2003-09-20 10:43:34 -- Between the Void of Space-Time:
The Concept of Supernormal Continuity
By Christopher L. Andreadis
Whether stated or implied, the ubiquitous notion of intrinsic dimensionality is common to all the theories of our immanent reality. This is, quite simply put, the incessantly recurring assumption that all existential manifestations of reality (EMR), any reality, “fit” into some n-dimensional scheme. While this inimitable premise is most certainly comprehensible from both intuitive and mathematical perspectives, it may inadvertently lead to instability in, and a deterioration of, the logical structure of the working models of our physical universe. Physics has been bemused at reconciling the very large with the very small. Many attempts at unifying the disparate phenomena of our reality have born theories that are, in some respects, sullen and unwieldy in their attempts at finding a tenable link among the known fundamental forces that drive our universe. Perhaps there is something overlooked or something conceptually intractable that needs to be examined in greater detail so that a more cohesive hypothesis about the nature of existential reality may be formulated. Some of the concepts presented here are somewhat removed from our normal experience and the style of prose is, at times, embellished by the use of metaphor and simile to elicit better mental imagery. This speculative report is simply a logical construct or train of thought and not the final solution to the puzzles of our natural universe. In search of a truly unique perspective on topics such as cosmology, quantum field theory, particle physics, string theory, and other related studies, we first need to separate how we perceive the universe around us from how we rationalize it. First, we examine the nature of our primal bias and its influence on all our abstract rationalizations of existential reality.
From our moment of birth we begin to comprehend, navigate and manipulate reality by way of learned perceptions. Transcending these cognitive engrams, established and fortified from the first days of life, toward unrestrained abstraction of thought becomes ever more difficult with time. It is only with great effort, years of training, conscious redirection and, at times, sheer brilliance of insight that some of our more gifted members in the scientific community are able to contemplate the inscrutable nature of our physical universe; and this, quite appropriately, by way of abstract disciplines as those found in many branches of mathematics. Unfortunately, as theoretical physicists and mathematicians slowly piece together a plausible framework of didactically sequential principles that portray the true nature of our physical universe, something from their earliest learned perceptions often creep into the stress points of new hypotheses. It seems we can’t escape our fundamental faith in, and predilection for, dimensional quantization. This is both a cognitive process of structured perception as well as a phenomenon of all EMR and invariably influences our attempts to breach the barrier of acquired awareness. We postulate that all EMR are in fact entities of a dimensionally quantized reality (DQR) and anything that occupies our universe, or any other DQR, has a unique and finite dimensional aspect. In the concept of dimensional quantization, all existential manifestations of reality are essentially “condensed” onto the substrate of space-time. We now define the nature of space-time according to the following assumptions and set the stage for the development of a separate awareness of our existence.
Space-time is 1) empty, 2) continuous, 3) has no definition, and 4) exhibits regional affine dimensional proclivity (ADP). First, it is ineffably empty except for that which occupies it. Taken as a singular cosmological entity, empty space-time is inherently dimensionless. It is the archetypal tabula rasa of creation. To further emphasize our initial premise, we paradoxically state that it is empty even when it is occupied. Thus, such a cosmological entity cannot be compressed, expanded, folded, or otherwise affected by any EMR. It is simply empty. Proceeding with our logical construct, our second premise states that space-time is continuous over any n-dimensional interval. The idea here is that there is infinitely more capacity (or p spatial dimensions) between EMR entities, and infinitely more causality (or q temporal dimensions) between EMR events. Supplementing the premise of continuity, therefore, is the ancillary proposal that space-time is unfathomably infinite in capacity and causality, though this does not necessarily guarantee existential stability as viewed from our frame of reference. Based on the first two premises, we are confronted with a formless, timeless absentee medium which leads us to our third premise that space-time has no definition. Its structure cannot be characterized by any conceivable topology. Though it is not undefined, space-time acquires definition only by what is apparently bound to it or bounded by it. It is like a container whose shape is manifest by what is held inside of it and what is kept outside of it, not by the container itself. While we observe only three large spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension in occupied space-time, premise 3) infers that it has the capacity for any n-dimensional contour, whether or not all dimensions are apparent, simply because it does not define its own dimensional aspects. Summarizing our first three suppositions, we have an unbroken void that exhibits no definition throughout all dimensional aspects; for all intents and purposes, space-time is a null continuity or continuum (as the reader prefers). If this is not the case, then we are no longer referencing space-time as we have defined it.
Finally, we make the distinction between “lacking definition” (from premise 3) and “being undefined”. Space-time, in and of itself, has no definition but can be explicitly defined in terms of its regional affine dimensional proclivity (ADP). All things that occupy our particular reality do so by an ordered dimension set; something like a unique dimensional bias distinctive to our region of space-time. Whether this is a peculiarity of space-time or the EMR that apparently occupy it makes no semantic difference. It is the praxis of our space-time region and existential domain. We may imagine ADP as a serendipitous configuration of stable existentiality manifest in a particular region of space-time. As shown in Figure 1, if we introduce a non-dimensionally quantized entity into our local space-time and it is ultimately folded or wrapped in such a way as to manifest itself as a 7-dimensional EMR, irrespective of whether or not all seven dimensions are apparent, its dimensional profile is characterized by a distinct distribution or parsing that remains constant. For some other existentially stable reality, the same is true although its regional ADP is distinctly different. It is like throwing an amorphous mass of sand down a funnel and having it come to rest as a finite quantity of glass marbles in a unique trough below, always in the same arrangement of dimensional parsing. Change the trough and we change the rest configuration of the marbles. Remember that each circle in Figure 1 represents a dimensional aspect of a specific entity that may be arranged into any existential manifestation; a rock, a tree, a photon of light, a gravitational field, the binding energy of a subatomic particle, and things of other existential realities that we may not even be able to describe. Having reinvented the universe in such a way and at such a basic level leads us to infer that all existential phenomena actually exist between the void of space-time without being affected by it or even belonging to it. Philosophers would argue that it is the emptiness that gives our existence its diversity; it is the dark between the light that gives us an image and the silence between the notes that gives us a symphony. We shall continue to use the term space-time in this report because of its conceptual familiarity and leave the semantics to the reader’s interpretation.