Following the lead of William James, Russell developed the doctrine of neutral monism in his The Analysis of Mind (1921). According to this doctrine, the world is neither mental nor material, but composed of some neutral stuff which, organized according to the laws of physics are physical objects, matter, and when organized according to the laws of psychology are minds. James held that Mind and Matter are merely two different ways in which reality is organized. James held that the stuff which gets organized is "pure experience". This position gave him a number of advantages. He could avoid the mind-body dualism; he could explain how an object in one's person world could become an object in another's; and how "our minds could meet in a world of objects which they share in common." Russell abandoned this "pure experience" as the basic constitutent of the world. In his The Analysis of Mind (1921) Russell set out to construct the conscious mind out of sensation and images and gives a behavioristic analysis of desire, belief, and emotions. The results are admittedly equivocal. As to physical objects, Russell held that if they were not defined in terms of sense experience, we would have no way of knowing anything about them, but also we would not be able to understand them. Our knowledge about them is based on our knowledge by acquaintance of them. In his The Analysis of Matter (1927), Russell sets forth his view that the ultimate constitutents of the world are events. He does not continue to call his view "neutral monism", even though Chapter XXXVII is titled "PHYSICS AND NEUTRAL MONISM". He distinguishes between "mental events" and "physical events" that are "compresent". He asks, "Can a mental event be compresent with physical events?" He continues, "If yes, then a mental event has a position in the space-time order; if no, then it has no such position. This, therefore, is the crucial question." His analysis of mental events seems to reduce them to physical events, though he tries carefully not to identify mental events with physical events. His psychological analysis of mental events is behavioristic which treats mental events as causal processes of percepts in the brain. Russell says,
"When I maintain that a percept and physical event can be compresent, I am not maintaining that a percept can have to a piece of matter the sort of relation which another piece of matter would have. The relation of compresence is between a percept and a physical event, and physical events are not to be confounded with pieces of matter. A piece of matter is a logical structure composed of events; the causal laws of events concerned, and the abstract logical properties of their spatio-temporal relations, are more or less known, but their intrinsic character is not known." [1]
According to Whitehead, events occur, and objects relate to each other, in a four-dimensional space-time manifold, which he called the extensive continuum. The geometric properties of this field are defined by the method of extensive abstraction. Points, lines, planes, and other geometric elements, are ideal limits of converging classes of the appropriate kinds. For example, squares and circles converge to a point, while rectangles converge to line segments. These ways of approximation toward an ideal limit (compare the concept of the limit in differential calculus) involve time as well as space. Indeed, the character of space is dependent upon the character of time, and the ways of approximation of geometrical elements are fixed by the intersection of alternate time-systems. The ultimate elements of the space-time manifold are event-particles. An event-particle is an instantaneous point-flash, a point-event, or a point of instantaneous space, as much an instant of time as a point of space. Geometrical elements can thus be described as the loci of the complete set of event-particles covered by appropriately intersecting moments of different time-systems.
Whitehead's theory of relativity differs from that of Einstein by being grounded in philosophical realism rather than operationalism. They differ also with respect to the importance of events. Where Einstein derived events from the intersecting of particles of matter, Whitehead derived matter from events as one of their contingent characteristics. Finally, where Einstein sought a unified field theory, Whitehead stressed the atomicity of nature as well as its continuity. In a unified field theory Whitehead thought that no knowledge would be impossible for finite minds with only partial perception of the world.
In his Special Theory of Relativity (1905), Einstein abandoned the Classical assumption of an absolute space and time. This change brought a new unity to the field of physics, and led to many fruitful results. This new view holds that time, space and velocity is relative to the inertial system; simultaneity can be established only within a given inertial system and will not be the same for observers in motion relative to a given system. Einstein developed transformation equations relating time, space and velocities as measured by two separate and moving systems of reference. In these equations the speed of light is a constant but the mass of body increases and time slows down as the speed of body increases approaching the speed of light. Einstein was impelled by these new transformation equations to apply the transformation equations to kinetic energy and radiant energy. In a second paper in 1905, titled, "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?" [2] Einstein proposed the following problem. Suppose a body emits acertain amount of radiant energy L, and that we compare the total energy before and after the emission of the light energy, both from a frame of reference stationary with respect to the source and from a frame of reference that is moving with a velocity relative to the source. Einstein concluded.
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, the mass diminishes by L/c2. The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference, so that we are led to the more general conclusion thatIn other words, there is a form of energy associated with mass m of a particle, which is called the total energy E of a particle with a rest mass m0 and moving with the speed v; this is defined it to beThe mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content; if the energy changes by L, the mass changes in the same sense by L/9 × 1020, the energy being measured in ergs, and the mass in grammes.
It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy-content is variable to a high degree (e.g. with radium salts) the theory may be successfully put to the test.
If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies." [3]
Einstein constantly in his paper refers to inertia rather than mass. Thus, there culminates a long development starting with Newton's definition of mass as "quantity of matter," which carried with it the intuitive (and Aristotlian) sense of substance. Inertia, in modern physics, can hardly be identified as an innate property of a body. It is defined in terms of reaction with other bodies. In modern physics it is measured by the effect that one body has upon some other bodies external to it. And now Einstein's formulation advances this concept. Light energy possesses inertia just as much as do "ponderable" bodies, which are attracted to other "ponderable, massive bodies." It therefore possesses "mass." Furthermore, just as "energy" possesses mass, we can think of mass in terms of its energy equivalence, and the two terms, mass and energy, become different ways of describing the same quantity in the universe. And it did not take long for this perdiction of Einstein to be fully confirmed; today, the equivalence of mass and energy and the equation of their transformation E = mc2 has become one of great generalities of modern physics. This equation means that every particle of matter contains a vast amount of energy, which has been demonstrated by many experiments and by the nuclear bomb which has been inaccurately called the "atomic bomb".
The fullest form of the total energy E = mc2
can be derived from
E = γE0, or
E = E0/
√(1 - v2/c2).
Squaring both sides, we get
E2 = E02/
(1 - v2/c2),
and multiplying both sides by
(1 - v2/c2) we get
E2(1 - v2/c2) =
E02,
and removing the parenthesis on the left side we get
E2 -
E2(v2/c2) =
E02,
and since E = mc2,
substituting it into the second term on the left side, we get
E2 -
(mc2)2
(v2/c2) =
E02,
and squaring (mc2)2
in the second term on the left, we get
E2 -
(m2c4)
(v2/c2) =
E02,
and simplifying the second term on the left side, we get
E2 -
(m2c2v2) =
E02,
and rearranging the factors in the second term on the left side
and moving it the right side, we get
E2 =
(m2v2c2) +
E02,
and replacing m2v2 with
(mv)2, we get
E2 =
(mv)2c2 +
E02,
and substituting p for mv, we get
E2 = p2c2 +
E02 or
(mc2)2 =
(mv)2c2 +
(m0c2)2.
This equation is called mass-energy equivalence, where
E = mc2 is the total energy of the particle,
p = mv is the momentum of the particle, and
E0 = m0c2
is the rest energy of the particle,
where m0 is the rest mass of the particle.
Also from the equation
E = γE0,
we can derive the mass increase relation. Substituting
mc2 for E and
m0c2 for E0,
we get
mc2 =
γm0c2.
Dividing both sides of this equation by c2, we get
m = γm0, or
m = m0/
√(1 - v2/c2)
which is the mass increase relation.
According to this relation, where m0 is the mass of the body
at rest with respect to the observer and m is the mass of the body
moving at the speed v relative to the observer, as the velocity
v of the particle approaches the speed of light c,
the mass increases. It is obvious that this as a definition of mass is
negligibly different from the classical concept of mass except at very high
velocities, since the ratio v2/c2
is ordinarily such a small fraction; the mass m of moving body
is only significantly larger when the speed of the body v
approaches the speed of light c. And as v approaches c,
the ratio v2/c2 becomes almost one; and
γ = √(1 - v2/c2) becomes close
to zero. And since it is in the denominator of this formula for relativistic
inertia (mass) and momentum (mv), these quantities become very large so
that the resistance to acceleration becomes very large also. If the speed
v were to be equal to the speed of light c, then its inertia
(mass) and momentum (mv) would become infinite. But this is not
possible, since it would take an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed
of light. But the mass m of a body is still relative to the speed
v of the body and its rest-mass m0 has a rest-energy
E0 = m0c2,
where E0 is the rest energy of the body and
m0 is the rest mass of the body and
c is the speed of light.
The fact that it is impossible to accelerate an object to a speed
above the speed of light means that Newton's laws of motion must in some
way be modified. Since Newton's laws work well for almost all normal
applications, the modified laws should differ from them only for
speeds near the speed of light. As an object's speed approaches
the speed of light, it becomes harder and harder to accelerate it.
The same force results in a smaller and smaller change in
the speed as the object's speed approaches the speed of light.
That is, in other words, an object's resistance to acceleration,
its inertia, increases. Einstein found that Newton's Second Law
("Force equals the time rate of change of momentum")
could be saved only if the meaning of momentum were modified.
And since momentum p is defined as mv, mass times
velocity, the relativistic version of momentum must be:
p = mv = m0v/
√(1 - v2/c2) =
γm0v,
where
γ = 1/√(1 - v2/c2).
And for the classical definition of momentum as mass times velocity
to hold, then the definition of mass must be modified as follows:
m = m0/
√(1 - v2/c2) =
γm0,
where m0 is the mass of the body at rest with respect
to the observer and m is the mass of the body moving at the
speed v relative to the observer. It is obvious that this
definition of mass is negligibly different from the classical
concept except at very high velocities, since the ratio
v2/c2
is ordinarily such a small fraction; the mass of moving body is
only significantly larger when the speed of the body v
approaches the speed of light c.
In his General Theory of 1916, Einstein generalized the results of the Special Theory from inertial systems to non-inertial systems having gravitational fields. This was necessary in order to account for the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass. In this theory, gravitation is reduced to or is the effect of space-time curvature, and depends upon the masses distributed through the universe. Thus the concept of gravitational force as an action-at-distance force was explained. The confirmation of the General Theory is not as strong as that for the Special Theory; but the bending of light rays as they pass through a strong gravitational field has been observed. And the theory has predicted the expanding universe and that the universe is finite but unbounded.
Einstein attempted to construct a unified field theory that would express all forms of matter and energy in single formula. The theory ran counter to the probabilistic features of the Quantum Theory; it was not successful. Einstein unsuccessful attempt was motivated in part by a preference for a predicatable, deterministic universe. This preference was partly motivated by his acceptance of his teacher Minkowski's conception of world lines in the view of space-time as a four-dimensional continuum in which future events are already determined. Einstein believed that God does not play dice with the universe, and he cited with approval the philosophy of Spinoza whose God expresses Himself in the orderly harmony of all beings.
But since the continuity interpretation of light has been confirmed by interference and diffraction experiments, the present theory of light is dualistic, holding that light has both a continuous and discontinuous aspect. Thus light has a dual nature; it shows wave properties in some situations and particle properties in other. That is, when a light ray exchanges energy with matter, the exchange can be explained on the assumption that a photon is absorbed (or emitted) by matter; on the other hand, if we wish to explain the propagation of light through space, then we can fall back on the assumption that light is waves. A further elaboration of this theory of propagation is that light is a cloud of photons whose density is proportional to the intensity of this wave.
"In this way, therefore, a sort of synthesis of these two ancient rival theories are reached, so that we are enabled to explain interference phenomena as well as the photo-electric effect...." [4]
The photoelectric effect was discovered incidently by Heinrich Hertz in 1887 during the course of his experimental research that at the time furnished the most convincing proof of Maxwell's classical electromagnetic theory. Hertz noticed that electric sparks would jump more readily across the air gap between the metal spheres of the spark gap in the receiving circuit, if they were polished. He soon found that the sparks were influence by the light coming from the sparks in the spark gap of the transmitting circuit. Upon further investigation, he concluded that ultraviolet radiation was responsible for the phenomena and that the effect was greatest when the light fell on the negative terminal (cathode) of the spark gap. Being concerned with other problems, Hertz abandoned further study of the effect. Many others carried on a more detailed investigation of the phenomena. Wilhelm Hallwach showed that this emmission consisted of negative electricity and in 1899 J.J. Thomson published a paper in the Philosophical Magazine in which he showed that the negative electricity ejected by the ultraviolet light have the same e/m ratio as cathode rays. P. Lennard also obtained the same result. These electrons were called photoelectrons.
The photoelectric effect consists in the fact that light upon striking
certain metals cause electrons to be given off, transforming the radiant
energy absorbed by the metal into kinetic energy of emitted electrons.
According classical physics, it would be expected that as the intensity
(thus energy) of light increases, the kinetic energy of the electrons
emitted will increase. This would imply that, as the intensity of the
beam increases, the velocity of the electrons emitted would increase.
The classical view requires that the kinetic energy Ke
of the electron is equal to
Ek =
½mev2,
where me is the mass of the electron, and v its
velocity. But experimentally this is not what happens. Instead, the maximum
velocity given to the electron is constant, regardless of the intensity of the
light, but varies in direct proportion to the frequency.
Einstein explained this in the following way. Electrons are embedded in the
atoms of the metal and are held there by attractive forces. When light is
shined on the surface of the metal of sufficient energy, the energy is used
in two ways:
(1) to overcome the attractive forces holding the electron to the metal
atoms, and,
(2) if there is any energy left over, it imparts that energy to the
electron as kinetic energy.
Therefore, for those electrons near the surface of the metal, less energy
is required to overcome the "binding force," and there is more kinetic
energy available. The "surface" electrons therefore acquire the maximum
kinetic energy. Einstein expressed this relation by the following formula:
hf = W +
½mev2,
where W is the work required to free the electrons from the metal and
is equal hf0 where h is Planck's constant and
f0 is the threshhold frequency below which light will
not free the electron. That is,
W = hf0, where
h = 6.625 × 10-34 joule-sec. Then
hf = hf0 + Ek.
Thus there is a linear relation between the frequency and the
maximum kinetic energy of the electrons emitted. Note that there is nothing
in the equation relating to the intensity of the light causing electron
emission. But although the velocity of the elctrons does not depend in any
way on the intensity of light, the number of electrons emitted does so depend.
From this, Einstein, following
Planck,
concluded that the light is made up of quanta of energy or, as Einstein
called them, photons. The energy of a single photon is given by
hf. However, the more intense of the light, the greater the number
of electrons emitted. The photoelectric emission of a single electron depends
upon the absorption of a single photon.
If the number of photons is increased, the number of emitted electrons is
increased, but no change occurs in the maximum kinetic energy and hence
the velocity of electrons. The Planck's constant h is the same
for all metals. The threshold energy W, which is required to release
electrons, does vary from metal to metal, being so large in the case of some
metals, for example, platinum, that no photoelectric effect occurs.
Now on the basis of the classical wave theory of light, all these phenomena are impossible to be explained. According that theory the energy of a wave of given frequency is dependent on its amplitude. If light consists of waves, the kinetic energy given to the electrons depends upon the amphlitude of the light waves. This explanation fails to hold true for the photoelectric effect.
Einstein introduced modification of this classical theory of electromagnetic
waves to account for photoelectric effect.
Planck
had modified the classical theory by quantizing the atomic oscillators.
But Einstein further modified the theory by quantizing the waves or radiation.
Light consists of quanta of energy, called photons. This theory of
Einstein's that light consists of photons, seemed to be a return to Newton's
corpuscular theory. But light is not material particles but is now regarded
as composed of bundles of energy, called photons, each photon having a certain
amount of energy depending on its frequency or color. In addition, it can be
shown that each photon has certain momentum, equal to hf/c, and
that as the photons strike a substance and are reflected, the change of
momentum causes a small but measurable pressure. But according to the older
wave theory light also had momentum and causes pressure.
Is light, waves or particles?
Since the wave theory cannot explain the photoelectric effect and similar
quantum phenomena, and since the particle theory cannot explain many phenomena
of interference and diffraction, both theories are needed to explain all these
phenomena; they complement each other. Just as light waves have properties
like particles, so light particles have properties like waves.
"in the theory of matter, as in the theory of radiation, it was essential to consider corpuscles and waves simultaneously, if it were desired to reach a single theory, permitting of the simultaneous interpretation of the properties of Light and of those of Matter. It then becomes clear at once that, in order to predict the motion of particles, it was necessary to construct a new Mechanics -- a Wave Mechanics, as it is called today -- a theory closely related to that dealing with wave phenomena, and one in which the motion of a corpuscle is inferred from the motion in space of a wave. In this way there will be, for example, light corpuscles, photons; but their motion will be connected with that of Fresnel's wave, and will provide an explanation of the light phenomena of interference and diffraction. Meanwhile it will no longer be possible to consider the material particles, electrons and protons, in isolation; it will, on the contrary, have to be assumed in each case that they are accompanied by a wave which is bound up with their own motion." [5]De Broglie was even able to predict the wavelength of the associated wave belonging to an electron having a given velocity.
The dynamical variables used in classical mechanics, such as position and momentum, do not have definite values in Quantum Mechanics. Instead they are described by a quantity called a "wave function" into which is encoded probabilistic information about position, momenta, energies, etc. Thus in quantum mechanics the motion of particles is not deterministic, as in classical mechanics, but probabilistic. The wave function for a particular system is found by solving the Schrodinger's equation.
In the case of a single point particle, the wave function may be thought of as an oscilating field spread throughout physical space. At each point in this space it has an amplitude and a wavelength. The square of the amplitude is proportional to the probability of finding the particle at that position; the wavelength, for a constant amplitude wave function, is related to the momentum of the particle. The particle will therefore have a definite position if the wave function is tightly bunched about a particular point in space; and it will have definite momentum if the wavelength and amplitude of the wave function are uniform throughout all of space. Typical wave functions for a system will not be of either of these types and there will be a certain amount of indefiniteness, or uncertainty, in both position and momentum. In particular, because of the mutually exclusive types of wave functions required for definite position and definite momentum, position and momentum cannot be definite simultaneously. This is known as the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and is an elementary consequence of the wavelike nature of particles. In a "coherent" state, which is a compromise between definite position and definite momentum, there is uncertainty in both position and momentum. This means that the laws of physics are no longer deterministic and phenomena that they describe are no longer subject to a rigorous determinism; they only obey the laws of probability. Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainity gave an exact formulation to this fact.
Schrodinger himself offered one of the first interpretations: The electron, he argued, is not a particle; it is a matter wave as the ocean wave is a water wave. According to this interpretation, the particle idea is wrong or only an approximation. All quantum objects, not just electrons, are little waves -- and all nature is a great wave phenomenon. The matter-wave interpretation was rejected by the Gottingen group led by the German physicist Max Born (1882-1970). They knew that one could count individual particles with a Geiger counter or could see their tracks in a Wilson cloud chamber. The corpuscular nature of the electron -- the fact that it behaved like a true particle -- was not a convention. But what, then, were the waves?
It was Max Born himself who answered that perplexing and crucial question. His interpretation mark the end of determinism in physics and the birth of the God-who-plays-dice physics. It occurred in June, 1926, three months after Schrodinger's paper, and it profoundly disturbed the physics community. Born interpreted the de Broglie/Schrodinger wavefunction as specifying the probability of finding an electron at some point in space. What Born said was that the square of the wave amplitude at any point in space gives the probability of finding an electron there. For example, in the region of space where the wave amplitude is large, the probability of finding an electron there is also large. Similarly, where the wave function is small, the probability of finding the electron is also small. The electron is always a true particle and its Schrodinger's wave function only specifies the probability for finding it at some point in space. Born held that the waves are not material, as Schrodinger wrongly supposed; they were waves of probability, similar to actuarial statistic, giving the probable location of individual electrons. The description of the motion of quantum particles is inherently statistical; it is impossible to track them precisely. The best that a physicist can do is to establish the probable motion of a particle.
In Classical Physics, mass is usually defined in terms of Newton's Second
Law of Motion:
F = ma;
that is, the mass m of a body is the ratio of the force F
applied to the body to the acceleration a that this force produces:
m = F/a.
This mass m is usually called inertial mass to distinguish it
from the gravitational mass that produces the gravitational attraction
between two bodies, according to Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation:
F = Gm1m2/r2,
where G is the universal gravitational constant and
m1 and m2 are the masses of
the two bodies that are separated by the distance r between them, and
F is the force of gravitational attraction between the two bodies.
The weight of a body on the earth is the force of gravitational attraction
between the body and the earth. If inertial mass is assumed to be equivalent
to gravitational mass, then the weight of a body is related to inertial mass
by Newton's Second Law of Motion:
w = mg,
where w is the weight of the body and is the force of gravity
exerted on a body by the earth, and g is the acceleration due to
this force of gravity.
To the problem, "Is matter real?",
Idealism says, "No"; the real is the rational (the universal and the
necessary) and the rational is the real, and
Materialism and the older Naturalism says, "Yes"; matter is the only
real.
Classical physics has answered, "Yes"; but
twentieth century physics has answered, "No";
matter is energy; or, more accurately, mass is related to energy:
E = mc2.
Einstein in his
Special Theory of Relativity,
was impelled by his new transformation equations relating time,
space and velocities as measured by two separated and moving systems of
reference, to apply the transformation equations to kinetic energy and
radiant energy. In a second paper in 1905, titled, "Does the Inertia
of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?" Einstein showed
that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content.
In other words, there is a form of energy associated with mass of a particle
and this total energy E of a particle of
mass m0 with the speed v is defined to be
E = mc2 =
m0c2/
√(1 - v2/c2) =
γm0c2,
where
γ = 1/√(1 - v2/c2).
This definition of the total energy of a particle results in the
conservation of energy for a isolated system; but it does not
include potential energy. Notice that the total energy of the
particle is not zero when the particle is at rest.
Setting v = 0 results in
E0 = m0c2,
where E0 is the energy of the particle when it is
at rest, and it is called the rest-mass energy of the particle.
Thus, since
E = γm0c2, then
E = γE0.
This means that every particle of matter contains a vast amount of energy,
which has been demonstrated by many experiments and by the nuclear bomb which
has been inaccurately called the "atomic bomb".
This identification of mass and energy as given in the form of the famous equation E = mc2 governs the transformation of mass into energy and vice versa. Through the application of this equation, many previously unexplained physical phenomena of the universe, such as the apparently inexhaustible source of heat of the sun and the stars, transmutation of radioactive elements, and other nuclear processes, were understood. And its application led to the development of atomic, or more accurately, nuclear energy. It does not tell us how to convert mass into energy, but identifies the amount of energy that is equivalent to the mass of the particle.
The fullest form of E = mc2 can be derived from
E = γE0. We get the following equation.
E2 = p2c2 +
E02 or
(mc2)2 =
(mv)2c2 +
(m0c2)2.
This equation is called mass-energy equivalence, where
E = mc2 is the total energy of the particle,
p = mv is the momentum of the particle, and
E0 = m0c2
is the rest energy of the particle,
where m0 is the rest mass of the particle.
From this mass-energy equivalence relation, the mass-increase relation
can be derived, as follows. Removing the parentheses on both sides, we get
m2c4 =
m2v2c2 +
m02c4.
Dividing both sides by c4. we get
m2 =
m2v2/c2 +
m02.
Solving for m, by moving the
m2v2/c2
term to the left side,
m2 -
m2v2/c2 =
m02,
and factoring out m2 on the left side,
m2
(1 - v2/c2) =
m02,
and dividing both sides by
(1 - v2/c2),
m2 =
m02/
(1 - v2/c2),
and taking the square root of both sides, we get
m =
m0/√(1 -
v2/c2).
According to this relationship, where m0 is the mass of the
body at rest with respect to the observer and m is the mass of the body
moving at the speed v relative to the observer, as the velocity
v of the particle approaches the speed of light c,
the mass increases. It is obvious that this as a definition of mass is
negligibly different from the classical concept of mass except at very high
velocities, since the ratio v2/c2
is ordinarily such a small fraction; the mass m of moving body
is only significantly larger when the speed of the body v
approaches the speed of light c. And as v approaches c,
the ratio v2/c2 becomes almost one; and
√(1 - v2/c2) becomes close to zero.
And since it is in the denominator of this formula for relativistic inertia
(mass) and momentum (mv), these quantities become very large so that
the resistance to acceleration becomes very large also. If the speed v
were to be equal to the speed of light c, then its inertia (mass) and
momentum (mv) would become infinite. But this is not possible, since
it would take an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light. But
the mass m of a body is still relative to the speed v of the
body and its rest-mass m0 has a rest-energy
E0 = m0c2,
where E0 is the rest energy of the body and
m0 is the rest mass of the body and
c is the speed of light.
The entire Special Theory of Relativity is derived directly from two assumptions.
"And the earth was without form, and void;And here in the Hebrew Bible, the subject of light comes up in the story of creation.
and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
(Gen. 1:2 KJV)
"3 And God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light.In the Christian New Testament in the Gospel of John, it says about the eternal Word of God,
4 And God saw that the was good,
and God separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.
And there was evening and there was morning, one day."
(Gen. 1:3-5)