Up to now we haven’t found any primordial matter but only energy impulses within an insubstantial structure, quanta, which only became manifest because of the observer or because of the measuring instrument. Why does the world appear to be so compact, so substantial, nonetheless that the physicists had to invent the concept of mass? What does the visible and tangible of the cosmos consist of?
imagine a fan wheel. When we make its blades rotate and accelerate them,
they soon look like a disc (figure 13). The faster the blades rotate,
the more compact the image of the disc becomes. Soon we could not put
our hand into it anymore. When the blades of the fan are so fast that
they are almost everywhere at the same time, we have a wheel in front of
us that offers considerable resistance, a wheel that does not exist in
reality. But it would not go well with a wheel of the same kind.
In this formula, a velocity, namely that of light, is also decisive
whether an event appears as energy or as mass. But we will deal with
this formula at a later point.
we now remove all blades except for one and call this fragment, which is
nearly invisible during rotation, “quantum of action” (a favourite
trick of the physicists), we still don’t find any “mass” in the
whole model which would correspond to our observation. Therefore we
don’t want to use such an imaginary concept for mass as an argument at
all. Up to now we have discovered only three concepts which are
obviously responsible for the image of the cosmos: space, time, and
search for the world formula has been a goal that scientist have been
striving for since time immemorial. Of course, the universe is not
designed according to one formula – and therefore such a search is
quite futile. After all, that would be as if a baker could make all his
produce according to one single recipe! But if there was such a
universal formula it could only be restricted to those three concepts
which we discovered, and actually it would have to be immanent to or be
the basis of all calculations of our so-called reality in some way.
Shall we try to create a world formula with these three concepts? Would
it be possible to express the relationship of these three abstract
When we pay close attention to how these three concepts are related to each other in our fan wheel, the following strange equation is the result:
should be all? Is this strange formula of any use? We are going to verify
it immediately with a little
assume the fan blade of our thought experiment is approx. 32 cm long. The
path of its revolution is thus ca. 2 meters. Now, we are making the blade
rotate giving it a velocity
of one revolution per second - i.e. 2m/sec. Since we do not believe in
“real mass“ we invent the term apparent mass
in order to paraphrase an action of mass of the accelerated blade (even if
professional physicists are getting into a flap right now!). At the same
time we postulate: the quantum of action of the non-moving blade equals 1
“blade“ - and it doesn’t matter in the least what we would like
to understand by that because all dimensions and units of this
world were chosen arbitrarily. Even the physicists use “Planck’s
quantum constant“ in their calculations in a similar way. And 1 blade is
just our empirically determined quantum of action.
absolutely unconcerned we are calculating:
2 what? 2 meters? But it looks as though the quantum of action of the blade has already doubled, i.e. 2 “blades“. Well, it has to be more than the non-moving blade, hasn’t it? But this does still not impress us considerably. In truth, we only just calculated the travel by means of the velocity. Newton did something very similar with the velocity of the planets (v²) - and what he calculated by means of the orbital radius (r) was one fictitious cause of the planetary motion, a centre of “mass” in kg! For that purpose he needed additionally a coefficient of proportionality, the constant of gravitation, which he had to estimate by rule of thumb because Cavendish determined it only about 100 years
The result is 512 “blades“. Should this number now really express the present effect, possibly the action of mass (quantity of matter) ? Does the obtained disc now really act as if it had 512 times the effect of the blade? And is this effect nothing else but the effect of kinetic energy? If this was the case we should be able to calculate our originally assumed quantum of action of 1 “blade“ from this apparent mass by means of the usual formula for kinetic energy (kin.E=l/2 m•v2) which includes a mass after all. We rearrange the formula to get:
Thus, we really get again the effect 1 which we assigned to the blade. This confirms our suspicion that our apparent mass means the same as kinetic energy and from that we have to conclude that every action of mass we become aware of is based on an energy that works through motion.
Naturally we also get the number 512 this way. It reveals the magnitude of the “quantity of action“ – the mass by motion. And indeed the fan disc would offer a corresponding resistance. Apart from one constant which we invented to define a unit of action we were calculating with absolutely abstract concepts. Hence the world seems to consist of literally nothing! He who raises the objection that in fact the fan wheel has not increased its mass but its density is on the right track. Because we will discover in the chapters “Gravity“ and “Inertia“ that in truth not the masses play any role for the gravitational effects of bodies but the density of the