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 from 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 the 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, see also the ‘as if principle’ from g) but in a largest interpretation). According to it we may derivate the particular fields (branches) 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). It seems to be impossible that strictly speaking something acts on something with force. There is no rationale. We obtain the Second Law of Dynamics true only in convention, in analogy with everyday life. 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. Using many very very complex APUs connected with macroscopic bodies and also with other branches of physics (e. g. electricity) we obtain practically everything
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). In other words humans (having cognition with ‘loving nature’) ‘have to elaborate’ a law which is fundamentally agree with the good nature of BEMs population (enormous). So we obtain the law of gravity. It is described in p.6.1. The concept of Higgs 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. According to the philosophy it is impossible that infinity (among contingent beings) actually exists. It means that every ‘transfer of information’ may be realized only with a finite ‘speed’. Starting from this points 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. A first moment of ‘loving nature of matter’ is the law of gravity and so it encompasses all the matter. The most advanced moment of ‘loving nature of matter’ is the law of Coulomb beacause it shows ‘extreme love’ with ‘adoring up to repel similar’ (as if ‘devoting as extreme love’). Humans ‘have to elaborate’ these two laws. And it is done.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 described 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. We may use in this TOE something like ‘as if principle’ which means that material beings really ‘have behaviour ‘ as if qunatum physics with the probability interpretation would be true. In fact is not fundamentally true according to this TOE and according to the famous sentence of A.Einstein: God does not play dice with the universe.
In fact, strictly speaking there are not electrons, protons and so one as such. We know that species as such do not exist. We only use analogy in ‘constructing species’. For example the ‘idea of electron’ really does not exist. There are no individual beings ‘under the idea of electron’ (it means realizing in material way this idea). Where and why would it be existing ?There are only very small portions of matter (BEMs) in analogically similar situations of ‘obligation’ to present their real nature and so these portions are 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).
Strictly speaking :
the word ‘electron’ means an enormous number (amount) of internal and external analogies,
the word ‘proton’ means an enormous number (amount) of internal and external analogies and so one.
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 beings are so small that human cognition can not to perceive it and so we speak about populations of BEMs and about conventional generations of particles. 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. If we assume the metaphysical thesis of this TOE that every well-determined being should be three-dimensional we obtain thesis that protons and neutrons, as beings realizing ‘extreme loving structure’ (with ‘adoring’ and ‘devoting’ with appropriate orders) should be also three-dimensionally determined. We know that quark sequences uud and ddu do it. Also we may by analogy say that population of quarks should be three-dimensional and also population of leptons (as complementary beings in realization of appropriate ‘love structures’) should be three-dimensional. So we obtain an essential part of SM.
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. If we assume in this TOE that the Creation of the Universe (from the Big Bang) was also three-dimensional we obtain the first Day, the second Day and the third Day, and also the Complementary Days, appropriately: the fourth Day, the fifth Day and the sixth Day.
15.1 Derivability of some physical constants
Speed of light c
According to the policy of The General Conference of Weights and Measures the physical units defined by this confrerence are really ‘near to the people’. So we can hope to obtain some interesting values using these units.
Aristotle assumed 10 ways of being. Substance is the first. In this TOE we assume that the BEMs ‘loving activity’ is the only reality in matter, so the information transfer may be truly realized only by ‘full realization’ of 10. This ‘full realization’ is normally E10, but in this case is E9 because we have only the first (not full) realization of loving actvity (only cognition). The units also are not so ‘near to the people’, then a ‘very effectively decreasing coefficient’ is necessary e.g. 0,3. So we obtain 0,3 E9 m/s. This is approximately c (obtained on the philosophical way).
Other reasoning
If we first know that the transparency of the universe for photons was beginning near 0,3 E6 years after the Big Bang we may say that number 0,3 E6 is really ‘near to the people’, when is used in estimation of period of time and speed of ligth with appropriate units ( year and km/s). It may be interpreted that light ‘likes’ this number. This may ‘confirm” the value of the speed of ligth.
Gravitational constant G
The Newton’s law of gravity shows the full loving nature of matter in the most common size, so it may be truly realized only by ‘full realization’ of 10, it is by E-10 (with minus exponent because it is the ‘lower level ‘ of this realization). Also an “effectively decreasing coefficient’ is necessary e.g. 0,7. So we obtain (0,7E-10)Nmm/kgkg. This is approximately G (obtained on the philosophical way).
Coefficient k in the Coulomb’s law
The Coulomb’s law shows the full loving nature of matter at the ‘higher level’ of realization also by E10 (so with positive exponent). We may say metaphysically in this TOE about ‘higher level’ because the essence of the electromagnetic interteraction is the situation when ‘beings adore other beings’ to the full possibility it is to the repelling of similar beings (e.g. protons, electrons). This may be interpreted as a ‘devoting’ so it is a ‘higher love’. Also an ‘effectively decreasing coefficient’ is necessary, but not so decreasing (at this ‘level’) e.g. 0,9. So we obtain 0,9E10 Nmm/CC. This is approximately k (for vacuum). It is here obtained on the philosophical way.
We see that humans with dimension of 1 m are approximately in the middle of ‘sphere of values’ obtained by multiplication or division. This is so because humans are really in the ‘center of different fields’. The universe is for humans and they are masters of it.
Planck’s constant h
We obtained in this TOE the approximate limits for using Special Relativity, it is (E-17) m and E17 m. The ‘range’ between them (in the sense of exponents) is 34. This ‘range’ is the range between two ‘extreme type of reasoning’ (as if precise raesoning and wave reasoning). So in other field of physics ,where we have also these two types of reasoning, we have also this ‘range’. The Planck’s constant connects precise reasoning with wave reasoning so the value of it should be ‘realized’ by E-34 (with minus exponent because it is a ‘transfer’ from the metaphysically weak element to strong, not inversely). In other words the relation E=hf is directly used when we have the frequency of wave (weak element) and we want to obtain the energy of particle-wave (strong element). Also an ‘effectively correcting coefficient’ is necessary. Here it should be ‘very effectively increasing’ because we have the ‘transfer from weak to strong’. For example 7. So we obtain (7E-34) Js. It is approximately h (obtained on the philosophical way).
Elementary charge e
In point 1.6 we have an estimation of number of BEMs in one single electron as E19. This is the first estimation. Also an ‘effectively correcting coefficient’ is necessary like in the previous cases e.g. 0,62. and so we obtain 0,62 E19. The mass of electron (used to obtaining this number of BEMs) may be obtained in a ‘primitive way’ by simple addition or subtraction of masses in experiments. So we can make calculations only ‘within’ this TOE. The number 0,62 E19 is connected with ‘extreme loving element’ (with repelling of similar beings as ‘devoting’) so a number connected with ‘lower loving element’ (gravitational) should be 1,6 E-19 (inversely to 0,62 E19). If we assume that units are ‘near to the people reality’ we obtain the value 1,6 E-19 C. It is approximately e (obtained on the philosophical way).