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. Mathematical beings always are not analogical [1], but are used to expressing laws of physics and are only tools for expressing analogies. For example the Second Law of Dynamics of Newton expresses only many many analogies.
Theologically we may say like A. Einstein : God does not play dice with the universe. This sentence of A. Einstein may be treated as a most general truth about the universe. It may be interpreted that the universe is full of perfect ‘metaphysical justice’ and accidents as such (metaphysical) are impossible.
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 or act on this system (as a source of penetrating or acting), because there is no rationale for it. There is no rationale for the emission or absorption of carrrier by particle or quantum field. There is no rationale for the metaphysical substantial changes (e.g. matter of photon into matter of electron). There is no rationale for the situation that a one part of matter acts as source on an other part of matter as aim or goal (e.g. proton on electron or Earth on Moon). This BEMs system could not to do absurdal things. 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 so called virtual carriers, as opposition to real particles, are absurd if they do not exist really. Maybe they would be interpreted as in fact existing (it means real) objects, only not perceived. Maybe they would be treated as BEMs systems. But not existing beings from the point view of philosophy are nothing and can not participate in real world. So physics today is partially absurdal.
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. There is no rationale (philosophically) for it.
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 exists 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).
Having the theory of everything in physics we may try to construct theories or rather philosophies of e.g. biology or chemistry or medicine but new complicated APUs are necessary.