Faraday, from his extensive experimentation with electric and magnetic phenomena, conceived the notion of field as “lines of force” that originated from and terminated at material points. To Faraday, field provided a resolution to the mystery of “action at a distance” that troubled Newton.
Maxwell formulated the mathematical basis that supported the results from Faraday’s extensive experimentation and his notion of the field. He developed the mathematical equations that showed light to be electromagnetic in nature. Maxwell confirmed that Faraday’s field, which carried force, was real. This put many discoveries of radiative phenomena into perspective as electromagnetic spectrum of increasing frequency.
.
Maxwell’s Equations
Maxwell’s equations describe the electromagnetic cycle of the basic space as follows.
∇⃗⋅ E = ρ/ϵ0
∇⃗⋅ B = 0
∇⃗× E = −∂B /∂t
∇⃗× B = c−2 ∂E /∂t + μ0J
Where
E is the electric field
B is the magnetic field
J is the displacement current
∇⃗ ⋅ is the divergence operator that provides measure of the flow of a vector field.
∇⃗ × is the curl operator that provides measure of the rotation of a vector field.
The Maxwell’s equations may be interpreted as follows:
Charge generates Electrical lines of force that flow out linearly.
The magnetic lines of force appear as circles around the electrical lines of force.
The linear flow of electrical lines of force converts into rotating magnetic lines of force.
The rotating magnetic lines of force convert back into linear flow of electrical lines of force.
.
The Electromagnetic Cycle
Thus the dynamics within an electromagnetic cycle of the basic space may be interpreted as follows:
Something called “charge” triggers the electromagnetic cycle. This cycle is an oscillation between electrical flow and magnetic rotation. The electrical flow winds up as magnetic rotation. The magnetic rotation then unwinds back as electrical flow.
Thus, there is an oscillation between electric flow and magnetic rotation that acquires increasing frequency as one moves up the electromagnetic spectrum.
.
Einstein’s Light Quanta
Einstein’s discovery of light quanta simply means that the continuous wave like characteristics of electromagnetic cycles starts to appear more particle-like at higher frequencies. This established the field as a real substance besides matter.
In the widespread low frequency field, areas of high frequency appear to be more compact and substantial. Thus high frequency areas appear as “particles” within the low frequency “wave” background. Neither the “particle” nor the “wave” aspect of the field is absolute or separate. Both aspects are part of the same field continuum. They are simply the manifestation of different frequencies that exist side by side.
The quantization of electromagnetic field appears mostly in the gamma range of the electromagnetic spectrum. All quantum particles including electrons and the nucleons of the atom appear in this range. Such particles are not separate in themselves. They exists in continuum with the background field. This field model seems to resolve the wave and particle confusion and the results from the double slit experiment.
.
Further Research
The de Broglie hypothesis may be used to show the gradual quantization throughout the electromagnetic spectrum and beyond.
In my opinion, quantum physics lacks a basic explanation because it has no definition for “physical substance” or inertia.
A definition of physical substance cannot be arrived at in the absence of the fundamental postulate of EMPTINESS (no substance, no space, no time).
The awareness of substance comes from its property of inertia. The theoretical concept of EMPTINESS is a state of zero inertia.
A substance more basic than matter is the electromagnetic field. For this field the inertia may be defined as,
Inertia = momentum x frequency
This means that if there is a frequency, then there is also inertia. Therefore, light has a finite amount of inertia.
Einstein assumed the inertia of light to be zero. This assumption works when dealing with matter, or material systems, because the inertia of matter is very high and the inertia of light can be ignored.
However, that assumption does not work for quantum particles because in that case the inertia of light cannot be ignored.
Thus, inertia provides a sense of physical substance, and a precise mathematical definition.
This concept of inertia or “substance” is lacking in quantum physics. Please see
Inertia is “innate force” per Newton. The unit of inertia is more like the unit of force. Since, Force = Energy/distance, we may write inertia for the EM field as
Inertia = energy / wavelength = hf/λ
Its unit will be something like electron volt per angstrom.
Therefore, inertia increases as
… Energy increases
… Wavelength decreases
… Momentum increases
… Frequency increases
Inertia goes to zero as frequency goes to zero. Therefore, we can express inertia in absolute terms.
Einstein’s theory of relativity works for cosmological dimensions, but not when it comes to atomic dimensions. Einstein was critical of the quantum mechanics having no coherent theory, while he could not come up with a physical theory to explain quantum effects. This bothered him for the rest of his life.
Here is an examination of Einstein’s postulates that led to his original paper on relativity. This 1905 paper of Einstein is available at the following link.
Parts of this paper are quoted below that show Einstein’s non-mathematical reasoning. Einstein’s statements are in black italics. My understanding follows in bold color italics.
.
Basic Postulates
It is known that Maxwell’s electrodynamics—as usually understood at the present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives rise—assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed—to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case.
This introductory paragraph from the paper mentions asymmetry observed in the relative motion between a magnet and a conductor. This asymmetry occurs in the customary view, which uses the lab as its frame of reference. This results in different interpretation of the same phenomenon.
This “asymmetry” disappears when we use the magnetic lines of force, which are attached to the magnet, as the frame of reference. The conductor moves relative to these lines of force the same way in either case producing the same result. So, the problem has to do with how the frame of reference is selected.
Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell’s theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.
The Michelson-Morley’s experiment was very precise but it failed to discover any motion of earth relative to the light medium. That was because the inertia of light is imperceptibly small compared to the inertia of earth. But light does have inertia that causes its velocity to be finite (see the paper on The Problem of Inertia.)
Einstein suggests that there is no such thing as absolute rest. The fact is that motion reduces with increase in inertia. Only a body with infinite inertia shall come close to absolute rest.
Einstein postulates, “… the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.” Equations of mechanics hold good for frames of reference in which velocities correspond to the inertia of matter. They are many such frames for a range of inertia. The only value of inertia that would relate to all of them would be the reference value of zero inertia.
Einstein postulates light to provide such a reference point. This works for material frames of reference because inertia of light is imperceptibly small in comparison. However, it is questionable if Einstein’s postulate would work for particles of inertia in the atomic range, because inertia of light cannot be ignored in that range.
Einstein also postulates, “… light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.” The velocity of light is constant because it is determined by an inertia that is constant in the relatively small range of the frequencies of visible light. This inertia is not influenced by the inertia of emitting material body. Therefore, the velocity of light is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
The “luminiferous ether” was assumed to be a material-like medium of light waves. The inertial frame with the above two postulates then replaces the idea of “luminiferous ether”.
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 co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes. Insufficient consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present encounters.
Rigidity of body corresponds to the material level of inertia. The systems of co-ordinates for space-time are designed with that rigidity in mind. So they apply to material bodies. It is questionable that these rigid space-time coordinates would apply to electromagnetic processes that have a level of inertia many orders of magnitude less than the inertia of matter.
Einstein’s theory of relativity is based on the dichotomy of “inertia – no inertia”.
.
I. KINEMATICAL PART
§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity
Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the “stationary system.”
If a material point is at rest relatively to this system of co-ordinates, its position can be defined relatively thereto by the employment of rigid standards of measurement and the methods of Euclidean geometry, and can be expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates.
Einstein defines a “stationary system” in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. The space-time coordinates of this system have the rigid characteristics of the inertia applied to matter.
If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by “time.” We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, “That train arrives here at 7 o’clock,” I mean something like this: “The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events”.
To describe the motion of a material point we give the values of its coordinates as functions of “time”. To represent this motion mathematically, we must define “time” with the understanding of simultaneity of events.
It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition of “time” by substituting “the position of the small hand of my watch” for “time.” And in fact such a definition is satisfactory when we are concerned with defining a time exclusively for the place where the watch is located; but it is no longer satisfactory when we have to connect in time series of events occurring at different places, or—what comes to the same thing—to evaluate the times of events occurring at places remote from the watch.
The judgment of simultaneous events is possible only at the location of the event. Additional considerations are required to define simultaneity of events at different locations.
We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co-ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching him through empty space. But this co-ordination has the disadvantage that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience. We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of thought.
The “time-value” comes from the position of the hand of the watch that is moving at a constant rate. The position of hands of watches at two different locations would have to be coordinated to achieve simultaneity. The communication between the two locations can be made through light signals.
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the “A time” tA from A towards B, let it at the “B time” tB. be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the “A time” t’A.
In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if tB – tA = t’A – tB.
Simultaneity of clocks between two locations requires that light takes the same “time” of travel between the two locations in either direction.
We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:—
If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.
If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.
Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks located at different places, and have evidently obtained a definition of “simultaneous,” or “synchronous,” and of “time.” The “time” of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified stationary clock.
In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity 2AB/( t’A – tA) = c to be a universal constant—the velocity of light in empty space.
Einstein is assuming that light provides the fastest means of coordination to ascertain simultaneity of mechanical events. This is probably the case when mechanical systems are used for detection.
But for reasonable synchronization of clocks only a synchronization of tempo is needed. The rest is taken care of by the knowledge of distance between the two locations and the speed of light.
It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the stationary system we call it “the time of the stationary system.”
The above concept of “time” may be understood in the following two ways:
We take the velocity of light as our reference point. This velocity is so large that compared to it the differences in velocities of material objects are negligible. This allows us a constant rate of change (tempo) with which to measure the motion of material bodies.
We take the inertia of light as our reference point. It is so small that we can treat it as the “zero” for the range of inertia for material bodies. This allows us a basis from which to measure the inertia, and therefore, the motion of all material bodies.
.
§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times
[Please refer this section in the original paper. I am only writing my comments on the contents of this section here.]
The theory of relativity stipulates that the laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected by translatory motion of frames of reference. This stipulation applies to material systems only, and not to rest of the physical systems covered in The Spectrum of Substance.
The theory of relativity stipulates the velocity of light ‘c’ to be a universal constant. This is true only for the range of frequencies that describe visible light. It is not certain that ‘c’ would apply to the whole range of frequencies on The Spectrum of Substancebecause ‘c’ represents the “drift velocity” that varies with inertia of the substance.
In this section Einstein develops his mathematical model to determine the relationship between two systems of coordinates that are moving at a uniform velocity relative to each other. In both coordinate systems the velocity of light ‘c’ is assumed to be the same. Einstein did not know that this relationship was already calculated by Lorentz earlier.
.
§ 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former
[Please refer this section in the original paper. I am only writing my comments on the contents of this section here.]
This section is purely mathematical. It derives the relationship between two co-ordinate systems that are moving uniformly relative to each other when the principle of relativity is applied. According to this principle, the velocity of light is constant in both stationary and moving frames of reference.
The mathematical stipulations are as follows:
Both “stationary” and “moving” frames of references are rigid like matter. They are homogenous throughout. In other words, the units of space and time maintain the same characteristics throughout.
The moving frame moves at a uniform velocity in the same direction.
Simultaneity of clocks at the two ends of a distance requires that light takes the same “time” of travel between the two locations in either direction.
The velocity of the moving frame is negligibly small compared to the speed of light.
Einstein then comes up with the same relationship that Lorentz had come up earlier.
Lorentz used the following assumptions:
The speed of light is the same in all inertial systems.
The gamma “fudge” factor is the same for all inertial systems.
The above assumptions are good for a “v/c ratio” of 1/10,000 or less. This is the ratio of the velocity of earth to the velocity of light.
.
§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks
[Please refer this section in the original paper. I am only writing my comments on the contents of this section here.]
The equations obtained above predict that length and time shrink with motion. But it is not stated how a velocity is introduced to the moving frame. In reality, velocity can be introduced only through acceleration, which then increases the inertia of the system. This is similar to the observation that wavelength and period of an electromagnetic wave shrink with frequency with resulting increase in inertia.
Force must be applied to generate acceleration or a frequency gradient. The application of force raises the inertia of the system to a new level. Thus, Einstein’s exercise with the “principle of relativity” indirectly supports a continuum of inertia. This continuum has been presented as The Spectrum of Substance. Here substance is primarily represented as an electromagnetic field. With decreasing inertia, substance regresses back to emptiness. With increasing inertia, substance advances towards matter.
Einstein’s own interpretations of the relativity of time have raised many interesting speculations, such as, “time travel”. But such interpretations assume that the principle of relativity works without limitation. This is not so. The workability of the principle of relativity is limited to the upper band of matter in The Spectrum of Substance, where the drift velocities are very low compared to the velocity of light, and any influence on length and time is infinitesimal.
.
§ 5. The Composition of Velocities
[Please refer this section in the original paper. I am only writing my comments on the contents of this section here.]
Einstein’s theory assumes that inertia of light is zero, because only then can light be treated the same in all inertial frames of reference. In other word, Einstein’s theory implicitly assumes the velocity of light to be infinite.
In reality, light has a very small amount of inertia as evidenced by a very large, but finite, velocity (see The Problem of Inertia). This inertia may be ignored because Einstein’s frames of reference are limited to matter, but we cannot ignore the implicit assumption of “infinite velocity” for light when dealing with composition of velocities.
Therefore, the following conclusions of Einstein are correct only when ‘c’ is infinite.
“It follows from this equation that from a composition of two velocities which are less than c, there always results a velocity less than c.”
“It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by composition with a velocity less than that of light.”
These conclusions are incorrect when ‘c’ is given a finite value. Thus, we see that math can be fallible when the assumptions are ignored.
.
II. ELECTRODYNAMICAL PART
§ 6. Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz Equations for Empty Space. On the Nature of the Electromotive Forces Occurring in a Magnetic Field During Motion
[Please refer this section in the original paper. I am only writing my comments on the contents of this section here.]
Einstein uses his theory to modify the explanation of forces that are acting on an electric charge, which is moving in a magnetic field. This helps explain the asymmetry observed in the relative motion between a magnet and a conductor mentioned at the beginning of this paper.
We need to reexamine this explanation in the light of the understanding that “empty space” is essentially an electromagnetic field (see The Problem of “Empty Space”).
.
§ 7. Theory of Doppler’s Principle and of Aberration
[Please refer this section in the original paper. I am only writing my comments on the contents of this section here.]
From the mathematics in this section Einstein concludes that to an observer approaching a source of light with the velocity c, this source of light must appear of infinite intensity.
In this case the conclusion might be correct because the applicable assumption that inertia of light is negligible compared to the inertia of the source of light is valid.
.
§ 8. Transformation of the Energy of Light Rays. Theory of the Pressure of Radiation Exerted on Perfect Reflectors
[Please refer this section in the original paper. I am only writing my comments on the contents of this section here.]
Einstein concludes, “It is remarkable that the energy and the frequency of a light complex vary with the state of motion of the observer in accordance with the same law.”
That means we have a relationship between frequencies of a substance, which represent inertia in some way, and its ‘drift velocity’. See The Problem of Inertia. It may be possible to work out these relationships mathematically.
The weakness of Einstein’s theory is that it assumes the inertia of light to be zero. Once this is corrected, we may be able to achieve some groundbreaking result.
.
§ 9. Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz Equations when Convection-Currents are Taken into Account
[Please refer this section in the original paper. I am only writing my comments on the contents of this section here.]
We don’t really know the exact nature of charge. It could result from the misalignment of frequency gradients in the electromagnetic field, but this needs to be researched further.
.
§ 10. Dynamics of the Slowly Accelerated Electron
[Please refer this section in the original paper. I am only writing my comments on the contents of this section here.]
It is not certain if Newton’s laws of force can apply to an electron, which is a particle just forming out of electromagnetic field. The nature of electron appears to be more like a whirlpool in an electromagnetic field. It’s inertia is not comparable to the inertia of a material point.
Einstein’s analysis of the motion of electron is, therefore, inconclusive.
Inertia has been the least understood concept. But since we have a reference point of zero inertia now, we can examine to see how the concept of inertia develops.
Zero inertia refers to EMPTINESSor no-substance. Since there is no substance, there are no characteristics of substance either. Thus, in emptiness, there is no extension, no changes and no activity. In other words, there is no space, no time and no energy. There is no disturbance or frequency of any kind. We are looking at the bottom of the electromagnetic spectrum. We are looking at absolute zero. Inertia enters this picture with the idea of substance.
We become aware of substance only because of its inertia.
.
Substance & Inertia
Newton defined inertia in his book “Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica” as follows:
The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavors to preserve its present state, whether it be of rest or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line.
In a basic sense inertia is a property that resists any change. That means, a disturbance comes about only after overcoming existing inertia. But once the disturbance is there, it becomes the new state, which then resists being changed. In this manner inertia helps build up the disturbance. This disturbance can be felt, and so there comes about awareness. This then is the genesis of substance.
Substance comes about when disturbance builds itself up through inertia.
This explains the postulate expressed in the paper, The Spectrum of Substance, that there is a continuum of substance from emptiness to matter. The intervening spectrum consists of disturbance in the form of electromagnetic field. A cycle of electromagnetic field consists of interchanging electric and magnetic energies analogous to interchanging kinetic and potential energies of a pendulum.
But in this [Newton’s] theory, acceleration can only denote “acceleration with respect to space”. Newton’s space must thus be thought of as “at rest”, or at least as “unaccelerated”, in order that one can consider the acceleration, which appears in the law of motion, as being a magnitude with any meaning.
As covered in the paper, The Problem of “Empty Space”, the “empty space” represents the extensions of the invisible electromagnetic field. A material body is, therefore, moving in an electromagnetic field that we see as “empty space”. Acceleration thus denotes “acceleration with respect to the surrounding electromagnetic field”.
In acceleration, the material body moves relative to the surrounding electromagnetic field. A uiformly moving body is at rest relative to the field. The resistance is felt in acceleration only, and not in uniform motion. This resistance is inertia.
Inertia is felt during acceleration, which consists of relative motion between material body and the surrounding electromagnetic field.
When there is no acceleration, the material body is simply drifting in the field at uniform velocity. This velocity depends on the inertia of the body. Therefore, bodies of different inertia drift at different velocities.
.
Inertia & Drift Velocity
A disturbance may naturally accelerate infinitely but it is restrained by inertia. This balance of “innate forces” results in uniform motion. Any change in this balance is perceived as acceleration. Acceleration implies presence of force.
The velocity of sound depends on the density and stiffness of its medium. These properties give a clue to the inertia of the medium. Similarly, the velocity of light depends on the resistance to the formation of its fields measured as permeability and permittivity. These values provide a clue to inertia as well.
The uniform drift velocity results naturally from the innate acceleration of disturbance balanced by its inertia. The higher is the inertia, the smaller is the velocity. Matter may be looked upon as a “disturbance” of large inertia. Therefore, black holes of very large inertial mass shall have almost negligible velocity. On the other hand, bodies with little inertial mass shall have higher velocities.
The uniform drift velocity of a body decresaes with increase in its inertia.
Theoretically, a body of zero inertia shall have infinite velocity. Therefore, when the velocity is finite it would indicate the presence of inertia.
The velocity of light is very large, but its finite value indicates that light has a small amount of inertia.
The Michelson-Morley’s experiment was simply unable to detect this inertia of light.
.
Summary
Inertia is the fundamental property of substance because it defines the very nature of substance. Zero inertia means complete absence of substance, which gives us the concept of emptiness.
Newtonian physics describes inertia as resistance to the acceleration of body. This acceleration denotes motion of the material body relative to the surrounding electromagnetic field. It also means change in the uniform drift velocity of the body. This drift velocity depends on the inertia of the body.
With the concept of emptiness of zero inertia, it is possible to determine the absolute value of inertia for both field and matter. With absolute value of inertia it is possible to obtain the absolute value of drift velocity.
The fact that the absolute value of inertia and velocity can be determined, then points to an inconsistency in Einstein’s theory of relativity.
Einstein regarded space as a physical reality for the following reason. From Einstein’s essay, Relativity & Problem of Space[1]:
But in this [Newton’s] theory, acceleration can only denote “acceleration with respect to space”. Newton’s space must thus be thought of as “at rest”, or at least as “unaccelerated”, in order that one can consider the acceleration, which appears in the law of motion, as being a magnitude with any meaning.
In Newton’s theory, acceleration is a motion relative to the object itself and not to other objects in space. On a smoothly flying plane, we do not feel the velocity, but the moment there is acceleration we feel it instantly in our bones. The idea of acceleration is tied closely with the concept of inertia, which is the property of all substance.
Newton defined inertia in his book “Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica”as follows:
The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavors to preserve its present state, whether it be of rest or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line.
In the cosmic background all bodies have some “uniform motion” or a drift velocity. This velocity shall be small for stars of very large inertial mass because the larger is the inertial mass the more force it takes to move it. On the same account, the drift velocity for bodies of small inertial mass shall be large. Theoretically, a body with infinite inertia may have zero velocity; and a body with zero inertia may have infinite velocity. A finite drift velocity of a body shall mean that it has finite inertia. This shall apply to all substances whether matter or field.
.
Light
Though light has a very large speed in the cosmic background, it is not infinite. Michelson-Morley’s experiment determined this speed quite accurately, but it was unable to detect any inertia for light. However, the large but finite velocity of light means that it must have finite inertia. This inertia maybe infinitesimally small but it is not zero.
Light is made up of electromagnetic cycles. Each cycle consists of dynamic interchange between electrical and magnetic fields. But there is innate resistance to the formation of these fields. The inertia of light comes from such resistance to its cycles. Permittivity (ε0) is the measure of resistance that is encountered when forming an electric field in emptiness. Permeability (μ0) is a measure of how easily a magnetic field can pass through emptiness. Therefore, the resistance to the formation of an electromagnetic cycle is (μ0ε0). This may provide a measure of inertia for light.
The relationship between this inertia and the speed of light is,
c = 1/√(μ0ε0)
We may say that the speed of light is inversely proportional to the square root of its inertia.
.
The Lorentz Transformation
In physics, the Lorentz transformations are coordinate transformations between two coordinate frames that move at constant velocity relative to each other. Historically, the transformations were the result of attempts by the Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz and others to explain how the speed of light was observed to be independent of the reference frame.
The derivation of Lorentz transformation assumes the following.
Assumption #1: The speed of light is the same in all inertial systems.
Based on Michelson-Morley’s experiment, the speed of light of 3 x 108 meters/second was not affected by the velocity of the earth, which is 3 x 104 meters/second relative to the sun. The “v/cratios” in this case is 1/10,000, which is of the same order of magnitude as most material bodies in the universe. Therefore, this assumption is good for a “v/cratio” of 1/10,000 or less.
Assumption #2: The gamma “fudge” factor is the same for observers in different inertial systems.
In this cosmos, each body is drifting in space under a balance of inertial forces. These drift speeds are as different as their respective inertia. This may influence the gamma factor. But this difference may not be significant for a “v/cratio” of 1/10,000 or less.
.
Special Theory of Relativity
The special theory visualizes inertial systems to be boundless inertial “spaces” that move rigidly relative to each other. These inertial systems are equivalent for the formulation of natural laws. In other words, the natural laws are invariant with respect to the transition from one inertial system to another.
The special theory further assumes that the speed of light is a natural law. It is, therefore, invariant with respect to the transition from one inertial system to another. This allows the Lorentz transformations to be used in the special theory. According to Einstein,
The whole content of the special theory of relativity is included in the postulate: The laws of Nature are invariant with respect to the Lorentz transformations. The important thing of this requirement lies in the fact that it limits the possible natural laws in a definite manner.
The Lorentz transformations have been successful in explaining the “aberration” of the fixed stars in consequence of the annual motion of the earth; and the “Doppler effect”, i.e. the influence of the relative motion of stars on the frequency of the light. This success depends on the “v/c” ratio being within the limits of assumption of the Lorentz transformation in these cases. In other words, the validity of Lorentz transformations depends on the inertia of light being negligible compared to the inertia of matter.
Thus, the special theory produces valid results as long as the inertia of light is negligible compared to the inertia of the system under consideration.
.
The Atomic Systems
The atomic systems have inertia comparable to the inertia of light. Therefore, when it comes to the application of special theory to systems of atomic dimensions, the inertia of light can no longer be considered negligible. So, the special theory of relativity does not produce valid results in such cases.
The success of the theory of relativity can be assured across the board only by reformulating it with a reference point of zero inertia instead of the velocity of light.
Such a reference point is provided by the concept of emptiness.
