Vinaire's Blog

As shown in the paper, The Logic of Reality, conflating energy with substance has caused much confusion about reality. The starting point of reality has always been substance. Of course, matter is substance, but light is no less a substance. It impacts our senses the same way that matter does.

This is, however, contrary to the current scientific view, which is based on quantum reality. The quantum reality assumes that light has no substance (mass).

.

Substantiality and Mass

As explained in Void and Space, we contrast the physical phenomena from the background void by its impact on our senses. The essence of that impact is FORCE. That force is also felt when we try to push something. By the magnitude of that force we know how substantial a physical phenomenon is.

Newton characterized this substantiality as the innate force of MATTER. He named it INERTIA. Inertia appears as resistance when external force is applied to a material object. The object moves under the influence of the applied force while resisting it. This inertial resistance is there even when there is no friction.  Try pushing a heavy iron ball that is suspended from the ceiling.

Under the influence of externally applied force the motion of the object increases. To increase the rate of motion the applied force must be increased proportionally. Increase in force is also necessary to compensate for increase in substantiality of the object. This substantiality is measured as MASS. The concepts of mass and inertia are crucial to the understanding of matter.

Matter is understood in terms of mass (substantiality) and inertia (internal resistance).

.

Substantiality of Light

Matter is the starting concept in physics because of its substantiality. That is why it is called substance. A substance is recognized because of its impact on our senses. Matter has impact on our senses in terms of inertia. The substantiality of matter is measured in terms of mass.

Light also has impact on our senses, therefore, it is substantial. Newton did recognize light as a substance by advancing a corpuscular theory, but that got overridden by a wave theory, which looked at light as a disturbance in a hypothetical medium called aether. This characterized light as “energy”. Thus, light was defined as the energy of a substance called aether.

When Einstein discovered light quanta, he essentially restored the substantial nature of light. There was no esoteric medium called aether. Light was an ephemeral substance that moved like a wave. But Einstein retained the idea of light quanta as a “packet of energy” based on the wave theory. This implied that “energy” was a kind of substance. This was a departure from Newtonian idea of energy, which required the notion of substance (or mass) as a prerequisite.

The substantiality of light is defined in terms of energy and not mass.

.

Mass and Energy

Currently, Science does not recognize light as a substance, but considers it to be “pure energy”. As conceived originally, energy relates to motion, or tension, of substance (mass). It is inconsistent to conceive of “pure motion, tension or energy”, without substance (mass).

Einstein should have conceived of light is an extremely fast moving substance. Just because one can measure the energy of light, but not mass, does not mean that light has no mass.

Einstein’s assumption that light has no mass is a valid approximation only because the mass of light is infinitesimal compared to the mass of matter. This can be seen from calculating the mass of light by Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc².

Disregard of the logic of substance (mass) has created confusion between the concepts of mass and energy at quantum levels. This brings confusion to the very concept of substantiality.

By stating that light is energy with no mass, Einstein characterized energy as substance (mass). This is confusing to say the least.

.

SUBSTANCE is the most basic concept that physics builds itself from. The following statement supports this assertion.

Most scientists associate the word “substance” with matter. They think of field as a “mathematical object” without any substance. Similarly, they look at space, time and energy also as mathematical objects that are devoid of substance and reality.

The above statement expands the concepts of matter, energy, space and time in light of the concept of “field as substance”, as was held by Faraday.

Most physicist may disagree with the above because it delves into the philosophy of science. I know, however, that Descartes would have agreed with me.

The most basic concept would naturally be the widest or the broadest concept. This is case with the concept of substance.

.

Is the word “substance” too vague?

Some are asking for the word “substance” to be defined. But if they read the above carefully they will see that it is precisely defined. A substance has substantiality. Substantiality is recognized by innate force of substance that appears as a reaction to being pushed. Both matter and field have this property.

Light is not a disturbance in some theorized aether. Light is a substance on its own right. It is its own “medium”. It has density. Light is called “energy” because it is a very fast moving substance. Its wave property comes from its motion.

.

What is a particle?

The word “particle”, as used in physics, has been very confusing. We are familiar with a particle of matter because it has a center of mass. Electrons are not particles of matter because they do not have a center of mass. An electron is a “particle of field” that has a density much less than that of mass. It does not have a center of mass because it is not structured like the nucleus of the atom; instead it sloshes around within the atom, or away from atom.

.

Is field just a mathematical object?

My idea of field is in the same sense as how Faraday first described it. Faraday’s field that was made up of lines of force, was not a mathematical object. It was real. It defined light and electromagnetic radiation. Maxwell made it mathematical, when he treated it as a disturbance in a hypothetical substance called aether.

However, there is no such substance as aether. Light and EM radiation are substances in themselves, and not disturbances in some other medium. As substances, light and EM radiation have actual densities. The energy of a wave disturbance is defined by its intensity, but the energy of a substance moving as a wave is defined by its density. That is the famous discovery of light quanta by Einstein, which is evident from the photoelectric effect. The energy of light quanta is tied to its “frequency” that actually expresses its density.

It is a matter of how you interpret the physics beyond mathematics. Physics has become too mathematical because it lacks proper interpretation.

.

Was there no substance in the beginning?

Most people seem to associate substance with matter. It is true that in the beginning there was no matter, but there was substance in the form of field. Here I do not mean “field as a mathematical object”. By field I mean “force field” as defined by Faraday. Please see above.

.

Is everything just energy?

I see energy as substance in motion. You cannot have energy without motion, and you cannot have motion without substance or force. In the final analysis, we perceive substance because of its force, or resistance to force.

.

Important references from Faraday

I consider the following references from Faraday to be very important and appropriate.

Faraday: Electrical Conduction & Nature of Matter

Faraday: Thoughts on Ray Vibrations

Faraday: On the Conservation of Force

.

In the East, void is defined as “emptiness”, which is the absence of all phenomena. In the West, however, “void” seems to be related primarily to the absence of physical phenomenon.

.

Emptiness

From the Eastern viewpoint, emptiness is the absence of all phenomena, whether real or imagined. This includes phenomena, such as, birth, death, being, non-being, increasing, decreasing, purity and defilement. These concepts apply to both physical and metaphysical phenomena.

The viewpoint of emptiness is just that. It is totally fresh. It is completely clean. There are no preconceived notions, no fixed ideas, no bias, etc. In short, the concept of emptiness is not viewed through any filters. It is simply what it is.

From a scientific viewpoint, this is the ultimate reference point from which all physical and metaphysical phenomena is perceived objectively. Emptiness has that property of being inherently understood because it denotes the absence of all phenomena. From this reference point it is possible to give an objective meaning to any phenomena. Emptiness is like the zero of a scale of phenomena. Emptiness itself is not a phenomenon, just like zero is not a value.

Emptiness is the ultimate reference point from which all phenomena can be understood objectively without any preconceived notion.

.

Void and Space

When astronomers look up at the heavens, they are basically considering physical phenomenon. They regard those regions of heaven as void where they cannot detect any physical phenomenon. Therefore, void is a narrow version of emptiness.

Physics is basically concerned with void and the physical phenomenon. The definition of physical phenomena extends to describing all physical aspects of the universe, such as, matter, energy, space and time. The physical phenomena, however, seem to center around the concept of matter.

Space is defined as absence of matter, where matter is thought of as made of solid atoms. The atom, however, is not completely solid. It is said to be over 99.99% space with a speck of solid nucleus in the center. But that space in atom consists of electronic, electromagnetic and force fields. We may categorize these fields as non-atomic substances.

Space, as vacuum, may be free of atomic substance, but it is certainly not free of non-atomic fields. In general,

Space and fields are not differentiated from each other.

.