Were the rules of motion in our 3D universe predetermined?

It is important that you view the contents of this blog in relationship to my new blog entitled: “The fundamental universe revisited“. This new blog is designed to be the master science referential blog for all my science blog postings in my website.

Are phenomena relating to reality predetermined?

I cannot answer these questions. However, there now seems to be mounting evidence that the rules of motion within our 3D universe have been predetermined. I will now explain why this could be the case

For purposes of scientific research and understanding in science, over time guidelines were formed be scientists in order to embrace entanglement within their then existing scientific theories. What has recently happened is that a sophisticated experiment in Holland has definitively demonstrated that the phenomena of entanglement is real and that Einstein’s views about entanglement had been wrong all along. Mathematics had proven the existence of entanglement since the first half of the 20th century, but it had not been confirmed via a physical experiment. This means that since the Dutch experiment the scientific guidelines cited above have been compelled to change.

This now means that entanglement is in fact a metaphysical scientific phenomenon and from here on in it must be scientifically considered as such. This also implies that the rules relating to cosmic movement within the universe were probably determined at the point of the Big Bang [I suggest before the Big Bang].

I will quote extracts from a Quanta magazine article that seems to confirm my words above.


“…Either we close the loophole more and more, and we’re more confident in quantum theory, or we see something that could point toward new physics…” [This means new science modelling that formally embraces entanglement.]

“…But given the choice between quantum entanglement and superdeterminism, most scientists favour entanglement — and with it, freedom. “If the correlations are indeed set [at the Big Bang], everything is preordained,” Larsson said. “I find it a boring worldview. I cannot believe this would be true…” [I believe that the words in this second quote are suggesting that the rules of movement within the 3D universe were set at the time of the Big Bang and that cosmic movement was “preordained”. It is my opinion that the rules of nature as we know them today were also probably determined at that time as well. [This is consistent within my primordial awareness matrix modeling.]

The Dutch experiment can be assessed here


The Quanta journal article relating to the cosmic movement within the universe may be seen here


How I thought about science early in 2013

I share with you science notes that I made at that time

Recently I discovered the note below titled: “One big picture scenario” I noticed that I wrote this document in early February 2013, which is around two years after I began to seriously think about science and began writing. I realise that many of my readers are not likely to completely understand these notes but perhaps a few will.

I am not claiming the contents of this document are correct or incorrect. However, I believe that they are interesting because of the width and scope of ideas that I was then attempting to bring to bare four years ago. I have not amended the contents of the document. In order to make greater sense of this item I urge you to read another blog I posted today entitled “My opinion about imaginary mass”.


One big picture scenario

Key features (random)

 Fourth dimension (really like singular CP chameleon like particle)

 Properties. Thought, multi dimensional energy. Awareness, most possibilities (mass). Instantaneous velocity and infinitesimal (possibilities motivated by thought making CP self referential and self organizing). All conceivable energy (all dimensions) contained therein).

 Observer. With these characteristics can observe itself, can be observed from space time because properties are identical to those of space time observers or observers from any other dimension. Time parameters of fourth dimension have been nominated to be observer-time (now time). This same characteristic can be applied to all other dimensions as well.

 Multi purpose. With these characteristics can be imaginable, virtual or (alternative dimensional) real at discretion of observer.

 Properties. CP core property of all phenomena, including subatomic particles and individual strings as all phenomena originate from CP dimension. It also automatically flows with all phenomena as it is an integral part thereof.

 Causation. Not an issue because of flexibility to change properties at will.

 Energy. CP being all energy can provide the necessary energy for faster than light particles to pass between dimensions at will, including space time. As phenomena passes between dimensions it merely contracts and expands as is pertinent to existing laws of physics at any given dimension at any given time. During the expansion and contraction process their mass merely expands and contracts in accordance to local conditions. Its own particular properties remain intact.

 Big bang. Is (layperson) explainable.

 All reality. Because dimensions and properties contained therein is also (layperson) explainable. All reality commences and returns to nothing (virtual)

 Inter-dimensional commonality. Particles deemed to have faster than light properties can readily pass between the common thought properties of all dimensions (like tachyon particles). They can move in either negative or positive form. They can condense backwards and forwards at will. This makes them compatible with all environments including space time.

 Higgs particle. Because of the unique properties of tachyons they can be seen as being one and the same as the Higgs particle. Through the phenomena of condensation it can be one of the other at will and create minute space noise in the process. They spread themselves in matrix like clusters via Brownian principles, more particularly to areas of volatile cosmic activity such as black holes and significant gravitational thrust and pulls. Can be likened to dark matter (negative properties).

 Primary thought (CP). In space time roams freely as dark energy. Conjunction with dark energy matter (superposition) brings its own mass and energy to bear on dark matter that in turn creates the nucleus of quarks. This single phenomenom can be seen like a single node for all reality to emerge from there. An oscillating process continues from this union which in turn forms a space time matrix of all material/energy possibilities with the discretion of thought prevailing at all levels. This implies all possibilities to do something (awareness) as well. Positive characteristics. Different resonance (noise) type. ©

JW Freeman


The finer aspects of reality – a secular argument

A synopsis of my views relating to the origins and general workings of reality

The contents of this blog repeat ideas that I have already shared with you in other areas of my website. However, my purpose with this blog is to attempt to package all of the most important ideas that I have about the origins of reality, and to explain why it works in the manner that I believe it does. My primary objective today is to create a background to my wider ideas about reality for the benefit of my readers, who may  feel bewildered and disbelieving of much of the phenomena that I seek to share with them.. The word that seems to best describe what I am attempting to say is ‘nature’, but this is not exactly what I mean.

Included in what I say is how we make decisions and subsequently behave in the manner that we do. I will not discuss individual topics such as decision making, consciousness, instinct and similar phenomena in this short presentation. I have already written much about such topics in numerous other blogs in my website. What I hope I may have achieved by writing this blog is that my readers will have at least a  greater appreciation of how my concept of the science of reality metaphorically fits together from a two dimensional perspective. I point out that my ideas about reality are not unique. Many other authors have also written about it over the centuries.

I believe that reality commenced in an absolute time environment and that the secular facilitator of the origins of reality was a metaphorical atmosphere of primordial awareness (implicit/metaphysical awareness). I believe that a single thought emerged from this implicit awareness, and this thought facilitated more thoughts. This process replicated itself until such time as patterns of thoughts that meant something of a non-materialist nature came together. I refer to this phenomenon as being a primordial experience. I see these patterns of thoughts as expanding in width, depth and density until such time as a base of neural network type information and knowledge was created. I believe that no such information and knowledge existed prior to the emergence of the first thought. This information and knowledge base derived its accumulated knowledge from its own infinite and constantly expanding cosmic experience. This cosmic experience I refer to as being sub-quantum phenomena that is aside from (greater than) the speed of light.

My ideas relating to sub-quantum phenomena means that there are phenomena that are occurring in the wider cosmos (including around us) as well as around us which scientists refer to as being virtual or non-local activity. We commonly know such activity as being metaphysical and paranormal phenomena which include consciousness, nature, clairvoyance and out-of-body experiences. It is from sub-quantum phenomena that quantum phenomena emerge, i.e., all that is relativistic/materialistic.

I also believe that our 3D universe metaphorically floats in a wider fourth dimension that is timeless, known in physics as Lorentz absolute time. These words also imply that the environment is negative, because all virtual (imaginary) phenomena therein have a velocity greater than the speed of light. This means instantaneous communication can occur in this environment even though it is not of an understandable nature to us. I believe that our bigger holistic selves are four dimensional because our organic selves house implicit phenomena such as consciousness, instinct and hidden abstract emotions. I also believe that we have two quite different states of consciousness and one of these is implicit (our direct connection with the abstract nature of my concept of a fourth dimension) and the other consciousness is explicit. I see our explicit consciousness and sub-consciousness as relating to the experiences and activities of our organic relativistic selves. I believe that all phenomena of a materialistic type that we have learned and experienced throughout our lives are derived from a conscious or explicit consciousness.

I have written a separate paper about my ideas in this area which includes my views about how the human mind and brain works in a conjunctional relationship, which in turn implies how we make decisions and subsequently behave. I have also brought forward supporting hypotheses and experiments that seem to support my notion that we have such a dual consciousness (implicit and explicit). These experiments include reputable medical and physical experiments described in the audio below. The physical experiments determining the existence of cosmic informational wave patterns include global random event generators, as well as studies of consciousness that incorporate ideas relating to the physics double slit experiment. In other words, I am saying that contemporary science (including physics) is slowly beginning to embrace many of the sub-quantum phenomenal ideas that I have written about and described over a number of years, even if physicists refer to such metaphysical ideas as being either virtual or non-local phenomena.

I will now return to briefly discuss what I see as being primordial explicit reality as most people commonly believe it to be, that is, what has happened, and is happening in reality to make it the way it is. My description will be brief, because I have written copiously about it in my website. I will continue to talk from a limited, two dimensional perspective and I will ignore my wider beliefs discussed earlier, that our 3D universe (plus Einstein clock time) metaphorically floats in a 4D dimension that features Lorentz absolute time. I see this relationship as being concurrent with the 4D dimension, being implicit phenomena (virtual and non-materialistic) and our space/time universe as being organic. By organic I mean.materialistic.

I believe that not only do we have implicit characteristics (which I think can be best described as experiences) occurring within our relativistic organic selves but these same implicit characteristics are, in my opinion, likely to be occurring in a macro sense within a millimeter or less from our explicit selves, that is, within my concept of a fourth dimension. Obviously, we do not consciously know this. However, I suggest that we can intuitively sense its presence such at times when we have an unexpected  sense of expanded consciousness. The point I’m attempting to make here is that in my opinion, our explicit (organic) selves exist within a hair’s breadth of some sort of wider cosmic environment, and that until this point in time, contemporary physics has not been able to reliably identify or describe it. I will now briefly discuss how, from a scientific perspective, I see how the reality picture that I have been talking about fits together.

I argue that before the Big Bang, there existed a 4D dimension along the lines that I have just discussed. I believe that there existed a universal cosmic particle that informationally created the Big Bang in the first place, and that this particle has universal cosmic properties by which it can transverse all other dimensions and universes. An experiment has been devised by my associate that may assist in establishing the truth of this statement. I have also discussed my ideas in this area in my website as well as in a separate hardcopy paper that I have written on the subject. I claim that the two inherent features of my concept of a universal particle are timeless primordial awareness and individual patterns of thoughts that I have nominated as being particles. I believe that both primordial awareness and its associated particle/s exist and operate in a seamless conjunctional relationship with each other. By this I mean a cosmic field. I suggest that not only did my concept of a universal particle create the characteristics that caused the Big Bang in the first place at a virtual and implicit level, but it also created the implicit phenomena that constitute 3D space as well. By this I mean that the elements of primordial awareness (embracing the universal particle/s) can be seen as a type of cosmic space foam that manifests itself as a wave throughout our universe. In a broader sense I am suggesting the following:-

The universal particle took upon itself both implicit and explicit characteristics. The implicit characteristics are the virtual (metaphysical and massless) characteristics that existed in my concept of a fourth dimension in the first place. The explicit characteristics it bought with it I see as being a molten plasma of quarks, leptons (sub-quarks) and gluons (particle binders necessary to create material atoms). I believe that this cocktail of activity that was taking place at the time of the Big Bang, once the plasma cooled, was like minute strings of material elements of my concept of a universal particle. I believe that these same strings account for the creation of tachyon fields which are a prerequisite for the creation of all Higgs particles, including us. The question that emerges from these words is that if my ideas have scientific merit, then how best is it possible to two dimensionally describe the wide ranging phenomena that I have just talked about. I suggest that this may be along the following lines:

1] Treat the Planck length (the deepest level of physics that physicists can determine and understand) as the arbitrary boundary line between quantum and my notion of sub-quantum phenomena i.e., the borderline between implicit (non-materialistic) phenomena such as consciousness and all that is materialistic such as the computer I am using to write this document.

2] Describe how both the implicit and explicit characteristics of my concept of a universal particle play an experiential role between the quantum (explicit) and sub-quantum (implicit) phenomena I have described above (including supporting mathematics as described by mathematicians such as Hiley, Valentini and others).

3] Amend the standard model of quantum mechanics so that it may embrace and then make predictions relating to items 1 and 2 above.

I close this blog by making the following important statement. I believe that the contents of this statement are likely to eventually have an influential role in how items one to three above are collectively researched and described by physicists in the future. Since the late 1880s there has been a strong suspicion in physics that there are cosmic waves passing through the universe (Michelson and Morley in 1887). This suspicion was reinforced by other experiments conducted by English physicists and finally it was in 1929 that an American physicist by the name of Dayton Miller conducted a range of experiments that seemed at the time to confirm the findings of all other previous experiments relating to cosmic aether movements through the universe. This means that the contents of our 3D universe are not static, that there is a continuum of waves passing through it as well as all physical phenomena, including you and me.

When Miller conducted his ground-breaking experiments, Einstein’s Relativity and Special Relativity physics models were already well grounded in science, and for whatever reason, Miller’s experiment were consistently dismissed by his international peers. More contemporary physics experiments (incorporating global random event generators) seem to consistently confirm Miller’s 1929 findings relating to cosmic wave movement across the universe. If these latter experiments can be consistently replicated in the future (as they already have been by Cahill and others), then this is a confirmation of all earlier cosmic wave movement experiments since 1887, more particularly those of Dayton Miller in 1929. A conclusion is that both Relativity and Special Relativity physics are no longer completely valid, and that they are likely to be partly replaced by Lorentzian Relativity physics.

Furthermore, Lorentz absolute time will be proven to be as scientifically valid as Einstein’s relative clock time. That is, Lorentz time will work concurrently with relative time in physics models. This does not imply that Einstein was completely wrong. It seems to imply that he may not have completely comprehended the full cosmic picture at the time he developed relativistic theories. From my perspective, the implication of such important changes in scientific thinking is that the metaphysical (implicit) elements of my argument may then be able to embraced by a modified version of quantum field theory. Quantum field theory already allows for the changes of physics effects that I have just talked about. It would also mean that my concept of our 3D universe floating in a timeless fourth dimension would probably have a greater degree of merit than it would otherwise have. This includes the possible existence of an afterlife as well as most other phenomena that are widely described in science as being metaphysical, and therefore of no interest to scientists. Metaphysical phenomena not only exist, but are also an important component of mainstream science as well. This has been my argument with all of my science related beliefs and associated writings.

Why is there no precise dividing line between microscopic and macroscopic phenomena

It is important that you view the contents of this blog in relationship to my new blog entitled: “The fundamental universe revisited“. This new blog is designed to be the master science referential blog for all my science blog postings in my website.

I believe the multifaceted nature of reality makes this impossible as does the existence of an overlapping fourth dimension

Preamble 28/7/17

Readers should note that I originally wrote this blog in 2014. In those days I had not considered Lorentz’s ether theory but I was, however, convinced that our universe was metaphorically floating in a timeless fourth dimension. I have elected to leave this blog exactly as I wrote it in late 2014. I believe that Valentini’s  words (as well as my associated comments) are appropriate to both Einsteins and Lorentz’s relativity theories as well.  I have not dismissed the notion that our 3D universe may be  ‘floating’ in a fourth dimension. I believe that it may be correct to suggest that Lorentz’s electron/ether theory is one that is in a concurrent relationship with some sort of absolute time fourth dimension. Furthermore I suggest that Einsteins special relativity theory of motion within a time/space frame of reference is also in a concurrent relationship with these two.  I will leave it up to my readers to consider this possibility.

The original 2014 blog text commences here:

The reasons for this seems to be simple. In order to make quantum mechanics a precise theory phenomena that extends into the microscopic (metaphysical) domain needs to be bought to account. I share with you the physics views of the noted physicist Antony Valentini.

For the purposes of this blog I have decided to bring forward a quote from “The Quantum Interviews”. The text from which this blog has been created is that created by Antony Valentini following him being interviewed by Maximilian Schlosshauer for various online interviews regarding quantum mechanics. The particular question I have elected to bring forward is number 7 on page 10 of the pdf publication. It is not my intention to discuss every facet of the question seven extract. What I will do is bring forward with you various sections of each paragraph that relate to the topic of this blog and discuss them accordingly. For reader convenience I have separated the Valentini text in such a manner that I feel you should be able to identify my thoughts regarding the particular text in question. In areas that I feel where greater explanation is necessary I have provide you with hyperlink references to other blogs in my website that talk about such topics in greater detail. As you peruse the eight sections below you will notice that the Valentini extracts in each section precede my commentary on each.

Section 1:


I agree that standard quantum theory is not only ill-defined but it also significantly misleading. I argue that reality is metaphysical because the foundation stones of reality are located beneath the Planck level which is a zone of physics that is of little interest to physicists. I suggest that the missing defining boundary that Valentini talks about is the Planck level and that all physics phenomena above the Planck line is of a macroscopic level and all that it below it is microscopic. I accept that this is an arbitrary statement on my part, but in my defense my idea does provide something that is not only identifiably specific to talk to but at the same time it is also likely to be closer to the mark than one could imagine. I have ideas about the measurement problem as well. It is my intention to talk more informationally about this topic at another time. I will argue about the dual nature of our minds in relationship to the supposition (not clearly separable of consciousness, and awareness, and in my opinion it is impossible to separate the combined abstract and rational features of the two. If you care to better understand what I am talking about click blog “The great international aware study”. I suspect you will attain from this blog a little better understanding as to why I believe there is no such thing as 3D objective reality nor can there be an objective observer for the same reason. It is as though we have two separate facilitators of consciousness at the same time. I see quantum supposition as also being directly linked to these phenomena.

Section 2:


I believe definite states can only be separated from indefinite states by incorporating quantum phenomena below the Planck level with that which is above it. I have devised a physics mechanism that describes phenomena that exists both above and below the Planck level which can be effectively described and I have titled this idea as “Defining and describing holistic cosmic influences and processes”. I have also created another physics related definition that I have titled fine quanta. [See Defining and describing holistic blog mentioned above]. I state that fine quanta is the cosmic binder and facilitator of all phenomena. For the purposes of my work I have also extended the traditional meaning of the word quantum by extending it to include information.

Section 3:


I believe the inherent nature of reality is metaphysical. I believe it is metaphysical because the appropriate manner in which to look at reality is that our 3D universe is only understandable and measurable from a 3D perspective whilst, in real terms, reality is a timeless 4D phenomena. I believe our universe is floating in a 4D dimension and the relationship between both is a concurrent one. I argue that our personal awareness (not consciousness) has exactly the same characteristics as my concept of a fourth dimension but our 3D consciousness limits our ability to be more fully attuned to it. In this sense I am saying from our perspective, both phenomena exist as well as do not exist at the same time (awareness is imaginary) and as such both are quantifiers as well as have inherent properties of there own. This effectively means that whilst consciousness and awareness are (unknowingly to us) partners to each other as we go about our daily lives, it is our personal (4D related) awareness that at the end of the day dominates our lives.

Section 4:


I say facts are facts provided they embrace what I have shared with you in sections 1 to 3 above.

Section 5:


I believe there is room for both classical as well as non-classical logic. If non-classical logic (perhaps better described as philosophy) is confined to describing phenomena below the Planck line then I feel this is appropriate. I also think it is appropriate to include the phrase non-classical at times when classical and non-classical logic is used in the same context provided it is acknowledged by the writer as to what the context of the message is that they are attempting to convey. From these words I am implying the word logic is probably best suited to be used in areas relating to tested scientific fact as it relates to a 3D perspective. If one is to say, as I do, that reality is metaphysical, then it follows from this argument that there is no such thing as classical logic. All phenomena is non-classical and the existence of transcendental mathematics seems to support this notion.

Section 6:


I feel objective reality need not be abandoned as a concept provided that discussions I have shared with you in sections 1 to 5 are considered. This is more especially so in relationship to my Awareness model of physics concept of fine quantum entanglement (FQE). In my opinion it is wholeness nature of all phenomena (reality) that is objective reality. It is only because of the restrictive nature of our 3D interpretation of phenomena that limits us from appreciating and experiencing the more complete characteristics of the wholeness of reality in every sense of the word.

Section 7:


All hidden variables are embraced within my notion of Defining and describing holistic cosmic influences and processes.

Section 8:


I have discussed the topic of what is real and what exists. This raises the awkward question as to whether if we did not exist would anything exists at all? I think what one needs to do when we think about the definite states of everything is to remember that reality is inherently random. Reality determines its own state within its own metaphysical-mind and nothing will ever change this. It is like Darwinian survival of the fittest theory. This theory argues that some things survive and some things do not. Some links are stronger than others. I am saying that reality itself is analogous to this. Patterns of information one day do not necessarily mean exactly the same thing tomorrow. Just as each Mandelbrot (mathematics) set is slightly different to the other, I also believe, all things (phenomena) are identical to this and this concept relates back to my ideas relating to the beginning of reality itself. In my opinion reality began with a single thought. I am sure we all understand the consequences of undisciplined thoughts, more especially so of groups of undisciplined thoughts. I see reality as being one single package of multilayered thoughts and as such scientists cannot remove themselves from this process. I believe the best we can ever do is learn around this fact. In other words I am saying realness is what we individually interpret it to be at any given time or place and as so does existence. If we can experience reality it is real to us and as such it must exist. If we cannot experience reality it does not exist. However, these words are also qualified by the statement as to from which dimension reality is experienced. If it is a person experiencing a 4D experience whilst in a state of near death, (medically diagnosed with clinically brain death and no heartbeat), then it would be a far more inclusive perception of reality than a person who is not. A person experiencing 4D reality sees all things from all directions at the same time as though it is imaginary. Also see “The great international aware study” website that supports this argument. As I said, these are all awkward questions.

It seems the odds are that we may soon catch a glimpse of the fifth dimension (4D plus time)

Is it merely a millimeter away from us? I believe it is

I have created this blog as a support document to a more major blog presentation that I created in my website titled “Mirror mirror on the wall eminent cosmologist Lawrence Krauss tells us all”. I submit these two blogs as presentations designed to compliment my blog titled “Is the universe floating in a fourth dimension” as well as its attached links.

Newscientist magazine says “…suddenly people are seeing extra dimensions… …as everyday things… …we could actually measure”. I discuss this article as to how I feel it may relate to the concept of a fourth dimension that my Awareness model postulates exists.

You will find a pdf file attached to this blog which is a Newscientist magazine article dated 24/Oct/98. I acknowledge that this item is now 17 years old, but at the same time, from other science articles I have read, I believe it remains a valid story to share with my readers. Once you have read the “Mirror mirror on the wall eminent cosmologist Lawrence Krauss tells us all” blog I believe you will agree with this statement. I also feel it is in your interest to read “Why is there no precise dividing line between microscopic and macroscopic phenomena” blog before you commence perusing the details that are contained in this blog. If you have not already cited my blog pertaining to the Planck level I suggest it is important for you to do this as well. In other words I am attempting to try and make sure that after you have completed reading both this blog today and perhaps the Planck blog as well as my comments relating to Krauss’s ideas, (as cited above) you will feel more comfortable about taking some of cosmological physics ideas a little more seriously. I am convinced I am on the right track with my thinking in this area.

The Newscientist pdf file is five pages in length. I have underlined certain ideas within it that I feel are relevant to my cosmological ideas but this does not mean these areas are the only ones that you may be interested in. If you have the opportunity to read the whole of the article (even if you do not fully understand it, as I don’t either), I suggest you do this. What follows is a brief summary of what I feel are the most important statements on each page. You will find my comments immediately below this brief summary.

Page 2: The author of the Newscientist article is talking in a future tense manner. He says there was great excitement in CERN in Switzerland in 2006 when it was scientifically established that there may be a fifth dimension (4D + 1) and he goes on to talk about how important to physics it is if such a dimension existed. It would be a crucial factor in the formation of a GUT (Grand Uniting Theory). I strongly agree with this position.

Page 3: The author of the article states that the Planck length is a natural physical scale and that if extra dimensions exist they would emanate from the Planck length, that is, at the lower energy scale. I strongly agree with this statement as well. I talk about this in my “Mirror mirror on the wall eminent cosmologist Lawrence Krauss tells us all” blog. The author quotes scientists as saying that when particles travel in higher dimensions they bounce around within the higher dimension and they would appear to be new particles. I also talk about this very important phenomena at length in the “Mirror mirror on the wall eminent cosmologist Lawrence Krauss tells us all” blog.

Page 4: This page features commentary as to how matter has come to dominate anti-matter in our 4D universe and that a fifth dimension came into play at the same time as large as a mere millimeter. This is an argument similar to Lawrence Krauss’s words cited above as well (as my own). Towards the end of the page the author of the Newscientist article draws attention to certain adverse physics phenomena. These phenomena he talks about are stated to be inhibiting the physics worth of string theory because the scale of everything (GUT). The author means by this it is close to the string scale but at the same time does not coincide with it. I postulate a physics position as to why this may be the case and I provide reason why I feel this way in my “Mirror mirror on the wall eminent cosmologist Lawrence Krauss tells us all” blog.

Page 5: the Newscientist author points out that by being able to step into the sub-quantum level via a fifth dimension that the lower level energy at this point (below the Planck level) changes everything in physics. It is for this reason I place such extensive importance upon deep level physics such I am promoting via my ideas relating to fine quantum entanglement.

I say, as does Valentini, that if one cannot demonstrably meld micro and macro phenomena together you have very little in physics value. This is why I claim that physics is correct in what it postulates or hypothesizes no more than 50% of the time.

My commentary in relation to the primary text

The information that follows is principally quotations. You will find the various topics I talk about have been directly linked to the pages of the contents of the attached pdf file itself. You will note the pdf attachment is derivative of scanned picture files and as such each page has two page numbers. By this I mean the pages I have constructed and assembled have their own page number and at the same time I have incorporated the page number from the original Newscientist article, in other words my page 2 is commensurate with page 29 of the original Newscientist article.

Page 2/29: the author of the article postulates the futuristic idea that in 2005 there could great excitement in Switzerland as scientists attending the Hadron Super-Collider have determined that it is more likely than not that a fifth dimension has been discovered. He postulates that what they see on the screen is the unmistakable signature of the fifth dimension. The article goes on to say that the determining of a fifth dimension “…would be a great step in the long march to a theory of everything, the long sought theory that we unify the four fundamental forces of physics.” “…It would be the most important discovery since quantum theory…”. The article goes on to add “Taking their cue came from Einstein, who had demonstrated that gravity arose from the natural curvature of the fourth dimensional fabric of space-time, the two mathematicians working independently, sought to show that the electromagnetic force might be accounted for by a fifth dimension…” “…each point is actually a loop in this fourth dimension” (which is a very important argument in my Awareness model of physics pertinent to describing the holistic nature of reality).

Page 3/30: I will continue to provide quotations from the primary text. “…The Planck length is a natural physical scale…” “…if the extra dimensions are bigger than the Planck scale (lower, as I argue it is in relationship to sub-quantum phenomena) these effects could be felt by particles at lower energy.”. The article then says that larger extra dimensions would resolve a complex problem in relation to physics string theory. It also says “…when an elementary particle travels in higher dimensions, it’s wave like component bounces around in the higher dimensions and produces a series of echoes.” “…these echoes… would appear to us as wholly new particles.” “…unfortunately the appearance of legions of new force carrying particles from the fifth dimension makes the string and the electro-weak forces stronger than expected… …they would be too strong to be handled by conventional mathematics techniques”. At the bottom right hand corner of page 3 the author of the article then describes how scientists found particle unification is possible at very low levels. This has enormous implications for particle physics and it is the reason they have come to this conclusion.

Page 4/31: The author continues to debate: “Fortunately a fifth dimension comes to the rescue…” – top left page 4/31 because “…many of the factors that contribute to proton decay violate the conservation of momentum in five dimensions, and so does not occur” and that such forces “…may emanate forces which favor matter over anti-matter, and so explain why matter rather than anti-matter dominates our universe” and that “…a fifth dimension could come into play as sizes as big as a millimeter.”. The crux of this argument is in the middle of page four under a sub-heading titled “unraveling strings”. The last section of the middle of the page text immediately before the picture titled “The fundamental scales of physics” talks about why GUT (everything) is so close to the string scale and does not coincide. It appears that the physics dilemma in this area is that until such time as this occurs that all the fundamental forces cannot be united in one theory, it is important that you remember these words! I believe this dilemma is because both may coincide with each other but they do not meld with each other in any way. I suggest the reason for this is that they are concurrent to each other (separated) and furthermore as parallel processes from each interlink with each other. This is via wormholes which are an energy force unto themselves. It brings into interaction both negative (fifth dimensional) energy and positive (3d space energy). The author of the article goes onto say that the role of the fifth dimension as it has been described in his article “…would, for the first time be able to see strings, the ultimate strings of reality.” I concur with this argument, but do not describe strings as such. I will quote the whole of the final paragraph of this page. The author is suggesting that if the GUT and Planck scales were observable one would be able to see the foundation stones of reality. Once again I ask my readers to keep this last paragraph in mind as they read all other facets of my writings in physics as well as my definition of the Planck length. Quote: “The implications of being able to observe events on the GUT, string and Planck scales are truly mind-boggling. We would for the first time be able to see strings, the ultimate foundation stones of reality. And, with the Planck scale lowered, experimental tests of quantum gravity – the long sought unification of Einstein’s theory of gravity with quantum theory – might be just around the corner.”. Readers should keep in mind that I do formally identify with any form of string theory and furthermore I am not competent enough to talk about it anyway.

Page 5/32: The author of the Newscientist article goes onto say that lower level energy below Planck changes everything (slip into the sub-quantum arena) “…would change everything, including our picture of the evolution of the universe from the Big Bang” (Bottom left page 5).

The article goes on to discuss that a fifth dimension may be able to travel along (within space) then role it up so as to allow faster than light travel in from dimensional space-time – but it is not likely because the energy needed to do so would be too large. I suggest that this is not necessarily the case because in my opinion my concept of a fourth dimension embraces all cosmic energy and transfers elements of this energy to 3D space via a concurrent relationship with it. This means I am arguing that it is possible for phenomena to travel faster than light, but it would not be in space-time. It would be in its concurrent partner, which is my concept of a fourth dimension. I discuss this at length in the blog titled “Mirror mirror on the wall eminent cosmologist Lawrence Krauss tells us all”.

I titled this blog “It seems the odds are that we may soon catch a glimpse of the fifth dimension (4D plus time)”. In this blog I have introduced you to the idea that I believe we all live a type of concurrent relationship with the fourth dimension. I introduce you to the idea that medical evidence seems to be suggesting that when people have a near death experience (NDE) many of them state that they have experienced out of body phenomena after they have been declared brain dead with no heart beat. Some doctors have speculated that from the remembrances of the NDE experience of their patients it seems to them they have experienced the fourth dimension. The reasons why they say this is that some of their patients have stated when they were in a state of NDE that they could see not only in front of themselves in their deceased state, but also behind themselves at the same time. From these words it could be implied that I have given you the opportunity to catch a medical science glimpse of the fourth dimension that I believe exists.

Newscientist 5th dimension article.pdf

Is there a significant difference between information and information capacity?

I believe there is a compelling difference between both

In a physics sense I believe information is indestructible. I believe it is perpetually conserved in the wholeness of time and places i.e. reality. In other words information has its own inherent energy to both create and destroy. Energy is not destructible. If I am correct this means that information energy is involved in all phenomena transformation that is both possible and not possible and this implies that there is both an inherent cosmic capacity for information that may eventually mean something and that information which does already mean something. I suggest that it follows from these words that the laws of nature and the laws of physics emanate from information that is both possible and that which is not. Therefore information capacity to nothing at all must also be factored into the informational frame of reference that I am talking about.

I conclude this section that by stating that if both the laws of nature and physics are information dependent then it follows that in principle all other laws relating to reality must follow suit, which also infers such informational energy is infinitely cosmically conserved. The Maxwell demon physics experiment seems to suggest my argument may have universal merit, regardless of the laws of (physics or otherwise) at play, including those that are abstract (metaphysical). I think memory and consciousness are good examples of this. I believe it is at this point my awareness model of physics comes into play.

I am suggesting that the inherent cosmic energy of primordial awareness and thought duality always remains the infinite source of energy that all other laws must obey. This also means conserve it as well. I see infinite, ever growing, cosmic information emanating from this process and it is this process that our own individual awareness taps into that both creates and perpetuates all of our lives. I see the notion of Maxwell’s information demon also implies whilst information in one form, say the information on a hard drive of a computer, can be erased, the hard drive itself remains. By this I mean information can be lost but information capacity is never destroyed. This is because the inherent information capacity of all phenomena is conserved in a manner such as I described a little earlier i.e. it is infinitely conserved. By infinitely conserved I mean blobs of informational thought that I have described in various blogs of my website and have more formally described it in my recent blog titled “Defining and describing holistic cosmic influences and processes”.

You will find how I loosely imply a number of these ideas in the following text. This text is the vehicle that I have created in order to demonstrate to readers why information theory plays such a critical role in demonstrating how my awareness model of physics comes together as a single frame of physics reference in the first place i.e. as it sets out to demonstrate the essential nature and the mechanical workings of reality as a process of wholeness along the lines of the Hiley-Bohm holographic model. Because of the great importance I place upon the dual nature of information and information capacity in all of my science writings I have created another blog titled “The demonic nature of information that plays a critically important part in all of our lives” that attempts to provide to my readers an analogical story, together with a short science statement that I feel will help you to better understand many of the foregoing words.


Awareness model information with analysis and interpretation

(derivative from two existing blogs)

The Awareness data interpretation and measurement process is closely linked to Jeroen B.J. van Dijk’s Process-Information model which is commonly used in physics when scientists are seeking information about the micro-states of phenomena rather than its obvious macro-state. In other words the system focuses upon what something (phenomena) is inwardly doing rather than what it is, i.e. doing something (its particular action). Jeroen B.J. van Dijk says:

“…our higher-order conscious experience follows from nature’s rudimentary co-informativeness – as a highly evolved confluent culmination of its mutually sensitive psychophysical activity patterns. And in so far as the mind-brain can be identified as the leading process-structure in facilitating this higher-order consciousness, it may be considered a self-experiential end o-sensorium embedded within the greater process-informative omni-sensorium which is nature.” (See Ref. 1)

This is why the Process Information model has been so important to me in order to add additional validity and meaning to my own data collection and analysis process. Rudimentary co-information (all phenomena whatsoever connected) is the cornerstone of all my Awareness model ideas. This includes information capacity as well.

For those with a science background I present you with another quote written by Jeroen B.J. van Dijk, it further supports the short quote I have just cited. I suggest you take a special note of the last line, which is partly emboldened. I know how my Awareness model works and what it means.

“…In all three above-mentioned information theories the amount of acquired knowledge is measured by comparing the already received symbolically expressed data to potentially available, but as yet unknown data. That is, by dividing the known data by the maximum amount of data, one can establish a relative measure of knowledge. This knowledge is typically passed on via symbolic units of expression – data-conveying signs taken from some earlier agreed-upon symbol system.

In fact, the alphabets, mathematical symbols, coding systems, etc., that are used to express information and knowledge are typically taken for granted as pre-available givens. And although it may indeed be tempting to consider these data-conveying signs themselves as identical to the data themselves (and hence to data-based information and knowledge), this is definitely not the case. After all, the Diaphoric Definition of Data (DDD) and the therewith associated General Definition of Information (GDI) actually refer to the distinctions to which these signs are related (Nöth 1995, 80) – not to the signs themselves. However, in their attempt to ground data on supposedly elementary distinctions, information theorists end up neglecting the very process of information intake by means of which these distinctions are made in the first place. In this way, it is merely required to know that information intake works, not how it works.” (See Ref. 2). In other words they are ignoring the causal foundation (capacity) in the first place.

I believe data should be treated as what is there, not as how it is represented, i.e. not as numbers.

Ref. 1:


Ref. 2:


Is space-time infinite dimensional?

It is important that you view the contents of this blog in relationship to my new blog entitled: “The fundamental universe revisited“. This new blog is designed to be the master science referential blog for all my science blog postings in my website.

Cantorian Topology and Geometry postulates that this is the case, I support this general position as well.

I have selected various extracts of the ideas and works of El Naschie. I have chosen El Naschie’s work not only because he is respected in his specialized world of physics but also because his views seem to be parallel to my own in relationship to both the existence of a fourth dimension as well as its inherent fractal like properties as well (my opinion). El Naschie also believes the 3D dimension is infinite and within this medium I think he is saying that there is an inherent duality within the system between phenomena that is of an abstract continuum (like my primordial fourth dimension) and that which is materially discreet such as 3D space-time particle activity. In my Awareness model I describe this same duality as being a concurrent one between both levels of cosmic phenomena. It is for this reason I briefly introduce you to Cantorian Topology and Geometry. I feel that El Naschie’s cosmological ideas are generally supportive of my own. As such I feel this blog helps support the validity of cosmic ideas I express to my readers via the medium of my Awareness model of physics.

Cantorian Topology and Geometry