The Finite Disguise
Our greatest blessings come to us by way of madness. Socrates, (Plato, in Phaedrus )
When I fully understood and embraced the content of this work, I had to accept the fact that either I am mad, or much of the rest of the world is. But, because sometimes I'm ashamed of my human citizenship; and because its dismal record is so much worse than mine; and because what the masses call sanity is nothing more to me than a “collective madness;” I chose the latter.
What in the world am I talking about? Well, I’m setting the stage actually. I’m preparing the reader for an ancient ideal; a concept that crops up occasionally only to be buried once again amongst the rubble of incredulity. This is because the normalized, highly conditioned, modern mind immediately rejects it. It’s just a little too incredible; and a little too simple also. But what better way to combat the baffling complexity in our world?
means of the easy and the simple we grasp the laws of the whole world.
When the laws of the whole world are grasped, therein lies perfection.
For any speculation which does not at first look crazy, there is no hope. Freeman Dyson
The wave-particle duality demands something unheard of. Albert Einstein
So, with Einstein's above proclamation echoing in your thoughts, try to
picture this image in your mind (a simple dialectic puzzle from
To complete this simple image of the fourth dimension, you must only add your esteemed (if not estranged) self, your marvelous perceptions, your entire collection of measuring devices—don’t forget your clocks—and the millennia-old (though currently suppressed) mystery of weight.
Now, consider Henri Poincare’s “riddle”: If you were to wake up tomorrow and the universe and everything in it had doubled in size (as above), is there any way to tell? Is there any experience or experiment that could be performed to discover this phenomenon?
Sir Arthur Eddington gives us the common consensus: “Suppose that every length in the universe were doubled; nothing in our experience would be altered.” In other words, doubled compared to what? All standards of measurement and all forces have doubled also. Therefore, we’d never know about it. At least, so goes the standard conclusion which, as will be shown, is ipso-facto faulty.
And the intelligent mind may react thusly: “But this cannot be, because then we would never notice the expansion, just as Alice in Wonderland would have been unaware of her sudden changes in stature if all her surroundings had grown and contracted along with her.”1
But think about it: If the planet (and you) doubled in size, then it must grow or expand. If the planet expanded in size, then this would cause an outward surface acceleration that you (also accelerating outward) would perceive as an increase in weight, like being on a constantly accelerating elevator. And we said above that all forces (i.e., gravity) double also. So here’s the twist: you wouldn’t know about it if, and only if, gravity already is this resistance to—thus an effect of—acceleration! Otherwise, the expanding “force” of gravity—as attraction—would be compounded by gravity as the resistance to acceleration, which in effect, would probably kill you (What a coincidence. One of the themes of Einstein’s theory of general relativity is that gravity is not a force at all, but an effect that is “precisely equivalent” – you guessed it – to the resistance of acceleration, or "the ground accelerating up").
Now, if you can understand the essence of what we’re talking about here, congratulations are in order. For you have done what Orthodox Science forbids. You have contemplated true four-dimensionality, and the clue to the origin of matter, space, time and the spectacle of electromagnetism (both positive and negative electric charges are induced by friction). You have bridged the gap between quantum theory and relativity. You have solved the “unified field theory” and begun to understand much of the ageless mystery of weight. You have also touched on second half of the great truth of Copenhagen.
Imagine this place: like Alice’s place;
place we can see, reflect and surmise,
Reality is achieved only when all conceivable points of view have been combined. (Sir Arthur Eddington)
Welcome to the Grand Observational Dimension, our ultimate and quite privileged point of view. The G.O.D. is an abstract ideal, an “eye in the sky”, so to speak; a stage beyond the worldly confusion of our highly limited senses. It’s where all the aspects and theories of thought, including religion, science, philosophy, history, magic, metaphysics, epistemology, alchemy, mythology…are all equal; where we can see through all the eyes that see and thus combine at will every conceivable point of view. It’s where any experiment imaginable can be performed and observed – without influencing the result. It is the only point of view possible in the world of the fourth dimension. It’s where your imagination is the key, because “Imagination is not a state, it is the human existence itself” (William Blake).
Our tests of truth have already been stated (see Prelude). As E.A. Poe put it, “An effect is a measure of its cause”: let experiments yield their own results. Interpretation is paramount and means, by definition, something we put into the data that wasn't there before the observation. Interpretation can be infested with psychology, i.e., motive, ideology, local and cultural paradigms, and especially pertinent, paying homage (i.e., who’s paying for it and why?).
Within the G.O.D., we exist in the fourth dimension. Therefore we can change size at will or speed up and slow down time as desired. Because the imagination is infinite, we are free to combine and apply the rational, empirical, intuitive and inspirational elements of our psychology. And because divergence becomes convergence, we are "free at last" to sift through all the data, from all the disciplines and from all the civilizations and eras on earth in our search for ultimate understanding. Knowledge may lie in the particular, but truth and/or “the understanding” is beheld in totality; i.e., the relationship.
Now imagine Poincare's Riddle-World from the Grand Observational Dimension:
On the earth, scientists are performing measurements of the speed of light. A laser beam is sent to the moon, reflected back by a mirror and then timed and calculated using very precise atomic clocks. Unlike us privileged observers on the G.O.D., the scientists, the laser beam, the clocks, all measuring devices, the entire earth-moon system and the spaces separating these objects, are growing, or expanding, in perfect and precise proportions, just like Poincare's Riddle-World!
Now the laser beam must travel a longer distance for each successive experiment, yet every experiment yields the exact same speed. And speed is a measure of distance over time. This can mean only one thing: the clocks on the earth are all slowing down! How else can a laser beam travel more distance in the same time?
But we already know the answer to this dilemma
1. The speed of light is a constant. No matter what the speed of either the emitting body or the absorbing body is, light will always propagate at a fixed velocity: C = (2.997,924,562 = +/- 0.000,000,011) x 1010 cm/sec = 1 (about 186,000 miles per second, or 7+ revolutions of the earth per second.
2. Experiments confirm that clocks in accelerated, or ‘non-uniform’ motion slow down. And the faster the motion, the more extreme this “time dilation” becomes, until at light speed, clocks and thus time itself eventually stop altogether. Also, this exact same time dilation is produced in a gravitational field because gravity is induced by the resistance to acceleration! These effects, like all similar relativistic effects, are not noticeable from the observed system, but only from a privileged observational system like the G.O.D. But the effects themselves are very real.
So what does this all mean? Primarily it nullifies J.W.N. Sullivan’s complaint that the electron couldn't really be spreading because it “would by now have spread indefinitely”. In other words, from some reference point it may even be time frozen. But for our living, right-now universe, it means that
Albert’s conclusion has staggered our minds,
How easy it is to forget that the vast visual panorama that seems to exist an inch above and behind the nose is entirely inside the body. We usually think of ourselves as a passive window to the world that bears witness to a three-dimensional, finite reality.
But the senses, and especially the eyes, are not passive windows. Richard Brown, a Neuroscientist at the Exploratorium, says:
We used to think perception was about going out and getting stimuli from the outside world. Now we know it's mainly about filtering.2
Concerning vision, K. C. Cole says:
...the eye and brain create entire visual worlds out of meager, splotchy, and distorted information. Most of what we see is created in our heads.3
Now if we go to the second of our dominant perceptions, we find the same type of situation:
When we pluck a note on the string of a violin, the string begins to
vibrate and the note is carried by the air to our ears. This is a
curious phenomenon. The gas molecules collide with each other in the
same way as billiard balls. The number of molecules in a litre of gas is
unimaginably high (approximately 1022). When an entire
orchestra plays in a hall, the confusion that then reigns in the
molecules of the air is so enormous that every explanation to date for
explaining sound transmission is inadequate. The music that reaches us
from the stage and is reflected a thousand-fold on walls, ceiling, rows
of seats, etc. should really hit our ears as an unbearable screeching.
Instead infinitely precise information reaches our eardrums, whether as
vibrations or through the medium of electrical signals.4
The Process of Observation
Photography works. It is an application of the transduction process. Just like recording an audio tape. It renders a ‘proof’ of something; evidence – “I’ve been here, done that, been with them; see, here’s the proof in the photo, and on the tape.” Science uses this two dimensional process many different ways (photos, photographic plates, mass spectrometers and so on). But no improvement in the process can render the true three dimensionality that comes from seeing with (and not through) the eyes. And photography always costs a full spatial dimension it order to work.
Now photography ‘works’ because it is an imitation of our visual process. It stores individual ‘bits’ of information on a photographic plate (retina!) rendering a two dimensional imitation of three dimensionality. And no one thinks twice of this phenomenal ‘vector reduction’. The third dimension is a 'given'.
But the world is four dimensional. And our vision, perhaps the ultimate process of microscopic transduction, must have the same, or perhaps a more drastic limitation; it also must at least cost a full spatial dimension in order to work. Why hasn’t Science acknowledged at least the possibility of this fact? Especially since its probability is so high.
The brain cannot abide the whole that is always more that the sum of its parts. Like an egg, reality must be broken and transformed in order to be observed. Diane Ackerman, in her book, A Natural History of the Senses, says:
One of the most profound paradoxes of being human is that the thick spread of sensation we relish isn't perceived directly by the brain. The brain is silent, the brain is dark, the brain tastes nothing, the brain hears nothing. All it receives are electrical impulses–not the sumptuous chocolate melting sweetly, not the oboe solo like the flight of a bird, not the tingling caress, not the pastels of peach and lavender at sunset over a coral reef–just impulses. The brain is blind, deaf, dumb, unfeeling. The body is a transducer (from Latin, transducere, to lead across, transfer), a device that converts energy of one sort to energy of another sort, and that is its genius. Our bodies take mechanical energy and convert it to electrical energy.
Vision is a process of nature that “converts,” or transforms, mechanical light waves into independent bits of electro-magnetic and/or electro-chemical energy. And by a remarkable coincidence, it transforms a continuous form of energy into a discontinuous form so that the brain can process it. Our infinite four-dimensionality is preempted in our vision in order to see in three dimensions!
Perception is a flat-out miracle and to science a subject to which a lot remains to be understood, especially vision. As one of my1976 textbooks admits, “Just how these electrical impulses are produced by the cell-like structures, the cones and rods, and how they are interpreted by the brain as vision, is still only vaguely understood by scientists.” (Modern College Physics—White- pp. 19)
In a 1973 philosophy textbook, Reuben Abel tells us:
Visual perception is discontinuous. Seeing consists physically of separate glances, each lasting about a quarter of a second (the world might disappear in the intervals, and we would never know it). The brain pieces together these distinct stimuli to construct an image of a stable and continuous world… In sum, our perceptual knowledge of the world is shaped for us by a sensory apparatus of a particular kind, with a limited range. Our perceptions are subjective, somewhat deceptive, discontinuous, and outdated… We can never claim certainty or universality for empirical knowledge based on sense perception… And there is a time lag in all sense perception.” (Man is the Measure pp. 30)
But we have since learned, that vision is a cyclical but discontinuous event, just like a digital process; an on-off series performed by millions of rods and cones which are “mediated” by a protein, named for its function: “transducin”. A cascade of reactions generates nerve signals which the brain is somehow able to make a “miraculous” interpretation. And by another remarkable, perhaps “miraculous”, coincidence, it takes exactly one quanta or photon of light, which precisely matches a single photo-receptor in the retina to excite a molecule and thus begin the cycle! To repeat, it takes exactly one quanta or photon of light to activate “The Molecules of Visual Excitation” and thus begin the cycle of vision. (Lubert Stryer, Scientific American, July 1987).
Think of the coincidence: it takes precisely one quantum of light energy, the tiniest spark of energy allowed by science, to ignite the visual process. Symbiosis? Is physical reality married to observation? Is quantum theory a theory of reality, or simply a theory of observation; distinct particles (instead of waves) being the result, created right in the medium perceiving them?
Nothing quantum theory has to offer gives proof that it is anything other than a theory of how we are able to observe and measure the ‘out’ side world (which, in fact, is a spectacular achievement). The discontinuity discovered (Planck and Einstein: 1900-1905) along with the transformation that made it possible (de Broglie and Schrödinger: 1924-26), is how the world of the 4th dimension is transformed into the world of the 3rd dimension so it can be observed.
And where is this discontinuous entity produced? Right inside the eye, the retina, the photoreceptor! Or on the photographic plate, or in the spectrum analyzer, or any other place of record or proof.
It’s not ‘out there’, it’s in here. What’s out there is a continuum, a wave world of light so bright it must be filtered, conditioned and/or ‘dumbed-down’ for our enjoyment.
To Bohr and Heisenberg, quantum theory articulated only “what we can say about nature”. The physicist, Roger S. Jones admits that “…quantum theory may be described as a theory of information rather than a theory of nature” (PRU, pp 159). But when this realization is juxtaposed with the physiology of the process of vision (that no one wants to talk about); that remarkable coincidence of the mating and perfect fit between the photon and the photoreceptor right inside the eye, is just too coincidental. Quantum theory must be a theory of perception, the purpose of nature, but not reality itself, the process of universe! All the pieces of the puzzle fit too well for it to be otherwise.
A microphone is a transducer, as is a speaker (a microphone in reverse). And, of course, so is our hearing apparatus. You don't need a sensitive ear to know that any reproduction of an audio event never sounds exactly the same as the original. In the audio business, where I’ve spent much of my early life, you create sounds as much or more than you reproduce them. And with all the high-tech hardware available, you may even create a “better” sound than the original. But any veteran recording engineer will attest to the frustrations involved in accurately reproducing sounds of wide dynamic, timbre, and frequency ranges. It simply cannot be done. In all cases, the result will never be precisely equal. The quality has changed. Dimensions of sound are lost in the process of reproduction (transduction).
A visual perception, when compared with a reproduction of that same perception, yields a lot more difference than some immeasurable quality, however. The difference is the loss of the entire third dimension of depth. Despite all our technological wonders, we cannot accurately reproduce the third dimension of depth. It is forever lost in the energy and/or information transformation. Again, with high-tech hardware we can create artificial substitutions such as holography and crude 3-d movies and books. But the quality is so drastically reduced so as to be incomparable with an original perceptive event.
Somehow, in the process of transduction, a series of compound dimensional changes take place. Since our “artificial” transducers (all audio and video recorders) are imitations of our own sensory organs, and since all transducers give us only reproductions of reality events, not the events themselves, some curious questions arise: what was the visual or audio event like before it reached our transducers? What were the qualities lost while in transit from the actual event and our ever-so-slightly delayed perception of it? Or, what was it we missed in seeing a visual event with our eyes?
Since the universe is undoubtedly four-dimensional, and since we can only see three dimensionally, we are forced into the conclusion that transduction evokes a change in dimensionality. And in the case of vision, just like photography, a complete loss of a measurable, spatial dimension. We will never be able to see the fourth dimension with our eyes.
But this does not mean we cannot perceive it. For it is being perceived during every waking hour by every sentient being in our universe. And to catch nature in the act of SEEING itself, you must only question your ubiquitous sensation of weight. For by combining the mystery of the wave function and the mystery of the fourth dimension with man's oldest and most enigmatic phenomenon, the cause of gravity and/or inertia, nature comes alive in the fourth degree of freedom of motion–as if by magic!
Direct observation, measurement, and experience of the fourth dimension
patiently awaits and interminably invites any physicist who deigns to
drop his credentials and consider why and not how they fall.
1. Lincoln Barnett, From The Universe and Dr. Einstein
2. Richard Brown, Neuroscientist at the Exploratorium, S.F. CA; from K.C. Coles book The Hole In The Universe, 2001, Harcourt)
3. K.C. Cole (see above)
4. Peter Plichta, God’s Secret Formula, “Deciphering the Riddle of the Universe and the Prime Number Code”, Published by Element, Boston MA