5.2 Modern physics
Examples of indexing may be selectively shown as in 5.1. In 5.2 only the relativistic and quantum physics are discussed but using for example PACS we may take into account also other branches of physics.
5.2.1 Relativistic physics
5.2.1.1 Special theory of relativity
5.2.1.1.1 The basic Einstein’s postulate of the speed of light constancy (the same value) in any inertial frame of reference is really a tautology. It does not show anything new existentially, but Einstein must have had an ingenious intuition to capture it. The visible light effectively participates in our cognition. Without the sense of vision, physics would be almost impossible. In truth, blind people could also create physics, but it would then be greatly poorer. Notice that humans, if all significant conditions are ‘constant’, i.e. under any insignificant external conditions, fundamentally perform cognition of matter in the same way. ‘Constancy’ should be construed here as a broad spectrum of various APUs connected with matter and movement, i.e. what we call an inertial frame of reference. Humans must always ‘touch’ linearity, and thus distance. The fact that being is not inalterable enforces cognition of time. Therefore, there has to be a sufficiently large area of large coherency underlying APU1,1 (displacement), because this APU would be practically non-existent otherwise. Similarly, a sufficiently large area of large coherency must be underlying APU3 (time), because this APU would be practically non-existent otherwise. The same with APU18 (velocity). Let us take into account the mathematical being of multiplication (it had to participate in APU21 already) and its inverse – division. The nature of division (a mathematical being) eliminates the role of APUs connected with given distance and time, then the being of ‘the value of the speed of light’, e.g. APU165, does not have any ‘connection’ with significant external conditions apart from these APU, which are connected with the specifity of human cognition. Herefore it must result in an analogical proportional unity, which in practice and in measurement results in a constant, independent of anything (external conditions) value of the speed of light. As we know, for vacuum (it is not the same as non-being, and it is also an APU) its value is c, i.e. around 3 x 108 m/s.
The constancy of the speed of light is not a property of the universe. Only the nature of human cognition is the reason of this constancy.
Other reasoning
According to the pilosophy of the Middle Ages it is impossible that infinity actually exists (in the field of created beings). All the universe is the set of created beings so it must be finite and it is impossible that any information is transferred with infinite speed. Then in this TOE the so called speed of light can not be zero and can not be infinity, it must be more then zero and less then infinity. The speed of light is not a substantial being, it does not exist as such, the so called run of ligth strictly interpreted is impossible. Only we analogically realize and interpret measurements and because of ‘high analogy’ we assume the value of c. In other words this value is not ‘incorporated’ into matter, it is only a result of analogical cognition. The constancy of speed of ligth does not exist. Also the concept of vacuum is a bad concept and the speed of ligth in vacuum is an absurdal concept . We have only beings. The lack of beings is non-being. What is vacuum? It is nonsens. The word ‘vacuum’ is not necessary. The words ‘being’ and ‘not-being’ are sufficient.
Reasuming one may say that the relativity (despite of its fantastic applications) is a truth of secondary importance. It is so because all the realativity does not concern the most essential (from the point of view of philosophy) reality of matter, it is ‘BEMs stories’.
5.2.1.1.2 If we assume the constancy of c, we may create further APU known from the special relativity theory, e.g. the law – equation for shortening length l = l0 x (1 – u2/c2)1/2 (e.g. APU128), the law – equation for extending time or time dilatation t = t0 x (1 – u2/c2)-1/2 (e.g. APU 129) or the law – equation for relativistic mass dependent on velocity m = m0 x (1 – u2/c2)-1/2 (e.g. APU135).
5.2.1.1.3 In a more complex way, we can arrive at the famous law – equation for equality between mass and energy E = mc2 (e.g. APU138). Let us notice, that the constancy of c is included in the nature of how humans perform cognition of material beings, so we can expect it to participate, whenever the fundamental reflection is conducted. The reasoning of Einstein, who consequently sought for the same set of laws of physics in all inertial frames of reference, is such a reflection. Three things must be mentioned here:
a) the concept of mass (APU2) is explainable on the ground of metaphysics,
b) the concept of energy (e.g. APU60), despite its ubiquitous applications, is not an interesting one. It only reflects ‘a fragment of cognitive history’. If we assume its definition from dynamics, we can say that it is the ability to perform work. Energy is not a type of ‘supermedium’ above the material world. The concept of work is fairly incidental, because it stems from the constant labour of people in this world. The concept of energy does not perceive unity (coherence) in any special way, and it seems to only serve people in relieving their plight. It does not have to be useful in terms of cognition. The known law of conservation of energy really only shows ‘some other fragment of cognitive history’. That is why applying it universally in the micro-universe may be misleading for cognition, e.g. leading to unnecessary creation of new concepts of material beings only to preserve the law. But do those beings actually exist independently?
c) ‘releasing’ large quantities of energy, e.g. during a nuclear explosion, is not really anything extraordinary in this TOE. Matter is not the same as mass. In this case there is no reduction of the number of virtually existing BEMs in the universe and no ‘new reality’, meaning energy, manifests instead of them, meaning instead of some ‘portion of matter’. It seems so in experiment and in measurement, but not in metaphysics. Any system of BEMs, existing independently, and by that generating its ‘materiality or mass’ cannot be reduced to nonexistence, meaning non-being. There is no rationale for it. The manifestation of this energy is not something ‘instead’, it may only be a ‘certain cognitive story’, expressible in APU. It may be so, that the measure of mass decreases. But existentially, matter is not transformable into energy, nor is energy into matter. The latter may be shown by analogical reasoning. Matter means real substantial beings (BEMs conglomerates) and energy is only intentional being (it is not real being), so metaphysically discussed transformations are impossible.
5.2.1.2 General theory of relativity
5.2.1.2.1 The general theory of relativity, expressed well in the principle of equivalence between a gravity field and remaining in acceleration, is not ‘the entrance’ to the mysteries of the universe. If we assume the constancy of c in general (what is in agreement with the ‘frame nature’ of human cognition), we can consequently ‘add’ new APU. The reasoning from 5.2.1.1.1 may be more general. Let us take the case of running light. The way s of light must be proportional to this ‘running’ and also the time t. The possible movement of source or observer is without meaning, because there is no ‘connection’ with this ‘actual running’. Similarly other factors. So the value of s/t must be independent of this ‘running’ in every cases (e.g. when we have a kind of non-typical motion to analyze) and it is c. We can see now that the constancy of c in general is only a tautology. In fact in real world all such ‘runnings’ are only analogical [1], but it is possible to ‘connect’ them with the one unambiguous (it means not analogical) value of c. The fundamental rule of the general theory of relativity may be e.g. APU180. Space-time warp ‘associated’ with APU180, would be e.g. APU183.
5.2.1.2.2 All the relativistic physics is not absolute, but it has its being limits (not to be confused with space-time limits etc.) and is a certain, but only analogical, unity. It therefore includes ‘defects’ which are inherent to various APU participating in it. Their large accumulation results in a kind of ‘death’, but only in these existential areas, where such accumulation appears, e.g. very small distances. That is why the relativistic physics slowly loses analogical coherence in existentially new areas. Therefore, inconsistencies with another analogical unity, which is quantum physics, become apparent.
5.2.2 Quantum physics
The incidental character of physical quantities is especially visible in the micro-universe. These quantities do not match it. We cannot describe real events in this world using them.
5.2.2.1 Psi wave function and a proposition to revise the Copenhagen Interpretation
This function is a physics and mathematics being useful in describing de Broglie’s waves in the face of no ‘conceptual insight’ in the micro-universe. Concepts like atom, elementary particle, or nucleus have too high ‘non-being content’, which is described in 6.2.1.4. There is a large dose of obscureness and indeterminacy to them. Beings of the micro-universe are perfectly cognizable, but in light of concepts from their world. Their world consists in incessant ‘love acts’ of BEM systems. They cannot be ‘captured’ by our concepts which are largely reducible to unity (coherency) of visual perceptions. Therefore, a being in that world must be ‘indifferent’ in some way to our quantities, like coordinates in space. You could say that it ‘couldn’t be bothered’, it shows no inclination to them, so it characteristically ‘oscillates’ around them. Thus it ‘randomly exists’ to a greater or smaller extent in a given point of our space-time, or only space, and absolute value of psi squared is greater or smaller. This ‘oscillating’ is sometimes close to our oscillation and then the psi wave function takes the form of e.g. Asinx type. The fact that the wave function often has an oscillatory character may be shown by taking into account the known regularities of human behaviour; if we come across things we have no inclination or aversion to, we show indifference, we are a little ‘for’ and a little ‘against’. It is not necessary to solve the Schrödinger equation to work out the oscillatory character of the psi function. Simultaneously, we see that the beings of micro-universe show characteristic ‘indifference’ to our physical quantities, like position, momentum, time, energy, and others. The so-called Copenhagen Interpretation says that the square of that absolute value is proportional to the probability density of finding a particle. In spite of the fact that it is experimentally verifiable, it does not explain everything. Any formal incidence in the real world is not possible. Every interpretation in categories of incidence is absurdal, because the material world is perfectly organized, only we do not know exactly how. This TOE ‘would propose’ a different one: De Broglie wave itself can be treated as a measure of dispositions of matter to realize the situation interpreted as the particle, at least it is something closer to reality (is a projection of reality), and the concept of particle seems secondary. The notion of particle is the fulfilment of certain conditions, not yet determined, by the wave (psi wave function). These conditions seem to involve large coherency with the macroscopic notion of particle. These conditions (or maybe dispositions) may ‘influence’ one another in various ways, and so we have the interference of said waves, which in mathematics is represented by adding or deducting the psi function values from the same ‘particle’ or other ‘particles’.
We may say (in this TOE) that:
1. The concept of particle is not good and so it shows ‘big metaphysical distance’ to our physical quantities. Then every ‘portion of matter’ encompassed by the concept of particle may in general only specifically oscillate around these quantities, giving effect of a wave. Particles as such ( in classical concept) do not exist. We may say that material beings behave as if particles really would be existing. This is so because our concepts are constructed with very very deep analogy. It is possible to say that all the physics is constructed according to the ‘as if’ principle. Especially it concerns quantum physics. Probability interpretation is an example.
2.The mathematical being (wave function of x,y,z,t or others) expresses discussed oscillations in a specific way.
3. These oscillations may be treated as ‘dispositions of matter’ to be ‘for’ or to be ‘against’. So values of the wave function (in general in complex numbers) may be added ‘in plus’ or ‘in minus’.
4. The great absolute value (module) of complex number means great ‘disposition’ to be perceived in our categories (in categories of our concepts).
5. The concept of particle has a quite good ‘connection’ with the concept of energy (APU with low ‘non-being content’) and the energy of oscillation should be proportional to the squared absolute value of psi (similarly like in classical harmonic oscillations), so chances to perceive the particle should be proportional to this squared value.
6. In general all the quantum mechanics can be treated as only a tautology.
7. The great number of scientific successes (e.g. in experiments) only shows that applications of quantum mechanics have APU with low ‘non-being content’.
8. Despite of it we have no essential ‘insigth’ into ‘internal life’ of matter (BEMs reality). We only confirm ourselves, so the quantum physics is only a tatulogical theory.
5.2.2.2 Absurdity of the concept of punctual particles
It is like putting ‘handcuffs’ or imposing ‘impossible conditions’ on the concept of particle which has considerably high ‘non-being content’. The concept of point has limits, which are unacceptable here. It is rather impossible for such a being to exist in the real world. So interpreting the psi function using this being is only conventional.
5.2.2 3 Quantization of physical quantities
The simplified version is that it consists in replacing certain physical quantities with so-called operators. So-called commutators are created in the process with the use of Poisson brackets. In light of this TOE, this practice has a psychological justification in the history of physics. It consists in the fact, that humans still delude themselves that they can enter the micro-universe and its system of ‘love rights’ with their cognitive forms of being (physical quantities). The described procedure is, therefore, the best way to bring together this hope and the experimental effects, like e.g. the photoelectric effect, electron scattering or diffraction, or body radiation. A given degree of coherence between APU for physical quantities and APU for their operators, which can also be represented by relevant APU, is what practically determines the usefulness of a particular quantization. Let us take (according to 5.1.2.2) APU56 for angular momentum L and e.g. APU210 for its operator L^ in quantum mechanics and e.g. APU211 for coherence between L and L^.
In general there is no reason that matter can be effectively described in quantum manner. There is no rationale for quantization. So called fundamental interactions also cannot be precisely described in this way, because in general there is no reason in this TOE to assume that is an effective agreement between APU connected wth quantization and APU connected with interactions.
5.2.2.4 Uncertainty principles
As quantum physics bases on classical concepts, and ‘forcibly’ prolongs their limited usefulness by using operators, a question arises whether even larger limits of cognition of the material world result from this ‘double’ conceptual weakness. Thus we arrive at the so-called uncertainty principles e.g. in pairs of position-momentum, or energy-time. In other words, high ‘non-being contents’ of APUs of relevant quantities generate a high ‘non-being content’ of the possibility to perform joint cognition (e.g. measure position and momentum simultaneously). Especially we may say that concept of virtual existence (in accordance with energy-time uncertainty principle) of different objects (discussed in many physical theories) is an absurd. Non-being cannot produce any being and cannot annihilate any being. In physics we also use the concept of e.g. virtual photons giving the reality of electron. This is possible that particle electron is realized by other beings, but only by real beings. The coming from non-being into reality (into matter) of such photons is impossible. Similarly with other particles.
5.2.2.5 Electron self-interference
As we know, the diffraction and interference image obtained by directing a beam of electrons through two slits remains the same even when only single electrons go through the slits. Another famous problem of physics arose: how can an electron interfere with itself? If we assume a different interpretation, proposed (provisionally) in 5.2.2.1, the problem disappears. In this TOE the self-interference of electron or other particle is possible and it is in agreement with experiment. We can see that de Broglie’s waves are existentially closer to matter than particles. We cannot clearly see what a particle is, but we see that waves are clearly described by wave functions. They always have interferential effects. To say succinctly: de Broglie’s waves are more likely to really exist than particles.
5.2.2.6 Agreement between relativistic and quantum theories
All the relativistic physics can be treated as an analogical proportional unity with very complex APU. The same is with the quantum physics. There is no substantiation that these unities must be in agreement. In other words, the new APU connected with this ‘theoretical unity between unities’ has rather not low ‘non-being content’. This explains difficulties in discussed foundations of physics.
We may say it in a bit different way. The ralativistic physics is based on the tautological principle concerning the constancy of ligth speed. Then the total truth (and being as such can be metaphysically exchanged with truth as such) of this theory is rather weak because it is founded on rather a ‘poor’ basis, not immersed deeper in real truth of real events in the universe. Similarly the quantum physics is based on incidental cognition concepts of ordinary physical quantities and similarly the total truth of this theory is rather weak. So we may say about a ‘metaphysical distance in truth’ between the relativistic physics and reality and also we may say about a ‘metaphysical distance in truth’ beetwen the quantum physics and reality. When we try to ‘connect’ the relativistic physics with quantum physics (quantum mechanics) these distances ‘are added’ and so we obtain a ‘larger metaphysical distance’. This may be treated as a reason or explanation of the fact that the efforts in the field of making an agreement between relativistic and quantum theories have failed.
Other reasoning
Humans should change the universe according to needs. So humans normally realize cognition and acting using special theory of relativity (connected with the assumption of the speed of light constancy in any inertial frame of reference). Let us take an assumption that the area of this cognition and acting is the ‘sphere of values’ with ‘radius’ about 0,1 Em (approximate end of effects from Solar System). Let us take an assumption that human being is in the middle of this area and that the human dimension is about 1 m. So we obtain limits for normal using of special relativity: 10 am (it is (1E-17) m) and 0,1 Em (it is 1E17 m). Approximately above 0,1 Em we should normally use general relativity and approximately below 10 am we should normally use quantum physics. So approximately below 1 am we have a lack of agreement between relativity and quantum physics to some extent. This reasoning is in agreement with experiments with very large distances and with experiments with very small distances. So physics can be explained by philosophy.