There are more and more approaches to try and understand the world of feeling such as love, hate, fear, anger and so on plus consciousness in general, sub- and un-consciousness via quantum concepts. A standard drawback to such attempts seems to result from the old problem that our current quantum theory is not of metric origin or – in other words – does not appear to be fully compatible with Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity [1]. This lack of a true Quantum Gravity Theory does seem to be the major obstacle for all our attempts to understand consciousness. After all, it well could be that our feelings and consciousness in general, potentially embedding both quantum and cosmic scales, require a truly scale invariant and thus, metric theory. 

In order to overcome these difficulties, we explicitly tried to avoid to “push” any existing theory into the comprehension of the human mind and all its derivatives but, instead, started our consideration with the assumption that everything, including consciousness, may consist of attributes or properties. Subjecting these properties to a general Hamilton extremal principle, thereby using the Riemann theory and Hilbert techniques, we – most surprisingly – ended up in generalized Einstein-Field-Equations [2, 3, 4]. These equations do not only contain the full Theory of General Relativity [1], but – lo and behold – also include all main quantum equations, be it for bosonic or fermionic entities. The whole ensemble undoubtedly has the characteristics of a Quantum Gravity Theory and the best part of it is, that it was already there for about 109 years [5]. 

In this talk, we are going to apply our approach onto the interesting field of love and the topic of feelings in general [3, 6]. Thereby, we will not only consider the aspect of feelings of an individual but also investigate phenomena coming into play where ensembles of human beings entangle. This reaches from observations of so-called mass formations to the simple question whether an economic entity - a company - can be good [4]?