The Construction of Positive and Negative Volume
Imagine living in a single enormous moment of now. There is no past, no future,
only a present. At first it might seem that it would not be
possible to observe one's surroundings in such a place. However,
its not too difficult to consider that on the inside, you could experience
this world as if it were instead an evolving existence.
Your life between birth and death, like a story within a book, could all
be solidly imprinted into the fabric of this eternal moment. In such a world your observations
have already occurred, are occurring, and will always be occurring.
Your experience of time or change must then
have two qualities. First it must include a linear string-like path through
the permanent landscape, as opposed to let's say a single point or place.
For your story to be cohesive and genuinely involve change, it must be
more than a broken sequence of unrelated moments or story pages. Your story,
like any story in book, must have a binding which connects together the
pages or moments of your experience. We might call this requirement
time. We might envision linear time
much like we envision a single direction passing through an ordinary Euclidean
space from point A to B.
Second and simultaneously, your story must
include a series of unique patterns or conditions. There must be differences
from point A to B seemingly lateral to the linear direction of your story.
Note that the lateral patterns necessarily must be distinct. Each must
possess a separate identity or dimensional form apart from other spaces
along the linear time path which links the series of instances, such as
your birth and death.
In order to observe and experience change,
what ever we as an observer are in this case, must leap away from one state
to another. The difference between each individually unique state may be
immeasurable, perhaps infinitesimally small, but without this difference there would
be no temporal experience, no sense of change, none of the illusions of
time. We might call this necessity lateral time,
and imagine each static state to be like a solid block of space, within
which no possibility exists for change. Such a state is very much like
a single possibility, for which there is no meaning to the idea of temporal
And so now we can see our problem. If we bind
a series of three dimensional spaces together they inevitably lose their
separateness and form a whole. They are no longer individually distinct.
On the other hand, if each is a distinct dimension separate from others,
no matter how close that we position them, as long as we maintain that
required separation, time as we experience it cannot exist. Logically, the
necessity of separation conflicts with the necessity of union.
It is rather easy to describe the three spatial dimensions of height, width,
and depth, but not so easy to describe the fourth dimension of time. Perhaps
it is no coincidence that the best method of regarding time is to use photographs,
showing a walkway or crossing. In a series of pictures a person walking
across a courtyard is said to be moving through both space and time.
As the person pauses at the center of the
crossing to wait for a friend his position in three dimensional space is
no longer changing. Standing still at the center of the courtyard he is
only moving through time. We can symbolize this unique type of movement,
the movement through time alone, as successive photographs. Although the
position of observer is now stationary and so each photograph is identical
to the next, the lateral surroundings of this person is continuing to change.
A clock for example in the photographers hand is moving. Other objects
in the universe are changing position in relation to the center of the
square. This allows us to make a distinction between each frame and to
define each photo as a different position in time.
In many situations we portray spacetime events
with a sequence of still frames, such as in movie films or television.
No one has yet devised a method which is more like how we ordinarily assume
time to be, a linear unbroken progression of events. There seems to be
no way to avoid separating time into distinct individual moments. So why
then have we not already considered that perhaps time in nature is purely
sequential. Is it even possible for temporal evolution to be fused into
a linear unified system? Again the paradox. The two elements necessary
of time, as we envision it, are incompatible.
The gifted puzzler, the Italian philosopher
Zeno, argued that if time were linear then no movement could occur, because
every distance is infinitely divisible. His arguments have not been silenced
by any modern philosophy or discovery, but the rule is not considered scientifically
certain, even though modern quantum mechanics describes the particle world
as leaping from one position to another as Zeno indirectly predicted.
If we had to choose, is
time linear or a fragmented series? In
one case the past and future of spacetime are entirely fused, so lateral
change is the illusion and linear time is real. And in the other case,
the moment of now that we believe transforms fluidly in a systematic evolution,
is in reality a singular and separate universe, and no linear time exists.
Time itself then is an illusion.
This question we confront here, about the
structure or nature of time, looms at the heart of the distinction between
Quantum theory and Relativity theory. Is time linear or sequentially constructed?
To answer we ask, what do we observe?
objects move along linear and continuous paths through space, or do objects
leap from one position to the next? Actually the answer is known. On the
small scale we recognize that particles travel as a wave from one position
to the next without having a definite position in between. Quantum mechanics
could easily be interpreted to indicate that spacetime is not linear, and
has led many to challenge the common belief that we exist within a smooth
flowing time continuum.
But Einstein stayed a neo-realist throughout
his life, convinced that "God does not play dice". On the large scale of
planets and galaxies, the relativistic field theory produced by Einstein
himself, was able to describe an inseparable connection between space and
time, as well as past and future. Einstein's belief in an undivided solid
reality was so clear to him that he even rejected the separation we experience
as the moment of now. Einstein not only believed time was relative. He
believed all of spacetime forms a unified existence. His most descriptive
testimony to this faith came when his lifelong friend Besso died, shortly
before his own death, Einstein wrote a letter to Besso's family, saying
that although Besso had proceeded him in death it was of no consequence,
"for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future
is only an illusion, although a convincing one."
The most radical and distinctive difference
between Einstein's relativity theory and quantum theory is how each describes
the moment of now. In the most common and conservative interpretation of
quantum theory, the universe is physically indefinite until it is observed
by a conscious being. Personally I prefer to say that physical reality
is indefinite before it is interacted with. In either case, the ability
for physical existence to be indefinite or wave-like is not only true of
what is real in regards to the future, but is true of the past events as
well. The observer literally determines the course time has chosen by observing
In relativity theory there is no uncertainty
or probability. The motion of a planet, for example, is highly predictable
years into the future. There are not many unique futures possible, there
is one that is inevitable. There are not many pasts possible, for the past
is connected inseparably to the future. In Einstein's view the past and
future are entwined without any now, or perhaps we begin to see in Einstein's
view, as he suggested eloquently, that all moments of now are related to
a single existence. Existence is then divided only by unique references
of time for each spacetime traveler.
So now, with the inherent differences between
relativity and quantum theory made clear, with the distinction made between
linear and lateral time, we are better able to consider the following question.
What if relativity also was reason to believe that spacetime is a sequence
of events? In addition to the evidence that quantum theory provides as
it describes the small scale, what if the large-scale curvature of spacetime
could be viewed as evidence that time is a series of moments? What if both
theories told the same story?
They do of course tell the same story about
this one universe, both theories do, and we just haven't learned yet to
fill in the pieces and hear the story right. So I submit there is a way
to resolve linear and lateral time. The first stage is to show that when
we explore lateral time in greater detail, we discover the curvature of
space, time dilation, and spatial contraction. And so we now begin to explore
spacetime as a direction through many spaces.
Two Dimensions of
It was said that the photographs of a person
walking across the courtyard represent movement through space and time.
That is the normal analogy, yet if we extend the analogy we might notice
that the photographs represent block like spaces existent in their own
separate unique reference of time. Not dissimilar, the photos exist in
our present time even as they represent moments of another place in time,
usually in the past. Certainly, it is equally possible that our own experience
of time could be related to a series of block like spaces.
Just as the photographs above are displayed
independent of the sense of time they portray, it is possible that elsewhere
in existence there are spaces which exist independently. In each space
we can imagine static matter fixed motionless, afloat in space, and in
each world a unique pattern of such material distinguishes one from another.
We might use the pages of a book as an analogy. We read a story in a book
that flows and evolves like time yet each page is analogous to the spaces
which I am proposing.
Like the photographs, there might be an infinite
number of spaces in the aggregate cosmos. We should expect in this case
that all patterns are equally possible. As this objective view grows more
vivid, it becomes evident that any perception of change inside a series
of such spaces ceases to be time in the full sense of the word. The existence
of each space constitutes one aspect of time, as we presently define time.
A series made of a space after a space after a space would constitute the
element of time that is purely change. Therefore time is split into two
dimensions, one related to the existence of each space, while time as measured
by clocks relates to the so far mysterious union of spaces.
This is disorienting at first, because we
are redefining, actually splitting, the meaning of the word time. Usually,
part of the meaning of time is a reference to the duration of existence.
Time is partly thought of as existence since most of us assume that the
past no longer exists and the future only becomes real as time flows to
it, so we think reality moves along with us through time. Clock time and
existence are assumed inseparable.
The second notion of time is purely a reference
to the progression of events, or change, which is less assumed. We measure
movements, such as the moment of a clock, as time. Its not difficult to
imagine that all motion in the universe could conceivably freeze, and if
time stood still, objectively the universe would still exist and thus a
form of time would be occurring, yet what we measure with clocks has stopped.
So to review, there is existence which is innately one dimension of time,
and there is physical change, which can hypothetically be a separate dimension
The progression of photographs above can be
considered more elementary or primary to the walking or standing activity
of a person represented by a series of photos. The temporal existence of
each block of space could conceivably be infinite. And so we notice that
in respect to time as change, we would use the word timeless to describe
the block of space. Likewise, in respect to the person evolving through
a series of spaces, the past and future would be referred to as non-existent.
The reason of course is due to the fact that
humans do not experience the infinite time period of each block of space
that constructs linear time, even though what we experience may well be
purely spatial. If indeed clock time is due to spatial change, we would
then fully fuse the word space-time into one word; spacetime,
and place all of the emphasis in pronunciation upon the word space. The
future is in this case simply another place of space.
And here then is the relevant point I have
been working up to. The person walking in the courtyard cannot measure
the time spent within each space, because for the person to measure time,
the physical shape of the surrounding world must change. Lateral changes
in his environment must signal time has passed. The hands of the clock
must move. The physical brain must actively process information, for only
change allows the person to think and perceive. Otherwise time is stopped.
Trapped in such a frozen moment the person would measure the length of
time to be zero, as measured by a clock, even though the duration of one's
existence in that moment might last five minutes or forever.
What is even more extraordinary, is that the
same collapse to zero time we just witnessed, zero time as measured by
a clock, is true also of the person's spatial volume. If the duration of
linear time is zero, and the progression of spaces is halted, so also is
the person's measurement of space. What I am pointing to is that an observer
experiences and measures the volume of his space entirely dependent upon
linear time, and does not experience the space of a single moment of lateral
time. If we imagine the progression of spaces is halted, there does exist
a surrounding world of space, yet in the static moment the observer has
no experience of it.
Do not assume this has no greater significance.
It would be a mistake to conclude this occurs simply due to the fact that
temporal change must occur in order for the surrounding space to be experienced.
The progression of spaces builds a volume which is secondary, for it is
not purely an experience of the lateral block of space.
What I mean to say, is that both the time
and spatial volume that an observer measures in the progression of both
linear and lateral time, is fully secondary to the more primary time and
volume of the individual constructive spaces, this being true, even if
the difference between each state were infinitesimally fine. An observer
merely borrows his experience of space and time. This is why we are forced
to describe the experienced universe as space-time. The way I shall prove
this convincingly is to expose the effect lateral state change has on an
observers measured volume and to compare this to the distortions of space
and time described by general relativity.
My immediate intention is to convey fully
and graphically that space-time is secondary to a more primary multi-spatial
existence. However, I have not forgotten the much greater issue at hand
which is the requirement that we find some resolution to the stark conflict
between the linear and lateral time components. So before we continue I
will introduce the idea which I believe resolves this issue.
Time is Four
The central question so far in this
and the central issue in the problems of spatiality, is concerned with how it is possible
that many individual blocks of space which are necessarily distinct dimensions
can simultaneously be spatially linked to form the fourth dimension of
time. In this case it may be that the simplest solution is the only possible
Well, the focus should not be upon how such spaces
are linked, but instead how such spaces are maintained in nature as separate.
The union of all possible space comes first and naturally so. So what then
separates one static spatial dimension from another? The answer is, "only the
definitive form of each space, and nothing more than that." Beyond the
definition we know, the world is connected and inseparable. Just behind the
forms of the world, there exists the formlessness of the infinite.
So why then is there a fourth dimension of time? In addition to all the ordinary expected directions
embedded within and constructing a three dimensional block of space, there
also exists directions in space which travel across or through the multiplicity
of all possible 3D spaces. These directions in space are no less natural and inevitable
than those which build an ordinary 3D field of space, except that each direction
independently constructs the lateral component of its surrounding conditions.
Said more simply, each linear direction in 4D space forges a unique path through
the realm of multispatiality.
I believe this simple idea forges a bridge between
quantum mechanics and relativity. Time is real because space is real. What isn't
real is our sense that our existence is evolving. And yet our sense of our place
in time is real. What is an illusion is only the seeming temporariness of the
present. What we call time is really space. And the directions in this space
travel away from the Alpha of the big bang and move toward the Omega of absolute
zero. They do so because they are probabilistically influenced.
Considering all that we know of space-time,
quantum mechanics, the conservation of matter and energy, and increasing
entropy, combined with the aggregate superstructure of state space and
other theories presented here in previous essays, it is not difficult to
imagine that there are laws and forces that both probabilistically guide
and conservatively rule the creation of lateral space, while remaining aware also that
this seeming creation always is accomplished in reference to each single
4D direction passing through multiple spaces, as opposed to all 4D directions
fusing two unique spaces together.
Note it has not been said that each 4D direction
travels in a free fashion through the patterns of state space. Quite the
contrary, at each position from point A to point B along the linear time
direction there exists a distinct lateral space inseparably connected to
that point. As for each proceeding space, the micro-state and macro-state
conditions of each lateral space leads to a probabilistic decision, one
that shapes both the future and the indeterminate past of the linear path's
lateral identity. The particular states or patterns that each direction
passes through are naturally determined relative to the definition of previous
patterns and the construction method is probabilistic. Note also that this
does not mean the build up of lateral spaces along the linear time line
are individually separate or not spatially bonded together. The proposal
here simply is that the 4D directions that pass through multi-spaces are
always created in reference to each linear time line. Each direction through the
spaces forms an independent time line. This is why every observer moves linearly
through time while we also observe a quantum world around us, surrounding that
linear time line. Each consciousness is associated with a time line.
Therefore, the formation of the lateral identity is not chaotic and instead
ordered and systematic, conservation of mass and energy occurs in every
production of 4D space, while each 4D space is shaped strictly in accordance
with the probabilities of state space. This influence of aggregate state space is
perpetually true of each direction of 4D space objectively. There are no
exceptions. Each direction inevitably travels from the most extreme state
of density to the extreme of flat space. Each point in 4D space will indicate
a past that returns to the point of infinite density, and a future that
leads to absolute flatness. This creates the Many-Worlds partition.
The Holograph Space
The next step is to regard the fact that the
conglomeration of spaces producing 4D space results in a volume of space
that is unique from the lateral fields of space. As we shall discover,
it is for this reason that spacetime can become distorted, in a way that
the primary spaces themselves are not distorted. Our space and time becomes
physically distorted by unique references of time. Just as the stoppage
of time would cause a person's measure of volume to collapse to zero, when
time is merely slower for an object we are observing, we observe its volume
In order to fully understand how spacetime
volume becomes distorted, we first have to understand how lateral movement
through a progression of spaces or spatial fields creates unique references
of time. It is somewhat easy to explain, if we use movie slides or frames
as analogous to fields (note that the word field is being used to describe
a field of space). Please allow yourself to be entertained. We are about
to watch a movie about father time.
We are going to imagine a very detailed holographic
movie created by a very creative computer. The setting is a courtyard like
the one above. The movie is like any other, except this one isn't two dimensional
but rather is made of three dimensional blocks. As this 3D movie progresses,
a character in the movie experiences time just as we do. Suddenly our holographic
person says "hello". Surprised, we say hello in return. Given the opportunity
we start to question him about his sense of time. He tells us that time
flows smoothly, that the past disappears, and he says the future isn't
real. "The future is only potential and doesn't yet exist", he believes,
contrary to our knowledge that he is part of a static multi-space. Convinced
he remarks "All that is real is only what exists now" he states with undying
If we imagine this character can perceive
our real world just as we observe his, we then have an opportunity to experiment.
We increase the viewing speed of the movie film's 3-D frames, and so suddenly
we observe our new friend in the film to walk faster, and the clock standing
in his courtyard is visibly moving faster. We question him again and find
that he doesn't notice anything wrong with his world. His sense
of time has not been effected?
Why? Although we sped up the movie, from inside
the movie, time is normal because twenty frames are still required for
his clock to show that a second has passed, and no matter what speed we
view the movie, it still requires fifteen frames for our friend inside
to make one step forward.
We could divide the total number of frames
in the movie, decreasing the difference between one and another by half,
and play the movie again, but the effect is the same. We can even continue
this division to the extreme of an infinitely small difference between
one frame and the next, yet the person's sense of time in the movie is
unchanged. In contrast we can limit the difference between the frames to
zero, in which case time would appear to us to stop. And of course our
friend would show no awareness of this.
However, if we set loose the requirement that
the series of frames follows an order, a linear time direction, and let
each next frame be chosen randomly, the previous sensible images in the
movie will decay instantaneously as the projector displays a random assortment
of images. What this reveals is that for the movie to mirror spacetime
there must be a consistent measure of difference between each successive
rearrangement of space. There must be a limitation of change in the movement
of objects. If all the particles or objects stay in one place, or if any
make sudden or instantaneous leaps in position, the movie will not remind
us much of the real world.
In real spacetime, the speed of light acts
as the speed of change. It is a measurable constant to which nature limits
all change, in part by determining the maximum distance a body can travel
in a measure of time. In every sense, the speed of light is the chief regulator
of change. In this movie, if it is to accurately depict spacetime, there
must also be an exact and limited measure of change. There must be a maximum
measure of change in each successive rearrangement of 3D space which limits
the distance objects can move in a set number of frames, just as we cannot
travel faster than the speed of light in a set period of time. This change
constant insures that the movie looks real and undistorted, both to us
and even the person inside the movie.
So hopefully it is understood now that as
we increase the speed at which we observe the moments of the movie, we
do not change the overall number of moments which make up the movie. Nor
do we effect the amount of change to each frame. We merely increase our
viewing speed. And so even though we observe time moving faster from outside
looking in, from the inside the movie, everything appears normal and undistorted
to its tenants. Time is normal on the inside, but our friend is now looking
out at us rather strangely.
He reports, astonished, that he is observing
time in our world to be slowed. His own time seems perfectly normal,
but after we increased the movie speed, he then observes our world as if
it is moving slower. Why? Its easy to see it if we turn up the speed even
faster. He then experiences his whole day, he goes to work, to the store,
has dinner, and then comes outside to talk to us again. But we watched
his whole day pass in only ten seconds. He says, "I kept an eye on you
all day, and your clock ticked off ten seconds nearly as slow as the sun
moved through my sky." To him each of our seconds lasted many hours.
So of course next we slow down the movie film,
slower than normal, to see what he says. Then he reports that our clocks
and movements have become fast and crazy, and after getting dizzy watching
us he requests that we return the speed of our world back to normal, so
both worlds appear to change at the same rate.
And so now we are done with step one. I've
explained all this only to show two references of time. In one world time
is faster than normal, as compared to the other, yet both we ourselves
and or friend in the movie experience the rate of time to be normal.
Next step is to recognize that two people,
both of which are inside the movie, can and will experience time differently.
What happens if our friend in the movie travels away from another person
sitting in the courtyard. He is now moving from one place to another? Notice
that previously he was moving through many 3-D frames in order to experience
time. As was explained before, time in his case is a special direction
or movement through space. So as he changes position in reference to the
courtyard where he stood previously talking to us, now he is moving through
space in two ways. In each successive frame he is farther away from the
The problem for him now, is that his lateral
movement within the frames will constitute a measure of spatial change,
and because the speed of change is a constant, his movement will use up
some of his allotted change. The movie will only allow him a precise measure
change. If he uses it up to change position in reference to the courtyard,
he will not be able to use change to talk to us. Thus we can recognize
a requirement that his personal clock time slows down in relation to places
that are at rest within the movie. because his movement will use up change
which otherwise would have been clock time.
It is perhaps easiest to envision the effect
movement would have if the person moves away from the courtyard almost
exactly at the greatest amount of change the sequence of frames allow,
analogous to a speed near the speed of light. Again, the overall measure
of change is constant, so nearly all change is being used to travel at
a high rate of speed, and very little is left over to move his clock. The
passage of time as measured by the traveler decreases, and yet it decreases
unbeknownst to the traveler, since he perceives his own personal reference
of time and ages equal to his slower clock.
The Space Age Bubble
As we watch we can see that more clock time
passes in the courtyard than for the traveler, but is this because the
courtyard is stationary? I haven't heard it said this way before, but there
is a base reference of time, an internal clock of sorts, for the universe.
For example, if we travel away from the earth at 99% the speed of light
for half a year, the Earth is traveling away from us also, relatively speaking,
in the opposite direction. Yet when we turn around, and return, it has
been only a year for us, but it has been approximately eighteen years for
the Earth. Why is one more and one less?
One of the qualities about spacetime that
many scientists don't consider is that not only are places of the universe younger than our own
area, due to motion caused
by expansion, there also must be areas where the universe is the oldest
possible age, or where the universe has aged the most since the Big Bang.
This old space is simply the flattest and coldest areas of the cosmos.
Such an area can be said to be the threshold of time, where all motion
has been turned into clock time, and consequently the directions in that
space have aged toward the future the most. The conclusion I am suggesting
is that clock time is fastest for those who are stationary within the forward
direction of time, meaning here the direction toward the omega state.
The goal of this whole display was to show
that a world created by of series of spaces has the same unique qualities
as our own world. A progression of spaces would naturally create a limited
amount of change. As spaces shift, the measure of change that is possible
in each rearrangement of space will determine the speed limit of traveling
objects, and will also determine the speed of clock time when objects are
at rest in reference to the linear direction of time toward the omega space.
It might seem, at this time in history, that
the speed of light is inherent and a necessary feature of nature, but long
ago it was a rather unexpected and highly odd discovery. We did not expect
that objects would have a speed limit. We still do not know why objects
cannot move at any speed. Why should objects be limited in their speed?
In this model where spaces create clock time, we find such an ultimate
speed limit is inevitable. Why then is there a speed of light? First objects
don't actually travel through space. Objects simply exist in many places
which are sewn together by strings of time. And second, in a world created
by shifting spatial fields, nothing can travel faster than that process.
So as a friend of mine pointed out, motion can be seen as the secondary
process of a system, rather than an elementary feature of existence as
we naturally expect.
New ideas about the universe tend to make
us feel like the supports we hold on to in life have been shaken. Here
we are just beginning to see beyond our natural assumptions that describe
the space and time we experience as primary. We are seeing beyond our common
expectations about reality into the actual construction of a universe.
And to highlight the differences, we have been moving our perspective back
and forth from our personal place within spacetime, to the frames or space
fields, considering time as many 'blocks of now', which they themselves
exist in very permanent and even forever time.
But actually we have been encouraged toward
a similar view of time for quite a while, since Einstein discovered relativity
and Edwin Hubble discovered the expanding universe. Since we learned of
distant quasars traveling away from us at nearly the speed of light, we
have been led to imagine copies of ourselves out there, on some distant
asteroid or planet, where time in reference to us here on Earth would be
nearly at a standstill, yet we know also to not think of these distant
and almost 'time frozen' relatives as genuinely frozen in time opposed
to our time traveling.
Time evolves out there for them just as it
evolves here for us, which means that we should elevate all the time references
into the same existence, and acknowledge that most of the distant places
of our own universe are actually evolving with no time relationship to
our own clock time. We view only a fragment, and fleeting moments at best,
of a much grander universe. There is only one common time reference, that
being the primary time reference we are discovering here, the one enormous
moment of now.
Distortions in Volume
We have already established two unique references
of time within the movie, and can consider how the volume of the traveler
becomes distorted in reference to a second person in the movie, an observer
at the courtyard. I have already thoroughly explained two basic kinds of
time, that of the permanent spaces, and changing time as measured by the
person standing in the courtyard, and I explained that the person in the
courtyard would not measure real time, but instead spatial change. In a
sense I made a distinction between existential time and a secondary time
made of space.
In spacetime, clock time, or more accurately,
change, is needed to measure and experience spacetime. In fact the spatial
volume of an observer is entirely dependent upon spatial change, and is
observed by each place in time. What then does a stationary person in the
courtyard observe when his friend is able to travel near to the speed of
light, which is near the speed at which the spaces are progressing?
To the observer at the courtyard, the traveling
friend is nearly frozen in time. As his speed increased, the rate of time
for the traveler in reference to the stationary courtyard decreased. As
time appears to slow, the person in the courtyard observes for his friend
the same reaction he would experience of his own world without the continual
progression of spaces. His four dimensional volume would collapse. Thus
he sees that the traveler's space is distorted or squashed, because the
other's volume is measured in reference to clock time in the courtyard.
And of course the collapse occurs for the actual traveler. In the same
way the traveler uses up time, he also uses up his 4D spatial volume. In
his vigor to spend his clock time and 4D volume to travel into the future
he is steadily transformed into a linear time direction , until finally,
at the speed of light, his ordinary time and space is reduced to zero.
We cannot stop clock time, or even slow it
down for ourselves, but if we could our reference of space-time volume
would collapse. There would exist about us the stark reality of a primary
volume of space, the space of a single moment, yet our ordinary senses
would not witness the frozen expanse. We know there is no measurable volume
without time from Einstein's general theory of relativity, and we can see
it logically, by imagining time as a series of spaces. Volume as we know
it simply disappears without the progression of spaces.
I propose that the distortions visible within
a progression of spaces are the same as those known features described
by general relativity. Since gravity is also a direction in time, and thus
a direction in space, it also uses up clock time and bends space. The time
dilation, and the decrease in volume and mass, which Einstein determined
to be features of spacetime, are consequences of a four dimensional existence,
or said another way, a five dimensional universe, in which there are three
dimensions of space and two dimensions of time, the so called imaginary
time or permanent existence of multispace, and the so called ordinary time
experienced in space-time or 4D space.
Positive and Negative
If I have been successful the reader can now
sensibly recognize that a progression of spatial fields would create a
unique volume that is dependent upon spatial change, and it should be evident
the possibility of two distinct worlds, our spacetime, and multispace.
If so, then the reader is now qualified and able to be introduced to the
idea of positive and negative volume. I submit that there are two identical
but opposite directions of spacetime, each moving toward the same point
of equilibrium, with each having begun from opposite sides of nature, which
separately produce two spatial volumes which are positive and negative
to each other.
As we pass through spaces a volume is created
within which we measure all material density to be positive. There is no
negative density within our spacetime and there cannot be negative density
within a positive volume, since that would create a negative mass. Mass
is always positive or principally neutral relative most likely to existence
itself or the general meaning of space.
The following philosophical argument shows
the consistency of this approach. Mass is related to the density of space
while space is fundamental. Space is in essence physical existence. Non-existence
cannot be (Parmenides). And there is no such thing as a non-space or a
non-existence to separate a form of existence from another form of existence.
Non-space cannot be. If mass is related to fundamental space then negative
mass cannot exist, since it would indicate a negative existence. Neither
space nor existence is ever negative. However, a 4D volume, being a secondary
aspect of multispace, can be either positive or negative in respect to
the direction in state space producing the volume.
So we write:
mass = density x volume
or more precisely:
mass = positive density x positive volume
mass = negative density x negative volume
A negative density cannot exist in our positive
volume, because it would then be a negative mass. This does not mean that
negative density does not exist. It is actually a very fundamental feature
of our own spacetime, it is just not visible in our spatial surroundings.
This is the most obvious distortion to our volume produced by 4D space.
Negative density exists always beyond a point of zero volume, such as the
point of the electron. This is why the electron point particle does not
have infinite energy, does have a definite mass value, and does have a
negative electromagnetic charge, because it is a negative density existing
in a negative volume.
This negative volume is curved, its internal
shape is determined by probabilities within the direction of spacetime. Being
curved, there is no space exterior to the internal lobe. The lobe is the only
possible space, meaning that moving beyond its probability is impossible. All
the zero volume points of electrons form a common plane that separates our own
positive volume from the negative volume of the electrons.
Is the continuity of spacetime real or an
illusion? Assuming now that both quantum theory and spacetime curvature
are evidence of spacetime being a direction in spaces, does this discovery
leave us with a fragmented view of the spacetime continuum? If we consider
the film again, and measure the amount of time that each 3D frame contributes
to the time length of the movie, we discover that each frame contributes
a zero measurement of time.
Without thinking about it, we would expect
each frame in the movie to contribute a short time duration, since we view
each frame for a period of time, and inside the movie it requires approximately
twenty frames for one second to pass, and so each frame would seem to contribute
one twentieth of a second. But we should consider this more carefully,
because when we do we will notice that the person inside the film (as we
are inside the universe) measures the time duration of each frame to be
Simply imagine how much time would pass if
the movie is placed on pause. No time passes inside the movie. If we advance
from one frame to the next, the hand of a clock can be in a new position,
but how long did the first frame last? How much time does the second frame
contribute? In fact the individual frames do not add up to create clock
time, but rather, the physical changes add up to create clock time.
In our real spacetime there is no measurable
time duration in between one spatial field and the next. Nor are there
measurable gaps in between moments. A rearrangement of particles registers
as time to a clock, and no other time can be measured. It matters not that
an infinite time period is responsible for creating each moment of now,
we still measure the physical reality of each momentary "block of now"
as zero time.
I submit that a progression of spatial fields
is a continuum because no physical element divides one field from the next.
It is not just that we cannot measure any time period separating one field
from the next, it is that the whole body of fields are undivided, or at
least are not divided by anything we would define yet with a scientific
term. This becomes more evident when I explain the laws which determine
the specific construction of any single spatial field in the next essay.
An Overlay of Spaces
The Universe consists of a collective set
of three dimensional spaces, a set which by nature contains directions
besides the expected directions within each three dimensional static field.
That added direction is produced by a sequence of spaces which themselves
are undivided and create a spatial continuum; changing universes within
a forever universe. It is only natural that we should find ourselves experiencing
the universe's sequential direction of spacetime (apparently there is a
use for the anthropic principle after all) and not be able to experience
the linear directions.
I have defined the static four dimensional
spatial fields as primary because of spacetime's dependence upon the fields,
but either direction of time is as real as the other. In fact if anything
is primary it is flat space. I will be able to actually define more clearly
an individual spatial field because each is part of, and contained within,
a flat and smooth infinitely extended body of space.
For descriptive purposes I will not
suspend my use of the word "spaces" to describe the spacetime path, but
I want to note that it could be done. All directions in each single field
are unbroken or linear. Beyond those three dimensional directions a fourth
dimensional direction passes through each point. Those spatial directions
are also linear, but all such directions which accumulatively comprise
a 4D volume are in strict reference to a single linear time path. This
is of course what elevates each observer to be the telltale of his own
Each personal direction in spacetime is linear,
while all surrounding others in reference are shaped and directed by the
probabilities of the set of all possible spaces, resulting in our personal
experience of a smooth time continuum, a continuum paradoxically dependent
upon the quantum mechanical process for change. We can say then that flat
space is five dimensional, with two dimensions of time.
Next page: Beautiful Diversity