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 linear 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 evolution. 

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.

Time Space

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? Do 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 an event.

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 Time

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 of time. 

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 Dimensional Space

The central question so far in this essay, 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 solution.

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 Movie

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 to shrink.

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 certainty.

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 courtyard. 

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 of Time

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 Volume

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 

Then also: 
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.

Fragmentation

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 zero.

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 universe. 

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

Home  |  Part One  |  Part Two  |  Part Three  |  Part Four  |  Part Five  |  Contents  |  Backward  |  Forward

 © Gevin Giorbran, Copyright 1996 - 2007  All rights reserved.  Privacy Policy | Usage Policy