Our Universe and Its Dimensions

To us volumes of spacetime look to be filled (supermassive black holes) and empty (outer space). That view couldn’t be further from the truth. There is no such thing as completely empty space and no such thing as completely filled space. And here’s why: An empty volume is a description that tells us where a region is and something about its dimensions. This empty volume locator does not exist in reality. The reason is that there is no region of space that has no energy (or space wouldn’t exist). For any region of space to exist, or to be created, it needs very large amounts of kinetic energy.

How is space created? Initially the universe is mostly expanding. And what expands the universe is its boundary that is internal.

An internal boundary is a change in energy potential due to this expansion and along with it energy loss in creating the expanded boundary. So, the more changes there are internally in this potential, the more potential energy is lost to kinetic energy, the closer a system approaches an entropic ground state.

What we think of as approaching a 3-D volume does not exist unless all the available energy within the surface area of that volume is lost and the volume becomes a super solid (all solid). Ironically, an approximate 3-D volume becomes supermassive and totally filled with a one-dimensional pathways/boundaries.

Relational Philosophy as opposed to scientific objectivism (the beginning of our universe according to relational philosophy and objectivism):

Before our universe expanded, it took the form of so much energy that there were many degrees of freedom available to form all kinds of robust energy systems (force/tension fields with lots of movement and little condensation into steady-state particles/boundaries). This early universal state can be thought of as a universal potential. Any system, like our universe, forms from available energy, and then in time, it falls entropically to a stable-equilibrium ground state. That means, when something (some particle for example) coalesces out of the soup of the early potential universe, some energy to do things (available/potential energy) is lost.

Those “objects” that coalesce and become steady in time are really relationships that started when our universe first began to expand. When changes/delta-energies first existed, we learned we could represent them as relationships. After all, there is no space or time unless we have two locations or data points across which some sort of action-reaction experience can occur. This change evolves into boundaries/near-one-dimensional-pathways that increase with duration.

So, to summarize how systems/boundaries/relationships form in our universe with time, we need to face the self-ordering conundrum: as action-reaction occurs and relationship boundaries are formed, then so the potential for our universe to self-order changes (degrees of freedom are lost). However, could this change be in the way we choose to describe the change in potential, and could the original potential state somehow still exist? This is crucial to accurately model our universe and its dimensions.

First, in this post, I’d like to say that just like we can lose available energy in any fashion and still have some left over (in other words: we can never have zero energy, there is always going to be some sort of delta energy left over and therefore some sort of energy change and, therefore, some sort of relationship boundary over which some sort of experience occurs locally in our universe.

Now that we’ve established the idea that zero energy does not exist in our universe (if it did, our universe would not exist. Any delta energy ends up in a delta spacetime. The real behavior of our universe does not exactly match our descriptions of it).

So, just like there is no zero, no matter how vanishingly small the delta energy existing, the same is true for whole number dimensions. We’ve come to believe that something that is one-dimensional is a path, something two-dimensional is a surface, something three-dimensional is solid and something four-dimensional is a moving solid—but is that true?

Dimensions are like inches on a ruler, they are part of a descriptive language, or model, that we use to measure things. If there is no zero energy, then there is no zero spacetime, all of that allows our expanding universe to exist. What do our measuring dimensions mean? They describe initial takeoff points from which a universe might evolve.

Something one-dimensional is a path, or a potential path. Something two-dimensional is a potential surface, something three-dimensional is a potential volume (not a solid). So when we measure our universe and say it has features with these dimensions, we’re actually saying these are kinds of statistical potentials that in time (because of coalesce due to energy changes across relational boundaries) there will be pathways that fill areas, and volumes, and times. The way to measure these pathways in spacetime is by creating nondimensional terms (where all the units (in numerator and denominator of a fraction) cancel out) like a fractal (fractional) dimension.

Our universe is like many of its galactic subsystem—flat. How can our galaxy be flat? When we look up at Orion’s belt there are spaces between the stars. There must be some potential 3-D thickness there. So, a galaxy, or our universe, can be relatively flat at any delta location in time. And so when we talk of whole dimensions, we’re really speaking of potential or statistical dimensions (or infinitesimal thicknesses when compared to other dimensions).

[In a future post called REALITY VS VIRTUALITY, we’ll see that anything we say about a universal system or the universe is a virtual language, a description of what may be “out there,” but not the actual behavior or experience of the reality of our universe. The closest we can come to an actual description being similar to reality itself is at our own localities, that of the human system boundaries within the whole universal boundaries (sadly much more difficult to model than is the rest of the nonliving universe).]

My research into the boundaries of very thin expanding droplets was illuminated by something called the midrange slope (of the fractal dimension). As the droplets went unstable (because the more viscous outer fluid had trouble responding and getting out of the way of the expanding inner fluid) they changed their shape over time. As the shape changed (depending on the intensity of the outward flow rate) a superscribed circle kept getting more and more filled with boundaries/pathways. When a volume of spacetime is totally filled with these pathways, then we call it (and it behaves as) a super-dense solid (like a black hole).

Depending on how many pathways fill an area or volume will tell us something about its mass density. And the reason there can’t be a theory of everything at every local in our universe is that there are at least two different regions that behave differently within the internal universal boundary. Why is that?


For fluids (and analogs to other states of matter) there are equations that have been based on sampled data. In 1830, Navier, a French fluid-dynamics scientist, put together an equation that could be solved to find information about the behavior of such relationship boundaries. He and Stokes, originated the Navier-Stokes equation, that was used by Maxwell and successive scientists and applied mathematicians to find the tension in force fields and the conductive and rotational components (for electromagnetic fields, straight line was electricity/electric -flow, and rotational was represented by magnetism).

The way all systems develop is through oscillation. The back and forth and circular oscillation is born of the fact that there is no zero in the universe. How is a particle a wave? Well, when a circular region is offset from its center, and then when the magnitude of the radius is drawn with Cartesian coordinates—one half of the circle becomes a sine-wave crest and the other half becomes a trough. The trough has a radius that is smaller than the crest and so it does not possess the same initial potential energy. As a system oscillates across its constant flow lines, it changes the shape of the boundary as the system expands.


What we’ve described here is a very simple way to understand the behavior of space through mathematical description.

We discussed the difference between whole dimensions that represent potential, and the nondimensional fractal dimensions, pathways that represent the actually density of curved matter within that potential space.

The universe exists because of the different energy/tensile fields that are condensing within it. Therefore, there is no such thing as zero energy. The less energy in a volume, the closer to a ground state with little spacetime (spacetime headed toward zero, but never reaching it).

All the universe is made up of ground state troughs that do not expand because they’ve lost available energy, and expanding sine wave crests that maintain or conserve the original energy of the Big Bang (initial singularity source). All of the above (sine-wave crests and troughs) exist because our universe and universal systems within it oscillate about their centroids/centers-of-gravity.

Now that we’ve simplified our condensing and expanding universe, what happens as condensing configurations find ways to survive by making more of themselves and exporting entropy? We know that the expanding crests are represented by subatomic particle/energy-packets of outer space, and that all celestial objects asteroid fragments to moons to planets to suns all represent gravitational troughs/wells that resist expansion. There is even and inkling that the curved inflections between crest and trough may represent dark matter. But where does life exist?

This is where we’ll follow up in exploring how consciousness may come about in a natural self-organizing way. Perhaps we will find that our universe is not just gravitationally controlled, but that all forces (robust or not) form a kind of superposition, especially where living things are represented through the model we’ll develop.  

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: