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). Often conclusions are made on the basis of mathematical beings (expressed by appropriate APUs) but these mathematical beings has no absolute value, they are only products of our minds and only in some circumstances they can ‘realize relative truth’ but in other not. 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.
There are no quark d.
There are no quark u.
There are no quark s.
There are no quark c.
There are no quark b.
There are no quark t.
There are no gluons.
There are no antiquarks.
Stricly speaking there are no bosons W (+), W (-), Z(0), photons, gluons, bosons of Higgs, gravitons, quarks, neutrinos or other particles in the Universe. They do not exist becuse they have not own existence.
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. Philosophy does not give any rationale for symmetries in matter. 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.