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? There are no rationale for existing of such beings. For example the so called scalar field of Higgs is non-being.  The vacuum is non-being. 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 the inverses of 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 (it is necessary if being is not non-being) 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. Gravity interpreted according to the Newton’s law or Relativity (curved spacetime) is only an illusion.

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.

Graviton does not exist, because it has not own  existence.

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 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 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 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 chemical atoms, not in sense of 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’. 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 one single value (it is necessary similarly like in the case of gravity), 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-2Vacuum as such does not exist ( it is not a physical being but only a kind of convention in decribing  the physical realities). Also space as such does not exist (it is not a physical being but only a kind of convention in describing the fact that a given material being is in relations with other material beings and is a different one that these beings).

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. Electric force interpreted according to the Coulomb’s law or the theory of exchanging of photon is an illusion.

Electrons, protons, atoms and photons  do not exist because they have not own existence.

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. 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. 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. 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. The reasoning in 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. 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. The Higgs boson surely does not exist as a particle. It would be nonsens. This is only an intentional being proposed to make a confirmation (intentional) with other intentional (mathematical) beings. So we may construct other similar beings and we may obtain many other ‘Higgs bosons’.

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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

8 − four =