Русский   Еnglish                  h-SPACE THEORY - The Theory of Everything                                     ©1989-2016

h-space theory
Consequences of
h-space theory

Experiments of
h-space theory

About author

Molbiology - molbiol.ru
(Mike Dyall-Smith's site)

The book   h-SPACE 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: n-dimensional 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.




    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   
    2.1 Definition of a cyclic motion of n=0-objects of n=0-space   
    2.2 Definition of n≠0-objects and n≠0-spaces   
    2.3 Definition of relative motion of n=0-objects(II)"−","+" and n=0 objects(I)   
    2.4 Definitions of relative motions of n=0-objects(II)"−","+"   
    2.4.1 Definition of the relative motion of n=0-objects(II)"−","+" of the same type   
    2.4.2 Definition of the relative motion of n=0-objects(II)"−","+" of different types   
    2.4.3 Definition of the relative motion of groups of n=0-objects(II)"−","+" of both types   
    2.5 Definitions of relative motions of n=0-objects(II)"−","+" and n≠0-objects   
    2.5.1 Definition of the motion of n≠0-objects relative to n=0-objects(II)"−"   
    2.5.2 Definition of the motion of n≠0-objects relative to n=0-objects(II)"+"   
    2.6 Secondary formation of n≠0-objects   

    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 h-space theory beyond modern physics   

APPENDIX 2. Experiments to test h-space theory   



The h-space 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 Dyall-Smith 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.


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 h-space theory is a new metaphysics. It is presented in the first two parts of the work: "Metaphysical principia of h-space theory" and "Metaphysical foundation of h-space 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 h-space theory". The last part of the work presents a number of proposed experimental tests of the h-space 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 61-574). 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 h-space 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 four-dimensional space-time 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 three-dimensional Euclidean space. Otherwise, for example, in four-dimensional 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 three-dimensional space through the surface area of a three-dimensional 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 three-dimensional sphere. Thus, for the first time, h-space 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 zero-dimensional 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 h-space 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 space-time but is caused by a gradient of moving particles of space (vacuum). This gradient is generated by a mass in three-dimensional 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 h-space theory.