New Theory of Multiple Dimensions in Space

[Densmore]

Posted by David Densmore dden@rollanet.org

Extra dimensions exist. It is the movement of matter through space that closes off access to extra dimensions and encapsulates matter in three dimensions.

Time is the minimum speed through space necessary to close the other dimensions and establish 3-D encapsulation. Slower than time and you are in multi-dimensional space, faster than light and all the dimensions are closed. Between the speed of time and the speed of light matter is encapsulated in three dimensions as it moves through multi-dimensional space.

Imagine that you are driving past an orchard with trees planted in even rows and columns. If you look straight into the orchard you will see a path through the trees which appears to follow you. There will also be diagonal paths on either side of that path for a total of three paths which converge on you and appear to follow you. All of the other paths exist, but they are always just around the corner and you can't see them.

If you stop the car this effect will vanish. You will still see the three paths you saw while you were moving, but you will also be able to see the other paths to the left and right. If you sit and stare into the orchard you will be able to perceive the overall structure of the rows and columns, but when you start moving again you will see only the three paths which appear to follow you and the overall structure of the orchard will become invisible.

If you drive past the orchard at 1000 kph the entire orchard will be a blur and you won't see any paths.

We are in multi-dimensional space, encapsulated in three dimensions, BECAUSE WE ARE MOVING!

[Shaula]

Any predictions? What does your speculation bring to the big picture? What evidence is there for it? How does it deal with the fact that time is not absolute but depends on motion? Basically more details please, there is nothing here that can even be commented on. So far 'not even wrong'...

[undidly]

""BECAUSE WE ARE MOVING!""

All in the same direction?.

[baric]

70% of your theory is a descriptive analogy about driving past trees. The other 30% is blanket assertion presented with no underlying math or reasoning beyond the analogy, buttressed only by your unexplained redefinition of time as a velocity.

Are you serious? This is almost ATATM.

[hypergreatthing]

If you drive past the orchard at 1000 kph the entire orchard will be a blur and you won't see any paths.

What if i drove past the orchard at 1000kph and then hit a tree because i was driving so fast? Would i see paths?

I think your describing an optical illusion and trying to make a theory out of it.

You probably shouldn't be looking at orchards while driving as well.

[Fortis]

Posted by David Densmore dden@rollanet.org

Extra dimensions exist. It is the movement of matter through space that closes off access to extra dimensions and encapsulates matter in three dimensions.

Time is the minimum speed through space necessary to close the other dimensions and establish 3-D encapsulation.

How can time be a minimum speed?

One is measured in seconds, the other in metres per second.

[Hornblower]

Posted by David Densmore dden@rollanet.org

Extra dimensions exist. It is the movement of matter through space that closes off access to extra dimensions and encapsulates matter in three dimensions.

Time is the minimum speed through space necessary to close the other dimensions and establish 3-D encapsulation. Slower than time and you are in multi-dimensional space, faster than light and all the dimensions are closed. Between the speed of time and the speed of light matter is encapsulated in three dimensions as it moves through multi-dimensional space.

Imagine that you are driving past an orchard with trees planted in even rows and columns. If you look straight into the orchard you will see a path through the trees which appears to follow you. There will also be diagonal paths on either side of that path for a total of three paths which converge on you and appear to follow you. All of the other paths exist, but they are always just around the corner and you can't see them.

If you stop the car this effect will vanish. You will still see the three paths you saw while you were moving, but you will also be able to see the other paths to the left and right. If you sit and stare into the orchard you will be able to perceive the overall structure of the rows and columns, but when you start moving again you will see only the three paths which appear to follow you and the overall structure of the orchard will become invisible.

If you drive past the orchard at 1000 kph the entire orchard will be a blur and you won't see any paths.

We are in multi-dimensional space, encapsulated in three dimensions, BECAUSE WE ARE MOVING!

What is there about the appearance of the orchard as seen from the moving car that cannot be described in terms of the three familiar space dimensions as a function of time? Please try to explain, in appropriate mathematical detail.

[Densmore]

Posted by David Densmore dden@rollanet.org

This novel concept of time was inspired by the article in the June 2010 Scientific American "Is Time an Illusion?" This is an idea I thought of in 1985 but couldn't get anyone to listen to at the time, so I gave up on it. Then I read the SA article and said to myself "That's what I was saying 25 years ago."

Your memory of the past is a structure in your brain that exists right now. When you recall events in the past, that is a process that is occurring right now. In 1985 I took that to mean that time is an illusion, a construct.

But everyone else kept talking about "spacetime" and I lost confidence in the concept until I read the same idea in SA.

If time is just a construct, then there is really no past or future but a continuous now, and what we think of as time is simply the speed at which matter and energy interact with each other. And this speed of interaction changes as speed through space changes.

In order for us to have any sense of time, we must first exist in three dimensions so that the structures made possible by three-dimensionality can record events. In multi-dimensional space, such structure is impossible and so the construct of time cannot be constructed.

So now we have to talk about the idea of sitting still in space. Since light always travels at the same speed through space independently of the platform from which it was launched, it can provide a reference to the structure of space.

Suppose a spacecraft was constructed with at least six long booms radiating from it along the +X -X, +Y -Y and +Z -Z axes on which were mounted light detectors. A laser beam fired toward the detector in the direction of travel would take longer to reach the detector than a beam fired toward the detector in the direction away from travel.

If the probe had sufficient fuel to cancel out all of the motion of the earth, sun, galaxy etc. It could theoretically come to a complete stop in space by firing its thrusters until the laser beams took exactly the same amount of time to reach the detectors in all directions.

If my theory is correct, the probe would drop out of three-dimensional space and enter multi-dimensional space, at which point it would disintegrate (since space itself is expanding and undulating due to gravitational force, actual results would be hard to predict).

Hence my theory that time is simply the minimum speed through space necessary to close the other dimensions and encapsulate matter in three dimensions which allows structure and ultimately lifeforms who can build clocks and perceive time.

This theory provides an elegant explanation for the speed limit through space. If you tried to go faster than light, you would be trying to close the three remaining dimensions and push yourself out of space altogether.

This theory also predicts that as an object approaches the speed of light it should become physically distorted as the dimensions start to close and that, from the point of view of the force that is trying to accelerate it, it behaves as if it has more mass because it is being wedged into the collapsing three dimensions of space it occupies. The more force that is applied, the more tightly wedged the object becomes.

To answer some of the other questions:

Everything doesn't have to be moving in the same direction. Any direction through space will produce this effect, and we should be able to see objects encapsulated in three dimensions going away from us because light from that object will travel at the speed of light and reach us through three-dimensional space.

This theory leaves open the possibility that movement through multi-dimensional space can result in encapsulation in a different three dimensions than the three that we are in. Meaning that there could be another three-dimensional universe right here next to us. Zipping past us is more like it.

There is nothing about the appearance of the orchard as seen from the moving car that cannot be described in terms of the three familiar space dimensions as a function of time. This is an analogy, like trying to imagine three dimensions from the point of view of two-dimensional creatures, or visualizing gravity as a heavy ball sitting on a trampoline.

[Hornblower]

Let me follow up after analyzing the geometric effects overnight.

I observed the same effect thousands of times during bus rides through Arlington National Cemetery after performing at funeral services. There are large tracts in which the grave markers are in perfectly straight rows and columns. The white markers and green grass created a rather bold alternating light and dark pattern of radial bands when we were moving fast enough to blur the scene, usually about 25 mph. I sometimes saw five or more apparent paths. The pattern is there even at a standstill, but it is more obvious when the blur reduces the visual clutter. It is caused by differing amounts of overlap of the markers in different directions.

Once you are moving fast enough to blur out the individual markers and see only the radial pattern, increasing the speed does not change a thing unless you start getting close to the speed of light. Then aberration of light will warp the pattern.

None of this requires any extra dimensions for an explanation. Plain old Euclidean geometry works fine. Your last sentence is in my opinion a total non sequitur.

[Hornblower]

Snipped from my previous post.

...Your last sentence is in my opinion a total non sequitur.

I was referring to the last sentence in post #1. I somehow did not scroll down to your wee hours posts before writing. I have not yet had the time to study your latest remarks.

[Strange]

Suppose a spacecraft was constructed with at least six long booms radiating from it along the +X -X, +Y -Y and +Z -Z axes on which were mounted light detectors. A laser beam fired toward the detector in the direction of travel would take longer to reach the detector than a beam fired toward the detector in the direction away from travel.

This is just plain wrong. Ever hear of a guy called Einstein and special relativity?

[Shaula]

So, one prediction which is already proven wrong by experiements to test relativity. More words which don't mean anything as far as I can make out - the logic you are using may be simple to you but it makes no sense to me. Why would 'wedging an object into three collapsing dimensions' (what does that even mean?) make it heavier? You need to structure this properly. Set out your axioms simply and clearly. Use them to prove what you have said in simple, logical steps. Small ones. As is your theory sounds like a statement of belief with no structure or logic to back it up. We need maths, examples and so on to test it. If you cannot provide them then we cannot critique your theory - and any theory that is untestable is not science. I don't mean to be rude with this, you clearly have something that makes sense to you in your head but you need to break it down and present it differently for the rest of us to get it.

[Densmore]

This is just plain wrong. Ever hear of a guy called Einstein and special relativity?

Meaning that this method could not be used to find the point of zero motion through space because the principles of special relativity would cause the light to always reach the detectors at the same time from the point of view of the observer no matter what the velocity through space?

Yeah, I guess that's wrong. And thank you for pointing that out.

Does this mean that there is no theoretical point of zero motion in space, or simply that this method of finding it won't work?

What if we look at the doppler shift of the beams hitting the detectors instead of trying to time them? Same result?

I confess that I am not a trained scientist. I am a pianist and I thought of this theory while reading Scientific American while taking a break from practicing. The sooner the rest of you can collapse this theory, the sooner I can give up on it and get back to piano.

So I guess we are back to being stuck to a 3-D membrane like a caterpillar clutching onto a leaf?

ps I didn't mean that getting stuck in the collapsing dimensions would make an object more massive, I meant that the force trying to accelerate it would no longer be able to because it is wedged and so it would SEEM like it was infinitely massive.

[Densmore]

Posted by David Densmore dden@rollanet.org

Since light traveling through space is subject to the doppler effect as is sound through the air, is there a point of zero spacespeed just as a balloon has zero airspeed relative to the air in which it is floating? The fact that the air mass is moving in its entirety doesn't prevent the balloon from having zero speed relative to it.

If so, is there any way to find zero spacespeed. Special relativity prevents my previous strategy from working as pointed out by Mr. Strange, so is there another method which can be used?

Would having the spacecraft examine the doppler shift of distant objects in all directions work any better since the light sources and the detectors would not be connected to each other?

Let me put it to you this way:

If space has a multi-dimensional structure (and we think it does) and we are moving through it (and we think we are) how could something like the orchard effect NOT be happening?

Wouldn't this effect be occurring even if it had nothing to do with the real reason that we are confined to three dimensions?

[baric]

I'm confused about your predictions. In your "slowing down" prediction in which the probe explodes, you require us to stop the motions of ALL objects (galaxy, planets, etc). But in your "speeding up" prediction about gaining mass as you approach c, you are only required to adjust the motion of the single affected object.

Your first prediction is an impossibility and your second was predicted by General Relativity over 100 years ago.

[iquestor]

Suppose a spacecraft was constructed with at least six long booms radiating from it along the +X -X, +Y -Y and +Z -Z axes on which were mounted light detectors. A laser beam fired toward the detector in the direction of travel would take longer to reach the detector than a beam fired toward the detector in the direction away from travel.

What about the constant speed of light? Light always travels at a constant speed in a vacuum. Therefore, it wouldnt matter if the laser was fired towards the detector in the direction of travel or against the direction of travel. Therefore the ship would not be able to use this method to determine if it is at rest with respect to the rest of the universe.

Also, you dont seem to have considered that being at rest -- ie coming to a stop -- is "relative". Even if the relative motion of the ship is 0 with respect to everything else in the universe, then an observer on another ship or planet could make the same claim and declare you are moving, and he is not. Both are correct.

The ship could be anywhere moving at any speed in space and claim it was at rest with respect to everything else, so the claim itself is meaningless, and it also has no special significance -- ie it doesnt mean you drop out of 3d space and enter into 10d space.


Lastly, the "speed of Time" reminds me of Han Solo's claim that he made the Kessel run in 12 parsecs. Both are units of distance. Its like saying "I ran a mile in 3 meters". You can't use time to measure time.

[hypergreatthing]

You can't use time to measure time.

I may be slightly out of touch with reality here, but isn't that exactly what we do? A second is defined as a time slice of one day, but a day is defined as the time it takes for the earth to rotate. Both are relative to the observer. In precise clocks and instruments we define a second as how many times cesium atoms vibrate. If for some reason it takes a fraction of a femtosecond longer for that cesium atom to vibrate, how would we tell? It's one of those things that is directly associated to the observer. If time suddenly stops no one would be able to tell unless an observer could observe it.

[iquestor]

I may be slightly out of touch with reality here, but isn't that exactly what we do? A second is defined as a time slice of one day, but a day is defined as the time it takes for the earth to rotate. Both are relative to the observer. In precise clocks and instruments we define a second as how many times cesium atoms vibrate. If for some reason it takes a fraction of a femtosecond longer for that cesium atom to vibrate, how would we tell? It's one of those things that is directly associated to the observer. If time suddenly stops no one would be able to tell unless an observer could observe it.

No, we dont. From the OP , Densmore says:

Between the speed of time and the speed of light...

Time is ingrained in the fine structure of this universe (ie, SpaceTime). You can't use time to measure time itself, because you'd have to step outside the unverse to do so, and then there is a problem of having a reference that has meaning in both places as well as some tangible relationship between that reference and Time within our universe.

[Densmore]

I'm confused about your predictions. In your "slowing down" prediction in which the probe explodes, you require us to stop the motions of ALL objects (galaxy, planets, etc). But in your "speeding up" prediction about gaining mass as you approach c, you are only required to adjust the motion of the single affected object.

When I said "cancel out all of the motion of the earth, sun, galaxy etc." I meant that the spacecraft is starting out from the earth, which is orbiting the sun, which is in a galaxy that is rotating and moving, which is part of a galactic cluster etc... as in cancel out from the spacecraft all the motion imparted to it by all of those things.

Your first prediction is an impossibility and your second was predicted by General Relativity over 100 years ago.

You misunderstood my first prediction, and my second prediction, not conflicting with General Relativity is good!

What about the constant speed of light? Light always travels at a constant speed in a vacuum. Therefore, it wouldnt matter if the laser was fired towards the detector in the direction of travel or against the direction of travel. Therefore the ship would not be able to use this method to determine if it is at rest with respect to the rest of the universe.

Can we get Winston Smith in here to erase from history my wacky idea of the spacecraft with booms and detectors? Steve Martin said "Just tell the judge 'I forgot armed robbery was a crime.'"

Also, you dont seem to have considered that being at rest -- ie coming to a stop -- is "relative". Even if the relative motion of the ship is 0 with respect to everything else in the universe, then an observer on another ship or planet could make the same claim and declare you are moving, and he is not. Both are correct.

The ship could be anywhere moving at any speed in space and claim it was at rest with respect to everything else, so the claim itself is meaningless, and it also has no special significance -- ie it doesnt mean you drop out of 3d space and enter into 10d space.

And all of that is valid in three-dimensional space. My theory is that there is a path out of three-dimensional space into multi-dimensional space where relativity does not apply (and anything that goes in there will be destroyed).

Lastly, the "speed of Time" reminds me of Han Solo's claim that he made the Kessel run in 12 parsecs. Both are units of distance. Its like saying "I ran a mile in 3 meters". You can't use time to measure time.

This theory redefines time.

I am rewriting this entire thing and will post the new explanation tomorrow.

[HenrikOlsen]

If for some reason it takes a fraction of a femtosecond longer for that cesium atom to vibrate, how would we tell?

Because it would be out of sync with the others and/or with other processes used to measure time, an effect that hasn't been observed, which indicates that if anything changes the rate of time it does so for everything at the same time (pun intended), making it meaningless (except for some philosophers) to talk about changed time rates as they aren't measurable by any means and have no influence on the way things happen.
Note that I'm not talking relativistic time dilation, which is an easily measurable and quite real thing, but rather a change in the rate of how things happen, which was what I understood hypergreatthing to be talking about.

[hypergreatthing]

Because it would be out of sync with the others and/or with other processes used to measure time, an effect that hasn't been observed, which indicates that if anything changes the rate of time it does so for everything at the same time (pun intended), making it meaningless (except for some philosophers) to talk about changed time rates as they aren't measurable by any means and have no influence on the way things happen.
Note that I'm not talking relativistic time dilation, which is an easily measurable and quite real thing, but rather a change in the rate of how things happen, which was what I understood hypergreatthing to be talking about.

Well fine, let me put it under context as an example.
Observer A is on earth standing still. An hour passes.
Observer B is traveling 99.999% the speed of light on a spaceship, an hour passes for him.
Observer B reaches his destination earth. The difference/discrepancy between Observer A and observer B would be ?? An hour passed for them both, but B's hour would of taken several years worth of time for A. So isn't a measurement of time based on the observer's ability to tell time? Would the difference be the speed of time? Wouldn't an atomic clock on board the spaceship of B's still only account for an hour's worth of time?

[HenrikOlsen]

For clarity I should perhaps expand that I was only talking about methods of determining time using instruments in the same inertial frame, I explicitly excluded relativistic time dilation since that doesn't talk about time moving at different speeds for the observer but rather about time moving at different speeds seen from another observer.

Since you've indicated that you are indeed talking about relativistic time dilation (impossible to see from the post), my comment isn't quite as relevant.

[WayneFrancis]

""BECAUSE WE ARE MOVING!""

All in the same direction?.

I was thinking the same thing.

[WayneFrancis]

Posted by David Densmore dden@rollanet.org
...
Suppose a spacecraft was constructed with at least six long booms radiating from it along the +X -X, +Y -Y and +Z -Z axes on which were mounted light detectors. A laser beam fired toward the detector in the direction of travel would take longer to reach the detector than a beam fired toward the detector in the direction away from travel.

If the probe had sufficient fuel to cancel out all of the motion of the earth, sun, galaxy etc. It could theoretically come to a complete stop in space by firing its thrusters until the laser beams took exactly the same amount of time to reach the detectors in all directions.
...

I've read this 10 times now and this does not fit with observation. SR will tell you there is no preferred frame. In its own reference frame all lasers will always reach the detector at the same time if they are the same distance from the detector. In all other frames there will be different results depending on the observing frame. You can never get a situation where all frames will see what you want. You can NOT "cancel out all of the motion of the earth, sun, galaxy etc." You can choice to cancel out one of them but not all. It is impossible to cancel the motion of 2 different objects with 2 different vectors.

Take this simple thought experiment

<----------A     C     B----->

Above are 2 objects travelling in opposite directions A is travelling 2x as fast at B with relation to C. Please provide a vector for C in which A & B's vectors both become nullified at the same time.

[WayneFrancis]

Meaning that this method could not be used to find the point of zero motion through space because the principles of special relativity would cause the light to always reach the detectors at the same time from the point of view of the observer no matter what the velocity through space?

Yeah, I guess that's wrong. And thank you for pointing that out.

Does this mean that there is no theoretical point of zero motion in space, or simply that this method of finding it won't work?

There is no preferred reference frame to "zero" against. The closest I could think we could get to what you want would be a reference frame not moving compared to the CMBR but there is nothing really special that reference frame any more then there is anything special about my reference frame.

What if we look at the doppler shift of the beams hitting the detectors instead of trying to time them? Same result?

I confess that I am not a trained scientist. I am a pianist and I thought of this theory while reading Scientific American while taking a break from practicing. The sooner the rest of you can collapse this theory, the sooner I can give up on it and get back to piano.

Nothing about thinking outside the box. The thing many people have a hard time is letting go of an idea that in their head first made sense but after being explained the flaws still can't seem to let go.

So I guess we are back to being stuck to a 3-D membrane like a caterpillar clutching onto a leaf?

Remember that is just an analogy to help visualise certain aspects of space time. As with all analogies it shouldn't be taken further then it is intended.

ps I didn't mean that getting stuck in the collapsing dimensions would make an object more massive, I meant that the force trying to accelerate it would no longer be able to because it is wedged and so it would SEEM like it was infinitely massive.

[peterf]

Posted by David Densmore dden@rollanet.org

Your memory of the past is a structure in your brain that exists right now. When you recall events in the past, that is a process that is occurring right now. In 1985 I took that to mean that time is an illusion, a construct.

...

If time is just a construct, then there is really no past or future but a continuous now...

i think you've nailed it with those 2 statements.
that is exactly what i see when i examine the mind and its concepts.
and i think that is all that can (and needs to) be said about it. time is simply an illusion. time is a concept of the mind superimposed on experiences. it's the minds way of trying to make "sense" (which is just another mind-concept) of what the mind perceives and conceives. end of story.

my advise:
hold it right there.
everything else you say is just more concepts of the mind.
if you come to the conclusion that time is an illusion, you have fundamentally questioned the mind and its concepts.
if time is an illusion, so is causality. causality assumes a succession in time. first there is the cause, followed in time by the effect.
there you are:
time is meaningless. causality is meaningless. those are two of the main pillars of the mind. take them away and the mind crumbles to pieces. a good place to be as far as i am concerned.
there is only ever NOW. and that's it.

[pzkpfw]

peterf, this is a thread for Densmore to present and defend his concept/idea. If you wish to discuss it with him in this way, please take it elsewhere.

[iquestor]

I am rewriting this entire thing and will post the new explanation tomorrow.

Im looking forward to your new explanation.

[John Mendenhall]

"This theory redefines time."


As?

Awaiting tomorrow's post -- but wait, that's some time in the future!

You might want to check the Wiki article on "Dimension".

[Densmore]

If there is a point of zero motion relative to the structure of space, how would we find it? How would we even know it is there?

Special relativity says "You can't find it." If you try to time or measure light, Special relativity will adjust everything so that you will get the same measurements no matter how fast or slow you are moving.

It would be as if you were trying to find a ship's speed through the water by taking measurements in the swimming pool on deck.

Special relativity, it seems, can pull any trick from its hat to make everything line up so that the behavior of everything is consistent for every frame of reference. Time dilation, the twin paradox, the pole-barn paradox, the transverse doppler effect, relativistic transformation of angles, etc.

No matter what you try to do, SR will produce a magic trick that will stretch, bend or transform it in any way necessary to keep the theory of relativity consistent and relative to itself.

You may say "I think space has a fundamental structure and that it is energy moving relative to that structure which generates our three-dimensional reality and produces all of the laws of physics including Relativity and Special relativity."

Special relativity says "Well you're certainly not going to see any evidence of that by looking at anything in here." SR has it all sewn up. SR will shoehorn all the pieces into a relativistic framework that fits together seamlessly and logically, no matter how bizarre it looks.

The orchard theory predicts that there is a minimum and a maximum speed through 3-D space while Relativity predicts a maximum speed and says nothing about a minimum speed. Furthermore, the theory of the Orchard and theory of Relativity have completely different explanations for the maximum speed, which produce the same apparent result.

Relativity says that as an object approaches the speed of light it becomes too massive to accelerate any further and produces complex mathematical equations describing the increasing mass and decreasing acceleration.

Orchard theory says suppose you attach a rocket engine to a speck of dust which is stuck to a brick wall.

You might say "That speck of dust is a lot more massive than it looks, we've been firing the rocket engine for ten minutes and it hasn't moved."

Orchard theory says "The speck of dust is really not all that massive, its just that you have it pressed up against a brick wall."

In the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie "Last Action Hero" a boy watching a movie in a theater is mysteriously pulled into the movie and becomes incorporated into it. He knows that he is in a movie, but is unable to convince any of the other characters of this fact. He continuously points out bizarre and improbable aspects of the reality in which they exist, but is always confronted with a logical explanation for them.

"Just look at these people, no one goes around dressed like that."

"This is Los Angeles, this is normal."

Here is a quote from the article on page 16 of the June 2010 Scientific American "'Quantum Microphone' Puts Visible Object in Two Places at Once."

"This is a milestone," says Wojciech Zurek, a theoretical physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory. "It confirms what many of us believe, but some of us continue to resist - that our universe is quantum to the core."

If there is a trapdoor in space, Quantum Mechanics is the key to finding it. Which brings us to Densmore's theory of Relativity:

"Relativity is a game of Crazy Clock playing on a tabletop inside a three-dimensional rail car moving through a multi-dimensional switchyard."

I think the fundamental structure of multi-dimensional space is quantum and the orchard-like structure is composed of "space atoms" (an atom being the smallest amount of something that still possesses the properties of that something - I did not coin the term "space atom"). These space atoms fit together like those molded plastic chairs that stack one on top of another for storage. This produces the basic "frame" or "structure" of multi-dimensional space.

As energy moves through this structure it is encapsulated in three-dimensions as described previously, generating matter and all of the principles of physics and relativity. Think of a generator dragging coils of copper wire through a magnetic field, or a movie projector producing a motion picture by dragging a series of still frames through a shutter mechanism. Think of an airplane that needs a minimum airspeed to fly.

The airplane analogy is useful because two airplanes do not have to be flying in the same direction to be airborne in the same sky, to see each other or to crash into each other.

This movement of energy past the basic structure of space generates our reality, and that reality behaves the same at any speed between the minimum and maximum for three-dimensional space. But as we approach the maximum speed through space, the quantum frames of multi-dimensional space reach their maximum refresh rate and further attempts to accelerate begin to produce an aliasing effect like when a wagon wheel in a movie appears to slow down and turn backwards.

If you turn the frame control knob on a movie projector it will change the synchronization of the shutter relative to the position of the film. If you turn the control far enough it will cause the frame to appear to move vertically across the screen and finally back into place again.

But suppose there was a rule that said an object appearing in the film may not be pushed off the screen. In this case the object in the movie would bump into the bottom of the screen and stay there as the top edge of the frame continued to move downward. Finally the top of the frame would bump into the top of the object and get stuck. You would not be able to turn the knob any more and any further attempts to do so would just compress the object against the top of the frame and the bottom of the screen.

Matter is made of energy, and energy must exist in space. If you try to push an object faster than light you would be trying to close the remaining three dimensions of space and push the energy of which the object is composed outside of space, which is impossible, so the object gets stuck in the collapsing frame.

So if there is a trapdoor in space, how would we find it? Orchard theory states that for every point in space there is a direction and a velocity (a vector) which will bring the object to zero speed relative to the underlying structure of space and the object will drop out of three-dimensional encapsulation and be destroyed as it is released into multi-dimensional space.

It would not be correct to say that the object would drop out of three-dimensional space into multi-dimensional space because the object and everything in three-dimensional space is actually in multi-dimensional space to begin with.

We are in multi-dimensional space right now. Wave your hand around. That is multi-dimensional space, but you are restricted to, encapsulated in three dimensions of movement. But those are three of the multiple dimensions which exist.

One might find the trapdoor by accident. You might be piloting your starship around minding your own business and accidently fly the right vector, which would be something like walking down the sidewalk and putting your foot through a grate. More like an open manhole you didn't see, and when you went in you wouldn't be coming back out.

But to actually search for this point of exit from 3-D encapsulation will require an ability to perceive the underlying quantum structure of space.