Foundations for a New Theory of Everything — Part I. Five Sacred Principles of Modern Physics

This is the first of a series of articles aiming to lay the foundations for a new Theory of Everything—one that systematically incorporates “edge” phenomena that have largely been overlooked or set aside by previous unifying frameworks. The objective is not to discard established physical knowledge, but rather to build upon it by proposing an expanded conceptual structure capable of integrating both well-established principles and currently unexplained observations.

This work does not advocate a simplistic simulation hypothesis in which the universe is reduced to a computer program designed by a supreme consciousness, thereby dismissing the achievements of modern physics. On the contrary, it respects and relies upon the rigorous developments of contemporary science. At the same time, it acknowledges that certain philosophical and conceptual insights emerging from such speculative theories may contain valuable elements worthy of consideration within a broader scientific framework.

Over recent decades, scientific discourse has become increasingly constrained by methodological rigidity and institutional gatekeeping. A historical perspective reveals that many pioneers of quantum mechanics openly engaged with philosophical, metaphysical, and even esoteric questions during the early twentieth century. The narrowing of acceptable inquiry since then may have limited the exploration of unconventional but potentially fruitful ideas.

The present work therefore seeks to move beyond such limitations by embracing intellectual independence and methodological openness, while maintaining a commitment to rational analysis and conceptual coherence. Its purpose is not to undermine science, but to expand its horizon.

  

1. Causality: Effects cannot precede their causes

This principle is foundational to everyday reasoning. Yet some quantum physics experiments — often designed to probe the observer effect — have been interpreted as hinting at retrocausality, meaning that actions could influence past events. Time itself appears surprisingly flexible: as shown by Albert Einstein in his theory of relativity, its passage depends on speed, gravity, and other conditions. This flexibility, expressed through relativistic effects, even finds practical use in everyday technologies.

There is still no consensus on what time actually is, and some argue it may be largely a subjective impression. Certain interpretations of quantum mechanics even describe quantum processes in ways that do not rely on a clear direction of time. That said, retrocausality has not been accepted by the physics community. The principle of causality also implies that backward propagation through time — even for information — is impossible. Parapsychology, however, has demonstrated precognition, i.e. obtaing information in advance of events, which is essentially a manifestation of retrocausality.

 

2. Speed of light limit: No superluminal propagation

According to Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity, nothing can propagate or travel faster than the speed of light. This can be seen as an extension of the first principle: not only can an effect not precede its cause, but there is also a limit to how far apart in time cause and effect can be, set by the finite speed at which information can travel.

Yet Einstein himself, together with Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, proposed a thought experiment suggesting a “spooky” (as they called it) quantum effect — now known as the EPR paradox — in which one quantum particle appears to influence another instantaneously. This phenomenon, now known as quantum entanglement, has been proven and finds practical applications such as quantum computing, cryptography, etc.

 

3. Locality: Physical systems are influenced only by their immediate surroundings

Locality — the idea that objects are affected only by what is happening in their immediate vicinity — has long been treated as a cornerstone of scientific thinking. For decades, physicists tried to preserve this principle by arguing that quantum entanglement might be explained without invoking non-local effects, perhaps through hidden variables or some yet-unknown mechanism.

However, work by John Stewart Bell, followed by thousands of increasingly sophisticated experiments, has shown that entanglement cannot be explained by any local hidden-variable theory. In that sense, the phenomenon appears to violate locality, suggesting correlations between distant quantum systems that cannot be accounted for by influences traveling through ordinary space.

 

4. Non-signalling: Nonlocal correlations cannot transmit usable information

Even after locality could not be upheld in the classical sense, physicists emphasize that quantum entanglement does not enable a mystical instantaneous transfer or teleportation of information or energy. So-called quantum teleportation protocols — widely studied for potential use in ultra-secure or high-speed networks — still require a conventional communication channel to complete the transmission. Entanglement alone cannot be used to send usable information faster than light.

Parapsychological research, by contrast, claims to show that information can be transmitted instantaneously and even backward in time, although no accepted mechanism explains how this would occur. Speculations about a possible role for entanglement in such phenomena, and even in certain biological processes including consciousness, remain highly controversial. One major obstacle is the fragility of entanglement: quantum states tend to lose coherence extremely quickly through interaction with their surroundings — a process known as quantum decoherence — especially at temperatures far above absolute zero.

 

5. Epiphenomenalism: Mental events have no causal efficacy in the physical world

In mainstream physics, consciousness is typically treated as a by-product of physical processes rather than an active participant in them. Even the “observer effect” in quantum mechanics is usually interpreted in operational terms: measurement devices, not human minds, are what collapse or register physical states. This stance is not experimentally proven so much as adopted for consistency and tractability. Physics can describe correlations between observables, but it does not explain why subjective experience accompanies certain physical processes in the first place.

Parapsychological research and citizen science however indicate that this principle is outdated. Reports of mind-over-matter effects have been widely collected and discussed, and many individuals — including the author — report experiencing such phenomena in everyday life.

Published: 2026-02-28