International Relations. A self-Study Guide to Theory

general theory of relativity. This theory is now used by astrophysics and 
cosmology to describe the universe (Capra 2012: 62). The terms “absolute 
space” and “absolute time” are no longer valid. With the demonstration that 
the structure of the space-time-continuum depends on the distribution of mat-
ter in the universe, the idea of “empty space” lost its meaning (Capra 2012: 
63). However, Newton’s laws are still accepted as valid for all terrestrial cas-
es of gravitation – that is, for our life on Earth – while Einstein’s laws of the 
general theory of relativity are laws for outer space (under conditions of great 
masses). The same holds true for the relativistic effects observed by Ein-
stein’s special theory of relativity: they apply under conditions of speed close 
to speed of light. In short, the theories of relativity are for the “big picture” 
(for high speed and great masses that can be found only in space) or, alterna-
tively, for the “small picture” (the micro-cosmos/sub-atomic world of ele-
mentary particles and of photons that move at the speed of light). In contrast 
to these two areas is life on Earth, where Newton’s laws still apply (Capra 
2012: 63).
From his special theory of relativity, Einstein derived his famous formula 
on the transformation of mass (m) into energy (E): E = mc2. In other words, 
Einstein could demonstrate that mass and energy are two manifestations of 
the “same”. They can be transformed into each other (with the atomic bomb 

---

92 
being a shocking example for the transformation of mass, released in nuclear 
fission, into energy). Einstein was able to show that mass is not a material 
substance (made of particles), but a form of energy. Energy is a dynamic, ac-
tive, physical quantity, related to processes (not substance) (Capra 2012: 61, 
76).
Elementary particles 
Atomic physics in the early 20
th
century discovered phenomena that could 
not be explained by classical physics – as based on the idea of atoms as solid, 
indivisible material particles. With the discovery of X-rays and, later, radio-
activity, it became clear that atoms did have a structure. In 1919 Ernest 
Rutherford discovered that atoms were not solids but rather spaces where 
electrons move around the atomic nucleus – as epitomized by the planetary 
model of atoms (Capra 2012: 65). By the 1930s, physicists had proved that 
the structure of all atoms consists of protons, neutrons, and electrons. With 
the advent of nuclear fission, it was finally accepted that atoms are not the 
smallest, indivisible particles that make up the universe. Thus began the 
search for the ultimate elementary particle which is still at the core of particle 
physics today. At first, physicists found only three elementary particles; by 
1935, the number had increased to six and by 1955 to 18. Today, more than 
two hundred have been recognized (Capra 2012: 75). You likely know about 
the search for the Higgs-Boson (also called the “God-particle”) from the re-
cent news. If not, please take some time now and research this topic. 
However, even though Einstein’s new theories and the new findings of 
atomic physics did not change our day-to-day experience of the world, they 
did change our ideas about light, space, time and matter and thus the funda-
ments of the classical Cartesian-Newtonian mechanical world view. This in-
fluence holds even truer for quantum physics. 
2.4.2. Quantum physics 
Classical physics/mechanics draws on a distinction between particles (matter) 
and energy. It holds that only the latter possesses a wave-nature, while matter 
is particularistic (atomism). The properties of a material particle are “given” 
and the particle can be observed or measured through experiment. Objective 
knowledge about the particle is then possible due to the “objective”, given 
properties of the physical object (observable) and the “objective” position of 
the researcher in the process of measurement. The properties being measured 
are thus independent of the observer and the measurement process. This is a 
position that was still shared by Einstein as well, based on classical phys-

---

93 
ics/mechanics’ belief in fundamental, deterministic laws of nature that can be 
known by science. In this respect, however, Einstein was wrong. 
The new findings of quantum mechanics are based on the experimental 
observation that the sub-atomic particles that make up both matter and atoms 
have a double nature: sometimes appearing as particles, sometimes as 
waves. That is, matter has characteristics of both a wave and a particle (as 
demonstrated above by the nature of light, which can be made of particles or 
be an electromagnetic wave). So far, this will sound familiar to you and 
there might be no need to question classical physics in this regard. However, 
quantum physicists have come to recognize that phenomena that in classical