Tardyons, Luxons, and Beyond
Einstein’s theory contains a conceptualization that emphasizes the need for luxons (packets of radiation, quanta) to move at the speed of light to be able to exist. It is significant in that it emphasizes the need for luxons to move at the speed of light to be able to exist. Unless they are moving at that speed, these particles do not exist as luxons. When we accelerate an object with an impact from the outside, by applying some force, we can never speed it up to the speed of light. This second interesting feature of the theory brings forth a conceptualization that was not known until that time, and that is very difficult to understand. When we apply a force to an object, the object speeds up or slows down depending on the force applied. But why isn’t this acceleration infinite? In the system of conceptual thinking based on Newtonian laws, this movement was thought to be infinite. The thinking went, “An object accelerates when a force is applied to it, and unless there is some resistance, the acceleration can be infinite.”
In the case of Einstein’s theory, we are not simply talking about assumptions; we are talking about facts that have later been confirmed in electron accelerators. This is interesting. When you accelerate an object by applying force from the outside, by speeding it up via loading energy, the object does not accelerate indefinitely; instead, the force accumulates on the object after a while, and causes its mass to grow. This growth in mass slows the object down, and instead of speeding it up further, after some point, a force you apply in a certain direction, a vector, moves it backward instead of moving it forward in the direction of the vector! It moves the object toward the direction from which the force is applied. Now, I suggest you think about this point and try to imagine it. This is not something that fits the paradigm of a consciousness organized on the basis of Newtonian mechanics. When you apply force to an object from the outside, and there is no resistance to this force, what is expected is that this movement would keep accelerating in space. However, this is not what happens in reality – we now know that. In that case, we need to comprehend this fact prior to transferring it to a philosophical platform, with the expectation that it would change our consciousness and lead to a re-evaluation. How can an object, after reaching a certain speed as a result of a force applied to it, stop moving in the direction the force is applied, in the direction of the vector, and return back as a result of feedback due to growth in mass?
The Leap Space
There is a very interesting thing I would like to share with you about the 300.000 kilometers per second, the highest possible speed, or the speed of light. There is a point we can call the “leap space,” which works as follows: When we apply force from the outside, an object can reach –on average– a maximum speed of around 270.000 km/s. From that point onwards, the force we apply to the object makes the object go back. Let’s try to imagine; let’s draw a line, and call it “zero.” “Zero speed” is relative, of course, it is only an assumption. Let’s call a moment when an object is in harmony with all other movements the “zero speed” – which is only a concept, for zero speed does not exist. The space where it reaches a speed of around 277.000 km/s in that mechanical movement, after we apply force to it, is a space between zero and a number we call two hundred and seventy seven thousand. All of that movement gives us tardyons; tard means slow, yon refers to ionization, or movement, and hence tardyon literally means “slow movement”. What is slow about it? It expresses being within certain limits, being stuck between 0 and 277.000 km/s. We have a space like that, and this space is a space we can observe in our daily lives. There is a universe called “tardyon universe”, which we witness on the basis of our observations in space, that is to say observations based on light coming from stars. There is also the light itself. Luxons that exist as a result of particles that move 300.000 km a second, or light itself. We call them luxons. Tardyons and luxons. Alright, let’s draw another line there, 300.000 km/s. Then what? What comes after is not available for us to observe as a real universe, it is a universe that we can construct in mathematical or imaginary terms. This is because we have reached the limit. What limit? A particle that can move faster than the speed of light has never been observed, nor is it possible in the reality of objects. It is not possible to achieve that speed. Experiments confirm this situation. So, what comes after? If we were to think about particles that are mathematically assumed to move faster than 300.000 km/s, particles that are products of a mathematical logic, what would happen if we were to place them within the theory of physics?
Einstein thinks about this issue too, and these particles are called tachyons. Tachyons are imaginary speeds; such speeds have never been observed or detected. Why should be assume that such speeds exist? If such speeds exist, and if we were to place these assumed speeds in our mathematical equations, as we do with tardyons and ordinary speeds, what would happen? What knowledge would that mathematical jargon or paradigm produce? This is very interesting because we then encounter the idea of an opposite universe. The speed of tachyons, due to the mathematical equations, can never be lowered to 300.000 km/s. This too is interesting. Just as tardyons can never be sped up to 300.000 km/s by applying force from the outside, tachyons cannot be slowed down. We then obtain a universe consisting of particles that can never slow down to 300.000 km/s.
Six Main Points of the Theory
Einstein’s special theory makes six important points:
1. Expansion of time
2. Relativity of simultaneity
3. Shrinkage of dimensions
4. Increase in mass with speed
5. The highest possible speed – speed of light
6. The infinity of inertia – the impossibility of motion
When we place the speed of zero in a reference system, all movements that have speeds between zero and 300.000 kilometers per second, the speed of luxons, are tardyons, they are particles that move at low speed; at 300.000 km/s, we have the luxons; and after luxons, we have tachyons, which we have never observed, but can imagine or apply our mathematical models to. Tachyons are particles that move at a speed higher than the speed of light and can never be slowed down to the speed of light. Why? Because the equations about the speed of light in Einstein’s theory of relativity lead us to conclude that tachyons can never be slowed down to the speed of light. There is no such thing, these are imaginary particles, but if our model of evaluation or system of reference shows all mathematical properties of tardyons using the theory of relativity, an application was made wondering what would be the result at assumed high speeds. In that case, we create a second space. This is imagination. What is our limit? When we think of the speed of light as a speed moving in space, as a vectorial movement or wave movement, out limit is the speed of light and the luxons, and they may not help our imagination much. What I propose is to think of this as a limit. Even when you move at the speed of light, you can never define the tachyons or the imaginary universe. This is because the speed of light is a final veil for you. It is as if you will see some place and the only instrument you can use to see it is light; the speed itself is the veil for everything other than itself. Light is a veil for the universe.
Imagining the Leap Space
What is interesting here is the leap space. What is the leap space? The leap space is the space between the speed of 277.000 plus km/s and the speed of 300.000 km/s. What does that mean? To repeat, when a force is applied to an object from the outside, it moves in the direction of the vector of the force, and the larger the force applied, the faster it moves. Until what point? Until 277.000 km/s, not 300.000 km/s. After that point, every additional force you apply creates feedback and moves the object backward. The growth in mass moves the object backward instead of forward as if we were applying force from the opposite direction. It is as if you are pulling and not pushing. There occurs an oscillation at that point. What type of an oscillation? If you keep applying force, the object will move backward, and after a while, because its mass gets smaller, it will start moving forward one more time, and oscillate like a pendulum. So, what is the highest speed? It is 300.000 km/s, not 277.000 km/s. What is the space in between? There is a space in between. That is a space that cannot be traversed. This is why people are researching a space called the “model of leap space.” A leap space between tardyons and luxons. You cannot travel that space by applying force from the outside, you cannot scan that area, particles cannot move in that area.
Then, the speed of light constitutes a limit –like a single line, not like a boundary– it constitutes a limit together with the leap space. There is a veil, but before that veil, it looks like there is a place that we can never reach by moving things from the outside. I am describing it this way so you can imagine it in your minds. In physical reality, you witness something like this, based solely on the mathematical descriptions of movement. What I am talking about is a mathematical space. When I say “the space between 277.000 km/s and 300.000 km/s,” how can we comprehend this? We can comprehend this only after transferring it to a model or to imagination. If we were to transfer this to a design, we would have the following: Imagine there is an empty space in between. There is movement on one side of this space, and a different kind of movement on the other side, but in between, you have an impenetrable space of resistance. You can never enter that space. Your rocket starts moving backward and oscillates. Then, assuming constant application of force, you have a space of oscillation, and below that, you have the space of tardyons, where relative movement in all directions is possible, forward or backward; in the other space, you only have oscillation as long as the force is constant. There is a space you can never traverse or move within, and after that, a space where you can only exist at the speed of 300.000 km/s. I am not saying “There is a separate space, and there is light moving in that space”; no, the light itself is the space.
Light, or luxons –and this is interesting because it doesn’t apply to other particles– have to move at the speed of 300.000 km/s; otherwise, they do not exist. They can transform, but then they stop being luxons. To be luxons, they have to move at 300.000 km/s. Now, this necessity also provides us with a constant reference for the existence of the universe. En existential constant. What is that? What are we to understand when we say the “speed of light”? Is it something that moves, something that exists? Should we understand it in terms of existence or in terms movement? Or, if we were to observe it, what would we use to observe? We have no option but to use itself to observe it. We will look at the speed of light using the speed of light. Then, is there any movement there? What is movement at the moment of observation? You are using the speed of light to look at something that moves at the speed of light. Can you really observe at the speed of light? A particle will go, hit another particle, and come back. Whatever you use to denote the distance in between, you would need twice the time. It has to go, observe, and come back. The particle on the other side is moving at the speed of light; so this particle hits that particle and comes back, and we have twice the distance. It covers the distance twice, it goes forward and comes back. Where is that particle in the meantime? Does it exist? This is the problem we face.
Everything, without Exception, is on the Move!
Assume we were to accompany them, the particles moving at 300.000 km/s, assume we too are moving at 300.000 km/s, right next to them. Think about how satellites in space connect to one another and move in synchrony, or someone inside the satellite coming out and walking on the satellite. Assume the satellite is moving at 40.000 km/h, and the person is walking backward at 5 km/h, or attaching himself with a cord, and just floating in space. They would be observed as two objects not moving in relation to one another. Why? Because their movements are equal. When his movement is the same or parallel with the movement of the object to which he is attached, we cannot speak of any movement, because movement can only be defined in relation to another movement. This is one of the many illusions the world creates for us. I am now sitting here without moving, without making any movements, and I have before me people who are also sitting with relatively fewer movements. This phenomenological perception –or empirical, sensory perception that I evaluate with my feelings– is not correct in the intellectual plane. When I examine the issue using my reason, I know, taking any object as my reference point, that this object is rotating at a speed of 1.670 km/h in the direction of the Earth’s rotation. We are able to sit! Think about the difference in speed you experience when you move at 300 km/h. “300 km, I am going so fast.” We are on something that moves at 1.670 km/h, but we don’t even notice it. Isn’t that interesting? We cannot perceive it at all, as if it doesn’t exist. We cannot perceive this movement because all the references, the system of references connected to one another, move together.
Here, in fact, we have zero relative movement. Relative to one another, the movements that objects in the same center make, in the same field of attraction, appear as if they don’t exist. I know, however, by reasoning that this bag is moving at 1.670 km/h. But I too am moving at the same speed, this desk is also moving at the same speed, and other objects in the same field of attraction are also moving at the same speed, and as a result, through my senses and feelings, I perceive it as a non-moving object; I perceive movement or lack of movement based on my mechanical, outward movements. The difference here –between perception and comprehension– plays a very important role in philosophy. In philosophy too, to be able to create a language and make it meaningful, we take data that we encounter in the environment of physical reality, and using our consciousness, turn these “momentary data” into perceptions –as we encounter categories– eventually turning them into knowledge by reflecting upon them. This is how “knowledge” comes into being. This is how it works in philosophy too, it uses the same method that scientific knowledge uses. The field we call “reflecting upon” to discover the reality of scientific knowledge is a space that is different from the space shown by the field of senses. The rational space is the space where reason itself transcends the illusions created by objective reality, and arrives at its own reality.
To repeat, how fast does the Earth rotate around the Sun? We are also rotating around the Sun, if you remember. The Earth rotates its own axis at a speed of 1.670 km/h. What about around the Sun? At a speed of 107.000 km/h. This is awesome. The tiny Moon messes with us with the movements it makes. It controls the 28-day hormonal cycles of women, the tides… There is mutual interaction not just in the seas, but also in terms of its effects on people. When we feel these effects and this interaction, we take position accordingly, and try to understand. What sorts of data, one wonders, do we pick about these speeds? Does a magnetic storm form because of this movement of the Earth? Does a conical storm form in the opposite direction of its movement? There are so many questions that we could ask. In electron accelerators, we accelerate objects almost up to the speed of light, but there is a space that they can never traverse, forming an insurmountable barrier; on the other hand, we pick up a match, and through a very simple movement, through a chemical interaction achieved by movement, we obtain light, moving at a speed of 300.000 km/s. By striking a match, we obtain speeds that we could never obtain by applying force from the outside.
Using E=mc2 to Practice Philosophy
Now, let’s talk a little bit about mass-energy equivalence; we will return to this topic later. The most famous relationship Einstein discovered is about mass and energy, which is also one of the main principles of special relativity. The mass of an object in motion becomes larger; because motion makes it faster and provides it with kinetic energy, the increase in the mass of an object in motion is due to the increase in its energy. The special theory predicts that a very small object is equivalent to an extraordinary amount of energy. This energy is equivalent to the product of the object’s mass and the square of the speed of light, expressed in the equation E=mc2. This is a mathematical equation. There is ongoing debate about this issue too. After Einstein, it has been proposed that this should be an equivalency and not an equation, that it should be denoted with triple bars instead of the two-bar equal sign. This is really interesting.
There are various philosophical propositions and interesting debates about the problem of E=mc2. Let me talk about one of them briefly. “E” (energy) equals “m” (mass) times “c2” (speed of light squared). Now, we encounter various problems here. What do energy on one side of the equation and mass times the speed of light squared on the other express? In very simple terms, it was interpreted or translated into ordinary language as follows: There is mass on one side, and energy on the other. Is this really what E=mc2 tells us? Question one: Is there mass without energy or energy without mass that we can place mass on this side and energy on the other? What is transformed, then? “They are transformed to one another,” we say. There is this famous saying, “Mass turns into energy, and energy turns into mass.” How? Is there energy without mass to turn into mass? Is there mass without energy to turn into energy? These are post-Einstein debates. In schools that provided positivist education, this notion was taught without criticism; students were expected to memorize these things. Now, the question is this: Is there energy without mass, or mass without energy, that we can transform into one another? Is there such a thing? If not, what does this equation express? What does it tell us? Moreover, we cannot explain everything about fusion on the basis of this relationship. Experiments have been conducted, and this is something that has consistency in explaining real phenomena. What do we understand from that?
The discussion we are having here, in the name of enlightenment, would serve to a better understanding of the concepts. This is why I discuss these concepts. Otherwise, it would be a professional matter for physicists, a matter of specialization; it wouldn’t concern us, it would concern technology. Whoever works with it, we could look at their results, and say “Bravo! Good for them. Let’s have our computers, our television sets, and we are not interested in how they are made.” However, since these are phenomena that explain life itself, how did we perceive life before? When we use these scientific findings, these equations to question our consciousness regarding how to understand life, they appear as philosophical issues. In the world of art, in particular, they take on a whole new dimension. If an artist is looking for ways to use intuition to break away from the prison of the rigid conceptualization of science, could these scientific doors create science fiction for the artist? We can also ask, “Is the great influence of science fiction in contemporary art related to the perception of these conceptualizations?”
“The special theory predicts that a very small object is equivalent to an extraordinarily large mass of m.” We have this sentence. It tells us that a very small object is equivalent to an extraordinary amount of energy. “This m is equivalent to the product of the object’s mass and the square of the speed of light, expressed in the equation E=mc2. In other words, the equation E=mc2 expresses the amount of energy that would be obtained if the mass of an object were transformed into energy so that no mass were left behind.” When we say “transformed into energy,” what is the definition of the mass transformed so that we have energy without it? Then, if we were to call them m1 and m2, would the mass we transform and the mass after the transformation be different types of mass? Would we have a different fact? We need to think about this, one needs to have a good explanation of this. We do not understand when we content ourselves with these propositions. We make do because it is applied in technology and demonstrated to exist; and keep stacking propositions and labeling them. We assert but do not understand! “We do not understand.” The famous physicist Richard Feynman also had difficulty understanding.
Faster Than the Speed of Light?
The main question in this equation is a very interesting one. Let’s think about it together. One of the propositions about the speed of light was that it was the highest possible speed. If the speed of light is the highest possible speed, then what is the speed of light squared? The speed of light is the highest speed that exists; moreover, the light itself is a limit, we do not witness any movement faster than that of light. 300.000 km per second. According to what? According to the observer. What is c2, then? How is it formulated? “c2” is an unreal number; “the speed of light squared” does not refer to a reality. In an imaginary conceptualization in the universe of tachyons, we look at luxons. This is because, as I have explained before, it is not possible to perceive an object or movement by itself! The bag and I are moving at the same time, we are part of the same movement. I know what reference point or reference system to use to understand the movement of the bag; I know that I need to use another point of reference to understand the relationship between us, and conduct research accordingly. What about the speed of light? Light exists at 300.000 km/s. When we say “Light is energy,” it is true, because all energy experiments confirm that. When we say “Light is a mass,” we know this is also true, we have conducted experiments. Light bends as it passes by the Sun, meaning it is a mass attracted by a field of attraction. We know these, but to define it, to understand the relationship between its energy and its mass, we need a third point of reference, which is an imaginary number, the light of speed squared: “c” times “c” or 300.000 km/s x 300.000 km/s. We have this number. This is not a real number. There is no such thing. There is no object that makes this movement, or moves this fast. Still, we do have this speed in the equation E=mc2.
Regarding the wave quality of matter, we define a function called the “wave function,” as you know. Statistically, we take the square of this function, and call it “sinusoidal function.” It is the square of the function, and represents the probability of an event taking place. When you look at the subject at hand as a number, it in fact represents a probability. Therefore, the conceptualization here expresses an entirely logical space and logical fact, not something real like the speed of light squared. Then, there is an object that “shouldn’t be perceived as a number,” and it moves. 300.000 km/s refers to a reality, it is real, but when I say “c2”, when I say “the thing multiplied by itself,” what am I really saying? Am I talking about an object that moves that fast? No. How can I put something that is not real in my equation? How can I explain reality by putting unreal things in my equation? “E” is an energy reality. How does this work? On the other hand of the equation, I have a multiplication involving an imaginary number, and when I do this multiplication, I will find the real value of “E”. How is that possible? As a concept, as imagination, what does that make you think?
(There are physics scholars (PS) among the listeners. The discussion continues with their contributions.)
MB – Physicists say: “This is one of our technical terms, it doesn’t concern you much. For you think of it as a number, but we don’t. We think of it as a value of probability, a number that denotes probability; we understand probability, not the reality itself. You think it is supposed to refer to a reality, and say there is no such thing.”
PS – It is a probability, it should be seen as a number that denotes the size of the probability, not reality. It gives a probability function, it can be “m”, mass, or “E”, energy –you can think of it this way.
MB – So, it can manifest as mass, or as energy, “E”. This is the probability it expresses. What about c2, doesn’t it express a speed?
PS – Well, it is a wave, in fact, a very speedy wave. It has an imaginary aspect because it is a wave; whenever the sinusoidal function is involved…
MB – Look, this is very important. This was one of the things I was planning to call attention to. We can comprehend a sinusoidal wave.
PS – When you think about the implications of that, “e” is an exponential, in other words, we see a degradation with the number “e”. Or we see an ascension. That is to say, these are motions within the universe. It is the same whether you have a macro perspective or a micro perspective. Thus, we perceive something in sinusoidal motion. When you look at time intervals, event intervals, or space intervals, it doesn’t really matter, the probability of observing an event in an interval is determined by the square of these wave functions.
MB – Why do you use the square, Sir?
PS – First of all, we should rid this of any imaginary notions. I mean, even if it is a negative value… Of course, a negative value can have different connotations in philosophical terms, but from the perspective of physics, this is what I mean. It is really nice to think about these things, in fact, and I am leaving it to you. So, even if it is a negative value, when you take the square of it, it becomes positive, it becomes a concrete value.
MB – This is a very important point. So, taking the square is a means of making it positive, making it factual.
PS – Making it mathematical.
MB – Even though it is used in mathematics, the mathematical imaginary number is necessary to make sinusoidal movements factual. This is because – and there are many “because”s… One of the reasons is the area function. It has to be a square to be an area function. Otherwise, you cannot obtain an area, you would only have a line. Sinusoidal means it is an area scan. An area scan means a square.
PS – We have the area to be able to explain the movement. If it were linear movement…
MB – Of course, it is not linear, we have an area scan. When we say area scan, we are talking about a “square,” and when say “square,” it expresses an area scan. It doesn’t mean there is a speed that is equal to the multiplication of the speed by itself, it means it is moving over an area. This is where the concept of field gets involved. So, there is an understanding related to area scan of a movement, right?
PS – Isn’t an electron something that rotates on an orbit? It is a cloud-like rotation, the movement of the electrons is an area movement, not rotation following a single line.
MB – Now, let’s keep thinking about this. Let’s consider the dimension it adds to our thinking. What does it say?
A Concept without a System is Undefined
The idea in classical physics was that there were two different elements in the universe: matter, or mass, and energy. How was a matter defined in classical physics? What do you understand when you hear the term “matter”? You can enrich the definition by saying it occupies space, has mass and volume, and subject to attraction, but let’s focus on one: Anything that occupies space is matter. In that case, we would need to define space. What is this space that matter occupies? How do we “occupy” space? Right? What do the terms “space” and “occupy” denote? How is space occupied? What are we saying, really? What is matter? Now, as we provide definitions for each of these concepts, the sentence will start to make sense, and what we call “matter” will be defined. Or we will not have said anything; there will be a design, but all the lights must be on for that design to shed light on the meaning behind it. When only one of them is on, it doesn’t work. When I say “only one,” think of each word in that sentence as a light. We can form this design, right? Now, we would like to have the light of “matter” to be on, but if the light of “space” is off, the light of “object” is off, the light of “occupy” is off, then the light of “matter” will also be off, because there will be no energy flow between them. So, if we were to think of what we call conceptualization as a whole, consisting of relationships, we would obtain a system. No concept devoid of a system is defined. But, there is something interesting here; when we reach the universe –and this is the meaning of the word “universe,” any system is a universe, not a world; it has a different meaning, and universe has a different meaning– when we reach any system, we are talking about a universe. Is the point of reference to understand that universe within the universe, or outside? Do we need other references? Are we to look at it using another system of references? If so, would we transform it? If we were to use its own system of references to look at it, would this closure create any awareness? Is being identical meaningless? Now, these are philosophical definitions.
Energy and matter are considered to be two separate facts in classical physics. Matter is inert, visible, has a mass, and occupies space; energy, on the other hand, is in motion, invisible, has no mass, and is not perceived to occupy space, but it is an invisible reality that is in motion. In Newtonian physics, this was how the two were understood, separately. Matter is one thing, energy is another; they were defined and understood independent of one another, they were distinguished from one another. With the equation E=mc2, Einstein showed that the two are one and the same thing; what we call matter is condensed energy, and the distinction between them is a matter of transformation. When we say “Aristotelian logic,” we in fact refer to a logic used by people who have never even heard of Aristotle. Aristotelian logic is a logic of “true or false.” Something is either true or false, there is no third possibility. Something is either identical to itself or not, in which case, it is something else, there is no third state. This logic consists of absolutist and discrete ideas such as, if a thing occupies a specific space at a specific time, there can be nothing else at that time and space. Calling this the “Aristotelian logic” serves to describe its location in the scientific literature, but it is the kind of logic used in ordinary language all the time. Later, it was also called “formal logic.”
The Newtonian thinking, similarly, is an attitude of our consciousness that is conditioned by familiar senses and perceptions. Using this attitude, we try to comprehend things in a duality. It is also based on the Aristotelian logic. Comparison is not possible without having two things; when we compare, we necessarily have two things distinguished from one another. How are these two things to be comprehended when they are associated with one another? They are to be comprehended through comparing and contrasting, by identifying their similarities and differences; but we will comprehend them as two separate substances. Regarding what we call matter and energy, Einstein says “They are the same thing; they are of the same substance, we are talking about the same thing,” and points to their transformation. If they transform to one another, does that imply they are two separate things? No. What is this transformation, then? Am I making myself clear? Do you notice any problems here, in terms of conceptualization? So, when I say “transformation”, I am saying this here is a mass, the mass of the hat, and when I burn the hat, we get energy, heat energy. There is a transformation between the mass of this hat and this heat energy. “This transformed into that. This is one thing, and this is another thing.” This is how I understand the situation, a duality. This was how Newton understood things too, and he was right. Why is Einstein messing things up? He says, that thing you call “energy” is the same as this. This hat is one and the same thing with what you call “energy,” to which you transformed it. They are substantially the same. They have the same substance, but different forms. What are these forms? It is philosophical, when I say “form,” I mean in a philosophical sense. They have different energy levels, but they are the same being; we are talking about the same being with different energy levels. In that case, we are trying to comprehend a being on the basis of relationships between energy levels. So, when we say E=mc2, we are not saying “there is energy, and then there is mass, and they transform into one another.” Mass with energy, mass with energy, it’s always mass with energy. Mass with energy changes states, and its energy levels change. It is also speed, of course –but when you think of it as “momentum”– it is a change in speed, a change in mass. A change in mass means a change in time. Time is also part of the picture.
Rational Time Became Real Time
“Time,” rational time, used to be an outside measurement tool we had. No, we are talking about real time. What do I mean? How does time become real? Wasn’t time something we measured from the outside? I wear a watch on my wrist, observe events, note down the time that passed, and look at the distance covered – this is how I establish relationships. However, for the object itself to exist as mass and energy, it requires movement. Einstein has a very famous saying: “Understanding the laws of physics means understanding the laws of movement. What we are talking about is the laws of movement.” In that case, what is it that exists? Is it movement? Are we comprehending the laws of movement? When we say movement, who is moving? What is it that moves? It is the matter that moves. In mechanical terms, as a form of external movement, this was something very easy to comprehend in Newtonian physics. However, this understanding of movement does not change the existence of the object. According to Einstein, the object itself is not inert; all of its internal particles are in motion, and the existence of the object itself is related to a state of movement. When the state of movement changes, this becomes something else, acquires another dimension or another state. If we have movement, what is it that moves? Matter. What is this matter that moves? It is something that does not exist in the absence of movement. In the absence of movement, we don’t even have something do describe as “moving” or “not moving.” It exists thanks to movement. If so, how does that thing called “movement” exist? When we say an “object” and think of a substance, the separation here is a Newtonian separation; it is comprehensible by our mind but distorts objective reality. It is something like this: The pen moves relative to the desk and all parts of the reference system around. We have no problem here. We can check how much distance it covered in how much time, and everything is fine. The pen exists, and it moves relative to other things. There is nothing complicated here. This is what Newton did too. All measurements were based on this. Einstein, however, says something else. The thing that moves cannot exist without motion. So, what is the substance here? Is it movement itself, or the thing that moves?
We are talking about light. What are called “luxons” do not exist in the absence of movement, they exist with movement. Luxons, what we call “light,” exist at 300.000 km/s; otherwise, they don’t exist. Now, is it the case that these particles we call “luxons” exist independently and move at 300.000 m/s? No, this is impossible because in the absence of a speed of 300.000 km/s, they don’t exist. Saying “Something exists and moves at a speed of 300.000 km/s” is not accurate. I am trying to push you to think hard about this issue; physical findings and their confirmation through experiment and in practice, as well as industrial applications, are very clear. But what is exactly happening here? Comprehending that, comprehending our existence… What should we think about these issues? Let’s push a little more. Even when we say “Einstein showed that the two are one and the same thing; what we call matter is condensed energy, and the distinction between them is a matter of transformation,” we are comprehending the fact of duality and transformation into one another using external duality, and we are mistaken.
We Should Say Equivalence Instead of Equation
“Some contemporary theoreticians claimed that such transformation was not possible.” This is the debate now. “Some contemporary theoreticians claimed that E=mc2 could not represent a transformation. They claim the equation E=mc2 in fact represents a matter changing forms. What is meant here is the following: Energy has a mass too. Therefore, you cannot say mass transforms into energy. Mass has energy too, so you cannot say energy transforms into mass.” Einstein said “We have a transformation here, denoted by E=mc2.” There is a matter, and this matter is also defined as condensed energy. What did you say in the beginning? Matter is what occupies space and hits my senses. Having a volume, occupying space, all these things don’t mean anything to Einstein. Einstein says, “Matter is condensed energy.” This is his definition. This is what he understands from “matter.” Matter is condensed energy. What, then, is energy? It is rarefied matter. What are these two? They are the same thing. What is happening here? Transformation. What transforms into what? One transforms into the other. Then, we have two things, and “One transforms into energy until it has zero mass,” says Einstein. Mass transforms into energy until it is completely spent. However, energy has mass. It doesn’t transform into anything. So, recent theoreticians say, “The equation E=mc2 in fact represents a changing of form in matter.”
What is meant here is the following: Energy has a mass too. Therefore, we cannot claim that mass transforms into energy or energy transforms into mass. A more proper way of expressing this would be: The relationship E=mc2 means that, in the case of change in either direction, the sum of the relative mass and the relative energy of the system remains the same. This applies to all sorts of change in the E=mc2 relationship; “this is a relationship,” it says, and there is movement. When you have movement in some place or in an object, that movement will create pozitsio, various states. There is a relationship between these states. The relationship between states is also a system. This is relationship, they are related to one another, they are relative, and we follow the movements of mass and energy in this relativity. The sum of relative movements, or the sum of relative changes in mass and energy is “one.” In other words, the unity of relative mass and energy on the “E” side, on the energy side, is equivalent to relative energy and mass on the other side. There is no such thing as “matter is on this side, and energy is on the other side,” for we are talking about the same thing. E and mc2 are the same thing, because if we were to call them “equal”, we would have two separate beings. If, however, it is the same being, then the word “equal” is not appropriate here, whereas equivalence denotes identity. We do not have “two separate relative masses,” it expresses the permanence of the relative existence of mass and energy throughout their changes. This is more or less how a philosophical comprehension of the phenomenon works.
We Need Intuitive Imagination
General relativity and special relativity; relativity in fixed systems depending on fixed speeds, and relativity of systems in mutual change. You can think both ways. There is one constant, according to what? According to the identification of other variables, or the identification of two variables on the basis of one another; the trouble starts when you say “two variables.” This is not something easy to understand, but it helps us think, and has a deep influence in terms of questioning ourselves and comprehending ourselves in objective reality. If we can form a deep connection with this, these conceptual efforts can create extraordinary change in our intuition. That intuition can later flesh out the concepts. I think of intuition as an image; if there is no intuitive imagination dwelling in the concept, then they are mere words, or sounds reaching our ears. If concepts do not lead you to form connotations, images, or designs, this indicates your faculty of understanding is not active. However, designs you are to form in these fields cannot be based on empirical or sensory designs you perceive in the objective environment. On the contrary, they act as obstacles. Now, we have this problem. We are hesitating between the universe of our senses and the universe of our intellect and experimental reality. How are we to achieve comprehension among all this hesitation? How are we to make sense of it?
* Based on the recordings of a series of speeches given by Metin Bobaroğlu between January and June, 1999, in the Faculty of Fine Arts of Marmara University on “Einstein’s Theory of Objective Relativity”. Translated by Dr. Emre Eren Korkmaz, and revised by the editorial board.