Boris Dmitriev

___________________

WHAT IS MOTION

Kyiv, 2010

1

ÁÁÊ 22.2

Ä53

Äìèòðèåâ Á.Ì.

Ä 53

×òî òàêîå äâèæåíèå (2-å èçäàíèå, äîïîëíåííîå): Íàó÷íî-

ïîïóëÿðíîå èçäàíèå – Êèåâ: ²ñòèíà, 2003 – 136 ñ.

ISBN 966-7613-42-9

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: Boris-Dmitriev.org

e-mail: boris-dmitriev@ukr.net

ÁÁÊ 22.2

ISBN 966-7613-42-9 © Dmitriev B., 2010

All rights reserved

2

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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

3

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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

God-inspired 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 starry-eyed idea of the Universe constructed with the

4

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 self-affirmation. 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 natural-science ideas.

At the same time, we must not ignore or reject the perniciousness of

non-availability 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

5

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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.

6

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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

“fifty-fifty”, 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.

7

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 micro-world 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 self-sufficient 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

8

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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.

9

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 all-essence.

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

10

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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-

the-explosion 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

11

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

system. In general, the situation with the scientific scenario of the

creation of the world becomes dead-ended 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

micro-structural combinations, but they do not determine the

phenomenology of any individual being. These micro-particles, 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 micro-world,

things will not budge an inch to understand the supreme sense and

predestination of the human life.

12

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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

micro-world? 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 double-edged.

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 space-time 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

13

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 space-time 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:

14

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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

15

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 straight-line 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 long-range interaction caused certain inconvenience,

but, in general, the theoretical foundation of science seemed rather

convincing and problem-free. 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

16

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 all-powerful 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

17

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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

18

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 space-time analogue. Lack of visual

speculative image for this recently discovered and undoubtedly

objective physical reality initiated the beginning of a very perfidious

19

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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

20

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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

21

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 space-time. 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 space-time relations is the four-dimensional

interpretation; moreover, it allows to effectively comment negative

results of experiments on etheric wind registration. The introduction

of another conceptual category, known as “four-dimensional space-

time”, into the scientific language is the result of Einstein’s creative

22

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 four-dimensional interpretation

of space-time 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 space-time 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 co-ordinates), 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

23

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

relativistic theory prefers to prudently get round this perfidious

definition.

Einstein in his guideline declaration substitutes the wording

“systems of co-ordinates” 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

24

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 space-time

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

space-time 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 space-time 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 space-time

characteristics for observed physical processes. At least, we may

hope that fulfilment of this condition becomes a logical connective

25

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 space-time

relations. The attempt to get quantum regularities as the relativistic

theory corollary may be an example of this statement. Numerous

elaborations of more complicated space-time 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 long-term

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

26

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 wide-ranging 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 “single-pass” 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 non-stationary solutions

of gravitational equations of the general theory of relativity prior to

27

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

Hubble’s discovery. Hence, Fridman pointed out the possibility of

existence of a non-stationary 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 non-applicable, moreover, it is

absolutely non-applicable when working over the construction of

such a quasi-scale 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 centuries-old experience of the natural sciences complex

development with its never-ending 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 self-expression.

28

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 “space-void”. 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

29

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 centuries-old

experience proves the contrary. Practically at every step we

encounter the extreme stinginess of the creator-nature. 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 non-uniformly 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 large-scale 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 1080elementary 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 10-106. 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

30

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 three-dimensional 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

Ù -parameter fitting for its successful evolution from the moment of

explosion up to the present time ( Ù 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 Ù . For the Universe to develop in accordance with the

scenario of the Big Bang and exist till nowadays (as the theoretical

predictions state), the Ù -parameter fitting must be no less than 10-59

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

31

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 micro-world. 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 ∼ 3×1010deg.,

density P ∼ 107 g/cm3 (we believe that when the density P ∼ 107

g/cm3a 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 light-heartedly 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.

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 quasi-processes 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 non-productivity. 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

32

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 well-known

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 all-embracing 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 micro-world, for instance, corpuscular-wave 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

33

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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

centuries-old 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 temperature-energy 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

34

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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

wide-ranging crystallisation of substance from the matrix space at

behest of the Supreme ecumenical will. Envoys of the Supreme

ecumenical will may be inoculating “ideas-crystals”, 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

35

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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: matter-substance and space-void.

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 cause-effect relationship. We

have already got accustomed to interpret any event as inevitably

necessary and obeying the law of cause-effect 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

36

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

cause-effect, 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

large-scale 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 large-scale

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 inter-transformation 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 quantum-relativistic theory of motion

on the basis of renewed fundamental conceptual arsenal.

37

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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

38

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 on-land 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 light-transferring 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 on-land 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.

39

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 wave-forming function, which is very important in

the light of an impressive manifestation of the wave nature of the

micro-world 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

all-embracing, 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 world-view 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

40

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

doesn’t exist, hence, no luminiferous ether may exist. Formally, a

faulty practice was actuated, and the well-known 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 self-reliant physical arguments may have their independent

self-expression. 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. Non-compliance 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

41

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 counter-Einstein’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,

four-dimensional space-time, 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 space-time, 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.

42

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

It is obvious that the task to give concrete physical meaning to the

idea upholding the existence of the personal luminiferous space-time,

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 counter-Einstein theory of motion,

which doesn’t contradict the presence of the luminiferous ether.

Later we shall show that such an ether-acceptable 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 Michelson-Morley 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 well-known 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

43

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 four-dimensional 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

44

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 space-time 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 four-dimensional space-time, 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:

S2= ( )2− (x2+ y2+ z2). (3.1)

45

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

It is believed that equation (3.1) is originated from the four-

dimensional space-time 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

space-time 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 space-time, 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, (ct2, is identified with time

coordinate axis. The second member, (x2+ y2+ z2) , is related to

combination of three space dimensions. The difference between these

two members-arguments is a solution for a four-dimensional space-

time interval, S2, limited by two check points on the trajectory of a

test body. The majority of researchers relate the expression ( )2to

the fourth time dimension. More cautious scientists call ( )2the

“fourth imaginary coordinate”.

But if we analyze the dimension of ( )2, which is m × sec / sec , 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 (ct2allows us to naturally and truly consider this

expression as still unknown three-dimensional function in a

respective three-digit coordinate system, having axes as m × sec / sec .

It is impossible to overestimate the level of understanding

physical nature of the expression ( )2because 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

46

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 one-dimensional

interpretation of the topology of ( )2we need to try to find, as

minimum, an explanation of metric three-digits for this exotic

coordinate dimension. Following an open-minded logics and

agreeing with obvious tree-digit metric structure of the expression

( )2, we must try to clarify, what, in fact, is hidden behind this

mysterious argument of the famous equation by Hermann

Minkowski.

It happened that the theory of relativity didn’t develop along the

way of the adequate interpretation of the true topology of the

expression ( )2, 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

four-dimensional space-time, and represent it figuratively or

graphically, always failed.

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 one-dimensional

interpretation of a metric structure of the expression ( )2isn’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 narrow-mindedness 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 non-uniform motion, and at the same time, solve

47

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

problem of gravitational interactions, it was discovered that the

nature of universal gravitation is tightly linked to geometrical

properties of space-time. This link was soundly expressed in the

equivalence principle, which stated absolute identity of inertial and

gravitational masses. The idea of curved space-time 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 four-dimensional space-time 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 “space-time” 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 four-dimensional space-time 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 space-time? 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 pseudo-Riemann

geometry. What are real tools that make the four-dimensional 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.

48

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 four-dimensional space-time” 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 space-time 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 space-time 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

49

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 space-time arguments. These principle

categories of the Universe look too abstract and somewhat isolated

from real physical conceptions. In addition, the situation with

declared one-dimensionality of the expression ( )2 , 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 space-time

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 ( )2, as a

three-dimensional function which agrees with the dimension of this

expression. It contradicts the traditional and, in our opinion,

50

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

inadmissible identification of metric structure ( )2 with only one

coordinate axis. We shall do it in non-traditional way, when they

propose to complicate the space-time geometry of the relativistic

theory in a signature (4 + N ) , here 4 stands for four-dimensional

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 members-arguments 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 quantum-relativistic 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

51

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 temperature-energy 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 micro-particle, and matrix

matter of space. If we liberate the particle of substance from the

energy E = mc2, the matter which belongs to the elementary particle

appears on the same energy level as a matrix matter of space. A

micro-particle seems to transform into the spacious matter, like

melted ice transforms into water.

Going back to the ice sphere immersed in water, we must say that

the isolated physical system “water – ice” belongs to the class of

non-stable 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 – micro-particle” 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 – micro-particle” 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 micro-particle in

any direction from its centre. Elementary particle seems to grow like

52

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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

micro-particle. 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 well-known Newton’s expression:

53

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

v

= ã D

" "

M

R2

(3.2)

But we must note that the dimension of the Newtonian

gravitational constant is / m3, kg-1, sec-2 / , while the dimension of

“D” constant in equation (3.2) is / m3, kg-1, sec-1 /.

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:

EÄt = ðh

(3.3)

here EÄt is the energy, the elementary particle dissipates within

one second; ðh is the product of “pi” number by Planck’s constant.

Let us write (3.3) as

mcvÄt = ðh

(3.4)

Here m is the rest mass of the reference micro-particle; 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 micro-particle and keeps

it in a stable state; Ät equals one second.

From (3.4) we find v:

ð

h

v = Ä

mc t

(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

54

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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:

2

v

=

ðhr M

2 Ä

2

(3.6)

m c tR

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.

2

=

hr

ã "D" ð

Ä

(3.7)

m2c t

Simplifying (3.6) we get the expression similar to (3.2):

2

v

=

ðhr M

2 Ä

m c tR

2

= ã D

" "

M

2

R

(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

55

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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, rcr2.. Then (3.5)

may be written as:

c = ðhr2

2

2

.

(3.9)

From (3.9) we get rcr.,

rcr.=

m cÄtrcr.

ðhr2

2Ä

m2c t

.

(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 micro-world. This radius outlines the

micro-horizon of events, and the physical reality existing beyond it is

56

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 micro-particle 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 macro-cosmos, 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 self-renewing 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.

57

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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

58

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 space-time

continuum” (PS-TC) must be formed. A unique important physical

property of the terrestrial PS-TC 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

59

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

space-time 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 four-dimensional space-time, the personal

space-time 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 space-time

continuum may be used as a valid space-time 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 three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system on

a terrestrial PS-TC 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 four-dimensional space-time we don’t need to

refer to any puzzling combinations seeming to be independent of our

60

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 space-time continuum in the absolute space of

the Universe. If we have a system of two or more massive bodies,

any PS-TC may be successfully used as a universal space-time

framework, and it looks reasonable to perform various measurements

and observations against its background. In this aspect all the

personal space-time 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 space-time, 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 space-time. 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

PS-TC, 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 space-time

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

61

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 one-act 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 light-mindedness 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 one-time-only creation of

the Earth, its personal space-time 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 space-time 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 space-time 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 space-time continuum, it shall not be able to give or receive

62

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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

God-inspiration 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 space-time 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

one-time-only 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

63

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 non-linear 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 space-time continuum. The author of the theory of

relativity makes this statement the fundamental principle of

64

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 four-dimensional space-time

and ensure general covariance of Einstein’s equations. The

65

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 self-congruent 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

66

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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

space-time continuum of the Earth equals 300,000 km/sec. But the

constancy of light speed in the PS-TC of the Earth doesn’t imply free

extrapolation of this constant over all other space-time 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

space-time continuum of the Earth only. It characterizes physical

properties of the personal space-time 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.

67

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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:

c

t = .

g

(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 space-time 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

68

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

properties of the terrestrial PS-TC 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 four-dimensional

space-time 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

c = t × g .

(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 space-time.

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 world-view

on the basis of Eisntein’s light postulates. Especially as the terrestrial

space-time continuum in full measure meets all there requirements

and allows us to comprehensively describe the general picture of the

world around us.

69

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 four-dimensional coordinate grids with three space

and one time dimension. Four-dimensional coordinate systems

operate like world space-time 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 four-dimensional space-time perception of reality

becomes the only possible thing. In special theory of relativity the

linear four-dimensional coordinate systems are used. They meet

requirements of the space-time 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 space-time with pseudo-Riemann metrics, which is contrary

to Euclid’s geometry.

70

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 space-time 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

space-time 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 space-time 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 space-time. 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 four-dimensional

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

four-dimensional space-time and masses of substance. On the

contrary, the use of four-dimensional coordinated grids in the theory

of relativity aggravated the situation. In accordance with the specifics

71

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

of the conceptual contest of the theory of relativity, abstract

mathematical manifold substituted for physical space-time 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 four-dimensional space-time 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 space-time relations and expand

72

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 X-axis, 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 X-axis, 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

space-time 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 X-axis is the distance S1 and no more than that. Otherwise,

is we consider S as a real space-time 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

73

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 space-time. 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 “material-space-time” 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 space-time 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 space-time 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 space-time relations.

74

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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

space-time, 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 space-time 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

space-time 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 “space-time”. 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 space-time,

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

75

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 self-expression.

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 world-view 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.

76

Boris Dmitriev. What is 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 four-dimensional 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 four-dimensional space-time. Topological

structure of this curved space-time is described with the help of the

same differentiated square of the interval dS2. Its existence is

associated with four-dimensional 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 space-time

structure and find adequate mathematical expression for its check

interval.

77

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

If we place a test body into the curved space-time, 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 space-time. To make

the observed event be governed by geometrical settings and

transported from one point of the curved space-time to another, let us

say, initial point, the original event has to know to receive

topological information about the space-time 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 space-time, hence, cannot be governed by its

metric settings. Incapacity of a point event to react on the curved

space-time 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 space-time.

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 space-time and be governed by its

metric settings. Then the space-time 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 space-time 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 space-time

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

78

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

principle, are not subject to differential fragmentation and posses

exclusively quantum character. In this connection it is natural to

assume that space-time 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 four-dimensional space-time.

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 four-dimensional space-time

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

79

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

four-dimensional space-time 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 four-dimensional

space-time and material object moving in it. This interaction must be

natural and non-contradictory; 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 space-time 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.

80

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 space-time and formulate the unified theory of field.

One means the comprehensive theory where the four-dimensional

space-time 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 space-time, and

consider them in a topological expression. However, the topology of

the theory of relativity in four-dimensional geometry doesn’t make

this theory free of a complex of problems arising from the solution of

the interval dS2, taken from Einstein’s four-dimensional space-time.

To exempt the theory of relativity of the necessity to use the

differentiated interval dS2, it isn’t needed to perform any

sophisticated multi-step operations with it. It is sufficient to take the

concept of “event” out of limits of a point and assign it a quantum

space-time 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 space-time 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 space-time interval into substance, or, vice versa, of

substance into space-time. 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

81

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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

space-time topology. In other words, the check event will be able to

accept metric settings of the curved space-time 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

micro-world the existence of material objects is subject to

corpuscular-wave 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” corpuscular-wave 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 space-time relations considered in the theory of relativity,

is fair. In other words, we must clarify, whether the space-time

topology of equations of the theory of relativity is really an

expression of the four-dimensional geometric manifold.

In this respect, let us try to examine, what is the reason for the

number “four”, why just four coordinate axes represent space-time in

the theory of relativity? It is used to thing that Einstein’s four-

82

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 three-dimensional space,

nor absolute one-dimensional time exists. In such a case we must

believe that the four-dimensional 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 space-time manifold under

examination. Any consideration of the Minkowski equations in four-

dimensional metric signature is equally impossible. Let’s write once

again this equality:

S2= ( )2− (x2+ y2+ z2).

We have already mentioned that this equation referencing to four

coordinates axes logically contradicts with the dimension of the

expression ( )2. 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 ( )2 it would be logical to consider this expression as still

unknown three-digit function in three-dimensional coordinate system

having its axes with dimension of m ⋅ sec /sec. Then an assumption

can be made: metric configuration of the Minkowski equations is

83

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

based on six (not four) coordinate dimensions. This is the sum of

three coordinate axes from the expression ( )2 and three Cartesian

space coordinates (x2+ y2+ z2).

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

instrumental-measuring 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 “space-time of

the theory of relativity is the expression of the four-dimensional

geometric manifold”, it must mean that, in fact, we have any

objective instrumental-measuring procedures, which make possible

to determine the four-dimensionality of the geometric topology of the

given space-time. And the number of coordinate dimensions of

space-time 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 space-time, includes four independent coordinate

axes.

84

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

The famous equation of Hermann Minkowski is based on the

measuring procedure which supposes that specific laboratory tools

equivalent to each of its members-arguments, are available. For

example, the argument (x2+ y2+ z2) 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 three-dimensional space geometric manifold.

The argument ( )2in 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 light-like relations between them using

light signal and isochronous clock. The ability to establish light-like

or, which is the same, time-like 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 time-like 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

(x2+ y2+ z2) from the period of time ( )2transformed 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

85

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

in space and time. As a result a combined space-time interval

( )2appears, and it characterizes the numerical value of the relative

speed.

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 ( )2seems 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 four-dimensional geometric

manifold and consists of four coordinate axes, is made.

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 space-time metrics, we remove light signal from a series of

86

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

laboratory instruments objectively participating in the experiment.

The procedure of registration of space interval which is present in the

expression ( )2doesn’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.

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 two-digit 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 two-dimensional 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 space-time

topology of this signal acts as indivisible, two-dimensional geometric

reality. It takes only to distribute the topology of light signal

trajectory over separate coordinate dimensions of space and time,

and our world-view immediately will be concentrated in the

framework of the Newtonian mechanics. The combined space-time

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 ( )2must be identified with three-dimensional geometric

manifold consisting of two-dimensional 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 (ct2, contains three metric

87

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

dimensions, and the second term, (x2+ y2+ z2) , 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 six-dimensional

geometric manifold.

It is important that the six-dimensional interpretation of the key

equation of the theory of relativity allows us to consider this solution

in the framework of corpuscular-wave regularities. In accordance

with relativistic view, equation (3.1) determines the trajectory of

material object displacement in the space-time metric manifold. The

displacement in topological space is realized along three Cartesian

coordinate axes. The displacement in time metrics is realized in

three-digit coordinate system with the dimension of the expression

( )2. 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.

The dimension of the expression ( )2 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

(ct )2 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 ( )2dimension.

From the aforesaid we can conclude that the Minkowski equation,

more that any other equation of the quantum physics, corresponds to

88

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

the mode of corpuscular-wave duality. To consistently comprehend

and discover the nature of the relative motion, we must activate in

our theoretical considerations two self-sufficient conceptions of

relative motion realization – corpuscular and wave, which are related

to each other by a well-known 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 four-dimensional space-time 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 space-time continuum, which carries energy. And

at any new moment of time the next local region of space-time 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 (x2+ y2+ z2), the wave

theory of relativity is mainly based on wave regularities operating

successfully in time topologic plan of the metric structure of the

expression ( )2. 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 space-time continuum.

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

89

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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, Y-axis is oriented

along the front of wave propagation, and Z-axis is at right angles to

X-axis and Y-axis (Fig. 3)

Fig. 3

In general case, the propagation of wave disturbances on the free

water surface is associated with the bending of two-dimensional

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 Z-axis. Any displacement of

water along X-axis 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 Z-axis, if the phase velocity of

90

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

wave disturbance propagation along the X-axis and acceleration

along the Z-axis 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:

gë

v phase=

2ð

.

(3.2)

Here g is the gravitational potential, ë 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 X-axis, and

acceleration along Z-axis. 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 Z-axis. 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

91

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 PS-TC 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 three-dimensional

coordinate system having the dimension of ( )2. 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 ( )2is shown

in Figure 4 in three-dimensional coordinate system with axes having

m ⋅ sec /sec dimension.

Fig. 4

92

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

The coordinate system shown in Fig. 4 consists of two-digit 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 PS-TC 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 PS-TC. 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 t-axis 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 PS-TC 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.

93

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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,

2 − 2

A

=

c − c v

gc

.

(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 PS-TC; 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 PS-TC. 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 t-axis, 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 PS-TC. A moving material object just shoots

through the given space-time 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 PS-TC, 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

94

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

space-time continuum, the wave disturbance of a material platform

of the moving object in a time metric plan of the given PS-TC takes

place. This wave disturbance is gauged in accordance with the

configuration of the plane wave packet ABC, suitable for the

expression

( )2

. 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.

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 PS-TC. The latter directly

results from equation (3.3). For example:

v =

(2

Agcc

−

Agc) .

(3.4)

It was already noted that our ideas about the relative notion in

accordance with quantum regularities must meet the requirements of

the corpuscular-wave 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 PS-TC 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 corpuscular-wave

characteristic of relative motion. Pursuant to this equality the true

relative velocity of material object displacement in the given PS-TC

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.

95

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

To better imagine the actual combination of wave and corpuscular

signs of the relative motion we need to apply to the well-known

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 space-time continuum.

Fig. 5

With this aim let us place the trajectory of Zeno’s arrow into the

two-dimensional coordinate system consisting of one space

coordinate axis, X-axis, and one time, t, axis (Fig. 5). In fact, the

flight of Zeno’s arrow with respect to the given PS-TC takes place in

the six-dimensional geometric manifold. To visualize our

considerations we use only one coordinate axis, X-axis, taken from

the space metrics, and time, t, coordinate axis, taken from the time

metric plan of the given PS-TC. Nevertheless, we shall continuously

take into account that it is a combined space-time 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

96

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 corpuscular-wave 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 space-time 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 PS-TC is realized in

accordance with corpuscular-wave 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 PS-TC 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-

97

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

dimensional space-time 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 six-dimensional metric manifold which corresponds to the

metrics of the given PS-TC. As a result, we get a combined space-

time coordinate system shown in the Figure.

Fig. 6

Let the distance AC along the X-axis 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 X-axis, 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 X-axis. 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

98

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

the flying arrow projected on the X-axis 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:

×

AC=

BD

C

A11;

BD

A C

1 1

=

AC BD

1;

BD

1

(

−

)

A C

1 1

We can write (4.5) as:

=

AC × BD DD

1

BD

−

2 2

.

(4.5)

= 0 ×

Ät −

c − c v

g

L L

Ät

l

.

(4.6)

Determine g in equation (4.6) as rate of change of velocity and

l

make the substitution. Then:

2 2

= ×

L L0

Ät −

c − c v

c

Ät

− Ä

t

=

L0

⎛

⎜⎜1

−

2 2

c − c v

⎞

⎟⎟ =

= × −

⎝

⎛

= L0 × − +

1

c

−

⎠

⎞

⎟ =

2 2

⎜1 1

⎝

c

c v

⎠

2 2

2

= L0×

c v

−=0×−

v

c

2

L

1

c

2

(4.7)

99

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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.

100

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 space-time. 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

101

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 ill-fated 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 PS-TC, 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 PS-TC.

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 space-time. 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

102

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 PS-TC, 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 space-time 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 four-dimensional coordinate grid

imitating the four-dimensional space-time.

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

103

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 space-time 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 ill-fated 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 coordinates-symbols.

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 space-time

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 PS-TC. In the absolute space of the Universe they act as a unified

104

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 space-time 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

105

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 PS-TC. 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

straight-line X-axis (Fig. 7). As the thought experiments takes place

in the empty outer space (in the absence of any material objects), we

interpret X-axis 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 X-axis towards the greater circle which is drawn along

the front of light waves propagation in its personal space-time

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 PS-TC. Then, if the Newtonian

apple is displacing uniformly at a certain speed along the idealized X-

axis, its personal space-time will follow it at the same speed together

with the circle drawn along the front of light waves propagation. To

106

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 X-axis (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 X-axis (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 PS-TC.

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

107

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

displacement along the idealized X-axis applying his force. This

change in velocity cannot spread over the whole personal space-time

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 PS-TC. 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 X-axis.

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 PS-TC. 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

108

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

states of the apple relative to the real PS-TC 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 space-time continuums instead

of one. We mean the given external personal continuum related to

the selected body of reference, and the personal space-time of the test

apple.

Basing on the statement of equality and equivalence of all

personal continuums we can use both given external PS-TC and

personal space-time 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 PS-TC and plot

the wave packet for calibration of this relative motion at the level of

the luminiferous normal level of the external personal space-time. On

the other hand, we can describe the displacement of the Newtonian

apple using its PS-TC and plot the wave packet at the level of the

luminiferous normal level of the personal space-time 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 X-axis. 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 PS-TC,

wave disturbance of the local region of the given personal space-time

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 PS-TC 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 PS-TC.

If we consider the inertial displacement of the Newtonian apple

from the standpoint of its PS-TC, then we find that the given relative

velocity cannot be registered in the personal space-time of the apple

itself. From the results of the previous thought experiments it follows

that in case of uniform rectilinear displacement of the experimental

109

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

apple along the idealized X-axis, 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 space-time, 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 space-time is identical to the state of

rest of this object in its PS-TC.

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 PS-TC.

We have already established that in the course of the inertial

motion the Newtonian apple maintains its state of rest in its inherent

PS-TC, but displaces relative to the external personal space-time. 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 space-time continuum and

its inherent PS-TC 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 PS-TC,

then it moves uniformly at constant velocity relative to its inherent

PS-TC.

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 PS-TC

is equivalent to its uniform straight-line motion in its inherent

personal space-time. It is this fundamental identity between

accelerated motion of a test body in an external personal continuum

and uniform motion in its inherent personal space-time 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 PS-TC in the absolute space of

110

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

the Universe. The proposed thought experiment takes place provided

that the unified physical system “Newtonian apple – personal

continuum” is placed into the personal space-time 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 PS-TC and personal

space-time 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

space-time continuum of the Newtonian apple. Such a relation

between the centre of mass of a material object and geometrical

centre of its PS-TC 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:

111

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

M

v

= ã "D" × .

R2

(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 PS-TC at a constant speed of 9.8 m/sec, or, which is

the same, uniformly accelerate relative to the terrestrial personal

space-time with acceleration 9.8 m/sec2.

Therefore, the classical astronaut standing with the apple in the

hand on the roof of the multi-storeyed 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

112

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

standpoint of the terrestrial PS-TC. In this case, he gets satisfactory

solution using the famous Newtonian equality:

M

g = ã × .

(5.2)

R2

The dimension of the solution of Newtonian equation (5.2) is

m/sec2. This is absolutely justified dimension if applicable to the

terrestrial personal space-time.

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 space-time 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 PS-TC and its

uniform displacement in the inherent personal space-time.

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

PS-TC 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 multi-storeyed 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

113

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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 space-time 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/sec2relative 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 long-range 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.

114

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

In this theoretical construction the universal gravitation is realized

in accordance with even more complicated scheme. Here the

gravitating mass forms its personal space-time. The latter, in its turn,

influences the metric structure of the personal continuum of the test

body. And the intrinsic personal space-time 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.

115

Boris Dmitriev. What is motion

___________________________________________________________________________________

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?

___________________________________

116

Table of Contents

Boris-Dmitriev.org