Published - 7 May 2014
Tick tock goes the clock heralding something...
TAKE A NOTE: HE WHO DOES NOT LIKE READING FROM THE BEGINNING SHOULD START READING THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION FROM THE END. IT IS POSSIBLE AND COULD EVEN BE USEFUL.
Despite all the well-known dark and tragic pages in the history of Ukraine, time does keep flowing, and life does go on. And due to the current events, the article in question is issued a little bit later.
It tells in a couple of words about the events that no one can hide from, close both ears and eyes, and remain indifferent. Alas, that is the march of history.
Let's cut to the chase.
Since the time of the founders of science—to be more precise since the dawn of HOMO SAPIENS—till nowadays, the principles for studying our surrounding world have remained almost the same.
Namely, there are only two ways to explore the world (the Universe) we are living in.
The first way
To observe the dynamics of the processes occurring in NATURAL conditions.
The second way
To observe the dynamics of the processes occurring in ARTIFICIAL conditions as close to natural ones as it is possible.
And there is no other way to explore the Universe.
However, let's make a mental experiment, shall we? We will take as an example a simple apple (a fruit) that most of us not only saw but also tasted.
There is an apple in our hands, and we want to know its inner structure: What does it consist of?
There is a good number of different ways, and one of them is to cut the apple up and take a look at the shear plane. And if we are going to make some shears in different planes, we will be able to model the inner structure of an apple with almost 100 percent precision.
And the thinner the section of the blade we cut up the apple with, the more information we can get to know.
However, this very example is for the sake of speculation, though it has something to do with the subject in question. What exactly? I would like to remain silent so far.
Scientists are known to concur with one thing: there are four fundamental forces of nature: strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational.
The first two forces (strong and weak) are nuclear forces that, though being fundamental, do not spread far in space.
Both electromagnetic and gravitational forces can spread far, far away: this distribution is NOT LIMITED in space. That is the MAJOR difference among these four forces.
We also know that both electromagnetic and gravitational forces are characterized with three fields: magnetic, electric, and gravitational. Both magnetic and electric interactions are so closely bound, INSEPARABLE from one another, that they are considered to be one and the same force, the electromagnetic force.
However (I may be mistaken), electromagnetic interaction occurs in DYNAMICS, whereas in STATICS there are electric and magnetic interactions.
Moreover, gravitational force exists by itself, and all the attempts to make it fit with the other forces fail.
HERE IS THE QUESTION for those who are interested in science and nature, but first of all for scientists: WHICH OF THE THREE FIELDS—magnetic, electric, or gravitational—PREVAILS IN OUR UNIVERSE? Which takes the second place, and which comes third based on the average density per unit volume in the scale of our Universe?
I will try to do that on my own:
The first place (PREVAILING) is for ELECTRIC FIELDS.
The second place, MAGNETIC FIELDS.
The third place, GRAVITATIONAL FIELDS.
Maybe I am mistaken and maybe I am not. But it is almost clear for me that gravitational fields take the third place.
(If anyone knows any accessible (Internet) scientific and authoritative sources where I can find the answers to the above questions, let me know. It would be very nice of you.)
Our Universe is not merely stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, huge voids that are nothing but VOIDLESS, they are filled with VACUUM. AND VACUUM REPRESENTS AN INNUMERABLE NUMBER OF PULSING, "DANCING" PARTICLES THAT ARE HIDDEN FROM OUR SIGHT IN THE IMMEASURABLE SMALLEST DURATIONS OF TIME.
THE PARTICLES ARE REAL (!), BUT FOR US THEY ARE VIRTUAL.
But the most interesting thing is that stars, galaxies, planets, and all of us drift in the shoreless ocean of virtual particles.
And all of these particles (both real and virtual) possess their electric and magnetic fields that are much stronger than gravitational fields.
Just as electric and magnetic fields are bound together, intertwined with one another (and we are aware of these binding threads), GRAVITY ITSELF SHOULD BE CONNECTED WITH ELECTROMAGNETISM.
It does not mean that this bond IS SUPPOSED TO BE; it means THERE IS such a bond, however, we fail to feel it so far.
And the forthcoming experiments on measurement of gravitational mass of antimatter do not merely unveil the difference between matter and antimatter.
These experiments help us find the threads that bind gravity to other fundamental forces.
This is the way towards the quest for the fundamental framework, the foundation of the world of ours.
AND WE SHOULD FOLLOW THESE COGNITIONAL PATHS (EXPERIMENTS), SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER OPTIONS.
Anticipating things, I would like to say that the scope of article announced as an article about the nature of time will be much wider. This is because time is inseparable from the observable and tangible Universe of ours, as it is inseparable from OUR three-dimensional space.
But the instant the Universe was born, the three-dimensional space appeared as well, and the countdown began.
BEFORE THE BIG BANG, THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN ANOTHER DIMENSION, MORE FUNDAMENTAL THAN OUR FOUR DIMENSIONS.
That is why the article in question will cover not only the problem of time, it will suggest an ALTERNATIVE to String Theory.
What does it explain?
It explains more than meets the eye.
It explains why there are those huge differences between the macro and micro worlds.
It explains the paradoxes that exist in the macro world.
It explains the teleportation of photons.
It explains much more than that.
WHAT DOES IT FORESEE? Well, it does foresee something.
But more about that later.
TO SUM IT ALL UP, I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT I HAVE NEVER ASSERTED AND STILL DO NOT ASSERT THAT THE WORLD IS THE WAY I DESCRIBE IT AND NOTHING ELSE.
TO DO THAT, YOU HAVE TO OBSERVE, PERFORM SOME EXPERIMENTS, AND THAT SEEMS RIGHT.
I believe that both observations and experiments are like a beam of light that illuminates the path for the cognition of the world.
And if everything is OK, then by the end of 2014 (or at the beginning of 2015) the article will be published. I would like to add: I HAVE ALREADY COME UP WITH THE GENERAL IDEA; now it is time to formulate, describe, and explain everything in a comprehensive way. It is time to explain how the general idea does or does not match the existing theories and experimental data. How to embrace something that is immense... That is the question. And the understanding and analysis require time.
Those in favor for String theory, please follow this link:
If the theory cannot be proved, is it right to call it a SCIENTIFIC theory? It is rather a FAITH DOCTRINE, THOUGH A SCIENTIFIC ONE.
≠≠≠≠≠ ***** ≠≠≠≠≠