Home - GreenSatContents
Technical University - Sofia, Bulgaria
Peter Rashkov Penchev

Technical University - Sofia

Prof. Dr. Sci. Peter Rashkov Penchev



This book considers only some essential features of the physical world outlook characterizing physics as actualized and materially unified global electrodynamics. In this aspect, the different parts of physics, as mechanics, thermodynamics etc. are only partial cases of actualized classical electrodynamics. The reason for this interpretation of physics is an experimental fact, showed by Newton in his book "Optics" in 1704. Here he proves experimentally in an obvious form that the matter of the bodies and light has one and the same nature. However, with the present day view, which is experimentally proved, it follows that the matter of light is an electromagnetic field, i.e. its matter is electromagnetic one. Because of this fact it follows, that the matter of the bodies has electromagnetic nature as well, but in substantial form.

Since the bodies and light generate an equivalent in nature gravitational field, which by conside-ration of genesis follows to be an electromagnetic field of second order as well, being proportional to the squares and of the alternating components of the well known electromagnetic field, then the gravitational field is unipolar one.

On this bases, the electromagnetic nature of material unity of the World is motivated and author's view concerning the theoretical and logical basis of the physical knowledge is exposed.

More widely, all is exposed in author's book "Another view on physics", Technical University, Sofia, 2000, in print in English. It will appear in Internet for gratis uses and copies. Later it will appear in Bulgarian as well.

Address for correspondence: Bulgaria, Sofia 1797, JK Mladost-1, Bl. 9, Entr. 9, Prof. P. R. Penchev. phone: 392-2-706805.
E-mail: P.Penchev@vmei.acad.bg


I. The formula is discovered by Maxwell, and not by Einstein

II. New interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment

III. The speed of light in vacuum is not constant in principle

IV. On the electromagnetic nature of matter and gravitation

V. Concerning the kernel of the theoretical basis of physics




1.1. In 1619 Johannes Kepler writes in "De comets", that because of the pressure of the solar rays

the tails of the comets deviates in direction opposite to the Sun.

1.2. In 1704, starting with observations of the phenomena of nature, I. Newton writes in his book "Optics": "Each body emits and absorbs light", "Do the large bodies and light transmute one in another?" and "The transmutation of the bodies in light and the transmutation of light in bodies are real processes in nature". From these regularities of nature, it is logical to motivate the law: The matter of light and one of the bodies have a common nature.

1.3. In 1686, I. Newton writes in his book "Principia mathematica...", book I, part XIV, that he is established experimentally attraction of light by bodies, i.e. it has the property attraction, similar to one of the bodies.

1.4. In 1864 J. Maxwell writes in his work "Dynamic theory of electromagnetic field", 3: "This theory, which I propose, could be called the theory of electromagnetic field, ..., since it states, that in this space there is a matter, that moves and by which the observed electromagnetic phenomena appear". In 4 one writes: "The electromagnetic field is this part of space, ..., that is in electric and magnetic state".

1.5. From the aforementioned, logically it follows the law: The matter of light and the bodies, generally as a matter of the World, in nature is only electromagnetic matter in the form of field or substance.


2.1. In 1873 J. Maxwell writes in his work "Treatise of electricity and magnetism": a) in 638 "We must consider both magnetic and electric energies as kinetic energies...", b) in 792 "That is why in a medium, in which waves propagates, pressure perpendicular to the direction of waves exists, and it is numerically equal to the energy per unit volume".

If we denote with  and respectively the densities of mass and energy falling with the speed of light per unit time on area , being in a volume of , then it follows that and . With this conditions, the following relations for the light pressure (according to 792) are in force:


The force on area is

. (2)

2.2. In 1883 in a paper in Nuovo Cimento, 15, p. 195, 1883, the Italian A. Bartoli gives a derivation of Eq. (2a) on the base of thermodynamics.

2.3. In 1900 H. Poincare in "Lorentz-Festschrift, 1900, p. 252, obtains the formula (1a), which is defined by Maxwell in 272 of the treatise.

2.4. In 1906 Einstein writes in the beginning of his paper "Das Prinzip von der Erhaltung der Schwerpunktsbewegung und die Tragheit der Energie", Ann. Phys. 1906, 20, 627-663: "We have showed that to the change of energy  it follows an equivalent change of mass ", "Although that this simple formal consideration, ... , principally is contained in the work of H. Poincare (see 2.3), from considerations of obviousness we shall not state on this work". Here officially and without any doubt Einstein states , that writing the formula (2c) in 1905, he has known the formula (1b) of Poincare, where in essence the idea of 2c) is deposited. Thus Einstein proves, that in essence he does not give the idea, and he does not discover first the formula .

2.5. In 1901 P. Lebedev in Ann. der Phys. 1901, 6, 433, and in 1903 the Americans Nicols and Hull in Ann. der Phys. 1903, 12, 225, independently write that give an experimental proof of the Maxwell's formula for the light pressure  (2a), since then (1901 and 1903 respectively) Einstein had not rediscovered Eq. (2c). But having proved Eq. (2a), the obtaining of Eq. (2c) is elementary.

It is interesting, that Einstein publishes the paper about in the same journal Ann. der Phys., but in 1905, resp. 4 and 2 years after Lebedev and Nicols and Hull, which had proved experimentally in fact the same formula (), which he propose as a new discovery.


The formula is discovered by Maxwell, and not by Einstein, that is why it should be called with the name of ones discoverer - Maxwellian.


In essence, the Maikelson interferometer could be considered as a body with two mutually immobile arms  and , which are mutually perpendicular and have equal constant lengths


With this conditions all points of the interferometer arms are mutually immobile. That is why all its points moves according to the ether with one and the same velocity , including the points at the origins and , and at the ends and of the arms and , i.e.


The speed of light, which in the interferometer may have the points and as light sources, and the points and as acceptors (observers) and vice versa, do not depend on the velocity of the ether according Eq. (2), because these are points of a rigid body. In this case, the Doppler effects for the light from the arms mutually compensate one another, since the Doppler effects for the source and the acceptor are equal in value and opposite in sign for each arm, in right and reverse directions. That is why, with the condition (2), the projection of the resultant velocities of light on the axes of the arms  and  in right and reverse direction are equal in absolute values and coincide with its phase velocity , i.e.

. (3)

According to conditions (1) and (3) the time intervals of light travel in direct and opposite directions along the arms  and  are equal

, (4)

and the difference between them is zero, i.e.

. (5)

From Eq. (5) it follows that there could not be interference between the rays along the arms  and . With rotation of the interferometer at its arms change only ones roles with respect to the ether, in result of which Eq. (5) is valid again and the experiments confirms this. Thus one confirms the adequacy with the reality of the proposed perfection of the theoretical treatment of the Maikelson-Morley experiment. It is received only by classical regularities, without any suppositions ad hoc with aim fitting to the experiment.


1. Introduction

Up to now there is not an experimental corroboration of the statement, that the speed of light  , or the speed of any wave process (mechanical or electromagnetic) is the same with respect to a moving observer (receiver). Just the contrary, there are considerations permitting to measure the speed v of moving object (receiver) on the base of change of the speed of electromagnetic waves by the Doppler effect (DE).

DE manifests itself only in the case of some motion at velocity v  of the source (generator) or the observer (receiver) of a wave process (mechanical or electromagnetic). It is corroborated in optics in 1807. We know that DE change the frequency  and the wavelength  of the wave process in result of motion of the source or the observer, respectively at velocities v and v. Let in the case of a source at rest its frequency and wavelength are and . The motion at velocity vchange them to  and , and the wave velocity of the wave process is


In the case of a moving observer (v) as a result of DE the frequency and the wavelength

generated by the source (resp. or  and or ) change to  and . The velocity of the wave process (mechanical or electromagnetic) with respect to the observer is different. For instance, with light at a) v, and b) v we have


In principle Eqs. (1.1) and (1.2) express DE in the theory of the wave processes regarding the source and the observer, namely the velocity of the wave process with respect to a moving observer is not constant, but depends on the velocity of the observer.

The expression for the light frequency as a result of DE, and on the base of the Lorentz transformations (LT) is specified by Einstein in Ref. [1], 7, and at ? v? for collinear velocities has the form

vv. (1.3)

Ref. [1], 7 do not give anything concerning the wavelength with respect to the observer.

Let it be  for a moving observer. Since according to LT ([1], 4), each length become shorter towards the moving observer with the factor , we have

v. (1.4)

From Eqs. (1.3) and (1.4) (DE gives v) the speed of light with respect to the observer is

vv (1.5)

The same relations are valid for the mechanical waves, but in this case vv, and

. Then the velocity of the mechanical waves obeys Eq. (1.5), without , and instead the mechanical wave velocity  participates.

2. Concerning Einstein's proof that v

In Ref. [1], 5, Einstein uses illegally the formula for the addition of the velocities of the bodies, obtained by LT, in which according to the starting conditions vand . Putting v and , he finds


After this solution, in Ref. [1], 5, one write concerning :"Further, it follows that the velocity of light () can not be changed by addition of a velocity (), which is less than the velocity of light". Generated, the mathematical expression of this quotation, which is a verbal record of Eq. (2.1), is


According to Ref. [1], 5, here (2.1) is the mathematical proof that the velocity of light is constant with respect to a moving observer at velocity , and Eq. (2.2) is the generalized record of the verbally expressed regularity above, which is a consequence of Eq. (2.1) as a generalized mathematical regularity, but without any experimental proof.

3. Disproof of Einstein's proof, that v

If Eq. (2.2) is true, and is applied to Ref. [1], 3-4, taking in view that  is identical with our ,

then the obtained results fall, because

vvv. (3.1)

If the value  is applied to the special relativity (STR) [1], then all relations, in which  appears, falls as inadequate, namely:

First. DE falls, although it is proved experimentally in 1867.

Second. The velocity dependence of mass falls, though proved experimentally in 1901.

Third. One rejects the shortening of bodies, and time dilatation.

Fourth. LT falls, STR as well.

Fifth. Eqs. (2.1) and (2.2) can not be deduced, because they follow from LT.

These, as well as other inadequacies, prove explicitly the inadequacy of Einstein's derivation of Eqs. (2.1.) and (2.2), and consequently the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuum with respect to a moving observers.

4. Restoring the truth concerning the velocity of light with respect to the observer

If we apply the classical theory of the wave processes, specified by Einstein for DE with the help of LT, in the manner exposed in part 1 and the introduction, then we obtain automatically Eq. (1.5) instead Eq. (2.2), eliminating the inadequacies in part 3. Thus we restore STR as well, but without the postulate for constancy of the velocity of light. Just the contrary, we state that the velocity of light in vacuum with respect to an observer is not constant (1.5), but depends on the velocity of the observer.

5. Concerning the space-time continuum

Accepting Einstein's postulate for the constancy of the velocity of light with respect to the source

, and with respect to the observer , i.e.

, (5.1)

with respect to two inertial reference frames (IRF) and , in 1908, Herman Minkowski writes the equations


where  and are the coordinates and time, and - the distances in the reference frames, related by LT.

Eliminating the velocity of light from Eqs. (5.1) and (5.2), Minkowski receives a relation between distances and times, as follows

, (5.3)

called the space-time continuum (STC).

However, since in the previous parts it was proved mathematically and confirmed by experimental facts [1], that in principle the velocity of light is not constant, but could depend on the observer, which rejects the supposition (5.1), used by Minkowski, the velocity of light with respect to an observer with velocity v, according to Eq. (1.5) is

v. (5.4)

Further, after the fall of (5.1), and the validity of (5.4), there are not physical reasons to accept the equations (5.2) as adequate. Then the relation (5.3) fall as well. Thus it is proved, that the so called space-time continuum of Minkowski falls as well, since its physical basis (5.1) falls, or in essence there is not such STC.

Really, if according to the adequate relation (5.4), in analogy with Minkowski, we rewrite Eqs. (5.2), then we obtain



vv. (5.6)

That is why one can not receive the relation (5.3) (only with and ), but always one could receive a relation with the participation of vand v. Because of this one can not receive STC of Minkowski (5.3). Since the theory of relativity (TR) has starting point in (5.1) and (5.3), which are inadequate, then it follows to accept, that the foundations of TR are inadequate as well, i.e. it is an inadequate theory.

6. Conclusions

In principle, the speed of light in vacuum is not constant. There is not space-time continuum.


1. A. Einstein. Zur electrodynamic der bewegter K?rper. Ann. der Phys. 1905, 17, 891-921.


In the book "Optics" (1704), Isaac Newton states that "Each body emits and absorbs light", "Do the bodies and light transmute one in another?", and "The transmutation of the bodied in light and of light into bodies corresponds to the natural processes in Nature". From these irrefutable empirical regularities, it follows the logical and genetic reason for an implicit deduction, that the matter forming light and bodies is one and the same in nature. Since the electromagnetic nature of light is proved, then it follows as well that the matter of the bodies has an electromagnetic nature - it is an electromagnetic matter. From this facts it follows that as a whole the matter and all its properties and manifestations in the world have only electromagnetic nature.

From logical and genetic considerations, since the gravitational field is generated both by light and bodies - the electromagnetic matter, it follows the conclusion that it has also electromagnetic nature, i.e. it is a specific electromagnetic field, called by history gravitational field. It depends on the mass (matter) densities  and of the electrical and magnetic alternating components of electromagnetic field and  respectively as follows


They generate the corresponding gravitational fields

, (2)


, (3)

  and  are respectively the electric and magnetic constants (permittivity and permeability of free space),  - the speed of light in vacuum, - the gravitational constant, and  - the distance from the point like object creating the gravitational field.

From Eqs. (2) and (3), it follows that the gravitational field respectively is proportional to the squares of the alternating components  and  of the electromagnetic field. We see that they are only positive

. (4)

It follows from Eqs. (1), (2) and (4):

First. The mass (matter), respectively its density, is always positive.

Second. The gravitational field is always unipolar.

Third. The gravitational field has not alternating components as  and  of the electro-magnetic field. That is why it is only a conservative field. This conclusion is in a correspondence with the Poisson describing of the gravitational field (1813), according to Newton, by the equations

. (5)

Since Einstein accepts also that in the visible world of our and the neighboring galaxies the Newtonian gravitation could be used with an acceptable accuracy as a first approximation, we shall use Eq. (5) in the present exposition. According to the exposed above, Eq. (5) is a description of the specific electromagnetic field, or it could be called also an electromagnetic field of second order. By the mass density  of the electromagnetic matter of the electromagnetic field, it is genetically related with the Maxwell equations. Because of the common nature of Eq. (5) and the Maxwell equations, one can form a system of similar genetically related equations, i. e. a full electromagnetic system electromagnetic logically independent equations, which describe together the genetically related phenomena of the electromagnetic and gravitational (second order electromagnetic) fields, as follows


where and are the electric, magnetic and gravitational induction;- the current density;  is the gravitational permeability. Here  and have not a practical importance, but are written for a symmetry with  and  . The system (6) could be considered as an aspect of an unified field of the electromagnetic matter in the World.

The exposed facts could be considered in aspect of a fragment of the motivation of the material unity of the World.


1. Introduction

Millenniums the idea exists about the material unity of the World, which later generates the idea about its cognitive unity.The cooperation of these ideas makes the principle of WORLD UNITY.

However, this principle could be treated as physical reality only with the motivation of the formation of an united kernel of logical regularities, which in essence to be the theoretical basis of physics. According to Einstein [1] "The science is an essay to reduce the chaotic variety of our sensitive experience in correspondence with some system of thinking", and further "It is necessary to determine some starting view point, which would restricted in a reasonable degree the infinite variety of possibilities. While it is not found, the theory of field could not give a ground of all the physics", "One can not pretend, that these parts of the theory of relativity, which could be considered as completed, are full and satisfactory foundation of physics" and at the end "For now, we must recognize, that we have not a common theoretical basis of physics, which could be considered as its logical foundation."

With this last quotation of Einstein, the author motivates ones idea to expose ones view-point concerning the kernel of the theoretical basis of the principle of the World unity (material and cognitive), as a starting logical foundation of physics.

2. Concerning the theoretical and empirical knowledge as a product of the experience

Since in our mind there is nothing, which is not product of our senses, in a form of reflection of the realities of nature, this information (according to Einstein [2] too) is the initial resource (raw material) for the formation of the knowledge about the World. The reason is the axiomatic truth, that the experimental facts (the practice), reflected in our mind, are the primary real source (direct or indirect) of the knowledge, being simultaneously a criterion for its correspondence to the reality. In this sense, the cognition and the logic are products of the experience, hence they have a common experimental ground. By them the essence of the notion of theoretical knowledge is determined, i.e. this theoretical basis, which like them has an experimental origin, i.e. experimental nature. Usually one call theoretical knowledge this experimental in origin knowledge, which is more large generalization of experimental facts. Though they seems as implicit (they are indirect), but they have always in ones root an experimental cognition as an indirect empirical regularity.

In conclusion, it follows, that in essence the theoretical, logical and empirical regularities or knowledge are always obvious or indirect empirical (experimental) regularities.

3. Concerning the kernel of the theoretical (logical) foundations of the knowledge

The formation of the kernel of the theoretical foundations of the physical knowledge is reduced to the finding of a minimum necessary and sufficient number basic initial laws, which determine in nature and manifestations its substance called matter, that makes the nature and the characteristic features of the notion of natural reality or World. The notion of matter (as a physical reality) has not a concrete India-pendent (separate) form of existence without ones manifestations; it is an unity-tandem of all ones manifestations in the form of different natural realities in field and substantial forms, as energy, fields, properties, phenomena, processes etc., considered to have as a bearer something called matter , and its alternative component called energy . This is so, since the latter participates indivisible in a tandem (matter-energy) in all manifestations of the matter (mass), and is related quantitatively with it by the law , where  is the speed of the electromagnetic waves in vacuum. In this sense, each material physical process is energetic one, and vice versa, since the matter is the bearer and the generator of ones manifestations, including the energy. In this aspect, the first central and key starting question is about the nature of matter, and the second (in essence methodological) is to determine the minimal necessary and sufficient number initial basic laws, from which one could describe the regularities in the World. It requires from these initial laws (axioms) to be logically independent and experimentally proved.

In this sense the kernel (theoretical, logical and empirical) of the physical knowledge could be deduced by more exact and adequate answers of the raised questions, and to be confirmed by experiment or by generalization of crucial (essential) experimental facts.

4. Concerning the laws of conservation - the principle of conservation

It is essential to underline the circumstance, which is confirmed by practice, that in our thinking we always believe that the matter exists for ever and can not be created by nothing, nor to transmute (annihilate) in nothing. This is the implicit expression of the law (the principle) of the conservation of matter. From the law of conservation of energy, and the law  , it follows by a logical way that the conservation of energy leads to conservation of mass, and vice versa


Thus in a closed system of N material fragments energy and mass obey the law of conservation.

These basic laws (4.1) (except 7) have an essential consequence, which is especially crucial for the theoretical base of the physical knowledge, and from methodological view-point is often interpreted as independent of (4.1), i.e. as an independent law. Since the total energy of a closed system is constant, the sum of exchanged energies (or matter ) in result of interaction is always zero, i.e.

, (4.2)

because the given (with the index "0') quantities are negative, while the accepted (with the index "p") are positive. In absolute value they are equal ().

The law (4.2) called the law of interaction, is also fundamental for the theoretical ground of the physical knowledge. It participates in implicit (indirect) form in describing of almost all physical processes related with the energy in one or another form. These laws must be followed obligatory (without exclu-sions) as a condition for adequacy in each describing of a physical phenomenon. In this aspect the laws (4.1) and (4.2) are fundamental fragments of the kernel of the theoretical basis of the physical knowledge.

5. Concerning the nature of the unified matter

Isaac Newton states in "Optics" (1704) that "Each body absorbs and emits light", "Do the bodies and light transmute one in another?", and "The transmutation of the bodies in light and of the light in bodies corresponds to the natural processes in nature". From these irrefutable empirical regularities , it follows logically the genetic reason for the implicit conclusion that the matter, which forms the light and the bodies has a common nature. However, since the nature of the matter of light is electromagnetic, it follows, that the same is the nature of the matter of the bodies. The matter is in a field form in the case of light, and in substantial form in the case of bodies. With this fact and law one confirms the ideas for material unity of the World. From this it follows the logical and genetic reason-law, that all manifestations (fields, properties, interactions etc.) of the electromagnetic matter have an electromagnetic nature - they are electromagnetic, i.e. the nature as a whole, the world is an electromagnetic continuum.

This law is another fragment as basic law of the kernel of the theoretical basis of the physical knowledge.

6. All fields and manifestations of matter are electromagnetic in nature

Since all fields and material manifestations of matter have as a bearer and a source the matter, which according to 5 has an electromagnetic nature, on the base of the genetic principle it follows that they have an electromagnetic nature.

6.1. Concerning the gravitational field as a specific electromagnetic field

It is proved experimentally, that the substantial and field forms of the electromagnetic matter generate gravitational field. This fact tells us, that it is another by the form of manifestation field with electromagnetic nature, since it is generated by electromagnetic matter and hence is some specific electromagnetic field. Being the second of these kind field, for to be distinguished, it is called here electromagnetic field of second order. Because of the history, it is called the gravitational field, since it generates only forces of attraction (from Latin - gravitas, -tis - attraction). The densities of the matter (mass)  and  of the electric  and magnetic  alternative components of the electromagnetic field are

. (6.1)

Since the squares of the alternative components follows the relations


the matter (mass) and its density are unipolar and positive, and hence generates only unipolar and negative gravitational fields


As usual, the generation of forces of attraction is denoted with a sign of minus (-), and are the dielectric and magnetic constants,  - the speed of light in vacuum, - the gravitational constant, and - the distance.

Consequently, although the gravitational field (6.3) is an electromagnetic field of second order, it

has not alternative components similar to  and , but it has only one potential (conservative) component. From the Newtonian theory, according to Poisson (1813)


which is in a full correspondence with the Newtonian gravitation, but on the other hand has a structure similar to one of the Maxwell equations.

6.2. Concerning the unified field of the electromagnetic matter

Since Einstein agree, that as a first approximation and with a sufficient accuracy for our and the neighboring galaxies the Newtonian gravitation is valid, we use the form (6.4). In essence, these condi-tions conserve the physical meaning of the interpretation of the new results, which are corroborated experimentally as well [3} (p. 87, Ch. 6).

From the fact, that (6.4) represents electromagnetic field of second order, in which participates the density of the described electromagnetic field , that relates the two kind electromagnetic fields, we can collect them in a common system differential equations, as follows

, (6.5)

describing the unified field of the electromagnetic matter.

Here  and  are the electric and magnetic induction,  is the density of the electric charge,

- the electric current density, and - time.

7. Concerning thermodynamics as a special case of electrodynamics

In thermodynamics a common material bearer of the heat energy is not defined. That is why there is not full unity of the physical positions concerning its first and second laws. Eventually on this occasion Max Planck wrote in Ann. der Phys., 1900, Bd. 1, that "For the successful cognition of the electromagnetic nature of the heat exchange, one pose the actual problem to rationalize the second law of thermodynamics in its application to the heat motion (absorption and emission of heat - P.P.) in purely electromagnetic plan, and if it is possible, to prove it. Of course, a starting point is our understanding of the phenomena that the emission and absorption of the heat radiation are electromagnetic processes".

In this sense here one considers this problem.

Starting with the Stefan-Boltzmann law for the emitted by the bodies heat energy in the form of photons, which are the bearers of this energy, implicitly one establishes the fact, that the heat energy is electromagnetic.

The second law of thermodynamics, which up to now is not derived by electrodynamics (although the statement of Plank in 1900), can be deduced as a consequence of the classical electrodynamics. According to Maxwell, if in two neighboring points 1 and 2 the particle concentrations are , and the temperatures are and , to the energy densities and the following pressures corresponds:


where is the natural electromagnetic force, which transfers the particles from the places with higher temperature  to ones with lower temperatures  up to their equality.

From the exposed we see, that thermodynamics and its laws are electromagnetic.

8. The laws of mechanics (classical and relativistic) are electromagnetic

According to the appendix it is showed, that the laws of Newton in classical mechanics are reduced laws of the actualized Maxwell's electrodynamics, with the condition that the velocity v of a body is much less than the velocity of light  (v<<). That is why the Newtonian laws in mechanics are electromagnetic in nature, and consequently in essence mechanics is a special case of classical electro-dynamics. Moreover, we prove that the physical meaning of the force is the exchanged energy per unit way, because the force is a derivative of the energy with respect to the path. In this sense the nature of the force is electromagnetic as well.

9. General conclusions

The laws of the kernel of the theoretical basis of physics are:

1. The nature of matter is electromagnetic.

2. Laws of conservation of matter (mass) and energy.

3. The unified field of the matter (gravitational and electromagnetic) is electromagnetic.

4. Thermodynamics is a special case of classical electrodynamics.

5. The laws of Newton in mechanics are special cases of the law of energy conservation.

6. The laws of mechanics are special cases of the laws of electrodynamics at low velocities.

The exposed above grounds and regularities (as conclusions), which are confirmed by experiments, makes the kernel of the theoretical basis of the physical knowledge in the form of a verbal mathematical system from fundamental initial regularities. They are the minimal number of necessary and sufficient regularities as components of the logical foundations, as components of the initial kernel of the physical knowledge and for consolidation of the material and cognitive unity of the World, respectively affirming of the principle for the unity of the World, which in nature (substance and manifestations) is only electromagnetic.


The laws of dynamics (classical and relativistic) are only electromagnetic. The formula for the dependence of the matter (mass) of the bodies on the velocity is deduced in Ref. [3], p. 63, only by the laws of the classical electrodynamics. That is why, according to the principle of simplicity, it has a priority towards the chronologically earlier relativistic deduction. On this basis, this statement is valid also for the known as relativistic formulae for the kinetic energy and the momentum. Since they are consequences of the mentioned above formulae, they are classical too, namely

vv, (A-1)

where is the mass at rest, and v is the velocity.

Here is, for example, a classical and relativistic versions of the laws of Newton in mechanics.

First case. In the case of constant kinetic energy, the velocity of a body rests unchanged. Then

v = (v=0, or v=? 0). (A-2)

In the Newtonian mechanics the following relations are in force:

v<< v


Second case. The force is equal to the derivative of the energy with respect to the path.

v. (A-4)

Applying the Newtonian conditions (A-3) to Eq. (A-4), we receive

vv (A-5)

Here the meaning of the notion of force is the exchanged energy per unit travel.

Third case. Since, according to the law of conservation, the exchanged energies in interaction between two objects 1 and 2 are equal in absolute value, but opposite in sign, we have

. (A-6)

Since for Newtonian mechanics the conditions (A=3) are in force, (A-6) change in

, (A-7)

i.e. this is the record of the principle of action and counteraction.


1. A. Einstein. Considerations concerning the Fundaments of Theoretical Physics. Science, 1940,

91, 487-492.

2. A. Einstein. Remarks on Bertrand Russell's theory of knowledge, v. 5, Nordwestern University, 1944, 278-291.

3. P. R. Penchev. Electromagnetic theory of matter. Technical University, Sofia, 1998.

Home - GreenSatGreenSatServer*97    Design by  Vlad. L. Stanchev  Ph: 965-20-68 Office:2114  at the Technical University of Sofia.  Last Update: New Millennium'2000.