Abstract

The search for alien is not only a great scientific pursuit, but it is a grand adventure of our human civilization on the planet Earth. Still the research is blending curiosity with caution. In one hand, the search enthuses scientific and cultural progress, but on the other hand it carries risks that needs to be carefully managed. Although the search for extra-terrestrial life is considered exciting and futuristic, it also has a dark side. The present paper critically analyses the dilemma and, simultaneously, seeks the opinion of Bhagavad Gita.

Keywords: Solar system, Exoplanets, Search for aliens, Bhagavad Gita

Introduction

We inhabit the planet Earth. Our abode Earth is revolving around a bright Sun that we see in the sky. But, it seems as if the Sun revolves around the Earth. This is because, while living on such a vast planet, we are not able to sense the Earth’s motion. Seven other planets also revolve around the Sun. Our solar system consists of eight giant planets including the Earth, their satellites and many other bodies. The Sun is the head of our solar system. The vast universe has not only our solar system, but billions of solar systems. There is many a solar system beyond our solar system [1]. We are familiar with the life found in Earth. It is the mere case of life and intelligence we are familiar with in the whole universe. We expect similar life-existence on Mars, Europa (moon of Jupiter) or Enceladus (moon of Saturn) within our solar system [2, 3]. Further, there are many revolving bodies in the solar systems which exist outside our solar system. Our search includes looking for microbial life within our solar system and intelligent civilizations in distant solar systems as well.

Abstract

Following Einstein’s vision of Unified Field Theory (UFT) in the last issue of this journal, this paper is a brief narrative of the efforts towards achieving a consistent UFT during the post Einstein era extending till today. After Einstein, a limited effort has gone in towards UFT based on classical methods. Major efforts have been made in the direction of developing Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) and Theory of Everything (TOEs), the last one trying to combine general relativity and quantum mechanics. In spite of lots of efforts, the theoretical physicists are yet to approve a consistent TOE, which is the modern equivalent of UFT.

Keywords: Unified Field Theory, Post Einstein era, Grand Unified Theory, Theory of Everything.

Introduction

Seventy years have passed by after the legendary world-famous scientist Albert Einstein left for his heavenly abode in 1955. By this time, volumes of knowledge have entered into the ocean of theoretical physics which was his domain of research, with scores of people researching in the area of unified field theory (UFT), one of his dream subjects which was already well-founded by him as discussed in the last issue of this journal [Paramguru 2025]. This research have also been widely covered in a number of research papers [Beichler 2015, de la Cuesta and Grok 2025, Cao et al 2015, Ellis 1996, Ho 1995-1 and -2, Moffat 1979, Pati and Salam 1974, Bergmann, 1979, Popli 2003, Tiwary 2011] and books [Hlavaty 1957, Felker 2005, van Dongen 2010, Eckardt 2022]; besides one noteworthy historical coverage in Living Reviews in Relativity by the German theoretical physicist Hubert Goenner [2014] and two books by the French counterpart Marie-Antoinette Tonnelat [1966 and 2014]. Goenner has rightly summed-up through the statement that ‘(T)the idea of unifying all fundamental physical interactions in one common representation is as alive today as it was in Einstein’s times’ [2014, 195]. This research position with such a vast literature base calls for a review which is being aimed here.

After Einstein’s ground-breaking special relativity theory in 1905, general relativity theory in 1915 and his utterances about UFT during 1920s, many theoretical physicists and mathematicians enthusiastically jumped into research to unify the then-known fundamental physical interactions. Tonnelat’s book [1966] and Goenner’s review [2014] purposefully describe the state of research on UFT till mid-1960s. Interestingly, Goenner states that ‘(I)in total, about 150-170 scientists did take part in research in UFT between 1930 and 1965’ [183], and as regards the knowledge production in UFT during this period is concerned, ‘a yearly average of 18 papers’ (630 papers during 35 years) have been reported [183]. This period is supposedly the most productive period of research on UFT. From mid-1960s started the modern era of UFT with advent of quantum field theory, electroweak interaction, Higgs mechanism, spontaneous symmetry breaking, and many more, which make the UFT research still attractive. The present review will make an honest attempt to briefly discuss the UFT research subsequent to mid-1960s in lines of UFT in classical direction, UFT and quantum theory, Grand Unified Theories (GUTs), and Theory of Everything (TOE). 

 UFT in classical path

Practically speaking, the classical path of UFT, for all purpose, has ended with the demise of its creator Albert Einstein without producing a concrete result. In the original words of his former assistant P. G. Bergmann ‘Einstein spent the last five years of his life investigating this theory (the ‘asymmetric’ theory) without arriving at clear-cut answers’ [Goenner 2014, 195]. Of course, by that time, Einstein was already isolated from the main stream physicists, and Goenner himself has stated, referring to his last years at Princeton, USA, that ‘(N)nevertheless, while highly respected, Einstein and his theories lived there in splendid scientific isolation’ [2014, 178]. Even then, Einstein had his followings and many researchers kept working on his theories during the subsequent years; one quite often finds a title ‘The Einstein unified field theory completed’ [Beichler 2015]. Also, each of Goenner and Bergmann, had similar opinion in their statements; the former: ‘(I)in the 1970s and 1980s, many papers on exact solutions of the Einstein-Schrodinger theories and alternatives were published by Indian scientists‘ [Goenner 2014, 181]; the later: ‘—the theories concerning the unavoidability of singularities in the standard theory were all discovered long after Einstein’s death –‘ [Bergmann 1979, 15]. This section is scheduled to present some of these stories.

Though Goenner has termed ‘Indian scientists’ as mentioned above, he has actually done so in a context of geographical expansion of research on UFT with researchers involved from ‘all continents’ spreading over ‘more than twenty different countries’ including England, France, Italy, Australia, Japan, India and others [2014, 181]. American physicist James E Beichler (1931-2025), interested in physics of consciousness, has given a comprehensive overview of unified field theory from beginning till now [2015]. He has given a total pictorial view ’unification tree’ [101]; also details about ‘the evolution of classical unified field theories’ separately [20 and 36]. A couple of contributions, one from the Danish-Canadian physicist John William Moffat [1979 and 1995] and another from the Vietnam born Australian physicist Vu B Ho [1995-1 and -2] are mentioned here. In the first one, the author proposes ‘a new theory of gravity’ ‘in which the geometry of space-time is determined by a nonsymmetric field structure’ [Moffat 1979]. One of the claims of the author is ‘the theory agrees with all the classical (weak gravitational field) tests of Einstein’s general relativity’ [3554]. Later on, the author presented ‘a new version of nonsymmetrical gravitational theory – which has physically consistent perturbative expansion for weak fields, and does not have singularities and black holes’ [1995]. In the other one, the author Ho provided ‘a geometric formulation of strong interaction which is assumed to be described by the Yukawa potential’ [1995-1]. He has also shown that ‘by defining a suitable energy momentum tensor, the field equations of general relativity admit a line element of Yukawa potential as an exact solution [1995-2]. Beichler has duly referred these contributions [20]. There are some other researches which have associated Einstein’s name such as ‘Einstein-Cartan-Evans unified field theory’ [Felker 2005 and Eckardt 2022] which, in fact, fall under the purview of other sections, and hence, will be discussed there.

As regards the contribution of Indian scientists to UFT, Goenner [2014] has covered well about publications during 1950s and early 1960s by Satyendra Nath Bose (1894-1974) of ‘Bose-Einstein statistics’ and ‘Boson’ fame, Ratan Shanker Mishra (1918-1999), worked and published with V. Hlavaty at Indiana University on UFT, Gaganbihari Bandyopadhyay and others. Their contributions were significant, and they also continued to research and publish afterwards till they were active. Further, in case of stalwarts like Bose and Mishra, even after their demise, their students and followers highlighted their research through memoirs or similar volumes. For example, in these two categories one can list the followings: Books published by Mishra are – Structures in a Differentiable Manifold in 1978, Structures on a Differentiable Manifold and Their Applications in 1984, Almost Contact Metric Manifolds and Hyper-surfaces of Almost Hermitian Manifolds both in 1994; memoirs such as: Padmashri Prof. Dr. R. S. Mishra in 2018, S N Bose: The Man and His Work – Part I: Collected Scientific Papers in 1994, and ‘S. N. Bose (1894-1974) and the Bose quantum statistics a centennial tribute’ by Lokenath Debnath in International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences 16 (4) 1993: 625-644. All these volumes have certainly enriched the subject area covered by them. Besides, these scholars and their work have motivated other Indian workers to research and write in these fields. Just two examples are cited in this direction: one, Indian nuclear physicist Rakesh Popli (1952-2007) has come up with a book A Stroll Through Space-Time: A Leisurely discourse on Einstein’s Relativity Theory [2003], where he has described all the details about Einstein’s theory for, not scientific discourse, but public consumption and fittingly ended with the famous Princeton anecdote ‘Yes, I will recognize you’; two, Dhananjay Tiwari, an associate professor in Maths education, comes up with ‘fundamental particles, their classifications on the basis of Bose – Einstein statistics, Fermi – Dirac statistics and quark theory along with four types of existing fundamental forces’ to finally explain how they reflect in unified field theory [211, 16]. Another case may be mentioned – that of the American Indian Jagdish Mehra (1931-2008), prominent historian of modern physics and the author of The Historical Development of Quantum Theory in six volumes during 1982 to 2000, though has not worked directly on UFT, Einstein was his childhood idol and he has penned down important books: Einstein, Hilbert, and The Theory of Gravitation: Historical Origins of General Relativity Theory in 1974 and Einstein, Physics And Reality in 1999, the former has found place in the references of Beichler [2015, 2].          

UFT and quantum theory

The first issue in a discussion connecting quantum theory with UFT would be the stand of Einstein on this issue, rather than the issue itself. Goenner, in his discourse, first of all, brings out a section on ‘UFT and quantum theory’, that too just before the section on ‘A glimpse of today’s status of unification’; further, most importantly, mentions in the first line ‘Einstein’s position with regard to quantum mechanics, particularly his resistance to the statistical interpretation of it is well known’ [2014, 191]. Though ‘Einstein’, along with ‘Planck’, originally founded the quantum theory and others namely, ‘Bohr, Born, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Hilbert, Dirac, Compton, Pauli and de Broglie’ continued to develop it further; even he attempted few times to include this theory in his effort of developing UFT; yet, he was never in favour of this theory be part of UFT [Felker 2005, 56, note 14]. Probably, he was looking for a day when quantum mechanics will develop into a complete deterministic theory, instead of an incomplete probabilistic one; he would accept it whole-heartedly, because he was well aware of this theory’s relevance to UFT.    

Now, let us come to its relevance to UFT. Felker reports that ‘Among the things which up until now relativity has not been able to describe while quantum mechanics has, are the quantum packets of energy, the particle-wave duality of existence, and the angular momentum (spin) of particles’ [2005, 56]. Basically, quantum mechanics describes the basic particles such as photons, electrons etc which are also parts to be unified into UFT along with the fundamental forces. As regards the particles present in the complicated structure of all matter we see, Indian physicist Professor Niranjan Barik provides a clear picture in his article published in the last issue of this journal [2025]. Primarily ‘two kinds of fundamental particles’ called ‘fermions and bosons’ constitute all matter; ‘quarks and electrons belong to this class of fermions which provide the material content’, and the bosons include another class of ‘force-carrying particles called gauge bosons’ ‘which provide all types of bindings to these material contents necessary for various structure formations’ [132]. Further, he goes ahead – ‘(B)besides these fundamental fermions and bosons, science has discovered a zoo of subatomic particles and their mirror world of antiparticles revealing a far greater structure – these subatomic particles display contradictory dual behaviour as waves and particles – the location of such a particle is only probabilistic –. These quantum particles do not have any definite property of their own including any definite location or motion at any instant of time before observation – these constituent parts are in a constant state of flux and the propeller of this flux is energy – they are nothing but discrete packets of energy’ [132]. Then he brings in the abstract notion of field ‘where the matter fields of fermions and the force fields of bosons seem to be more primary than matter itself, since these fields behave as the breeding ground for the so-called elementary particles’ [133]. Very soon, Prof. Barik nears his conclusion – ‘Thus, science seems to have found the most crucial elements of existence in quantum vacuum by comprehending this intrinsic fundamental reality of our cosmos in support of the concept of the ‘one source’ – the nothingness or sunyata of Buddhism or the ‘Brahman’ of the Vedantic tradition [134]. He is not the only physicist to have this view.

Where does quantum mechanics stand today? According to Felker [2005], quantum mechanics is the foundation incorporating into it ‘quantum electrodynamics which includes electromagnetic phenomena and quantum chromo-dynamics which adds the quark color theory’ [56]. Utilizing Planck’s parameters, it has developed full-fledged ‘mathematical ability to make most precise predictions of the results of experiments concerning the mutual interaction between particles,’ and even polarization of the ‘vacuum’ [57]. Starting from the development of particle physics from its foundations till the discovery of Higgs boson, bringing in phenomena like scattering matrix or S-matrix and spontaneous symmetry breaking, quantum field theory and Standard Model have arrived to take care of present-day complexities [Mulders 2008 and Schwartz 2014]. In this context, Goenner’s statement – ‘—already at the time suggestions for a ‘unitary’ field theory in the framework of quantum (field) theory were made’ [2014, 192]; and Beichler’s mention – ‘During the 1970s the tables started to turn and quantum theorists became interested in unifying physics’ [2015, 1] bears a lot of significance. Specifically, Beichler stresses on two points regarding the quantum theorists’ claim that ‘quantum theory was more fundamental than relativity’ and ‘the quantum and relativity are mutually incompatible’; then, he says, that is the reason why they are set to replace relativity completely by quantum once and for all [1].     

Grand Unified Theory (GUT)

The period beyond mid-1960s can be counted as the period of modern UFT. In 1963, American theoretical physicist Sheldon Lee Glashow (1932- ), for the first time, proposed that the weak nuclear force, electricity and magnetism could arise from a partially unified electroweak theory. Within four years, in 1967, Pakisthani theoretical physicist Abdus Salam (1926-1996) and American theoretical physicist Steven Weinberg (1933-2021), ‘working independently’, revised Glashow’s theory to hypothetically unify ‘the weak and electrical forces into a single entity ‘the electroweak force’’ [Tiwary 2011, 19]. This model (unified theory) ‘given by Glashow, Salam and Weinberg is commonly known as ‘Standard Model’’, and ‘according to this model, all the leptons and quarks are also mass-less and below the symmetry breaking scale they have their masses. – The standard model predicts the existence of new particles like w+ w+, w- w-, z and Higgs bosons’ [19]. This theory got the first experimental support when discovery of weak neutral currents was made in 1973, then in 1983, Italian particle physicist Carlo Rubbia (1934- ) came up with the discovery of w and z bosons at CERN by using the reactor erected based on stochastic cooling by Dutch physical engineer Simon van der Meer (1925-2011). All these five people received Nobel Prize for their discoveries, the first three, Glashow, Salam and Weinberg in 1979, and the later two, Rubbia and Meer in 1984. Later in 2012, two theoretical physicists Francois Englert (1932- ) from Belgium and Peter Higgs (1929-2024) from Great Britain discovered Higgs boson in the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider; and both of them received Nobel prize in 2013. Further, Dutch theoretical physicist and Nobel Laureate (1999) Gerardus’t Hooft (1946- ) showed that this theory is mathematically consistent; thus, this theory was thoroughly established.

In the meanwhile, in 1974, Glashow with American theoretical physicist Howard Mason Georgi III (1947- ) brought out what is called Georgi-Glashow model, the first Grand Unified Theory (GUT). According to Goenner, at first, GUTs were ‘unifying only the electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions’ that is ‘with gauge group SU(5)’ [2014, 195]. They would have observable effects for energies much above100 GeV. Subsequently, many proposals for GUT have emerged; one of them is Pati-Salem Model. (Jogesh) Pati (1937- ), an Indian-American theoretical physicist, has contributed in collaboration with Pakisthani Nobel Laureate Abdus Salam to formulate a GUT proposal called Pati-Salam model. John Ellis, from the Theoretical Physics Division of CERN, reports – ‘Even before the discovery of neutral currents, the restless spirit of Abdus Salam have led him and Jogesh Pati to propose the idea of grand unification of the strong and electroweak interactions –. They are the first to propose, in a motivated way, that quarks and leptons should be treated together in a common theory’ [1996, 3]. The specialty of Pati-Salem model is its suggestions such as the symmetry of SU(4)-color, left-right symmetry, and the associated existence of right handed neutrinos. They provide some of the crucial ingredients for understanding the observed masses of the neutrinos and their oscillations. After discoveries of gauge coupling unification and neutrino-oscillation, Pati himself says – ‘(I)in this context, it is remarked that with neutrino masses and coupling unification revealed, the discovery of proton decay, that remains as the missing link, should not be far behind’ [1998, 1]. Alas, after so many years, proton decay still remains eluded.

Another GUT, the authors call it Grand Unified Field Theory, GUFT, that is Einstein-Cartan-Evans (ECE) Unified Field Theory will be briefly discussed here. This theory has been developed by the Welsh chemist and physicist Myron Wyn Evans (1950-2019), and being with him for almost 30 years and moving the theory ahead after him is the noted physicist and computer engineer of Germany Horst Eckardt (1954- ). Laurence George Felker (1946–) in his book The Evans Equations of Unified Field Theory [2005] tells us – ‘The combination of general relativity and quantum theory into one unified theory was Einstein’s goal for the last 30 years of his life. —. This has been achieved by Professor Myron Wyn Evans using Einstein’s general relativity as the foundation, Cartan’s differential geometry to define the space-time, and his own wave equation to describe both relativity and quantum mechanics’ [4]. Then follow a series of claims such as – ‘Evans does not reject quantum theory, he shows that it emerges from general relativity and with a few paradigm changes, unification occurs’ [57] – ‘The Evans principle of least curvature indicates that there is a calculable minimum volume for every particle’ [67] – ‘This is a wonderful example of how general relativity and quantum electrodynamics can work together’ with the mathematical methods coming ‘from quantum theory and the minimum volume is defined in general relativity’ [67] – ‘The term Grand Unified Field Theory (GUFT) describes the combined theories – The Evans equations are equations of GUFT’ [68] – ‘Quantum gravity is any of a variety of research areas that have attempted to combine gravitational and quantum phenomena’ [68] – ‘The Evans equations show that the 3-dimensional quantum descriptions emanate from Einstein’s general relativity’ [69] – ‘Only four dimensions are needed’ [69] – ‘The Evans Wave Equation mathematically combine the two theories rigorously’ [69] – ‘The Evans equations indicate that R = -kT applies to all radiated and matter fields, not just gravitation. This was Einstein’s unfinished goal’ [126] – ‘The development of the Evans Wave Equation in Chapter 7 unites general relativity and quantum theory, completing unification’ [145] – ‘The Evans metric of spacetime has both curvature and torsion – gravitation and spin’ [154] – ‘Einstein shows the gravitational field is space-time curving. Evans shows the electromagnetic field is space-time spinning’ [155] – ‘The Evans Wave Equation of unified field theory: (equation 2). It is the link between general relativity and quantum mechanics and is the unification equation’ [157], and finally – ‘The Evans equations complete Einstein’s unification goal’ [266]. Apparently, Felker’s claims have not yet been accepted by mainstream physics community.

Theory of everything

Besides the major problems faced by GUTs such as, the experimental verification of predictions at extremely high temperatures, as well as, proton decay; even if GUTs become successful in these ventures, they still cannot include gravity. Therefore, there was an attempt by some physicists to unify the quantum mechanics, that describes the very small, with general relativity, which describes the very large, into one constituent theory named ‘Theory of Everything (TOE)’; which is, in the words of Goenner ‘as the modern equivalent to UFT’ [2014, 196]. The first candidate of this attempt was string theory which attempts to unify all gauge interactions with gravity following string phenomenology, that is, search for the standard model of elementary particles in super-symmetric string theory. The other candidates for TOE are superstring theory, M-Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) brane-world scenarios, and many more. In fact, there are vast literatures; however, only two of them will be briefly discussed below.

The first one is a paper ‘Theory of Everything’ by Cao et al [2015], where the authors mention – ‘The Torque Grid is the fundamental unit of universe. It is driven from gravity forces as result of space-time-energy-force unification. –. UFT unifies four major forces by resonance conditions with help of an arbitrary 3D prime wave model in which the twist/stretch ratio is 137. The resonance condition (distortion equals original size) of the gravity force decides the size of universe and UFT concludes that the Grand universe is hierarchical’ [31]. The authors claim this UFT theory as Theory of Everything (TOE), the final theory of the Physics. In the second paper, the authors Javier Munoj de la Cuesta and Grok [2025] present an UFT ‘that integrates gravity, electroweak, and strong interactions, alongside cosmological phenomena into a single coherent framework’. They claim – through use of ‘layered structure of interacting fields and resonance mechanism’, the UFT ‘bridges General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM), unifying all fundamental forces – at the Grand Unification Theory (GUT) scale.’ – ‘Through 200 trials involving mathematical analysis, 3D simulations, and real-data-validation’, they ‘refined the theory to achieve an error margin below 0.0001%’ [1]. They conclude that – by ‘addressing the incompatibilities between GR and QM and offering a novel mechanism for force unification, the UFT positions itself as a robust candidate for a Theory of Everything’ [17].

In spite of vast literature, claims and criticisms, theoretical physicists have not yet accepted a consistent TOE; besides the still unexplained elementary particle mass-spectrum, they cite combining the graviton with the strong and electroweak interactions, and incompatibility between GR and QM as major reasons. As regards the incompatibility between GR and QM is concerned, Beichler provides an interesting observation; he writes – ‘Relativity is first and foremost about form (structure) and the quantum is primarily all about function, which come together as one of the most fundamental dualities (known as non-commuting quantities in physics) in nature, but there is always a bit of each in other. However, these two ideas, form and function, are not necessarily incompatible since there is always a little of one in the other at a higher level of understanding’ [95]. Here, most interestingly, the author puts a picture of the ancient Chinese symbol called ‘T‘ai-chi T’u’, or ‘Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate’, meaning – GR and QM can combine the same way as ‘yin and yang’, the universal archetypal opposite poles of nature combine.            

Conclusion

At the outset of the conclusion, an honest submission may be made that in spite of availability of vast literature on the selected topic; only a very brief paper is presented using arbitrarily chosen limited literature. The reason for this approach is to put up the facts in a clear and concise manner; against the background that no concrete final result has yet emerged. There have been efforts after efforts to advance UFT following Grand Unified Theory, as well as, Theory of Everything path. Volumes of results are already generated, though the theoretical physicist fraternity is yet to approve one theory as consistent and accepted theory. Here, it is apt to conclude the way Beichler has concluded – ‘The unified field theory is now a done deal. If it is not taken seriously now, it will be in the future’ [2015, 100].   

References

• Barik, Niranjan. 2025. “Nature of Truth and Reality.” Towards Unification of Sciences 3 (3): 129-163.
• Beichler, James E. April 2015. “The Einstein unified field theory completed.” Preliminary Paper.https://de173.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Einstein_Unified_Field_Theory_Completed.pdf.
• Bergmann, Peter G. 1979. “The Quest for Unity: General Relativity and Unitary Field Theories.” Syracuse Scholar (1979-1991): Vol.1, Iss. 1, Article 4. Pages 8-18. https://surface.syr.edu/suscholar.
• Cao, Zhiliang, Cao, Henry Gu, and Qiang, Wenan. 2015. “Theory of Everything.” Frontiers of Astronomy, Astrophysics and Cosmology1(1): 31-36.doi: 10.12691/faac-1-1-4.
• de la Cuesta, Javier Munoj and Grok. 2025. “A Unified Field Theory: Comprehensive Unification of General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and Fundamental Forces Through Resonance and Layered Dynamics.” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391526716.
• van Dongen, Jeroen. 2010. Einstein’s Unification. Cambridge University Press, New York. 
• Eckardt, Horst. 2022. Einstein–Cartan–Evans Unified Field Theory: The Geometrical Basis of Physics. Volume 1: Classical Physics. Published by the Author.
• Ellis, John. 1996. “Abdus Salam: A pioneer in Physics.” CERN Libraries, Geneva. CM- P00058518. December 1995, Archives.
• Felker, Laurence G. October 2005. The Evans Equations of Unified Field Theory. 

               https://www.upitec.org/documents/uft/Evans_Equations_Rev3.pdf.

• Goenner, Hubert F. M. 2014. “On the History of United Field Theories. Part II. (ca. 1930-ca. 1965)” Living Rev. Relativity17: 5- 241. http://www.livingreviews.org/1rr-2014-5. doi: 10.12942/1rr-2014-5.
• Hlavaty, Vaclav. 1957. Geometry Of Einsteins Unified Field Theory. Groningen: P. Noordhoff Ltd. 
• Ho, Vu B. 1995-1. “A geometric formulation of the strong interaction.” Available online at airXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9504072.
• Ho, Vu B. 1995-2. “A metric of Yukawa potential as an exact solution to the field equation of general relativity.” Available online at airXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9506154v3.
• Moffat, John W. 1979. “New theory of gravitation.” Phys. Rev. D 19: 3554-3558.
• Moffat, John W. 1995. “Nonsymmetric Gravitational Theory.” Phys. Lett. B 355: 447-452. Available online at arXiv:gr-qc/9411006.
• Mulders, P. J. 2008. Quantum Field Theory. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
• Paramguru, Raja Kishore. 2025. “Unified Field Theory: Envisioned by Einstein.” Towards Unification of Sciences 3 (3): 153-163.
• Pati, Jogesh C. and Salam, Abdus. 1974. “Lepton number as the fourth color.” Phys. Rev.D10: 275-289.
• Pati, Jogesh C. 1998. “With neutrino masses revealed, proton decay is the missing link.” UMD-PP99-052.https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9811442.
• Popli, Rakesh K. 2003. A Stroll Through Space-Time: A Leisurely Discourse on Einstein’s Relativity Theory. Vigyan Prasar, New Delhi.
• Schwartz, Matthew D. 2014. Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model. Cambridge University Press, New York.
• Tiwari, Dhananjay K. 2011. “Fundamental Forces and Unified Field Theory.” Academic Voices 1 (1): 16-19.
• Tonnelat, Marie-Antoinette. 1966. Einstein’s Unified Field Theory. Gordon and Breach, NY.
• Tonnelat, Marie-Antoinette. 2014. Einstein’s Theory of Unified Fields. Translated by: Richard Akerib. Routledge, London.

Abstract

Broadly speaking, philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom in understanding the fundamental questions concerning of knowledge, values, reality, existence with the purpose and meanings in all of them. It involves a systematic, critical and rational enquiry into the core ideas allowing individuals to examine their believes, to reflect on their experiences and to develop a deeper understanding of themselves and the world around them. In such a perennial pursuit, the ancient seekers in India contributed to the world the Vedic wisdom which we call ‘Darshan’ instead of philosophy. There are six systems of this Vedic philosophy called ‘Shada Darshana’ such as Nyaya, Baisheshika, Mimansha, Shankhya, Yoga and Vedanta. Out of these six main school of thoughts it is the Yoga Darshana which is the unique one to practice for perfection in bring the mind body complex into a deep realisation of the fundamental truth, the Unit Source as the divinity within one’s own self. There is a wide verity of methods of techniques at one’s disposal according to individual propensities and stages in life. These Yogic doctrines are such as Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Jnana Yoga, Raja Yoga/Kriya Yoga, Mantra Yoga, Kundalini Yoga etc. All these doctrines fall into the realm of Yoga Darshana a glimpse of which is provided in this article in view of the fact that this has captured the world attention by a UNESCO declaration to celebrate the International Yoga Day every year on June 21st. 

Keywords: Ancient Indian philosophy, Vedic wisdom, School of thoughts, Yogic doctrines, Universal supreme consciousness, Cosmic intelligence, Ultimate liberation, Primacy of mind, All round wellness. 

Introduction

 The Sanskrit word ‘Yoga’ is derived from its generic verb ‘Yuj’ which means to link or to connect. The ancient Vedic text Bhagabat Geeta explains this as a process of connecting the individual consciousness to the Universal supreme consciousness. Vedic philosophy holds that there is definitely an all-pervading energy and consciousness with cosmic intelligence as an absolute potentiality which one may call ‘Brahman’ or God. This is the supreme metaphysical unit source as the possessor and controller of the universal energy, which is un-manifested, undifferentiated potentiality for everything in this phenomenal world including the individual selves. The individual consciousness is a manifestation of this supreme spirit or soul inside the individual body. Shamkshya darsana envisages that on its manifestation in dual form, it is known as Purusha the universal consciousness and ‘Prakriti’ the universal matter or energy. ‘Purusha’ becomes bonded being embedded in ‘Prakritti’ or the material body when it establishes contact with ‘Prakriti. In that sense; the individual soul or conscious being bonded in the material body, needs to be liberated for its realization in its full potentiality as the supreme soul. This can happen when the individual can establish a link with the supreme soul. The purpose of ‘Yoga’ is to effect this link or to put it in another way to connect the individual being to its ultimate the supreme Brahman’. This is considered as the ultimate goal of human life. Hence Yoga’ is a divine union not in the sense of merging and becoming one with the Supreme Being in some physical sense. This oneness is spiritual but not physical, which means that without losing the individuality one becomes united with the Supreme Being residing within one’s own self in a deep loving relationship with eternal bliss. This is called ‘Mokshya’ or ‘Nirvana’, the ultimate liberation from the bondage of the phenomenal world.

In order to understand this so-called bondage and liberation; we may discuss here a holistic perception of the human system and its possible. Subtle evolution according to shamkshya as well as Vedantic traditions. In science, when we talk about human evolution, it refers to morpho-logical changes that occur in a natural process with absolutely no human control. However, it is believed to be possible within human capabilities to accelerate the evolution of certain human attributes like consciousness. This is achievable by adopting some internal technology offered by our ancient saints and seers through spiritual practices including meditative process, what we call ‘Yoga’.

The Metaphysical Basis

 As human beings, we are made up of body, mind and soul. The physical body consists of flesh and blood of matter. Besides this gross material body (Sthula Sharira), it is believed that there is a subtle or Astral body (Shukshma Sharira) which is simply energy and vibrations that we identify with heart and mind. Finally, there is a third one called the casual body (Karana Sharira) at the center or the base of our existence which we identify with the individual soul or the Atman. The Sthula Sharira or the physical body does not evolve any more in this life after the homeostasis stage had been perfected in the natural evolutionary path lasting over billions of years since the sprouting of life in the past, culminating ultimately in the emergence of human beings on earth. The Karana Sharira or the causal body or soul is also unchanging. So, what really can evolve or transform is the Sukshma Sharira or the subtle body or the mind. In fact, the subtle body consists of four functional parts such as,

Abstract

At present light particles are considered massless, structureless and without having charge. The physical space is also conceptualized to have mathematical structure with less known mathematical objects and events. A clear picture of the structure of physical space with perceivable space matter particles in finer domains is missing. The 3D perceivable geometry has become unperceivable by clubbing the nongeometrical time-parameter with geometrical parameters. The prevailing concepts of light particles and the vacuum/space medium are hurdles in applying the conventional dynamics to light particles in space medium. Finding no way to analyse the constant speed of light in vacuum, scientists have assumed it to be a universal physical constant of nature requiring no further analysis. This author has already introduced the new mass-space structure of light particles having mass, non-electric charge in non-equilibrium mass-space structure as well as the new concept of physical space containing space matter particles of micro-micro domain in his earlier publications in this journal. The new structural concepts of light particle and medium increases the scope of analysing the constant velocity of light in vacuum & other mediums besides the scope of understanding the different phenomena of light in a clear conceptual manner. The present paper makes the analysis of the cause of constant velocity of light in vacuum and other mediums by drawing similarity with the terminal velocity of macro particles.   

Keywords: Light particles, Physical space, Structure of light particle, Micro-micro-domain, Constant velocity of light, Terminal velocity.

Introduction

Velocity of light is constant in a given medium and is the highest in vacuum/space medium which is generally denoted by ‘c’. This is considered as the fastest speed at which anything can travel in the universe. The logic and reasoning for constant velocity of light lacks in present science thus it stands as an observed fact and ‘c’ is considered as a universal physical constant. Velocity of light is found to be a function of density of the medium and no space is a perfect vacuum. At present the reduction of the speed of light in denser mediums is hypothesized to have been caused due to electromagnetic delay by atomic interactions but not due to drag/friction. In either way the velocity of light could have slowed down gradually due to repeated absorption and emission in its path associating cumulative electromagnetic delay or due to friction. The concept of electromagnetic delay has some coherence with “Tired light theory” suggested for an alternative explanation of red shift of light coming from distant stars of galaxies. However, observation shows the velocity of light remains constant in a medium. Obviously, there is some unknown mechanism in action for the constant velocity of light in a specific medium including the vacuum/space medium. The article ‘Critical analysis on physical reality of light’ published in this issue by this author reveals that only the particle concept of light is feasible, therefore has the stand [1]. The wave concept of light is not feasible hence it is hypothetical. But the unreal wave concept of light answers to some phenomena of light which the particle concept fails. This made the unreal wave concept, established as reality. It is something like the honest client loses his case in the court of law due to the weak argument of his pleader. The author has identified the new physical properties of light-particles such as mass, non-electric charge, structure and spin [2], [3]. Again, the rest-existence of fine particles of micro-micro domain (light particles in neutral state) gives rise to the less-known fine structure of vacuum/space medium. The fine structure of the space medium is again modified (restructured) at locations closer to the surface of dense bodies. The new understanding of light particle and medium renders new scope of understanding the different phenomena of light in a natural manner without involving the hypothetical wave concept of light. It is desirable to explore the physical reality of light in a natural manner and make use of mathematics for enabling quantitative analysis. On the other hand, exploring nature by probing through mathematical models and equations deviates away from reality of nature due to some unnatural axioms/hypotheses. The axiomatic mathematical quantum approach produces results but fails to describe the path function of the quantum event such as the basis of the quantum assumptions. Again, the unreal assumption-based truth may succeed in justifying one aspect of a reality but may fail in justifying other aspects of the same reality [1]. Scientists biased with one aspect of a reality, ignoring other aspects are likely to develop concepts and theories deviating away from reality. Such an understanding develops barriers in realizing the uniformity of nature and introduces isolation barriers among macro domain science, micro domain science and micro-micro domain science (spiritual science).  

According to this author, the particle theory of light being the reality can be augmented by realizing the new features of the particle and the medium to explain different phenomena of light thereby keeping physics within the frame of reference of reality. The accepted “Latest” Atomic Model refers to the Quantum Mechanical (Electron Cloud) Model. This remains as the foundational and widely accepted model of atomic structure. It is not the final word since it has limitations like multi-electron atoms cannot be solved exactly, no explanation of why quantization exists etc. The author feels that the latest atomic model has been developed by making domain specific assumptions which is a violation to the similarity of structure and feature in different domains as envisaged in Veda, Vedanta and Bhagavad Geeta mentioned below.  

How does the Vedic concept help in conceptualizing the structure of light particles? 

It is not easy to directly visualize the structures of light particles and the medium in finer domains. In this regard the references of the teachings of Vedas, Vedanta, Upanishads and Bhagavat Geeta give an insight into the nature of structure of light particles and the medium.

1. Veda References

The Vedas often establish the unity between the human being and the cosmos, suggesting that what exists in the macrocosm also exists in the microcosm.

Ṛgveda (10.90 – Puruṣa Sūkta)
The cosmic being (Puruṣa) encompasses the entire universe; the same Puruṣa manifests as the individual soul.

“puruṣa evedaṃ sarvaṃ yadbhūtaṃ yacca bhavyam” 

(The Cosmic Person is all that was and all that will be.)

→ Shows correspondence between cosmic Puruṣa (macrocosm) and individual beings (microcosm).

Atharvaveda (10.2.31)

“Yathā piṇḍe tathā brahmāṇḍe, 

yathā brahmāṇḍe tathā piṇḍe.” 

(As is the body [microcosm], so is the cosmos [macrocosm]; as os the cosmos, so is the body.)

→ This is the clearest Vedic statement of micro–macro reflection.

2. Bhagavad Geeta

The Geeta frequently relates the kṣhetra (the individual field, body) and kṣhetrajña (knower of the field) to the universal. Bhagavad Geeta 13.2

“idaṁ śarīraṁ kaunteya kṣetram ity abhidhīyate
etad yo vetti taṁ prāhuḥ kṣetrajña iti tadvidaḥ”
(This body is called the field [microcosm]; one who knows it is the knower of the field.)
→ Establishes correspondence between the body (microcosm) and cosmic field (macrocosm). Bhagavad Geeta 10.20

“aham ātmā guḍākeśa sarva-bhūtāśaya-sthitaḥ
aham ādiś ca madhyaṁ ca bhūtānām anta eva ca”

(I am the Self, O Arjuna, seated in the hearts of all beings.)
→ The cosmic Lord resides in the microcosm of each being

Bhagavad Geeta Chapter 11 (Viśvarūpa Darśana Yoga)
The vision of the universal form (Viśvarūpa) directly links the individual Arjuna’s perception to the cosmic totality.

3. Vedānta

Chāndogya Upaniṣad (3.18.1)

“sarvaṃ khalv idaṃ brahma.” (All this is indeed Brahman).

Also, in the teaching of “Tat Tvam Asi” (You are That).

→ The individual self is not separate from the universal.

Vedānta develops the equivalence of Jīvātman (individual soul) and Paramātman (universal soul), which is exactly the microcosm–macrocosm correspondence.

Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (2.5.18)

“yathāgneḥ kṣudrā viṣphuliṅgā vyuccaranti, evam eva asya sarvāṇi bhūtāni vyuccaranti.”
(As tiny sparks fly from the fire, so do all beings emerge from the cosmic Self.)

Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad (mantra 2 & 3)

The four states of consciousness (jāgrat, svapna, suṣupti, turīya) reflect the structure of both the individual mind (microcosm) and the universal consciousness (macrocosm).

Śaṅkara’s Advaita Vedānta

Emphasizes “brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā jīvo brahmaiva nāparaḥ.”
(Brahman is the reality, the world is a superimposition, the individual is not different from Brahman).
→ The microcosm–macrocosm distinction is ultimately dissolved in non-duality.

The wisdom of Veda, Bhagavad Geeta and Vedanta resounds with a single truth that the human being is the miniature form of the vast universe. This implies, there is no difference between the structure of the solar system and the structure of the atom. The development of the planetary atomic model was the right approach by Rutherford but he couldn’t succeed due to incomplete modelling of all structural features of the solar system in his model of atoms. In this regard the present author has proposed a new atomic model in the light of Vedantic philosophy which goes to establish similarity of structures and features between micro domain and macro domain. The author visualized the existence of mass in finer domain, below micro domain, (micro-micro domain) [4]. With the new classification of domains of nature, the significance of Vedantic philosophy stretches over a wide range and can be interpreted to hold good for macro domain, micro domain and micro-micro domain. This provides the scope of modelling the structure of unseen material systems of finer and finer domains [micro domain and micro-micro domain] from the structure and features of observable macro solar system. 

A system in a given domain has its internal structure involving particles of lower domain and the said system as a whole goes to build up the internal structure of a larger system in a higher domain. For example, an atomic particle in a micro domain has its structure and the atoms go to build the structure of the celestial body system. This hierarchy is uniformly present from lowest perceivable domain (below micro-micro domain) to domains above macro domain, having its upper limit confined to the physical universe or the greater universe as some have anticipated. The centrally organised systems in different domains have scope of developing coordinated structure such as: the molecules, crystals, solids, binary and ternary stars and clusters of galaxies. The coordinated structure gives rise to formation of different objects with definite shape and size. The centrally organized structures of the same or different domains such as the galactic system, solar system, planet system, atomic system, photonic system have similar structure, features and similar functional properties. The above hypothesis matches well with philosophy of Vedas, Vedanta and Bhagavad Geeta.

Perceptual Geometry versus Abstract Space: A Rational Inquiry

If the revised particle concept explains all phenomena of light then duality would disappear from the theory of light. Duality is against the norm of nature therefore it is not a reality for the light particles and the electrons. The author has shown elsewhere that the light particles are particles of matter in finer domain (micro-micro domain) having mass in photonic mass units [2] and non-electric charge in photonic charge unit [3] and the mass-space structure having nucleus and extra-nuclear space structure [5]. Thus, the laws of dynamics of matter in space are equally applicable to light particles. Following the uniformity of nature, one can extend the similarity of dynamics of matter from one domain to another. In this view, the constant speed phenomenon of light is expected to have its replica in other domains including macro domain. We would therefore explore extending the theory of constant velocity of macro particles (macro domain physics) to light particles. 

The constant velocity of light is a fundamental postulate of Einstein’s theory of special relativity. Einstein considers, the constant velocity of light is not just a property of light itself, but rather a fundamental aspect of how space and time are interwoven in our universe. If somehow, it is possible to understand the cause of constant velocity of light particles in vacuum medium then the equation of motion of particles in high speed condition (approaching the velocity of light) can also be derived as an alternative to special relativity. If this is possible then we need not have to follow the complex interwoven state of space-time of the medium. However, a clear conceptual understanding of the physical space is essential for understanding light and its phenomena. 

In the new concept space itself is physical and has a continuum in the entire universe. Again, space is compressible and attracted by matter [2]. Thus, different space pockets have different space densities (space content per unit volume). Further, the number density of space matter particles in space is in direct proportion to space density due to space-mass attraction. Space associated with matter can have both rotational and linear motion along with the motions of the matter. All physical entities including matter and space have 3-D geometrical properties of shape, size, location and orientation besides their non-geometrical properties of density, charge state, temperature, pressure, velocity and gradient of these properties (different fields). The geometrical parameters of 3-D geometry are the distances of the three co-ordinates. These three co-ordinates are enough to define the spatial location of a point in space. Any other parameter of physical space varying spatially in 3-D geometry is non-geometrical parameters. Our natural mental perception is linked to 3-D geometry therefore we are able to perceive an object or event conceptually. If now the 3-D geometry is distorted by introducing any non-geometrical parameters such as the spatial dynamism or time parameter of physical space as the additional dimension of geometry then the 4-D space-time geometry becomes unperceivable. Very long distances even though it is expressed in light years. This is not to confuse that time is a unit of distance and a dimension of geometry. The 4-D space-time geometry is an unnatural geometry therefore it is unperceivable. The inverse of dynamism is the true significance of time [6]. In the dynamic state of a physical entity, time is associated with matter/physical-space as the parameter of duration (time required for completion of an event with its prevailing dynamism). Time is not a physical entity nor does it flow in flat space or curved space. The dynamic equation of matter developed for the stationary medium is not valid in a moving medium without modification. The equation of dynamics developed for a static physical space needs to be modified appropriately for the moving physical space (space medium associating a dynamism or time parameter). The problems of physics requiring 4-D space-time geometry for their solution can as well be solved considering 3-D geometry with spatially varying dynamism or time of the physical space. Why invite 4-D space-time geometry when the solution is feasible in 3D geometry with time as a non-geometrical parameter without disturbing the perception of reality.

If four variable parameters are required for the dynamics of the particle in the space then mathematically it is feasible to work out the dynamics in two different ways: with or without fusing the non-geometrical parameter with geometrical parameters. It is not proper to consider the non-geometrical time-parameter as an additional parameter of 3-D geometry thereby making the unnatural 4-D geometry which is purely hypothetical. The 3-D volumetric geometry is complete with 3 observable parameters of the geometry. The problem arises due to improper understanding of the physical nature of space and the presence of space matter particles of finer domain which is required for conceptualizing the non-geometrical parameter. The dynamic state property of non-physical (relational) space is unthinkable to visualize the motion of space associating time. In such a situation the non-geometrical time-parameter is conceptualised from the hypothetical 4-D geometry. It is rational to think that physical entities (matter or space) have both state property and geometrical property. When the reality of the physical nature of the space is not perceived properly then the state property of physical space is erroneously considered as a parameter of hypothetical 4-D geometry. 

The new concept of physical space provides enough scope of finding spatial variations of the state property parameters such as space density (space content per unit volume), number density of space matter particles, gradient of space density (space field), gradient of number density of space matter particle (mass field) and the non-electric charge state of space matter particles & their gradient (non-electric charge field). Due to the lack of perception to the above non-geometrical parameters of physical space, the motion of physical space could not be visualized thus the time/motion-parameter of the moving physical space is unduly clubbed into geometry making it an unrealistic 4-D space time geometry. In the dynamics of macro bodies, we make use of the three parameters of geometry separate from the non-geometrical state properties of the physical entity such as velocity, pressure, temperature, charge, time (reciprocal of dynamism) in solving the problems. The unperceivable geometry of space-time becomes perceivable when the non-geometrical time-parameter is taken out from geometry and dealt separately as a parameter of the dynamics. The distances of stars are expressed in light years but time is not distance, it is basically a state property of a physical entity by virtue of its dynamism and not something that flows [6]. The 3-D geometry is enough to define and locate any spot in space and the non-geometrical relative motion of the space medium at any location can be described through its dynamism/time. The physical space described in 3-D geometry can have spatial variation of state property (dynamism/velocity/time). Thus, a moving physical space in 3-D geometry can experience different spatial velocity of the space medium thereby the dynamics of the object (particle) would differ from the static nature of the medium. Solution of problems of dynamics of bodies in stationary medium and moving medium at constant or varying speeds is quite common in the macro domain. The new perception of structural features of space media reveals that space or vacuum can be considered as a different kind of gas/air by replacing the atomic and molecular space matter particles by the micro-micro domain space matter particles (light particles in neutral states). In macro domain physics time is not a geometric parameter but it has its role in the dynamics. If three geometrical parameters and one dynamic parameter (time) are required in solving problems of dynamics then, one can do so by 1) clubbing the time parameter with geometric parameter of space or 2) considering the geometrical parameters and the non-geometric parameter (time) separately. Then, why go for fusing space and time and formulating the new unperceivable 4-D geometry? 

In the new concept, the light particles have mass and mass-space structure. The medium also has a micro-micro structure. Hence, the new concepts of light particle and the medium have scope of explaining the cause of constant velocity of light in vacuum or space medium. Einstein assumed the observed constant velocity of light in vacuum as a physical constant and he built his theories around it. It is equally important to understand how the velocity of light is constant in a given medium and the velocity is highest in a vacuum medium. Once we are able to understand the dynamics of light particles thereafter it becomes easier to understand then it is possible to show how the velocity of light is maximum in vacuum medium. So far, our best theory for why the bulk of the universe is the way it is, almost entirely hinges on the notion that the speed of light in vacuum is the universal speed limit, which is why it is called one of the fundamental postulates of special relativity. It is fine to make a postulate like this but at the same time it is also important to justify the postulate to strengthen the theories based on the postulate. Events happening in a system take the reference of the system to describe and analyse because reality always corresponds to the object and event frame of reference irrespective of what one sees in another frame of reference. It looks, the equation of special relativity is just a mathematical correlation which helps in predicting the unknown parameter of the dynamics. However, the nature of description backing the relativistic equation does not correspond to reality. The dynamics of matter is a reality when the parameters of dynamics are described in relation to the frame of reference of the object and event but not relating to any other frame of reference. This author feels, the relativistic equation for velocity of an object approaching the speed of light can be derived from meta-physical consideration of the event expressed in the frame of reference of objects and events. Thus, the reality in special relativity considerations has to be pursued. 

Analysis of constant velocity of light 

In the new concept proposed by this author, the light particles are having mass in photonic mass units [2], hence they are particles of matter in finer domains. Following the uniformity of nature (similarity of structure and feature in different domains), all centrally organized systems including the solar system and atomic system are expected to have similarity in structure and features [5]. The present mathematical atomic model makes use of quantum assumptions deviating away from the reality of nature experienced in other domains however the model agrees on the existence of nucleus and extra nuclear structure. Though the mathematical atomic model is a deviation from reality, it got established due to its ability to explain the spectra of hydrogen atoms. This does not stop our hunt for the reality-based model of atomic structure having similarity with centrally organized structures in other domains. The new atomic model proposed by this author has complete similarity with the structure of the solar system and the model has scope to explain the spectra of atoms and the stability of atomic structure without making any domain-specific assumptions [7]. For the unified understanding of nature, there should be only one set of common universal assumptions for all domains of nature. The common-sense knowledge and cause-to-effect analogy are valid in macro domain and spiritual domain (consciousness-domain/micro-micro domain) and there is no valid reason why it should not be entertained for the atomic-domain (micro-domain). Hence, the new solar atomic model [7] has a better stand for comprehensive understanding of nature. The light particle bears mass in the new concept [2], hence it should find a place in the atomic structure and in the structure of the space medium. Further, the light particles also have a structure having a nucleus and extra nuclear space structure containing orbital particles and space matter particles in finer domains [5], [7]. The extra-nuclear structures of systems in different domains are likely to have similarity to the uniformity of nature. One can visualize the nature of extra-nuclear structure from the study of the observable extra-nuclear structure of the earth. If we ignore some finer features of extra-nuclear structure of the earth then we would fail to understand the science of the rain fall and the effect of atmosphere, ionosphere and magnetosphere. Similarly, we need to explore the extra-nuclear structure of light particles to understand different phenomena of light. The schematic view of the structure of a light particle static and dynamic state is shown in Fig.1.

Abstract

The modern scientific concept of light started from Newton in his corpuscular theory of light. Newton’s particle theory though justified the rectilinear propagation, the reflection of light and colours of light from the mass property of light particles; but faced problems in explaining other phenomena of light such as refraction, diffraction, interference and polarization. A different school of thought suggested that light is communicated as waves in a medium like the propagation of waves on the surface of water. The wave concept of light lacking physical reality did not appeal to Newton and his followers. However, the unrealistic wave properties (wave-length and frequency) could justify the unexplained phenomena of light. On the other hand, the wave theory of light could not explain the rectilinear propagation of light precisely and the photoelectric effect of light. In the above circumstances both the particle concept and the wave concept were accepted for light even though the two concepts are of diverse nature and cannot supplement one another. Then, it was presumed that duality of light exists in nature. Thus, scientists exploring light would discover only the duality. Thereafter light was conceptualized as a particle associated with wave property although it is difficult to comprehend this unnatural physical concept. This author considers the reality is always one and not this way as well as that way. He considers the particle concept of light as the reality since it is functionally feasible and ignores the wave concept of light despite its merit in explaining many phenomena of light, because it is just not functionally feasible. A particle can associate only the properties which are inherent to a particle but not the wave properties which are inherent to a medium. It is possible to improve the particle model of light to justify all phenomena of light by identifying the less known intrinsic properties of light particles and by developing a deeper understanding of the fine structure of the space medium through which light particles move and interact in its path. This is possible by exploring into micro-micro domain structure (one domain below micro domain) of matter. If a new particle theory of light with new insight to the structures of particle and medium has scope of explaining all phenomena of light, there is no reason why it should not be pursued? In another view, light is an electromagnetic wave. In yet another quantum view, photons are the field quanta. In the new proposed concept light particles (photons) are particles of matter in the micro-micro domain. They are now reported to have mass, structure, non-electric charge and spin hence they have the ability to form fields in space by their physical presence as space matter particles. This is against the prevailing concept that the EM field, which is independent of particles. The new concept, in a way, supplements the quantum view by their direct physical presence. The new particle theory of light has scope of explaining all phenomena of light.

Keywords: Physical reality of light, Newton’s particle theory, Corpuscular motion, Wave concept, Space medium, Micro-micro-domain, Electromagnetic wave.

Historical and recent developments on concept of light

 Man became curious to understand light right from the day he saw the sun and other objects during the day with the help of sunlight. Human consciousness-based spiritual knowledge formed the early philosophical conclusion on light. Due to lack of clear perception of light, the philosophical concept of light was described in many different ways during 15 century BCE to 15 century CE. Jyoti/Tejas (Divine Light or Energy), was first mentioned orally in Rig Veda and Atharva Veda (~1500–1200 BCE) and then appeared in written form (~1000 BCE) [1]. Rigveda describes the sun’s chariot being drawn by seven horses. This imagery, interpreted through a modern lens, can be seen as referring to the seven colours of light, each a distinct “particle” of energy. Approximately in 2nd century BCE, Vaiśeṣika Sūtra 5.1.6 authored by Acharya Kaṇāda (paraphrased):Tejas (light) is of the nature of particles, and its motion causes visibility and contact. This suggests that light is composed of minute particles that travel and interact with objects, allowing them to be seen. He also described, light reflects off of smooth surfaces. Democritus (460 BC–370 BC) believed that the visual image did not arise directly in the eyes but the air between the object and the eye is contracted and stamped by the object seen and the observing eyes [2]. Epicurus (341 BC–270 BC), proposed that atoms flow continuously from the body of the object into the eyes [3]. In 300 BCE, Euclid described light as rays that travel in straight lines from the eyes to objects [4]. Claudius Ptolemy developed theories of reflection and refraction from geometrical principles in 100 CE [5]. The ancient Indian text “Surya Siddhanta” narrates the optics and behaviour of light. Surya Siddhanta, implicitly assumed the rectilinear propagation of light and described the speed of sunlight which is close to the modern value [6]. The Surya Siddhanta is a treatise on astronomy that dates back to the 4th or 5th century AD. In 1000 CE – Alhazen (Ibn al-Haytham) in his ‘Book of Optics’ proposed that light comes from luminous objects and enters the eyes—correcting the emission theory of vision [7]. He studied reflection, refraction, and camera obscura. Bhaskaracharya, is credited with describing the phenomenon of refraction of light in the 12th century. He wrote about it in his treatise, Siddhanta Shiromani, which was completed around 1150 CE [8].

The early modern theories were put up between 1600 and 1700. In the 1670s Isaac Newton proposed the corpuscular theory assuming light as tiny particles and explained reflection, refraction and dispersion of white light into colours thus making a strong foundation. In 1678 Christiaan Huygens described light as a wave in ether and explained the reflection and refraction. Thomas Young advocated the wave theory while questioning the particle concept of light. Young’s Double-Slit Experiment demonstrated interference, which supported the wave theory of light. During 1815-1820 Augustin-Jean Fresnel developed a mathematical wave theory of light and explained diffraction and polarization. Fresnel and Arago in 1821 showed that light is a transverse wave. In 1860 Jemes Clerk Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism in Maxwell’s equation where he predicted light as electromagnetic waves. 

In 1900 Max Planck assumed that electromagnetic waves (light) is emitted or absorbed by matter in discrete packets (quanta) of energy which gave birth to the quantum theory. In 1905 Einstein proposed that light consists of photons to explain the photoelectric effect. This revived the particle concept of light in modern physics. Louis de Broglie in 1924 suggested that matter particles also have wave properties, thereby formally introducing the wave-particle duality of light which is also a foundational concept in quantum physics today. In 1927 Arthur Compton demonstrated that X-rays scatter off electrons with particle-like behaviour supporting photon theory. In the period between 1930s–1950s, Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) was developed by a group of scientists (Dirac, Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga) which suggests light as the exchange of photons within quantum fields.

The Quantum Field Theory (QFT), though successful in predicting the behaviour of light through quantum electrodynamics (QED), also has limitations. Fundamentally, QFT describes light as quantized excitations of the electromagnetic field—photons—but it does not provide an ontological understanding of what a photon truly is. It operates within flat spacetime, thus making it incompatible with general relativity, hence fails under extreme gravitational conditions. The QFT also does not address the measurement problem: it can predict probabilities of outcomes but not how or why a specific outcome occurs when a photon is detected. Moreover, it lacks a clear explanation for nonlocal correlations between entangled photons, offering only mathematical descriptions without physical mechanisms. Renormalization, though effective, is mathematically artificial, hinting that QFT may be an effective rather than a fundamental theory. Thus, QFT remains incomplete in capturing the full physical reality of light. In view of the above incompleteness of QFT, the present author feels, only predicting the behaviour of light mathematically without a conceptually feasible mechanism describing the fundamental theory, QFT is not a complete understanding of light. The scope of a new discovery of the theory of light having compatibility with other theories cannot be ruled out. The standing theories of light during their era subsequently became the history of light. It would not be surprising, if a new comprehensive complete theory of light would replace the presently established QFT concept thereby relocating QFT in the history of light. The new theory of light can as well bring clarity in the understanding of Laser and light-matter interaction.

Introduction

Vedic science identifies Brahman as the supreme reality of the universe and beyond, implying theory of everything [9]. Different theories are developed to understand different aspects of nature in different domains. All of them can be considered as derivatives of the single supreme unchangeable reality. If the supreme reality is unchangeable then the derived laws are also unchangeable. The laws of nature being invariant successfully predict different happenings of nature. On the other hand, if the norms of nature would have been changing with time then no scientific law could have been feasible. The fact that the scientific laws are found valid reveals the norms of nature are invariant. Hence the scientific understanding of light involving duality does not correspond to the reality of nature. Thus, the duality of light is an outcome of improper understanding of reality. Interestingly enough, the man-made duality of light is imposed on nature, as if the duality is an inherent reality of nature itself. It is therefore, absolutely necessary to examine the feasibility of the two concepts of light for ascertaining the reality. Thereafter, the accepted concept is required to be upgraded for justifying different phenomena of light. 

 The wave theory of light is just not feasible since the space medium lacks the required modulus of elasticity for propagation of high frequency light waves. Hence, only the particle concept of light has the stand. The wave equations capable of producing results can otherwise be derived from an advanced particle theory by realizing the true significance of wave parameters in the particle model. This is possible only by furthering our understanding of the structure of light particles and the medium through which light passes. On the other hand, in promoting the unreal wave-particle dual theory of light we may have to assume additional unnatural assumptions to explain different phenomena of light. The present author emphasizes the importance of reality-based assumptions in developing a theory in any domain for a comprehensive unified understanding of nature without contradiction with common-sense and cause to effect analogy.

The new finding of rest mass of light particle [10], the new mass-space structure of light particle [11], the presence of non-electric charge in light particle [12], the physical spin state of light particle, the mass-space structure medium [13] and the presence of non-electric charge field in the medium, all play their roles in producing different phenomena of light. Because the tiny light particle with its structural features essentially moves through the physical space medium having structure and features in finer domain. The non-electric charge state of a photon (light particle) goes to explain the energy level of a photon [14]. One can visualize the limitations of the structure-less atom (Dalton’s atom) in explaining the atomic spectra without the extra-nuclear structure. These limitations of Dalton’s atom could have been otherwise resolved by incorporating wave-particle duality and considering the wave parameters (wave-length and frequency) of the atom to justify different atomic phenomena. The atomists, however, realized the reality, and developed the atomic structure to explain the atomic phenomena. Though the concept atom rightly changed from structureless hard ball to structural particle, the subatomic particles remained as structureless particles. The hard ball concept of fundamental and elementary particles could have been conceptualized with having an extra-nuclear space structure comprising space and space-matter-particles (light particles). Had it been the case then classical physics would have been enough to explain all phenomena in different domains. The unnatural assumptions made in modelling the atomic structure have deviated away from the reality of nature. The unnatural atomic model ignoring the structural features in finer domain (micro-micro domain) necessitated many hypothetical assumptions including the wave particle duality of electrons to proxy the role of fine structure composed of space matter particles (light particles) [15]. It is something like to protect one unreal statement. One needs many hypothetical deviations from reality to justify the primary statement. Since the present atomic model has deviated away from reality it fails to entertain the common-sense logic and cause to effect analogy. The common-sense knowledge comes from the impressions created by consciousness, the natural process of the brain, without the aid of any man-made model. Therefore, common-sense knowledge is free from manmade intervention causing deviation from the reality of nature. Thus, common-sense can be powerfully used as a tool to understand whether a manmade theory has deviated away from reality. Again, the cause-to-effect analogy is the primary basis of exploring nature. Further, uniformity of nature in respect of structure and feature is expected to exhibit similarity in different domains of nature. Developing any model in any domain by ignoring the similarity of structure and features leads to deviation from reality of nature. The mathematical models based on axioms deviate away from reality if the axioms lack feasibility. For example, the sand particles are of different sizes, which correspond to reality. If the sand particles are not observable, then one may make a mathematical axiom that the sand particles are identical and develop the following equation to establish his axiom as the reality.

M = Nm ———- 1

Where M is the mass of a sand packet, m is the mass of each sand particle by axiom/hypothesis and N is the number of sand particles in the packet

 The above equation holds good for quantitative analysis. By knowing any two parameters the third parameter can be determined from the above equation. Hence the equation holds good. The mathematical axiom that the sand particles are identical has a stand because the quantitative analysis yields result. The misconception of identical sand particles gets established mathematically as a reality of nature though it is far from reality. It is well known that the sand particles are of different sizes. Following reality, one can as well develop a mathematical correlation for quantitative evaluation of parameters.

Abstract

The micro phenomena take place in unseen domains therefore, they are not directly observable. Thus, following uniformity of nature, we conceptualize the structure and features of different existences in unseen finer domains assuming similarity with the structure in observable domain. For example, the atomic structure was modelled by Rutherford considering the similarity of the structure of the solar system which is known as planetary atomic model. But the model could not explain the atomic spectra and further faced the problem of stability of orbital electron. The reality based planetary model was replaced by the abstract quantum atomic model. The reality-based planetary atomic model could have been improved in the light of reality by overcoming the limitations instead of jumping to abstract mathematical quantum atomic models with unrealistic assumptions. The solar system is much more than the sun-planet system. Hence, the Rutherford model is incomplete which could have been improved by accommodating the extra nuclear space structure with space matter particles in the model having similarity with the space structure (atmosphere) of celestial bodies. The improved planetary atomic model with additional structural features has the new scope of overcoming the limitations of the Rutherford atomic model. Instead of improving the reality based atomic model scientists develop the abstract mathematical quantum atomic model to explain the spectra by making many unrealistic assumptions such as the wave particle duality of electrons and sub-atomic particles. Thereafter the assumed unrealistic wave-particle property of electrons and other micro particles became the standard practice for micro domain physics. The unrealistic assumptions for particles of micro domain physics proliferated to different theories thereby making deviations from reality. The field theory was introduced by Maxwell to explain the electromagnetic interaction. The field theory and quantum theory were then clubbed resulting in the QFT as the standard model in particle physics. QFT helped in obtaining the Grand Unification of forces of nature except gravity. Hence, we are yet to develop a complete unified understanding of nature covering different domains. Many new models are being developed to achieve the super unification of all the fundamental forces of nature. This author has identified the feasibility of the existence of matter in the micro-micro domain. This has made a change in the existing structure of atoms and other micro particles including the structure of vacuum/space medium. The new interaction of mass and space as the common cause of fundamental forces. This paper discusses the state of the art of existing abstract theories and proposes the reality aspect of micro structure of matter having micro-micro structure comprising so-called massless particles having mass and rest existence. The important part of the new reality-based physics is that the common-sense knowledge, cause to effect analogy are made valid in micro domain physics which helps the unification of Vedic science, spiritual science and modern science. 

Keywords: Vedic science, Spiritual science, Modern science, Micro-micro domain, Solar system, Planetary atomic model, Classical theory, Quantum Field Theory, String theory, Theory of Everything, Grand Unified Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity.

Introduction

In field theory, fields are considered fundamental entities of nature that describe interactions in space and they do not require particles for forming the fields (gravitational and electromagnetic field etc.). On the other hand, quantum mechanics describes the behaviour of matter at the atomic and subatomic levels. Recent quantum field theory (QFT) combines the field and quantum concepts to describe particles as excitations of underlying fields thus providing a framework for understanding the fundamental forces and particles of nature. 

Any form of potential gradient in space develops a field. Thus, field can form in space devoid of micro particles by smooth gradient of number density of particles of finer domain, say micro-micro domain, yet unknown. The field forming micro-micro domain particles skips the notice of scientists, hence the field stands alone as the fundamental entity. An object forms a field in its surrounding, therefore, two objects placed nearby have their fields overlapping one another. Thus, the fields of different bodies mediate interactions among bodies, meaning- they are the way objects exert forces on each other. The anticipated reality may not be true. Proper understanding of the structure of vacuum/space composed of particles of micro-micro domain gives a metaphysical understanding of the field-field interaction through the interaction of field forming particles. The electro-magnetic field-field interaction resulting from abrupt creation of particles (photons) could otherwise be interpreted in a simple manner through the interaction of different micro-micro particles (photons) belonging to different fields that result in release of photons to neutralize the instability. The new model dispenses with the difficult science of creation of photons in field-field interaction.

  Quantum mechanics describes the physics of very small entities, where energy, momentum, angular momentum, and other physical properties of particles are quantized, meaning they can only take on discrete values. It is easy to accept the assumptions of quantum mechanics but difficult to realize why such peculiarities exist in the micro domain alone? Again, quantum mechanics accepts the wave-like behaviour of particles and waves can exhibit particle-like behaviour. But in reality, the particle-like behaviour is confined to the particle whereas the spreading nature of waves is a property of the medium. Hence the assumptions do not correspond to reality even though the quantum theory describes events quantitatively. The accepted duality of electrons is not a reality of nature and the electrons without duality can as well explain diffraction and interference. Duality of electrons is a requirement only for the structureless concepts of electron and space medium. A real concept without duality, becomes unreal when examined in the unreal frame of reference.

  The field theory is clubbed with quantum theory forming the quantum field theory (QFT). The QFT takes the principles of quantum mechanics and applies them to fields, treating them as fundamental entities that can be quantized. In QFT, particles are understood as quantized excitations or vibrations of these underlying fields. The basic concept of duality as considered in quantum mechanics is also carried over to QFT. If duality of electrons is not a reality then the QFT also becomes unreal. The light particles and other micro-micro domain particles are now found to have rest mass therefore they are particles of matter [1]. Hence the naturally occurring micro-micro particles in space are the field forming particles therefore we need not have to consider them as quantized excitations of the field any more. Thus, when the field is excited then some loosely bound micro-micro particles (photons) are released from the peak potentials of the polarized field of the medium [2]. If the presence of naturally existing micro-micro particles forming the field is not perceived properly, then the other option is to create these particles from the excitations or vibrations of the underlying fields. The existence of less known finer domain particles being a natural reality, it is possible to conceptualize the structure of electrons and the structure of vacuum/space medium. The rest-existence of field forming particles brings a significant change in the basic hypothesis of QFT. The standard QFD model though considered a success but has limitations therefore it is not a complete theory. The Standard Model doesn’t include gravity, one of the four fundamental forces of nature. Attempts to unify gravity with other fundamental forces within the Standard Model framework have been unsuccessful so far. The Standard Model doesn’t fully explain why particles have masses they do, although the Higgs boson plays a role. The Standard Model doesn’t account for the existence of dark matter and dark energy, which make up a significant portion of the universe’s mass-energy density. The Standard Model predicts equal amounts of matter and antimatter, but the universe is predominantly made of matter. The Standard Model relies on a mathematical technique called renormalization, which some consider unsatisfactory. Additionally, the weak force lacks systematic analytic methods of QFT for describing non-perturbative phenomena. The Quantum Flavor Dynamics (QFD), a part of the Standard Model, describing the weak force, has limitations in handling low-energy, non-perturbative phenomena. 

Because of the above limitations of QFD, physicists are exploring new models. The following theories are being explored while aiming for success.

• Grand Unified Theories (GUTs): These aim to unify the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces at very high energies. 
• Theories of Everything (TOE): These aim to unify all four fundamental forces, including gravity. 
• Supersymmetry: This theory proposes a symmetry between bosons and fermions, potentially solving some problems of the Standard Model. 
• String Theory: This theory attempts to explain all particles and forces as vibrations of tiny, one-dimensional objects called strings. 
• Loop Quantum Gravity: This theory offers a different approach to quantizing gravity. 

 The search for a more complete and consistent theory of particle physics is an ongoing endeavour. In the present circumstances this author feels the new natural concept of matter, charge, structure of particles and structure of space medium proposed by the author elsewhere [3] [4] [5] may have comprehensive answers to micro domain physics and macro domain physics.

Discussion

We describe different happenings of nature in an unseen finer domain by modelling the objects, the medium, the event and their interactions in many different ways (say n number of ways) to justify some aspects of reality. The reality is always one. Hence for ‘n’ number of aspect-based models/theories proposed for a reality, the (n-1) models/theories are not real. Thus, for n=10, 9 proposed models/theories are not real provided the real model/theory is one among the 10 proposed models/theories. It may so happen that none of the n proposed theories describe reality and all our theory-based understanding remains away from reality. In view of the above, if a concept, model or theory describing only one aspect of the reality (event) fails to describe other aspects of the reality (event) then the concept, model or theory does not describe the true reality of the event. How to examine which concept, model or theory corresponds to reality in an unseen finer domain? 

  All human beings including the explorers of nature are natural beings. What we experience through our sense organs directly speaks of nature. Any experiment carried out in a controlled environment also reveals the truth of nature. We do not make any model to understand what we see and perceive mentally in a natural state, because we see and perceive reality directly. The act of seeing and the act of perception are directly governed by the laws of nature, hence, there is no scope of entry of unnatural concepts by way of unnatural assumptions, hypotheses, axioms and modelling. Thus, seeing and perceiving corresponds to the truth or reality of nature. Again, one truth does not contradict the other truth. What we see and what we hear do not contradict. If nature is simple then, only simple science is enough to understand nature. The phenomena/events in finer domains are not observable therefore they are understood through different models. If a model successfully explains only some aspect of a phenomenon/event, then the model gets accepted and established erroneously as the complete truth/reality of the event. But the model that explains all aspects of an object or event corresponds to truth/reality. A model/theory aiming to know the reality should make use of the assumptions which are feasible in order to keep the theory close to reality. The wave transmission in vacuum medium not having adequate physical properties to transmit the energy waves is just not feasible. Thus, the wave theory conceptualized for light and sound are unreal considerations. Extending the wave concept to any micro particles simply goes to integrate error in micro domain theories. Again, the norms of nature are always consistent (invariant). If the norms of nature would have been changing then no law of nature could be feasible. Hence, the concept of wave-particle duality of light, electron and micro particles is a violation of the consistent norm of nature, therefore the dual concept should not be entertained in exploring the reality of nature. Examination of different happenings of nature reveals the most general norms of nature that, 1) The universe and all its constituents (galaxies, stars, planets, satellites, asteroids, macro bodies (leaving and non-living) are continuously decaying from the day they are formed. This matches with the central theme of Buddhist philosophy. One may draw a general conclusion that decay is inevitable for any existence in any domain (macro domain, microdomain and micro-microdomain). Hence the atomic model could have kept a room for decay of non-radioactive atoms, 2) The decay transformation of matter from one microstructural form to another takes place by quantum transition but behind the quantum transition there exists a slow gradual natural decay of continuous nature of the micro-micro structure of microstructure which at a critical state trigger the quantum transition of the microstructure. Thus, the cause of quantum mechanics of micro-domain lies with the classical mechanics of finer domain (micro-micro-domain).  The birth and death of any existence in any domain is a quantum event but the cause of the quantum event is the continuous natural decay of the structure in finer-domain (ageing). Nothing can happen abruptly without a precondition (cause). Hence the classical theory and quantum theory are complementary to one another and the cause to effect analogy is valid in any domain. When both cause and the event remain in the perceivable macro domain, there is no difficulty in finding the cause of an event. If the cause of a macro event lies in the known micro domain then also there is no difficulty in finding the cause of the event. But for a micro event, if the cause lies in an unknown micro-micro domain, then we fail to realize the cause of the event. In such a situation we make quantum assumptions for the dynamics of the microscopic world. However, it is desirable to know the basis of the quantum assumptions for clarity of understanding of the quantum theory. Developing any model/theory by ignoring the common-sense knowledge and cause-to-effect analogy deviates away the model/theory from reality of nature. The quantum mechanics developed for the micro domain makes abrupt assumptions ignoring the common-sense knowledge and cause to effect analogy which leaves a doubt on the reality of the mechanics. But quantum theory yields result, therefore the cause of quantum assumptions exists in the unknown finer domain. Thus, the reality of mass-space dynamics of the micro domain involves the interplay of matter and space in three domains (macro domain, micro domain and micro-micro domain). The macro body produces a field around it and the field contains micro particles and micro-micro particles as the space matter particles where the space matter particles go to form the field. The vacuum or space is devoid of micro particles but contains micro-micro particles which form the field in space. All micro particles including the subatomic particles have extra-nuclear space structure containing micro-micro particles as space matter particles and the space medium which is empty of micro particles contains micro-micro particles as space matter particles making the space a fluid of different kind. All macro phenomena are linked to the micro structure of macro bodies. In the like manner, every micro phenomenon is linked to micro-micro structure of micro particles. Hence, the reality-based classical physics could have successfully explained all micro phenomena in a natural manner by exploring the micro-micro domain physics. On the other hand, new quantum mechanics was developed by making unnatural quantum assumptions to obtain the result. How can the mechanics produce results ignoring a part of the structural reality? Quantum assumptions became unnatural because they empowered the micro structure by hypothesis to proxy the functional role of the less known micro-micro structure. The reality-based metaphysics lost its significance in the micro domain as it unknowingly ignored the structure and dynamics in the micro-micro domain. The abstract mathematical physics of the micro domain without the conceptual reality operated in an unreal mathematical world. Due to lack of natural conceptual understanding, the present science stands on mathematical footing where it is impossible to advance physics by logical analysis. Unlike the existing classical mechanics, the new classical mechanics having an insight into the physics of micro-micro domain has scope of explaining all micro phenomena in a conceptual manner. At present, the metaphysical reality is replaced by the abstract mathematical understanding of micro domain physics. 

  The Standard Model of particle physics, though successful in explaining many phenomena of nature but has limitations for which it is not considered a complete theory. It doesn’t incorporate gravity, explain the origin of particle masses, or address the matter-antimatter asymmetry. Furthermore, the mathematical framework of the Standard Model finds limitations in the context of the weak force in describing the non-perturbative phenomena. Therefore, physicists are actively seeking new models that can overcome these shortcomings. 

Nature is expected to have a common norm for all domains of the universe. Hence one class of theory should have been enough for both macro domain and micro domain. The man-made differentiation of the physics of micro domain and the physics of macro domain is caused due to lack of perception of the existence of micro-micro domain. Proper understanding of finer domains of nature helps to unify the physics of macro domain and micro domain thereby opening up the access to the theory of everything. The undesirable domain-specific understanding of the micro domain stands as a barrier for a unified understanding of nature. This author makes a humble attempt to identify the basic constituents and the basic interaction [3] which is universal covering all domains of nature. The basic formless constituents of the universe and basic interaction of the formless constituents is the cause of different formed constituent matters of different domains having different form-based interaction properties [1]. However, the range and strength of interaction is a function of the nature of state property of matter (mass, charge, mass density and the charge density) and the geometry of the form. One needs to be open in accepting the changes in the established concept of physics for developing a unified understanding of nature.

Scope of the new universal mass-space theory covering all domains

  The physical universe comprises mass and space as the only two formless basic constituents [1]. Space is an invisible physical entity and can have different space density (space content per unit volume) [1]. Matter in any state and in any domain, associates space hence it is a mass-space integral system [1]. Space also contains space matter particles therefore it is also a space-mass integral system. The number density of a space matter particle is directly proportional to the space density [5]. The universe governing principle is the basic interaction of formless mass and space.  The basic mass-space interaction is the unchanging supreme reality which is the cause of all existences and all dynamics in all domains of nature. The existence of pure mass or pure space is not found in the universe. Thus, we deal with matter (mass-space integral system) and space as space-fluid (space containing space matter particle) [1]. Matter has discrete form but space is a compressible fluid. Unconfined space can expand infinitely. Matter exists in different forms in different domains which includes the visible domains (macro domain and macro-macro domain) and invisible domains (micro domain and micro-micro domain) [6]. The formless interaction property of mass and space give rise to different form-based interaction properties of the formed objects (particles and bodies in different domains). Charge is a derived entity that appears in matter in a non-equilibrium state of mass-pace association relative to the equilibrium mass-space association (neutral matter) in the locality. Therefore, different particles and bodies in different domains have different form-based properties. The form-based properties of matter in different domains follow the domain-specific characterization without the knowledge of the universal form-less interaction of mass and space. The existence of micro-microstructure of micro particles and the micro-microstructure of space was unknowingly ignored. This was the reason for the failure of reality-based classical physics. But quantum mechanics was developed by backward integration from the result to justify the micro phenomena. The very fact that quantum theory is able to predict results reveals that the quantum assumptions unknowingly proxies the functional role of micro-micro structure of the microstructure. Classical mechanics can as well predict the result of microphenomenon by considering the micro-micro structure of microstructure while maintaining the free access of common-sense and cause to effect analogy. After all, classical theory is based on reality hence it would not face any difficulty in explaining any aspect of the reality. There is no difficulty in finding the cause of the fundamental forces and the unification of fundamental forces at the level of a common cause. 

 Presence of atomic and molecular particles in space forms the gaseous state of matter which in more precise terms can be called atomic or molecular gas. Likewise, if a space pocket is filled with only electrons then it can be called as electronic gas. In the similar manner when a space pocket is filled with photons then it can be called as photonic gas. In the present concept, light particles (photons) have zero mass in the atomic mass unit and no rest exists. But in the new concept light particles have mass in the photonic mass unit and they have a rest in the structure of matter and space as space matter particles. Light particles also carry photonic charge [7] and can form different fields in space. Formation of any field in space requires field forming particles in finer domains. 

Conclusion

The insight to the existence of matter in finer domains (micro-micro domain) brings a change in the structure of atoms as well as the structures of sub-atomic particles and the vacuum/space medium.  This brings drastic changes in the scientific perception of the structure of matter in finer domains and the structure of space containing space matter particles of micro-micro domain which influences the dynamics of micro particles. The abstract theories of micro domain physics can be translated into reality-based theories by the new understanding of micro-micro structure of matter and space. This new approach on the existence of the micro-micro domain has a far-reaching consequence in the unification of sciences. This paper promotes realization of the harmony among classical theory, field theory, quantum theory and quantum field theory.

Reference

1. https://philosophyofnature.org.in/towards-a-new-comprehensive-universal-science.
2. https://philosophyofnature.org.in/modelling-atomic-system.
3. https://philosophyofnature.org.in/basic-constituents-of-universe-and-their-interactions.
4. https://philosophyofnature.org.in/new-concept-of-electric-charge-in-matter.
5. https://philosophyofnature.org.in/mass-space-structure-of-centrally-organized-systems.
6. https://philosophyofnature.org.in/different-domains-of-nature.
7. https://philosophyofnature.org.in/electric-and-non-electric-charges-and-their-inter-conversion.

“All of science is nothing more than the refinement of everyday thinking.”

– Albert Einstein on science.

Abstract

This paper is a small review of Einstein’s Unified Field Theory program. Here, the presentation covers the initiation, his visualization, attributes and postulates of the program, his successful contributions of the special relativity theory unifying space and time, general theory of relativity and the relativistic field theory of gravitation resolving the conceptual contradictions between classical gravitation theory and the Maxwellian theory of the electromagnetic field. The paper also discusses Einstein’s attempts at various other concepts of five-dimension, affine connection, distant parallelism, co-vectors, and asymmetric theory, either proposed by other researchers, or generated by his own original ideas, till the last day of his life. 

Key Words: Unified Field Theory, Einstein’s attributes, Special relativity theory, General theory of relativity, Relativistic field theory of gravitation, Asymmetric theory, Five-dimensional approach, Affine connection.

Introduction

This paper starts from the conclusion of my last paper published in this journal on the subject of placement of the statue of Nataraja at CERN [Paramguru 2025, 232]. In order to start in a clear note, I cite that portion of the text here:

‘In conclusion, two issues can be put forth. The first one is that – “The conception of physical things and phenomena as transient manifestations of an underlying fundamental entity is not only a basic element of quantum field theory, but also a basic element of the Eastern world view” [Capra 1975, 211]. Scientists of high standing such as Einstein, as well as the Eastern mystics, are of the view that – this underlying entity is the only reality; all its phenomenal manifestations are transitory or illusory. The scientists are attempting to unify the various fields into a single fundamental field, called ‘unified field’ which would incorporate all physical phenomena…’ [242].

From the above statement, I developed interest in the specific part represented by the last line, and looked to the available literature on ‘unified field theory’. I could find a good number of interesting papers and books; and felt that, probably, since the unified field theory is also a domain of unification of sciences, my readers will also be interested in reading them, if I can provide in a suitable format. What can be a better format than as paper(s) in this particular journal? Hence, I decided to write a series of (very brief) review papers, for our journal, on ‘unified field theory’; and this is the first one, naturally scheduled to present how Albert Einstein (1879-1955), the German-born theoretical physicist, arguably the initiator of the idea of ‘unified field theory’, visualized this idea and pursued it during the last few decades of his life. Of course, this will be based on the available literature.

The beginning of the vision

Historically, the credit for publishing the first paper related to classical unified field theory goes to the Scottish physicist and mathematician, James Clerk Maxwell, for his paper “A Dynamic Theory of the Electromagnetic Field” [1865], where he showed that electricity and magnetism were not separate phenomena but rather different aspects of the same force, and, in the same paper, he provided the mathematical description of electromagnetic field through equations. However, Albert Einstein is credited to have coined the term ‘unified field theory’ for the first time [Sauer 2007]. Tilman Sauer (1963- ), a German theoretical physicist and historian of natural sciences with specific expertise on the history of the development of general relativity theory, besides many publications on the subject, have published specific papers related to Einstein’s unified field theory program [2007], Einstein’s Washington Manuscript on unified field theory [2020], and also a chapter in the book The Cambridge Companion to Einstein [2014]. He straightaway reports that “Einstein explicitly used the term ‘unified field theory’ in the title of a publication for the first time in 1925.” [2007, 1]. This paper, published in the journal of Prussian Academy, was in German language, and hence, the title mentions ‘Einheitliche Feldtheorie …’, the English translation of which is ‘Unified Field theory …’ [Einstein, 1925]. Sauer [2007] goes on to provide further details that Einstein, though used the term in the title for some ten more papers immediately after that first paper, had dealt with the subject already in about “half a dozen” publications before 1925 without using the term in the title. This is in print, on the other hand, Jeroen van Dongen has also told about Einstein’s first positive public utterance about the unification program in 1920 [2002, 186]. In any case, Sauer reports that Einstein wrote, in total, “more than forty technical papers on the subject” [2007, 1]. 

The basic concept of a unified field theory is to describe all fundamental forces and particles within a single framework that is a single type of field. In terms of modern physics, the forces, instead of being transmitted directly between interacting objects, are described and interpreted by intermediary entities called fields. Thus, there are various fields in physics, such as, vector fields (electromagnetic field), spinor fields (fermionic particles like electrons), and tensor fields (the metric tensor field that describes the shape of space-time and also gravitation in general relativity). Further, according to quantum field theory, particles are treated themselves as quanta of fields. Unified field theory attempts to organize these fields, namely four fundamental forces (strong interaction, weak interaction, electromagnetic interaction, and gravitational interaction), and matter (electrons, quarks, neutrinos etc.) including Higgs bosons, into a single mathematical structure. 

Against the basic objective of ‘unified field theory’ as depicted above, it is highly significant to identify the specific features; we may call it attributes of Einstein’s visualization of the same theory. Of course, the very first attribute of his vision must take into account his naming of such a theory with this very specific title which speaks volumes with width and depth. The second attribute of Einstein’s work on a unified field theory was what Sauer termed as “dimensions”, such as “conceptual, representational, biographical, and philosophical dimensions.” [2007, 1]. As usual, the first one refers to the problems and solutions within the knowledge of physics, the second one describes mathematical representations of physical phenomena, the third one from a historical perspective of various approaches made to work out the theory on a historical time frame, and the last one is the philosophical outlook of Einstein. In the words of Sauer “(T)he space spanned by these four dimensions constitutes Einstein’s unified field theory program.” [1]. When we come to identify the third attribute, Einstein’s philosophical outlook comes into picture, because it is very specific. It is true that the theories usually constitute some/many general laws which would explain various phenomena; however, Einstein being Einstein, his basic philosophical outlook is significantly different. When we would express, in general terms, our own understanding of the theories, and their explanations; Einstein would include ‘human reasoning’ within the understanding. Sauer terms “Einstein’s unification program was a program of reflection”, and Einstein’s motivation for such a program of reflection was in Sauer’s own words: “a conception of the task of human reasoning that would be adequate to a holistic understanding of a nature in which human beings live their lives.” [2]. This philosophical outlook of Einstein, as Sauer argues, holds well, not just for this work, but for the entire carrier’s work of Einstein. The fourth attribute, may also be taken as a corollary of this philosophical outlook, because Einstein always used to have strong confidence in all his programs, similarly, he had a strong “insistence” that such a unified field theory is very much “possible” and “desirable” for mankind and would bring in successful result [1]. The last and, also the fifth attribute is, for Einstein, “unification efforts had to start from a theory of the gravitational field and hence be general relativistic” [8]. Sauer has further linked “historical continuity” to this attribute, because, scientific developments have always followed this path in the time-frame of historical perspective; and according to him, it is that historical continuity that has “placed the endeavor of finding a unified field theory above the theory of gravitation implied by general relativity”, and “it was this conviction that separated Einstein from the majority of contemporaries” [26].

Einstein’s special relativity theory

As stated earlier, the journey of classical unified field theory started with the unification of electricity and magnetism within the dynamic theory framework of the electromagnetic field published by Maxwell during 1865. Hardly forty years hence, in 1905, Einstein brought out two ground-breaking theories in physics. The first one was his explanation of the photoelectric effect by using Planck’s constant h which paved the way for the development of quantum theory. Of course, for some reasons, Einstein was not much interested to use this concept for unification of field theory, nor we intend to follow on this, rather, our interest is his second theory of that time, namely, special theory of relativity. According to Peter Gabriel Bergmann (1915-2002), a German – American physicist and also an assistant to Einstein, most of physics around that time was dominated by Newtonian mechanics which quantitatively explained the working of the solar system [1979, 9]. As regards the absolute properties of space and time, Newton’s laws required states of uniform rectilinear motion usually satisfied by inertial frames of reference. However, the electromagnetic field formulated by Faraday, Maxwell and Lorentz involved a dynamic state where electromagnetic waves move at a velocity equal to the speed of light. These two situations contradict each other, and at this stage, the brilliance of Einstein solved the issue through his notion of special theory of relativity. The basic postulates of special relativity are [Bergmann 1979, 10; Felker 2005, 16-33; Sauer 2007, 3]: (i) the notion of space and time changed into a single entity space-time, later known as Minkowski’s four-dimensional space-time model; (ii) the concept of simultaneity in moving frames of reference was redefined; (iii) the constancy of the velocity of light (also constancy of the basic existences such as mass and charge including the laws of conservation), whatever may be the reference frame, was explained;  and (iv) this constancy of speed of light was used to provide a conceptual justification for Maxwell’s theory as well as Lorentz transformations. Through this theory, Einstein could unify not only space and time into space-time, but also, classical principle of relativity of mechanics and the laws of electrodynamics, two major fields of physics.

Einstein’s general relativity theory

While using Minkowski’s four-dimensional space-time concepts, unification of two major fields of physics could be obtained, however, a new contradiction was surfaced. Special relativity requires an inertial reference frame and the existence of an absolute and finite limit to the speed of any signal transmission; this later one was violated by Newtonian gravitation theory. Along with this conceptual conflict, another inherent difference, as discussed earlier between the Newtonian gravitational interaction with static inter-particle processes and Maxwellian electromagnetism dealing with dynamic waves, also persisted. A possible solution to resolve this conceptual contradiction needed a relativistic gravitational field, and Einstein once again brought out another of his brilliant discoveries that acceleration and gravitation are almost the same thing, and it must also be remembered that gravitation is not a force, though it appears so. With this analogy he could explain that the local gravitational acceleration for all bodies is uniform, and hence, the frames of reference are precluded by local means. Thus, Einstein’s general theory of relativity, also known as, theory of the gravitational field was born. In essence, his special relativity theory is expanded to a description of gravity; the gravitational interaction was conceptualized as a dynamic field; accelerating reference frames were incorporated; and the flat space-time of Minkowski was replaced with the curving geometry of Riemannian space-time [Bergmann 1979, 11; Sauer 2007, 4; Felker 2005, 34-35].  This theory came into effect during 1915 and is considered as the third ground-breaking theory of Einstein in theoretical physics. 

After Einstein’s general theory of relativity as discussed above, Bergmann’s statement: “The quest for unity had apparently reached its objective” [1979, 13], should indicate that Einstein’s unification program reached its successful end. “However, it is not so.” He further states that: “But there are several hairs in the ointment” [13], and Sauer also states that the most desirable cases of unified description “has never been achieved” [2007, 5]. Such statements indicate that there remains some ‘desirable cases’ to be satisfied in Einstein’s unified theory program. According to Sauer, although there was no compelling reason, Einstein himself felt that “the new understanding of gravitation demanded further unification with classical Maxwellian theory of the electromagnetic field” [4]. Also, there was apparently a need for the unification to predict new physical effects arising out of unification, and there was always a necessity to take care of the representation of matter within unification. Therefore, Sauer has given a list of possible postulates to be included within Einstein’s unified field theory program [2007]. Those are: (i) “a unified description that would both yield the known laws of gravitation and electromagnetism and would also predict new effects, arising from a combination of the fields inherent in the unified description, that would also be compatible with known empirical facts” [5], (ii) “to account for the existence of only a proton and an electron, —, i.e. proton mass and electron mass, and one elementary charge” [7], and (iii) “(t)he explanation of quantum mechanics within a unified field theory remained a programmatic desideratum in Einstein’s work” [8]. Einstein, though was involved in bringing out the quantum theory, was never in favor of this theory since it is not deterministic, but statistical mechanics. However, the last postulate was included because in presence of elementary material mass and charge, this may help in bringing continuous conceptualization of matter; and after all, Einstein did not ignore this possibility [7]. 

Einstein’s UFT pursuit beyond 1915: response to others’ approaches

After successful demonstration of general theory of relativity, Einstein continued to pursue his dream of UFT because that would address the above mentioned postulates; and further, many other physicists were also motivated to conduct research on UFT, and hence, as the pioneer, he would react to their results. That way, he continued in spite of his ill-health during 1928, and the events; such as Nazis’ rise to power, cruel persecution of Jews, 2nd World War, the holocaust, and use of 1st atom bombs; due to which he resigned from Prussian Academy, left Germany and lived in United States of America since late 1933; yet, he never stopped research, and maintained developing ever-new approaches for his dream UFT till his death [Bergmann 1979 and Sauer 2007]. Of course, his research engagements have also produced significant results in the area of general relativity, besides in UFT. This section intends to present some of his UFT endeavors during this period, mostly his reactions to other’s approaches.

The first reaction of Einstein was to the proposition of Hermann Weyl during 1918, which was generally concerned to Riemannian geometrization, specifically to parallel vector transport. Basically, his approach was to introduce a vector “length connection” to the Riemannian geometry structure keeping the four-dimensionality of space-time intact. Though Einstein was initially attracted towards the idea, very quickly he could find out the setbacks. He had specific objections to the existence of parallel transportable measuring lengths as a fundamental assumption of general relativity [Einstein 1921]. Then onwards he did not consider Weyl’s approach having any value for UFT. 

His second reaction was to Theodor Kaluza’s ‘five-dimensional theory’ proposed in 1919. Though, like his previous reaction to Weyl’s approach, he could quickly find set-backs in this theory also; yet, he has examined/re-examined this five-dimensional approach a number of times: first in 1919-23, then in 1927, 1931-32, and last in 1938-41. Sauer [2007], Sauer and Schuetz [2020], and van Dongen [2002] have given a detailed description of Einstein’s reactions to this theory. The reaction started when Kaluza sent him a manuscript where he introduced the fifth dimension to the Riemannian space-time manifold of general relativity. Einstein could locate several difficulties at different levels of the theory, and their initial correspondence ended in May 1919 [Sauer 2007, 13]. However, after some rethinking, Einstein invited Kaluza after around two years to resubmit his manuscript, and this time, not only he helped him publish the paper; but also, himself co-authored by Grommer published another paper investigating the problem of solutions to Kaluza’s theory. After another stint in 1927 on this approach with two publications, he visited again in 1931-32, by this time it has become Kaluza-Klein theory, when, after his experience with distant parallelism, he could visualize a possibility with the application of tetrad formalism here. In association with Walther Mayer, he constructed a five-dimensional vector space at each point of four-dimensional space-time and explored the functioning of the tetrad formalism. However, this approach also ran into difficulties due to problems in accounting for the structure of matter [19]. Then in 1938, Einstein and Bergmann published the penultimate paper on reconsideration of Kaluza-Klein’s five-dimensional approach [1938]; and three years later came up with the final paper [Einstein, Bargmann, and Bergmann 1941], where the authors have addressed all the problems including impossibility to describe particles by non-singular solutions [Sauer 2007, 21; van Dongen 2002, 193]. Even one of the authors of the last paper, Peter Bergmann, while describing their idea concludes: “Alas, the idea did not work out” [1979, 16].

Einstein reacted to a third approach towards UFT called affine connection proposed by Arthur Eddington, who started with a manifold equipped with a linear affine connection that allowed a Riemann curvature tensor and of a, supposedly anti-symmetric, Ricci tensor; then, he continued to treat the anti-symmetric and symmetric parts of the Ricci tensor, respectively, as the electromagnetic field tensor and usual metric tensor field. However, he did not provide field equations to determine the affine connections, which Einstein provided; yet, he experienced problems including the theory not accounting for the electron-proton mass symmetry [Sauer 2007, 14]. 

Einstein’s UFT pursuit beyond 1915: own approaches

Thus, all the above responses of Einstein to the external propositions ended in no fruitful result; and this section will present some of his original approaches. During 1923, Einstein published an original paper, interestingly searching for a possible solution for UFT in quantum theory. Though he was expecting to account for quantum phenomena by means of differential equations, he admitted that he was still unable to solve the quantum problem. However, according to Sauer [2007, 15], he was contemplating the quantum issue as early as 1920; later on, during the early 1930s, he came out to investigate UFT where the problem of quantum theory had the most direct involvement. This happened when he came across his old professional friend Paul Ehrenfest, who brought to him the investigations of a relativistic quantum theory by Wolfgang Pauli and Paul Dirac. Einstein jumped into the investigation, worked with his coauthor Mayer using ‘semi-vectors’ in place of ‘spinors’ used earlier and published four papers during 1932 – 1934. However, fruitful results still eluded them; quantum problems remained unsolved [19].

During 1928 Einstein fell sick and was ordered strict bed rest, while taking rest, his fertile brain cooked up some interesting research idea which, after some time, he published two notes in Prussian Academy on a mathematical structure which he called Riemannian geometry, maintaining the concept of distant parallelism, where, he investigated if a UFT can be formulated within this geometric framework. Soon, he learned that the mathematical concept of distant parallelism had already been developed by mathematicians Roland Weitzenboch and Elie Cartan; he acknowledged their mathematics, and hopefully went ahead formulating a UFT within this structure. However, finally, the distant parallelism approach ended in an attempt only [17-18].  

Accounting for matter in a UFT was posing a problem, hence, Einstein attempted to investigate this aspect in a note published during 1941 [Einstein 1941]; which was reinvestigated after two years in a joint paper with Pauli [Einstein and Pauli 1943]. Here, they could prove the non-existence of regular solutions to the vacuum field equations that would asymptotically behave like the Newtonian gravitational potential, whatever be the symmetry conditions of the field in finite field strength regions; also, this result was valid for both four- and five- dimensional theories. This means, under general conditions, a UFT on Riemann tensor would always involve singularities in particle-like solutions; and he should look for new approaches, which he did [Einstein 1943], and another with his coauthor Valentin Bargmann [Einstein and Bargmann 1943]. Here, the authors attempted at a new kind of a non-local relativistic theory of gravitation which they called ‘bi-vector approach’. Apparently, the ‘bi-vector approach’, judging by the published record, is Einstein’s penultimate distinct approach in the sequence of UFT approaches, also ran into difficulties to end in a failure [Sauer 2007, 21-22].

Now, we enter into Einstein’s last approach, rather, the approach where he devoted the last ten years of his life. Incidentally and interestingly, this approach was started by him in 1925, where he used the term ‘Unified Field Theory’ in the title of the paper for the first time. It was also based on a local Riemannian metric but an asymmetric one. In the first paper published in 1925 [Einstein 1925], he took both a metric tensor field and a linear affine connection, both assumed asymmetric, at the same time as fundamental variables. He defined the field equations, tried to associate the gravitational and electromagnetic fields, respectively, with the symmetric and anti-symmetric parts of the metric field, and attempted to recover the known cases. Though he could get satisfactory results with respect to the gravitational case, the results with Maxwell’s equations were not entirely satisfactory; he could not know how to move on from here [Sauer 2007, 15-16]. He, now, returned to investigate this problem in 1945 [Einstein 1945], and went ahead with the investigation publishing a series of papers between 1946 and 1955, most of them with himself as single author, only one with Straus, and another two with Kaufmann as his co-authors. In these papers, tentative field equations were tested for their mathematical properties, satisfactions of the criteria for a physical interpretation were checked, and as usual, his deep interests of compatibility were examined. Since the mathematics of a framework based on an asymmetric metric tensor is highly complex, he spent the rest of his life elaborating the asymmetric theory. His very last considerations in his final approach were presented by his last assistant, Bruria Kaufmann [Kaufmann 1956], at the 50th anniversary of the relativity theory in Bern in July 1955 a few weeks after Einstein’s death [Sauer 2007, 22-23]. Thus, the efforts and contributions of a genius ended here, to be taken up further by other researchers in future.

Conclusion

In conclusion, one point can be clearly stressed upon that details on an account of Einstein’s work on UFT would be beyond the scope of this paper. However, an honest attempt has been made to present, very briefly, the initiation of his UFT program, his attributes and postulates of the program, his successful journey through the special relativity and general relativity theories, and his genuine attempts at various approaches proposed by other researchers and also generated in his brilliant thought process, most importantly maintaining his high intellectual heritage till the last moment of his life. He is not with us since 1955, long seventy years have passed by, how his followers have followed up his ideas, will expectedly be the subject matter of next papers in this column. 

References

• Bergmann, Peter G. 1979. “The Quest for Unity: General Relativity and Unitary Field Theories.” Syracuse Scholar (1979-1991): Vol.1, Iss. 1, Article 4. Pages 8-18. https://surface.syr.edu/suscholar. 
• Capra, Fritjof. 1975. The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism. Boulder: Shambhala.
• van Dongen, Jeroen. 2002. “Einstein and the Kaluza-Klein Particle.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 33 (2002): 185-210.
• Einstein, Albert. 1921. “Ueber eine naheliegende Ergaenzung des Fundamentes derallgemeinen Relativitaetstheorie.” Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phys.-math. Klasse, Sitzungsberichte : 261-264. c.f. Sauer 2007.
• Einstein, Albert. 1925. “Einheitliche Feldtheorie von Gravitation und Elektrizitaet.” Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phys.-math. Klasse, Sitzungsberichte : 414-419. c.f. Sauer 2007.
• Einstein, Albert. 1941. “Demonstration of the Non-Existence of Gravitational Fields with A Non-Vanishing Total Mass Free of Singularities.” Tucuman Universidad Nacional, Revista A2, 11-15.
• Einstein, Albert. 1943. “Bivector Fields, II.” Annals of Mathematics 45, 15-23.
• Einstein, Albert. 1945. “Generalization of the Relativistic Theory of Gravitation.” Annals of Mathematics 46, 578-584.
• Einstein, Albert, and Bargmann, Valentin. 1943. “Bivector Fields, I.” Annals of Mathematics 45, 1-14.
• Einstein, Albert, Bargmann, Valentin, and Bergmann, Peter. 1941. “Five-Dimensional Representation of Gravitation and Electricity.” In: Theodore von Karman Anniversary Volume, Pasadena: California Institute of Technology.
• Einstein, Albert, and Bergmann, Peter. 1938. “Generalization of Kaluza’s Theory of Electricity.” Annals of Mathematics 39, 683-701.
• Einstein, Albert, and Pauli, Wolfgang. 1943. “Non-Existence of Regular Solutions of Relativistic Field Equations.” Annals of Mathematics 44, 131-137.
• Felker, Laurence G. October 2005. The Evans Equations of Unified Field Theory. https://www.upitec.org/documents/uft/Evans_Equations_Rev3.pdf.
• Janssen, Michel and Christoph Lehner. Eds. 2014. The Cambridge Companion to Einstein. Cambridge University Press.
• Kaufmann, Bruria. 1956. “Mathematical structure of the non-symmetric field theory.” In: Fuenfzig Jahre Relativitaetstheorie. Cinquantenaire de la Theorie de la Relativite.
• Jubilee of Relativity Theory. Mercier, A. and Kervaire, M. (eds), Basel: Birkhaeuser, 1956 (Helvetica Physica Acta Supplementum IV), 227-238. c.f. Sauer 2007.
• Maxwell. J. Clerk. 1865. “A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field.” Phil. Trans.
• R. Soc. Lond. 155: 459-512. doi: 10.1098/rstl.1865.0008.    
• Paramguru, Raja Kishore. 2025. “Statue of Nataraja at CERN: The cosmic dance of subatomic particles.” Towards Unification of Sciences 2 (4): 232-243.
• Sauer, Tilman. (April 11) 2007. “Einstein’s Unified Field Theory Program.” Einstein Papers Project. California Institute of Technology 20-7, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA. https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3293/1/uft.pdf 
• Sauer, Tilman and Tobias Schuetz. (August 25) 2020. “Einstein’s Washington Manuscript on Unified Field Theory.” https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.10005

Abstract

This research presents a unified framework for the origin of energy, time, and geometry as emergent outcomes of an eternal scalar field, denoted the Prāna Field (℧). Unlike conventional theories that assume time and energy as initial conditions, ℧ is formulated on a domain without metric, coordinate system, or temporal background. Through intrinsic self-interaction, the field generates a sequence of distinct configurations whose increasing diversity defines a measure of configurational entropy. The ordered growth of this entropy constitutes the emergence of time and explains its irreversible direction. Structured fluctuations within ℧ give rise to observable energy, while their relational organization produces the effective geometry of spacetime. In this way, conservation laws and causal order follow directly from the invariance of the field itself, without invoking singularities or external starting points. The model provides a mathematically rigorous and physically consistent account of time and energy, while reflecting the ancient insight of Bhagavad Gītā 2.20, which describes an eternal principle enabling transformation without itself undergoing origin or destruction. This paper presents the foundational construction; future work will extend the framework toward quantitative predictions and cosmological validation.

Keywords: Energy, Entropy, Spacetime, Scalar field, Ancient Cosmology.

Introduction

The principle that energy can neither be created nor destroyed stands as one of the most fundamental statements in physics (Weinberg, 1995; Carroll, 2010; Wald, 1994). From classical thermodynamics to modern quantum field theory, this conservation law underpins nearly every framework used to describe the universe. Yet the origin of energy itself is rarely addressed. If energy is never created, then what allows it to exist? Conventional frameworks, from cosmology to quantum theory, generally start with energy already present. In the Big Bang model, for instance, an initial energy density is assumed, from which the universe expands and evolves (Kolb & Turner, 1990; Bousso, 2002; Padmanabhan, 2005). Similarly, quantum field theory presupposes vacuum energy and field excitations, without explaining the emergence of the vacuum itself. In each case, models describe how energy behaves or transforms, but not how it arises in the first place, leaving a fundamental explanatory gap (Penrose, 2010; Carroll, 2010). This theory addresses that gap by presenting a framework in which energy, time, and geometry emerge from a unified, eternal scalar field, termed the Prāna Field and denoted ℧. Unlike conventional fields defined on spacetime, ℧ exists in a pre-geometric, background-free domain, lacking coordinates, metric structure, or causal ordering. It is timeless and non-dimensional, independent of space, time, or any external reference frame. Within ℧ resides a form of Fundamental Cosmic Energy. This energy is not kinetic, localizable, or conventional in the usual sense; it is an intrinsic potential of the field, encoded in its structural invariance.

Despite its global invariance, ℧ is dynamically active. Its internal self-interaction is governed by a nonlinear, background-independent operator, which acts entirely within the field’s own structure (Padmanabhan, 2005; Misner et al., 1973). This operator generates a hierarchy of distinct internal configurations. As these configurations accumulate, entropy grows naturally, even in the absence of any external time or geometry. When entropy reaches sufficient complexity, local fluctuations arise. These fluctuations eventually stabilize into coherent excitations, which, once relational geometry emerges, can be interpreted as energy-bearing structures. In this sense, energy is not created from an external source; it arises as a direct consequence of the internal dynamics of ℧. Conservation of energy follows rigorously from the field’s invariance, rather than being postulated (Weinberg, 1995; Carroll, 2010).

The growth of entropy within ℧ also provides a mechanistic origin of time. The self-interaction operator is non-commutative, ensuring that successive internal configurations are strictly non-redundant. This property produces a monotonic sequence of internal states, establishing a natural and unidirectional arrow of time. Temporal ordering, therefore, emerges as an algebraic consequence of the field’s intrinsic structure, rather than from external assumptions or macroscopic thermodynamic considerations. Together, the internal dynamics of ℧ give rise to energy, time, and geometry in a single coherent framework, bridging the conceptual gap between a timeless substrate and the structured universe we observe.

Even a state traditionally conceived as “nothing” , a complete absence of matter, space, or time is in this model, not truly empty. It corresponds to the most symmetric, low-entropy configuration of ℧ (Bharadwaj et al., 2025). Including its mathematical consistency this theory is also based on the principle that even a state conventionally considered as ‘nothing’ an absence of space, time, or matter also have something that makes it nothing and that something possesses structure that underlies its very potential to give rise to energy and physical reality (Bharadwaj et al., 2025). The emergence of energy occurs only when self-interaction generates distinguishable configurations, creating local fluctuations that eventually form observable excitations. In this way, the framework reconciles the apparent void with the presence of energy and structure, offering a scientific account of how the universe arises from an eternal, internally dynamic field.

This model finds a formal analogy in ancient cosmological- Verse 2.20 of the Bhagavad Gita describes a principle that neither originates nor ceases, yet gives rise to all transformation (Sargeant, 2009). Within our framework, this principle is realized mathematically through ℧. The Prāna Field is eternal, unbounded, and invariant, yet its internal dynamics give rise to the emergence of energy, geometric relationships, and temporal order. The correspondence between the classical text and the field-theoretic model demonstrates that longstanding philosophical insights can be encoded rigorously in modern scientific language, without putting metaphysical assumptions.

The approach presented here is built entirely on physical reasoning and mathematical formalism. It does not require hypothetical agents, speculative initial conditions, or imposed boundary states. The Prāna Field is defined rigorously on a pre-geometric set lacking coordinates, metric, or topology. Its self-interaction operator is non-idempotent and non-commutative, ensuring monotonic entropy growth, emergence of internal fluctuations, and irreversibility. Energy arises as a variational consequence of these fluctuations once a metric structure emerges from entropic ordering. Conservation follows naturally from invariance. Time emerges from operator asymmetry, while geometry arises from statistical ordering within the field. Each aspect—energy, time, geometry and conservation are a direct, mathematically derivable consequence of the internal properties of ℧.

This framework addresses several persistent challenges in fundamental physics. First, it resolves the apparent paradox of energy existence: energy does not need to be created; it emerges from the internal differentiation of an eternal substrate. Second, it provides a structural basis for the arrow of time, which is traditionally imposed empirically. Third, it offers a mechanism for the emergence of spacetime geometry without presupposing a manifold or pre-existing vacuum. Finally, it unifies the origin of physical law in a single closed system, in which all essential features of the universe- energy, causality, geometry, and temporal ordering arise inevitably from the same underlying dynamics.

The sections that follow formalize these concepts. We present the mathematical definition of ℧, the structure of its self-interaction operator, and the derivation of entropy growth. We then demonstrate how energy and metric structure emerge from internal fluctuations and discuss the conditions under which the framework reproduces conservation laws and an irreversible arrow of time. The objective is not to propose a beginning of the universe, but to show that a field with suitable internal properties inevitably gives rise to the observed features of physical reality.

In summary, this work introduces a coherent, mathematically rigorous framework in which energy, time, and geometry emerge from an eternal scalar field. By grounding the existence of energy in internal entropy dynamics and operator algebra, the model provides a scientifically testable explanation for phenomena that have traditionally been postulated. The Prāna Field ℧ demonstrates that the apparent complexity of the universe can arise from a timeless, and internally dynamic substrate. It bridges the gap between fundamental physical principles and the existence of energy, offering a unified framework that is compatible with both classical and modern theories, while remaining fully grounded in mathematical and physical reasoning.

Methods

To understand how energy, time, and geometry can arise from a background-free eternal field without invoking creation, we construct a variationally defined framework based on the Prāna Field ℧. This section develops the mathematical structure in four interconnected steps: formulation of the field, entropy growth as a derived theorem, emergence of energy through stress–energy variation, and proof of temporal irreversibility.

To investigate how energy can exist without being created. This field does not reside within space or time; it exists independently of any geometric or causal structure. It is not a vacuum, nor a spacetime manifold (Weinberg, 1995). Rather, it is a completely background-free entity that does not change under any internal parameter. Its defining feature is that it has no origin and no temporal evolution, it simply exists, timelessly and invariantly. Despite this invariance, ℧ is not static in the conventional sense. It possesses the capacity for internal interaction. This interaction occurs within itself and does not require space or an external field. Through this self-interaction, ℧ gives rise to a set of internal configurations. These configurations are distinguishable states within its own structure, and their variety gives rise to internal entropy. As this entropy accumulates within ℧, regions of fluctuation begin to emerge.

These fluctuations represent differences within the field’s structure and can be thought of as precursors to energy. They are not yet particles or waves in space, but internal variations that develop as a result of entropic tension. As these fluctuations increase and stabilize, they eventually lead to the appearance of coherent excitations what we recognize as energy. This energy is not created from outside the system; it arises naturally from within the eternal structure of ℧ itself. At a certain threshold of internal complexity, these fluctuations begin to organize in ways that mirror geometric relationships. This process gives rise to spacetime not as a pre-existing background, but as an emergent ordering of entropic structure (Bharadwaj et al., 2025). Causality, locality, and the arrow of time all arise from the irreversible growth of entropy within ℧. Since ℧ never changes globally, the energy it produces remains conserved. This conservation is not imposed but emerges as a result of the field’s unchanging nature. In this way, the entire framework provides a coherent scientific explanation for how energy, geometry, and time can arise from a source that neither begins nor ends, without requiring any act of creation or destruction.

• Definition of the Eternal Scalar Field

We begin by defining a foundational domain, denoted M₀, which precedes all conventional physical structure. This domain is pre-geometric: it has no metric, no topological definition, and no dimensional or temporal coordinate system. Formally,

M₀={∄g_μν,∄_t, ∄_{spatial structure}}.                             1

Thus, M₀represents the most elementary substrate, prior to any manifold or vacuum description used in classical or quantum physics.

On this domain we introduce the Prāna Field, denoted by ℧, defined as a scalar mapping:

℧:M₀ →R.

Unlike conventional scalar fields that are embedded in spacetime, ℧ is not defined relative to any background geometry. It is a primitive construct, existing independently of dimensional coordinates or external causal reference frames. To characterize its invariance, we impose the eternality condition:

   d℧/dτ=0,  ∀τ∈R0.

where τ is introduced only as a formal index not as physical time. This condition ensures that ℧ is globally invariant: it does not evolve relative to any external ordering parameter, and it does not admit termination. The field is therefore eternal in the strict mathematical sense.

Although the field ℧ remains globally invariant, such invariance does not imply that it is featureless. The absence of external evolution only means that no background time or coordinate system governs its behaviour. Within this closed framework, the field retains the capacity for internal differentiation that does not depend on spacetime. This point is crucial: ℧ cannot be identified with a vacuum, since a vacuum presupposes a spacetime geometry, nor with a manifold, since no coordinate structure exists at this stage. Instead, ℧ represents a self-contained substrate that precedes both geometry and chronology.

By formulating the field in this way, we establish a precise starting condition for further development. The next step is to introduce an internal composition law that acts only within the domain of ℧. This operation generates successively distinct configurations, which may then be ordered and quantified. The progressive increase in distinguishable states permits the definition of entropy. From this entropy growth, one can derive the emergence of localized excitations corresponding to energy, followed by the appearance of geometric order. In this sense, the eternal scalar field provides a logically consistent foundation from which physical structures such as energy, spacetime, and causality arise, without assuming them as prior conditions.

2. Action Principle and Self-Interaction

The eternal scalar field ℧, though invariant under linear variation, is not structurally trivial. Its invariance means that it does not evolve with respect to any external parameter of time and is independent of background geometry. To formalize its dynamics, we introduce an action principle defined entirely on the pre-geometric set M0, which lacks metric, topology, or coordinates.

We define the action functional as

S℧= M0L ℧,S℧d0, 

where d0 denotes a formal measure on M0. Here S is the intrinsic operator representing the field’s self-interaction, defined as

S℧=℧℧,

With ⋆ a non-associative binary product acting solely within the internal structure of ℧.

The non-associativity ensures that successive applications generate distinct outcomes rather than collapsing to redundancy, thereby producing a hierarchy of configurations even in the absence of spacetime.

Applying the variational principle yields-

S=M0L℧℧+LS℧S℧d0.

Since the variation of the self-operator satisfies,

S℧=S℧,

with S denoting the adjoint action, the field equation becomes-

∂L∂℧-S∂LS℧=0.

This relation determines the admissible configurations of ℧. Unlike standard Euler–Lagrange equations defined on spacetime manifolds, this condition operates entirely in a background-free domain, consistent with the postulate of a pre-geometric origin.

The role of S is essential: it encodes an autonomous internal dynamics that does not depend on geometry or time. The solutions of this variational principle correspond to stable internal configurations of ℧. These configurations are not arbitrary but derivable from the action, and their multiplicity naturally expands the set of accessible states. This expansion establishes the statistical foundation for entropy growth, which in turn underlies the later emergence of fluctuations, energy, and geometry.

Thus, the action principle shows that the eternal field ℧ is not a passive invariant but a closed, self-consistent dynamical system governed by rigorous mathematical structure.

3. Entropy Theorem from Internal States

The eternal scalar field ℧ is governed entirely by its own internal dynamics, independent of space, time, or external geometry. Its behaviour is encoded in the action of an intrinsic operator, denoted S, which recursively generates new internal states. This recursive action defines the field’s structural evolution:

n+1=Sn,  0={℧},

where n denotes the set of distinct configurations after n iterations. The corresponding number of accessible microstates is

Ωintn= n.

Proposition: Monotonic Growth of Internal States

If the operator S is non-idempotent, i.e.,

S℧℧

then the sequence of microstates is strictly increasing:

intn+1>intn, ∀n.

Proof: Non-idempotency guarantees each iteration introduces at least one new configuration. Therefore, the sequence of sets is strictly increasing. ∎

Corollary: Entropy Increase

Entropy is defined from the microstate count as

Sn=kln int n,

with k a generalized Boltzmann constant appropriate for a pre-geometric system. Since intn+1>intn, it follows that

dSdn>0.

Thus, entropy increases monotonically with each iteration of the internal operator. This growth is a direct consequence of the non-idempotent algebra of S, and not the result of external temporal or thermodynamic assumptions.

“While we can know the things we encounter in our experiential interactions with the world’s realities as such, the realm of things in themselves are inherently unknown to us.”

-Emmanuel Kant- Critique of Pure Reason (1781)

“The Truth is what stands the test of experience.”

 -Albert Einstein

“Spiritual Truth is a truth of the spirit, not a truth of the intellect, nor a mathematical theorem or a logical formula”.

-Sri Aurobinda

Abstract

Throughout the history of our civilization one can notice that the inquisitive human mind has been struggling to compresence all within himself and outside as well asking very difficult questions about temporal and eternal, about truth and reality, about the source of the all existence, about the origin and the cause behind all occurrences. Man has been continuing his search even till today in every possible way with all different resources or capabilities available to the mind and intellect to find satisfactory answers to all those questions. This perennial pursuit has been addressed in the domain of spiritual traditions as well as in scientific terms. Our purpose here is to give a brief account of the nature of the truth and reality as arrived at in various discussions.

Key words: Spiritual truth, Scientific truth, Source of existence, Origin of occurrence, Layers of reality, Ultimate reality, Quantum field theory, Pure consciousness, Truth Absolute.

Introduction

We have so far been discussing how human curiosity to understand and realize the true nature of Reality and Truth as the essence behind the phenomenal world, has led to the ceaseless pursuits in all possible ways, ever since the human mind woke up to the wondrous world both internally within himself and externally outside. All religions and spiritual traditions in fact represent the human mind’s very first attempt to decipher the universe it awoke to. The contemplative minds of all the ancient religions claimed to have witnessed the cosmos within the inner self to realize and experience, in reverie or meditative state, the Absolute Truth and Reality, which or been verbalized and expressed in various ways. In such experiential realization, the normal subject-object boundaries manifest in waking consciousness are altered completely presenting a feeling. This experiential or inter relationship with the cosmos. This experiential reality of a higher order beyond the space and time refers to an absolute and unchanging, remaining the same for all time for all people as the very ground of existence. With this conviction the seers of Vedic traditions in Mandukya Upanishad had declared that;

“Truth alone wins, not untruth.

By truth is established the path

That leads to the Divine;

by which the seers, who have

fulfilled their desires to reach

the supreme abode of Truth.”

(Mandukya Upanishad III.1.6)

Truth and Reality defined in this absolute term can be called the spiritual Truth. This is an experiential realization of connectedness with a Reality beyond the immediate sense perceptions of objects in space and time. It gives rise to a holistic type of knowing manifesting cognitively, emotionally and motivationally. They call it by various names the all-pervading supreme Consciousness, the embodiment of all potentialities, the ground of existence, the supreme God Divine etc. We would come back to this aspect further in subsequent sections.

Plato also believed in some kind of Truth and Reality belonging to an abstract realm beyond space & time consisting of ideal forms of geometrical nature. Pythagoras believed the ultimate Truth lies in mathematical numbers and propositions based on mathematical logic. Plato believed further that the physical world of our sense perception is only an illusion being a shadow or projection of that abstract mathematical realm. Truth conceived in this manner may be termed as the mathematical truth which is also beyond space and time in the so-called Platonic world.

Such views as above on Truth and Reality are wide spread in many metaphysical systems. Nevertheless, these views are commonly and completely unacceptable in the current scientific world view. Thus, in the scientific quest to understand the cosmos and the very ground of existence; the emerging science after the seventeenth century in Europe implicitly incorporated the Euro-centric perspective of discarding the older Truth-seeking traditions as pre-scientific and thus invalid. Instead it viewed the world to be so obviously material in nature that any suggestion of an underlying Truth as an immaterial prime aspect of the very ground of existence must be rejected having no basis for Reality. Therefore, science ventured to explore the ultimate Truth within the material structure of the cosmos considering space, time, matter and energy to be the most fundamental ingredients with matter as the primal entity. Thus, according to such materialistic scientific paradigm; matter-energy and space-time reside at the foundation of Reality and all other immaterial qualities like mind or consciousness etc. emerged out of it. Therefore, science engaged itself in exploring the ultimate Truth in the form of the immutable laws of nature and the fundamental building blocks of matter applying a reductionist approach. The laws of nature are expressed in abstract mathematical formulations embracing the so-called mathematical Truths for the scientific descriptions of the ways of the world and the Reality explored in the process. These rational findings may be termed as the scientific Truth about which we may draw our critical attention again in the following section.

The Scientific Truth and the nature of Reality 

In modern parlance Truth is considered as that which corresponds to Reality. In that sense science; in search of Truth; engages itself in understanding the Reality to its fullest extent. We would highlight again how science has explored the various layers of physical reality in the wake of the revolution brought about by relativity and quantum physics. In fact, the physical reality of the material world is understood as having layered structures, though no neatly stacked layers. These layers may be considered as different levels of description as one proceeds from the gross to the finer and deeper levels unfolding the enchanting and dynamic nature of the physical reality.

The first layer of this reality, according to scientific views, is the observable universe of material objects and the natural phenomena all around us that we normally perceive through our senses. This is the only reality for a lay person in conformity with our common sense. This is also the reality that seems to exist outside of us, which led Descartes and his followers to believe that there is a distinct separateness or split between matter and mind or between the object and the observer. Classical Science dealt with the physical reality at this level adopting a mechanical world view. We are not outfitted with an X-ray vision to see what is inside this first level of reality appearing as solid, substantial, concrete material bodies. The next level of reality, which our ordinary senses are not equipped to perceive; required a great leap in our imagination as well as necessary tools as mechanical extensions of our senses, which include not only electron microscopes, particle-accelerators etc. but also intricate mathematical constructs and abstract models for visualization. The idea that everything is made of atoms and molecules goes all the way back to the 3rd century BCE with Kanada Kashyap of Vaishika Darshana and the Greek Philosopher Democritus. But what exactly is an atom made of; say the simplest hydrogen atom? As we know now this is simply a proton orbited by an electron. Similarly, other atoms are built with a central nucleus consisting of neutrons and protons surrounded by an appropriate number of orbiting electrons. Again, we know that protons and neutrons are made up of other elementary particles called quarks, while an electron is itself an elementary particle. More than 99.98% of the atom’s mass is due to the heavy nucleus consisting of neutrons and protons. The radius of an atom is about a few angstroms (1 Angstrom = 10-10m). Considering the relative size of the atom and its nucleus; and their corresponding volumes; it follows obviously to reveal that almost 99.99999…% of the atomic volume is empty space. Thus, solidity is not a result of an actual content of matter, but rather a property resulting from the interactions of electrons. What a trick that the reality at this level plays by projecting the illusion of solidity of objects! This tangible aspect of material objects providing the very sensation of the physical, is based astonishingly on nothingness.

All the matter that makes up our everyday world with complicated structures we recognize as stars, planets, with plants, birds, animals and human beings, is primarily composed of two kinds of fundamental particles Palled fundamental fermions and bosons. Quarks and electrons belong to this class of fermions which provide the material contents. The fundamental bosons include another class of particles which provide all types of bindings to these material contents necessary for various structure formations. These are the force-carrying particles called gauge bosons. Besides these fundamental fermions and bosons, science has discovered a zoo of subatomic particles and their mirror world of antiparticles revealing a far greater structure to reality at this level, which is not only quite astonishing but also very bizarre with all the quantum weirdness at its heart. The subatomic particles display contradictory dual behaviors as waves and particles depending on if and how they are observed. At this quantum level of reality any certainty is lost and measurement can only be expressed as probabilities. In other words, the location of such a particle is only probabilistic, so that it could be observed where in the universe however small the probability may be. As a result, it can appear at places ordinarily forbidden for it in a process called quantum tunneling. These quantum particles do not have any definite properties of their own including any definite location or motion at any instant of time before observation. They exist as potentialities only having certain tendencies to be revealed only if and how a measurement is made on them to observe. Thus, the sharp boundary between the object and the observer melts away at this quantum level of reality. It is all the more baffling to know that the marriage of such quantum entities allows them to stay connected in quantum entanglement and be both instantaneously influenced regardless of their spatial separation between them. This clearly violates the classical local realism revealing the non-local nature of the reality at this level. Such instantaneous communication between the two entangled quantum entities is in contradiction with special theory of relativity according to which there is an upper limit to how fast information can travel in the universe and that is the cosmic speed limit as the speed of light.

After coming across all these mind-boggling natures of the quantum entities considered as the constituents of matter at its deeper level; we may now ask what these constituent parts are which are not particles in the real sense of the term having no definite location and motion besides the other aspects. In fact, these constituent parts are in a constant state of flux and the propeller of this flux is energy. In other words, they are nothing but discrete packets of energy. If all things are made of this abstract immaterial substance known as energy; why do we see them as stable and unchanging? Why don’t the fundamental elementary particles simply diffuse or fall apart? Why all the elementary particles belonging to a particular species such as say electrons are all absolutely identical everywhere in the Universe, no matter when or where they are created. This is because they have a fixed confined energy; confined like a genie in a bottle. But here the bottles are not physical; they are known as fields which are real; though abstract. These fermions and bosons are identified as the discrete quantas of their respective fields. We have now entered the third layer of reality, where the matter fields of the fermions and the force fields of the bosons seem to be more primary than matter itself, since these fields behave as the breeding ground for the so-called elementary particles. Therefore, fields are some dynamic manifestation of a charged think of. We are of course quite familiar with the classical think of fields, whose influence is felt locally; like our earth’s field or the electrostatic field of a of gravity body and the magnetic field of a magnet. Considering these cases, one could easily be misled into thinking that field is something that arises from matter retaining the primacy of matter. But in fact, this is not true. The truth is far stranger. Even if one imagines a universe with no material objects leaving an absolute void, still then these un-manifested fields, known as quantum fields would be found to pervade all space and time. These fields are non-local in the sense that they are felt equally in all parts of the universe. Again, unlike our familiar classical fields, the magnitude of energy of a quantum field is not continuous but appears in discrete or quantized lumps, what we called elementary particles. Frank Wilczek, an exponent of quantum field theory and a Nobel laureate sums it up as: –

“In quantum field theory, the primary elements of reality are not individual particles, but underlying fields….”. These quantum fields do possess their usual quantum nature of not being locatable in any geometrical sense although they are everywhere. This is according to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, so that a quantum field cannot have a definite value at any given instant, not even the value zero. As a result, the amplitude as a measure of its size must change all the time resulting in what are known as vacuum fluctuations. The effect of these fluctuations is revealed in several phenomena observed experimentally. Notable amongst all these phenomena is the Casimir Effect, which the Dutch physicist Hendrick Casimir predicted in 1948 in order to demonstrate the effect of vacuum fluctuations of quantum electromagnetic fields. According to this, a measurable force can be seen to act to push together two parallel metal plates even in vacuum. This was conclusively demonstrated in 1996 by Physicist Steven Lamoreaux establishing the existence of electromagnetic ghost force in vacuum and thus validating the notion that all fields at quantum level fluctuate. This provides the strongest evidence for the actuality of the un-manifested quantum fields in vacuum. The wild fluctuations of the un-manifested fields create a quantum frenzy at microscopic dimensions of space creating pairs of virtual particles of matter and antimatter by borrowing energy from space in accordance with the uncertainty principle. The larger the energy debt, the shorter is the time to pay back when these pairs of virtual particles annihilate each other. These virtual particles are like ocean sprays thrown up when turbulent ocean waves crash with each other or against the rocks only to fall back into the ocean from which it came. But only when sufficient energy surplus is made available by any source, stable particles can emerge from the quantum fields to have a real existence in the universe. Without this surplus energy there are only virtual particles. This energy is the zero-point energy of the quantum fields called vacuum energy, which becomes available by a process called spontaneous symmetry breaking. This unseen but ubiquitous quantum fields and their vacuum fluctuations together with the so-called spontaneous breaking of symmetry may seem utterly alien because of its abstractness and the very esoteric mathematics involved in the construction of the standard model of particle physics. The triumph of the standard model in explaining all the observed fundamental particles is a hall mark of twentieth century physics.

Thus, the un-manifested quantum fields interlace throughout the cosmos like multidimensional fabrics woven in such a way that each infinitesimal weave of the fabric contains, so to say, the whole cloth. Regardless of our puzzlements, the omnipresent quantum fields permeate the whole space, definitely as a further layer of the reality of this phantom world in which there is no such thing as empty space. Thus, science seems to have found the most crucial elements of existence in the quantum vacuum by comprehending this intrinsic fundamental reality of our cosmos in support of the concept of the ‘one source’ – the nothingness or sunyata of Buddhism or the ‘Brahman’ of the Vedantic tradition. The analysis of the structure of reality at the macroscopic as well as the microscopic level to find a solid foundation of reality has landed the philosophers of science to wonder whether there is something fundamentally flawed in the idea of a world built up of matter. P. Davies and J. Gribbin in their book ‘The Matter Myth;’ summarize about the current paradigm shift, we are witnessing with the following words:

“It is fitting that physics, the science that gave us materialism, should also signal the demise of materialism. During this century the new physics has blown apart the central tenets of materialist doctrine in a sequence of stunning developments. First came the theory of relativity, which demolished Newton’s assumption about space and time -assumptions that still hold sway in our everyday commonsense view of the world. The very arena in which the clock-work universe acted out its drama was now exposed as subject to shifting and warping. Then came the quantum theory, which totally transformed our image of matter. The old assumption that the microscopic world of atoms was simply as scaled down version of the everyday world had to be abandoned. Newton’s deterministic machine was replaced by a shadowy and paradoxical conjunction of waves and particles governed by the laws of chance rather than the rigid rules of causality. An extension of quantum theory, known as the quantum field theory, goes even beyond this, it paints a picture in which solid matter dissolves away, to be replaced by weird excitations and vibrations of invisible field energy. In this theory, little distinction remains between material substance and apparent empty space which itself seethes with ephemeral quantum activity.”

Han-Peter Durr, a renowned physicist who was the successor of Heisenberg in 1978 as the director of the Max-Planck-Institute for physics in Munich also ended up with a mystical view of reality with a bold claim that “Matter does not exist! Therefore, I have worked fifty years on a notion that is inexistent. This was an extra ordinary experience: Learning that something, whose reality everyone is convinced of, in the end, does not exist.”

Adding further on this, the remark by P. Davies and N.H. Gregersen in their book ‘Information and the Nature of Reality: From physics to Metaphysics (2014), we quote here as: – “One has the sense that, at the end of the day, the speculation of the philosophers and the data from the scientists are pointing in the same surprising direction. At the root of tall physical reality is not primary matter.”

Thus, one comes to realize that the more science moves away from common sense to intellectually visualize and understand the real world using powerful mathematical abstractions, the harder it becomes to decide what constitutes a mere model and what is supposed to be a faithful description of reality. Science has been following the age-old conviction that mathematics represents the blueprint for reality and the deep truths about the workings of the world. And therefore, it ventures into the realms in the abstract world of mathematics in building theoretical models which interrelate with the workings of the physical world from the quantum weirdness comprising reality to the awe-inspiring vastness of the cosmic fabric in the form of the quantum frenzy of the void. This translation aspect of reality into abstract representations with a purpose to decode the deep truths ultimately leads to ever changing descriptions of scientific truths and realities in terms of physical concepts. Albert Einstein had once remarked – “Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, determined by the external world.”

Therefore, such physical concepts, although they are true in the sense of the predictions of the abstract theoretical models based on solid mathematical logic and the support of experimental evidence; they do not describe the true nature of Reality. The concepts describing the truth are model dependent corresponding to a particular level of description. As one proceeds to the deeper and deeper levels in the description, more and more abstract formulations of mathematical models come to the fore with newer concepts describing reality. Therefore, this intellectual enterprise of the human mind may be called scientific realism which is based on the foundation of mathematical truth. For a better assessment and appreciation of this scientific realism, it is worthwhile to understand the scope of mathematical truth encoding the physical reality which is deciphered as the scientific truth.

Conclusion

Thus, we placed here the arguments in favour of the spiritual truth as the Truth Absolute to represent the ultimate Reality as against the scientific truth. This has been described in the widest variety of wisdom traditions referring it variously as attribute-less potentiality-the ‘Brahman’ or as the cosmic consciousness – the ‘Purusha’. This pure consciousness is said to be experienced in an elevated state of awareness. The Yogasutras of Patanjali, for example, explains that at the state of perfection, one’s mind relaxes and settles down so completely within itself that it is no longer aware of any objects, sensations, thoughts, feelings and not even the subjective spatio-temporal manifold in which all our other experiences occur. The complete absence of any empirical content is the characteristic of this experience. When all of the phenomenal objects of one’s conscious awareness disappear and yet one remains awake; it is the consciousness alone by itself that is experienced. This experience is, of course, a very unusual one and is hardly ever found in the absence of the practice of meditative techniques to produce it. The veracity of such claims has been investigated to some extent by modern science to make it clear that the mystic experience talked about so often is associated with a very unusual physiology, where overall metabolic processes settle down to such an extent that even at times breathing almost stops entirely. A considerable body of research has come to be conducted on these meditative techniques including some on the physiological correlates during the experience in question. In the laboratory settings, at least, reports of the experience are often highly correlated not only with significant reduction of metabolic activity, but also with cases of complete cessation of respiration which is in conformity with the ancient texts. There are also other unusual physiological features such as changes in blood chemistry, very high inter-hemispheric EEG-Coherence etc. have been noticed. The significance of such research results shows that it is not a mere belief system that could itself produce the unique physiological state described above relating to the unique experience. It is even less reasonable to think that the different belief systems of Yoga, Vedanta, Taoism, Medieval Christianity etc. should all converge to produce the same unique physiological state leading to the experiential accounts of pure quality less awareness as the common underlying experiences.

Thus this ‘pure consciousness’-experience is extraordinarily abstract, having no concrete phenomenological objects like colors, sounds, tastes, smells, shapes or even thoughts in it at all. However, it does have some contents, namely, pure abstract bliss, joy, happiness or fulfillment unbounded in intensity and independent of all the things we ordinarily associate it with. Bhagabat-Gita puts it (verses 6.18. to 6.28) as;

“Having established the mind in the Self (i.e. pure consciousness), let him not think at all, for supreme happiness comes to the yogi whose mind is deep in peace. Thus, collecting himself the yogi…. with ease attains contact with … infinite joy, free from craving for any pleasure. Having gained (that) which he counts no other gain as higher.”

Having said all that; the question no doubt arises; ‘what is it like, if it is not like ‘anything’? Can science stretch its limits beyond quantum physics and its implications to come to terms with this abstract concept of ‘consciousness’ vouched as the spiritual truth and the Ultimate Reality? 

Reference

1. “Glatter felder, J. B.; -What is Reality? George and the Blue Moon, Random House, London (2016b).
2. Maudlin, T.; – The Metaphysics Within Physics, Oxford University Press (2007).
3. Bhaumik, M.; -Code Name God. Penguin Books, Random House India Pvt. Ltd. (2006)
4. Young, A. M.; – Mathematics, Physics and Reality. Robert Biggs Associates, Portland, Oregon (1990).
5. Barik, N., & Das, G.; – Mysticism and Science – An Indian Context. Notion Press, New Delhi (2022).

Abstract

Thermal activity is caused in a temperature differential. We use different relative temperature scales to measure the thermal state of matter. We make use different zero settings of different temperature scales basing upon different isothermal state corresponding to change of state of matter on the surface of the earth such as the melting point of water as zero degree Celsius and 0° F as the temperature at which a brine made of 50% salt and 50% ice melts. The melting temperature of water or the melting temperature of brine can vary in space and on other celestial bodies due to differences in atmospheric pressure. The Kelvin scale, a thermodynamic temperature scale, came into existence when William Thomson (later Lord Kelvin) proposed an absolute temperature scale based on the Carnot-cycle. This scale, which starts at absolute zero (0 K, equivalent to -273.15°C), provides a more fundamental and scientifically useful way to measure temperature. In absolute (Kelvin) scale, temperature below 0 (K) is not feasible as it is the lowest temperature. The absolute temperature is not arbitrary but supported by the thermodynamic phenomenon. The extra-nuclear space structure of the sun goes on decreasing outwardly reaching a value close to -273^oC or 0 (K) at its boundary as revealed from the temperatures of planets. Any experiment carried out in the solar system is essentially within a confined system with a fixed boundary temperature of 0 (K). The Kelvin temperature becomes a parameter in thermodynamic laws. If the boundary temperature of the extra-nuclear space structure of another star is minus 100 K then the thermodynamic absolute temperature for the other star would be (K+100). Assuming the drop-in temperature of the extra-nuclear space structure of the galaxy has the similar trend as that of the sun, the boundary temperature of extra-nuclear space structure of stars located towards the boundary of the galaxy would be lower than that of the sun i.e. lower than 0 (K). Thus, the so-called absolute temperature is only another relative temperature. The paper discusses all aspects of so-called absolute temperature.

Key Words: Thermal activity, Absolute temperature, Relative temperature, Temperature differential, Zero Kelvin, Extra-nuclear space.

Discussion     

Temperature refers to thermal state of matter. We are able to know the thermal state of a body because the hot body emits photons at higher energy levels which is a function of the energy state of the body. The energy level of a photon is a function of photonic charge potential (non-electric charge potential) which in turn is a function of mass-space structure of the photon [1]. Photons are particles of matter in the micro-micro domain having mass in photonic mass units & charge in photonic charge units and they have rest existence in solid, liquid, gas and space as space matter particles [2]. Like the extra nuclear space structure of the celestial body in macro scale atomic particles in micro scale the light particles and field forming particles (photons) have extra nuclear space structure in micro-micro domain scale. If the mass-space ratio of a photon at rest is the same as that of the matter in its surrounding, then the charge state of the photon is zero. But the zero charge of a photon becomes charge active with different photonic charge potential relative to the charge state of the new local condition [3]. Thus, the mass-space structures of photons in local equilibrium (at rest) are different at different locations in the structure of the universe. In the new atomic model, the energy levels of photons (space matter particles) in the extra-nuclear space structure of atoms, decreases towards the boundary [4]. We also know the temperature of the extra-nuclear space structure of the sun decreases towards the boundary of the solar system which is revealed from the temperature profile of planets of the Sun. It is natural to think that a similar phenomenon occurs in the like manner, the temperature of the extra-nuclear space structure of a galaxy to go in decreasing order towards the boundary of the galactic system. The temperature gradient of the extra nuclear space structure of the galaxy can be visualized from the temperature of stars located at different distances from the nucleus. A star with it’s in the extra nuclear space structure and orbiting within the space fluid of the galaxy attains the surrounding temperature of the space fluid at the boundary of extra nuclear space structure of the star. For all thermodynamics processes within the solar system, the boundary temperature of the extra-nuclear space structure of the sun is an active parameter. We notice the temperature at the boundary of solar extra-nuclear space structure approaches zero K. Thus, it is no wonder if we find the temperature below zero K at the boundary of the galaxy.

The thermodynamic events, in an earthly environment, reveal that there is a definite correlation among pressure, volume and temperature. The temperature factor in the said correlation is neither Celsius nor Fahrenheit but refers to the temperature T=(t^oC+273) where the temperature (T) is the absolute temperature in Kelvin. We again find that the thermal energy radiation is directly proportional to T₄. We then established theoretically that the value of zero Kelvin as the absolute zero temperature of the universe. Obviously, no temperature below absolute zero is feasible. We have also seen how difficult it is to approach a temperature close to absolute zero.

All measurements are done relative to some reference standard. We make use different zero settings of temperature scales based on different isothermal states corresponding to change of state of matter on the surface of the earth such as the melting point of water as zero degree Celsius and 0° F as the temperature at which a brine made of 50% salt and 50% ice melts. We measure the pressure in terms of atmospheric pressure at the surface of the earth. We measure the dynamic parameter (time) of a system with reference to the rotational dynamics of the earth. All these relative measurements are earth based because these references are easily accessible to the inhabitants of the earth. Since any relative scale can be used to evaluate/characterize the property of a system for study of dynamics of systems, we have taken the best consistent reference values pertaining to the surface of the earth.

The motivation for any dynamics comes only from a differential property, such as differential pressure, differential temperature, differential electric potential etc. The differential property remains unchanged if the reference zeros are taken differently in two different relative scales. Thus, the differential temperature in the Kelvin scale is the same as that in the Celsius scale.

If all dynamics are concerned with some differential property why the same is not reflected in the thermodynamic laws of gas (Charles’ Law and Steffan-Boltzmann law). In fact, they are obeying the differential temperature and the same can be identified with proper analysis. Examining the extra-nuclear space structure of the sun, we notice both pressure and temperature are decreasing towards the boundary of the solar system. However, the temperature fluctuation does occur within the range of solar corona due to thermal celestial charge polarization in the Sun’s extra nuclear space structure (solar atmosphere) similar to that occurring in earth’s atmosphere in its closer range [5] [6]. We notice different celestial bodies are at different temperatures. Beyond the solar corona the temperature in the extra-nuclear space structure of the sun goes on decreasing outwardly with the lowest temperature prevailing at its boundary. The temperature of planets is an indication of the phenomenon of outwardly decreasing temperature of the extra-nuclear structure of the sun. Fig.1 shows the schematic temperature profile of the extra-nuclear space structure of the galaxy and the sun within it. In the new concept all centrally organized mass-space structures have space-density gradients, space content per unit volume [7]. Space being a physical entity, there is no difficulty in accepting variations in space content per unit volume [7] Further, space always contains space matter particles where the size and number density of space matter particles is function of space density [4]. Again, temperature is a function of mass-space structure. Thus, the lowest temperature in the solar system prevails only at the boundary of the extra-nuclear space structure of the sun. This boundary temperature is approaching zero Kelvin as seen from the decreasing temperatures of planets. There is no reason why the temperature profile of the extra-nuclear space structure of a galaxy would not follow the same trend. The stars are located at different distances from the nucleus of the galaxy and have different temperatures. In view of the above one can expect the temperature at the boundary of the extra-nuclear space structure of the Milky-way galaxy to have the lowest temperature. The sun is located at 2/3rd the radius of the Milky-way galaxy. The temperature at the boundary of the sun’s extra-nuclear space structure has the same value as that prevailing in the extra nuclear space structure of the galaxy at the sun’s location. If the temperature at the boundary of the sun’s extra-nuclear space structure is -273^oC (zero K), then the temperature of the boundary of the galaxy would be lower than zero Kelvin (–K). This suggests the Kelvin temperature does not refer to absolute temperature. Hence, the Kelvin temperature scale is relative like the Celsius and Fahrenheit scale but with lower value of reference zero.