imposition of acceleration to it, when deeply vexed Newton throws
this illfated apple which hurt his head, away. The energy exchange
takes place again. Newton's energy is transferred to the apple thrown
away, and acquires the form of kinetic energy in it. Using real
arguments we must explain the way for Newton's energy transfer to
the thrown apple, and physical transformation taking place during the
process.
Any of four states mentioned above and associated with the
presence of the test apple in the terrestrial PSTC, possesses its
individual physical meaning. The reliable, let us say it, theory of
relative motion must clearly explain each of these states. It must
reasonably explain the energy reincarnations in these thought
experiments. It must do it using the mathematical language and with
the help of conceptual statements accessible to our understanding as
well.
We must acknowledge that the modern scientific thought doesn't
possess any reasonable theory of motion to fully explain any of the
four aforesaid states of apple, though it seems quite strange. If we
succeed in finding the complete explanation for any of these states,
then such a theoretical procedure might be universal tool to create a
comprehensive theory of relative motion. One shall get a possibility
to explain all other dynamic states of the apple related to its presence
in the terrestrial PSTC.
It is known that the Newtonian mechanics with its famous laws
offers satisfactory mathematical solution for any of the mentioned
states of the apple in the terrestrial personal spacetime. But it
succeeds to do it in the special conceptual system consisting of mass
points acting at a distance and absolutely empty space when absolute
time passes uniformly. A weak point of the classical mechanics is
caused, firstly, by insufficiency of conceptual arguments it is based
on. In fact, none mathematical point or differentiated intervals
between them are related to principal categories of the Universe.
Hence, they cannot be interpreted as real physical equivalents for the
natural process of relative motion. And secondly, the mathematical
apparatus of the Newtonian mechanics isn't adapted to Lorentz
corrections whose significance becomes rather important at higher
relative speeds.
Within the framework of Newton's conceptual system any
promising prerequisite for the solution of any of the four problems
related to the check apple presence in the terrestrial PSTC, actually
doesn't exist. The thing is that the methodology of considering
massive material object as a mass point doesn't imply any positive
result in searching any effective idea to consider the apple as a
carrier of energy. In fact, from the physical standpoint, what can we
say about the apple hanging on a tree and possessing potential energy
if this apple is represented by a mass point and the amount of energy
depends only on a distance to the Earth? How shall we indicate the
place of this energy concentration and type of the energy, if instead
of real picture of processes taking place in nature we have only
points and distances between them at our disposal?
Later, Einstein proposed a renewed version of the Newtonian
mechanics after finding its triviality and restriction of its applicability.
This version possesses its own system of concepts consisting of a
continuous spacetime field and same mass points substituting
massive material objects. Einstein's equations of motion are much
more exact compared with Newton's equations, but they are also
vapid in the sense that they don't include expressions for force and
energy accessible for our understanding. Even if such an expression
exists, it is a very arbitrary one, because force and energy existing in
it, depend on derivatives of coordinate with respect to time. In any
case, the theory of relativity is only a geometric scheme of
distribution of the mentioned mass points substituting real material
objects. This is merely a scheme in fourdimensional coordinate grid
imitating the fourdimensional spacetime.
The theory of relativity, as well as Newtonian mechanics, doesn't
offer any promising ideas capable to explain the difference between
the apple hanging on a tree and the apple in state of free fall. While
from the physical standpoint we deal with two absolutely different as
to their interpretation material objects. In one of them potential
energy is accumulated, and it is the kinetic energy in the other object.
And we cannot speak of any comprehensive theory of relative
motion till the moment when we really determine the way of energy
transformation. This problem cannot be solved if a massive material
object is represented by a point mass. Even the bravest imagination
cannot represent a point as a carrier of energy or as a place for its
transformations.
To predict the possible universal theory of motion, let us
thoroughly analyze one of four problems related to the check apple in
the terrestrial personal spacetime continuum. Let us pay attention to
the situation when Newton throws the apple fallen on his head, away,
and analyze it. Let us try to find the answer to the question about the
way, Newton's force was transported to the illfated apple. Newton
imparts kinetic energy to the apple at the moment when the apple
accelerates. But the energy is exclusively a physical notion, not a
mathematical one, hence, it is a material notion. Therefore, we must
attribute this event in the system of physical concepts instead of
doing any recalculation of abstract coordinatessymbols.
We can formulate the problem of Newton's energy transfer to the
thrown apple in another way, as an unwillingness of the mass
experiencing the force, to move. The Austrian scientist Ernst Mach
thought that one can explain inertia – unwillingness of a mass to
move when the force is applied, by mutual attraction of all the
substance in the Universe. In this case the mass of a material object
isn't its distinctive feature but depends on mass distribution in the
Universe. If the substance in the outer space is distributed non
uniformly, then the inertia has different values in different directions.
This hypothesis is known as 'Mach's principle'. To illustrate his
considerations Mach offered thought experiments with a classical
astronaut. Let us recall one of these experiments.
Imagine the Universe with the only material object in it. Let it be
the Newtonian apple which possesses its personal spacetime
continuum in the absolute matrix space, as we already know it. The
centre of mass of the apple is organically related to the initial point of
its PSTC. In the absolute space of the Universe they act as a unified
physical system 'material object – personal continuum'. Let us show
this physical system in Fig. 7.
Fig. 7
The small shaded area in Fig. 7 represents the Newtonian apple.
Two opposite directions, AO and BO, represent two arbitrary
trajectories of the matrix matter of the absolute space entering the
mass of the apple. Suppose that the apple is the source of
electromagnetic waves (light source) and circumscribe a reference
circle in its personal spacetime continuum, which is drawn along the
front of light waves propagation. Note that the radius OA equals the
distance travelled by the light within one second.
By analogy with Fig. 7 we construct a working model shown in
Fig. 8.
Fig. 8
The model consists of aluminium hoop with the experimental
apple hanging on two springs, A and B, fixed in its geometrical
centre. The analogy between two physical systems represented in Fig.
7 and 8 consists in the fact that both of them are flexible structures.
Any kinematical manipulations with the experimental apple shown in
Fig. 8, cannot propagate immediately over the model. The reaction of
the aluminium hoop on any change in the relative speed of the
experimental apple occurs with certain delay which depends on
flexible properties of the springs. In the same way the restrictions
imposed on the speed of light signals propagation in the tested PS
TC make the physical system 'material object – personal continuum'
as flexible, as the working model is.
In addition, the both constructions naturally tend to the balanced,
equilibrated state. Then the experimental apple shall be found in the
geometrical centre of the aluminium hoop, which is similar to the
Newtonian apple at the centre of its PSTC. We shall repeat all the
further thought experiments with Newtonian apple in empty
Universe with the working model. It will guarantee the visualization
of further conclusions and reliability of their argumentations.
Assume that a classical astronaut in the empty Universe comes up
to the Newtonian apple and starts to uniformly displace it along the
straightline Xaxis (Fig. 7). As the thought experiments takes place
in the empty outer space (in the absence of any material objects), we
interpret Xaxis as an idealized geometrical direction which isn't
related to any body of reference. At a certain moment of time let the
classical astronaut send a light signal from the Newtonian apple
moving along Xaxis towards the greater circle which is drawn along
the front of light waves propagation in its personal spacetime
continuum. Let us see how this though experiment might be realized.
And let us see whether the equilibrium state of the physical system
'material object – personal continuum' is disturbed or not.
We know that the initial point for any personal continuum is
inherently related to the centre of mass of a material object, which
causes the existence of the given PSTC. Then, if the Newtonian
apple is displacing uniformly at a certain speed along the idealized X
axis, its personal spacetime will follow it at the same speed together
with the circle drawn along the front of light waves propagation. To
be sure of it, we must repeat this thought experiment using the
working model. It is obvious that when the experimental apple
uniformly displaces along Xaxis (Fig. 8), the physical system 'check
apple – aluminium hoop' will have the same aspect as it has in its
state of rest.
Now assume that the classical astronaut comes up to the
Newtonian apple and starts to impart constant acceleration to it along
the idealized Xaxis (Fig. 9).
Fig. 9
Let the astronaut send a light signal at a certain moment of time
from the accelerating apple towards the circle drawn along the front
of light waves propagation. Let us see what impact the proposed
experiment will make on the general state of the physical system
'material object – personal continuum'. And try to clarify the
character of relations between the centre of mass of the Newtonian
apple and geometrical centre of its PSTC.
It is known that the restrictions imposed on the speed of light
signals propagation result in flexibility of the structure of the
physical system 'material object – personal continuum'. Any
dynamical manipulations related to displacement of the Newtonian
apple cannot immediately propagate through the whole system. The
example of such manipulations is a case when a classical astronaut
starts to change the relative speed of the Newtonian apple
displacement along the idealized Xaxis applying his force. This
change in velocity cannot spread over the whole personal spacetime
continuum of the check apple at a time. Meanwhile the light signal
sent by the classical astronaut covers the distance OA (Fig. 9) and
reaches the circle drawn along the front of light waves propagation,
the centre of mass of the apple travels the distance between points O
and O1.
Under the action of astronaut's force the mass of the apple leaves
the geometrical centre of the circle drawn along the front of light
waves propagation in its PSTC. It means that the physical system
'material object – personal continuum' becomes disturbed from its
state of equilibrium. Once the action of astronaut's force over the
apple stops, the physical system 'material object – personal
continuum' immediately tends to its state of equilibrium, when the
centre of mass of the apple becomes the geometrical centre of its PS
TC. It is this tendency of the physical system 'material object –
personal continuum' to reach the state of equilibrium that causes the
unwillingness of any mass to move in response to the force action.
The similar thought experiment can be done on the working
model. It definitely indicates that the accelerating mass of the
experimental apple becomes displaced from the geometrical centre of
the aluminium hoop as a result of apple's acceleration along Xaxis.
Therefore, we can conclude that according to Mach's principle all
the bodies which have rest mass resist the action of a force
independently whether there are other masses in the surrounding
world or not. This unwillingness of the test body to obey the force is
caused by the tendency of the physical system 'material object –
personal continuum' to reach the state of equilibrium. And the force
applied to the accelerating object, is used to displace the mass of the
object from the geometrical centre of its PSTC. The greater the mass
of the object under investigation, the stronger the internal bindings
which control the physical system 'material object – personal
continuum' in its state of equilibrium, and greater effort is needed to
disbalance it.
However, continue our thought experiments with the Newtonian
apple, now let us do them not in the empty Universe, but in more
realistic conditions. In other words, let us analyze different dynamic
states of the apple relative to the real PSTC instead of idealized X
axis. The peculiarity of these experiments consists in the fact that
when we describe the kinematics of the Newtonian apple in real
conditions we deal with two personal spacetime continuums instead
of one. We mean the given external personal continuum related to
the selected body of reference, and the personal spacetime of the test
apple.
Basing on the statement of equality and equivalence of all
personal continuums we can use both given external PSTC and
personal spacetime of the Newtonian apple to describe its motion. In
such a case, on the one hand, we can speak about the displacement of
the experimental apple with respect to the external PSTC and plot
the wave packet for calibration of this relative motion at the level of
the luminiferous normal level of the external personal spacetime. On
the other hand, we can describe the displacement of the Newtonian
apple using its PSTC and plot the wave packet at the level of the
luminiferous normal level of the personal spacetime of the apple
itself.
Let the classical astronaut impart certain constant and rectilinear
velocity to the Newtonian apple with respect to the external personal
time continuum related to a certain massive material object but not
the idealized Xaxis. Try to clarify, how shall we interpret such a
thought experiment? It is known that in the course of inertial
displacement of the Newtonian apple relative to the external PSTC,
wave disturbance of the local region of the given personal spacetime
takes place. This region serves as the real material platform for a
moving object. The wave disturbance takes place in the time metrics
of the given PSTC and is followed by an emerging plane wave
packet needed to gauge the given relative motion. If we know the
characteristics of this wave packet acting as an indivisible quantum
of an event, we can find both phase and relative velocities of the
Newtonian apple displacement relative to the external PSTC.
If we consider the inertial displacement of the Newtonian apple
from the standpoint of its PSTC, then we find that the given relative
velocity cannot be registered in the personal spacetime of the apple
itself. From the results of the previous thought experiments it follows
that in case of uniform rectilinear displacement of the experimental
apple along the idealized Xaxis, the physical system 'material object
– personal continuum' maintains the same aspect as in the case when
it is in its state of rest. It means that in the course of inertial
displacement of the Newtonian apple there are no wave disturbances
in its personal spacetime, and it is impossible to speak about the
appearance of the wave packet to gauge relative velocity. Now we
can formulate the first principally important generalization.
According to this generalization an inertial motion of any material
object in the external personal spacetime is identical to the state of
rest of this object in its PSTC.
Now assume that the classical astronaut begins to impart constant
acceleration to the Newtonian apple. Let us try to investigate the
process of the apple accelerated motion relative to both external and
inherent PSTC.
We have already established that in the course of the inertial
motion the Newtonian apple maintains its state of rest in its inherent
PSTC, but displaces relative to the external personal spacetime. But
if a certain constant acceleration is given to the Newtonian apple, the
situation radically changes. Now the mass of the check apple
displaces relative to the external personal spacetime continuum and
its inherent PSTC as well. However, we must note that while the
Newtonian apple moves with constant acceleration if it is uniformly
accelerated by a classical astronaut relative to the external PSTC,
then it moves uniformly at constant velocity relative to its inherent
PSTC.
And now the second principally important generalization, which is
symmetric to the first one, can be formulated. It states that the
accelerated motion of a material object relative to the external PSTC
is equivalent to its uniform straightline motion in its inherent
personal spacetime. It is this fundamental identity between
accelerated motion of a test body in an external personal continuum
and uniform motion in its inherent personal spacetime that later on
serves as a guiding idea to understand the nature of the universal
gravitation.
Assume that the classical astronaut stands on the roof of a multi
storeyed building with the Newtonian apple in his hand. The apple,
as it is known, possesses its inherent PSTC in the absolute space of
the Universe. The proposed thought experiment takes place provided
that the unified physical system 'Newtonian apple – personal
continuum' is placed into the personal spacetime continuum of the
Earth. Let the astronaut send a light signal from the check apple at a
certain moment of time. We shall consider the process of light signal
propagation from the standpoint of the terrestrial PSTC and personal
spacetime of the apple itself. To do it, let us analyze Fig. 10.
Fig 10
In Fig. 10 we see the Newtonian apple with its centre of mass at
point O. A big dotted circle with its geometrical centre at point O is
drawn along the front of light waves propagation in the personal
spacetime continuum of the Newtonian apple. Such a relation
between the centre of mass of a material object and geometrical
centre of its PSTC is typical for the case when the physical system
'material object – personal continuum' is in the state of equilibrium.
The radius OA is the distance travelled by the light signal within one
second.
Near the surface of the Earth the matrix matter of the absolute
space moves towards the centre of its mass at a speed of 9.8 m/sec, in
accordance with the solution of equation (3.2). Let us write this
equality again:
2""
RMvD×=.. (5.1)
If our planet absorbs the matter of the absolute space of the
Universe in it limits, then in Fig. 10 the events must proceed as
follows. Meanwhile the light signal sent from the Newtonian apple
travels the distance from point O to point A (distance travelled within
one second), point A itself displaces to the point A1 at a speed of 9.8
m/sec. And in addition to point A which displaces to the point A1 the
whole circle (dotted line) drawn along the front of light waves
propagation displaces to the position indicated by a circle drawn in
Fig. 10 using the continuous line. As a result we find that in spite of
the apparent state of rest of the check apple relative to the surface of
the Earth, the physical system 'Newtonian apple – personal
continuum' has the same aspect as if the check apple would displace
in its inherent PSTC at a constant speed of 9.8 m/sec, or, which is
the same, uniformly accelerate relative to the terrestrial personal
spacetime with acceleration 9.8 m/sec2.
Therefore, the classical astronaut standing with the apple in the
hand on the roof of the multistoreyed building comes to a
conclusion that if the check apple maintains its state of rest relative
to the surface of the Earth, then the combined physical system
'Newtonian apple – personal continuum' demonstrates all signs of
uniformly accelerated motion. It means that the classical astronaut
logically comes to the general principle of equivalency which
declares the absolute equivalency of inertial and gravitational mass.
According to this general principle the observer cannot distinguish
between uniformly accelerated motion of the test body in the absence
of gravitational fields and the state of rest of the same body in an
intensive gravitational field.
We can add that the classical astronaut keeps certain possibility of
option. Depending on his will, he has the possibility to find the
acceleration of the physical system 'Newtonian apple – personal
continuum' which is in state of rest relative to the Earth from the
standpoint of the terrestrial PSTC. In this case, he gets satisfactory
solution using the famous Newtonian equality:
2RMg×=.. (5.2)
The dimension of the solution of Newtonian equation (5.2) is
m/sec2. This is absolutely justified dimension if applicable to the
terrestrial personal spacetime.
If the classical astronaut decides to find the acceleration of the
physical system 'Newtonian apple – personal continuum' which is
visually in state of rest relative to the Earth from the standpoint of the
apple itself, he needs to operate with equation (5.1).
The dimension of the solution of this equality is m/sec. This
dimension is also absolutely justified if applicable to the inherent
personal spacetime of the check apple.
From the physical standpoint both equalities (5.1) and (5.2) are
absolutely identical. They are identical in the interpretation given in
connection with the fundamental symmetry between the uniformly
accelerated motion of the test body in the given PSTC and its
uniform displacement in the inherent personal spacetime.
The principal conclusion made by the classical astronaut standing
with the Newtonian apple in his hand on the rood of the multi
storeyed building may be briefly formulated as follows. As the Earth
within its limits absorbs the matter from the absolute space of the
Universe at a speed of 9.8 m/sec, the check apple in the terrestrial
PSTC maintains its state of rest relative to the Earth, however the
combined physical system 'Newtonian apple – personal continuum'
experiences such an action as if the apple be imparted constant
acceleration of 9.8 m/sec2.
A breaking of the equilibrium state of the physical system 'check
apple – personal continuum' results in the fact that the classical
astronaut standing on the roof of the multistoreyed building
experiences the pressure of the apple mass directed towards the
centre of the Earth. The force of pressure of the apple in the
astronaut's hand is the expressions of the tendency of the physical
system 'material object – personal continuum' to reach the state of
equilibrium. As soon as the astronaut standing on the roof of the high
building releases the experimental apple, the physical system
'material object – personal continuum' gets the chance to acquire the
state of equilibrium. It happens when the geometrical centre of the
circle drawn along the front of light waves propagation in the
personal spacetime of the check apple and the centre of its mass
coincide. It may happen if the Newtonian apple uniformly
accelerates with acceleration of 9.8 m/sec2 relative to the Earth.
In fact, when the apple is in the hand of the astronaut, or in the
state of rest relative to the Earth, the physical system 'Newtonian
apple – personal continuum' experiences acceleration. But now the
physical system 'Newtonian apple – personal continuum' returns to
its state of equilibrium due to acceleration of the check apple with
respect to the Earth.
If we sum up our theoretical speculations and try to track the
logical line reflecting the order of realization of the mechanism of the
universal gravitation, we can make such a generalization.
In Newtonian mechanics universal gravitation is the result of
gravitational interaction between two masses of substance realized
with the help of the mysterious forces of instant longrange action.
There are two attributed physical operators in this mechanics; they
are two masses of substance and an unknown essence. The theory of
relativity radically changes the situation. Gravitational interaction
according to Einstein is realized in accordance to much more
complicated scheme. In accordance with the theory of relativity, the
gravitating mass forms a gravitational field that imparts acceleration
to the test body. In other words, the test body reacts on the
gravitational field and not on the mass forming this field, as Newton
thought. As we see, there are three attributed physical operators in
the theory of relativity – two masses of substance and gravitational
field. And the key interaction according to Einstein consists in
interrelations between gravitational field and test body. This
assumption is analogous to that of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory
built on interaction of the electromagnetic field and electromagnetic
charge.
In this theoretical construction the universal gravitation is realized
in accordance with even more complicated scheme. Here the
gravitating mass forms its personal spacetime. The latter, in its turn,
influences the metric structure of the personal continuum of the test
body. And the intrinsic personal spacetime continuum of the text
body makes the check mass to experience universal gravitation.
Therefore, there are four attributed physical operators participating in
gravitational interaction. And the key events, according to our
version, take place in the interaction between personal continuums of
two gravitating masses.
CONTENTS
PREFACE 3
CREATION OF THE WORLD 7
PERSONAL SPACE – TIME CONTINUUM, WHAT IS IT? 38
QUANTA OF MOTION 70
INERTIA 100
___________________________________
B. Dmitriev
What is motion?
___________________________________