The reader can find a lot of scientific and factual books about our Universe, but there are almost no scientific books about the Megaworld*). If somebody thinks that the Universe is the same as the megaworld, this is not true.

The modern science studies living and inert matter of the Universe, processes and phenomena that occur in the matter. The science has made impressive advances in their understanding. Technologies that sprang from the science prolong our life, making it more and more comfortable. However, limits are visible in the scientific and technical progress, as was stated by the Club of Rome as far back as in the middle of the last century. They consist in resource and environmental constraints that show even today, and will stop the growth of production of material values in the foreseeable future unless a scientific revolution removes the constraints.

Nowadays, science experiences a lot of problems that prevent it from gaining understanding of such problems as formation of the matter in the Universe, nature of life, death, consciousness, thinking and many other natural phenomena. What causes the difficulties? Does the science do the right thing restricting itself to studying the matter of the Universe? Indeed, if the Universe is a small part of the megaworld, its matter had formed and is evolving according to its laws that we do not know yet. This means that in order to understand the Universe we shall first understand the nature of the megaworld that creates the Universe, realize how the laws of the megaworld manifest themselves in the Universe, and thus in our life. The fact that scientific research is limited to the matter of the Universe hinders development of science, keeps it from building a correct picture of the world.  But understanding of the necessity to study the megaworld, its worlds and laws is a long-felt need. My monograph “Polarization theory of the Mega-universe” [1] is devoted to demonstration of new scientific frontiers opening here. This is a fundamental physical theory suitable for research and description of both our (manifest) world studied by the present-day science and hidden (unmanifest) worlds of the megaworld. Therefore, it claims the status of a universal theory of “All” since the megaworld is all.  

The book “We and worlds of the Megaworld. New physical picture of the world” that you have in your hands presents, in simplified form and without mathematical manipulations, a new view of organization of the megaworld that I had developed and described in the monograph.

Do unmanifest worlds exist? In fact, the modern science studies our manifest world and denies any unmanifest worlds. However, religions, esotericism, mysticism claim their existence. And now a physicist appeared who states that unmanifest worlds do exist and determine our being, and that physical vacuum with its virtual particles which gives birth to particles and fields of our world is one of the unmanifest worlds. And this is not the only unmanifest world of our megaworld.

What led me to this conclusion?

In summer 1985, staying in my country house I was reading a book about the amazing properties of a ball lightning which still cannot be explained by physics. In one of clear August evenings my daughter and I went for a walk before retiring to bed, and suddenly we saw how a string of six or seven glowing balls looking like the Moon and flying low parallel to the ground appeared all at once in the dark sky. Approaching the lighted village, the balls disappeared one at a time in the same point. The sight lasted about ten seconds. The balls reminded lightning balls, though large. I estimated their diameter at something like ten meters. This was a good illustration for a book about ball lightnings. I observed unusual radiant objects that apparently contained plasma. Having been involved in thermonuclear plasma research for many years, I realized how difficult it was to maintain temperature and


*) The Megaworld means all worlds of Everything. The capital letter in this word means that I am referring to our Megaworld, as other forms of megaworlds are possible according to the polarization theory. A conventional spelling – megaworld – is used in the text, since we know nothing about them.  


volume of a plasma formation. What I saw puzzled me. My understanding of the nature shattered.

Of course, I had known about existence of UFO before, but was not interested in this phenomenon surrounded, as it seemed to me, by legends and fables. But now I received a sign that I had not been curious enough. I felt the need to find an answer to the question about origination of phenomena that break down notions established in science. Getting acquainted with such phenomena, I realized that they were numerous. It took me about ten years to try to explain them within the current knowledge. Gradually, I have formed an opinion that this is impossible in many cases. Something was missing to understand the nature of such “miracles”. For example, physical science does not know how particles and fields form. It deals with “ready” particles which characteristics (charge, rest mass, spin, and lifetime) are invariable. But particles or ball lightnings do form somewhere, don’t they? This suggested the existence of hidden (unmanifest) worlds where matter is born. But how to study unknown worlds, how to find out laws that work there?

Starting with Galileo, Kepler and Newton, the science has been deriving laws of our world from experiments and observations. But nowadays the science has no technical capabilities to do experiments in unmanifest worlds. All that remains is to analyze phenomena that cannot be explained by science, assuming that the reason for not understanding them lies in manifestations of properties of hidden worlds, and to “guess” their laws through the analysis. Make calculations on the basis of the laws and verify them against experimental data and observations characterizing such phenomena. Replace flawed guesses with new ones. Identify common features in incomprehensible phenomena that would allow somehow classifying them. At first it seemed impossible to learn secrets of unmanifest worlds.

The only right track here is to try to find a good generalization of the present-day concept of the world outlook that would allow studying natural phenomena in their variety. Such attempts have been made before. Albert Einstein spent half of his life in vain attempts to develop a unified field theory in order to get a better understanding of the world where we live. Attempts to build a universal theory were made after him too. However, so far a sufficiently general theory capable of providing a quantitative description of the microworld, space, Solar System, living matter and its evolution, representing basic elements of any physics concept claiming a universal character, has not been created.

It has been always believed that matter is born in void. Its geometric properties varied. For example, a hypothesis that the space can be not just curved (Einstein attributed emergence of gravitation to this feature) but also twisted has been advanced long ago. In this case torsion fields underlie the nature.

The question as to how matter appears is the key one. This was also clear to ancient thinkers. The “Tibetan Book of the Dead” states that All is born by Void – Absolute Nothingness. The idea looks interesting. But what does All signify? And what is meant by Void? How does the birth process occur? These notions shall be filled with specific physical meaning, i.e. new hypotheses are required. If they are good, we will have a clue to construction of a universal theory of the entire Nature, entire megaworld.

The polarization theory of the megaworld formulates four conceptual hypotheses that are described in the book. The Void is understood to mean an extra-natural substance called zero vacuum. Unlike physical vacuum that is a natural substance, all its physical quantities have zero values. The zero vacuum is assumed to possess a property of giving birth to all physical entities in the megaworld, including space and time. The birth mechanism consists in polarization of the zero vacuum which creates a varying megaworld where the sum of values of any physical quanitity is always equal to zero. An example of polarization of physical quantities is polarization of electric charges that does not change the charge of the medium. Polarization is a key concept of the new theory, and the book gives much attention to it. Another key concept is symmetry.

In the polarization theory, particles or worlds are born in groups (multiplets) through polarization mechanisms, but not in empty space. They are born along with their own complex space-time that differs from space-time of other elements of the multiplet in direction of at least one of its real or imaginary axes. This idea may seem crazy. But it proved to be fruitful. It is these crazy conceptual ideas that characterize properties of the unknown world and underlie the polarization theory. Let us recall a popular aphorism by Niels Bohr: the idea is not crazy enough to be true. The conceptual hypotheses of the polarization theory turned out to be quite effective. They allowed describing a broad range of phenomena utilizing just three world’s constants: speed of light, Planck’s constant and gravitational constant. Each of the constants characterizes its own physical world, while science studies just a part of one of them – manifest component of the gravitating world. It is commonly known that when a theory is generalized, the number of experimental constants it contains reduces But in the polarization theory a reduction in the number of constants results in transition to a different world where there is no gravity. This means that the polarization theory cannot be generalized.

Thus the task has been accomplished: a theory has been created that claims a universal nature and application in areas that are new to physical science. But a heavy price was paid for this – the scientific paradigm had to be radically changed. The current physical paradigm built around the quantum theory of the microworld and classical general relativity theory is about hundred years old. A lot of scientific problems calling for solution have accumulated during this time, but standard methods do not allow solving them. This crisis is accentuated by the failure of the search for the hypothetical Higgs boson*) which absence deprives the Standard Model of elementary particles of its foundation. The fundamental physics needs a new blood, non-standard approaches.

And what is viewed as a reason for the crisis?

Science strives to employ reliable experimental data and observations. But it only considers to be true the data obtained from reproducible laboratory experiments. Where laboratory experiments are impossible due to the scale of phenomena or their duration (for example, in astronomy or cosmology), science requires reproducibility of observations in similar conditions.

Reproducibility and reliability of data gained by science allow developing technology and medicine. However, the methodological requirement of reproducibility of scientific data has its “reverse side”, since in this case science relies on a truncated factual base, on a part of the human experience. This is insufficient for constructing a complete and credible worldview. If some phenomenon is characterized by a hundred attributes and properties, and you know three of them, it is unlikely that you can give its correct description.  Hence, in order to construct an adequate worldview, one should rely on an as complete factual base as possible, including phenomena that are not reproducible or poorly reproducible by the existing scientific tools. For reproducibility of a phenomenon, one should know conditions at which it occurs, and manage to create such conditions. But nowadays science can only study the manifest world, and therefore it cannot reproduce phenomena of the unmanifest world. This does not mean at all that they are non-reproducible, but science declares them to be such, and so rejects them along with unmanifest worlds. In so doing, science closes the door to important development paths.

The issue of my monograph [1] presenting new views of organization of the megaworld in 2008 aroused the readers’ interest and evoked mass media response (Izvestia and Novaya Gazeta newspapers, BBC and Radio Svoboda broadcasters). When I was still writing the monograph it was already clear to me that the scientific community would do its best to draw a veil over the new worldview. If you hold the established scientific views and encounter new ideas that overthrow the current views, you should argue against them. But if the new approach is a general one and does not contradict experimental data, you will not be able to reject it with good reason.


*)  At the time of writing this book (March 2012) there still remained hope that the Higgs boson will be discovered. According to the polarization theory that believes that such a boson is nonexistent in nature, there may exist a boson in the mass region on which the hopes are pinned but not the Higgs boson.


Any theory shall be judged critically. But it is incorrect to criticize a general theory from a perspective of restricted theories. An erroneous theory cannot provide agreement with a great many experimental data, since a probability of accidental coincidence is too low. Some particular mistakes can be found (they are surely present), but one should prove that they rebut the polarization theory approach as such. Such criticism involves serious efforts and requires spare time. No wonder that well-reasoned appraisals have not appeared yet.  Physics specialists refused to give their opinion about papers that presented most important and topical results of the theory because the statement of problems and arguments used in them do not conform to generally accepted principles.

I write this in order for the reader to realize how conservative the scientific community is, how it defends itself against foreign information. The scientific space shall be protected against all kinds of rubbish. But if there is no mechanism for informing the scientific community about reasoned alternatives to generally accepted views, the science development is hindered. This is true not just for theories but for experiments as well. Indeed, science develops through periodic rejection of generally accepted views, through scientific revolutions. At present an understanding of the need to revise the fundamentals of physics is being gradually achieved, but the fact that it will be required to revise the entire current worl view it is not yet realized. The developments lead to the need to change the world outlook ideology and extend boundaries of the world being studied, having accepted the fact of existence of unmanifest worlds. A change of a worldview is a difficult psychological and social process that takes time and, apparently, calls for a change of generation. This gives an opportinuty for young researchers to pioneer studies of unmanifest worlds

Perception of new worlds with different physical laws and unusual manifestations is a hard and non-simple work. I hope that the book “We and worlds of the Megaworld” that I bring to the reader’s notice will facilitate the first acquaintance with unmanifest worlds. I would like to make it understandable for as wide audience as possible, including humanists who addressed me such requests. But it is impossible to popularly and at the same time in a well-reasoned manner tell about the unfamiliar quantum world where everything is born and disappears, and where new notions are required to describe processes occurring in this world. Indeed, its existence should be not just postulated, but reasoned as well. Otherwise this will be taken as another fable about other worlds.

Not even every physicist can understand a great part of proofs of their existence presented in the monograph [1]. That is why mathematical manipulations are not included in this book; instead, it contains just qualitative physical considerations, and Appendices and references to the monograph [1] are provided for those who want to take a closer look at the reasoning. Unfortunately, the reasoning in the monograph cannot always be viewed as a proof. Theory studies phenomena constructing their models that should describe empirical data. The more we know about a phenomenon being studied, the more reliable is the model describing the phenomenon and assumptions used. Unfortunately, we do not know much about processes occurring in unmanifest worlds, and available data are not always reliable. But when such data do not contradict to physics of these worlds, the data can be considered real and included in the model of the megaworld. In this case there is a large potential for improvement of phenomenon modeling. The book “We and worlds of the Megaworld” is not a mere retelling of the monograph. It reflects changes in understanding of polarization processes which occurred after the monograph had been published. The monograph is cited in this book where appropriate.

Of course the book does not cover all of the problems discussed in the monograph. It focuses on those of them which the modern physical science could not puzzle out: evolution of life on the Earth, historical processes, the mystery of life and death, nature of human body, consciousness and thinking, and unmanifest after world (Chapters 2-4). It should be of interest to the reader to know that for the first time so different problems were considered on the ground of a unified physical approach. But to have a right to apply the polarization theory to these problems it was necessary to make sure that it describes well the inert matter on all scales from the microworld to the Universe. The monograph [1] gives much attention to this since this is the basis for all applications of the polarization theory. Naturally, results of this inter matter study are reflected in the offered book (Chapter 1), but they were substantially reduced in size: the book only tells about initial notions of the theory and its main results associated with the existence of the unmanifest polarization world where particles, stars, galaxies and galactic clusters are born, and about its manifestations in our world.

It is hard to perceive new ideas, though they are always interesting. It is especially hard and interesting, when the matter in hand is a new and well-reasoned view of the world. “The science is what cannot be. And what can be is technical progress” (P. L. Kapitza). Let this aphorism by the Nobel Prize Winner become an epigraph to this book. 

Acknowledgements. I would like to thank E.A. Azizov and E.P. Velikhov for providing an opportunity for me to focus on development of a new concept of the world organization, their tolerance to its unusual view of the world, and desire to help in making it familiar to physicists. I am grateful to V.A. Cherpak for reading the book manuscript and making useful comments. I wish to express my appreciation to my wife N.S. Chernukha for her moral support and help in solving technical issues during my work on the book.

 I would appreciate readers’ opinions about the book that can be placed on the website