Planck Scale Informational Physical Model and Fundamental Problems in Physics

1. Introduction

In this article a number of fundamental physical problems are briefly considered in framework of the “The Information as Absolute” concept [1–3a] and the informational physical model, which is based on the concept, that were developed in 2007-2025 [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16].

By now, there exist a number of publications, where the authors formulate some lists of fundamental physical problems, for example, [17], the corresponding Wikipedia article, etc. The published lists of problems are as arule similar. in this paper we partially consider some problems in these sources, however below mostly we consider problems that are considered solved in in conventional physics, despite that really this isn’t so.

However, the problems’ lists in such publications are essentially incomplete, by two reasons. First of all there are a number of physical phenomena that are studied traditionally by philosophy, and so usually are considered “metaphysical” – while non-physical. They relate, nonetheless, to physical phenomena as well ― for example physics evidently studies Matter, and so the metaphysical problem “what is ontology of Matter” is really a Meta-physical problem “what does physics study” as well.

The metaphysical problem “what is ontology of Consciousness” also relates to physics directly, starting from the physical problem “why and how physical measurements and interpretations of the measurements are sometimes adequate to the objective reality?” Besides, this problem was actual on first stages of development of the quantum mechanics, and is rather actual now; and not only – really a number of, including outstanding, physicists attempted to solve the really “consciousness problem” in framework of physics, though this problem as a rule is formulated in physics as “what is Life?”, including when it is considered in [17], see Appendix.

Such metaphysical problems as what are the fundamental phenomena/notions “Space” and “Time”, and a number of others, are really the fundamental physical – “Meta-physical” – problems as well, but are not considered as such in physics, and so are mostly absent in the “fundamental problems lists”, since that are also the problems that are incorporated already into standard physical theories, and so formally are solved. For example, in [17] the problem “Why are the particles of ordinary matter copied twice at higher energy” is pointed. However, the problem “what are particles at all” evidently precedes that, and seems as evident that only after solving that last problem it would be possible to obtain the rational answer for the first problem, etc. However, the list in [17] does not contain the latter problem, which – and a number of others - in physics are “solved by default” ‒ and mostly erroneously, despite that really exist.

A number of “Meta-physical”, and concrete, fundamental, problems more in detail are considered in the paper “The Informational Conception and Basic Physics” [5a], so this paper is, in certain sense, an expanded conclusion of this paper also, which includes, correspondingly, more in detail consideration of some more general than in [5a] physical problems; and, besides, in this article, the problem “what are Gravity and Electric Forces” is essentially developed comparing with the [5a] 2021 versio, and additionally initial model of Nuclear Force is presented.

Besides, the concrete problem “What is Life”, and the rational cosmological model, where a few vague points in standard cosmology rather probably are rationally clarified, while the fundamental problem “matter – antimatter asymmetry” in Matter is solved practically for sure, are considered, and one of recently published rather complete “lists of fundamental problems” is commented in Appendix.

Finally note, that this consideration, which includes solutions, and/or at least essential clarifications, of more than 30 fundamental physical problems in the model, is based, first of all, on the rigorous proof in the “The Information as Absolute” concept [1] – [3], the recent version [3a], that nothing else exists besides some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely[1] fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set. Which (the Set) exists absolutely objectively really, because it fundamentally, logically, cannot be non-existent, and so is absolutely eternal, having no Beginning and no End, including “Matter” and “Consciousness” absolutely for sure are some informational systems – elements of the Set.

2. Meta-Problems

2.1. What Is “Information

Really the phenomenon/notion “Information” in philosophy and sciences remains to be principally transcendent – neither philosophy nor any science define “Information” substantively enough, all what exists is/are definitions of only specific traits/properties of Information (more see [3a]), starting from the evident from everyday practice trait that “information” is

“(Philosophical encyclopedia) “Information (lat. “informatio” – an examination, a notion, a concept): 1) a report, a notification about a state of affairs or about something else that is transmitted by a person; 2) decreased, removed uncertainty as a result of the communication obtained; 3) a notation inherently relating to a control; signals and their syntactic, semantic and pragmatic parameters; 4) transmission, reflection of the variety of any objects and processes (of alive and non-alive nature)”;

- i.e., briefly “information is some data”. That is evident tautology, however this tautology is inevitable in mainstream philosophy and science, since really the Information is absolutely fundamental and common phenomenon/notion, and so principally cannot be defined through some more common notions.

The correct scientific elaboration of the problem “what is “Information”” was made in the “The Information as Absolute” concept, [3a]

The phenomenon “Information” and the “Information” Set have a number of fundamental properties, which are considered in [3, 3a], so more see the referenced paper, here note only that Information is extremely bifurcational and paradoxical phenomenon, which principally cannot be formalized in any theory, and so, for example, existent in sciences a few “theories of information”, i.e., “Shannon informational theory”, a few theories in cybernetics, describe only some essentially limited informational structures.

In the concept the utmost common definition of the absolutely fundamental phenomenon, “Information” is:

“Information is something that is constructed in accordance with the set/system of absolutely fundamental Rules, Possibilities, Quantities, etc. — the set/system “Logos” in the concept”.

Or, by other words, the “Logos” set elements “make something to be information”.

A few examples of the “Logos” elements are considered below.

2.2. Some the “Logos” Set Elements as Fundamental Physical Problems

Most of the “Logos” set elements are transcendent in the mainstream, when some of them are Meta-physical phenomena/notions, so scientific definitions of which are corresponding fundamental physical problems. In this section the problems are

2.2.1. What Is Logos Quantity “Energy”

- Energy is the “Logos” set element [3,5], which is absolutely fundamentally necessary for to change, including, of course, to create, of any/every informational pattern/system. That is because of the fundamental logical self-inconsistence of the other absolutely fundamental [also an element of the “Logos” set] phenomenon/notion “Change”:

- at every change of something its state is simultaneously former, recent, and future states, when all the states are different by definition. That is logical nonsense.

To overcome this logical prohibition of changes at every change it is necessary to pay by two points:

(i) – to change [including to create] some informational pattern/system it is necessary to spend some non-zero portion of “Energy”. However, that is not enough if the portion is finite; and so, besides,

(ii) – really at any change the changing state on some level/scale is uncertain – “illogical”.

From the above follows the answer on the next fundamental problem

2.2.2. Why in Matter Quantum Effects Exist at All

Note, though, that the fact of impossibility of deterministic continuous changes of anything was proven more 2500 years ago by Zeno in his brilliant aporias, when Zeno, in fact, predicted the quantum mechanics.

Relating to QM note also here, that from the concept directly follows the answer on next (“implicit”) fundamental physical problem:

2.2.3. Why Does the QM Postulate Exist That All Given Type Particles Are Identical, and Why Is It Adequate to the Reality

- this QM postulate is adequate to the reality because all given type particles are copies of the corresponding unique informational patterns, that is a typical situation in Information.

That above in this section is essentially the answer on the fundamental problem:

2.2.4. What Is Physical Parameter “Energy”

- however that clear physically answer remains to be incomplete “metaphysically”, Energy remains a mysterious element of “Logos” set. Unlike other “Logos” elements, which rather clearly relate to the main trait of Information “is a data”, when the necessity of Energy in concrete informational system “Matter” is clear – see above, however it remains, including in Matter case, now completely mysterious - so from where and how some energy appears to create or to change something? Nonetheless, besides the above (for which Energy is necessary), now it is also understandable that Energy is rather “dull” Quantity, and the changes in informational patterns/systems are eventually determined by concrete information of concrete changing/creating patterns/systems.

However, that till now is not too essential in physics. The reason is that Matter is rather simple logical system, which is based on a limited set of fundamental and universal basic logical rules/laws, links, and constants (more see below), where the exchange by energy at material objects interactions is, in depth, highly standardized and universal, and the dependence of the action of Energy on difference of informational content in different material objects so is inessential, besides that there are, correspondingly, a few “forms of energy” – “kinetic”, “thermal”, “nuclear”, etc.,

- and, if we don’t address to the question “from where and how energy in Matter appeared at Matter’s appearance”, this problem isn’t actual because of the energy conservation law, at Matter’s constant evolution only redistribution of the primary energy portion proceeds.

Besides note here, that actualizations of Energy action are as a rule concretized as that relate to concrete changes of states of some informational patterns/systems in accordance with what concrete degree of freedom of the changes is actualized. In this case other absolutely fundamental “Logos” Quantity acts – “Momentum”, which is directed in informational patterns/systems’ “spaces” [more about what is “space” see below], however in this case the fundamental uncertainty of Change above reveals itself as “momentum uncertainty”, whereas energy of the patterns/systems in some cases doesn’t change; for example, that happens at motion of a charged particle in a stationary magnetic field.

And what looks just as real, there exists a more fundamental and mighty than Energy phenomenon: “Logics”, and “Information” itself also, correspondingly. Though Energy on first glance seem as something external to Information, for example to some data, nonetheless if it could exist a state, when there is “nothing”, including “no energy”, nonetheless in this case there principally exists — since logically cannot be non-existent, the [“Zero statement” in the concept] endless cyclic dynamical informational pattern “there is nothing, besides the information that there is nothing, besides…”

From the above follows the answer on the next fundamental physical question:

2.2.5. “ What Is “Inertia

Inertia, correspondingly, is an absolutely fundamental phenomenon that characterizes the logical resistance to changes because of the self-inconsistence of “Change” above. As energy, the inertia in simple informational system “Matter” can be, and is, characterized; according to Newton, by the physical parameter “inertial mass”. Note here, that this has no relation to the existent in standard physics explanation of what is the inertial mass as some action of the Higgs field.

On an aside, note a tenet, rather popular in official physics, that “energy and mass are two sides of the same coin, one converts to another”. That is fundamentally incorrect. Both absolutely fundamental phenomena “Energy” and “Inertia” indeed absolutely fundamentally always co-exist in every informational pattern/system, including in every material object, but they are fundamentally different, and so at the interactions in Matter first of all energy transforms/is distributed into energy, though with obligatory accompanying by transformation/distribution of inertial masses.

2.2.6. What Are “Space” and “Time”

The answer on these questions in the concept [3] is:

“Space” and “Time” are absolutely fundamental Rules/Possibilities [elements of the “Logos” set] that are absolutely fundamentally necessary for any informational pattern/system could exist:

- “Space” is necessary for any information could exist at all, and

- “Time”, additionally to Space, is necessary for some informational pattern/system could be dynamic, i.e., could change.

“Space” as the Possibility makes be possible placing in concrete “space” concrete informational patterns/systems, which (the space) at that is realized as a concrete set of “space dimensions”, which (dimensions) are necessary to actualize independent degrees of freedom of the concrete patterns/systems at changing of all their possible states.

Since Space is a logical possibility, the sets of the dimensions form so concrete, and principally infinite, “empty space containers” for the concrete one type patterns/systems. For a space it is all the same – how many one type patterns/systems, which are constructed by the same concrete sets of logical rules/links/constants, and so have the same degrees of freedom at construction and changes, are placed in the container.

And it is all the same – in what places in the infinite container the patterns/systems are placed. The unique requirement, when Space acts as the Rule is that a non-zero “space interval” must separate the different patterns/systems, and any pattern/system must occupy non-zero “space interval” (a “space volume”, if there are more than one intervals in different dimensions) as well. In that Space is the utmost universal grammar rule – as most of other Logos elements, besides “Energy” and “Momentum”, by some ways are, which just so exist in all human languages.

Since any information absolutely fundamentally cannot be non-existent, everything had happened/existed in the “Information” Set; and everything is happening/existing, and will happen/exist always;

- and the concrete patterns/systems, including Matter and consciousness, simply use the fundamentally always existent concrete spatial dimensions from the at least “simply” infinite “number” of spatial dimensions of the Set’s whole Spacetime in concrete actualization of current state of concrete pattern/system. As that is, for example, for Matter and humans in this concrete actualization of Universe evolution.

“Time” as the Possibility in main traits is analogue to Space, it is “the space for changing states of changing patterns/systems”, and exists/acts in concrete cases forming, including, corresponding “time dimension” for dynamical patterns/systems.

However, Time has the essential difference from Space: for Time it is all the same by what reason/way, by what degree of what freedom, etc., and in what informational pattern/system a change happened.

So in this case it is enough to have only one absolutely fundamental and universal dimension, which exists and acts in whole “Information” Set for all changing states of all dynamic the Set’s elements; in the concept, including first of all in the physical model, where for some reason (see below) this dimension is called “true time” dimension.

Time as the Rule also acts as that a non-zero “time interval” must be between different states of changing patterns/systems. However, in this case this Rule, unlike Space, seem as is determined by a couple of two, on first glance different, absolutely fundamental and “external to time” causes. The first one is that any information if appeared can not be non-existent, and so the next changing state can not “erase” previous state. The second is that a continuous changing of states is impossible, because of the logical self-inconsistence of the Change above, and the changes happen only along non-zero time intervals.

At any change of any informational pattern/system this pattern/system moves in the time dimension on corresponding time interval $\Delta t$, in every case, when the changing pattern/system is fixed in space, and at every change of its spatial position on, let, $\Delta x$. At that the changing of a pattern/system spatial position can be in principally arbitrary number of space dimensions, whereas all dynamic elements in the Set move at changes only in one, universal “true time” dimension.

Space and Time thus form concrete “empty containers” - “spacetimes”, where concrete dynamical patterns/systems are placed and evolve/develop at their changes. Note also, that both ‒ Space and Time – fundamentally haven’t some “intrinsic own time” measures, it is senseless to say about some “spatial size” of an unique informational pattern, and measurements of space and time intervals can be only in systems of the patterns, and only as relative ones – relatively to some space and time intervals of special patterns “etalons”.

Finally, in this section we make a brief remark to existent definition of “Time” in recent physics. This definition was firstly done by Newton [18]

“…Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration ….”

- at that for Newton, correspondingly, clocks show the time flow independently on time and only because of they also tick equally equably,

- and this definition, however with the two relativistic modifications, remains in physics till now. According to special relativity postulates time (i) - not only always flows equably, but this flow depends on motion, and, whereas in stationary inertial reference frame time flows in accordance with Newton’s definition, in moving frames its flow becomes be “dilated”, and (ii) – time governs material bodies, including clocks, and so “time is what clocks read”, and clocks show in stationary frames “Newton’s” flow, and in moving frames – the dilated flow. Besides this time flow is observed in physics as an “arrow of time” [19].

From the correct definition of “Time” above it follows that there cannot be any, “Newton’s”, “normal”, “dilated”, etc., “time flows”, and any specific “arrows of time” as well besides the fundamental “arrow of time” – everything at every change moves only in positive time dimension direction; and time fundamentally cannot impact on anything. Matter, and every material object/system, including clocks, simply constantly, because of the energy conservation law, change, and so move in the true time fundamentally “fixed” dimension, passing from given states to mostly more probable states; when a changing is deterministic, that only connotes, that the probability is equal to 1; clocks are special material objects that – rather specifically, though (more see [5a]), show how they move in the “coordinate time” dimension, which really is a specific, besides XYZ, space dimension. However since the motion in true time isn’t observable now, the coordinate time in physics and everyday practice is used as time dimension, variable, etc. (more see below in main text, first of all in Conclusion, and [5a]).

2.3. What Are “Matter” and “Consciousness”

The utmost fundamental in the mainstream science Meta-phenomena/notions “Matter” and “Consciousness” are fundamentally transcendent in mainstream philosophy, and so the philosophy is composed by two fundamentally different doctrines, which have numerous sub-doctrines, schools, etc., “Materialism” and “Idealism”, which really are nothing else than systems of transcendent beliefs:

- materialists truly believe in some transcendent “Matter”, which for some transcendent reasons, and by some transcendent way, exists eternally; and is, as that follows from the observations, again for some for some transcendent reasons, and by some transcendent way, some evidently well logically organized system;

- idealists truly believe in some transcendent “Idea” (“Spirit”, “Consciousness”, etc.) which for some transcendent reasons, and by some transcendent way, exists eternally; though in this doctrine the fact that everything looks as evidently logically organized system follows from that is result of action of “conscious” “Idea”, etc., - though it is evidently in this case necessary to define – what is “conscious”, what is again fundamentally impossible in the both doctrines; and so the transcendence of Idealism really isn’t much lesser than of Materialism

In the concept both, “Matter” and “Consciousness”, are utmost commonly scientifically defined — “Matter” and “Consciousness” absolutely for sure are nothing else than some informational systems – the Set’s elements, so are made from the same stuff “Information”, and in accordance with the same “Logos” set’s elements; whereas “Information” (and yet now most of “Logos” elements, besides Energy, as well aren’t) isn’t transcendent, and it, and so any informational structure as well, can be principally rationally cognizable, (what is “cognizable”? – see below).

Note here also, that from the above it follows that any informational system of elements is always something like “computer+program shell” system, where “hardware” is the elements, and “program shell” is the concrete the system’s basic set of laws/links/constants, in accordance with the elements interact composing just this system, exchanging at that by some informational messages, which use concrete language in the system.

Including “Matter” and “Consciousness” are some systems, which, however, have fundamentally different basic sets of the laws/links/constants, and so are fundamentally different; the main difference is in that Matter is logically closed in the Set system, which so practically doesn’t interact with other the Set’s elements and thus is essentially stable system;

- whereas Consciousness is fundamentally open in the Set system, and, as that is one of the utmost specific properties of just any consciousness in the Set, is that consciousness principally is able to obtain and logically analyze any information in the “Information” Set; at that, however, because of consciousness has fundamentally limited capabilities at obtaining and processing of the principally infinite in this case information, every result of the processing is always at least partially uncertain;

- and, at that, if a consciousness obtains some information, about which she hasn’t some earlier information, the consciousness assigns to this information the label “this information is non-understandable”, and further, if that is necessary, or that is interesting [“Curiosity” is another utmost just specific property/ resident utility in the “shell” of any consciousness], studies the Set’s element, from which this information is obtained – “no understanding” state also is just fundamental specific state of any consciousness.

All that is in principal contrast to what happens in Matter, where every of Matter’s elements, i.e., particles, bodies, fields, cosmological objects, always completely knows all Matter’s laws/links/constants, so at interactions uses/exchanges by only true information, and behaves after obtaining some concrete message only in complete accordance with the basic Matter set above. Or, by another words, since the Matter’s basic set “is written” in every Matter’s element, Matter isn’t some “whole” computer, it is an automaton,

- whereas any Consciousness version is “whole” computer, i.e., her hardware and program shell contain some “BIOS”, “processor”, “random access memory”, and some specific utilities that organize work of the whole consciousness’ s functional modules.

Finally, here note, that, though “Matter” and “Consciousness” are fundamentally different systems, whereas physics really studies only Matter, and so really the “consciousness problem” isn’t a physical problem. Nonetheless understanding of “what consciousness is” is necessary for physicists for a number of reasons. First of all, in this case we have answers on the really main epistemological – and practically so important in any science – questions “so what studies of what?”, and “why the first what sometimes adequately, and sometimes illusorily, to the objective reality studies the second what?”

Both these questions principally cannot be answered in framework of the mainstream, since in the mainstream both the whats are fundamentally transcendent, however in the concept the answers are natural: in spite of that consciousness, including the “homo sapiens sapiens” version, and Matter, are fundamentally different, however, since both are made from nothing besides “Information”, and absolutely obligatorily in accordance with the same “Logos” set,

- there is nothing surprising in that one informational system, which is able to obtain from, and logically analyze information about, other informational system, makes that correctly, and sometimes incorrectly – that principally doesn’t differ from the case when a human decodes information that was created by other human, e.g., when some linguists decode hieroglyphs that were written on some non-existent now languages.

Besides historically the “consciousness problem turned out to be an – and rather popular – fundamental physical problem, and so it is pointed practically in all published rather numerous “lists of fundamental physical problems”, being formulated usually, though, as “what is Life” problem; and, besides, historically the “consciousness problem” appeared in well known physical problem of the role of observer at quantum mechanics measurements; so “consciousness problem” is considered also in this paper, in corresponding “What is “Life” section below.

2.4. What Is “Life”

As that was pointed above the two known now fundamental informational systems Matter” and “Consciousness” are fundamentally different. Currently humans know only one Consciousness’ version, “the consciousness on Earth”, diverse versions of which every living being on Earth, including humans, have. The main differences – and similarities – between a Matter and any Consciousness in the Set are pointed as well – both systems are made in accordance with the same “Logos” elements, both are some “computer+program” systems, where similar exchange by concretely logically organized information between the systems’ elements proceeds;

- however these systems are fundamentally different since are based on fundamentally different sets of the basic laws/links/constants; and so, though in Matter all/every elements, e.g., every electron, know physics absolutely completely, what any human never will do, however, at that, all/any material objects/structures fundamentally don’t know – and fundamentally aren’t able to know – anything else, thus everything in Matter fundamentally isn’t, and never can be, “conscious”.

Correspondingly every of both, Matter and Consciousness, exists and changes in essentially different spaces; including, for example, if in Matter it is possible to establish some etalon for measurement of bodies’ lengths and distances, e.g., “meter”, but nobody now knows – how many meters long a human’s thought is in any consciousness space dimension.

Though consciousness on Earth operates also in Matter’s space, when she governs, using some unknown forces, practically material living beings’ organisms, including systems “body+brain”. Both corresponding spacetimes share the principally one true time dimension which is fundamentally obligatorily common for all dynamical patterns/systems in whole Set (more about what are Matter’s space/time/spacetime see [5a] and below).

Thus, there principally cannot be some “emergence” of any consciousness from any material structure, as that is, as a rule, assumed in many existing now “theories” “models”, “solutions” of the “mind-body problem”, etc., in neuroscience and physics. Really the informational system “the consciousness on Earth” could, in principle, exist in the Set in parallel with possible Matter’s Creator even before Beginning of Matter.

However, because the consciousness is a principally open informational system, the “life” of such system is rather cumbersome in the unstable, and possibly destructive, environment of the Set. So seems a few billions of years ago this consciousness version has used an opportunity to make some material house from some stable Matter’s atoms, first of all as a stable residence in the Set and source of energy at operating and development. Thus Life rather probably appeared on Earth (though we cannot exclude now that this consciousness version was developed and created by some other Consciousness in the Set, for example by with rather non-zero probability existent Creator of Matter).

After that, “the consciousness on Earth” developed the practically material residence in accordance with seems evidently observed trend “more and more outside Matter into other Set’s regions”, up to the “homo sapiens sapiens” version. That one has well developed ability to obtain and to process information in the highest, “mind mode”, mode of operation, when information is processed abstractly i.e., in some cases without direct relation to what happens in Matter, or somewhere else in the Set.

However, this consciousnesses ability to affect material structures is extremely weak, at least for ordinary human consciousnesses, including most of physicists; and so really there is no some “observer problem” in physics:

– at any experiment a studied, including a quantum mechanical, material object/system/process interacts with human material instruments, mostly as observed “$\psi$-function collapses”, only in rigorous consistence with the laws/links/constants that act only in Matter, when on the QM depth everything in Matter, independently on ― in humans experiments or not, constantly happens as endless chains of the “ $\psi$-function collapses”, etc.,

- and all that happens without any dependence on whether an “observer” exists or not at all; including the collapse of Schrödinger cat wave function would happen without any relation – some observer opens or not the box.

More about “the consciousness on Earth” see in the first approximation functional model of the consciousness [14,15].

Finally note here the common for the last two section problem: though it is rigorously true that any consciousness fundamentally cannot “emerge” from any material structure, since any/every material structure is some rigorously closed logical system, however some specific, sometimes never existing in Matter, material structures can be – and are – constructed and created by a consciousness; and it looks as very probable that Matter was for some reasons designed and created by some extremely mighty Consciousness version in the Set (more see section “Cosmology” below).

However that by no means clarifies the problem – so why/how some consciousness can emerge in the Set?

In this case it looks as rational to suggest that that can happen if in the Set some informational systems accidentally appear after some rather arbitrary, strong enough energetic impacts in some “informational chaos systems”, which aren’t logically rigorously closed, but in which some primitive versions/logical constructions of the consciousness’s fundamental utilities “Providing self-stability”, and “Seeking self-development” are formed,

- than at least in some cases, some of such systems could exist for a long time enough, enforcing their abilities at providing self-stability and abilities to obtain and analyze the information in the Set – and so being more and more stable in the Set; seeking for next and next energy sources for more and more “conscious” operating; and, eventually, when some consciousnesses at studying of what happens in the Set have understood what the absolutely fundamental phenomenon “Energy is, such consciousnesses become to be able to create rather arbitrary informational patterns/systems in the Set. Rather probably the “consciousness on Earth” is till now in some initial position on this way.

3. General Fundamental Problems

Above, the utmost common answer to the Meta-physical question “what is Matter at all?” is given. According to it, Matter absolutely for sure is an informational system of informational patterns and sub-systems, which are particles, fields, bodies, cosmological objects, etc. In this section, we present a number of rational, and so rather possibly adequate to the reality, answers to problems in the framework of the common fundamental question: why this informational system is as it is? This question sometimes is claimed as is beyond physics – the slogan “physics answers on the question “how”, and don’t answer on the question “why”” is in physics now rather popular, despite that is principally wrong. Correspondingly these really existent problems in physics don’t exist, and are solved “by default” by postulating of some physical parameters to really defined only in concrete theories material objects, and with the unique aim – consistence with experiment; as that happens, for example, with problems what is a “particle?”, “field”?; etc., which mostly are considered as solved in physics, despite their really transcendent in physics nature.

3.1. What Is Matter’s Logical Base

The answer with a large probability must be, and so is in this informational physical model, in accordance with two indeed utmost fundamental findings in XX century, which, though were really transcendent brilliant guesses earlier, but in the “Information as Absolute” concept become to be quite natural:

- in accordance with the outstanding von Weizsäcker’s 1953-54 year “Ur-hypothesis” [20,21] that if Matter is based on fundamental depth on a binary logics, then the space should be 3D, and Matter’s spacetime indeed has 3 space dimensions. That was, on one hand, the outstanding hypothesis that explains why Matter’s space is 3D, and, on the other hand, the fact that the space is indeed 3D is the mighty evidence for that the hypothesis can be correct, and

- in accordance with the outstanding Fredkin-Toffli’s finding [22], who showed that if some patterns in a system are based on a reversible logic, the system changes at interactions in it without energy dissipation outside the system. In this case Matter would dissipate energy somewhere in the Set; thus seems thrifty Matter’s Creator used this fact; so Matter is based on a reversible logic, and so in Matter the energy conservation law acts.

Correspondingly (see section 2.2.6.) the concrete spacetime of the concrete binary informational system Matter has 3 “standard space” dimensions. Since this system is dynamical system, as that follows from experimental data, the spacetime has the “true time” dimension, t, which is absolutely obligatory, universal, and common, for all dynamical elements of the Set. Further in this paper, as that is in the whole informational physical model [1- 5a] for some reason (see below) instead of “t” for the true time dimension mostly “ct” metrics is used, c is the standard speed of light.

Besides the dimensions above Matter’s spacetime has once more dimension, to implement the degree of freedom of the reverse sequences of changes, which are in a sense “non-legitimate” in the true time, as some “travels backward in time”, what is principally prohibited in the true time. The dimension thus is really a specific space dimension, however it is actualized in many traits in the Matter like the true time. This dimension is called the “coordinate time”, “τ”, dimension in this informational physical model since that is just the “time what clocks show” in everyday and physical practice, and mostly further for this dimension the metrics “cτ”is used.

Thus the Matter’s spacetime is the at least [5]4D Euclidian spacetime as an empty container, where Matter exists and constantly changes, with the metrics (cτ, X, Y, Z, ct), where “cτ” is the “coordinate time” dimension, “ct” is the true time dimension, and X, Y, Z are 3 “standard” space dimensions. The dimensions, as that is shown in Sec. 2.2.6 above, are principally infinite by definition of Space and Time.

3.2. Is Matter’s Spacetime Absolute or Not

This problem did not exist in mechanics till the fundamental Nature EM force was discovered, or even in first years after development of the Maxwell-Lorentz theory, where EM objects, events and processes existed and happened as some disturbances in some “ether”, fixed in corresponding absolute Euclidian space. However, in late 1800s it became clear, that seems as the application of very mighty Galileo relativity principle, which principally is defined in the absolute space and time, to EM processes and events results in some paradoxical consequences, as, for example, the “relativity of simultaneity”. It also seemed that because of the principle it is impossible really to observe absolute space and corresponding absolute motion of bodies.

H. Poincaré wrote about the absolute motion in “Science and hypothesis” [23]:

“… Again, it would be necessary to have an ether in order that so-called absolute movements should not be their displacements with respect to empty space, but with respect to something concrete. Will this ever be accomplished? I don’t think so and I shall explain why; and yet, it is not absurd, for others have entertained this view… I think that such a hope is illusory; it was none the less interesting to show that a success of this kind would, in certain sense, open to us a new world…” zoo

However, from that the absolute space even indeed cannot be observed evidently it does not follow that it doesn’t exist. Nonetheless that was postulated yet in the first version of the special relativity theory (SR) in 1905 [24]. It was also postulated that there is no corresponding (“luminiferous”) ether, which would be placed in the absolute space, and be a base of some absolute reference frame. So the SR was – and is till now - based on one more postulate that all/every inertial reference frames are absolutely completely equivalent and legitimate.

From these postulates any number of evidently meaningless physical, logical, biological, etc., consequences directly and unambiguously follow, the simplest one is the well known “Dingle objection to the SR” [25] and its more known and more complex version “twin paradox” [13], etc. From even one meaningless consequence, which directly and unambiguously follows from the postulates above, it completely rigorously follows by “proof by contradiction” that Matter’s spacetime is absolute ‒ as that follows from the definitions of Space and Time in section. 2.2.6 above as well; and that inertial reference frames so aren’t completely equivalent. However, these SR postulates have been stated as true postulates in physics till now.

There can exist preferred “absolute” frames that are at rest in the absolute 3D space which are preferred, first pf all, in that only in such frames material objects have real values of all physical parameters. Correspondingly observation of the absolute motion, i.e., the motion of a body in the absolute 3D space, is only a technical task, which can be principally solved, as that is shown in this model, and the absolute velocity of a pair of clocks can be measured yet now [8,9].

3.3. An “Ether” May or May Not Exist in Matter

Matter’s spacetime as the absolute, at least [5]4D, Euclidian spacetime with the metrics (cτ, X, Y, Z, ct). It therefore seems quite rational to suggest that the dimensions of the spacetime relate to the degrees of freedom at changing states of some analogs of the von Weizsäcker’s 3D “Urs”, the [5]4D fundamental binary reversible logical elements (FLE). The corresponding introduction of fixed in the absolute spacetime above ether, i.e., a [5]4D dense lattice of the FLEs, as that is made in the informational model, is rational as well.

Besides, in the model, based on existent experimental data, it is postulated also that all the [5]4 FLE “sizes” (in the spacetime dimension above) are identical and equal to the Planck length, $l_P$. The changing of the binary FLE states, “FLE flips”, time interval is equal to the Planck time, $t_P$, therefore motion of material objects in the spacetime happens as “equal footing” in all [5]4 dimensions of the spacetime with [5]4D velocities that have identical absolute values being equal to standard speed of light $c=l_P/t_P$This postulate of [5]4D FLE ether/lattice allows to clarify a number of other fundamental physical problems.

3.4. What Is “a Particle”

This problem more in detail is considered in [5a], here we briefly indicate only some main, necessary further here, points. In official physics, particles really are principally transcendent items – since they are some objects of the transcendent “Matter”.

Besides from the informational concept above and from experimental data that particles — which absolutely for sure are informational patterns/systems — are some objects that constantly change their states, however, at that, they are stable, it looks as it completely rationally follows that particles are some cyclic close-loop algorithms,

- that cyclically change their internal states with frequency ω so that a particle has energy $E=ћ\omega =m{c}^2,m$ is the inertial mass, $ћ$ is the fundamental elementary physical action, reduced Planck constant, c is the speed of light. This hypothesis appeared as early as in 1920 as the “the Zitterbewegung”. de Broglie hypothesis [26,27].

A few naturally suggested, and postulated in the informational model, rational premises follow from that above:

(i) – particles are some cyclic disturbances of the FLE lattice, which appear when a 4D momentum impacts on an lattice FLE, which, after the impact, “flips” further causing sequential flipping of neighbor FLEs.

To cause a flip – and the corresponding sequential flipping of lattice FLEs along a straight 4D line is enough infinitesimal momentum $\overrightarrow{P}$when the “FLE flipping point” propagates in the 4D lattice and the 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) with the 4D speed of light, $\overrightarrow{c}$ ,$c=l_P/t_P$. However, if the momentum $\overrightarrow{P}$is not infinitesimal, the flipping point can not propagate in the lattice with the speed faster than c. Thus, the unidirectional motion transforms into a “helical” “FLE flipping point” motion along some 4D “helix” of cyclic sequentially flipping – and precessing ‒ FLEs in accordance with some close-loop algorithm, which is just a particle that has the 4D momentum $\overrightarrow{P}$, energy $E=Pc$, while the algorithm ticks with frequency$\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{E}{\hslash }}$ , the “radius of the helix” is equal to $\lambda ={\displaystyle \frac{\hslash }{P}}={\displaystyle \frac{\hslash }{mc}}$ , so flipping point – and so the particle ‒ has “intrinsic 4D angular momentum” be equal to $\hslash$ (see Figure 1).

Note also, that in this case the “flipping point” moves along “helix” with the speed $c\sqrt{2}$, as the flipping of FLEs along “helix” happens “diagonally”, nonetheless the “helix front” moves along the impacting/creating 4D momentum direction with 4D speed of light, $\overrightarrow{c}$.

However, some “a helix’s 4D axis” does not exist having its axis as a 4D vector in the 4D space, so the propagation of the disturbance in the lattice transforms into propagation of, possibly, propagating in the either bi-vector or a tensor, and so this propagating is essentially not “point-like”- in both, in the spacetime and in the lattice. Nonetheless the propagation has the direction – the direction of the impacting momentum’s vector. Besides, the “helix” of FLE lattice disturbance experimentally is observed as a “point-like and wave-like” particle interacting with other pointlike particles (what is observed as the “wave-particle duality”). It seems rational to suggest that “pointlike interactions” are interactions of the particles’ FLEs, i.e., the “size of interaction point” is near Planck length, even though the whole disturbance “a particle” is not pointlike, and the position of the flipping point is randomly distributed in some wave-like spatial region.

In parallel particles fundamentally obligatorily move in the true time ct-dimension, in this model spacetime metrics with the speed of light.

(ii) The always moving particles are, thus, some “gyroscopes” which are always oriented relating to their motion direction, and

(iii) Note also, that it follows from the experimental data that there are two main types of particles in Matter, depending on the parental 4D momenta . In the model that are “S-particles”, created by spatial momenta, and “T-particles”, created by momenta that were directed in the “coordinate time”, i.e., along the cτ-axis.

So S-particles, e.g., photons, always move in 3D space only with the speed of light, T-particles move in “coordinate time” cτ-dimension with the speed of light, if are at rest in the absolute 3D space. If a T particle after be impacted by a space directed momentum, moves also in space, its speed in the “coordinate time” dimension decreases by the Lorenz factor in accordance with the Pythagoras theorem.

Note, though, that the above in this section relates completely only to fundamental particles. If a particle is composed from some fundamental particles, some points in the above are not valid.

And, besides, note that extreme impacts on FLE can result in many comparatively stable close-loop algorithms, and that is observed experimentally – the observed particles zoo now contains more than a few hundred items – some chimeras that are composed from some fundamental particles, truncated algorithms, as that, e.g., rather possibly muon and tau-lepton are truncated electron’s algorithms; 2-nd and 3-rd generations of quarks, as well, etc. Most of the algorithms have some defects, and so can break on some algorithm’s tick with some constant probability, so such particles decay exponentially in time.

Note also, that from that everything in Matter is/are some disturbances of the FLE lattice that are constantly moving with the 4D speeds of light, it follows that for observing of the absolute space there is no necessity to point some “anchor that is at rest in the absolute 3D space”, as that Poincaré wrote. Any T-particle (body…) in any 3D space point that moves only along the cτ-axis with the speed of light is for sure at the absolute rest.

4. Few Notes Relating to Other Fundamental Problems

4.1. Problems That Are Considered in Detail in [5a]

The solutions and clarifications of the Meta and general problems above allowed to solve, or essentially to clarify, a number of concrete physical problems, such as what really are the Lorentz transformations in special relativity [29] and the Lorentz-Poincaré theory [30,31,32]; first of all that Lorentz transformations are equation of motion of only points of rigid bodies and rigid systems of the bodies, what is a particle’s spin and why neutrinos have non-zero rest mass; what are the physical action and the “minimal physical action” principle, etc. Besides this paper contains the version-2021 of proposed in 2007-year initial model of fundamental Nature Gravity and Electric forces, the version-2022 is presented here below.

4.2. What Are Antiparticles

Note, that the answer on this question is possible only if this problem is considered in the absolute [5]4D Euclidian spacetime metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), where particles are always constantly moving with 4D speed of light $\overrightarrow{c}$ in the 4D sub-spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) having the 4D momenta $\overrightarrow{P}=(p_{c\tau },p_X,p_Y,p_Z)$ , $\overrightarrow{P}=m\overrightarrow{c}$(and particles’ energies $E=Pc=m{c}^2$), $P^2={\displaystyle {\displaystyle \sum }_{j=1}^4}{p}_j^2$; and, simultaneously, are moving in parallel, in 1D ct-dimension with the speed of light and the momentum $\overrightarrow{P}=m\overrightarrow{c}$; though pointing in this case of the momentum as a vector in principally one-dimension motion looks as a bit superfluous, however that means that everything moves in the ct-dimension only in positive direction .

In the model in complete consistency with existingexperimental data it is supposed – and postulated, that antiparticles, are, as the particles above, also some close-loop algorithms, which are the same as corresponding particles’ algorithms, but the algorithms run in reverse command order, so T-particles and their T-antiparticles have opposite momenta in the cτ-dimension,$p_{c\tau }$ (particle) =$-p_{c\tau }$ (antiparticle).

In contrast, since in Minkowski space the dimension/variable “t” is really some mix of the true time, t, and coordinate time, τ, so “4-momenta” in SRT, ${\overrightarrow{P}}_M$, physically are rather strange: ${\overrightarrow{P}}_M=({\displaystyle \frac{E}{c}},p_X,p_Y,p_Z)$ i.e., the zero component of a 4-momentum of a particle is, in fact, the whole real 4D momentum – and the momentum in true time, whereas really the “t” in Minkowski space has also the coordinate time traits, as it is the “proper time” of, a moving in a “stationary” frame, frame. Besides, that is in practice “the time, which clocks show”, which (clocks) are usually some T-bodies, and really show how they move in the coordinate time dimension.

Really, since the coordinate time is the space dimension, it is used as the time dimension in everyday and physical practice only since this dimension is unique, and essentially differs from standard 3 space dimensions in that when motion in standard space is easily observable, the motion in the cτ-dimension isn’t directly observable – though is observable indirectly, a number of clock’s pointer rotations show the passed in this dimension way like a car odometer that measure number of a car’s wheel rotations shows passed in the 3D space way; and so, including, the motion in time – in the mainstream physics fundamentally non-existent “time flow” can be measured by using as the time dimension of any regular motion in space, measuring time in, e.g., meters.

Though note that in a rigid reference frame, while all used in practice frames are rigid because of Earth gravitation are rigid ones, really it is impossible to observe motion in the true time, and what is in the practice is inevitable, whereas measurements of physical parameters in rigid frames, using the time definition above, indeed practically completely truly describe what exists and happens in the observed so material objects and structures.

So in Minkowski space – as that really is fundamentally in true time - in the time dimension there is no backward in time motion.

Correspondingly, when Dirac developed in framework of SRT QM equation for fast moving free particle - electron, he made that as modification of existent already non-relativistic Schrödinger time dependent equation $i\hslash {\displaystyle \frac{\partial }{\partial t}}\psi (r,t)=\widehat{H}\psi (r,t)$, where $\psi$ is the wave function of a particle, $\widehat{H}={\displaystyle {\displaystyle \sum }_{j=1}^3}{\displaystyle \frac{{\widehat{p}}_j^2}{2m}}$ is the Hamiltonian operator, which corresponds to the classical mechanics Hamiltonian $H={\displaystyle {\displaystyle \sum }_{j=1}^3}{\displaystyle \frac{p_j^2}{2m}}$, ${\widehat{p}}_j =-i\hslash {\displaystyle \frac{\partial }{\partial x_j}}$ , j=1,2,3 , are [really partial] operators of 3D space particle’s momenta;

- and using, instead of classical Hamiltonian above, the relativistic Hamiltonian $H=c\sqrt{p^2+m^2{c}^2}$, where p is the absolute value of 3D momentum, $p^2={\displaystyle {\displaystyle \sum }_{j=1}^3}{p}_j^2$ m is rest mass of a particle, c is the speed of light.

This Hamiltonian has the 3D space momena in the square root, and so it is impossible to obtain directly linear differential equation for the wave function using the momenta operators above – as that is made in the Schrödinger equation. However, Dirac solved this problem by the nice non-standard way; in which, besides, the Pauli spin formalism was taken into account quite naturally, wave function of particles turns out to be 4-component vector that describes particle’s complex quantum state – what looks as indeed adequate to the reality, etc. So in the equation the “Dirac Hamiltonian” is $\widehat{H}=m{c}^2{\alpha }_0+c{\displaystyle {\displaystyle \sum }_{j=1}^3}{\alpha }_j{\widehat{p}}_j$, where partial momentum operators are the same as in Schrödinger equation above, ${\alpha }_0$ and ${\alpha }_j$ are the four 4 × 4 matrices, which determine the four-component – in contrast to the one-component $\psi$-function in Schrödinger equation, $\psi$-function. The equation is in essential consistence with the SRT formalism, but looks also as true one, if in the Hamiltonian $m{c}^2$ has negative value, what fundamentally contradicts with SRT, where $m{c}^2$ can have only positive values.

However, that formally is possible, because of, as that Dirac told, e.g., on the first “Atomic nucleus” conference in the USSR [34] (translated from Russian):

“….In Newton mechanics kinematical energy W is always positive. But in Einstein theory. W is defined by more complex equation, namely

$W^2=m^2{c}^4+p^2{c}^2,$

from what

$W=\pm \sqrt{m^2{c}^4+p^2{c}^2}$

In classical theory from both signs always + is chosen, what does with purpose to obtain accordance of the theory with experiment.

That creates no difficulties, since from our equations is seen, that W can be only more than +$m{c}^2$, or lesser than -$m{c}^2$. That connotes that the states with positive kinetic energy are separated from the states with negative kinetic energy by the interval $2m{c}^2$ (from $+m{c}^2$ to $-m{c}^2$), and, since in classical theory all dynamical variables are continuous, so a particle, which had firstly a positive kinetic energy, by no means can тo transit into a state with negative energy. By different way that is in quantum theory: the wave equation has the property that existence of some disturbing force obligatorily creates for the particle a probability of transition from initial state with positive kinetic energy into a state with negative kinetic energy: therefore in quantum theory it is impossible simply to ignore a possibility of negative kinetic energy, as that is in classical theory …”

Finally, the obtained equation is

$i\hslash {\displaystyle \frac{\partial \psi (x,t)}{\partial t}}=({\alpha }_{0}m{c}^2+c{\displaystyle {\displaystyle \sum }_{n=1}^3}{\alpha }_n{p}_n)\psi (x,t)$;

where the Dirac’s approach above is introduced as “hole theory”, that the vacuum is the many-body quantum state in which all the negative-energy electron eigenstates are occupied. This description of the vacuum as a “sea” of electrons is called the Dirac sea. The approach looks as evidently questionable, since “negative-energy states” for free particles really don’t exist, in SRT and really.

However if Dirac would consider this problem as the “momentum problem”, he could consider, instead equations for energy above, the equation for the momentum $m_0\overrightarrow{c}=\pm {({\displaystyle \frac{W^2}{c^2}}-p^2)}^{1/2}$

- where the sign “±” for the vector momentum $m_{0}c$ is undoubtedly legitimate – unlike to fundamentally positive scalar energy W above, and so the hypothesis about the particles that move with negative speed of light – oppositely to electrons, would be physically legitimate as well, however in SRT momenta $m_0\overrightarrow{c}$ of having rest mass particles don’t exist as well – such particles can move only having lesser speed.

Nonetheless in SRT – as that is in this model - everything moves also with 4D speed of light – with “4-velocity”. That is another thing that this velocity looks as is physically strange – e.g., spatial component of velocity can be arbitrary, including arbitrarily larger than speed of light; and really the Dirac equation is practically the equation for the momentum, if both sides are divided by c

$i\hslash {\displaystyle \frac{\partial \psi (x,t)}{\partial (ct)}}=({\alpha }_{0}mc+{\displaystyle {\displaystyle \sum }_{n=1}^3}{\alpha }_n{p}_n)\psi (x,t)$

Really – see above – the T-particles electrons, and positrons, really are created by, and move after, oppositely directed in the cτ-axis momenta, and that above is, besides, the answer on the problem “What is the “Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation” in QED [35,36], where it is ad hoc postulated that antiparticles move “backward in time”.

4.3. What Is the “Feynman–Stueckelberg Interpretation”

The motion with negative speed in the $c\tau$-dimension practically for sure happens in Matter, if, as that is rationally suggested and postulated in this model, the antiparticles have the same algorithms as the corresponding particles, but their algorithms run in reverse command order, therefore

- the antiparticles really move backward, however not in the true time, but backward in the coordinate time, which is just “the time what clocks read”, and which really is measured as experimental base of physical theories. It also matters that existent clocks are made from particles, and so real positions and motion of antiparticles on the $c\tau$-axis are experimentally non-observable. If it would be a possibility to make a clock from antiparticles, that would be possible – as observation that on such clock the pointer rotates oppositely to the pointer on its made from particles twin.

Note, though, also – the coordinate time is not the time; and so, for example, if there would be two twins, one “material” and the other “antimaterial”, their clocks would show opposite signs of their ages. However, both twins will seem practically identical as usual twins, since biologically both they would age principally in accordance with fundamentally non-material biological laws. Not completely, though - moving in the space both twins would biologically age slower than if are at absolute rest.

Finally, addressing here to the “what is particle/antiparticle?” problems above, add a couple of some common notes else. First one relates to the main dynamic parameters of particles motions, energy and momentum: $\overrightarrow{P}=m\overrightarrow{c}$and $E=Pc=m{c}^2$. That looks as that the momentum vector, which has direction that is determined by what degreases of freedom, and in what ratio, were actualized at concrete interactions, transports correspondingly changed informational pattern “particle”, the inertia/mass of which is essentially determined just by its logical structure, with the speed of light in corresponding direction in the 4D sub-spacetime; whereas thus energy transports the whole, though essentially disconcerted, information about current state of the pattern with the speed of light in the [true] time dimension

Since what happen in Matter in this scheme/sense practically for sure happens in any other dynamical informational system in the Set – everything in the Set have fundamentally obligatorily some inertia, mom momenta, and energies, this fact, which reveals itself clearly now for humans only in Matter, rather probably can be useful at studying of the utmost fundamental phenomenon “Information” as a whole.

Other note relates to the “particle at rest in space” problem. In standard QM it is stated that if a particle is at rest in 3D space, then, as that follows from corresponding solution of Schrödinger equation, its position in 3D space is infinitely uncertain, i.e., a particle, if is at rest, “exists in whole infinite Matter’s space”, since corresponding wave length is infinite. It looks as that would be rather strange if that would really happen in Matter, and really that doesn’t happen.

The problem relates, of course, only to T-particles, which can be at a space rest, so have rest masses, since were created by momenta that were directed along the $c\tau$-axis. Correspondingly really the particles never occupy in space infinite volume, and really, if a such particle is at the rest, it occupies a well limited 3D space volume with size ~ particle’s Compton length, moving with the speed of light along the $c\tau$-axis, as sequential FLE flipping along 4D “helix”, which has the $c\tau$-axis as its 4D “axis”.

That is another thing, that this 4D “helix” exists as having strangely simultaneously existing 3 equally equivalent, mutually orthogonal, projections on the three 3D space planes (see Figure 1), however that isn’t important in this case, the particle’s motion, nonetheless, doesn’t proceed in an infinite space, but is localized in the 4D space by the characteristic in this case the particle’s Compton length scale size in any dimension.

Though at the absolute rest some really “whole uncertainty” exists – that is the uncertainty of in what direction in whole 4π solid angle a particle “moves”, however that really is senseless, since the particle doesn’t move, and the “angle problem” above appears not when a particle is at rest, but only if it moves, after some impact and transmission to particle corresponding momentum, p, in a certain concrete 3D space direction, with a 3D speed V. This motion along 3D space helix, the front of which moves with the speed V, is observed in physics as the de Broglie wave that has the length ${\lambda }_B=\hslash /p$.

5. Cosmology

There are many problems in cosmology, first of all, in some cases of principally insurmountable uncertainty even in the formulation of these problems, when this physical branch relates to objects, events, and processes, which humans cannot study now in controlled or at least observable, conditions.

Moreover, many of these problems can not be principally rationally solved or clarified in mainstream physics, i.e., outside the “Information as Absolute” concept and the physical model, because of the fundamental transcendence of the phenomenon/notion “Matter” in the mainstream philosophy and science. However, this informational physical model allows to consider a few problems rationally enough.

5.1. The “Beginning Problem”

This is an utmost fundamental problem in cosmology, and it is rather evidently principally irresolvable in framework of official physics. Physics has no reliable data about the objects, events and processes that could exist, appear, and happen at Beginning. Nonetheless a number of theories exist in physics, and in the standard cosmological “Big Bang” model [40] it is suggested concretely that

“…. As the Big Bang theory goes, somewhere around 13.8 billion years ago the universe exploded into being, as an infinitely small, compact fireball of matter that cooled as it expanded, triggering reactions that cooked up the first stars and galaxies, and all the forms of matter that we see (and are) today.….”

- in spite of that the existent physics principally is not applicable to this “infinitely small, compact fireball of matter”, etc., and so principally isn’t able to rationally suggest – which, why and how some reactions cooked up the first stars and galaxies.

As well as to the next steps of Matter’s creation, when in the model

“…more explosive phase of the early universe at play: cosmic inflation, which lasted less than a trillionth of a second. During this period, matter — a cold, homogeneous goop — inflated exponentially quickly before processes of the Big Bang took over to more slowly expand and diversify the infant universe. …”

- existent physics knows absolutely nothing about what was this “cold, homogeneous goop”; why “it inflated exponentially quickly before next processes of the Big Bang”, by what reason this “inflation” stopped; and further by what reason and how that “took over to more slowly expand and diversify the infant universe”, etc.

Nonetheless, there exist, basing on existent astrophysical data, a number of seems as rather rational points in standard model of Matter’s evolution after Beginning, including, if we do not take into attention the remark above, the rather rational “phenomenological” description of states in Matter evolution above,

- starting from the “space inflation” state/epoch [41,42], when the space, in the standard model for unknown reasons, and by some transcendent way, appeared at Matter’s creation, and exponentially expanded, and that happened at some relaxation of some completely unknown in physics “inflaton” field’s singularity, because of “a repulsive gravitational force” (?) [40]. However, the “inflation hypothesis”, in spite of these rather questionable points, seems adequately to the reality phenomenologically describes the observed uniformity of matter density and of the material objects nomenclature on cosmological distances; the nucleosynthesis, etc.

Including the hypothesis in the standard model that during inflation the matter was a cold, homogeneous goop, seems is rather plausible, since that is consistent with cosmological observations. However, that contradicts with the assertion that the matter “exploded into being, as an infinitely small, compact fireball” in this model in the quote above.

This informational approach allows to formulate reasonable physical hypothesis [3,5] in accordance with the existent experimental data and with reasonable points in the standard Big Bang model above, such as the inflation epoch, and that the Matter after the inflation was rather cold, etc.

In the hypothesis it is suggested that the “Information” Set’s element “informational system “Matter”” was created by the other Set’s element, a version of informational system “Consciousness”‒ conscious smart “Creator””, which was indeed extremely smart and could design a logically simple, however functionally extremely complex, effective, and closed in the Set, informational system; and has found in the Set at creation of this system a few huge portions of the mysterious, including essentially in this concept, till now phenomenon “Energy”.

Note also here that, as that is proven in the “The Information as Absolute” conception, in the Set “everything has happened and is happening always in the absolutely infinite time interval”, when all/every the Set’s elements can exist in two form: “implicit” form as the negation “this element really doesn’t exist”, what contains absolutely complete and exact information about the element, and “real” form, when some portion of energy opens this conserve can transforming it as be really existent and evolving. The informations in both cases are identical, and in both cases both forms are some “information” that are made by all the Logos elements, including by elements “Space” and “Time”. Thus all the Set’s elements’, including Matter’s one, spaces existed/exist always, and when Matter’s was, rather probably 13.8 billion years ago created, this happened in the already existent the implicit Matter’s space.

Thus – see above - Matter is based on the simplest binary and reversible logics + (at least) 4 fundamental logical marks, which humans observe as 4 real fundamental Nature forces (more see below), including Gravity, and few universal links and constants, which are “written” in the Matter’s ultimate base - in every so (at least) [4+4+1]4D FLE.

Further this design was actualized into Matter in the next 3 steps – and portions of energy:

On the first step the dense lattice of FLE was created (“inflation epoch”) exponentially, as the result of programmed division, possibly into 2, of possibly one “primary FLE” (as that, for example, bacteria spread in a Petri dish, if there are enough resources) in the corresponding Matter’s fundamentally infinite, absolute spacetime above.

On the second step the energy portion with cτ-directed momenta was globally uniformly pumped in this FLE-lattice, and there the completely symmetrical primary T-particles were globally uniformly created. It seems as rather probable that the energy was spent only on the particles’ creation, and so the “primary T-particles” matter in Matter was probably rather cold again.

However, from existent cosmological data it looks as rationally to assume that the pumping wasn’t uniform locally – in the lattice (and so in 3D space) some clusters of primary particles were created, where the particles density was radically enhanced, which were some seeds of appearing on next Matter’s evolution steps large cosmological structures, first of all – galaxies.

5.2.. Why Matter Now Practically Does Not Contain Antimatter

Matter does not contain antimatter since it did not contain antimatter yet at the second step, because the primary T-particles were completely symmetrical algorithms. In this case it is illogical to consider the difference “particle/antiparticle”. Hence, it was logically completely permissible for all primary T-particles to be only “particles” – i.e., all of which have the positive momenta in the cτ-dimension.

On the third step the primary particles (which in this hypothesis are rather probably Planck mass particles or other simple particles, i.e., that were completely symmetric algorithms and have only completely symmetrical gravitational charges) interacted by using only completely symmetrical Gravity force, the result was, rather possibly indeed a soup of, because of the angular momentum conservation law, “ordinary”, but only particles, which was distributed again globally uniformly – but non-uniformly locally – in the lattice.

In the “soup” unstable ordinary particles decayed quickly and – as the standard cosmology asserts rather adequate to the reality – the observable now stable particles eventually remained; this soup was rather hot. Hence, CMB exists now, however that possibly was not a “singular” temperature, because the energy was mostly spend on creation of the ordinary particles.

If the primary particles were the Planck mass particles, then nearly 10¹⁹ “ordinary” baryons were created in an interaction of a couple of particles.

At that Creator practically for sure did not need to control the step-2 and step-3. Creator well knew that nothing besides a concrete informational system “Matter” can appear, if a non- structuralized energy is pumped in the rigorously structuralized FLE-lattice. E.g., this Matter could have a number of thousands of galaxies lesser or more, but for Creator that was not essential.

5.3. What Is the “Dark Matter”

In this cosmological model it would not be surprising if the “dark matter” indeed exists, being made up from the primary T-particles. That could happen if during the creation of “ordinary” matter only 20-30% of these particles have interacted, and 70-80% of the particles exist till now. If these are the Planck mass particles, then the density of the dark matter particles is in 10¹⁹ times lesser than the baryons’ density, i.e., 3-4 particles in a cube with the size 1000 000 m.

Since the primary particles interact only gravitationally, they interact with “usual” particles at a probability extremely lesser than when that for neutrinos, and so (i) - the bodies, stars, etc., are practically transparent for these particles, which rotate around centers of some massive bodies along their single own orbits, forming corresponding haloes, and (ii) – they are practically non-detectable, due both to extremely small cross section and extremely small concentration.

Though if an interaction would happen in a detector, that would be well observable event, 10¹⁹ BeV is rather observable energy.

Besides it looks as rather rationally to assume, that in the “seeds” clusters there were some local – and small – regions, where the primary particles density was so large, that the primary particles composed compact objects with extreme mass and Gravity field, which have become centers of galaxies, having masses millions, even billions, of stars.

These objects have some interesting physical trait – the strength of created by the objects Gravity field is so large, that escape velocity becomes equal to the speed of light, and so even photons, if aren’t radiated orthogonal to the objects surface, can propagate inside corresponding space volume along closed orbits – such objects so practically don’t radiate light; and if radiate, the light spectrum is drastically red-shifted.

That happens in both existent theories of Gravity – Newton’s theory and general relativity, and happens at least provided that the mass, M, and radius, R, of an such object are in accordance with the equation ${R_g}_S={\displaystyle \frac{2GM}{c^2}},{R_g}_S$ is the radius in GR (Schwarzschild radius) , corresponding radius, R_gN, in Newton Gravity is two times lesser. At that the radius isn’t the object’s radius, really it can be lesser than that radiuses above.

The difference of R_gS and R_gN values isn’t principal, however these radiuses principally differ in that when R_gN is the radius of some “virtual” surface, which surround some “dark place”, the Schwarzschild radius is the radius of the “event horizon” in GR, where solutions of the GR equations become to be singular, and so the event horizon is the border of a “hole in spacetime” – a “black hole” (BH), and so nothing principally can escape from this hole.

Really on the event horizon no singularity exists (more see below section 6.2), the potential and strength of Gravity field increase rather smoothly with decreasing of the distance to the center of the object. So, for example, the super massive black holes (SMBH) in centers of galaxies, which, rather probably, are offspring of the “seed” objects that were growing absorbing gas and other matter around at galaxies’ evolutions, have rather large Schwarzschild radiuses, whereas the sizes of compact objects in SMBH evidently are much lesser than the radiuses.

For example, Sagittarius A* (SMBH in Milky Way) has mass, M=8.2×10³⁶ kg, and corresponding event horizon radius R_gS =1.2×10¹⁰ m. So average density of matter in this SMBH, $\rho =1.1\times {10}^{6}kg/m^3$. This density is much lesser than the density of neutron stars’ matter 10¹⁷-10¹⁸ kg/m³, and so even if in Sagittarius A* center some big neutron star would be placed, its radius would be ~ 10⁴ times lesser than the Sagittarius A* “event horizon” radius.

Thus it looks as rather rational to assume, that in this case the phase of SMBH central object matter state, and any other BH’s matter state, though, is the next phase after known now phases “ordinary matter”, “white dwarf” and “neutron star” matters’ states, and rather probably the SMBH central object is some dense composition of the corresponding the “seed’s” primary particles, and of what is transformed from falling into the central object “ordinary” matter. It looks as reasonable to suggest, that in this case some essentially uniform quark structures can be formed, which are stable because some (small BH) of “1-st origination quark degeneracy” – like “electron degeneracy”, and “neutron degeneracy” in dwarf and neutron stars matter phases, at increasing of a BH central objects masses and pressure, next originations of quarks can appear, etc.

Though note also that with a well first approximation a particle radius is equal to its Compton length λ=ћ/mc; so the “particle matter density” is proportional to λ^-3; besides, rest mass is proportional to λ^-1, so, say, since W and Z bosons have masses W – 80.3 GeV/c², Z - 91,2 Gev/c² , so there can be real “Big bosons stars”, which, if have a neutron star size, in rather first approximation have masses in ~ 10⁸ times larger, i.e., more 10⁸ Sun masses; and so can be SMBHs in galaxies.

In SMBHs the space between the central object’s surface and “event horizon” is filled by the accretion disk continuance, and by some other particles that have diffuse distribution; which are practically unobservable outside the horizon.

Nonetheless it looks as rather probable to suppose that there don’t exist some sharp border for matter in the event horizon. In the mechanics existence of “escape velocity” for some body by no means determines some limits of distances that lesser bodies in the “body’s atmosphere” can move on which. If lesser body speed’s value is near the escape velocity value, the body can move on practically infinite distance by definition of escape velocity. It looks as rational to suggest, that is true in the case when the escape velocity is equal to the speed of light as well. Note in this case, for example, that binding energy of an electron – and so the electron’s “escape energy” – on the “event horizon surface shell” of Sagittarius A* is equal ~259 keV, what is comparable with a K-shell electron’s binding energy ~116 keV in Uranium atom.

If that is so, then really a “black hole”, besides the accretion disk, has practically for sure, some “atmosphere” – or “hair”, which, though, are formed mostly from outer matter. Including in the observed SMBHs’ jets, including the “bubbles” of Sagittarius A* SMBH it is nothing surprising – that are, rather probably, some SMBH “atmosphere’s” specific details, which, as that is explained in standard cosmology, are formed by magnetic fields that are formed by the accretion disk and SMBH itself.

Though the “hair problem” really isn’t a fundamentally important problem, unlike the problem – what is the BH central objects matter’s phase state, and what part of this matter possibly the dark particles matter constitute.

As that is pointed above dark matter particles form some haloes around large masses, including galaxies, causing deviation of galaxies stars motion from that would be determined only by visible matter and Newton gravity law, generally speaking mostly just the observation of this “abnormal” motion is the main ground for the dark matter – and dark matter haloes hypotheses. However in this case some haloes should be also around stars, if DM particles, including a galaxy halo ones, move near a star with velocities that are lesser star’s surface escape velocities, and so become be captured by stars.

An example: the Sun’s surface escape velocity$V_{eS}={(2G{M}_S/R_S)}^{1/2}=V_{oS}\sqrt{2}$ is ~618 km/s, $M_S$ and $R_S$ are Sun mass and radius; Sun orbital speed V_oS is ~ 230 km/s. At that in first approximation DM “galaxias” escape velocity, $V_{eg}$, is in ~$\sqrt{2}$ larger than [~perfect circle Sun’s] orbital speed, so moving DM particles have speeds, V_DM , lesser than V_eS, $V_{DM}\le V_{eg}\sim V_{oS}\sqrt{2}<V_{eS}$, and can be captured by Sun.

The captured by a star DM particles, if a star isn’t on the galaxy peripheree, move essentially as they moved before, however this “star halo” moves also along some orbit that is determined by their host star. That seems only negligibly affect galaxies structures, however that looks as is possibly interesting if relates to extremely compact massive cosmological objects – white dwarfs, neutron stars, and BH. The radius $R_S$ in this case is very small, and, at that essential part of DM particles in such object “accretion halo” moves with rather large speeds. These objects, at least neutron stars, rotate with large rotation rate, and so in this case we cannot exclude that some tangible angular momentum can be transmitted to DM, decreasing a star, say a pulsar’s, rotation rate so that would be observable.

5.4. What Is the “Dark Energy”

Both interpretations of existent cosmological data as “space expansions”, i.e., the exponential “inflation” on the first step of Creation, and more tolerant next one that rather probably really proceeds till now, really, if happen, aren’t some “space expansions”, that are some FLE lattice expansions; and to make that it was – and is – indeed necessary to pump into the lattice essential energy. However, this energy is completely outside physics, and so attempts to incorporate this energy in existent physical theories, as that is in cosmology as the introducing of Lambda term in the GR equations, which determinates “space expansion”, really are irrational.

Though, as that is in the Beginning model above, this (in the model – Creator’s) energy can be used in rational descriptions of what and how happened in first instants at Beginning, or, for example, when for description of the FLE lattice expansion after appearance of “ordinary” Matter it looks as would be possible to find some rational reasons as well. For example, this expansion would be necessary to prevent Matter’s collapse because of the “gravity paradox” [43]; though here can be many other reasons, of course.

5.5. A General Note to the Section 5.1. ‒ 5.4.

Generally speaking, any cosmological model, including the presented in this section one that is based on utmost reliable points in standard cosmological model, really is principally questionable till the real main cosmological problem “what is the main cosmological principle”, i.e., why observed in 3D space cosmological objects are distributed in the space uniformly in 4π independently on observed distances, and seems are always moving apart?, isn’t solved.

Or, by another word, the models are principally questionable till the Matter’s fundamentally dynamic topology isn’t known.

In this model the topology problem isn’t solved, though some points that rather probably should be taken into account at the solution look as rationally clarified. In [5a] it is shown that all/every existent now particles, so bodies, etc., really in their whole histories of interactions from Matter’s Beginning [on the second step] passed till now in 4D space with metrics (cτ, X,Y,Z) the way S,

I.e. really everything in Matter always constantly moves along ct-axis [ct_true in the integral above]. If, as that assumed in this model above, on second step in full primary lattice the energy that created primary particles was pumped instantly, everything is always in the moving along ct-axis 4D hyperplane in the 5D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct) that has thickness ~ one Planck length.

Really, since everything in Matter moves rather 4π isotropically at least in 3D space, since the ct-axis is orthogonal to any line in the 4D space above, this hyperplane is 4D hypersphere, where [5a] what happens in cτ-axis isn’t observable; and so is observable .only in 3D_XYZ space. Correspondingly it looks as rather probable that the development of the topology will be development of the Feynman’s well known first 1960s idea, and taking into account the points above.

6. Mediation of the Fundamental Forces in Complex Systems

6.1. Fundamental Nature Forces and Charges

Now four kinds of the fundamental interactions (four “fundamental Nature forces”) are known – Gravity, Weak, Electric (EM), Strong/Nuclear; which differ by the strength, e.g., for the proton as (approximately) 10^-36:10^-11:1:10² and act at particles – and so bodies, etc. – interactions, composing diverse material structures – atomic nuclei, atoms, molecules, stars, etc.

In recent physics the Forces act as that interacting in coupled by Forces systems particles – in macro “classical” physics bodies - exchange by Forces’ mediators (in macrophysics Forces fields that are intensive flows of mediators) that contain/carry energy, which are constantly and always radiated by particles, and at the interactions the energy is transmitted to other particles.

In quantum field theories (see Figure 2) the mediators are “virtual” particles. in quantum electrodynamics (QED) that are virtual photons; Strong force in quantum chromodynamics (QCD) is mediated by virtual gluons inside hadrons, including nucleons; and outside, i.e., in systems of nucleons ‒ atomic nuclei and at N-N interactions; virtual π-mesons were postulated as Nuclear force mediators in Yukawa theory long before development of QCD, and this theory is valid in the physics till now.

The conventional physics theories above have at least two fundamental problems. First of all it looks as completely rational to suggest that in Matter there are no “virtual” particles and interactions, and this in the theories really is a mathematical trick, which, for/by unclear enough now reasons/ways (besides, say, the”Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation” above, etc.) though, is – QED extremely – effective at elaboration of some physical tasks. The other problem is common for classical physics and QFTs – to radiate constantly and always Forces fields and QETs mediators energy for particles (Forces charges) it is necessary to store practically infinite energy, what looks as unreal

In this Planck scale model Gravity, Electric [1, 5a], and Nuclear, Forces are some logical marks, that can be, and are in Matter, assigned to, or, more correctly, activated in, any FLE in the lattice. So really FLE has more than [5]4 utmost universal “kinematical” degreases of freedom at changing its state (FLE flip), and Matter’s space has other than the ultimately common and universal “kinematical” cτ, X, Y, Z dimensions, at least that relates to considered here below Forces. Thus the real Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and at least [4+3+1]4D Cartesian spacetime with the metrics (cτ, X, Y, Z, g, e, sn, ct), “g” and “e” are Gravity and Electric forces dimensions, “sn” is the Nuclear [rather probably also Strong] force dimension. Including marked by corresponding Force FLE precesses with some precession axis angle additionally to the 4D universal “kinematical” (c X, Y, Z) particles algorithms’ FLEs precession (see section 3.4 above)..

Note also here that the models are essentially based on proposition that was formulated by Ronald R. Hatch in his “modified Lorentz ether theory (MLET)” of Gravity [44]. This proposition is that

“…. the source of gravitational energy is the rest mass energy of the particle ‒ not the curvature of spacetime…..Gravitational force converts gravitational potential energy (rest mass energy or structural energy) into kinetic energy when a particle falls and vice versa when a particle rises…”,

This, well rational, and so really foundational, idea is rather vaguely grounded in MLET, however in this model it obtains rigorous substantiation , moreover, it becomes be applicable besides Gravity to at least Electric, and Nuclear forces also.

In the model it is postulated that the Forces charges in particles ate “written” as corresponding sections of Forces-marked FLEs in particles algorithms FLE sequences. At constant cyclic running of the algorithm, when this FLE flips, it creates in the FLE-lattice flip of the lattice FLE that has specific (not “kinematical”) angular momentum be equal to and directed in the Force dimension specific fundamental elementary momentum be equal to . Further this “point” transforms into the Force’s “circular mediator”– the 2D rim of radially flipping lattice FLEs, where the fundamental elementary momentum decreases as in the 3DXYZ+the Force dimension space. The rim’s FLEs flipping is orthogonal in all 3DXYZ space directions to the rim’s circle, i.e., FLEd propagate in the 3D space along strait lines relatively to the starting point. I.e. the circular mediators aren’t particles, (see section 3.4 above), and so these FLEs have zero energy so, including, the Forces macro fields don’t contain energy.

However, if such flipping lattice FLE hits the irradiated particle’s flipping the same Force-marked FLE, the particle’s FLE obtains the elementary momentum above, at that the particle’s “kinematical” precession angle changes, so the particle’s algorithm becomes be longer/shorter; and so runs slower/faster, Thus. the rest mass of the particle – [ so bodies] correspondingly changes, for example at free fall in Gravity field, decreases – what is observed eventually at statics as the gravitational mass defect; at free falling the decreasing of the rest mass transforms into increasing the particle’s kinetic energy..

So really the Forces are some logical rules that govern in closed systems exchange by kinematical momenta, and so by energies, between the systems’ elements at their interactions. At that whole energy in closed systems is constant that is equal to energy that the system had before the interactions. The particles Forces charges - and so Forces strengths – are determined by two factors - by logical sizes, N_F, of Forces-marked FLEs sections in a particle whole algorithm logical length, N_A, that is equal to ratio of the whole spatial algorithm’s length, i.e., reduced Compton length, to FLE size – N_A=ћ/mcl_P, and frequency ω the algorithm ticks with which, ω=mc²/ћ. Thus the intensity (s^-1) the rims are radiated with which, n_F, is n_F=N_F ω.

On Planck scale Matter is rather simple logical system, and so at least Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear/well probably Strong, forces act by one scheme. More in detail the initial basic models of these Forces are below.

6.2. Gravity Force

6.2.1. Initial Model of Gravity Force, Statics

Remaining in this Planck scale concept it is possible to put forward [1] rather reasonable conjecture that the gravitational potential energies of bodies in gravitationally coupled systems are proportional to the accidental coincidence rate of random interactions of the lattice Gravity mediators with flipping G-marked FLEs in these bodies’ particles algorithms. Such coincidences always exist since the FLE’s flip-time [Planck time] is not equal zero.

Secondly suppose that logical size, N_G, of Gravity charge (“gravitational mass”) section in every particles’ algorithms contains only one G-marked FLE, N_G,=1,

The FLEs interactions happen in the 3D (XYZ) space, under three conditions:

(i) - the frequency at which a particle’s algorithm runs if particle is at absolute rest (in statics), is , where is the inertial rest mass, c is the speed of light, ћ is the Planck’s elementary physical action;

(ii) - at every algorithm cycle, particle’s flipping G-marked FLE initiates in the lattice, and so in 3D space, radial propagating of Gravity mediator - “circular graviton” – the rom of flipping FLEs (aee Figure 3.) every of which carries and transmits to other “irradiated” particle the specific elementary momentum above, r is the radius-vector from the radiating to the impacted particles.

(iii) – since particle’s algorithm has only one G-marked FLE^[2], (which, rather probably, is the “start FLE” in a particle algorithm), the gravitational charge is proportional to the algorithm’s frequency ω, as the corresponding particle’s energy above;

Since the G-marked FLEs flip independently in both particles, and particles practically are not oriented specifically in the space at gravitational interactions, the elementary interactions above are random. That is not essential in Matter on macro scale, however it allows to observe the quantum nature of Gravity at interactions of lightest particles, first of all photons in macro fields [1,6].

A couple of additional important notes: (i) - first of all from the existent experimental data follows that all/every particles have the gravitational charges, and (ii) - that the Gravity mark is completely symmetrical at particles and antiparticles algorithms running, and so in Matter everything (besides Forces mediators) attracts everything.

For two bodies at rest having gravitational masses m₁, m₂, that are placed on the distance between the particles, r, “Newtonian” gravitational potential energy and force are equal

, (1)

, (1a)

where G is Newtonian constant of gravitation.

As that was assumed above, the FLE’s sizes are equal to Planck’s length, . Besides assume that:

(i) - the time intervals of the “radiating” particle’s G-marked FLE’s, of the graviton’s FLE and other particle’s G-marked FLE, flips are the same and are equal to Planck time; and

(ii) – at the interaction of a graviton and a particle’s flipping G-marked FLE, the particle is gravitationally impacted.

It is evident, that interactions of gravitons and particles’ G-marked FLEs are accidental events – coincidences of FLEs flips at independent processes of “radiation” and spreading of gravitons of “radiating” particle, and of G-marked FLE flipping in other one. In previous papers the coincidence rate in a particle was estimated in suggestion that both – the number of “gravitons” in a point, where a particle’s G-marked FLE flips, and the number of these G-marked FLE flips, are random; at that both numbers are distributed under Poisson law with the averages and Then, if both averages aren’t too large, the rate of coincidences inside Plank time interval, τ , (note that isn’t, of course, “τ “ in the spacetime metrics above) is equal

(2)

In reality the particle’s G-marked FLEs flip very regularly; nonetheless the equation (2) remains be valid, if one suggests that the interaction of graviton and particle’s G-marked FLE happens in any time moment when the both Plank times intervals overlap (Figure 4).

Thus the coincidence rate in an “irradiated” particle for the time when the”particle’s G-marked FLE flips remains be as

(3)

where is the flow [s-1] of gravitons through the particle’s G-marked FLE; is the particle’s G-marked FLE’s flip rate (is equal to the particle’s algorithm tick rate/ frequency )

From the suggestions above obtain that the average gravitons flow, which is produced by a body having a mass on a distance is equal

, (4)

and the coincidence rate in a “irradiated” particle is

, (5)

PG is some probability of interactions. if some other physical effects act. Since the Plank length is equal , from Equation (5) obtain, that if the probability =1 the coincidence rate in the particle is equal

(6)

It is evident, that if a body having mass m₂ contains not extreme number of particles (and the “radiating” body as well, of course), then the coincidence rate in the body is equal

(7)

Note that the masses , m_p, m₂, in the equations (5) - (7) above are the inertial masses. It is evident that Gravity action is in this case symmetrical, and so

The number of elementary momenta that are transmitted to the “radiated” masses is , i.e., the force that acts to the masses, absolute value of which so is equal

(8)

(8a)

- i.e., the force in Newton Gravity law, where the masses are gravitational masses.

The potential gravitational energy of the system of two bodies, defined here in the informational model, , is as

. (9)

- i. (more see section 6.2.3 below) . the energy is the gravitational mass defect, which in the statics is equally divided between the bodies:

. (10)

Note that from Eqs. (1a) and (8a) it follows that at statics the gravitational and the inertial masses of a body are completely equivalent, since both “are created” by the same algorithms tick rates, ω, of particles that compose the body.

Note, however, that in this case some “1/2” problem appears, i.e., – the condition that to obtain true value of the gravitational mass defect in every body is necessary for the coincidence rate in the body to be twice lesser then for the corresponding gravity force (Eqs. (8) and (10), however in this ‒ the statics ‒ case this problem really doesn’t exist, since in statics the gravitationally coupled bodies are impacted also by other forces, which fix the bodies in their static positions.

From the above we can again ‒ as that was noted earlier relating to the fundamental in physics now speed of light constant, ‒ conclude that not the gravity constant, G, but Planck length, Planck time, and elementary action, are indeed fundamental constants in Matter. Note also, that at least for the statics the circular gravitons of a particle transmit at gravity interaction to any another particle all information about the localization of the radiating one in the vector value of elementary momentum though with practically 100% QM uncertainty of the distance.

From above follows that the intrinsic processes in both bodies become be slowed on the half binding energy/gravitational mass defect (divided by of course). If the mass, , of one of the bodies is much greater than the other mass, m, the relative decrease of the lesser body’s algorithm frequency is

(11)

Correspondingly, if the body-2 is a clock, the clock’s showing becomes be slowed down on times, what is two times lesser then that is predicted in the general relativity theory.

If a pair of clocks are placed on different radii from M, r and in a gravity field (Figure 5)

then their relative tick rates differ as

(12)

For Earth surface

, where g is the free fall acceleration. In the GR the clocks’ rates difference is two times more [45]: .

Besides, note here that the photons rather probably don’t principally differ from T-particles, really every particle in Matter fundamentally obligatorily has both ‒ the gravitational and inertial masses, the gravity force acts on the photons analogously to the T-particles – however possibly to some extent differently, since photons and gravity force mediators above propagate, in contrast to T-particlesm at identical speed of light..

Note also, that the difference of intrinsic processes rates in bodies that are in space points with different Gravity potentials is predicted in GRT as “gravitational time dilation”, and, whereas this effect is trivial in this informational model, this GRT prediction was completely new in physics in 1916. It was measured yet in 1960-s in well known Pound-Rebka-Snider experiments, where GRT value of the difference was confirmed [46,47] measuring Mossbauer resonances values at propagating photons that are created at gamma-decay of Fe-57 nuclei. However, in this case two different physical effects are involved – the real difference of intrinsic processes rates of the nuclei on different heights, and possible red/blue shifts of photon frequency. Thus the experimental results can be in accordance with GRT only provided that the GRT postulate that photons don’t change their energy at propagating between points with different potentials [37] is valid, what can be incorrect, photons must interact with gravity field, changing energy as that all other particles do.

This problem now can be experimentally solved only in experiments, where if only one of possible impacts on intrinsic processes is measured. Now such rather easy experiment is possible – for that it is enough to measure elapsed time intervals of preliminary synchronized in one point clocks, after the clocks were placed on different heights on Earth, for example in a hole:

- it is necessary to synchronize two clocks, let on the ground;

- to move slowly or with known speed one clock on a the depth, say, 1000m;

- to wait a time;

- to return the lower clock to the other on the ground and to compare the clocks elapsed time showings.

On the tick rates two effects impact: “kinematical” slowing down because Earth rotation that is proportional reverse Lorentz factor , v is the speed of the clocks, ~400m/s near equator, the difference of the frequencies for different on 1000m heights/depths, is ~6x10-17, while in this case if GRT is correct, the difference because of the gravitational impact is ~10-13. Thus at the experiment practically only Gravity impact on the clocks’ showings cab be measured; when after 24 hours time interval upper clock’s showing is larger than lower clock’s one in ~10ns, if GR is correct, or two times lesser, if this initial Gravity model is correct. Including, in last case and from Pound-Rebka experiments it would experimentally follow that photons really change energy/frequency in Gravity fields, what would be weighty ground for making experiment below, where quantum nature of Gravity rather probably will be observed.

6.2.2. Quantum Gravity

In the model above the quantum nature of Gravity follows directly, and it looks as rather natural also that after this initial model will be developed at least on the level of classical electrodynamics, the QM gravity formalism will be developed as well – as that happened with classical electrodynamics, “QM ED”, i.e., as the Dirac equation, and QED. Though note, that because of Gravity Force is extremely weak, and so some essential on QM scale energies, momenta, etc., can be realized in some gravitationally coupled systems of masses only if inertial masses are too large for composing a real QM system, the QM gravity theory really will not be applicable at considering practically any real system in Matter, besides some exotics on Plank scale.

Note also, though, that both these Forces and both – classical and QM, theories eventually rather probably should be developed taking into account the common remarks to standard mechanicses formalisms, see “Conclusion” below.

Nonetheless yet now from the above follows principal possibility of observation of quantum gravitational effects, corresponding experiment was proposed yet in 2007 in [1,6,48], where it is proposed the measurement of monochromatic photons beam gravitational distortion using an interferometer with at least two arms, one of which is parallel, and other is vertical relating to Earth surface; arms lengths ~ 300-500 m.

For the experiment it is so enough to upgrade some of the first installations that were made aim at observation of gravitational waves, and using photons source that is able to work in 1-2 Hertz stability mode at least during few seconds; in this experiment the changes of photons energy in Gravity field will be observed directly as well.

6.2.3. Initial Model of Gravity Force, Stationary Field, Free Fall

Here we consider (in the absolute frame that is at rest in the absolute Matter’s 3D XYZ space, where (in the frame) all parameters of everything in Matter have real values) utmost simple, however important, free fall motion of two bodies in a closed system, where the bodies have, if are on infinite distance, rest masses $M_0$ and $m_0$, ; e.g., $m_0$ is mass of a particle,

In the considered here closed system the system’s whole energy, W, is equal

(13)

- where E_M is energy of the having inertial mass M body, further “energy of M”, E_p is energy of particle, U is the potential energy of the system. Here we consider the case, when the masses are on infinite distance , since gravitational potential energy U=0, but if the mass m after some negligible impact starts to move to M under gravitational force, then the mass M practically remains at rest, its energy changing is negligible, whereas so the particle’s energy, because of the energy conservation law, remains at the motion to be equal always to and Eq. (13) becomes to be as

- where is an energy that, in principle. can be dissipated from the system at the motion, for example, when the mass m radiates “ordinary” gravitons at its acceleration, the energy of mass m is , , V is the 3D the particle’s speed; and if, as that is suggested here, , is negligible, at least in first approximation so we have

(14)

- and thus the permanent inertial mass m_i

(15)

Further assume that at motion permanent inertial and gravitational masses of the particle remain be equivalent – as that is in statics,

$$m_g=m_i=m_0{(1-{\beta }^2)}^{1/2}$$

(16)

Since Gravity Force acts only in 3D space, the particle spends its intrinsic energy only on its acceleration in the space, when at that only its kinetic energy $E_k$ increases, correspondingly

(17)

- and so

(18)

If we introduce " units” of the radius r,.

So further we have equations for reverse Lorentz factor

(19)

- and for the particle’s speed

(20)

6.2.4. The Case of Small r

All that above so is valid only in rather weak fields, the Eqs. (1) – (10) are valid for sure only till the Newton Gravity law is valid, whereas if r decreases, and in statics, e.g., if $r=R_{gS}$ (Schwarzschild radius, $\alpha =2$), the relative coincidence rate in a “irradiated” particle in Eq. (5) is 0.5 of the particle algorithm’s frequency; at , (“Newton radius” when escape velocity is equal to c) the number of circular gravitons impacts is equal to the particle algorithm’s ticks rate, i.e., the particle’s mass defect is equal to m₀ at all, what looks as is rather strange.

At that, though, if the radiated circular gravitons impacts have Poisson distribution, then rather essential part of the impacts happens as multiple, k, events at the one the irradiated particle FLE flip, and using the average as in Eq. (2) (21)

- looks as is questionable. What happens at multiple events, when same G-marked FLE in irradiated particle is more than 1 time impacted at its FLE’s flip? - isn’t known now – though the consideration above rather probably clarifies this point to some extent.

So, for example, for α~2 and lesser the consideration above looks as rather uncertain, especially in statics (after m hits M), however we can hope that even Eq. (21) application will result in at least a zero approximation picture, including, e.g., about what happens below the event horizon of Sagittarius A*, where, even if the central compact object would be a big neutron star, α is ~10^-4.

First of all note, that any falling particle has at motion the constant energy, and in statics, after the particle stops in the object, it for sure adds to any M-object only energy and nothing more. So after the particle stops in the object on the radius , when becomes too essentially large, some particles, nonetheless, can, in principle, exist – having at that their “sizes” ‒ Compton lengths be λ~ , i.e., rather macro lengths (that is essentially a joke, of course, though, nobody now knows what happens if ). For α well more 1, e.g., more 5 – in the neutron stars, this effect isn’t too essential, and particles remain be ordinary ones, including rather probably protons indeed transform into neutrons, etc.

6.3. Electric Force

6.3.1. Initial Model of Electric Force, Statics

The electric force is rather similar to gravity - both potentials are as 1/r, if some charged bodies interact, then in reality the interactions of separated charged particles happen, etc.; except, of course, that gravity force is much weaker than electric one and that electric force can act as both attraction and repulsion, and so can be effectively screened, whereas this effect is much lesser in Gravity. So it is rather reasonable to conjecture that the equations for the potential energy should be similar also, but the probability of electric interaction should be larger

– because of, as that is assumed in this model, the widths of “circular photon” rim (which is set of NE elementary rims), W₁, and of the “receiving part” of the activated E-marked FLEs in “irradiated” E-charged particle’s algorithm, W₂ are much more than the size of only one G-marked FLE in the gravity case, N_E>>1. Note also that unlike Gravity Force case where the N_G=1 is fixed equally in all particles algorithms, and so different particles have different gravitational masses, Electric charge section NE is relative, and so different particles charges mostly (besides seems quarks) are identical.

However in the rest the circular photons are complete analogues of the circular gravitons, i.e., have kinematical angular momenta be equal to and the “precessing momentum in e-dimension” elementary momenta

So for the electric coincidence rate we can obtain some analogous to Equations (3) – (5) (for a couple of particles with the elementary charge, e) equations:

(22)

where P_E – the probability of the interaction if through particle-2 a radiated by particle-1 circular photon have passed, τ_E – the “passing” time. Under rather plausible conjectures that NE=α1/2NA,  is the fine structure constant τ_E = W₂/c, , , where are the Compton lengths of the particles; P_E =1; and, we obtain from Equation (22) that electric potential energy of the two-charge system in statics is

(23)

and for the electrical force between elementary charges in statics obtain

(24)

(The lower term in Equation (24) is for arbitrary charges).

Note that, as what was obtained above for gravity,

- if the particles have opposite charges the E- coupled system has negative “electrical mass defect”, and so real internal processes in such structures, e.g., – in atoms, are slowed down. But, unlike Gravity case, in this case we cannot for sure suggest that the slowing down of the internal processes in the particles results in the electric charges decreasing, in classical electrodynamics it is postulated that the electric charge is constant. However this in ED is postulated relating to the slowing intrinsic processes in moving in 3D space particles, whole this “kinematical” effect really differs from the Force’s action; and so this point should be clarified at further development of this model.

Note, also, that from this E-model a couple of important consequences follow. From the equations (23), (24) it follows the explanation of physical puzzle - Why – whereas in this equation fundamentally different in physics universal for everything in Matter constants – the fundamental elementary action ћ and the speed of light, c, and the specific for only one fundamental EM Force, the elementary electric charge, e, are united by some unknown in the official physics way so, that their ratio is a dimensionless fundamental fine-structure constant, α.

Besides from this model it follows that so called magnetic monopole doesn’t exist. From experiment and classical electrodynamics, it is well known that the magnetic force appears only if an electric charge moves in some “stationary” frame, and disappears, if the charge is at rest in the frame (for example, see [37])

From the above seems it rationally follows that the magnetic force is not really a fundamental Nature force, which exists, in Newton’s words “of itself, and from its own nature”, and so has its own charge “magnetic monopole”.

However electric and magnetic forces are rather symmetrical in the classical electrodynamics, including there can exist inertial frames when only magnetic field exists, while, according to SRT, all relatively moving inertial reference frames are absolutely equivalent, so the argument above turns out to be inessential if SRT is completely correct.

Correspondingly, though in electrodynamics magnetic monopole doesn’t exist, after the Dirac’s publication [38], presenting a number of QM arguments in support of the existence of a magnetic monopole, the “magnetic monopole” problem from 1931 year and until now remains a popular, and even a fundamental, physical problem [39].

Nonetheless, since the Matter’s spacetime is absolute, and so all/every inertial reference frames really aren’t completely equivalent and legitimate, the argument above is valid, since the absolute, i.e., that are at absolute rest in the absolute 3D space, reference frames are the frames that differ from all other “stationary” frames first of all by that only in the absolute frames physical objects, events, and processes, have real values of their physical parameters, since the field of a charged a body that is at absolute rest in the space is purely electric field – from that follows that magnetic monopoles really do not exist.

It also seems quite rational to suggest that the magnetic force is a specific actualization of the electric force, when the lattice FLEs in circular photons that are radiated by a moving charge obtain additional momentum proportional to the spatial speed of the charge, including because that FLEs in radiating particles are additionally precessing in the 4D kinematical space at motion along, e.g., X-axis, and rotated in in this case in the plane, (more see sections 2.3., 2.4. in [5a])

So the flipping lattice FLEs in circular photons, though don’t transform into a particle at inertial motion, nonetheless become precessing in the “kinematical” 4D space as well. and when they hit an flipping E-marked FLE in another charged particle, they transmit to this particle an additional momentum, which, if the “irradiated” particle also moves in space, is orthogonal to momentum that would be transmitted if both charges are at rest, i.e., along direction of the radius-vector between the charges ‒ what is observed as “magnetic force”. If both (all in other cases) charges move with the same velocity, their FLEs are precessing identically, and so in such systems only electric Coulomb interactions are observed.

The radiating of circular photons by charged FLEs evidently isn’t completely symmetrical because of the 4D circular motion of the particle’s algorithm FLE flipping point; that, in principle, can result in that so charged particles have non-zero magnetic momenta.

The next suggestion seems rather rational as well: if a charge is accelerated, then, at least sometimes, some circular photons under impact of accelerating momentum transform into close-loop algorithms – particles “ordinary photons”, which have inertial and gravitational masses, where the “electric” and “magnetic” components of transmitted at the interaction precessing FLEs momenta cyclically change each other. Rather probably the something like happens at the acceleration in Gravity Force case, and an accelerated electrically charged particle in parallel radiates also particles ordinary gravitons. The gravitons are unobservable in everyday physical practice till now because of the extreme weakness of Gravity, however if large maaaes are accelerated as that is at radiation of photons/EM wav es, radiated gravitational waves can be observable.

Another “circular photon” transformation rather probably happens when an “ordinary photon” interacts with some circular photon, mostly of a nucleus; charge and a T-particles-antiparticle pairs, e.g., e±, are created, with “double opposite rotations” of the photon’s momentum from a 3DXYZ spatial direction into two momenta of the pair components that have opposite directions along the ct -axis

6.3.2. Strengths of Gravity and Electric Forces

From the last sections above it follows, that Gravity is extremely weaker than Electric Force

To illustrate that let consider a system of two electrons. Electron has the reduced Compton wavelength λ =3.861x10-13m, the number of G-marked FLEs is universal for all fundamental particles , i.e., equal to1; the number N of E-marked FLEs is relative, , N0 is whole “logical” algorithm’s length .

So in this case N₀=2.4x10²² FLE, gravity charge 1 FLE, electric charge ~ 8% of N₀, i.e., near 2x10²¹FLE; the whole electron’s algorithm ticks with frequency ω = 7.763x10²⁰ s^-1; and so intensity of the radiated rings for electron are: 7.763x10²⁰s^-1 of circular gravitons, and ~1,55x10⁴² s^-1 of circular photons.

The probability of radiated circular photon to hit into flipping electrically marked FLE of other (“irradiated”) electron correspondingly is larger than for circular graviton also in ~2x10²¹ times, so the whole intensity of hits at electric interactions is larger than at gravitational interaction in ~ 4x10⁴² times, and so for a pair of electrons the Gravity force is weaker than Electric force in this value – as this ratio really is.

From this example it follows also that the postulate in the whole physical model that main FLE parameters, i.e., FLE size and FLE flip time, are Planck length and Planck time is correct, in other case the ratio value would not be in accordance with experiment.

Finally here a note about the multiple events at interactions of circular photons in irradiated particle problem. Electric Force is extremely stronger than Gravity, and so this problem is more actual in this case. Though it isn’t actual on macroscale – really it is impossible in practice to make an electric charge large enough because of particles repulsion, however if, say, two electrons are on “electromagnetic electron radius” distance that is an analog of gravitational interaction on Schwarzschild/Newton radiuses in section 6.2.4. above. So what is pointed in Gravity force case that if at multiple a Gravity mediators’ hits into flipping in Planck time FLE of irradiated particle it is possible that only one hit is effective, and so the Gravity strength (i.e., Gravity charge) turns out to be lesser than in weak field xase, can happen at Electric Force interactions as well.

In high energy experiments electrons interact on uich lesser distances than the “EM radius” above, however no decreasing of electron charge was observed. Fron this rather probably follows that the problem above (including in Gravity case) doesn’t exist, however this conjecture looks as should be studied experimentally more specifically, and we cannot exclude now that at the experiments some useful for Planck physics data will be obtained.

6.3.3. A Couple of Notes Else to the Initial Electric Force Model

6.3.3.1. Electric Force of Charges at Motion

When an electrically charged particle is at absolute 3D rest, it radiates circular photons as that gravitational mass does (Figure 6)

When a T-particle after some spatial impact moves so in both ‒ some 3D space direction and, fundamentally obligatorily, along the cτ-axis, its algorithm’s FLEs obtain additional precessing, and, since all/every particles move in the 4D space always be 4D oriented so that their “intrinsic” the flip-point’s angular momentum is directed along the 4D particle’s motion direction, it rotates (say, if particle moves with a speed V along X-axis) in plane (more see [4]); if particles compose a rigid body, they rotate whole body in the plane above on the angle when the body’s 3D spatial projection is contracted in reverse Lorentz factor comparing with the “3D rest length”, and, besides, the front body’s end becomes be “younger” in the cτ-dimension (which in physics and everyday practice is “time dimension”) than the back end in the Voigt-Lorentz decrement , V and L are the particle’s 3D speed and length. This is the physical sense of Lorentz transformation; including the letters “x”, “y”, “z”, and “cτ” (in standard form “ct”) in the transformations really relate only to Matter’s spacetime points that are occupied by the rigid body at given time moment, and fundamentally don’t relate to all/every points in the whole spacetime, as that illusory postulated in SRT, see Figure 7.

Correspondingly at spatial motion the moving electrically charged body radiates circular photons more orthogonally to the motion direction by two physical effects: because of the rims planes orientation above, and because of that in this case more mediators are radiated orthogonally in the solid angle near larger axis of the rims ellipses than near the short axis.

So, as that is known in electrodynamics, the strength of electric field, E, of moving charge in orthogonal direction is larger than, say, in parallel direction, and is as (see, say, [37], para 38, below for simplicity we consider the motion of one particle, e.g., electron, and so , if electron is at absolute rest

(25)

In the electrodynamics electric charge is relativistic invariant, and so in Eq.(25) and the strength so is larger than Coulomb strength by Lorentz factor.

Nonetheless if two charges that are on distance r move with identical 3D velocities, say, when the line between charges is orthogonal to the velocity direction, then the force one charge affects the other one by which is

(26)

- i.e., is lesser than Coulomb force, if at the motion both charges are as What looks as questionable on first glance if Eq. (25) is correct, however such look is an illusion; at motion electric charge remains be the same as at statics, while the effect above is caused by action of magnetic force that acts in this case against Coulomb force action.

Since Gravity Force is similar to Electric Force, in looks as reasonable to assume that at motion of gravitational masses corresponding gravimagnetic force acts; and it acts against to action of the “Newtonian” gravitational force, like that happens Electric Force case. That seems follows from that in accordance with the relativity principle, if a system of two charged bodies, which have one sign electric charges, and masses such that the electric repulsion is identically compensated by gravitational attraction, this system must be in the balance in statics and any inertial motion, rather probably independently on – on which distances the bodies are, and in which angle the line between the bodies relatively to the motion direction is. Nonetheless note here, that Gravity and Electric Forces are different Forces, and this point, including in the example above, should be clarified at further these Forces theories development.

6.3.3.2. QM -Bohr Atom Model S-Orbital Problem and Tunnel Effect

Really in the Bohr atom model rather evident problem exists [see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model]:

- in the Bohr model in ground state orbital angular momentum, in, say, H-atom, is equal L=-rxP, , r is Bohr rradius, L=ħ, while experimentally it is equal to zero; wat is possible only if r=0.

Now there are a couple solutions of this problem:

- semiclassical one “…an electron in the lowest modern “orbital” with no orbital momentum, may be thought of as not to revolve “around” the nucleus at all, but merely to go tightly around it in an ellipse with zero area (this may be pictured as “back and forth”, without striking or interacting with the nucleus).….”

- but this “…model fails to explain the fact that the lowest energy state is spherically symmetric – it doesn’t point in any particular direction.….”

- in the conventional QM

“…In modern quantum mechanics, the electron in hydrogen is a spherical cloud of probability that grows denser near the nucleus. The rate-constant of probability-decay in hydrogen is equal to the inverse of the Bohr radius……”

- what looks as too strange something. Electron is a particle, which - as any other particle, as that is rigorously shown in this model with well more zero approximation always exists and interacts as “FLE flipping point”, which has size ~ Planck length, though these points are on the 4D helix, which in 3DXYZ space is observed as “wave”;

- what by no means is some transcendent “cloud of probability”.

Really proton and electron in H atom exchange by the real mediators above that are radiated by the particles electric charges.

At that in the H-atom [not only, though] ground S-state the radiated by proton circular photons hit in the “electron-point” rather rarely, so after a hit in some space point electron moves before next hit on the space distance more than Bohr radius r, and so the next hit [or a few hits] returns the electron back. I.e. really just the “semiclassical” solution is much more scientific than the “modern quantum mechanics” one. At that it looks as rather scientifically rational to suggest, that really the electron at motion doesn’t hit the proton, the “back and forth” motion isn’t completely along a straight line, and electron moves really having the “Bohr’s” angular momentum L=ħ, but this happens as sequence “…+L→-L→”+L→-L→…”, where L is angular momentum vector which so is equal to zero, while the centrifugal force depends only on L.

The hits are distributed in the space fundamentally randomly, and so the “electrons-points” are distributed in the space in accordance with the H-atom wave “cloud of probability” function.

The other QM problem that looks as can be really scientifically clarified in PSIP model is the “tunnel effect problem” – by some mystic way, however experimentally for sure, particles can penetrate energetic barriers having lesser kinetic energy, E, than the barriers energy, W. That really can be since really the barriers energy isn’t something stable, as that is painted in corresponding publications, that are concrete flows of concrete Forces mediators, and so W value at least constantly fluctuates in some limits. However in this case other mechanisms can act, first of all if [what looks as rather scientifically rational] the mediators are radiated not uniformly in 4π, but being oriented relating to particles 4D spins. So if there exist some particles system, say, a nucleus, which, despite that its decay with radiating of some particles can result in decay products the sum of rest masses of which is lesser than mother system rest mass, is stable because of some energetic barrier is created by other particles in the system,

- however since with some probability in some time moments the other particles composition in space transforms so, that the barrier value decreases enough for the decay. So, say, it looks as rather probably experimental decays parameters data can contain information about what exists and happens in decaying systems, etc.

6.4. Nuclear Force , Initial Model

As that is assumed in this model, all Forces at interactions of different particles act in accordance with the same scheme: exchange by mediators, mediators act only in 3D space as propagating 2D rims of flipping a Force-marked the FLE-lattice FLEs, and so the Forces’ potentials are potentials; and the relative strengths of a Forces really depends practically first of all on what fraction, in of the whole logical length of a particle’s algorithm, , a concrete Force-marked FLEs occupy. This scheme is well adequately to the reality applied in sections 6.2. and 6.3. in Gravity and Electric Forces models, correspondingly the conjecture that should be true also in the case of Nuclear force, which acts between different nucleons in atomic nuclei is quite natural.

The potential for this Force was proposed by Yukawa yet in 1935 [49], when he suggested that Nuclear force is the action of some scalar field U that has the potential - as that is in the Gravity and Electric forces cases, however, unlike the Electric force, it acts as exchange by some U quanta of energy, that are equivalent ≈200 electron’s rest mass. Besides, using also the Heisenberg finding that the solution of Klein-Gordon equation for a field with additional term is that the field’s potential exponentially decreases, he obtained the equation for nuclear potential

(27)

- where , is ≈ proton’s Compton length, is the Nuclear force charge, nucleons in nuclei interact exchanging by these quanta. In 1930s in physics there was known no any rational mechanism how that can happen, including, e.g., the physics had (and has till now) no any understanding – how nucleons extremely intensively radiate energy quanta ≈ 15% of nucleon mass without any changes in their masses, why these quanta’ impacts decrease exponentially, etc., however after at high enough energy accelerators experiments π-mesons were detected, these real particles were, and are till now, adopted in physics as real versions of “virtual” Nuclear force mediators.

However that, first of all the radiating energy problem, isn’t unique problem, and in only this case. That ‒ see above ‒ eventually happens at consideration of a lot of other, practically equally transcendent, postulates in all/every, classical and quantum, physical theories, so in physics attempts to solve concrete problems what really are fundamental Forces and mediators, which [attempts], of course are based on whole physics, really till now logically inevitably correspondingly failed.

An example of recent analog of Yukawa derivation of the Nuclear force potential equation is given, e.g., in [50]:

- squared energy equation of a free particle that has a rest mass, m, and moves in 3D space with 3D momentum p is

(28)

- the corresponding Klein-Gordon equation for the potential of the meson field, , is

, (29)

- where is the density of the “meson charge”. The solution of Eq.(7) in statics case () is

- where (30)

- where is the Compton length of the meson.

It is evident that all in the QM approach above really can be correct only if in Eq. (28) –(30) the mass m of “virtual” mesons really exists, i.e., in this case again really rather strange process of intensively and constantly escaping from parental nucleons mesons is supposed, when the mesons constantly form virtual “mesonic fur coats” around nucleons. The fur coats aren’t observable by any real physical instruments. Besides, as that is postulated in recent nuclear physics, the mesons above are π-mesons, which are unstable particles and decay with creation , , gammas, neutrinos, so around nucleons corresponding fur coats of the decay products above also should exist, which also aren’t observable, either since the products are also virtual, or virtual π-mesons don’t decay as that real π-mesons do. Etc., all that looks as rather strange, however, again, that is typical situation if some virtual, but really existing and interacting by the Forces particles, are introduced in standard physics as the Forces real mediators at description and analysis of what exists and happens in Matter.

Really that the following from the equations above value is consistent with experiments, including from the experiments at N-N interactions it is obtained that the Nuclear force strength in ≈100 times is larger than Electric force strength on equal distances, it is obtained only by fitting the main parameter in Eq.(29), the mass m; while, say, Heisenberg’s attempt to derive equation for Nuclear force potential assuming that the mediators are virtual electrons failed only because electrons have inappropriate mass, etc. but really this unique “mass criterion’ by no means determinates any other specific properties/parameters of something for it to be just mediator of just Nuclear force.

So really Yukawa theory isn’t a theory of Nuclear force, though really that is concrete formulation of real interesting physical problem “why and how the lightest particles that are created at NN interactions at action of Strong force [which with a well rationally non-zero probability is mediated by the same as Nuclear force mediators], i.e., π-mesons, have masses that fit Klein-Gordon equation for this Force potential with experiment?

The initial Forces scheme in section 6.1 above is without problems applicable in the Gravity and Electric forces cases, where different distant enough gravitational and electric charges interact. Since in nuclei different nucleons interact on rather large distances as well, the scheme is applicable to Nuclear Force interactions as well, using practically only two rational specific conjectures:

– (i) - Nuclear force differs, in that is essentially stronger comparing with other Forces, only because of that the number of Nuclear-marked FLEs section in the nucleons’ algorithms logical lengths is larger than that is in other Forces cases; and

- (ii) the Force mediators – “circular mesons”, unlike circular gravitons and circular photons, are unstable, and decay with decay constant, λdecay, λdecaym=c/λm , while the rest in the model is the same – circular mesons rims propagate in the 3D space only, only with the speed of light, and every flipping the lattice N-marked FLE causes in “irradiated” particle releasing of the elementary momentum

In proton’s logical length Gravity- and Electric-marked FLEs occupy (one Gravity-marked FLE in the algorithm is quite negligible) part of whole length If we assume that the remained part in proton’s algorithm is marked by Nuclear force, so , i.e., is as that is the experimental ratio of nuclear and electric charges above.

However here is a nuance, real electric charge in proton, which, as that seems rather rationally is postulated in the Standard Model, is a composition of charged -quarks that has electric charge +2/3e, and quarks that has electric charge +2/3e, and quark that has electric charge -1/3e , ( and are antiquarks), So its “whole” charge is 5/3e, and so real ratio, of the electric and nuclear charges sections of is

Nonetheless, since the quarks positive and negative electric charges compensate action of each other, and so only 1e interaction is really experimentally observed, thus the ratio of the real strengths of these Forces is i.e., in accordance with the experiment. Neutron is the quarks composition and, though so has zero “active” charge, nonetheless while proton’s experimentally measured electric charge .radius is ≈0,871fm [51], the neutron’s measured one is ≈0.751fm [52], i.e., differs only in ≈16%, Thus the Nuclear force part in neutron can, in principle, be not equal to the proton’s part, but i.e., neutron’s Nuclear force charge can be, in principle, slightly larger than the proton’s charge. However, in the neutron’s algorithm there exist also at least some non-zero FLE-section that acts as the Weak force algorithm’s defect, which causes the decay of neutron, so the proton and neutron N-charges can be identical. That should be studied additionally, but in this initial Nuclear force model it looks as inessential.

Correspondingly Eq. (22) for Nuclear force is as

(31)

- where and are circular meson rims’ width, and the coincidence resolution time interval is equal (note, though, that all “elementary” rims in (and ) have only Planck length widths); m is the (equal in this model) mass of nucleon, and the equation for the forces that act between two nucleons on short distances is

(32)

- on arbitrary distances this force is

(32a)

- where

- and

(32b)

- is the Nuclear force charge of nucleon (“meson charge” in [50]) – Nuclear force interaction constant.

The circular mesons since are a Force mediators, aren’t particles and don’t carry energy, but, since all Forces in systems of interacting distant charges act by the same way, at impact of some external particle on a circular meson that is radiated by some nucleon it seems some “ordinary” particle can be created – as that happens, say, when a circular photon that is radiated by some nucleus is impacted by a photon with energy more 1.022 MeV; and the system “circular photon+ ordinary photon” transforms into the system pair”. The pair, since both, ordinary and circular photons have only 3D space mom momenta entums, despite that electron and positron have rest masses, since they move in the opposite directions in dimension, has whole momentum’s zero component.

So it looks as rather natural to suggest that analogously an impact on a circular meson transforms it into observed at N-N interactions mesons, , pairs, the pairs whole momenta have zero component, and mesons, where the quarks and the antiquarks also have identical opposite momenta in dimension, so mesons have zero components as well. Moreover, mesons as a whole don’t move in dimension at all. Correspondingly all these “ordinary” mesons decay so that the sums of their decays products, i.e., , gammas, neutrinos and antineutrinos, momenta have in every concrete decay zero whole momentum component as well.

Note, also, that nuclei are principally QM systems, and so in nuclei the other universal Forces act – “spin”, “spin-orbital” , “exchange”, etc., Forces. So, e.g., in the system the binding energy of the proton and neutron is rather small – 2.22 MeV, i.e., the p and n are on distance ≈ 20.06 the nucleons’ Compton lengths, and on ≈ 3 π-mesons’ Compton lengths – or ~3 the circular mesons’ average decay lengths.

When number of nucleons in nuclei increases, the binding energy sharply increases as well, and yet in ⁴He it is equal E=7.18 MeV, and further with increasing of nuclei mass is near this value – in nuclei the “binding energy saturation” effect is observed.

6.5. Summery

In the initial Planck scale models of fundamental Nature Gravity, Electric and Nuclear/rather probably Strong, forces in this section above both fundamental problems in the Forces conventional physics theories - that the Forces are mediated by virtual – i.e., actually unreal - mediators, and that the mediators (in classical theories fields) contain energy that is constantly and always radiated by particles, and is transmitted to “irradiated” particles (bodies in fields), what looks as strange, are solved.

Really the Forces are some logical rules that govern, by their mediators exchange,the exchange by kinematical momenta, and so by energies, between particles (so bodies…) at their interactions; and the Forces mediators are indeed constantly and always radiated by particles’ the Forces charges, which are written in particles algorithms FLE sequences as Forces-marked FLEs, but the mediators don’t carry/transmit kinematical momenta and energy. Instead, they carry specific “non-kinematical” fundamental elementary momenta , which, if a Force-marked mediator hits into a flipping the same Force-marked FLE of “irradiated” particle, changes in this particle its FLEs kinematical precession angle, so the particle algorithm changes its tick rate, so the particle’s rest mass changes. That results in corresponding “actualization” in the particle of real kinematical momentum, and, if the particle isn’t fixed, in the change of its kinetic energy.

An example: a system of two particles that are at rest in the 3D apace, have rest masses M and m so have “intrinsic own” energies Mc² and mc², total system’s energy E_s=Mc²+mc² , interact by an attractive Force, are on ~infinite distance; and after a small impact on m move toward each other. Their kinetic energies E_kM and E_km increase, current rest masses, M_c, and m_c, decrease, however the sum of their energies E_s remains be the same.

If the Force is repulsive, particles don’t compose closed systems, so can move decreasing distance between only having correspondingly directed not-zero kinematical mome momenta ntums and speeds. In this case analog to the above one example is as: a particle that has rest mass m, inertial mass m_i, kinetic energy, E_k, moves on ~ infinite distance toward M at speed V, at that mc²+E_km=m_ic², m_i is the particle’s inertial [“relativistic”] mass. The system energy E_s=Mc²+mc²+E_km. At the motion the particle’s speed and its current E_kc are decelerating, however its current rest mass m_c increases. When the particle stops in the 3D space, its E_kc=0, but, if M>>m, its rest mass is practically equal to its inertial mass m_i on infinity. When repulsed particle is returning back, its rest mas m_c decreases, E_kc increases, and on large distance from M its speed is practically [a bit lesser than] equal to V. At any time moment total system’s energy E_s=M_cc²+m_cc²+E_kM+E_km= Mc²+mc²+E_k.

Just by this way in closed systems the whole system’s energy is always constant, the Forces only govern the exchange by momenta between systems’ elements, what results in pumping-repumping energy between the elements’ kinetic and intrinsic energies. From intrinsic energy into kinetic one, if the directions of elementary momenta and the irradiated element motion are the same; and oppositely, if the directions are opposite. At that really exchanging by mediators caused momenta, p, happens. Say, at small speeds E_s=p_M²/2M+p_m²/2m, i.e., the pumping-repumping energy happens “automatically” and is in certain sense secondary. In static systems (including, say, atoms, perfect circular planets orbits, etc.), practically only exchange by momenta happens, energies of interacting the systems’ elements don’t change at all.

All the above exists and happens in Matter fundamentally really as that particles and mediators are real specific disturbances in fundamentally real ultimate base of Matter – the at least [4+3+1]7D dense lattice of the binary reversible at least [4+3+1]7D FLEs that is placed in the corresponding real Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and at least [4+3+1]7D Cartesian spacetime with the metrics (cτ, X, Y, Z, g, e, sn, ct),

Besides note also that an other conventional physics trait – that in Matter really numerous virtual fields exist, additionally to the Forces mediators’ fields that are “fields of [all] particles” , etc., which are in “true” and “false” “vacuums”, and real particles are created at particles interactions with these fields – though looks as is rather questionable, really is adequate to the reality. Though adequate only specifically - in that practically everything in Matter is really written in every FLE, so really always “exists” though implicitly, but quite really; and is, including at particles creation, and is really concretely actualized at real concrete FLE interactions in Matter.

The 3 Forces act at corresponding interactions by one scheme, while particles charges/strengths are rather similar:

- Gravity charge , is Planck mass, m is the particle mass,

- Electric charge

- Nuclear charge

The ratio of the strengths above is in accordance with experimentally observed (say, for the proton as (approximately) 10^-36:1:10²) one. This can be in the Forces models only provided that FLE size and FLE flip time interval are equal to Planck length and Planck time. The last is one of the main postulates in whole PSIP model, and from the above it rigorously follows that the postulate is correct.

Above the main basic physical points in the PSIP 3 Forces models, which are rigorously substantiated, are listed, below a few notes about/to physical problems that rather probably are, can be, and/or should be, clarified at the model development into comprehensive theory.

Macro mechanics

The Gravity and Electric forces models above are based on the rigorously substantiated conjecture that Matter’s utmost universal “kinematical” spacetime has [5]4D metrics (cτ, X, Y, Z, ct), while in conventional physics the spacetime has, in classical mechanics Euclidian [4]3D metrics (t, X, Y, Z), in relativistic mechanics pseudo-Euclidian 4D metrics (ict, X, Y, Z) [“i” is imaginary unity], where really specific non-observable by humans 3D_XYZ space sensors the really space cτ-dimension is postulated as the time dimension.

Both conventional mechanicses are well correctly applicable in everyday physical practice, despite the fundamental flaws above, mostly at using Lagrangians and Hamiltonian formalisms, where an material object has the Lagrangians /Hamiltonian variable “potential energy U” , if it is in a [macroscale gravitational and/or electric] Force field point, where the field has the “Force potential” W, and at interactions in Force coupled systems the potential and kinetic energies of systems elements transform into each other in accordance with least physical action principle, etc.

However all this becomes be incorerect if the fields strengths are large, when the interactions equations solutions becomes be singular. What is fundamentally impossible – in Matter fundamentally no singularities can exist - and no corresponding, say, rather numerous in conventional physics “holes in spacetime”, etc. At that the SR formalism really is only a convenient instrument to describe the Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle action - and action of Lorentz transformations that follow from the principle, in the Euclidian 4D spacetime above.

So now it is necessary, and looks as is possible, to reformulate the Lagrangians /Hamiltonian approaches in accordance with reformulation of potential energy in accordance with the above, i.e., taking into account that it depends on changing rest masses, and non-impossibly Forces charges, of bodies at their motion and interactions in real Forces fields that don’t contain energy.

Besides, of course, at development of the initial models of the Forces above into comprehensive theories it is necessary to clarify a number of points else. Fitst of all – what are Forces actions if radiating its Forces mediators particle moves at a velocity V in at least 3DXYZ space, and so its charges can have some “kinematical” momentum. Now It looks that though the radiated mediators cannot carry kinematical momenta, nonetheless their specific fundamental elementary momenta can be changed and cause in irradiated particles, at, say, pumping the particle rest mass energy portions into its kinetic energy that differs from static cases in the models above, I.e. how does in this case formula change dependently on V ? Though it is possible that in this case only a specific Doppler effect in medium occurs/acts, and, besides, it looks as well probable that in moving particles all Forces mediators momenta’ specific precession changes like that is eventually “kinematically” observed now only in circular photons, as action of “magnetic force” field, i.e., well probably really in Matter “gravitomagnetic” and “strongmagnrtic” forces act

It looks as that probably the Lagrangians/Hamiltonian formalisms updates above in weak fields cases would be easer in 4D Euclidian spacetime than in 5[4]D one, however the last case is more scientifically grounded, so, say, in this case it is principally possible to include in the theories the antiparticles creation etc. ; and this is critical point in cosmology (see section 5.5.).

Quantum mechanics.

Firstly a general note: in this model QM is completely deterministic theory. Despite that on QM scale the interactions and processes are fundamentally random, that is determined by self-inconsistence of the absolutely fundamental phenomenon/”Logos” set element “Change”, this randomness is rigorously determined. All particles, since are informational patterns that are identical copies of corresponding samples, are completely identical, and, though at their interactions parameters of the interactions are obligatorily random, this randomness in concrete identical cases is in complete accordance with unique concrete identical Ψ-functions. So, say, sand SiO₂ on Earth is identical to sand on Mars and anywhere and at any tme in Matter else. Thus really the conventional QM trait that the corresponding uncertainty is arbitrary isn’t correct. Including that rather possibly is since the Heisenberg uncertainty principle inequality really is the equality [5a].

Though note that the model above now is applicable on QM, including QFTs, scale only limitedly, and allows to obtain only first approximation clarification of what happens in simple QM systems; couple examples see in section 6.3.3.2. That is, first of all since in the model now only 3DXYZ Forces interactions are considered, while really particles algorithms FLE sequences helixes are 4D, particles spins are 4D as well, at that the “4D angular momentum” problem isn’t clarified, etc. Correspondingly in the model other “fundamental forces”, say, that provide angular momentum conservation, Pauli principle action, spin-spin, spin-orbital interactions, etc., are absentee. That must be clarified in future in corresponding Planck scale theories, development of which must be accompanied by, and be based on, the corresponding specific experiments and experimental data. The last is critical point, and formulation of the experiments proposals, including attempts to interpret existent experimentl data within the framework of the Planck scale approach, should be prioritized in research.

The proposed initial models of the 3 Forces above are developed provided that the mediators are 4π isotropically radiated by particles Forces charges; and spins of particles are 4π isotropically directed as well, what happens always if a special spin ordering isn’t applied. Nonetheless it looks in this case rather naturally to assume that radiation of circular mediators and spin orientation are somehow linked. Say, the case when circular rims planes are orthogonal to spin direction looks as rather probable. This point should be clarified since that can be a critical point at studying of particles internal structures, for example this can happen in the SM” quarks asymptotic freedom” effect case, if at decreasing of distance between interacting quarks their spins becomes be more and more oriented so, that radiated by a quark circular gluons practically don’t cross opposite quark flipping FLEs.

The assumption above seems can be experimentally tested at least in Electric force case: if the assumption is true, then a having parallel spins electrons cloud should expand orthogonally to spins faster than in parallel to spins direction. If that will be true in this case, then, since Forces act by the same scheme, with a well non-zero probability that will be true also for Gravity and Nuclear forces; and rather probably, for Strong force that acts inside hadrons, while it looks as rather reasonable to assume that the Nuclear force “circular mesons” above really are gluons. Though in this case any observed non-predicted by recent QED the cloud’s behavior would be interesting.

Particle physics

Particle physics has the QETs problems above, since particles can be studied only at their interactions, i.e., at the fundamental Forces acting, however really on more than in QFTs fundamental level. Though in the conventional physics this point looks as isn’t considered specifically since is posited as is solved. An example is “High-energy/particle physic problems” section of the “List of unsolved problems in physics” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics).In the section seems a rather evidently the first problem should be “What is particle?” – however the first problem in the section is “… Hierarchy problem: The ratio between the strong force and gravity is on the order of 10⁻²⁰. Why is gravity so much weaker than the strong force?.. “ The real answers to both these questions see here above.

Really this “Hierarchy problem” – and also “Hierarchy of masses problem”, which again quite naturally should be, but isn’t, accompanied by “Why the numerous particles zoo – and the particles masses – exist at all?” problem, don’t exist as real physics problems. The [logical rules] fundamental Forces’ strengths and at least main types of particles that interact by the Forces, are instituted in the informational system “Matter” aimed at to make Matter as it is, i.e., to compose atoms, molecules, bodies, cosmological objects as they are, while the aim is really beyond physics.

At that there is no any “particle mass origin problem” - to make any particle it is completely necessary and enough to have energy and [5]4D FLE lattice; after impact on the FLE with the transfer of a certain portion of energy to it a particle is created. This absolutely obligatorily happens as the overcoming of the logical resistance to changes, including, of course, creations of anything, because the logical sekf-inconsistence of “Change”. This resistance in Matter has the measure “inertial mass”, That’s all, really scientific physical problem in this case is only “Why a particle energy and mass are E=Pl_P/t_P , m=Pt_P/l_P ?, P is the particle 4D momentum modulus”

Though, of course, this is a general clarification of the particle mass origin, concrete particles and their masses creations are possible only in a number of discrete energy values, at Forces types acting, etc., so that the impacted FLE precesses composing a concrete algorithm, which completely ticks at least one time – “a particle” .

On first glance it looks as that really to make Matter as it is it was enough to have 3 Forces and 3 particles – proton, neutron, and electron, which compose nuclei and atoms, further bodies, stars, etc., at Gravity, Strong and Electric forces interactions. However that fundamentally isn’t correct – in Matter 4-th, fundamental Nature Weak force acts, which cause specific decays of unstable particles and atoms. Including neutron is unstable (half-life ~900s) particle that weakly decays into proton, electron, and electronic antineutrino.

So, moreover, it looks as that Matter was made from neutrons only, which at their decays produced equal numbers of protons and electrons (so whole Matter’s electric charge is zero) About further Marter’s formation see rather rational scientifically cosmological baryogenesis theory, where Weak force action again is critical – creation of atomic nuclei with atomic number/charge more 1 only from protons is impossible because of protons electric repulsion, and so nuclei of atoms after hydrogen contain neutrons that stabilize nuclei – which in the nuclei are created mostly at opposite p→n transformation at Weak force acting.

Weak force drastically differs from Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear/Strong forces in that the last ones act between concrete distant particles, while Weak force acts at decays of particles and atoms, when the interacting system is formed by some other ways. Say, neutron decays on proton, electron and antineutrino, however there is no any experimental data that neutron is composition of these really existent particles, etc. So this PSIP model now doesn’t contain initial Weak force model, though it looks as scientifically rational to conjecture that on Planck scale Weak force acts as that a weakly decaying particle’s algorithm contains some specific (unstable particles decay similarly also through electric and strong decay modes) defect FLE sequence, which with some probability at every algorithm tick can brake, and eventually brakes, the normal algorithm running and the particle decays.

Now experimentally two types of fundamental elementary particles, all other subatomic particles and atoms are composed of which, are discovered – quarks and leptons (see Figure 2). An example neutron and proton are different compositions of two types/”flavours”, “up” ,u, and “down” , d, of quarks. Neutron is udd composition, proton is uud composition, leptons “electrons” constitute atomic electronic shells.

Quarks and leptons are fundamentally different, however are similar in a few points. First of all both are utmost fundamental – practically everything in Matter is composed from them, while they aren’t compositions of anything, all are fermions. Besides quarks and leptons seems really are in 3 “generations”, in generations 2 quarks an 2 leptons are. The first generations are the pair,u and d, quarks, and the pair electron and electron neutrino. Practically everything in Matter consists of these first generations. Quarks and leptons of 2-nd and 3-rd generations, and particles that consist of these quarks and leptons, practically don’t exist in Matter since are created at large energy interactions, what exists and happens in Matter only in some exotic material objects and effects; and all these particles are unstable.

In the rest quarks and leptons are quite different, In all generations of quarks in the pairs quarks are rather similar, in generations of leptons – in the pairs electron, muon, tauon and associated neutrinos essentially differ – neutrinos have no electric charges, have rest masses in millions times lesser than other particle in the pair, etc. Though first of all quarks and leptons essentially differently interact by the Forces.

Besides In PSIP model quarks and leptons differ also in that the lepton generations look as are rather banal ones – muon and tauon well possibly are truncated electron’s algorithms; while that isn’t applicable to quarks, which in different generations have essentially different quantum numbers and/ properties Finally here note that in PSIP model neutrinos obligatorily have rest masses since are fermions, and in the seems really experimentally observed “neutrinos oscillations” seems there is no too surprising, it is possible that a moving neutrino’s algorithms FLE precession angle changes by some way, so the rest mass and Lorentz contributions in its (constant) kinetic energy change, different rest masses correspond to different neutrinos.

From the above it looks as rather probably the fact that now at high energy experiments rather numerous zoo of particles is observed doesn’t mean something critically fundamental – there is nothing too surprising in that at high energy impacts on FLE diverse versions of algorithms can be created, So, including, rather possibly the zoo existence can be inessential at solution of really seems utmost fundamental physical problem: what happened in Beginning and why Matter practically doesn’t contain antimatter? Any high energy physics attempts to solve this problem by discovery some asymmetry at (quarks systems) hadrons/antihadrons creation, first of all seeking for at the interactions necessary in this case CP symmetry violation, what was possible till now only at Weak force acting, really failed – though some effects exist, but their possible contribution into the real matter-antimatter asymmetry is quite negligible.

So we cannot exclude case when the matter-antimatter problem can be solved at rather ordinary energies and in the fundamental elementary particles generations. This looks as plausible also since at matter creation at Beginning the spent/pumped into the lattice energy rather probably was spent for just particles creation, without really superfluous heating them – i.e., there wasn’t some extremely hot quark-gluon plasma. So in the model (section 5.) it is suggested that yet in the first step of its creation matter was rather cold. Besides it is observed as is rather cold now and in yet a few hundreds of millions of years after the creation, what is in accordance with the suggestion above.

Besides note additionally to the proposition in section 5 that the primary particles had only completely symmetrical Gravity force charge; so the particles algorithms were completely symmetrical; and so logically it was possible to impact on the lattice FLEs by only positively directed in cτ-dimension mom momenta entums, however now Electric force evidently, and Weak force well probably, look as are asymmetrical, while Strong force possibly in some senses isn’t . If that is correct, then rather possibly the primary particles could have strong charge.

Nonetheless that doesn’t solve the problem – why and how the “symmetrical” primary particles transformed into existent now ones, i.e., seems into neutrons; which, though are electrically neutral, contain electric charges. So in this case note also that neutrons decays at Weak force acting, which in SM is mediated by virtual W^± and Z^{0 “}gauge bosons”, which in contrast to massless in QFTs virtual gauge bosons photons and gluons have rest masses, which, besides, are large –W^± masses 80.4 GeV/c² , Z⁰ mass 91.2 GeV/c².

In SM neutron decay happens as sequence: firstly some its d quark transforms as d→u+W^- , further W^- decays →e+ν_e. Appearance inside a free neutron 80 GeV energy looks as rather strange, the whole energy of its decay’s products is eqial to neutron rest mass energy. So really Weak force acts as other fundamental ones – that is a logical rule that by using zero energy governs in a system energy exchange between interacting the system’s elements.

However this SM Weak force action with a well non-zero probability by some unclear now way contains something really rational. As that happens with gauge bosons π mesons in Yukawa theory: though really any mesons don’t mediate Nuclear/Strong force, however in the more realistic this Force PSIP model above the life time of unstable circular gluons is determined by Yukawa (π meson Compton) length, while the mesons are pair of quarks compositions that have rest masses energies values be equal to threshold value in “quarks confinement” effect. W^- and Z⁰ particles are bosons that have spin 1ћ and non-zero rest masses, thus practically for sure are some compositions; it looks as utmost probably of two fermions, which live in average ~ 15 their algorithms ticks

What are these fermions, and has or not this nuance some (the bosons mediate in SM “electroweak” Force, and in this mix, in principle, we cannot exclude some symmetry) relation to the matter-antimatter, in this case at extreme energies, problem? - let hope this will be clarified in Planck physics in future.

7. Conclusion [See Also Section 5.5. and 6.5.]

This paper is a conclusive review for of existent now series of papers, where the “The information as Absolute” concept, the informational physical model, and concrete physical problems in framework of the concept and the model, are considered. Hence, a typical conclusion would be too long for this paper.

So here only a few final remarks that relate to possible development of the model and its application in physics.

Firstly, more rational versions of traditional physical theories should be developed. The current theories are mostly based on the SRT formalism, first of all, on the postulate that real Matter’s spacetime is the 4D Minkowski space, and the phenomena “Space” and “Time” are actualized in the theories really erroneously, including, fundamentally impossible interactions of space/time/spacetime with matter are postulated, in SRT so antiparticles don’t exist, etc.

Instead physics should be re-formulated in accordance with the fact that real Matter’s spacetime is the absolute, and that at least utmost universal “kinematical” one is [5]4D Euclidian spacetime with the metrics (cτ, X, Y ,Z , ct) [and, at fundamental Forces actions, rather probably with metrics (cτ, X, Y ,Z , g, e, sn, ct)], where, including, time doesn’t flow somewhere. However, in everyday physical practice rather probably the of a body passed way formula will be as it is now, $S=Vt$, where the time “t” “ of itself, and from its own nature flows equably”; though really that means that everything in Matter’s matter, including clocks, flows equably in the ct-dimension, being at that, rather probably, in one Planck time interval from the time moment after inflation step, when in the primary FLE lattice corresponding portion of energy was pumped.

Correspondingly in this case it is necessary also to develop the theory of the [5]4D (and at least [4+3+1]4D specific) angular momentum, Hamilton and Lagrange functions; etc., including clarification of the physical parameter “potential energy”; note also that in this case the least physical action principle/approach looks as is based more physically, and, after the mechanics’ re-formulation, it will be necessary to re-formulate corresponding QM operators, including in this case a next fundamental physical problem “why time in QM does not have a corresponding operator” must be solved as well.

This problem, though, appears also because of other fundamental problem – that the time-dependent Schrödinger and Dirac equations are fundamentally – and so really essentially – incorrect, since are as $i\hslash {\displaystyle \frac{\partial \psi }{\partial t}}=\widehat{H}\psi$, whereas, at that, in QM the partial derivatives other than time “dimensional” observables/variables ${\widehat{p}}_j =-i\hslash {\displaystyle \frac{\partial }{\partial x_j}}$, j=1,2,3, are operators of 3D momentum. It looks as quite natural, that the derivative by the observable “time” is also the momentum operator, and so the equation for wave function really should, rather probably, be as $i\hslash {\displaystyle \frac{d\psi }{d(ct)}}=\widehat{P}\psi$; where the whole momentum operator $\widehat{P}$ is composed from the partial operators ${\widehat{p}}_j =-i\hslash {\displaystyle \frac{\partial }{\partial x_j}}$, j=1,2,3,4; though taking into account that these operators aren’t independent, since $P^2={\displaystyle {\displaystyle \sum }_{j=1}^4}{p}_j^2$, and at interactions in 3D space the momentum in cτ-dimension is constant $p_0=m_{0}c$, what, in fact, is used in the Dirac equation.

In this case the observable “time”, more correctly – both, true and coordinate times, observables, become to be “ordinary” observables, and so have the operators – themselves, as that 3 space observables are now in QM, however incorporating the true time variable in QM is a next problem that should be solved in physics.

That isn’t only QM problem – this problem has the root in the Hamiltonian and Lagrange formalisms in classical mechanics, where, besides the “U-problem” above (section 6), the variable time also essentially differs from the spatial variables; first of all, besides the true time incorporation problem in this case, also because of that the Newton-SRT definition of flowing time is used. Corresponding re-formulation of classical and relativistic mechanics would be essential for the QM re-formulation.

Returning to the other QM problems note also that at considering of QM events and processes in absolute frames, when some QM objects are free, the problem of causality, which occurs now in some cases if something has speed [e.g., entanglement events] larger than speed of light, doesn’t appear, since in this frame all clocks show real positions of objects in the true and coordinate times, which (positions) have in this case the same values, correspondingly in absolute frame a cause always happens before the effect.

Besides, a re-formulation of QM, taking into account the really existent at least [5]4D FLE “ether”, possibly will result in better understanding of the QM phenomena; including, possibly, of really existent such fundamental problems as what is the Pauli principle, i.e., is the force that limits number and spins of fermions in a given state a “fifth fundamental Nature force” or that is something else; what are “exchange forces” at particles interactions, etc.

In Standard Particles Model Note and QFTs introducing the FLE approach seems will be utmost fruitful, first of all at development of fundamental Forces theories, where no “virtual”, first of all Forces mediators, particles will exist;

- besides in the Model, the version of CPT theorem allows to obtain rather questionable results, such as the solutions [53,54] of the section 5.2 [matter-antimatter asymmetry] problem; where at Beginning both “Matter” and “AntiMatter” appeared, and, in accordance with the CPT theorem, they then immediately turned out to be divided in “spacetime” and in “antispacetime” (?!) ‒ and just so Matter does not contain antimatter now. Such solutions, which are in accordance with the CPT theorem look as rather strange, hence this this theorem must be reformulated as well. Note, though, that really “CPT theorem”, if “T” means real time, looks like a rather strange physical construction, there fundamentally cannot be any time inversion.

Besides it seems rational to suppose that the popular in the mainstream physics problem of “development of the “[Grand] Theory of Everything” which will “unite” all existent fundamental Nature forces, really is not actual. Really Forces are functionally fundamentally different, and so rather possibly really here is no any necessity in some “unifications”. Really the real unification now, in principle, already exists, or, more correctly, can exist further, that is [will be] correct quantum mechanics, which describes motion and interaction of material objects basing on the utmost fundamental and universal Matter’s laws/links constants, including parameters of Forces, and inclusion in concrete cases of potential energies of concrete fundamental Nature forces in the QM equations really “unites” correctly any number of Forces.

Though some “unifications effects” can appear, mostly at exotic energies, when problems appear with sufficiency of numbers of FLEs in some particles algorithms to mark all the particles’ charges (what doesn’t appear in more tolerant conditions), and so some “mixing” of charges – and so “Forces” can appear at some interactions of the particles, however corresponding experimentally observed effects can be used at development of Standard Model not as ground of some “unifications”, but as some revelations of usually non-detectable traits and parameters of FLE logical structure.

Nonetheless real physics development can be only on the way “classical physics- quantum mechanics – Planck scale physics”, this Planck scale initial model is a base of the development, which should solve eventually the utmost fundamental problem ‒ clarification of FLE structure, though on first steps in practice the problem of “virtual” particles and interactions in existent quantum dynamics theories should be solved by replaced by real ones. For QED and QGD rather possibly that will be made basing on this FLE approach, and taking at the development into account the initial models of Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear Forces above; that for classical electro- and gravito-dynamices, of course, looks as essentially important as well.

The last problem is, with well non-zero probability essentially clarified for Gravity and Electric Forces in section 6 above.

Finally note that the experiments, which are proposed in the informational model, i.e.,:

- the observation of the absolute motion and measurement of the absolute velocity of the peculiar motion of the Solar system [8,9]; though it would be not too surprising, if the measured absolute velocity will be the same as which follows from the CMB dipole measurement, because from this model of Matter’s creation in section 5 it follows that Sun – as any other macro object in Matter’s space – is in essentially a cold the space region, and so hasn’t some exotic absolute speed. Note, though, that there exist other estimations of the velocity at observations of quasars, distant AGNs or SNe Ia, which results in the velocity values that are essentially larger than the CMB dipole value [51]; and so this experiment’s results would be useful at solution of this puzzle as well;

- the observation of the quantum nature of Gravity [1,6], and

- though not really fundamental, but important, experiment in sec. 6.2.1, which, rather probably, will show that the GR postulate that photons at motion do not change their energy in gravitational fields between points that have different potentials, is wrong while this model is correct;

- should be made as soon as possible.