Three-Dimensional Time

The Three Dimensions of Time

“Time not only goes backward and forward,

 but inward and outward.”

~ J. Roberts

Fig. 1

An early doodle of the Three Dimensional Time Coordinate System 

If we want to understand and describe space-time more fundamentally than we currently do, I propose that we in addition as well as analogous to Descartes’ Three Dimensional Space Coordinate System, introduce a

Three Dimensional Time Coordinate System.

Among other things, I contend that one of the results is, that this will enable us to understand entropy in a different manner than we have been doing up to now.

Such a '3D time coordinate system' has not been brought forward yet, and this article presents my first inklings about the existence (even if hidden from acute awareness) of such a system.

The way I so far envision this, is that, instead of with points, lines, curves, etc., that it is populated with three cone-like shaped, mutually interfering time wave-forms, each one of all three with three-dimensional wave configurat-ions that flow through this system as they pass through three time planes:

t', t'', t'''

(Their depths and shapes differing much though from water waves that show up on the surface of a pond).

Initially, when I was doodling the above drawing, especially the small cubic depiction at the bottom right, I was considering interfering circular waves somewhat like the disks in Pauli's Dream:

Fig.2 
Pauli's Dream 
Detail of Fig. 4. 
(See note 4 for the internet link.)

As I later realized, the three arrows as shown in the small cubic depiction of Fig. 1 above, should have been double-arrowed, as all three of them pass both into and out-off their planes relative to the center (O) of this coordinate time system.

As to O, instead of it denoting Origin as in Cartesian Space, O in this time-coordinate system would refer to NOW, and - as the space and time coordinates are in ‘inseparable embrace’ - also HERE and NOW.

Subsequently, after a more in-depth exploration of these new ideas, I redrew my first doodle, labelled the plane elements and identified them with labels that I borrowed from plane nomenclature used in anatomy and biology. 

Fig. 3

Three Dimensional Time 

     1.      t’   - Transverse time plane (blue), operating in the 'past/future' dynamic, 

     2.      t’’  - Coronal time plane (pink), operating in the 'representing/cataloguing/storing' dynamic, 

     3.      t’’’ - Sagittal time plane (green), operating in the 'entropy/negentropy' dynamic.

In spite of our apparent lack of awareness of them, I suggest that we

actually already practice, experience and apply

these three temporal dimensions all the time,

 just like 'normal' day to day actions and experiences.

The question is... can we become more conscious of them?

Indeed we can, and it would not require much more than attentively considering and understanding the actions we are doing and the experiences we are having with the above ideas in mind.

Let me list some of them:

• memory,
• storing,
• preparing,
• fixing, restoring,  
• procrastinating,
• saving things for later,
• letting things get into disrepair,
• getting things from the fridge,
• telling stories about the past or about the future,
• playing in a TV episode,
• recording it,
• watching it, remembering it,
• later talking about it,
• etc.

Let’s use an example that happens daily:

When we intend not to use something just yet, we decide to NOT use it RIGHT THIS MOMENT, but instead, we set it aside for use in the FUTURE. (See note 1)

When we do that (putting things aside for future use): we put them 

• physically in temporary storage

while we  

• mentally simultaneously register them as 'labels in our brain's memory bank'.
  In programming terms: 'They go on a memory stack' or 'We populate a database table'.

How are those physical, mental and digital storing, stacking or populating methods related? 

Hmm… the question is of course: "Are they, and if so… how?" 
The intent here is to show that they are:

intricately and integrally

...but not just through some superficial associative mental process, but physically mutually interdependent, and controlled by the laws of physics.

So, while we are putting things in storage for later use, what is actually 'taking place time-wise' in that storage operation?

We know from experience that, as time PROgresses (the object's and observer's transverse time moving forward) that whatever physical item is at some point in physical storage (the object's transverse, coronal and sagittal time coordinates) that, however nicely stored, stacked or stashed it may be, that - due to entropy - that it deteriorates unless we maintain its qualitative state continuously… which is the application of  negentropy!

Let's consider this example (putting things aside for later use) with this new view in mind.

What actually happens? Could it be that this involves an accumulation of RE-gressing time?

Perhaps we can find out more about how and why, and it may well lead us to a better and more fundamental understanding of entropy and negentropy. (See notes 1 and 2.)

Let's think more deeply about these novel time notions by considering the process of building a brick wall, paying special attention to:

• how things (in this example ‘bricks’) are undergoing it, 
• how we humans are experiencing it  - most likely quite unaware of these three different time dimensions.

Try to see this for yourself, in the example that follows, and also see if you can identify the time planes that are involved in each step or action...

Say, we are building a wall from bricks, and we have full-size and half-size bricks available.

Let's say that with the current course of bricks that we are laying, that we (at least for now) don't need the half-size bricks.

What will we do with those half-size bricks?

We stack them up in a safe place so that they are not in the way, and preferably we do that in a neat and tidy manner:

vertically and horizontally

length x depth x height

in a (from a human perspective) 3D spatial arrangement

The interesting thing is that in OUR MEMORY we ALSO stack them up, but VIRTUALLY... and thus in a temporal manner we keep them in a state of ’time suspension' which is really 'holding them in a 'past time state'.

We need to be careful though. If we wait too long and don't 'maintain' the qualitative state of the bricks, then a dynamic state of  'time regression' takes place: entropy starts showing its effects as the bricks slowly disintegrate back into grains of sand. (OK, it will take time...)

In any case, they will occupy space and will, in a manner of speaking, 'be processed by time'; they not only 'just don't get used yet'.

The way I see it, they are also ‘time processed', which 'affects their qualitative state’ until 'new work' is done on and with them.

When that happens (work) with energy input and time moving forward (in the transverse plane) it means that the state of the material is also simultaneously switching from a negative dynamic sagittal state of time (undergoing entropy) to a transverse AND a positive sagittal state (negentropy).

Let's say that the pile if bricks that we first moved aside, that it at some point and over time also lost its tidy arrangement (and some of its quality) and that we subsequently stack them properly again… In that case our interfering operation moves them from a state of entropy towards a state of negentropy, from a negative sagittal state to positive sagittal one.

I propose that one of the three time dimensions: the vertical one - sagittal - orthogonal to both the transverse and coronal ones, has to do with the opposite of entropy: meaning increase in order, value, quality, etc. negentropy

Notes:

1. Planck's time constant 't_P' denotes the time constant analogous to 'h' - Planck's constant (Note 3).

It (t_P) fits (like h) as a natural unit of granular or discrete time in the system of units known as Planck Units. Time is granular or discrete: 't_P=5.391 06(32) × 10⁻⁴⁴s (s is second)

Appropriate new functions and formulas (in progress) will include (also in progress):

·       'right-this-moment' as: t'O t_P (O is origin)

·       use over time as: t't_P.t''t_P

·       storing and quality maintenance as: t't_P.t'''t_P

·       no use (ab-use) involving entropy) as: -t't_P.t''t_P

·       enriching (value adding, curing) involves: t't_P.t''t_P.t'''t_P

2. I'm picking up on a modification of Feynman's theory in his paper on advanced and retarded waves, something that he was 'talked-out-of' by Einstein.

3. From Wikipedia:

The Planck constant was first described as the proportionality constant between the energy (E) of a photon and the frequency (ν) of its associated electro-magnetic wave. This relation between the energy and frequency is called the Planck relation or the Planck–Einstein equation: 

E = hv.

Since the frequency v, the wavelength λ, and speed of light c are related by λν = c, the Planck relation can also be expressed as

4. Wolfgang Pauli's Dream

http://www.fdavidpeat.com/bibliography/essays/divine.htm

Fig. 4

Pauli's Dream (Wolfgang Pauli of the Exclusion Principle)

(The four hooded figures are holding pendulums.)

When you visualize the bird as though it is also in a plane inside the area with the two circular planes, you may notice that its plane is orthogonal to the other ones, hence effectively: he was dreaming about three planes. 

In Pauli's dream, the vertical circle (note the clock-hand) rotated, and as it did that, the other disks also rotated in a ratio of 1:4:8. (Perhaps as though they were in a geared arrangement.)

(Notice that the ring is actually a hollow tube. I sometimes use a tube to demonstrate String Theory's hidden dimensions: from a distance the tube would show up as just a circle, but when one zooms in, one can see two more dimensions.

Does that perhaps anticipate the notion of String Theory's hidden or rolled-up dimensions?)

5. I foresee that we will arrive at a more comprehensive proof of the Law of Large Numbers, discovering that it also involves time coordinates. After all, the larger the sample with, say, coin tosses, the more time it takes.

For other reasons, in Probability Theory, the proposed three dimensions of time could also be included, enabling us to draw some surprising conclusions and make some daring predictions (the formulations of this I am also working on). These temporal dimensions are to be dealt with in a similar manner as space vectors are dealt with, in a similar manner as Feynman's ‘watch-hand vectors.

The term 'time vector' is not appropriate; I'm looking for a different term to replace 'time vector' - one that better expresses the temporal 'fluxes' of time:

1.  linear - transverse (t')
2. perpendicular to linear - coronal (the product of t'.t'')
3. orthogonal to both linear and perpendicular - sagittal (the product of t'.t''.t''')

The word 'vector' (as in 'vehicle') means carrier and has clear spatial connotations. So far, for 'time vectors', I'm thinking in terms of 'inflection' (a grammatical term to do with auxiliary verbs) perhaps something like 'flector'. The terms ‘twistor’ and ‘spinor’ are also good candidates, but they are already taken by Roger Penrose. (In his Penrose Diagrams he deals with the flow of time but as far as I remember only in one dimension.)

In the context here, there is something very important to Penrose's spinors though, spin after all is not to be visualized as a spatial dynamic, although the problem with the term spinor is that it seems to connote continuous spinning which continuous-ness I exclude in my visualizations. I also hypothesize that this spin-continuousness is actually not applicable to particle spin. (But that needs more investigation.)

6. As to the Law of Large Numbers, Probability Distribution, Quantum Probability, which gears, so to speak, are operating in that entire dynamic? (I am working at a Gedankenexperiment on this.)

Incidentally, it is not for nothing that I used the word gears in the above paragraph, as gears are able to change the direction and speed of motion: bevel gears especially!

I first visualized how a time dynamic analogous to how gears operate in space can change the direction of time: along the same lines as how bevel, helical, worm, screw, rack & pinion gears, etc. do that in space.

This first visualization also included the inkling that 'particle spin' is involved with a possible change in the direction of the flow of time, not just linearly or involving time reversal, but also affecting or being affected by the flow of time in 3 different axial directions.

Which gears, so to speak, are operating in that whole dynamic?

• Instead of Penrose's spinors (too much of a connotation of continuous spinning tops) I would have loved to use the term twistor. But prior to spinors, Penrose already used the term twistors, and again with different connotations (used in Minkowski space). So I am still looking for a word in lieu of flectors or flector time to describe a 3-fold time coordinate system. The idea of the 'deflection' of temporal directions is analogous to how direction-changing gears operate in physical space, e.g. bevel gears.
• Descriptions of particle spin should always include this time deflection, including a discrete granular time constant ala Planck's constant 'h'.
• Terms like "random stack", "ordered stack" and "category stacks" will feature in still upcoming descriptions that deal with 'memory' in the context of this article.

Facebook exchanges between Ravindra and myself: 

-I-

Ravindra, responding to your question: "Why do we perceive only one dimension of time & not 3?..."

Quoting myself:

"In spite of our apparent lack of awareness of them, I suggest that we actually already practice, experience and apply these three temporal dimensions all the time, just like 'normal' day to day actions and experiences.

The question is... can we become more conscious of them?"

The point I'm making (and illustrating) is that we DO experience all three, we are actually working with them...all the time... it's impossible not to. It is just that we are not acutely aware that we do, 

I'm attempting to have ppl become attentive to that. That's what the example (Okay, a bit clumsy perhaps) of 'building that brick wall' is illustrating...  

The extra two temporal dimensions (t''' and t''') seem not as obvious as the t' dimension: 

t' - Transverse: (a) past and (b) future. It is probably because of our modern culture that this t' dimension sticks out so much -- we are so time oriented, which is so different in previous, prehistoric cultures or still in some aboriginal ones.

But the other two dimensions, the ones I identify as the 'coronal' and 'sagittal' time planes, are actually more productive and functional. (But it's like we can't see the woods for the trees!) 

t''' - Sagittal: we actually have a handle on (a) entropy and (b) negentropy, it is useful, practical, functional.

t'' - Coronal: we can hold things in storage (a) 'physically' and (b) 'symbolically' - database-like ... even digitally now. (Which, incidentally, opened up the field of 3D printing... which BTW almost sixty years ago my father and myself  predicted. Elsewhere in a group comment I reminisced about that.)

All three planes intersecting at what Descartes labelled O for Origin... "Hic et nunc"!

Once you see this intersecting planar layout clearly, the clarity comes to some as an epiphany... all falling in place.

With this system we can set up space/time functions (like wave function equations) that map out probabilities as "probability fields" (spherical!) AND even predict (I foresee with 100% certainly) exactly where and when and how things will actually happen... It is much much more than foreseeing possibilities,  it will enable us to predict factual actualities... 

It will take some time, but potentially we can be even more accurate then our current weather predictions which over the last years has tremendously improved... and which uses a methodology that is akin to what I'm describing: 

- The coronal plane is represented by (a) massive catalogued historical weather-data gathering and (b) knowing actual past positions of systems (were they were 'stored' and what they have 'in store'),

- The sagittal plane representing the entropy and negentropy of weather systems as exemplified by the alternations between (a) highs and (b) lows,

- The transverse plane detailing (a) how the weather was (history, hindsight) and (b) will be (prognosis).

-II-

Considering your: "Have you applied it to even any classical field theory will have consequences... "[sic]

Well no, classical field theory - in light of this - is just not complete, it would be enriched by it..., 

String theory would or could be affected, I would have to think about that... 

At least QFT allows 'things' to undergo time reversal... so that helps... 

Hmm... that opens up new vistas though... it could explain some enigmas...  virtual particles or so, ah, and the the photon electron relationship (bosons / fermions). 

I just read the following at: https://www.coursehero.com/file/p2ib9np/Fermions-and-Bosons-The-fermions-are-the-diffraction-patterns-of-the-bosons-such/

"Fermions are the diffraction patterns of the bosons in such a way that they are both sides of the same thing."

and:

"You can think about the photon as a virtual electron-positron pair: obtaining the necessary virtual mass for gravity."

• 
  

Van Gogh and Japan, Higgs and India, Zero and Origin

Painting by Deborah Kommalan who copied Van Gogh's style to make this painting.

 

Van Gogh went through a period during which he collected Japanese prints and used them as inspiration. He even copied them.

So in way when seeing Van Gogh's paintings, one is also in contact with Japanese painters and Japan's nature through a hidden time dimension:

a time axis that is orthogonal
to the linear
AND
perpendicular time axes. 

. 

It is the same with the the idea of zero - 0, whenever we use that numeric figure we are in contact, even if unconsciously, with ancient India where 'zero' was invented.... and even... Japan where the O symbol stands for emptiness.*

It is similar to when one reads, hears or says,

"Higgs' Boson"...

One is then not only connected to S.N. Bose (the Indian scientist after whom the boson is named) but also to India... even if unconsciously!


The zero can be written as 0 (zero) and as O (origin):

1. On a number-line the 0 falls between +1 and -1,
   
   
2. In the Cartesian Coordinate System O is the intersection of various axes - usually 2 or 3 of them.
   In the algebra that we use when  dealing with points on each individual axis it is a 0 (zero), but as soon as two or more axes are in play the idea of 0 (zero) makes no sense... hence it is to be identified as O,  O for origin.

Relating this to my proposed '12 D space-time theory

When we say "Higgs' Boson" we are connected to Satyendra Nath Bose and India... that is  orthogonally: {(-t'''. t_P.n).(-t'". t_P.n)} to usual linear time: (t'.-t_P.n).
The minus signs indicate that it was occurring in the past, and n indicates the quantity of passed time in Planck Time units (t_P).

So, something that seems 'hidden' (e.g. the Japanese prints that Van Gogh collected, or the Indian origin of zero or the Japanese Buddhist notion of emptiness) it is really rolled up in what is:
'p r e s e n t'  or (t'.t''.t'''.t_P.0.n).
That 0 at the end, although algebraically correct, makes no sense (because of the multiple axes!) hence it becomes O (origin). Suddenly the Buddhist notion of emptiness gets filled with meaning and is thus a pregnant Origin... full of potential!

The meaning of 'HERE & NOW' - 'Hic and Nunc'

What we call 'NOW' - that acute identification of  'this here now' - is the indivisible PRESENT where even Planck Time (t_P) granularity does not come into play.

Of course not!

If it did, if t_P would have to be multiplied by 0 (zero) and Here & NOW would not exist, and if t_P were spread over linear time (t'.t_P), meaning if it would have to be divided by 0 (zero), one would get infinity... And we know from String Theory **, how infinity create problems unless one applies 'normalization' tricks.

In '12 D space-time theory' its coordinate system diagram consists of four nested - NOT hidden or rolled up - dimensions. And when (after each axis at a time has been figured in - when on each single axis, zero is still relevant ) all populating is done all temporary zeroes necessarily become O.

Any 0 will always become O
O, however, will never becomes zero!

What this comes down to.

When the 0 (zero) was originally invented it was considered to be a totally hypothetical numeric figure to be used to indicate the 'absence of something' and 'place value in the decimal system'.
The 0 (zero) was designed as a handy and temporarily necessary figure to deal with large numbers (place-value) and to be used use in arithmetical and algebraic calculations (on a single axis number-line or a linear time-line).
It was later discovered and concluded (Descartes) that as soon as a second axis (and subsequently even more axes) was involved, that the zeroes on number and time-lines really had to be defined as O for ORIGIN instead of 0 for zero or "nothing". 

Notes:
* The problem of misunderstanding the notion of 0 - Zero (i.e. the assumption that zero represents the physical reality of 'nothing') started when people interpreted the Indian invention of that hypothetical 'zero' as though it was a real number... as though something like "nothing" could exist.
 
Well, it cannot...
 
If it did exist, it would not be called "nothing".
 
So, even if very handy, the use of 'zero' is just an arithmetic tool, only temporarily useful on one-dimensional (linear) number-lines, space-lines or time-lines.
But just like tools (e.g. a hammer) that one can used to built, say, a house, they are only of temporary use...: when the house is finished, one can let go of the tools. In fact, instead of a hammer one could have used a nail-gun. Or, instead of building with wood and nails, one could have used mud and straw. In this example 'habitation' is essential, NOT the type of house and NOT what was used to build it with, e.g. tools and materials.
And so it is with the number zero and the geometry used in the process of 'figuring' out classical physics, quantum mechanics (in terms of matrices), etc. They are indeed handy - but still temporary - tools to understand a grander mystery: the universe. It does that 'one linear dimension out of a possible twelve' at a time.
Once, though, one comprehends the integrated Unity and Wholeness (even if diversified), one can let go of the zero, the notion of origin of curse also that temporarily handy tool of geometry.
Although in geometry one will discover that the 0 for zero actually leads to the O for Origin, unfortunately even the word Origin is unfortunate... as though IT (whatever IT may be) started somewhere (?) and at some point (?) in time.
Even the idea of dimensions (any number of them, even my proposed twelve) is by definition and will always be 'h y p o t h e t i c a l' as using them is AGAIN only useful in figuring out 'f u n c t i o n' (Descartes knew that). (Compare function to habitation in the example of building a house.)
Ergo, the closer one comes to grasping and more fully experiencing the 'wonder of it all', the closer one comes to letting go of (or idolizing) the tools and hypotheses that helped one to more fully grasp, experience and appreciate whatever one is (TAT TUAM ASI) and whatever all this is (OM TAT SAT).

** String Theory is currently (at the most up) to eleven dimensions - not twelve as I propose with '12 D space-time theory'.

From One Primal Boson to Fermions

(A philosophy of physics section will be inserted here shortly.)

John Wheeler

One day, at Princeton University, John Wheeler was talking over the hall phone to Richard Feynman claiming:

"I know why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass...! 

Because they are all the same electron!"

A little later he added: 

"All creation is a slice through the spaghetti path of a single electron."

 When I read that, I immediately understood it to mean: 

In spite of 'us-and-everything' experiencing, knowing and meeting each other in a myriad of forms, formations and formulations, 

there is only one particle that is

DOING IT ALL.

One single actor - not the electron (which is a fermion) - but a single boson doing a nifty magic trick: 

creatively replicating itself...

self-mirroring but...

without even a mirror. 

In a flash! 

That is how I comprehended it. 

Richard Feynman

Wheeler thought that the electron (a fermion) could well be the only particle ¹, the single constituent that was also everything else... But, Feynman tried to talk him out of it.
In the same phone-call Wheeler may have realized how tenuous his idea was, so he hung up and likely forgot about it. Feynman just smiled and forgot about it too, although if it would have been his idea, he may have held on to it.
I though, could not forget what I realized Wheeler meant - perhaps in my mind I experienced a replication of his - however short lived it was - insight.

My intuition went a little further though ²:

1. Most importantly, Wheeler's "single" particle ¹ could not have been an electron - a fermion, it must have been ³  - and still is - a boson... a single and thus 'primal' boson.

2. While generating its spaghetti paths (plural!), it must have been in a multi-stranded manner, the strands initially spreading out spherically from their origin, initially forming a field similar to the shape of a magnetic field ⁴.

3. Through mutual interference, the strands - as they 'go along' - create and keep creating 12 dimensional space-time ⁵.

4. I hypothesize that that single primal boson's replications (as per formation described in nr. 2 above) are 'virtual particles' ⁶ that behave as (what we now know to be) fermions (electron-like) in the process.

5. The earliest events within this hypothesized 'original boson replication' occurred faster than the speed of light (which is allowed by theory)... although at that point that limit was not set yet!... and I propose that that contributed to a limit that is now considered to be the constant c - the speed of light ⁶.

6. As it occurred that this primal boson could generate multiple virtual particles (or their fields ⁶)simultaneously; the formation of the first fermion (electron-like) lead to what is now called "Pauli's Exclusion Principle."

7. I am speculating that these fermions were virtual electrons (fermions), and that at some specific limit of speed they could become photons (bosons), thereby creating the constant c - the speed of light. (This would also lead to a different but still speculative interpretation of advanced waves, Einstein's special theory of relativity, and the photoelectric effect.)

Two particles meeting form a sharp corner (left)
but two loops coming together are like two pairs of trousers sown together.
(This trouser diagram has time going downwards and space horizontal.)

At the time I was reading about Feynman and Wheeler's exchange, I was also reading up on string theory, I loved the trouser diagram visualizations, and I knew about the then still hypothetical Higgs Boson.

I foresee that we will eventually mathematically and philosophically, but NOT experimentally (that would be impossible) although definitely experientially discover that there is only one and ONE ONLY Prime Boson!

I had no trouble assigning that 'Original Event Boson' a name. Considering its original artistry and the fact that it is NOT a particle - even if it produces them - I named it the

(p)Article

Around the year 2000 I was giving introductory talks on and demonstrating a cutting-edge computerized biofeedback apparatus in the USA (Connecticut, Georgia, Florida, Nebraska, California, Arizona, Washington State). I gave one particular talk (first in Connecticut, of which I still have a Hi8 video tape) in which I described how such a primal event could happen: 

1. One (p)Article
2. producing a myriad of virtuarticles
3. experiencing themselves and each other as individual particles 
4. that appear to interact with each other and thus appear as a myriad of formations, forms and formulations
5. which through reflection 'reflect' on THAT of which they each are a reflection:
6. One (p)Article! 

The difference between this (p)Article theory and most other 'universe origination theories' is that in this formulation it is not an origination theory that precludes the infinity (in fact it includes it axiomatically) of an authentic originating, infinite, primal, natural (as in physics) and physical entity characterized by an - in human terms - all-encompassing integral of infinite qualities and quantities that are usually, mistakenly and confusingly labeled as "divine" or "spiritual."

I purposely avoid the use of the word 'God', as the usual connotations of that label are too diverse and disperse, and will only lead to discussions which the Buddha already indicated as being dualistic, counter-effective, limiting and divisive.

 

The (p)Article is by definition:

1. Timeless - as time is a secondary and subsequent (simultaneous with space) result from the faster than c (speed of light) 'self-mirroring or mirror-replications' of secondarily originated virtual particles (virtuarticles) in a timeless infinitely momentous moment.
   The use of the word 'moment' is rather clumsy as it is only a human language approximation of the notion of a timeless, eternal, infinite, without beginning, without end and in relative human terms in a, to us, 12-dimensional space/time generating dynamic.
2. Spaceless - as space is a secondary and subsequent (simultaneous with time) result from the faster than c (speed of light) 'self-mirroring or mirror-replications' of secondarily originated virtual particles (virtuarticles) in a spaceless undefinable locale.
   The use of the word 'locale' is rather clumsy as it is only a human language approximation of the notion of a spaceless infinite, non-measurable and non-definable notion in relative human terms in a for us 12-dimensional space/time generating dynamic.

Footnotes:

¹ Although I'm using - as per convention - the term "particle", this is of course not a 'part-icle per se', as it is not a part of a more original or preceding particle that may have contained or produced it.

² The following quote reminded me of an idea that I developed ca 1998, and led me to take that idea (an insight really) more seriously... hence this article. I received the quote (via Nilesh N. Oak) from a reputable scientist who did not wish his name to be disclosed.

"The philosophical speculation is: If the cosmos (and hence the laws of physics) does not 'know' when photon-1 and photon-2 are interchanged, are these two photons really two, or are they one photon with two simultaneous locations appearing like two particles? Can we then say that all the gazillions of photons in the cosmos 'are' one photon that is simultaneously present in many locations and seeming to go about in many directions, etc? Are they all mirror images of one? Is that a viable philosophy of science"

³ "Must be", I will elaborate on that... (forthcoming!)

⁴ Let's not fall into the trap of 'linear thinking': linearity... it must be (see note 2) multidimensional!

⁵ See my article "Three-dimensional Time" (as part of twelve-dimensional space-time):

http://paradigm-update.blogspot.ca/2014/02/three-dimensional-time.html

⁶ I prefer to visualize these virtual particles as fields.

⁷ From Wikipedia:

"A chronon is a proposed quantum of time, a discrete and indivisible unit of time. The term was introduced by Robert Lévi, and Henry Margenau suggested that the chronon might be the time for light to travel the classical radius of an electron. A quantum theory in which time is a quantum variable with a discrete spectrum, and which is nevertheless consistent with special relativity, was proposed by Chen Ning Yang. One such model was introduced by Piero Caldirola in 1980.
In Caldirola's model, one chronon corresponds to about 6.97×10^-24 seconds for an electron, much longer than Planck time (tP), which is about 5.39×10^-44 seconds. One Planck time unit is the time it would take a photon traveling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to one Planck length [1 Planck length = 1.61619926 × 10^-35 meters]. Theoretically, this is the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible."