Albert Einstein in the address “Aether and the theory of Relativity” delivered on May 5th 1920 at the University of Leyden Germany indicated that The General Theory of Relativity predicts, “space is endowed with physical qualities”.

“Recapitulating, we may say that according to the General Theory of Relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists Aether.  According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.  But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts, which may be tracked through time.  The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”

But why have the best minds in the scientific community been unable devise an experiment to detect the physical properties of space that Einstein was so sure must exist to support the propagation of light.

The reason may be because they are not looking in the right direction.

For example 1887 Albert Michelson and Edward Morley devised an experiment to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary Aether (“Aether wind”) by creating a device that sent yellow light from a sodium flame through a half-silvered mirror that was used to split it into two beams traveling at right angles to one another. After leaving the splitter, the beams traveled out to the ends of long arms where they were reflected back into the middle by small mirrors. They then recombined on the far side of the splitter in an eyepiece, producing a pattern of constructive and destructive interference. If the Earth is traveling through an Aether medium, a beam reflecting back and forth parallel to the flow of Aether would take longer than a beam reflecting perpendicular to the Aether because the time gained from traveling downwind is less than that lost traveling upwind.

However they did not observe a fringe shift and therefore conclude that space did not contain the “physical medium” called Aether. This negative result is generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the then prevalent Aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, in which the stationary Aether concept has no role.  The experiment has been referred to as “the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution”.

However Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity did not endow space with the physical qualities of mass, he endowed it with the geometric properties of a space-time dimension.  Therefore, when Einstein referred to space as having physical properties he may not have been referring to the physical properties of a medium made up of mass such as the “Aether” but those imparted to it by the geometry of space-time.

The significance of changing one perspective form space having the physical properties associated with mass to one of the geometric properties of space or a space-time dimension can be best understood if, as has been done many times in the Imagineer’s Chronicles one transposes Einstein’s space-time universe to one of four *spatial* dimensions.  This is because one could use the physicality of the spatial dimensions instead of the non physical properties of a time or space-time dimension to derive the physical properties of Einstein’s space. 

Einstein made this possible when he derived the geometric properties space-time, energy and the dynamic balance between it and mass in terms of the constant velocity of light and the equation E=mc^2. 

For example he told us the energy associated with mass causes a curvature or contraction in the “surface” of space-time and when mass is converted to energy it causes the three-dimensional properties of space-time to expand because of a decrease in its curvature he associated with that event.  This spatial expansion and contraction would be analogous to how the two-dimensional surface of a balloon either expands of contract when air (energy) is added or taken away from it.

Observations of our environment tell us that all forms of mass have a spatial component or volume and because of the equivalence defined by Einstein one must assume that energy also has a spatial component.  However, one can use the fact that the equation E=mc^2 uniquely defines the geometric properties of a space-time universe in terms of both energy and mass to convert or transpose the curvature in space-time Einstein’s equations associated with energy to one that would define it in terms of a curvature in a four *spatial* dimensions associated with the *spatial* properties of mass.

Additionally because the velocity of light is constant it allows for the defining of a one to one qualitative and quantitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

This was the bases for assuming as was done in the article “Defining energy” Nov 27, 2007 that one can derive all forms of energy in terms of a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth spatial dimension.

Additionally it tells us the medium Einstein referred to in his address at the University of Leyden was most likely the geometry of three-dimensional space because his theories show that space it in itself has physical properties in that it can cause changes in its environment similar to how the geometric expansion and contraction of the two dimension surface of a balloon can cause physical changes in its environment.

If it is true that the physical medium Einstein was referring to was related to the geometric properties space and not a properties of mass as we are suggesting one should be able to explain why Albert Michelson and Edward Morley were unable to detect it in terms of the concepts contained in that article.

Part of the answer can be found in the article “The causality of motion” May 1, 2013 which derived the causality of an inertial reference frame in terms of the relative separation the “surfaces” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly it showed the causality of all accelerated motion including gravitational was a result of the interaction of an inertial reference frame with the slope of a curvature in the “surface” of three-dimensional space while deriving the causality of its inertial properties in terms of a constant linear displacement of two different “surfaces” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

(This curvature is analogous to a curvature in a four-dimensional space-time manifold Einstein theorized was the causality of all accelerated reference frames.)

In other words it showed the energy of relative motion was not imparted to it by its motion through space but by a displacement of its three-dimensional geometry with respect to fourth *spatial* dimension.

However this means the casualty of the forces experience by the components of an inertial reference frame in constant motion are an integral part of the geometry of their moving environment and therefore would not be dependent of their relative motion.

The theoretical significance of defining the causality of constant motion in terms of the geometry of four *spatial dimensions is that it allows one to understand why the propagation of light or electromagnetic energy is independent of the motion of an inertial reference frame.

As mentioned the article “Defining energy” Nov 27, 2007 derive all forms of energy in terms of a geometric displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

This was the basis for defining the causality of electromagnetic energy in the article “What is electromagnetism?“ Sept, 27 2007 in terms of the differential force caused by the “peaks” and “toughs” of a matter wave moving on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly it showed it is possible to derive the electromagnetic properties of electromagnetism by extrapolating the geometric properties of a three-dimensional environment to a matter wave moving on a “surface” of three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

A wave on the two-dimensional surface of water causes a point on that surface to be become displaced or rise above or below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present.  A force will be developed by the differential displacement of the surfaces, which will result in the elevated and depressed portions of the water moving towards or become “attracted” to each other and the surface of the water.

Similarly a matter wave on the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension would cause a point on that “surface” to become displaced or rise above and below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present.

Therefore, classical wave mechanics, if extrapolated  to four *spatial* dimensions tells us a force will be developed by the differential displacements caused by a matter wave moving on a “surface” of three-dimensional space with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension that will result in its elevated and depressed portions moving towards or become “attracted” to each other.

This defines the causality of the attractive forces of unlike charges associated with the electromagnetic wave component of a photon in terms of a force developed by a differential displacement of a point on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

However, it also provides a classical mechanism for understanding why similar charges repel each other because observations of water show that there is a direct relationship between the magnitudes of a displacement in its surface to the magnitude of the force resisting that displacement.

Similarly the magnitude of a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension caused by two similar charges will be greater than that caused by a single one.  Therefore, similar charges will repel each other because the magnitude of the force resisting the displacement will be greater for two charges than it would be for a single charge.

One can define the causality of electrical component of electromagnetic radiation in terms of the energy associated with its “peaks” and “troughs” that is directed perpendicular to its velocity vector while its magnetic component would be associated with the horizontal force developed by that perpendicular displacement.

However, Classical Mechanics tells us a horizontal force will be developed by that perpendicular or vertical displacement which will always be 90 degrees out of phase with it.  This force is called magnetism.

This is analogous to how the vertical force pushing up of on mountain also generates a horizontal force, which pulls matter horizontally towards the apex of that displacement.

However this also defines the causality of the electromagnetic properties of light and its propagation in terms of the physicality of the dimensional properties of space.

Yet this also means that the propagation of light would not be depend on the existence of the physical properties of mass as most including Albert Michelson and Edward Morley associated with the aether but only on the physicality of of the geometric properties of space.

This also means the velocity of light would not be influenced by the relative motion of an inertial reference frame because as mentioned earlier all of its components including light share the same geometry and therefore the same relative velocity.

This suggests that the “Aether” or the medium Einstein said must exist to support the propagation of light, and the existence for standards of space and time is a physical property of the geometry of space and not that of an independent element as is suggested by the modern interpretation of the Albert Michelson and Edward Morley.

However it also means that according to Einstein space-time concepts no experiment no matter how sensitive to motion will be able to detect any change in the velocity light due to the relative motion of an inertial reference frame.

Latter Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2013

According to Newton’s view, force does not the cause motion but only a change in it and because a freely moving object continues to move inertia and motion in itself needs no causal explanation.

However as Gao, Shan points out in on page 29 of his book “God Does Play Dice with the Universe” there is a problem with that concept of motion because:

“According to Newton, neither external force nor internal force is the cause of constant motion. So there is only one possibility left , i.e., that motion has no cause.  In other words the change in position or state of an object due to a constant velocity does not have cause.

However modern science is based on the assumption that all changes in the state of a system require a cause.  In other words one cannot integrate the Newtonian concept of motion or the change in position associated with it into our current scientific paradigms which are based almost entirely on causality”.

Granted Einstein was able to define the causality of gravity and accelerated motion in terms of curvature in four dimensional space-time and the relativistic properties of motion in terms of that same four dimensional model however he was unable or did not chose to address the causality of that motion and the inertia Newton associated with it. 

However he did provide us with the conceptual foundations for the deriving the causality of inertia and constant motion when he define the dynamic relationship between space, time, energy, and mass in terms of the constant velocity of light and the equation E=mc^2.

Einstein defined accelerate motion in terms of a curvature in space-time and a dynamic balance between mass and energy defined by the equation E=mc^2.  However when he used the constant velocity of light in that equation to define that balance he provided a method of converting a unit of space he associated with mass to a unit of acceleration he associated with energy.   Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also defined a one to one quantitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

In other words by defining the geometric properties of a space-time universe in terms of mass/energy and the constant velocity of light he provided a qualitative and quantitative means of redefining his space-time universe in terms of the geometry of four *spatial* dimensions.

As mentioned earlier Einstein’s equation E=mc^2 tells us there is a dynamic relationship between the geometric properties of our universe and mass/energy in that when one coverts mass to energy in a closed three-dimensional *spatial* environment, the space it is made up of expands while if one coverts energy to mass that environment contracts.

This is analogous to how the two-dimensional surface of a balloon either expands or contracts with respect to three-dimensional space when air (energy) is either added or removed from it.

Observations of our environment tell us that all forms of mass have a spatial component or volume and because of the equivalence defined by Einstein one must assume that energy also has a spatial component.  However, because the equation E=mc^2 uniquely defines the geometric properties of a space-time universe in terms of both energy and mass one can use it to convert or transpose the curvature in space-time Einstein’s associated with gravity and accelerated reference frames to a curvature or displacement in “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimensions

This fact that one can quantitatively derive the spatial properties of all forms of energy including that associated with constant motion in a space-time universe in terms of four *spatial* dimensions is one of the bases of assuming as was done in the article “Defining energy” Nov 27, 2007 that all forms of energy can be derived in terms of a spatial displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

One of the theoretical advantages to transposing Einstein space-time concepts to four *spatial* dimensions is that it allowsone define a common mechanism for the causality of gravity, acceleration, inertia and constant motion.

For example the article “Why Space-time?” Sept. 27, 2007 showed the energy associated with rest mass is directly proportional to the magnitude of a curvature or “depression” in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.  Additionally it was shown that one can derive the causality of all accelerations including gravitational in terms of an interaction of rest mass with the slope of a curvature in the “surface” of three-dimensional space caused by that displacement.

(This curvature is analogous to a curvature in a four-dimensional space-time manifold Einstein theorized was the causality of all accelerations.)

However as was shown in the article “Defining energy” there will be a 1 to 1 correspondence between an objects rest mass and the curvature in space associated with the energy required to make a unit change in its displacement with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.  Therefore the inertia of an object, as is confirmed by observations would be directly proportional to its rest mass if one assumes as was done in that article that causality of both is related to a displacement caused by a curvature in “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to fourth *spatial* dimension.  This allows one to define the causality of inertia in terms of an interaction of the rest mass of an object with a curvature in a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a four *spatial* dimensions.

This also to defines the causality of constant motion because according to the theoretical concepts presented in that articlethe energy associated with its momentum would be defined by a constant linear displacement of the depression associated with its rest mass in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Therefore motion will continue unchanged unless it interacts with the curved “surface” of three-dimensional space that article associated with accelerations. This allows one to define the casualty constant motion in terms of a linear or constant displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

However it also enables one to define causality of the relative properties of constant motion because according to the concepts develop in that article the momentum of an object in motion would be determined by the relative separation its three-dimensional “surface” has with respect to the three-dimensional “surface” of the object or measuring device used to determine its velocity.  In other words all motion is relative because its causality is directly related to the relative separation of its three-dimensional “surface” with respect to the three-dimension “surface” of another object or measuring device.

This defines a causal link between constant motion inertia, rest mass gravity and all accelerations in terms of an interaction of the “surfaces” of a three-dimensional space manifold and a fourth *spatial* dimension.

This cannot be done in terms of four dimensional space-time because it does not allow for the linear displacement of a “surface” of three-dimensional space with respect to a time dimension.

This shows how one can integrate the causality of a change in position associated with constant motion into our current scientific paradigms which are based almost entirely on causality and conceptually link it with Einstein’s concept of gravity and accelerate motion in terms of four *spatial* dimensions.

Additionally it allows one to fully integrate the Newtonian concept of motion or the change in position associated with it into our current scientific paradigms which are based almost entirely on causality

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2013