As we know today physics pay on answering the "HOW" questions in the nature, for example how objects act under EM field and so on. Otherside, the most essential questions are "WHY" questions (or existance questions), for example why two electrons interact with eaach other or why EM interaction should be exist and so on. How could we construct a physics involve such "WHY" questions? Or perhaps, how could we add "WHY" questions to the today physics structure?:Bugeye: I think, the main restriction on today physics cause by previous physicists. They've defined a line for physics: whatever you are trying to add in physics (description or theory) should be experimentaly availabe. Such assumption would restrict the range of available knowledge in physics with respect to what is really going on in Nature. :Grumpy: It also has a direct consequence for Quantum Mechanics (yet the king of our today physics which every theories suppose to be consistence with it) that is its pioneers formulated Quantum Mechanics only for OBSERVABLES. Otherside, almost all great physcists whom fund the foundation of physics followed their philosophical ideas which surely were un-experimentable! (I guess I've invented a new word!:Bigrin:) So there ARE connections between what human THINK and perhaps wish for (un-experimentabel) and what they want to SEE in the Nature and the way they DESCRIBE the Nature (experimentabel).:Rolleyes: Again the question: How could we construct a physics involve such "WHY" questions? Or perhaps, how could we add "WHY" questions to the today physics structure?