Dear Hossein!

Your question is the well known question of unification.

The current non-uniformity in physics is caused by the pure theoretical way to declare the reality. Physcists solve the theoretical problems by inventions of additional particles (e.g. quarks, gluons, Higgs), separate forces and additional types of matter (e.g. dark matter). This leads to increasing inconsistency. Every theoretical necessity is a failure of recognition. Analysis and synthesis as the way of recognition is a foreign word in physics.

Compare with chemistry: There was also a time to declare the different mateials by basic materials with basic properties. But all the different properties of the chemical elements are caused by different structures of the atomic shell. The structures of particles are caused by electrons and positrons. Therefore the (binding) energies are much higher and the material (particles) can "disappear" as energy (annihilation) or additional particles can arise (pair production).

The different properties of particles are caused by different structures and vice versa: If particles have similar properties (e.g. strangenes) they have similar structures. Nothing is caused by "quarks" with their assumed abstract properties.

Yo can lead back the different forces at least to interactions between electrons and positrons at different structural stages resp. interactions of the substructural particles which are composed by electrons and positrons.

The gravitational force appears only at a high stage of the organisation of matter possibly between atoms.

My Regards! Hans

Thesis The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei

Dear Hans-G. Hildebrandt

Thank you for interesting mentions.

In my opinion, the basic problem is that the structure of particles has not been studied. For example;

the photon has no electric charge, but it is formed of electric and magnetic fields. These properties are acceptable when the photon has been contained from two types of sub quantum energies and with various electromagnetic properties. According to this point of view in pair production and decay e^(+ ),e^-, we can get interesting results. Before pair production, we have a photon and after pair production, we have two fermions (electron and positron) in which each of them have their own electric fields. It means that electron and positron produce virtual photons that can absorb each other. After pair decay, their electric fields are disappeared along with electron and positron. Therefore, it must be generalized the method of production and physical properties of fields from fermions to the structure of photon and vice versa. Also with such an approach, we can recognize the mechanism of electromagnetic interactions, use it to explain strong and weak interactions, and take a step towards to unify forces.

Generalization of the Dirac's Equation and Sea

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303988070_Generalization_of_the_Dirac's_Equation_and_Sea

Gottfreid Leibniz, in his essay “Monadology,” suggested that the fundamental unit of all things is the monad. He intended the monad to have some of the attributes of the atom, but with important differences. The monads, Leibniz proposed are indivisible, indissoluble, and have no extension or shape, yet from them all things were made. He called them “the true atoms of nature.” At the same time, each monad mirrored the universe. May be monad is the basic element that must be available in the theory of everything.

Dear Mesut

You have mentioned to an important historical concept.

Let me refer to CPH Theory and LEIBNIZ'S MONADS as follow:

LEIBNIZ'S MONADS AND JAVADI'S CPH

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260985279_LEIBNIZ'S_MONADS_AND_JAVADI'S_CPH

@Hossein: Physics spends the most time talking about miraculous phenomena within the reality and marvelous theories about the reality. You should reject all those theoretical pipe dreams categorical definately more as you have already done.

Par example: The great experiment at the LHC was exactly prepared and calculated according to the underlying theories. The scientists were sure or better to say euphoric to prove "quarks". But nothing! If they would be honest they would have to say: The experiment was the counterevidence of "quarks" and our theory is false. The consequences for physics are incalculable with or without this admission and the urgend task is limitation of damage.

There is no need for "quarks" at any point in particle physics. The "particle zoo" including atomic nuclei results from electrons, positrons and great amounts of energy.

Note: I would never rely on the ideas of Leibniz.

Good Answer Mesut Tez