The universe is made of only one particle

1, 2. So your particle has three properties, because of its spin. But I find that inadequate, as a fundamental and sole existent particle would have to explain positive, negative and neutrally charged objects, matter, antimatter, dark matter, light, energy and dark energy. That gives us nine properties required for the particle to have. 3. Really? Which quantum physics theory exactly does not make sense or is illogical to you and why? And why does it have to be wrong just because you do not understand it? In the same way I could turn your hypothesis down simply by claiming it is illogical. You have to either disprove the accepted theories or prove your hypothesis. 4. The three experiments you mentioned have nothing to do with proving the existence of a sole particle. All of them were attempts to prove the existence of the ether. Even if the ether exists, it does not imply that the universe consists of only one particle. But I will elaborate on these experiments a little more: a. The idea that light would slow down and that the direction of its course would be distorted by adding water to the moving telescope is false. First of all, electromagnetic waves travel at the constant speed if 300.000klm/sec in all inertial frames of reference (while the earth is not one of these, as it orbits the sun in circular motion), thus it is an exaggeration to say that light would slow down that much by simply passing through water. Then again, even if that was so, the light beam's course would not change, for the water in the telescope would too be moving at some speed, which it would "give" to the beam of light as it entered the telescope, due to inertia. So, either the light would be too fast for its direction to change, or, if it got slowed down, it would not change its direction anyway. It depends on how much effect one claims the encounter with the water molecules has on light. To test my claim that the direction would not change even if the light beam got slowed down, you can do the following "experiment"; take a small object (I used a hazelnut, because it floats on water) and a glass filled with water - I suggest you use a big one. Hold the object in a height greater than that of the glass and move the latter in a high speed below it. Drop the object so that it falls in the water, as the glass still moves. You should notice that the angle of the fall did not change (compared to the 5" angle change that was shown in the video, of course), even as it got in the water. Not to mention that when a light beam enters a glass of water it is not affected by the fluctuations, contrary to the hazelnut. Now compare that to the initial experiment, where the earth's speed relative to the light beam was way greater than that of the glass relative to the hazelnut, while the light beam's speed was too incredibly greater than that of the fall of the hazelnut. The analogy is still the same, on a different scale. b.http://spiff.rit.edu... The Michelson and Morley experiment does not prove the existence of ether, for they found that the two light beams' speed was exactly the same. This observation was later explained by Einstein's theory of relativity. Constancy of the speed of light experiments: https://journals.aps.org... https://journals.aps.org... Constancy of the speed of light articles: https://www.google.gr... http://www.emc2-explained.info... Relativity experiments: https://en.m.wikipedia.org... c. To begin with, the Sagnac experiment was conducted in a rotating, and thus a non-inertial frame of reference. But either way, since that can be justified because of the Wang re-experiment on the Sagnac effect, the following will probably clarify to you why it does not account as proof, but as an indication, for the ether hypothesis. Sagnac effect: http://www.physicsinsights.org... Again, do you have any proof that the universe consists of only one particle, or hypotheses are all you have to support it? If you do, please show me.