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.