Abstract

THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING IN PHYSICS
(author: Stanisław Mizerski, Poland)

Dedicated to my daughter Agnieszka

I would like to present for discussion in the physics community my own original and novel conception of the theory of everything in physics. In my opinion theoretical physics  goes today in wrong direction because of wrong concepts and needs help of philosophy. Especially the role of mathematical beings (e.g. symmetries) in explaining the material world is artificially big. It seems to be reasonable to say that there is no the world which is described by latest physical theories. Probably physics will never attain such a level of satisfaction which is desired today (e.g. SUSY has failed). Despite of successes of physics. Because the real material world is in general quite different than the material world described by contemporary physics. This work is based on metaphysical fundamentals and gives a quite different vision of physics, including many analogies in real world. It may help to understand many difficulties in theoretical physics. Two fundamental notions-symbols  are used: BEM (from Basic Element of Matter) and APU (from Analogical Proportional Unity). The unification of physics in this work is practically realized according to the principle: All the reality in physics is the BEMs ‘story’ and all the cognition in physics is the APUs ‘story’. Especially the theory of Higgs boson or string theories or quantum gravity theories  are not accepted in this work. Please make comments concerning this work if You wish.

Table of Contents

I INTRODUCTION

II BASIC TEXT
1 Basic philosophical concept
2 How humans experience the material world
3 Cognitive and experimental material
4 The most general law of physics
5 Indexing the concepts and laws of physics
5.1 Classical physics
5.2 Modern physics
5.2.1 Relativistic physics
5.2.1.1 Special theory of relativity
5.2.1.2 General theory of relativity
5.2.2 Quantum physics
5.2.2.1 Psi wave function and a proposition to revise the Copenhagen Interpretation
5.2.2.2 Absurdity of the concept of punctual particles
5.2.2 3 Quantization of physical quantities
5.2.2.4 Uncertainty Principles
5.2.2.5 Electron self-interference
5.2.2.6 Agreement between relativistic and quantum theories
6 Fundamental interactions
6.1 Gravitational interactions
6.1.1 The law of gravity
6.1.2 Impossibility of graviton
6.1.3 Quantum gravity
6.1.3.1 Loop gravity
6.1.3.2 Quantum gravity by B.Heim
6.2 Electromagnetic interactions
6.2.1 Coulomb’s law
6.2.2 Electric current, magnetism, electromagnetism and optics
6.3 Strong interactions
6.4 Weak interactions
6.4.1 Unification of electromagnetic and weak interactions
6.4.2 Unification of electroweak and strong interactions (GUT)
6.5 Higgs interactions
6.5.1The techni-quarks
7 The Standard Model
8 Conservation laws and symmetries
9 String and superstring theories
9.1 The holographic principle
10 M-theory and its derivatives
11 Other theories
11.1 SUSY theory
11.2 E8 theory
12 Experimental verification and falsification
13 Attempts to estimate the chosen concepts and laws of physics for ‘non-being content’
14 Transcription of concepts and laws of physics in APU convention
15 Derivability of physics from this TOE

III ADDITIONAL REMARKS
1 The ‘philosophy’ of the number three
2 Three basic constants of physics
3 Matter and antimatter
4 Dark mass and dark energy
5 Absurdity of the materialistic interpretation of particle annihilation and creation
6 Expansion of the universe as the effect of the human cognitive nature
7 Alleged superiority of the heliocentric model over the geocentric model
8 Renormalization as the effect of the human cognitive nature
9 Black holes and Hawking radiation
10 Quantization of space-time
11 Condensed matter
12 Waves in physics
13 Simplified description of the history of the universe

IV CONCLUSION
1 Wastelands, complications and weakness of contemporary physics
2 Perspectives for the development of physics.

General concept of unification of physics

I INTRODUCTION

The present-day physics, despite its undoubtable achievements, shows great chaos and lack of coherence. In essence, contemporary physics does not explain anything in depth. It revolves around rather short-term and chaotic attempts to create hypotheses. In my opinion theoretical physics  goes in wrong direction because of wrong concepts and needs help of philosophy. For many years, the scientists have been talking about formulating the theory of everything (TOE) which would generalize all currently accepted physical theories, and successfully explain why things are the way they are in physics. In this short paper, I would like to present a proposition of such theory. Some of its elements might be already known, but I would like to present a concept of a theory that generalizes them. The paper rather does not effectively relate to currently realized discussions in the field of foundations of physics. It rather says that these discussions are of secondary importance, but a general philosophical concept of physics as such is of primary importance. In particular it relates to possibilities of string and superstring theories (or M-theory), problems concerning interpretation of quantum physics and many others. What comes to mind straight away is an idea of the basic law of physics, which all other laws result from. It seems possible to formulate such a law, but on a more philosophical, or rather, to be precise, metaphysical ground. 

II BASIC TEXT

1 Basic philosophical concept

1.1 Pursuant to all the achievements of philosophy, we can say that reality is the Absolute and the beings derived from the Absolute [1]. Reality must be optimum, which means the world must be the best possible. This describes the whole enormity of being, but it may also be said that the material world, i.e. the universe, is the best possible. 

1.2 The reality of contingent beings, i.e. the beings derived from the Absolute, must be the best possible. This results from the fact that the Absolute is perfect. The universe, as a subset of the set of contingent beings, must therefore be also the best possible. If it was otherwise, it would contradict the perfectness of Creation.

1.3 The Absolute is free and makes free decisions. The Absolute, called God in religion, is love. Beings derived from the Absolute must therefore be ‘characterised by love’. The love of the Absolute spills out into non-being thus imparting existence, so we can say that reality is the maximal use of non-being. In metaphysics, it is said that the only action of the Absolute is imparting existence. The love of the Absolute first calls to existence the beings that are metaphysically closer to the Absolute, i.e. free and rational angels. If we take the theological assumption that the Absolute is God in trinity, we must assume that well-determined contingent beings are also three-elemental. If then freedom and rationality must be metaphysically expressed by number three, and the freedom and rationality of the Absolute takes the first place, the angels’ freedom and rationality is second, there appears to be a lack of a ‘perfect closure’. This results in the ‘necessity’ of human existence. As the second element of fulfilling freedom and rationality (angels) is closed, a reality which is the ‘substrate for humans’, i.e. the world of material beings, must come into existence. Therefore, the universe is also the maximal use of non-being in an appropriate order. Love is derived from freedom. As it maximally goes out to non-being, it firstly fulfils itself through itself and does not extend out of itself, that is to say it realises cognition. The love of being is possible only after this cognition, otherwise the reality would not be optimal, because it would ‘not encompass the own love element’.

1.4 Existence is imparted to contingent beings, thus also material beings, from outside. Existence can not give the identity [2]. This also concerns material beings. Something must therefore guarantee the identity of those beings. There are no such agents in the previously realized reality of free and rational nonmaterial beings which are angels. The identity of material beings may be thus guaranteed only by those beings themselves. It would be possible only if existence was imparted to them ‘simultaneously’, i.e. if they were created simultaneously. The universe was, hence, created all at once, simultaneously. In physics, we speak of the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory has, therefore, a metaphysical substantiation.

1.5 Material beings forming the universe must have had a guaranteed identity, otherwise they would be ‘dissolved in non-being’. Because there were no agents guaranteeing identity, the beings which originated the universe guaranteed their own identity in such way, that identity was granted to a given Bk by beings B1, B2, …, Bk-1, Bk+1, …, BN, where N is the number of primal material beings created. 

1.6 Pursuant to 1.5, the first material beings were ‘essentially indistinguishable’, and they gave themselves distinguishability in the metaphysical sense afterwards. We can, therefore, assume that there were only ‘particles’ of one kind in the beginning. Those were a kind of ‘love building blocks’ in the ‘third order’. Let us call them BEM, from Basic Element of Matter. Their number N is enormous, and it is essentially the most important constant in the universe, although it is not spoken about like the gravitational constant G, the Planck constant h, or the speed of light c. The finiteness of this number is consistent with the theory of finite universe. It is worth to think about the possibility of estimating the ‘mass’ of a BEM. The mass of the universe is estimated at 1053 kg. Let us assume the mass of a human at 102 kg and that the human is, in a way, in the middle between the biggest and the smallest beings. This seems justified by the fact that the human, as a higher level being, must be in a way ‘impartial’ towards the ‘size’ of lower level beings, like a BEM or the universe. Consequently, the ‘mass’ of a BEM must be equal to 10-49 kg, because 102 is in the middle (in terms of exponents) between 10-49 and 1053. If we assume the mass of an electron to be around 10-30 kg, it is easy to see that e.g. one electron would consist of 1019 BEMs. By dividing the mass of the universe by the ‘mass’ of a BEM, we get an estimation of N equal to 10102. Probably the mass of the universe is effectively greater then 1053 kg so the estimation of N is also effectively greater.

1.7 The recently fashionably accepted theory of the so-called ‘scalar quantum Higgs field’, the quants of which (Higgs bosons) would impart mass to particles, is inacceptable on philosophical grounds. Such reality would have no rationale, because it would be an effect without cause, hence an absurd. There are surely no Higgs bosons. The perfectness of being demands the ‘third element’ – material beings, and those are ‘essentially indistinguishable’ which means they have no accidents, e.g. mass. Besides, the metaphysical order has no justification for the existence of ‘Higgs field’, which would have to impart its existence to itself and, moreover, without cause and without aim, which is unacceptable.

2 How humans experience the material world

2.1 From the perspective of philosophy, humans may formulate the theory of the material world more or less in this way: BEMs, which are good ‘extend’ lovingly out of their freedom. Each BEM is surrounded by non-being. It ‘knows’ nothing about other BEMs and ‘screams’ through non-being. Non-being must now be treated in this TOE as being. Non-being joins two BEM objects which are the closest in their potentiality. First the cognitive element occurs, and then the proper ‘loving movement’ of BEMs. Such process is copied in an enormous number (finite, because N is finite) of cases. Every BEM cluster created in such way is, by analogy, an subject, and also the object of ‘loving actions’ of those beings which are BEMs or BEM clusters. The history of universe unwinds in this way until today. It is, nonetheless, only a ‘love story’ of an incredibly large amount of beings. BEMs or BEM clusters  are not separated by any metaphysical abyss so an enormous ‘amount of information’ is possible to obtain and also an enormous ‘amount of possible systems’ (similar for example to the internet or the mobile telephony) is possible to realize. Today it is only a theoretical possibility. BEMs or BEM clusters realize their own ‘loves’ in a ‘free manner’, not determined by any scheme. This shows that there may not exist any rigid set of ‘rules of interaction’. This ‘theoretical set’ would produce ‘a slave reality’ and so ‘not best reality’. It is impossible to find this set like e.g. it was impossible to find the rules concerning the travelling of ligth in eter. Today we know that the famous experiments of Michelson and Morley (concerning this problem) failed because the concept of eter is and was always an absurd. A similar stuation we have in latest physical theores.The famous Gödel’s theorem may be mathematically helpful in this field of research.

2.2 From the perspective of physics, humans act differently. They always experience material reality in a certain light (not light as construed in optics). Humans notice unities (or coherencies) in their sensual perspective. The history of BEMs generated more and more perfect cognitions, because cognitions which took place later virtually contained previous cognitions, and were enriched by new cognitive elements. This is consistent with biological theories of evolution. Consequently, humans had to ‘take’ from the animal world the best ‘ways’ of noticing unities (coherencies). In other words, the ‘most loving’ BEMs resulted in sensual cognition present in the animal world. The more existentially, that is to say ‘lovingly’, rich a being is, the more existentially big its ‘love’ is, thus also its ‘love’ only in itself without ‘extending’ out to the object, which is cognition. A certain enormous number of such noticed unities (coherencies), uniform analogically, determine a given physical quantity. Therefore, not only human cognitions participate in it, but also cognitions of lower beings. It was the BEMs which constituted cognition in the animal world with their ‘loves’ first, then humans ‘entered’ in it. For example, humans or animals see only ‘thanks’ to the fact that BEMs, exercising their ‘sort of freedom’, ‘loved’ in a particular way and constituted the ‘cognitive’ reality in that way at the lower level. If those ‘loving runs’ had been different, there would not be visual cognition (in animals or humans). Cognizability of the world by humans is therefore something real but incidental.

2.3 A physical quantity in physics is something that can be measured and expressed in appropriate units. It is an analogical proportional unity, like other concepts or laws of physics. According to [1] real material beings are not unambiguous (like mathematical beings) only analogical. In this TOE, analogical proportional unities will be referred to as APU. Every APU is a complex subject-object intentional reality. From the subject side, it is a unity (coherence) of many (even very many) cognitive perceptions understood as certain intentional beings, and from the object side it is ‘the same participation or manifestation of matter or something else’. Every APU is a ‘love story’ encompassing a rather large number of ‘elements’, where all ‘defects’ or ‘love weaknesses’ participate proportionally in the whole APU. So every physical quantity is also a ‘love story’ in the cognitive area. Every APU is ‘developed’ in the human cognitive apparatus. Two elements constitute it:

a)  external APU, that is to say APU realized outside the consciousness of a given human,
b)  internal APU which is realised in the consciousness of that particular human.

A given APU may contain other APUs, etc. Every APU may be assigned a ‘level of non-being content’, which is a consequence of the said ‘defects’ or ‘weaknesses’. Practically, this  ‘non-being content’ is connected with the fact that we perceive something as a perfect unity, and it is not so. ‘Non-being content’ is what decides upon the cognitive value (in negative sense) of a given physical quantity, or more generally, a concept or a law. Non-being ‘harms’ cognition. 

Modelling in physics can be treated as using different APUs  at different levels.

2.4 Humans experience the material world only in light of imperfect and ‘poor’ loves, while the Absolute experiences everything in light of one perfect love which is the Absolute itself.

3 Cognitive and experimental material

3.1 Co-linearity of three points plays a key role in creating human cognitive forms.  

Reality is lovingly optimal, so two material beings X and Y may:

a)   be ideally ‘lovingly’ joined,
b)  be in a smaller or bigger non-ideal ‘loving’ conjunction, with a certain potentiality, that is to say they can be in a ‘distance’ XY which means that they can achieve the perfect conjunction, or that they are not ‘mutually’ each other but they are not completely ‘strange’ to each other,
c)  be separated by metaphysical abyss.

Notice that the existential ‘distance’ functions as a well determined, and so three-elemental, being. This generates the physical, or geometric, distance. This distance is not the existential distance, because the human being is not able to notice the existential distance, only its inferior substitute in which the unity of relevant visual (light) experiences participates. For co-lineal points A,B,C arranged in that sequence, the sum of distances AB and BC (it may be treated as a kind of ‘love’ of these distances in the subject performing the cognition), creates a unity with the distance AC (this unity is also a kind of ‘love’ in the subject performing the cognition, only ‘stronger’). This is how humans perceive it. Such cognized unities and further unities based upon them were very numerous, starting at the first cognition of the world by a human and taking into account a huge number of humans, and they constituted (with the unit of meter) the physical quantity called distance. It is a fairly good (although weak) approximation of the real existential distance, because it has a ‘loving’ character or ‘nature’. Let us assume the following naming convention in this TOE: distance will be named APU1. An enormous number of unities (coherencies) take part in this APU1. First, individual people noticed e.g. the same intervals when they measured caves, plots, etc. with their feet. Such measurements might have been remade by the same human and he noticed the same. Others did similar things, and also noticed and communicated to others the equality of certain intervals. Multiplication of that kind of activities in various situations, or using different tools, determined the unities (coherencies) which constitute APU1, and, after many years, fixed the scale of distance in the consciousness of subsequent generations.

3.1.1 The well known problem of so called fundamental length is without importance in this TOE. The question whether the length is discrete or continuous has no substantiation in the concept of physics presented here. It may be interpreted as a projection (of secondary importance) of quantum physics notion system on our cognition system. In other words ‘loving actions of BEMs’ do not determine any limits for length or distance, which are incidental physical quantities.

3.2 Notice that two material beings X and Y may be mutually outside of each other, or one may be inside the other. If the latter is the case then, using a similar reasoning as in 3.1, and assuming the kilogram as the unit, we may derive the physical quantity of mass (APU2). Mass appears as a result of cognitive perceptions of the fact, that some material beings reside in others, so it is not a ‘quality imparted to elementary particles by so-called Higgs field’. It needs to be added that at this point of investigating the concept of mass there is no conceptual differentiation between gravitational and inertial mass, which comes later.

3.3 Notice also that the reality is dynamic, which means that the relation between two material beings X and Y is variable (there is no guarantee of constancy). Following the reasoning in 3.1 and 3.2, and assuming the second as the unit, we may derive the physical quantity of time (APU3).

3.4 We can see that the contingency of material beings determines the basic (three-element) experimental and cognitive perception in the system of fundamental quantities: distance, mass, time. Formally, physical quantities cannot exist independently. Talking about them is really a sort of convention. What exists are cognitive perceptions of noticed unities (coherencies) which are expressed within this convention. The value of a given physical quantity also does not have an independent existence.

3.5 Applying this reasoning to units, we obtain the system: meter, kilogram, second.

3.6 If we notice that the value of a physical quantity (specifically, a measured one) is a product of a number and the unit of measurement pertaining to this quantity, we can say that the results of all physical measurements were always a projection of reality, existentially determined by the ‘love history’ of BEMs, over a particular set of APUs, also determined by ‘love history’ of cognitive perceptions (strictly speaking noticed unities or coherencies). This shows that our cognition of the material world is definitely weak and incidental. We do not have insight into the real course of ‘events’ in this world. What we have is only their faint reflection. Similar views, though in the field of philosophy, were held by Kant, or by Plato before him. Our cognitions-loves are nonetheless real, that is why we have real physics. 

Most general law of physics

4 The most general law of physics

4.1 Let us first notice that, in a certain philosophical simplification, the truth is coherence between a being and an intellect performing the cognition. Physics is naturally about material beings. Any law of physics must touch the truth and express it in its declarative sentence.

4.2 The most general law of physics may be expressed as follows: Every coherence of a system of APUs with matter, which is expressed in a declarative sentence, or in another equivalent way, is a law of physics. Other versions of this law are possible, mainly for terminological reasons. It is necessary to add that such law is not the ‘general equation of physics’. The truth about the world of material beings is something entirely different, although it can be sometimes reduced to certain equations. If we assume such general formula for the laws of physics, this will be a broader definition than usually assumed.

4.3 Every law of physics has primarily a ‘historical’ dimension. This pertains equally to the object side (because matter is a kind of ‘story’ fulfilled by BEMs) and the subject side (because every system of APUs is also a kind of ‘story’ of cognitive perceptions of the human intellect). The word ‘matter’ is practically redundant. This is about real contingent beings of the lowest level, existing independently. Nonetheless, owing to the terminological tradition, this word is used in this TOE.

4.4 From the philosophical point of view, the concept of fundamental interactions accepted in elementary particle physics, which assumes that interactions between particles are transferred by their carriers (e.g. gluons would transfer interactions between quarks), is inacceptable in this TOE. This is so because:

a)  any system of BEMs (and the carrier would be such a system) cannot penetrate another such system, because there is no rationale for it. It would lead to a kind of ‘rape’ which is impossible in the best possible world,
b)  an acting BEM subject would have to sort of ‘bypass’ the borders of a BEM object, which would be purposeless, thus absurd,
c)  any system of BEMs is surrounded by non-being, so it may not be directed (by real external causes) to any being in any way.

The theories of fundamental interactions (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak, strong, and Higgs interactions) are unacceptable in their literal sense, i.e. in the way physics understands them. They can only be treated as certain logical simplifications. This also concerns diagrams proposed by Feynman.

4.5 Every law of physics, as a certain unity or coherence, may be treated as a being. Therefore, it may be placed on the axis of being in accordance with some assumed rules. If we assume that the axis of being reaches from the Absolute to non-being, then the laws of physics would take a very small part of this axis.

4.6 Every law of physics may have a being index assigned to it, which may be transcribed to different indices.

4.7 Indexing the laws of physics is connected with indexing the concepts of physics, or even objects. This indexing (or classification) is not the same as the Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme (PACS). The classification discussed in this TOE is connected rather with the human reasoning or the history of physics, not with the contemporary used branches of physics or even science.

4.8 It is estimated that throughout human history, there have been around 1011 people so far. An enormous majority of cognitively perceived unities (coherencies) participates in the concepts of physics. Because we can also speak of cognition in the world of live but not rational beings, gigantic quantities of such cognitions in a way also participate in the concepts of physics.

4.9 Taking into account the conclusions in 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 it is hard not to pose the question what really exists as matter, and what exists as physics. The philosophical conclusion from this TOE would be as follows: Only a constant, enormously large number of BEMs exist independently, which virtually participate in currently existing material beings, and limited, existentially dependent occurrences of APUs take place in subjects performing cognition (humans). It means that so called laws (or principles) of physics formally are not in force (like e.g. the law of conservation of energy) what is in agreement with experiments. BEM systems are formally indestructible. They may transform, but they cannot be reduced to non-being. Reduction to non-being would mean reversing the impartation of existence, which is impossible. This would deny the perfectness of the Absolute. 

5 Indexing the concepts and laws of physics

5.1 Classical physics

5.1.1 Any cognition of any fragment of matter (even extremely small) by any human, taking place at any time and at any place, contains the truth. Thus it must belong to the whole vehicle of the laws of physics. Let us name the set of all these truths T1.  For lower level beings it would be T0. In this TOE such laws are not of interest.

5.1.2 Notice that some concepts in physics are relatively strictly defined. We can fairly easy show that they are expressible in the APU system.

5.1.2.1 In kinematics, a concept of uniform linear motion is introduced, which can be construed as a motion with the following properties:

a)  it takes place along a straight line, in the same direction,
b)  at any time, the displacement of a moving object in constant time intervals is constant.

More precise definitions are of course possible, but ‘layers’ of APUs are clearly apparent already in this one. We can use the logical being of conjunction named APU5, (while negation would be named APU4, logical disjunction APU6, logical consequence APU7, biconditional logical connective APU8, and exclusive disjunction APU9). The notion of a straight line, not defined in mathematics and natural sciences, and perceived intuitively, is contained in APU1. Let us give it the symbol APU0. Direction is perceived intuitively, although it may be defined. It could have the symbol APU0,1. Time interval, taking into account APU3, could be named APU3,1, and displacement APU1,1. For more fundamental or interdisciplinary concepts we would have: the object of thought could be named APU10, the relationship of equality would be APU11, the relation of strict inequality (greater than) would be APU12, and showing properties would be APU13. The above description shows the manner in which indices are created, and in particular the participation of one APU in creating another one (e.g. APU1 is helpful in creating APU1,1).

Let us assume that:

- ‘motion with properties’ is APU14,
- ‘motion takes place along a straight line, in the same direction’ is APU15,
- ‘at any time, the displacement of a moving object in constant time intervals is constant’ is APU16.

Uniform linear motion would then be APU17, and it would be transcribable as APU14(APU5(APU15;APU16)). If we skip the APU symbol, we have a simplified index 14(5(15;16)).

APU0,1 participates in APU15, APU13 participates in APU14, and APU3,1, APU1,1, APU10, APU11 and  APU13 participate in APU16. As we can see, APU17 was transcribable into other APUs with the use of brackets; but when it comes to APU14, APU15, and APU16, we can only say that other APUs participate in them (because of other words which also bring certain meaning). It is clearly visible, that such a simple concept in physics is determined by a large amount of analogies.

For non-uniform linear motion without the initial velocity, the following simple equation is known s = 0,5at2. It can, if we omit all vector issues, be treated as a law of physics (a very simple one). We can for example assume that:

- acceleration a is APU19 ,
- the expression ‘0,5at2‘ is APU20.

Then, this law would have the index APU21 transcribable as APU11(APU1,1; APU20) or in short 11((1,1);20). APU19 and APU3,1 participate in APU20. APU18, that is velocity, would be a part of APU19. Initial velocity would be APU18,1.

It is clearly visible that this simple law of physics is determined by many analogies.

For some of the other concepts and laws in kinematics and mathematics we would have e.g.: non-uniform linear motion with initial velocity APU24, law (equation) for calculating velocity in non-uniform linear motion (without initial velocity) APU28, angular velocity APU35 etc. Different  indices for APUs are possible here and in other places.

5.1.2.2 In dynamics and other branches of mechanics we would use e.g. force APU50, mass APU2, first law of motion APU51,second law of motion APU52, third law of motion APU53, momentum APU55, angular momentum APU56, energy APU60 etc.

5.1.2.3 In thermodynamics we could name temperature APU61, entropy APU68, first law of thermodynamics APU70, second law of thermodynamics APU75 etc.

5.1.2.4 In electricity and magnetism studies we would name electric charge APU90, electric current APU95, magnetic induction APU105,  first Maxwell equation APU130 , etc.

5.1.2.5 In optics, we have e.g. focal length of biconvex lens APU150,the law of refraction APU160, etc.

5.1.3 This way, using for example PACS, we can ‘go through’ all the classical physics. What is the purpose? It shows how greatly random and how ‘poor’ our cognition of matter is when provided by physics. It shows large areas of analogical unity, but components of such unity are in fact different, only analogical. They do not create the perfect unity. Strictly speaking the whole area covered by a given APU is an area of elements separated by non-being, which cannot be reduced to one another, and which do not create any ‘harmony’. They now appear to be ‘under one umbrella’, but this has to be a result of a many centuries long ‘process’ in the object (BEMs) as well as in the subject sense (cognitive perceptions within one subject, as well as between many subjects).

Relativity and quantum physics

5.2 Modern physics

Examples of indexing may be selectively shown as in 5.1. In 5.2 only the relativistic and quantum physics are discussed but using for example PACS we may take into account also other branches of physics.

5.2.1 Relativistic physics

5.2.1.1 Special theory of relativity

5.2.1.1.1 The basic Einstein’s postulate of the speed of light constancy (the same value) in any inertial frame of reference is really a tautology. It does not show anything new existentially, but Einstein must have had an ingenious intuition to capture it. The visible light effectively participates in our cognition. Without the sense of vision, physics would be almost impossible. In truth, blind people could also create physics, but it would then be greatly poorer. Notice that humans, if all significant conditions are ‘constant’, i.e. under any insignificant external conditions, fundamentally perform cognition of matter in the same way. ‘Constancy’ should be construed here as a broad spectrum of various APUs connected with matter and movement, i.e. what we call an inertial frame of reference. Humans must always ‘touch’ linearity, and thus distance. The fact that being is not inalterable enforces cognition of time. Therefore, there has to be a sufficiently large area of large coherency underlying APU1,1 (displacement), because this APU would be practically non-existent otherwise. Similarly, a sufficiently large area of large coherency must be underlying APU3 (time), because this APU would be practically non-existent otherwise. The same with APU18 (velocity). Let us take into account the mathematical being of multiplication (it had to participate in APU21 already) and its inverse – division. The nature of division (a mathematical being) eliminates the role of APUs connected with given distance and time, then the being of ‘the value of the speed of light’, e.g. APU165, does not have any ‘connection’ with significant external conditions apart from these APU, which are connected with the specifity of human cognition. Herefore it must result in an analogical proportional unity, which in practice and in measurement results in a constant, independent of anything (external conditions) value of the speed of light. As we know, for vacuum (it is not the same as non-being, and it is also an APU) its value is c, i.e. around 3 x 108 m/s.

Reasuming one may say that the relativity (despite of its fantastic applications) is a truth of secondary importance. It is so because all the realativity does not concern the most essential (from the point of view of philosophy) reality of matter, it is ‘BEMs stories’.

5.2.1.1.2 If we assume the constancy of c, we may create further APU known from the special relativity theory, e.g. the law – equation for shortening length l = l0 x (1 – u2/c2)1/2  (e.g. APU128), the law – equation for extending time or time dilatation t = t0 x (1 – u2/c2)-1/2 (e.g. APU 129) or the law – equation for relativistic mass dependent on velocity m = m0 x (1 – u2/c2)-1/2 (e.g. APU135).

5.2.1.1.3 In a more complex way, we can arrive at the famous law – equation for equality between mass and energy E = mc2 (e.g. APU138). Let us notice, that the constancy of c is included in the nature of how humans perform cognition of material beings, so we can expect it to participate, whenever the fundamental reflection is conducted. The reasoning of Einstein, who consequently sought for the same set of laws of physics in all inertial frames of reference, is such a reflection. Three things must be mentioned here:

a)  the concept of mass  (APU2) is explainable on the ground of metaphysics,
b)  the concept of energy (e.g. APU60), despite its ubiquitous applications, is not an interesting one. It only reflects ‘a fragment of cognitive history’. If we assume its definition from dynamics, we can say that it is the ability to perform work. Energy is not a type of ‘supermedium’ above the material world. The concept of work is fairly incidental, because it stems from the constant labour of people in this world. The concept of energy does not perceive unity (coherence) in any special way, and it seems to only serve people in relieving their plight. It does not have to be useful in terms of cognition. The known law of conservation of energy really only shows ‘some other fragment of cognitive history’. That is why applying it universally in the micro-universe may be misleading for cognition, e.g. leading to unnecessary creation of new concepts of material beings only to preserve the law. But do those beings actually exist independently?
c)  ‘releasing’ large quantities of energy, e.g. during a nuclear explosion, is not really anything extraordinary in this TOE. Matter is not the same as mass. In this case there is no reduction of the number of virtually existing BEMs in the universe and no ‘new reality’, meaning energy, manifests instead of them, meaning instead of some ‘portion of matter’. It seems so in experiment and in measurement, but not in metaphysics. Any system of BEMs, existing independently, and by that generating its ‘materiality or mass’ cannot be reduced to nonexistence, meaning non-being. There is no rationale for it. The manifestation of this energy is not something ‘instead’, it may only be a ‘certain cognitive story’, expressible in APU. It may be so, that the measure of mass decreases. But existentially, matter is not transformable into energy, nor is energy into matter. The latter may be shown by analogical reasoning.

5.2.1.2 General theory of relativity

5.2.1.2.1 The general theory of relativity, expressed well in the principle of equivalence between a gravity field and remaining in acceleration, is not ‘the entrance’ to the mysteries of the universe. If we assume the constancy of c in general (what is in agreement with the ‘frame nature’ of human cognition), we can consequently ‘add’ new APU. The reasoning from 5.2.1.1.1 may be more general. Let us take the case of running light. The way s of light must be proportional to this ‘running’ and also the time t. The possible movement of source or observer is without meaning, because there is no ‘connection’ with this ‘actual running’. Similarly  other factors. So the value of s/t must be independent of this ‘running’ in every cases (e.g. when we have a kind of non-typical motion to analyze) and it is c. We can see now that the constancy of c in general is only a tautology. In fact in real world all such ‘runnings’ are only analogical [1], but it is possible to ‘connect’ them with the one unambiguous (it means not analogical) value of c. The fundamental rule of the general theory of relativity may be e.g. APU180. Space-time warp ‘associated’ with APU180, would be e.g. APU183

5.2.1.2.2 All the relativistic physics is not absolute, but it has its being limits (not to be confused with space-time limits etc.) and is a certain, but only analogical, unity. It therefore includes ‘defects’ which are inherent to various APU participating in it. Their large accumulation results in a kind of ‘death’, but only in these existential areas, where such accumulation appears, e.g. very small distances. That is why the relativistic physics slowly loses analogical coherence in existentially new areas. Therefore, inconsistencies with another analogical unity, which is quantum physics, become apparent.

5.2.2 Quantum physics

The incidental character of physical quantities is especially visible in the micro-universe. These quantities do not match it. We cannot describe real events in this world using them.

5.2.2.1 Psi wave function and a proposition to revise the Copenhagen Interpretation

This function is a physics and mathematics being useful in describing de Broglie’s waves in the face of no ‘conceptual insight’ in the micro-universe. Concepts like atom, elementary particle, or nucleus have too high ‘non-being content’, which is described in 6.2.1.4. There is a large dose of obscureness and indeterminacy to them. Beings of the micro-universe are perfectly cognizable, but in light of concepts from their world. Their world consists in incessant ‘love acts’ of BEM systems. They cannot be ‘captured’ by our concepts which are largely reducible to unity (coherency) of visual perceptions. Therefore, a being in that world must be ‘indifferent’ in some way to our quantities, like coordinates in space. You could say that it ‘couldn’t be bothered’, it shows no inclination to them, so it characteristically ‘oscillates’ around them. Thus it randomly ‘exists’ to a greater or smaller extent in a given point of our space-time, or only space, and absolute value of psi squared is greater or smaller. This ‘oscillating’ is sometimes close to our oscillation and then the psi wave function takes the form of e.g. Asinx type. The fact that the wave function often has an oscillatory character may be shown by taking into account the known regularities of human behaviour; if we come across things we have no inclination or aversion to, we show indifference, we are a little ‘for’ and a little ‘against’. It is not necessary to solve the Schrödinger equation to work out the oscillatory character of the psi function. Simultaneously, we see that the beings of micro-universe show characteristic ‘indifference’ to our physical quantities, like position, momentum, time, energy, and others. The so-called Copenhagen Interpretation says that the square of that absolute value is proportional to the probability density of finding a particle. In spite of the fact that it is experimentally verifiable, it does not explain everything. Any formal incidence in the real world is not possible. Every interpretation in categories of incidence is absurdal, because the material world is perfectly organized, only we do not know exactly how. I would propose a different one: De Broglie wave itself is the whole reality, at least something closer to reality (is a projection of reality), and the concept of particle seems secondary. The notion of particle is the fulfilment of certain conditions, not yet determined, by the wave (psi wave function). These conditions seem to involve large coherency with the macroscopic notion of particle. These conditions (or maybe dispositions) may ‘influence’ one another in various ways, and so we have the interference of said waves, which in mathematics is represented by adding or deducting the psi function values from the same ‘particle’ or other ‘particles’.

We may say (in this TOE) that:

1. The concept of particle is not good and so it shows ‘big metaphysical distance’ to our physical quantities. Then every ‘portion of matter’ encompassed by the concept of particle may in general only specifically oscillate around these quantities, giving effect of a wave.

2.The mathematical being (wave function of x,y,z,t or others) expresses it in a specific way.

3. These oscillations may be treated as ‘dispositions of matter’ to be ‘for’ or to be ‘against’. So values of the wave function (in general in complex numbers) may be added ‘in plus’ or ‘in minus’.

4. The great absolute value (module) of complex number means great ‘disposition’ to be perceived in our categories (in categories of our concepts).

5. The concept of particle has a quite good ‘connection’ with the concept of energy (APU with low ‘non-being content’) and the energy of oscillation should be proportional to the squared absolute value of psi (similarly like in classical harmonic oscillations), so chances to perceive the particle should be proportional to this squared value.

6. In general all the quantum mechanics can be treated as only a tautology.

7. The great number of scientific successes (e.g. in experiments) only shows that applications of quantum mechanics have APU with low ‘non-being content’.

8. Despite of it we have no essential ‘insigth’ into ‘internal life’ of matter (BEMs reality). We only confirm ourselves, so the quantum physics is only a tatulogical theory.

5.2.2.2 Absurdity of the concept of punctual particles

It is like putting ‘handcuffs’ or imposing ‘impossible conditions’ on the concept of particle which has considerably high ‘non-being content’. The concept of point has limits, which are unacceptable here. It is rather impossible for such a being to exist in the real world. So interpreting the psi function using this being is only conventional.

5.2.2 3 Quantization of physical quantities

The simplified version is that it consists in replacing certain physical quantities with so-called operators. So-called commutators are created in the process with the use of Poisson brackets. In light of this TOE, this practice has a psychological justification in the history of physics. It consists in the fact, that humans still delude themselves that they can enter the micro-universe and its system of ‘love rights’ with their cognitive forms of being (physical quantities). The described procedure is, therefore, the best way to bring together this hope and the experimental effects, like e.g. the photoelectric effect, electron scattering or diffraction, or body radiation. A given degree of coherence between APU for physical quantities and APU for their operators, which can also be represented by relevant APU, is what practically determines the usefulness of a particular quantization. Let us take (according to 5.1.2.2) APU56 for angular momentum L and e.g. APU210 for its operator L^ in quantum mechanics and e.g. APU211 for coherence between L and L^.

In general there is no reason that matter can be effectively described in quantum manner. So called fundamental interactions also cannot be precisely described in this way, because in general there is no reason in this TOE to assume that is an effective agreement between APU connected wth quantization and APU connected with interactions.

5.2.2.4 Uncertainty principles

As quantum physics bases on classical concepts, and ‘forcibly’ prolongs their limited usefulness by using operators, a question arises whether even larger limits of cognition of the material world result from this ‘double’ conceptual weakness. Thus we arrive at the so-called uncertainty principles e.g. in pairs of position-momentum, or energy-time. In other words, high ‘non-being contents’ of APUs of relevant quantities generate a high ‘non-being content’ of the possibility to perform joint cognition (e.g. measure position and momentum simultaneously). Especially we may say that concept of virtual existence (in accordance with energy-time uncertainty principle) of different objects (discussed in many physical theories) is an absurd. Non-being cannot produce any being and cannot annihilate any being

5.2.2.5 Electron self-interference

As we know, the diffraction and interference image obtained by directing a beam of electrons through two slits remains the same even when only single electrons go through the slits. Another famous problem of physics arose: how can an electron interfere with itself? If we assume a different interpretation, proposed (provisionally) in 5.2.2.1, the problem disappears. In this TOE the self-interference of electron or other particle is possible and it is in agreement with experiment. We can see that de Broglie’s waves are existentially closer to matter than particles. We cannot clearly see what a particle is, but we see that waves are clearly described by wave functions. They always have interferential effects. To say succinctly: de Broglie’s waves are more likely to really exist than particles.

5.2.2.6 Agreement between relativistic and quantum theories

All the relativistic physics can be treated as an analogical proportional unity with very complex APU. The same is with the quantum physics. There is no substantiation that these unities must be in agreement. In other words, the new APU connected with this ‘theoretical unity between unities’ has rather not low ‘non-being content’. This explains difficulties in discussed foundations of physics.

We may say it in a bit different way. The ralativistic physics is based on the tautological principle concerning the constancy of ligth speed. Then the total truth (and being as such can be metaphysically exchanged with truth as such) of this theory is rather weak because it is founded  on rather a ‘poor’  basis, not immersed deeper in real truth of real events in the universe. Similarly the quantum physics is based on incidental cognition concepts of ordinary physical quantities and similarly the total truth of this theory is rather weak. So we may say about a ‘metaphysical distance in truth’ between the relativistic physics and reality and also we may say about a ‘metaphysical distance in truth’ beetwen the quantum physics and reality. When we try to ‘connect’ the relativistic physics with quantum physics (quantum mechanics) these distances ‘are  added’ and so we obtain a ‘larger metaphysical distance’. This may be treated as a reason or explanation of the fact that the efforts in the field of making an agreement between relativistic and quantum theories have failed.

Other reasoning

Humans should change the universe according to needs. So humans normally realize cognition and acting using special theory of relativity (connected with the assumption of the speed of light constancy in any inertial frame of reference). Let us take an assumption that the area of this cognition and acting is the ‘sphere of values’ with ‘radius’ about 1 Em (approximate end of effects from Solar System). Let us take an assumption that human being is in the middle of this area and that the human dimension is about 1 m. So we obtain limits for normal using of special relativity: 1 am (it is 1E-18 m) and 1 Em (it is 1E18 m). Approximately above 1 Em we should normally use general relativity and approximately below 1 am we should normally use quantum physics. So approximately below 1 am we have a lack of agreement between relativity and quantum physics to some extent. This reasoning is in agreement with experiments with very large distances and with experiments with very small distances. So physics can be explained by philosophy.

Fundamental interactions

6 Fundamental interactions

Pursuant to 4.4, they are impossible. What seems to be interactions is presented in 2.1. If we, nonetheless, allow certain conventional (according to this TOE) fundamental interactions, we should also allow conventional fields of these interactions, e.g. gravity field or electromagnetic field. Modern physics assumes that fields are real, in other words according to physics such fields exist materially, are a physical reality, not theoretical constructions. In this TOE such realness is impossible. What would substantiate their existence? Appropriate order of the lowest level (third) has been ‘closed’, and any additions, such as fields (devised and defined afterwards), would contradict the perfectness of the material world. We should also say that the degree of the above mentioned ‘conventionality’ is variable. It depends on many factors which are hard to determine, among others on the internal coherence of concepts, their coherence with experience, or their significance for practice.

6.1 Gravitational interactions

6.1.1 The law of gravity

The known law – equation developed by Newton F = G m1m2/r2 is really only a tautology. It does not show anything new. Notice, that it may be transformed to: F = Gm1r-1m2 r-1. We can assume the following interpretation:

a)  force F (APU50) has ultimately a ‘loving’ character, so it needs to be proportional to factors which determine ‘love’ (as influence or engagement) and which are internal for the relevant subjects-objects, that is to say their masses m1 and m2, and to factors which are external for those subjects, that is to say distances r-1 and r-1. This is exactly what Newton’s equation says. To put it more vividly: a being is metaphysically good, so it is ‘loving’, and it ‘loves’ the more, the existentially richer it is, and mass is a reflection of this richness through APU2. On the other hand the greater the distance (APU1) from the other being, the weaker the ‘love bond’ is. The greater the inverse of the distance, the stronger the ‘bond’, which directly results from the previous sentence. Distances between these beings are not existentially identical, but they have the same measures, as they are identical when ‘projected’ to APU of measurement. That is why we do not write r1 and r2, r and r is enough,
b)  Newton’s law is a particularization of the fundamental philosophical law determining all cognition of reality, i.e. the law of noncontradiction. We may say that being is not non-being. Material being is also not non-being, so eventually it must ‘somewhere’ and ‘somehow’ show that it is a ‘loving creature’, because otherwise it would not be different than non-being, which contradicts the law of noncontradiction,
c)  the proportionalities mentioned above come down to one resulting element which is the so-called gravitational constant G with the known value of around 6.67 x 10-11 Nm2kg-2,
d)  paradoxically, Newton’s law does not inform about matter (because it is a tautology on the ground of knowledge about material beings), but about the output of humanity’s cognition. In other words, humanity, through many ages of ‘cognitive and loving’ processes, constituted appropriate APUs, which here are concepts that ‘match’ philosophy. In fact the law of gravity is in its nature a law rather of philosophy then physics. Paradoxically.

It is worth to mention about the first estimation (very imprecise) of the gravitational constant G, performed by Cavendish. Bringing large balls closer to small balls placed on a pivotable crossbar resulted in the small balls approaching the large balls and a pivot of the crossbar. It may seem that the small balls were attracted by force of gravity generated by the large balls, which is what Cavendish assumed. This effect does not, nonetheless, prove the existence of a literally understood force of gravity, although this interpretation is widely accepted and coherent with experiments and everyday life. From the philosophical perspective there is no proof to that. There is no rationale for the existence of such principle.

6.1.2 Impossibility of graviton

Referring to 4.4 and  6.1.1, we may say that the concept of a gravitational interaction transmitted by a carrier, so-called graviton, is inacceptable within the framework of this TOE. This is confirmed by failed experiments. There is no such being, because the very nature of material beings substantiates gravitational effects. Moreover, as it is shown in 4.4, interaction invoking participation of carriers does not endure criticism.

6.1.3 Quantum gravity

There are no chances to obtain such theory. If there is no graviton, which would be an equivalent of an electromagnetic field quant, and so which would be a quant of gravitational field, there are no basis for such theory. We have the theory (relativistic) of gravity and we have the quantum physics. We take something from gravity and something from quantum physics and we hope that this ‘marriage’ (it is quantum gravity) is a good idea. Nonsens, because the matter ‘is going own way’ and ‘is not interested in solving problems of scientists’. The other sections of this work describe the defects of the quantum description of interactions. Reasuming we may say that this theory cannot be the theory of everything

6.1.3.1 Loop gravity

The concept of loop gravity (which is a quantum theory) also needs to be criticised. This would be ‘penetration’ of non-being by being, which is an absurd. This ‘penetration’ realised in ‘quantum way’ is especially ‘big’ absurd. Non-being does not exist and it cannot realise any quantum field. The virtual gravitons in the literal sense are impossible, because non-being cannot produce these gravitons and cannot annihilate them or realize any loops with them. It is possible to obtain a mathematical relation (in accordance with  energy-time uncertainty principle), but it does not concern really existing gravitons in a very very short time period. The word ‘virtual’ is here an absurd. 

The fundamental idea of gravity saying that gravity can be treated as geometry is an absurd on the metaphysical ground. So the loops obtained here from  ‘lines of force’ and realizing the discrete quantum geometry have no rationale. Non-being is not able to produce them. The so called spin network obtained in this way has no rationale. Matter exists as such and there is no reason to couple it fundamentally with anything, especially with fictional beings like discussed loops. Reasuming we may say that this theory cannot be the theory of everything

6.1.3.2 Quantum gravity by B.Heim

Like other attempts of quantization of gravity it is unacceptable in this TOE in which existence of gravitons (in this theory some kinds) is treated as impossible. Reasuming we may say that this theory cannot be the theory of everything

6.2 Electromagnetic interactions

All of these interactions are covered by four Maxwell’s equations. Generally they are correct, but only as mental shortcuts. In other words they are conventionally true, with greater or lesser dose of conventionality.

6.2.1 Coulomb’s law

6.2.1.1 Coulomb’s law – equation F = k q1q2/r2, like Newton’s law of gravity, is only a tautology and shows nothing new. It may be arrived at in a different manner than Newton’s law. The basic reflection on material beings leads to Newton’s law. It may be called the first ‘projection’ of this reflection. If we ask whether material beings exhaust their possibilities of ‘loving’ manifestation to the subjects performing the cognition, then the answer is no, because we do not have a particularization of the second fundamental law of thought which determines all cognition of reality, i.e. the law of identity, which can be shortly presented as: a being is what it is. This is then the second ‘projection’ and this is Coulomb’s law. Notice that the concept of electric charge is based on our notions of externality and internality of elements which create material atomic beings (in short atoms according to Democritus of Abdera). And so we sort of enter the essential order. This order is lower than the existential order (because existence is superior to essence). Thus, the particularisation we speak about must be less perfect, because it is ‘broken’ into two types. So we have two types of Coulomb’s law: for ‘objects’ of the same order (like charges), and for ‘objects’ of different orders (opposite charges). Electric charge is only a mental shortcut. When we introduce this notion, we act more or less in this way: we do not know what something entirely new is, we cannot reduce it to previously known elements, so we ‘charge’ matter with another quantity. Electric charge in its literal sense, as something immanently inherent in matter, is impossible. It is really non-being. It has no rationale. No metaphysical reflection may present such rationale. The concept of the set of BEMs exhausts appropriate perfectness potentialities in the world of contingent beings (created world), and there is no room for other beings in appropriate order. Maybe the concept of electric charge is connected with a certain unknown situation in BEMs reality like an effect of higher level of organization, which gives ‘visual loving effect’.

6.2.1.2 Reasoning analogical to 6.1 shows that the ‘love’ effect, i.e. the force F must be proportional to existentially internal factors, which are q1 and q2, as well as existentially external ones, that is r-1 and r-1. These proportionalities ultimately result in a single value, which is the constant k. But the realisation of the ‘loving’ character of matter in ‘essential projection’ takes place in essentially various conditions, so the coefficient k takes different values for different conditions (mediums). As we know, for vacuum it is k0 = 9 x 109 Nm2C-2

Probably Coulomb’s law does not inform about matter (it is a tautology) but about the output of humanity’s cognition. In other words, probably humanity constituted appropriate APUs, which here are concepts that ‘match’ philosophy (similarly like in the case of gravity). In fact the law of  Coulomb is in its nature a law rather of philosophy then physics. Paradoxically.

Newton’s law and Coulomb’s law seem to be specific examples of a more general metaphysical or ontological law in the field of human cognition, which can be expressed by the following formula

E = pab/dd ,where

effect possible to cognition,

proportionality factor,

a,first and second elements determining the effect E,

mataphysical distance between a and b or between b and a.

There are many similar cases in many situations in sciences, medicine, philosophy, psychology, history, economy, politics and so one, where it is possible to use this formula (with large uncertainties in measurement, terminology and so one). For example in medicine we can assume that

result of the medical treatment, 

a   possibility and  action of the physician,

b   possibility and collaboration of the patient,

d   imperfectness in communication  between the physician and the patient or between the patient and the physician,

p  proportionality factor which gives relation between a,b,d and the effect E.

6.2.1.3 Classical physics dictates that there are two types of electric charges: positive and negative. This is only a simplification. Helpless human minds do not know what to do in face of their ‘broken’ cognition, so they create new beings. Also we may say that the virtual photons in the literal sense are impossible, because non-being cannot produce these photons and cannot annihilate them. It is possible to obtain a mathematical relation (in accordance with  energy-time uncertainty principle), but it does not concern really existing photons in a very very short time period. The word ‘virtual’ is here an absurd.

6.2.1.4 The concepts of atom, nucleus, or particle demand a deeper reflection. They have limited significance according to this TOE.

The concept of atom represents our concept of a very small thing which (in large quantities) forms ‘large’ bodies which in turn can be noticed by our senses. This concept is very unclear, or ambiguous. What does it mean that atoms form larger things? What reality underlies it? When we create this concept it surely has nothing to do with our senses. It may at best be a geometric fantasy. So it has very high ‘non-being content’. It is in a way ‘fictional’. The source of trouble is the transferring of the macroscopic concept of ‘a very very small object’ into the microscopic world. The concept of particle is a similar case. Here it seems to be better to speak that ‘closely, atoms form things’ or ‘closely, atoms participate in things’.

Using similar reasoning we could say that the concept of nucleus has also high ‘non-being content’. The adoption of this concept was forced by the famous Rutherford’s experiment. 

We may analogically say that the concept of elementary particle is not the best, because it  also has high ‘non-being content’. It was introduced in a similar way to the concept of atom. Therefore, many unclear and ambiguous conceptualizations participate in it. In a complex reality, we may separate larger or smaller parts, but the latter are not elementary particles (e.g. proton, electron, or neutron). And this is not about composing protons or neutrons of quarks. Electron does not seem to be something elementary. It is probably a lot more complicated than we think. It is the randomness of our cognitive perceptions which determines these particles. In Bohr’s model of atom this concept seems to be right. But why matter would organize itself this way? There is no rationale for it. Finally the last concept – resonances. Not in the meaning of vibrations or oscillations, but in the meaning of extremely short-lived elementary particles, with lifetimes below a certain threshold value, which are not considered particles, only so-called resonances. The great inadequacy of the concept of elementary particle is clearly visible in this case. The theory involving BEMs and their ‘love acts’ does not enforce the artificial division into particles and resonances. All of those are types of BEM states. The concept of particle lifetimes seems to result from the incidentalness of our cognitive perceptions. The limits of our lives, or our cognition, in a way force us to assert that a given thing has this or that lifetime. The fact that something decays or ends in course of experiments does not mean that there is a real existential decay or end, this may mean nothing more than that we reached the limits of our cognition due to ‘weak’ APUs.

6.2.1.5 So we have very defective (in other words weak) analogical unities. This influences the quality of theories in which they participate. The concept of atom is particularly ‘bad’, which ruins all physics. It spreads further and ruins all quantum physics, the Standard Model, the string theory, etc. The concept of elementary particle is also disastrous, and its results are the same in other theories.

6.2.1.6 The reasoning in 6.2.1.4 may be transferred into the field of nuclear physics. Radioactive decay does not necessarily need to be perceived as existential decay. Maybe our cognitive perceptions (APUs) are too ‘cognitively poor’, and that is what forces the concept of decay, which is a kind of ‘stop’, where in fact there is ‘continuity’ in a certain order. 

6.2.1.7 When speaking about atoms we may mention the concept of spin. This seems to be a bad concept, because it is very incidental, but its use is spread throughout practically all elementary particles. It is very incidental because is based on the concept of angular momentum and on the concept of projection of angular momentum on a given direction and its quantization. In fact we use only mathematical beings, which are unambiguous, and real material beings are not unambiguous but analogical [1]. This is a quite different situation. In fact there is no reason to say about the constant angular momentum (of particle). Mathematically expressed angular momentum we assume is the same in time points e.g. t1 and t2, but metaphysically this is not the same, beacause we ignore large amounts of ‘richness’ (being properties) of different elements. We assume e.g. that rotating points are in the same distance from the axis of rotation, but it is not the ‘metaphysical distance’. So we can think about many APU in this case. For example:

APU connected with transferring the macroscopic concept of angular momentum into the microscopic world of particles,
APU connected with every multiplication of measurement unit second during measurement of coordinates of time points t1 and t2,
APU connected with constancy of distance of  rotating points from the axis of rotation,
APU connected with the value of angular momentum for t1 and t2,
APU connected with constancy of mass (in space and in time),
APU connected with constancy of object as such,
APU connected with conditions of measurement in t1 and t2,
APU connected with ‘similarity’ of time points,
APU connected with ‘similarity’ of space points,
APU connected with projection of angular momentum as such,
APU connected with projection of angular momentum on a given direction,
APU connected with quantization,
APU connected with way of ‘referring’ and others.

And why would practically every elementary particle have to act like a ‘spinning object’? Why would a simple photon have to have such a large spin, because as big as 1? Besides, this spin causes a great deal of trouble in introducing new particles (e.g. SUSY).

6.2.2 Electric current, magnetism, electromagnetism and optics

The phenomenon of electric current (whether direct or alternating) is not especially interesting from the point of view of metaphysics. The movement of some beings established by convention (charges) generates many concepts and laws formulated in respective APUs.  

Showing that magnetic effects do not require a separate magnetic force, but instead result only from electricity if we take into account the effect of the theory of relativity, which is Lorentz contraction, was a great success of physics in a metaphysical sense. It showed that humans, in their cognitive ‘helplessness’, superfluously create new beings which really are non-beings. Modern physics does the same thing. The concept of this TOE claims that there only are ‘lovingly acting’ BEMs, and it does not show the need of any other forces than those described by the law of gravity or Coulomb’s law. These two laws exhaust the matter’s possibilities when it comes to forces (this does not concern macroscopic forces, e.g. rocket thrust force), so magnetic effects must be something different. This is coherent with the interpretation assumed by modern physics. The multitude of concepts and laws of magnetism may be formulated in relevant APUs. In truth, we could stop using the words ‘magnetism’, ‘electromagnetism’, or even ‘optics’ at all, and speak only of the effects of electricity, which in turn may be reduced to relevant effects of BEM and APU theory, i.e. to this TOE.

A specific comment is possible concerning electromagnetic waves, which are nothing special in the universe (according to this TOE). Every change in BEMs reality should be specifically ‘perceived’ and ‘continued ‘. So we can discuss the enormous number of cases of ‘waves’.

Despite a large extensiveness of laws and concepts in the discussed fields of physics, which are reducible to relevant APUs, they do not extend beyond the concept of BEMs presented in 2.1.

6.3 Strong interactions

For fundamental reasons described in 4.4 and 2.1 they are formally impossible. There are no carriers of them. There are only statements of certain unities in our cognittion. This is one of reasons that SUSY failed. This concept may, however, function by convention. The Standard Model assumes the existence of quarks which have ‘colours’ and ‘flavours’ along with carriers of interactions between them. BEM reality projected on our earlier APUs (assumed by physics) forces us to come up with the concepts of quarks and gluons. But with different APUs this would not be necessary. In physics which would not recognize the need to consolidate the nucleus with short-range forces there would be no point to speak about quarks. 

Experimental discoveries of subsequent quarks are not proofs on the ground of metaphysics. In cognitively weak being areas, with APUs having high ‘non-being content’, the reality, as confirmed by experiment, touches upon the interpretation itself. In other words the difference between the fact of quark’s existence and the interpretation of experimental data is slowly disappearing. In truth we speak about its ‘discovery’ only in light of many theoretical interpretations. We have nothing more than a system of APUs with ‘non-being content’. It is like with Van der Waals gas. Above the critical temperature the difference between gas and liquid disappears. Below that temperature it is possible for the gas to exist, the liquid to exist, or transitions from one to the other. 

6.4 Weak interactions

For fundamental reasons indicated in 4.4 and 2.1 they are formally impossible. There are no carriers of them. There are only statements of certain unities in our cognition. This is one of reasons that SUSY failed.This concept may, however, function by convention. Beta decay and transformation of neutrons into protons and electrons provided grounds for adopting another type of ‘interaction’. Was it correct? Again, this is not an interaction in the proper sense. There is no object generating a coercion of some action of another object. If we want, we can call all situations where something new and inexplicable happens an interaction. This will, however, lead to nothing constructive. As a result of neutron decay, the existence of so-called antineutrinos was assumed, because it was needed to uphold a law (conservation of energy). But this law is only an intentional being created by humans trying to put their theories in order. If our thinking followed different paths, there would not be a need to speak about antineutrinos at all. Notice that physics, because of weak cognitive perceptions (APUs with high ‘non-being content’), often cannot deal with problems, and because of that, like electric charges of double types before, a double type reality was introduced in this case (strong and weak interactions). Notice that the first of these problems concerned certain objects, so in this situation it was the easiest to introduce the concept of ‘positive and negative’. The second problem concerned reality between the objects, and in this case it is the easiest to introduce the concept of ‘weak and strong’. But it is not the reality that has something ‘weak and strong’, rather it is our cognitive helplessness. Also the concept of positive and negative electric charge rather ‘shows’ our cognitive helplessness. 

6.4.1 Unification of electromagnetic and weak interactions

We know about this success of physics [3], but it is not important success in the ligth of this TOE. Why ? Because the concept of fundamental interactions accepted in elementary particle physics, which assumes that interactions between particles are transferred by their carriers (e.g. gluons would transfer interactions between quarks), is unacceptable in their literal sense, i.e. in the way physics understands them. They can only be treated as certain logical simplifications. In this TOE this famous unification may be treated as only making a certain order in the field of ‘secondary importance concepts or other things’.

6.4.2 Unification of electroweak and strong interactions (GUT)

The situation is similar. The field of unificated (possibly in future) concepts or other things is larger than in the case of electromagnetic and weak interactions. We can hope that this unification (rather artificial) is possible. But this unification is not important in general understanding of matter and universe.

6.5 Higgs interactions

For reasons presented in 1.7, 2.1 and 4.4 , we may say that there is no such interaction. Notice that the problem is similar to experimental detection of quarks, which is the problem of existential tangency of the fact and its interpretation. That is why we may say that the Higgs boson has no independent existence. Humans cannot decide whether something exists or not, they may only perform cognition of that something. Humans cannot, e.g. by assuming a ‘five sigma criterion’ or ‘three sigma’, decide about existence or nonexistence.

6.5.1 The techni-quarks

All the theory of imparting mass by Higgs particle is not accepted in this TOE. But in the theories which accept the Higgs boson (or rather a Higgs boson), it seems to be not so simple object as previously assumed. It seems possible to obtain this boson from other particles, so called techni – quarks. But this is rather an argument against the existence of this boson.

Standard Model and symmetries

7 The Standard Model

It may be treated as a consequence of the assumed APUs, so practically as a theory which is true by convention. Its conventionality is extensive, and some elements of the Standard Model concept are unacceptable (e.g. the scalar Higgs field and its bosons). So the questions arise: What does really exist? Do electrons or protons exist? Do quarks exist? Do gluons exist? The answer is: each of these things exists by convention, i.e. with a greater or lesser dose of cognitive relativity, which is to say with greater or lesser ‘non-being content’ of relevant APUs which are cognitive perceptions. Strictly speaking according to this TOE only BEMs conglomerates exist surely.The concept of electron has a very low ‘non-being content’, so electron ‘practically’ exists, it is a little worse with quarks, and Higgs boson does not exist. Notice that during the experimental ‘discovery’ of particles we really do not have any insight into the world of BEMs. We say that e.g. the quark t was discovered, but what we have is tracks in some chamber or a registration of an impulse by a meter. They do not refer directly to the object sought for, only some other beings (particles etc.) Besides, this track or meter indication needs to be seen. Everything must be consistent. The tracks must be consistent with our predictions, so must the impulses. We construe that as a confirmation. But this is only a confirmation of the cognitive perceptions, nothing more. In truth there are ‘gaps’ in proofs that what we assume is what really is there. We have no proof  that is what really happens. That is how an adequate APU is developed, which embodies or encompasses a large number of coherencies (unities) that we adopted ‘on the way’, being conscious of that or not. If we sense that this encompassment is correct, we assign to it a very low ‘non-being content’, and we simply say that a particle exists and that it was just discovered. To sum up, we can say that the Standard Model cannot be the theory of everything.

8 Conservation laws and symmetries

8.1 Generally speaking nothing has to be conserved in matter except for one thing, and that is the number of virtually existing BEMs (this is described in 2.1). Everything else is just their ‘stories’. What does it mean that something has to be conserved? The value of a physical quantity is the resultant of material and cognitive factors. Both are very small fragments of BEM ‘love stories’ or ‘love stories’ creating APUs. There is no rationale for formal conservation of anything. Especially if we take into consideration the purposeful evolution of the world. Notice also, that the world of beingly contingent matter must be in some way ‘similar’ to the world of contingent free and rational beings. And in this world there is nothing that would in any way reflect the conservation laws which are said to exist in matter. However, conservation laws are constructions expressible in APUs, because they are virtually contained in cognitive constructions expressed in APUs. In other words, the physical quantities are defined in such way that they determine appropriate conservation laws as derivative APUs. Thus, conservation laws do not formally extend our cognition of the material world. They are in fact embedded in the concepts themselves. What is more, we can create concepts in such way that one thing or another stays conserved.

8.2 Conservation laws are formally derived using certain symmetries. The Noether’s theorem may be useful in the process. But symmetry itself is not binding. In a way, it stems from our aesthetic inclinations. Symmetries have no rationale. Why should e.g. a reflection in a mirror or changing the coordinate system from left-oriented to right-oriented result in constancy or invariability of anything? 

8.3 As symmetries in physics are rather incidental and are not immanently inherent in matter, the practice of modern physics to make conclusions on their basis regarding the existence of certain beings, e.g. particles, has no rationale. The incidence of symmetries determines the incidence of laws, or in general the veracity of conclusions resulting from them. This is confirmed by experiments. Symmetries are broken. Artificial divisions of symmetries into symmetries valid in this or that existential area are introduced. This has no rationale. If it had, the universe would be very unsymmetrical, or disordered. However, it is a creature which is perfect in its order, but as we do not understand it, we try to assign it ‘perfectness’ in accordance with our incidental concepts, and the result is broken symmetry. The reality is what it is (or rather ‘wants to be’), and it does not ‘want to’ submit to ‘fetters’ that would force it to yield to our fancies.

8.4 There is no formal incidence in the universe, it would be an absurd. This ‘theoretical incidence’ would contradict the perfectness of Creation. Everything has a rationale. Thus, there is no such thing as ‘spontaneous symmetry breaking’. This concept results from the helplessness of humans in performing cognition of the world. If there really was any symmetry, it would have to always be there. Where would its possible breaking come from? There is no being which would make that happen. Today’s physics assumes such ‘spontaneous breaking’, and it is an absurd. It is clearly visible that its adoption leads nowhere. This is confirmed by experiments and a growing number of problems. Why would matter ‘want’ certain symmetries to be true, and other not? Physics constructed on the principle that there is a spontaneous  symmetry breaking is an absurdal physics.

8.5 The physical constants are  more or less often used by physicists. From the metaphysical point of view of this TOE they may be treated as ‘only weak confirmations’ of human cognition of the universe. In the universe nothing is constant in fact. The history of the universe can be interpreted according to this TOE as ‘only enormous set of individual and realised in free way events’. In other words if we define any physical constant then we only check or confirms ourselves. This action does not improve the real state of our understanding of nature. The list of physical constants, for example according to NIST, is very large and it may be extended. But it does not mean that our cognition of the material world is so good.

Let us take into account for example the well known physical constant e (elementary electrical charge) equal approximately 0,16 aC. This value is nothing special in the enormous set of possible values in the universe. It can not be derived from any fundamental things. It is only a result of many, many ‘decision events’ in the ‘space of BEMs’ and many, many ‘cognition events’ in the ‘space of APUs’. The situation is analogical like for example with year 1939 (the beginning of the Second World War). This value is formally nothing special in the human history as such. It can not be derived from any laws of history. It is only a result of many, many decision events in the space of politics, economy and so one and many, many cognition events in the space of science, information, reasoning and so one.

8.6  We can analyze as examples some symmetries. Let us take translation in space. We have a point A in space with coordinates (expressed with measurement unit meter) e.g. 2 m, 4 m, 5 m. We have also a similar point B with coordinates e.g. 3 m, 5 m, 6 m.  In point A we measure the speed of a given object with mass 0,01 kg and we obtain 2 m/s. The same must be in point B, if we make everything correctly. We think so (assuming that space is isotropic) and we say that the symmetry of space generates the law of consevation of linear momentum (here we have 0,01 kg x 2 m/s). But in fact we use only mathematical beings, which are unambiguous, and real material beings are not unambiguous but analogical [1]. This is a quite different situation. In fact there is no reason to say about the symmetry (in real world). Mathematically expressed linear momentum we assume is the same in points A and B, but metaphysically this is not the same, beacause we ignore large amounts of ‘richness’ (being properties) of different elements. So we can think about many APU in this case. For example:

APU connected with the application of concept of linear momentum in points A and B,
APU connected with every multiplication of measurement unit meter during measurement of coordinates of points A and B,
APU connected with value 2 m/s for A and B,
APU connected with constancy of mass (in space and in time),
APU connected with constancy of object as such,
APU connected with conditions of measurement in A and B,
APU connected with ‘similarity’ of points,
APU connected with way of ‘referring’ and others.

8.7 Symmetry CPT is especially important. The analyze of it may be similar like in 8.6, but with large amounts of analogy. The final conclusion is the same: there is formally no symmetry.

8.8 Searching (in general) laws of physics on the base of symmetries has no rationale and is an absurd (e.g. introducing new bosons). The very serious difficulties in theories and lack of appropriate experimental verifications can be treated as a confirmation of this thesis. Symmetries can be useful but only in limited conditions. This is one of reasons that SUSY failed.

String theories and others

9 String and superstring theories

String theories, of which there are many, are a consequence of the same reasoning, in which the existentiality of elementary particles is placed too high, and as a consequence the concept of string is born, followed by more complex string-like creations. A string which vibrates with energy is in itself a fairly complicated concept, and it should not serve to explain simpler concepts. This string is ‘something like a toy’. Why the universe should be constructed from beings of such a toy-shape ?  There is no rationale for it. The string (or membrane and so one) is a very  very contingent being (without a general sense) and it can not be treated like a being of fundamental importance and meaning in the history of universe. Energy (APU60) is not a very good concept (not so low ‘non-being content’), and we should not start from it. The matter is similar with the quantities which would describe such string, like amplitude or frequency. The assumption of a large number of rolled up dimensions, so characteristic of string theories, seems to be a manipulation. The number of dimensions in our space is three, because that is what results from human cognition of matter, and humans perform cognition of space in ‘first projection’, its copy, and its complement (three in total). Then the reason that space is three-dimensional is of philosophical nature. Matter ‘lives’ its life and cannot conform to humans by assuming such number of its existential ‘dimensions’ as they see fit e.g. in order to obtain coherence with assumptions. Rolling up of dimensions seems a bad concept, and its APU  must  have  high  ‘non-being content’. Dimensions do not exist in matter in a proper sense, it is just an APU. There is no rationale in matter for a dimension construed in that way to be hidden. Meeting the criteria resulting from mathematical beings is a very weak one. If we can say that we have a fairly good ‘base’ for four dimensions of ordinary space-time, even if only because of its applicability in practice and thus not a very ‘bad’ APU, there is no such ‘base’ for subsequent dimensions introduced in string theories, which result in APUs with high ‘non-being content’.

String and superstring theories cannot to lead to the theory of everything because:

a)  of an unsubstantiated assumption of beings-strings that feature capabilities which have no rationale, and which lead ‘in advance’ to laws ‘desired’ by humans. The assumption that the universe is constructed from elements being similar to a part of toy or musical instrument is absurdal. Why the concept of this part would be so highly placed between fundamental concepts ? There is no reason,
b)  they do not have any philosophical substantiation; they seem to not take into account that the world of elementary (simplest) material beings is also something good, and that it may add something good only as a result of quasi freedom and quasi rationality, which is to say in the course of individually non-repeatable ‘events’ which do not follow any scheme or algorithm. Searching for a set of rules governing that scheme or algorithm is pointless, because there is no such set (this set would produce ‘a slave reality’ and so ‘worse reality’), and that is where the failure of string theories comes from,
c)  the transferring of the macroscopic concept of string into the microscopic world of particles is troublemaking.

In general string and superstring theories are absurdal. The world of strings does not exist.

9.1 The holographic principle

According to it the 3-dimesional reality can be treated as an projection of this reality on the 2-dimensional surface encompassing it. In this TOE this principle is reasonable but is not clearly visible. Humans perform cognition of space in ‘first projection’, its copy, and its complement (three in total). The third element in this cognition seems to be of ‘minimal importance’. So we can obtain a quite good ‘hologram’ only on the basis of two dimensions.  The extending of this cognition to space-time produces complications in this TOE. Stricly speaking it seems that the holographic principle is not true in an absolute manner because this additional dimension (third) cannot be reduced to non-being. If we extend this principle to n-dimensional reality we may say the same. 

10 M-theory and its derivatives

It is a consequence of ‘string’ thinking, and an unsatisfactory theory with a large number of redundant beings. It may not be confirmed in any way. Creating these beings results from ceaseless ‘indulging’ mathematical beings that are only intentional. Existence of a large number of worlds is assumed, and that is an absurd, because theology dictates that only one material world was created. Naturally, it has many ‘parts’. Only in that sense may we seek any correctness in the M-theory. Many new concepts are assumed by this theory, because otherwise there is no way it would be possible to achieve a satisfactory conformity with the mathematical ‘elegance’ sought for. This theory postulates e.g. 0-branes, 1-branes (strings), 2-branes (membranes), super 0-branes, super 1-branes, or super 2-branes, and many dimensions of space-time. It is said that the M-theory includes five different string theories (generalizing them), which shows exactly how far physics is from the real world, and to what extent it tries to ‘indulge’ mathematical beings. The number of dimensions was increased for its purposes from 10 in string theories to 11 for the M-theory.

The M-theory cannot be the theory of everything because, among other things:

a)  it seems to artificially introduce the concept of ‘singularity’, without an existential reason, so without rationale,
b)  it seems to artificially introduce the concept of expansion of this singularity ‘with enormous speed’, which is inacceptable, because there is no rationale for this expansion, and besides, the concept of speed is ‘strongly secondary’ and makes sense only in deliberations concerning fairly well established macroscopic matter,
c)  it seems to artificially introduce new dimensions without an existential reason, so without rationale,
d)  it seems to artificially introduce a thesis on a great accumulation of energy in the ‘singularity’, without an existential reason, so without rationale, because the concept of energy is ‘strongly secondary’ and it makes sense only in deliberations concerning fairly well established macroscopic matter,
e)  it seems to not take into account the reducibility of cognition of matter to sensual perceptions,
f)  it introduces a lot of new beings, e.g. quantities or parameters which do not literally exist in matter,
g)  APUs of the abundant new beings must have exceptionally high ‘non-being content’,
h)  it continues ‘string thinking’ taking its errors further, primarily by using the concept of a string vibrating with energy, or an n-dimensional brane, which is absurd on philosophical ground,
i)  non-existent symmetries (strictly speaking supersymmetries), which are theoretical attempts to force onto matter a ‘desired elegance, ignoring actually inelegant life of BEM matter’, are extended to cover other beings which are even less likely to exist,
j)  it continues works on describing the world in geometric categories (although, as we know, it was postulated by Einstein himself, but without success apart from gravity) by using spinor geometry which is ‘tempting’, but even worse than classic geometry, because it ‘forgets’ about the reduction of dimensions of a given space to human cognitive perceptions,
k)  it ‘enforces’ using noncumulative geometry which is even further from cognitive reality of humans,
l)  it seems to be not clearly ready to use the holographic principle,
m)  it has no bigger success in the unification of physics.

For analogical reasons, theories increasing the number of dimensions ever more, i.e. the F-theory and the S-theory, cannot be the theory of everything.

The M- theory seems to include some content ‘compatible’ with this TOE, because:

a)  it claims that such ‘things’ as time or space did not exist in so-called singularity, and emerged later (this TOE speaks only about cognitive, not existential emergence),
b)  it claims that ‘things’ like gravity, or electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions did not exist in so-called singularity, and emerged later (this TOE speaks only about cognitive, not existential emergence).

11 Other theories

11.1 SUSY theory

This theory, called also supersymmetry, is not true. It fails. Why? Because it is ‘indulging’ mathematical beings. Every mathematical beig is only an abstracted essence from reality [1]. Only this. The concept of  spin is the very bad concept (high ‘non- being content’) and so the supersymmetry, which treates this concept very seriously (assumption of mutual changing of fermions and bosons) must fail. This ‘indulging’  produces many theoretical beings. So we may for example pairs: lepton – slepton, electron – selectron, quark – squark, boson – bosino, foton – fotino, graviton – gravitino. According to this TOE all the matter consists only from BEMs conglomerates. Reasuming we may say that the SUSY theory cannot be the theory of everything.

11.2 E8 theory

The situation is similar. This theory is too simple and it also creates new beings (particles) during this process of ‘indulging’ mathematical beings concerning the famous group E8. According to this TOE all the matter consists only from BEMs conglomerates. Reasuming we may say that the E8 theory cannot be the theory of everything

Practical reflections concerning theory of everything

12.Experimental verification and falsification

12.1 The very concept of experimental verification is not that simple. It seems that the case is not that either we do have a confirmation or we do not. It may be so that incorrect reasoning combined with an incorrect interpretation of the experiment’s results may give an illusory confirmation. Physics may then ‘follow’ a false path, which seems to be the case today. An experiment confirms predictions, which is to say it verifies them, if they contain only ‘strong’ transcriptions (this is described in 13) of APUs  with  very low ‘non-being content’. In other words these predictions must be free from non-being ‘holes’ in concepts and laws. All paths of such transcriptions leading to lower and lower numbers next to the APU symbol should have very low ‘non-being content’. This also concerns T0 and T1 sets. One non-being participating somewhere on the way ruins everything, because the whole line of thought stops to be true.

Falsification may sometimes confirm the reasoning. 

Example 1

We drop a stone from the height h = 10 m. We have a formula for calculating the time of falling t = (2h/g)0,5 omitting the air resistance (irrelevant here). This theory gives us t of around 1.4 s. We measure the time from the moment we let go of the stone until it hits the ground. This time is equal e.g. 1.3 s. We acknowledge that the theory of free fall was verified. There are a number of APUs in this case. The formula itself is e.g. APUk1, small air resistance and conformity of this situation with the concept of free fall APUk2, correct height measurement APUk3, correct time measurement APUk4, correct value of gravitational acceleration APUk5, correct calculations APUk6. Each of these APUs, independently of their transcription into different APUs, or of other APUs participating in them, seems strong. Because all APUs are strong, we receive what we were expecting. So we will always get a satisfactory result unless non-being ‘squeezes’ into a certain APU on the way. Such is the case in all of the TOE.

Example 2

Situation is the same as in example 1, but instead of a stone, we have a ball made of metal. We drop it down in a room were a very strong magnet is placed above the ceiling, but we cannot see it. We do everything like in the previous case, but we get a result of t = 3 s. We acknowledge that the theory is not verified. The reason is that APUk2 has very high ‘non-being content’. This is what happens in many physical experiments, because there is a non-being (or non-beings) somewhere, and we do not know where. We could think about developing a ‘non-being reducer’. It can be understood as a system eliminating APUs with strong non-being from the sequence describing the experiment. This could be done ‘manually’ or with the use of computer technology on a larger scale. Such ‘reducer’ in this example would ‘cancel’ APUk2, and in many different situations it would ‘prevent’ ineffective experiments.

Example 3

The situation is similar, but we toss the stone straight up. Its initial velocity is 10 m/s. It should, as we know, attain the height of h = v2/2g, which is around 5 m. At the height of 3 m, an observer is looking through binoculars and he sees the stone flash by on its way up. There are similar APUs (although generally different) to those in example 1. An important APU here is ‘conformity of seeing the flying stone to reality’. It has a scarce ‘non-being content’. The theorem that ‘attaining the height of 3 m by the stone is compliant with the theory expressed by the formula’ has a similar APU with practically no ‘non-being content’. We acknowledge that the result of the experiment verifies the formula for calculating height.

Example 4

A similar situation. At the height of 12 m an observer is looking through binoculars horizontally and he does not see a stone flash by on its way up. There are similar APUs here as in example 3. An important APU here is ‘conformity of not seeing the flying stone to reality’. It has a scarce ‘non-being content’. The theorem that ‘not seeing the stone at the height of 12 m is incompliant with the theory expressed by the formula’ seems to have a ‘weak’ APU. The theorem that ‘not seeing the stone at the height of 12 m is compliant with the theory expressed by the formula’ seems to have a ‘slightly strong’ APU (but not very strong, because other circumstances may have taken place, although this is not very likely). Our reasoning is similar and we acknowledge that the result of the experiment does not verify the formula nor does it falsify it.

Example 5

A similar situation with the stone. Now we assume that the stone should attain the height calculated by e.g. the formula h = v2/10g, which is around 1 m. At the height of 3 m an observer is looking through binoculars horizontally and sees a stone flash by on its way upwards. An important APU here seems to be that ‘attaining the height of 3 m by the stone is incompliant with the theory expressed by the formula’. It seems to have a scarce ‘non-being content’. Our reasoning is similar and we acknowledge that the result of the experiment falsified the formula for calculating height.

Above examples 1-5 are very simple, but they show the complexity of ‘experimental verification of theories’. 

12.2 When it comes to this TOE, it is not easy to present indisputable ways of its experimental verification, because all experiments are subject to interpretation (to a greater or lesser extent). It seems fairly strongly confirmed by the following facts:

a)  gravitons have not been discovered,
b)  the state of quarks as free particles has not been achieved,
c)  ‘strange’ behaviour of quarks s has been acknowledged (in this TOE, strange behaviour of particles understood literally is an absurd, because ‘the life of BEMs’ is composed of individual and existentially unique situations, so not one of them can be strange, as there is no scheme in light of which it would be reasonable to speak about variation from the scheme, i.e. strangeness),
d)  we do not know what was really found when the discovery of the Higgs boson was announced in 2012,
e)  existence of large quantities of unidentified (dark) energy in cosmos is supposed, which confirms one of this TOE’s theses, i.e. that the concept of energy is not very useful in explaining the world, and that is why it has a limited meaning, and at some point it puts physics in a troublesome situation, because suddenly there is some ‘large energy’ and we do not know where it came from,
f) the famous Copenhagen Interpretation cannot explain self-interference of electrons (in certain well-known experiments),
g) renormalization procedures are artificially introduced,
h)  there are unsubstantiated divisions of symmetries into violated or unviolated in such or another conditions,
i)  there is an unsubstantiated concept of ‘spontaneous symmetry breaking’, which is simply equal to speaking about ‘chaos’ and absurdity of the universe,
j)  there is an existentially unsubstantiated concept of scalar Higgs field,
k)  physics is getting more and more complicated, and the feeling of simplicity and beauty of the universe is lost,
l)  all the philosophy is represented by two fundamental orders, it is order of being and (secondly) order of cognition, and in this TOE we can identify also two fundamental ‘things’ (which can be treated as similar orders), it is order of BEMs and (secondly) order of APUs. In other words the BEMs ‘story’ is all the  reality in physics and the APUs ‘story’ is all the cognition in physics.

13 Attempts to estimate the chosen concepts and laws of physics for ‘non-being content’.

The estimated values are expressed in percentage points. The tolerances of these values are huge. They are only indicatory. It is hard to present a simple algorithm for estimating the proper value. Generally, these estimations are assumed arbitrarily, and they take into account the intuition of a given physicist.

For concepts, they reflect among others:

a)  to what extent the concept seems intuitively coherent,
b)  how many simple concepts were used to arrive at the concept,
c)  how many complex concepts were used to arrive at the concept,
d)  what is the history of the concept,
e)  how the concept is construed in practice, e.g. in everyday life.

For laws, they reflect among others:

a)  to what extent the law seems to be comprehensible,
b)  what is the degree of complexity,
c)  is it captured in mathematical form or not,
d)  in what existential or physical area it is valid,
e)  to what extent it has been confirmed,
f)  does it have any practical implementation, e.g. in everyday life.

If some values are already estimated, and other values are analogical, like A1, A2, A3, A4, we can use e.g. proportions of analogies A1 / A2 = A3 / A4

Examples of attempts to estimate ‘non-being content’

Universe 0, photon 0, constancy of the speed of light 0, situation 1, mass 1, time 1, law of gravity 1,  Coulomb’s law 2, electric charge 2, gravitational constant 2, Coulomb’s constant k for vacuum 3, force 3, momentum 4, angular momentum 5, energy 5, Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence 5,  Lorentz transformations 5, law-equation for relativistic length contraction 5, law-equation for relativistic time dilatation 5, relativity of simultaneity 5, wave length 5, wave amplitude 5, time-space warp 6, black hole 6, heat 6, kinetic energy 6, absolute temperature scale 6, electron 6, proton 6, neutron 7, Planck constant 7, electric current 8, electric potential difference 8, law-equation for Lorentz force 9, law-equation for magnetic force on a current-carrying wire 10, magnetic flux 10, Faraday’s law-equation for electromagnetic induction 11, simple harmonic motion 11, law of reflection of light 11, lens equation 11, electromagnetic wave 20, de Broglie wave 22, de Broglie law-equation 22, probability interpretation of the wave function 30, Hubble’s law 40, atom 50, nucleus 51, elementary particle 53, law of radioactive decay 53, dark matter 53, dark energy 54, quantization 54, time independent Schrödinger equation 54, uncertainty principle time-energy 60, Feynman diagrams 62, Dirac equation for electron 62, variational principle 62, quark 65, ‘colour charge’ of quarks 66, ‘flavour’ of quarks 66, weak interactions 70, gluons 71, gauge bosons 72, gauge symmetry 75, isotropy 75, parity symmetry 75, CPT symmetry 78, resonances 79, parity principle 80, baryon number conservation law 80, neutrino 80, Hawking radiation 85, selectron 85, photino 90, 1-brane 95, 2-brane 95, super 1-brane 96, super 2-brane 96, superstring 96, supersymmetry 97, grand unified theory 97, M-theory 98, F-theory 99, S-theory 99, virtual particle-antiparticle pair 99, Higgs boson imparting mass 100, tachyons 100, graviton 100.

‘Non-being content’of other things than concepts and laws of physics should be commented on. These other things may be treated as concepts and laws necessary to complete the set of APUs serving to perform cognitive perception of physics. They may be values of physical quantities, adequateness of description, non-physical beings e.g. mathematical, statistical, linguistic, and others.  

It is necessary to add, that neither APUs, nor their ‘non-being contents’, are not the same as measurement uncertainty, but something more general, although similar. To put it briefly, this similarity consists in the fact, that when we speak about measurement uncertainty, we are not sure about the results we provide, and when we speak about an APU and its ‘non-being content’, we say that our thinking or cognition are imperfect.

Example

The value of voltage between the ends of a conductor equals 10 V. In the APU assigned to this value, we can distinguish e.g. APU of the volt unit, APU connected with the precision of measurement in this situation, or APU connected with adequateness of the theory used for describing the situation with the situation itself. These APUs are in turn constructed with the use of other APUs. For example, many factors participate in the APU concerning the precision of measurement, e.g. the variation of parameters in measurement devices from nominal values, the correctness of reading the value, and many others.  

14 Transcription of concepts and laws of physics in APU convention

14.1 More or less elementary transcriptions are possible. Some of the fairly elementary transcriptions are provided in 5.1.2.1 for the concept of ‘uniform linear motion’, and for the very simple law-equation for ‘displacement in non-uniform linear motion without initial velocity’. Less elementary transcriptions are those in which more complex APUs are used. Transcribing these more complex APUs may be quite tedious, but eventually it is always possible, because physics is a rather ordered science when it comes to terminology. A given APU may be transcribed many times in different, but equivalent (practically, not in the mathematical sense) ways.

Example 1 

‘Law – equation for refraction of light (sin a)/(sin b) = constant’ – APU160
mathematical being of sinus – APU205
mathematical being of division ‘/’ of one element by the other one – APU204
angle of incidence a – APU155
angle of refraction b – APU156
constant – APU45

The law of refraction of light, known from physics (APU160), may be in this case (after taking into account some of the APU from 5.1.2.1) transcribed as

APU11((APU204(APU205(APU155), APU205(APU156)), APU45 )

Example 2

2-brane – APU 190
macroscopic single-dimensional string – APU65
microscopic analogue of a macroscopic object – APU76
other microscopic analogue of a macroscopic object – APU77
coexistence of two analogical objects – APU78

2-brane (APU190) may be in this case (after taking into account some of the APU form  5.1.2.1) transcribed as APU10((APU13)((APU78(APU76(APU65),APU77(APU65))))

14.2 Only four things have been transcribed as APUs in this paper to serve as examples. The whole physics might be organized in this way by establishing model transcriptions. The following assumptions could be made provisionally:

a)  some uncomplicated concepts are intuitively construed in the same way by all physicists,
b)  specific things are construed univocally.

This way, we would arrive at a large set of APUs corresponding with all the output of physics. Elements of this set might be placed on the axis of being pursuant to an established criterion, e.g. the higher the number next to the ‘APU’ or the higher the numbers next to ‘APU’ symbols used for transcribing, the more existentially advanced the APU is, which means that it is placed further away from non-being on the axis. What benefits would it bring?

We could say that:

a)  the ‘position’ of a given concept would be visible in the framework of the whole physics,
b)  the ‘genealogy’ of a given concept or law of physics would be easily visible,
c)  estimations of ‘non-being content’ could be found more easily if the way in which some things participate in other things, and the manner in which this ‘non-being content’ is transferred further, would be always ‘close at hand’. In practice this would enable the possibility of evading laws and theories with a large dose of non-being or experiments of questionable value.

It is possible to use the Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme (PACS) or the ICSTI International Classification System of Physics. The APU convention can be more complicated than these systems. It is possible that some APUs would be extended in many stages and in many ways.

15 Derivability of physics from this TOE

Derivation of detailed theory from this TOE is generally doable by ‘reverse reasoning’. Fundamental theses of this TOE may serve as a starting point. Philosophy dictates that being forces us to pose questions. Posing questions about various aspects can lead us to the truth. This road may be very tedious, but it may also be simple, especially if we use shortcuts in some stages of reasoning.

Example

Arriving (in a simplified way) at the Einstein’s equation for the equivalence of mass and energy E = mc2.

This TOE postulates that humans, when they reflect upon the reality surrounding them, develop classic mechanics by defining (or only explaining) displacement, velocity, acceleration, force, mass, work, energy, momentum, etc. Every time it is a different APU. The reflection on the character of cognition performed by humans as formulated in this TOE dictates that when we measure the speed of light, the result will always be the same (i.e. c). This TOE says that the laws of physics in insignificantly different circumstances (systems) are practically the same. Applying this thesis to e.g. two balls of equal masses and velocities which head towards each other and undergo a perfectly inelastic collision, and taking into account various mathematical beings available within this TOE (commonly known mathematical equations), a conclusion is drawn that the increment of mass in the system must be equal to the lost energy divided by c2 [4]. Thus, after taking into account simple mathematical beings, we get the relationship E = mc2.

Particular sciences of physics (branches) may be derived from TOE like in the example above. They can be compared to a pyramid where the foundations of philosophical and physical concepts are on the top, and the ensuing branches and problems are placed on lower levels of the pyramid:

a)  mechanics – reflection on direct sensual cognition,
b)  thermodynamics and particle physics – reflection as in a) and additionally on particle beings,
c)  gravity – reflection on rules of cognition,
d)  relativistic physics – reflection on the role of light in cognition,
e)  electricity, magnetism, electromagnetism – reflection on rules of cognition and effects of relativistic physics,
f)  optics – reflection on practical role of light in cognition,
g) quantum physics – reflection on limitations of human cognition,
h)  nuclear physics – reflection on the atomistic concept of matter,
i)  elementary particle physics – reflection mainly on the consequences of the atomistic concept,
j)  astrophysics and cosmology – fundamental reflection on the universe.

It is possible to ‘construct’  an other pyramid, for example by using PACS.

Derivation

The fundamental thesis of this TOE is: all the reality in physics is the ‘BEMs story’ and all the cognition in physics is the ‘APUs story’ (p.1 and p.2). According to it we may derivate the particular fields (programmes) of physics.

a) Derivation

Because BEMs are metaphysically good their ‘loving activity’ gives, in ‘collaboration’ with humans, good fundamental concepts of distance, mass and time, expressed in appropriate APUs (p.3). Taking into account the APU connected with the concept of value of physical quantity we obtain unities: metr, kilogram and second. Taking into account APUs of  distance and time and APUs of many different mathematical (so intentional) beings we obtain different concepts and laws of kinematics, wchich often are expressed in mathematical formulas.

The concept of force (taken from the everyday life language) does not mean that force really exists in particular situations. If we take into account different cognition unities in practice  we can ‘introduce’ different forces( for example connected with strings, particles, atoms, macroscopic bodies etc.). But these forces do not exist as beings (in metaphysical sense). So we obtain the Second Law of Dynamics true only in convention. In other words there are no forces in the strict sense, understood as beings really existing. Taking into account the concept of mass and different kinematical concepts and laws we obtain (using mathematical beings) dynamics expressed by many APUs.

b) Derivation

Taking into account other cognition unities we can create thermodynamics. Especially important is the concept of temperature. Similarly like in the case of force we may say that temperature does not exist metaphysically. Every scale of temperature (for example the scale of Kelvin) is only a certain APU. This APU is ‘build’ from other APUs and so one. Using different other APUs (especially mathematical beings or laws and concepts from dynamics or even from chemistry) we obtain thermodynamics and particle (not elementary particles) physics.

c) Derivation

The law of gravity is a fundamental law of humans cognition in physics (p.6.1). Because BEMs are metaphysically ‘good’ they should ‘produce’ or ‘show’ a law expressing or showing their ‘good nature’ (loving nature). It is described in p.6.1. The concept of Higg’s boson and the concept of graviton are absurd, because the mass as such is a concept of metaphysical meaning. Thus it is not added to particles.

d) Derivation

The human activity should be reasonable and responsible. So the main principles of human cognition should be analogically the same. Starting from it we obtain relativity in physics. This is described in p.5.2.1.

Taking into account appropriate metaphysical APUs connected with the nature of human cognition we obtain the limitation for the Special Relativity and for the General Relativity (p.5.2.2.6). It is confirmed by theories and experiments.

e) Derivation

Because BEMs are ‘metaphysically good’ they present this good (loving) nature not only by the law of gravity but also by the law of Coulomb. It is described in p.6.2. The electrical force is an APU stricly connected with the law of Coulomb. Using different APUs connected with the relativity and mathematical beings we obtain the concept of magnetic force. Using further APUs we obtain the classic electrodynamics. Using also APUs connected with quantum physics we obtain the quantum electrodynamics. In a similar way we obtain the quantum chromodynamics.

f) Derivation

Using many different APUs, taken for example from everyday life situations connected with the human visibility and using mathematical beings we obtain optics.

g) Derivation

The real activity of BEMs as ‘quasi reasonable and quasi free beings’ is an enormous set of ‘quasi decisions’.These ‘decisions’ are not known for humans. But humans can obtain a ‘projection of these decisions’ on the set of human APUs (for example coordinates in space, time, energy etc.). Because our APUs are taken mainly from the world of human visibility and so from the world of human cognition, they should have an oscillating nature, what is descibed in p.5.2.2. In other words the universe is not constructed as a set of waves (expressed mathematically as wave functions psi). There is no rationale for it. Why waves ? The universe is not constructed as a set of some generations of very very small elementary particles. There is no rationale for it. Why particles ? Only the nature of human cognition (our helplessnes) gives this wave – picture. Every part of matter (also very very small parts) has a ‘loving nature’. For example every celestial body or every microscopic particle (e.g. electrons). In the famous experiments electrons was interpreted as waves because in these experiments some very very little portions of matter (it is electrons) was ‘obliged ‘ to present their real nature in the projection on our physical quantities. This ‘obligation’ was a result of circumstances of experiment. The picture migth be the only one: waves (p.5.2.2). Because our concepts (APUs) are ‘less loving’ so matter can only ‘oscillate’ in our cognition.

Using different APUs (for example from mechanics) and mathematical beings we obtain many items of quantum physics: wave function, equation of Schroedinger, Heisenberg’s uncertainty and so one. It is described in p.5.2.2. Obtaining the quantum physics is possible with using many mathematical beings because this ‘projection’ from ‘loving activity’ to our quantities is very complex and complicated.

In fact, strictly speaking there are not electrons, protons and so one as such. There are only very small portions of matter (BEMs) in analogically similar situations of ‘obligation’ to present their real nature and these portions are so perceived in analogically the same way. Because on the low level of beings there are no circumstances to  present real differences. So we obtain analogically the same objects (for example electrons).

Taking into account appropriate metaphysical APUs connected  with the nature of human cognition we obtain the limitation for quantum physics (p.5.2.2.6). It is confirmed by theories and experiments.

h) Derivation

Taking into account the APUs connected with our mental vision and ‘fantasy’ concernig the physical 3-dimentional space we obtain the concept of atom. The famous experiment of Rutherford interpreted in categories of our APUs (‘classical’) gives the concept of atom with nucleus and orbits with electrons. But it is only relatively correct. It is described in p.6.2.1.

i) Derivation

Taking into account different APUs connected with the concept of nucleus we obtain nuclear physics. Taking into account intentional beings like symmetries or laws of conservation we obtain theories of fundamental interactions. They are true only by convention. There is no rationale for symmetries. There is no rationale for conservation as such. There is no rationale for so called fundamental interactions. There is no rationale for so called carriers of them. It is described in p.4.4 and in p.8.There are not so many generations of elementary particles. There is no metaphysical principle for it. Only in analogical circumstances they are perceived analogically as APUs (for example leptons,, hadrons, gluons, photons etc.) In fact there are only BEMs clusters and their ‘loving activity’. True speaking, according to this TOE, every BEM is an individuality and every ‘loving act’ is an individual event. But on the low levels of reality the real differences between being are so small that human cognition can not to perceive it and so we speak about populations of BEMs and about conventional generations of parrticles. In other words we may ask: why the universe would contain so many generations of material beings?

Summary of some reasonings, realized with many different APUs may be treated as Standard Model. It is true only by convention and it is described in p.7. and p.8.Taking into account APUs connected with laws of conservation we obtain the theory of strong interactions (p.6.3) and the theory of weak interactions (p. 6.4). These theories are true only by convention. In fact these interactions do not exist.

Taking into account the concept of string (APUs very ‘bad’) we obtain the string theories. It is described in p.9.

j) Derivation

Main principles of metaphysics may be useful in general understanding of the universe. It is described in p.1 and p.2. The history of the universe is not without purpose (aim). It is described  in p III.13. The BEMs ‘loving activity’ is always the principle of this history and an other principle on the ground of philosophy is impossible. It is described in p.1.

Other specific and important topics in the theory of everything

III ADDITIONAL REMARKS

1 The ‘philosophy’ of the number three

A reality which is cognitively well determined is in a way three-element. A long time ago, Aristotle noticed that the number three is exceptional. The whole universe is the third element in a certain order. The human is the third element in the order of free and rational beings. The planet Earth is the third element in the sequence of planets. We have three dimensions of the physical space, three generations of quarks and three generations of leptons. It seems to be sensible to assume that we have three fundamental constants in physics, i.e. c, G and h. It is certainly possible to indicate many other examples for the ‘presence’ of this number.

2 Three basic constants of physics  

It seems right to assume that there are three fundamental constants: c, G and h. You can say that:

a)  the constant c in a fundamental manner reflects the character of human sensual cognition of the material world. It is inherent in human cognition,
b)  the constant G is related to the fact that humans reflect on the world rationally and adopt the concept of material being as ‘also a being’ which, as a result, is conceptually expressed primarily with the use of the law of noncontradiction. It is inherent in this reflection,
c)  the constant h is a complementary element. It shows that it is necessary to describe the world in a complex way due to existential and cognitive imperfections of humans. It is derived from these imperfections.

3 Matter and antimatter

According to this TOE, the universe is composed only of large and enormous BEM conglomerates in which single BEMs (from the very beginning of the universe) are residing virtually, which means that they may be extracted (at least conceptually). There is no differentiation between matter and antimatter. The latter is also matter. Antimatter construed literally is an absurd.

4 Dark mass and dark energy

Both of them are suspected to exist in large quantities in the universe. There is nothing special to it in this TOE. Probably the amounts of ‘dark reality’ in the universe is effectively ‘bigger’ than amounts of ‘not dark reality’. Why? This is not a scientific reason but there maybe an analogy with the following: people in morally negative situations are more offen not ‘under cognition of other people’ than in light of moral truth.

5 Absurdity of the materialistic interpretation of particle annihilation and creation

These phenomena are well-known, but the concepts themselves are absurd. Independently existing beings may not be reduced to non-being. Creation is imparting existence. When we take this word literary, we also get an absurd in this case.

6 Expansion of the universe as the effect of the human cognitive nature 

Humans constructed their cognitive perceptions in such way that it seems that the universe is expanding. With other perceptions, there would just be a change in the properties of space-time. It may also be added that the distribution of matter in the universe (galaxies, quasars, nebulas, etc.) seems to be analogical to other ‘being distributions’ occurring on a greatly smaller scale. The reason is that if the whole universe carries out a ‘loving’ reality, its cognitive perceptions must provide many analogies. We could e.g. assume that there is the analogical ‘escape’ to infinity of the borders of the universe, mass, or electron charge (if we do not use the renormalization procedure in our calculations), or the inverse of shrinking black hole volume. We in fact can not speak about the border or the edge or the radius of the universe. We can only speak about the border between the being (here it is the universe) and the non-being, because the set of BEMs is real and they are the most lower (in metaphysical or ontological sense) real substantial beings. In poetry one may say that this is the border between the metaphysical love and lack of it.

7 Alleged superiority of the heliocentric model over the geocentric model

So many centuries after Copernicus, the matter seems closed. But if we realize the incidentalness of our cognition, we see that the heliocentric model, which is based on weak and incidental concepts, does not necessarily have to be better than the geocentric model which is built rather on philosophical premises. There are no complications with epicycles now, but this is not much. Maybe in future humans will begin describing the universe starting from ‘own position’ (as many years ago). There are some reasons according to this TOE.

8 Renormalization as the effect of the human cognitive nature

We obtain infinity as a result of applying too great ‘discipline’ to mathematization of physics,  and we try to remove it artificially. This means that APUs of certain concepts are burdened with huge ‘non-being content’ and they need correcting somehow. The problems with ‘escaping to infinity’ of physical quantities in certain situations ‘show’ that mathematical beings (especially symmetries) are not so good in describing the material world. Sometimes a renormalization is possible and sometimes is not possible. This is the question of incidence. The situation is like with integrals in mathematics; sometimes we obtain finite number and sometimes infinity. So the mathematical beings should be traeted in general as only ‘useful tools’ in our mental exploring of the universe because real beings are not unambiguous (like mathematical beings) but analogical [1]. Analogical means not unambiguous.

9 Black holes and Hawking radiation

The subject is still fascinating, but again, this concept resulted from too high dose of mathematization in ‘perceiving’ the world. Certain sections of being may be ‘black holes’ if we do not reach them conceptually (or reach too weakly). For example, an object which would have infinite energy that could not be eliminated by renormalization would in a way be a ‘black hole’. 

In such very weak cognizable areas the cognition of reality is very weak. Thus ‘metaphysical distances’ between different elements in cognition are also ‘weak’ or ‘small’ and it is easy to pass into the ‘nearest’ metaphysical area, what is practically realised in the case of Hawking radiation.

Additionally we may say that the concept of ‘events horizon’ in the sense used in black holes theories is unacceptable in this TOE. Real events in matter are only unique and metaphysically non-repeatable events in the world of BEMs (practically not possible to reach them directly by our cognition). The ‘events horizon’ in fact concerns only events not important metaphysically, but important in the categories of general relativity. So the holographic principle seems to be of secondary importance and ‘information problems’ concerning black holes do not exist.

10.Quantization of space-time

This concept seems to be reasonable but in the world of BEMs (where are only unique non-repeatable events realised in quasi-rational and quasi-free way), not in the world of our concept of space and time or even in the world of concept of n-dimensional space-time..

11 Condensed matter

There is nothing special to it in this TOE. Every ‘part’ of the universe can be treated here as a ‘condensed matter’ because of analogically the same reality and analogically the same cognition principles of it. In theoretical physics the term condensed matter  refers in general to something different.

12 Waves in physics

The notion of wave is not so fundamental in this TOE as we can think. There is nothing special to it in this TOE. Every ‘event’ in the world of BEMs produces a specific ‘wave’ (or ‘wave impulse’) in the metaphysical sense. These ‘waves’ are practically impossible to identify. Only very little amount of specific (connected with a specific repeatability) ‘waves’ may be known like e.g. electromagnetic waves, gravitational waves or de Broglie waves. All the universe seems to be a unity in which everything can be in a way connected with everything by waves in the metaphysical sense

13 Simplified description of the history of the universe

First, there is a ‘simultaneous’ coming into being of N BEMs. Then, there is the performance of the possible ‘loves’ by BEMs and BEM conglomerates that develop over time. There is no scheme or rules in contradiction to theoretically possible schematic events realizing a kind of ‘slave’ history. There are only individual, unique ‘free decisions’ arising from existential abilities. Existential perfection of the universe progresses through a kind of ‘loving’ self-fulfilment. The best BEMs in terms of ‘lovingness’ are in a way rewarded, first they appear in our galaxy, then in the matter of the Solar System, then in the matter of Earth, then in organic compounds. With a high degree of existential perfectness, biological life emerges as an independent existence of a higher level, because occurring not only in itself, but also outside itself (i.e. by copying itself outside itself). With a high level of existence among living beings, the acquisition of the immortal soul from the Absolute by the first human takes place as a kind of ‘complement’ to non-being. Today we observe ceaseless fulfilment of BEM conglomerates’ histories, just like throughout the whole history of the universe. But the human activity can improve efficiently the whole history of the universe, not only the state of the atmosphere of Earth. That is possible because of enormous methaphysical and strictly physical connections between elements of the universe.

IV CONCLUSION

1 Wastelands, complications and weakness of contemporary physics

Present-day physics (year 2014) seems to be in a deep crisis. Despite various unifications, it cannot provide a single, coherent, and non-contradictory science which would encompass everything we know. The most striking thing about it is lack of any philosophical reflection. We cannot answer the question what really exists independently, or what are the cognitive capabilities of the human nature. In natural philosophy, a theory of hylomorphism used to function, which assumed the fundamental concepts of primal matter and substantial form. Primal matter would behave ‘like modelling clay’ from which, thanks to form, individual particles are formed, and primal matter would not exist independently, only ‘under’ specific forms. This theory does not play a significant role in science nowadays, because it does not say anything substantial about either of the concepts. It seems to be tautological. Physics, in turn, has introduced many superfluous beings. Further beings may be introduced, but that would make our view of the world even stranger, yet we expect that the world must really be simple and beautiful. I hope that this TOE fulfils these expectations in its assumption that the world of independently existing quasi-free and quasi-rational beings, i.e. BEMs, is a necessary complement of the world of independently existing really free and really rational beings. It fills the existential gap between the latter and non-being.

2 Perspectives for the development of physics

Humans, as beings who participate in the material world, and who are meant to rule it, must possess cognitive tools suitable for this role. The further from it they are, the worse the cognizability of matter, and the closer they are, the better it is. Therefore, physics may effectively develop in cognitive systems which are ‘servient’ to humans. Developing it in all other directions will result in complications, which is the case today. Humans are ultimately surrounded by material reality which should be rather friendly for them. They will obtain a more orderliness cognition (as we can hope) when they direct their attention to more approachable beings instead of exploring remote regions of the universe. It does not seem to make sense to seek for the Higgs boson which is said to impart mass, to create theories introducing large quantities of new beings (e.g. a huge number of other worlds), or to split atoms so frequently. The idea behind the linear accelerator build some time ago in the US, which was to accelerate particles to practically any chosen velocity, could be reminded here. It occurred that the value of c could not be exceeded, but it was not known then. It seems that the hadron collider is something analogical, as it is also supposed to produce great things (great energies of colliding particles). What is the point? The hadron collider does not give any essential information about matter as such and its laws. There are, however, many useful research studies.

Stanisław Mizerski

References

[1]M.A Krąpiec, Metafizyka, Redakcja Wydawnictw KUL Lublin 1985

[2]M.Gogacz, Człowiek i jego relacje, ATK Warszawa 1985

[3]A.Strzałkowski, O siłach rządzących światem, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN Warszawa 1996

[4]M.Jeżewski, Fizyka, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe Warszawa 1970