General concept of unification of physics


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 wrong ideas 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 the 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. 


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. The first ‘cognition and decision’ of every BEM is ‘directed’ to the BEM closest in their potentiality. Also non-being may now be treated in this TOE as ‘being’, which ‘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 Goedel’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. Every APU is full of analogy because human thinking is rather analogical. So every physical quantity is also a ‘love story’ in the cognitive area. On the other hand no APU is without rationale. There is (for material beings) a BEMs substantiation of it (for other beings see It means that BEMs ‘love story’ constitutes it (directly or not). Not all the BEMs but a part (not known by humans) constitutes this APU from the point of view of matter. Approximately speaking we may say that BEMs with ‘similar story’ (‘loving story’) are ‘sufficiently near’ to be the basis for APU,  and so this is not an accident that given  APU is ‘realized’ . This ‘similar story’ seems to be an especially ‘important moment’. ‘Encompassing’ by given APU can be ‘justified’ and ‘explained’ only theologically. Analogy as such may be treated as ‘overcoming of differences’ between individual beings. If these beings have ‘similar story’ then this overcoming is easier. Similar reasoning we have in [1]. 

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. In general  APUs are complicated and are based on many other APUs. 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. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

× four = 28