Hossein,

We don't have three theories in physics, we have three domains. Classical mechanics can be divided into mechanics of localized objects, and wave-mechanics. The former deals with objects which behave like billiard balls. The wave-mechanics deals with distributed objects. A special type among the latter are waves endowed with phase and producing interference. The theory of relativiy deals with object moving at high velocity with respect to one another. The quantum mechanics deals with microscopic objects.

The difference between the billiard ball (Newtonian) mechanics and the quatum mechanics comes from the fact that Newtonian objects don't produce interference, while the quantum objects do. That, in turn, comes from the ratio between the magnitude of the wavelength at which an object moves, tothe object's linear dimensions. For quantum objects the wavelength is much smaller than linear dimension of the objects. This is why we can observe interference phenomena. In the Newtonian mechanics this ratio is vice-versa. 

Let's take, for example, a piece of chalk-dust with mass=1μg. It has a wavelength

λ=h/(mv) ≈ 6.28 × 10-27/(10-6 × v) = 6.28 × 10-21/ v .

One can see that the smaller the velocity v, the bigger is the wavelength. However, even if the piece of chalk moves with a velocity as small as 1Å/s = 10-8cm/s (1Å is the radius of the hydrogen atom), one obtains the wavelength

λ = 0.628 × 10-12cm.

This is 10-4 times smaller than the atom radius. No doubt, the piece of chalk-dust is much bigger, since it contains many atoms. So, one cannot produce interference patterns.

Let's remind in this context the experiments with fullerene and porphiryn molecules - see attach. Typically, first of all, the velocity of these molecules is extremely much reduced for obtaining wavelengths bigger than the linear dimensions of the molecule. 

Dear Sofia

I appreciate your interesting mentions, in totally you are right, thank you. I think physics is divided into three domains, due to lack of attention to the structure of elementary particles.

For example, motion is an intrinsic property of physical existence. But there is a problem about concept of acceleration in theoretical physics. Newton and Einstein define the acceleration regardless of the structure of particles (in classical mechanics and relativity). This definition belongs to Newton era or macroscopic level era.

According to the fundamental particle physics theories and energy issues in the production and decay of pairs of matter–antimatter are included in finding the common features between matter and energy which can be considered the constant velocity of photon as a property that can be transmitted from matter into energy and vice versa and also differences in the mass, structure of matter and its relation fields are explained by the relationship between length contraction (reduce in volume) and relativistic mass and relativistic Newton second law which show the mass variations (i.e., the infinite speed in classical mechanics is replaced by the infinite mass). Infinite mass is not observable (such as infinite velocity), how can we explain the limit of speed without infinite mass?

 Dear Hossein,

You bring too many things in the issue. In my comment I spoke about the distinction between quantum and Newtonian mechanics, not about the distinction between relativistic mechanics and Newtonian.

In the issue quantum vs. Newtonian, there is one major difference, s I said: if the object is too much big in comparison with the wavelength of its motion, we can't see interference fringes.

Now, about Newtonian vs. relativistic mechanics, you say

==> "infinite mass is not observable".

Of course infinity is not observable. Only finite quantities are observable. Infinity is a process of passing to limit, but you never reach the limit. No matter how big a value you obtained, an even bigger value is possible.

Please see the following procedure: take an electron and a positron of velocities V1 and -V1. Make them meet and annihilate. You'll get two photons of total energy 2ħω1. From this energy the relativistic formulas allow obtaining the mass of the two particles, 2m1.

Now take an electron and a positron with velocities to V2 and -V2, where V2> V1. Make them meet and annihilate. You'll get two photons of total energy 2ħω2 where ω2 > ω1. You'll be able to calculate the mass 2m2, and you'll find that m2 > m1.

And so on. The only question is how much money you can invest, how powerfull accelerators you can build.

About the finite value of the light-velocity, what is so special about this velocity that it can't be exceeded, that's an enigma. Obviously, the light-velocity has also an additional meaning than the velocity of other objects. But what is that meaning?

Dear Sofia

According to quantum mechanics, you are right, I will not disagree with you.

You have witten: "take an electron and a positron of velocities V1 and -V1. Make them meet and annihilate."

As long as you think like the past, you will get the same results that you've already earned, Feynman said. So, let's take a new look on pair production and decay.

"During the conversion of energy into mass and vice versa, the interaction properties are transferred from photon to fermions and bosons and vice versa"

This new view on photon means that we can define photon's structure. Electromagnetic energy converts to matter and anti-matter such as charged particles. This way of looking at the problem shows how two opposite charged particles repel each other in far distance and absorb each other at a very small distance.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303988070_Generalization_of_the_Dirac%27s_Equation_and_Sea

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237009789_Sub_quantum_space_and_interactions_properties_from_photon_structure_to_fermions_and_bosons?ev=prf_pub

Article Generalization of the Dirac's Equation and Sea

Article Sub quantum space and interactions properties from photon st...

“Is nature unique? If no, why? If so, why there are various theories in physics?”

Nature isn't indeed “unique”, in the sense that all/everything what exists in our Universe and outside is/are only some informational patterns/systems of patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set; when, say, Matter in our Universe is some sub-Set – as well as the non-material sub-Set “Consciousness”, though.

For information it is an inherent property to create/be based on, etc., some logical links. Including the informational system “Matter” is some rather simple logical system where all [informational patterns] objects are some “correct” [in sense that they don’t content false or uncertain operation] patterns and all objects in Matter exchange by exclusively true information.

Besides in the system “Matter” the objects and links are different on some different levels of some parameters of material objects, first of all – on spacetime and energy scales, at that on different levels different rules/laws/links between objects become be more dominant - what reveals as the existence of essentially different quantum and non-quantum physics. The “relativity”, if somebody understands that the main feature of those two theories that differs them qualitatively from the rest physics, i.e. postulating of real spacetime transformations, has no relation to the reality, isn’t some different physical brunch.

At that material objects can form some local systems where some concrete and specific for given system rules/laws act; for example there exist laws “how to cook a soup” or “how to build a home”, at that a housewife or a builder can well study corresponding rules/laws when being even be unaware about any physical laws; and this situation doesn’t differ principally from that there are quantum and non-quantum physics…

Cheers

Dear Sergey

Information transfer is a part of the physical processes. Information is transfered by color-charges and magnetic colors that they move faster than light speed.

Photon (electromagnetic energy) is made up of color-charges and magnetic colors.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309153372_What_is_CPH_Theory?ev=prf_pub

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303988070_Generalization_of_the_Dirac%27s_Equation_and_Sea?ev=prf_pub

Article What is CPH Theory?

Article Generalization of the Dirac's Equation and Sea