
The book hSPACE
THEORY: The Theory of Everythingon Amazon.com (Started in 2013 and updated in 2014)
The book presents a variant of the unified
physical theory, the theory of everything.
This theory was constructed from the ground up
on the basis of a unique ratio of the primary
notions: ndimensional space, energy, length
and velocity of objects. A system of equations
of the primary notions was introduced in the
first part of the book, and it was further
developed in the second part. In the third
part, this system was applied to describe the
known physical phenomena. The presented
interpretations of the physical phenomena can
be read in the first place to understand the
pros and cons of the proposed logical
framework. Predictions of the theory, beyond
modern physics, are collected in the fourth
part of book. The last part of the book contains the
descriptions of experiments that can be
conducted to verify the presented theory.
CONTENTS
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1. METAPHYSICAL PRINCIPIA OF hSPACE
THEORY
1.1 Definition of
time
1.2 Definition of velocity
1.3 Definition of mass and
space
1.4 Definition of
motion
1.5 Definition of
length
1.6 Definition of
energy
1.7 Equation of
Universe
CHAPTER 2. METAPHYSICAL FOUNDATION OF hSPACE
THEORY
2.1 Definition of a cyclic
motion of n=0objects of
n=0space
2.2 Definition of
n≠0objects and n≠0spaces
2.3 Definition of relative
motion of n=0objects(II)"−","+" and n=0
objects(I)
2.4 Definitions of relative
motions of
n=0objects(II)"−","+"
2.4.1 Definition of the
relative motion of n=0objects(II)"−","+" of
the same type
2.4.2 Definition of the
relative motion of n=0objects(II)"−","+" of
different types
2.4.3 Definition of the
relative motion of groups of
n=0objects(II)"−","+" of both
types
2.5 Definitions of relative
motions of n=0objects(II)"−","+" and
n≠0objects
2.5.1 Definition of the
motion of n≠0objects relative to
n=0objects(II)"−"
2.5.2 Definition of the
motion of n≠0objects relative to
n=0objects(II)"+"
2.6 Secondary formation of
n≠0objects
Comments
CHAPTER 3. THE PHYSICAL CONTENT OF hSPACE
THEORY
3.1 Definition of “Planck
constant” and the absolute units of length and
velocity
3.2 Elementary
particles
3.3
Electrostatics
3.4 Atomic
nucleus
3.5 Atoms and
spectra
3.5.1 Structure of the atom
3.5.2 Spectra
3.6 Molecules and ions
3.7
Radioactivity
3.8 Magnetic field
3.8.1 Magnetic field of electric current
3.8.2 Magnetic properties of matter
3.9 Electromagnetic
induction
3.10
Superconductivity
3.11 Quanta of
electromagnetic field and Maxwell's
equations
3.12 Optics
3.12.1 Absorption of
light
3.12.2 Reflection of
light
3.12.3 Interference of
light
3.12.4 Diffraction of
light
3.12.5 Light
pressure
3.12.6 Light
scattering
3.12.7
Polarization
3.12.8 Photoelectric
effect
3.12.9 Phototransmutation
(photodisintegration)
3.12.10 The Compton
effect
3.12.11
Photoluminescence
3.12.12 The Doppler
effect
3.13 Motion of charged
particles in electric and magnetic
fields
3.14 Gravitational
attraction
3.15 Classical
mechanics
3.16 Special theory of
relativity (STR) and general theory of
relativity (GTR)
3.16.1
STR
3.16.2
GTR
3.17 Quantum
mechanics
3.17.1 Quantum
tunneling
3.17.2 The Casimir
effect
3.18
Cosmology
3.18.1 Evolution of the
universe
3.18.2 Formation of stars and planets
APPENDIX 1. Consequences of hspace
theory beyond modern physics
APPENDIX 2. Experiments to test hspace
theory
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The hspace theory presented here is a variant of unified physical theory – a theory of everything (ToE).
It was built de novo and suggests a paradigm shift in our current understanding of physics. The theory
begins with an analysis of the fundamental concepts of ontology and physics, and then develops a conceptual
system that can explain all textbook physical phenomena. The explanations of physical phenomena in terms of
the proposed theory require a revision of old ideas, including a reexamination of how previous experimental
data were obtained and interpreted. In the last part of this work, experiments are suggested to test the
validity of the theory. To fully understand this work, the reader should be familiar not only with physics,
but also with some of the crucial ideas of philosophy, specifically that of Hegel. At a minimum, the reader
should have an open mind towards approaching physics through a logical analytical framework borrowed from
philosophy. They should also be comfortable with exposing and reappraising the underlying assumptions of
already established physical knowledge.
Nowadays, the Internet and the wide availability of information provide a unique chance to develop a
unified theory of physics, regardless of geographical distance or academic institution. The advantage
of the work presented here is the lack of groupthink pressure and career issues. The only limitation
is the stage of experimental verification of the theory, and my hope is that this work will inspire
experimental physicists to pursue such verification.
I thank my family for their support and especially Kati for her patience. I am particularly grateful to
Michael DyallSmith for the advices and for the help in correcting the English version of the manuscript.
I also would like to express my gratitude to the users of the following forums for the useful discussions
and criticism: http://www.scientific.ru/dforum/altern, http://live.cnews.ru/forum/index.php?showforum=259.
INTRODUCTION
Every new step in the development of Physics has led to the formulation of new universal theories.
This happened during the transition from classical mechanics to special relativity theory (SRT) and
general relativity theory (GRT), and when Maxwell suggested his unified theory of electromagnetism.
Such theories are not only elegant, they are the logical consequence of the development of physics
as a science, establishing ever more accurate models that explain causal relationships of physical
phenomena. Ultimately, there should be one theory describing the totality of physical phenomena.
If such a single causal relationship were not present, then we would observe different parts of
the world not interacting with each other. Since our experience tells us that this is not the case,
it is likely that a single cause of all phenomena exists, although we do not yet fully understand
how to describe it. Meanwhile, we have several current theories, each of which describes a limited
set of phenomena, for instance electromagnetism or gravity. Many attempts have been made to unite
these restricted theories into a single unified theory that can describe all types of
interactions – electromagnetic, weak, strong and gravitational. The common label for such a theory
is a "Theory of Everything", or ToE. The history of such theories has been well reviewed by others,
for example, in Lee Smolin’s book – «The Trouble With Physics». It remains a major problem of current
physics that a successful ToE has not been formulated. Of the existing variants, the most popular
is string theory. Its main drawback is the lack of experimental verification. Furthermore, it can
not be formulated in its final form, and instead there is a set of variants. The other alternative
theories, such as the standard model, are incomplete. According to Lee Smolin, none of the existing
versions are able to solve problems that they should be able to solve if they were true ToEs.
These problems are listed below:
"PROBLEM 1: Combine general relativity and quantum theory into a single theory that can claim to be
the complete theory of nature."
"PROBLEM 2: Resolve the problems in the foundation of quantum mechanics, either by making
sense of the theory as it stands or by inventing a new theory that make sense."
"PROBLEM 3: Determine whether or not the various particles and forces can be unified in a
theory that explains them all as manifestations of a single, fundamental entity."
"PROBLEM 4: Explain how the values of the free constants in the standard model of particle
physics are chosen in nature."
"PROBLEM 5. Explain dark matter and dark energy. Or, if they don't exist, determine how and why
gravity is modified on large scales. More generally, explain why the constants of the standard model
of cosmology, including the dark energy, have the values they do."
As there is currently no theory that has solved these problems, we are tempted to ask the following question:
is it possible to construct a unified theory framed in the existing concepts, laws and theories of physics,
or is a radical new approach needed – something "out of the box"? What if we missed something important and
needed to go back and revise the foundations of physics? Such revisions sound heretical, as the already
established theories like SRT, GRT and quantum mechanics appear to be mathematically perfect.
Considerable time and effort have been spent to develop and test them, and their status is at the level of
religious dogma. However, history shows that the rejection of old theories has occurred regularly in the past.
The Copernican system replaced the Ptolemaic system, and much later, the special theory of relativity
replaced Newtonian physics. If we agree to revise the foundations of physics we run into another problem.
Which approach should we use for this? The existing attempts at unified theories have already exploited
all the tools of modern mathematics, and it is now clear that the question of a unified theory cannot
be only a matter of choosing the most suitable mathematical tools.
The h space theory suggests a new approach for the revision of the foundations of physics. The essence of
this approach is a modification of philosophical concepts of being, and uses mathematic models based on
the data of experimental physics. This interaction of physics and philosophy should result in new
foundations of physics that can be expressed in mathematical form; a unique equation of fundamental
concepts. In other words, we should temporarily forget about the already established physical theories
and try to extract from the whole mass of physical laws and concepts of philosophy a unique equation of
fundamental concepts. Initially, this equation will be presented in a general form. Later, its detailed
analysis will provide descriptions for all physical phenomena. The primary physical material for the
revision was the following equation of fundamental concepts contained in the basic physics equations:
Et = mvL
where energy – E, time – t, length – L, mass – m, speed – v.
Although this appears quite simple, the concepts expressed in this equation have been analyzed in a new way,
taking into account Hegel's metaphysical definitions of fundamental concepts of space, time, matter, motion,
quality and quantity. If the selection of this equation was rather subjective, the usage of Hegel's metaphysics
was dictated by its recognized status as a perfect and complete ontology. As a result of this work, we
developed a unique system of definitions of fundamental (primary) concepts and their relationships are expressed
in the form of equations. Never before have mathematical equations been used in metaphysics. Metaphysics did
not go beyond the qualitative definitions of concepts. The h space theory proposes not only new qualitative
but also quantitative definitions of the fundamental concepts. In the resulting equations these concepts are
expressed as quantitative values. Thus, the hspace theory is a new metaphysics. It is presented in the first
two parts of the work: "Metaphysical principia of hspace theory" and "Metaphysical foundation of hspace
theory." The quantitative values of concepts in the equations then allow the results of this new metaphysics
to be compared with experimental data. This comparison is presented in the section "The physical content of hspace theory".
The last part of the work presents a number of proposed experimental tests of the hspace theory.
Why has this approach to construct a ToE never been used before? Because physics and philosophy considered
themselves independent. This particularly applies to physics. Today, even the word metaphysics is perceived
as inappropriate for mainstream science. The main reason for this is a lack of methodological education of
physicists, as was pointed out by Einstein. "I fully agree with you about the significance and educational
value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today  and even professional
scientists  seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge
of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation
from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is  in my opinion 
the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. " (Einstein. letter
to Robert A. Thornton, 7 December 1944 . EA 61574). Unfortunately, Einstein’s view did not have a big impact
on physics development. Modern theoretical physics ignores philosophy. The prevailing ideology, inherited from
quantum mechanics, is for theoretical physicists to «Shut up and calculate». In the last century, the development
of theoretical physics was based exclusively on the use of mathematics. This has created the illusion that
any mathematical construct can be considered as the definition of a real physical phenomenon. The string theory
is a good example of such fruitless theorizing. On the other hand, the development of philosophy actually stopped.
After Hegel's metaphysics nothing new has appeared in ontology. Philosophers have been locked in their own
world, or engaged in the service of modern theories of physics by creating a section called "Philosophy of Science".
What are the most distinctive aspects of hspace theory? A key innovation is a redefinition of the concept of space.
This has not been thoroughly examined in physics, and has become confused since the new concept of fourdimensional
spacetime was introduced in SRT and GRT, and the latter theories have proposed spaces of even larger dimensions.
Of course, there have been changes in our understanding of space, but all of them have been minor. The concept of
space remained the same mathematical abstraction, not representing its definition in philosophy. The question of
the origin of space and its dimensions has never been addressed in physics. Answers were there to be seen, if
closer attention had been made regarding the inverse square law, as expressed in Coulomb's law, and in Newton’s
laws of gravitation. Why is this important? First, the inverse square law is an experimental proof that we exist
in threedimensional Euclidean space. Otherwise, for example, in fourdimensional space, we should detect instead
the inverse cube law. Second, according to this law, something directly proportional to the charge or mass is
distributed in threedimensional space through the surface area of a threedimensional sphere. The question is
what is this? What is behind the notion of a charge that is distributed in space according to the inverse square
law? Searching for an answer to this question, as well as the question of the origin of the space, has not been
the focus of mainstream physics. The concept of charge was considered as simply the immanent property of elementary
particles. In the proposed theory, the definition of space is considered in unity with the concept of motion. In
Hegel's metaphysics, space and time are in unity. In the proposed theory, time is reduced to the concept of motion.
Dimensions of space have been defined as the implementation of independent motions. In other words, space has been
considered as a set of moving objects, where a number of independent motions of these objects correspond to the
dimension of space. Matter is defined as nothing but space and it is discrete. From such a definition of space,
the notion of charge has been defined as a limited number of objects moving across the surface area of a
threedimensional sphere. Thus, for the first time, hspace theory describes charge and gravitational mass as
having clear geometrical definitions. As a result of the revision of the concept of space, new definitions of
the objects of zerodimensional space were invented. These definitions are unique and do not have analogues in
modern physics.
Finally, can we say that the problems of modern physics, as formulated by Lee Smolin, are resolved by the proposed
unified theory? Yes, they are solved. First, in the h space theory, all processes are discrete. The hspace theory
is a quantum theory, and continuity is perceived only at large scales. In this way, the second problem is solved
through replacement of quantum mechanics by h space theory. Next, GRT is unsuitable for unification in the
proposed theory, since the gravitational attraction is not due to curved spacetime but is caused by a gradient of
moving particles of space (vacuum). This gradient is generated by a mass in threedimensional Euclidean space.
Accordingly, the problem of unifying GR and QM becomes irrelevant. The fourth problem is the most interesting one.
In the proposed theory, all of the quantitative values and constants in our universe are determined by just one
constant – the modified Planck's constant. Examples of such constants are the speed of light and the elementary
charge. At the same time, in the Multiverse, each universe has its own "Planck's constant". The third problem of
the unification of the various particles and forces is solved in the h space theory as follows. Electromagnetic
and gravitational interactions of elementary particles occur as changes in the motion of particles of space (vacuum),
while strong and weak interactions are considered as not real. The fifth problem, concerning dark matter and dark
energy, is not relevant in the h space theory as the experimental data that have led to these concepts have
different interpretations in the hspace theory.
