Imagining The Fifth Dimension

Source: Imagining The Tenth Dimension

“The further back one looks, the further ahead one can see”

- a ‘fifth dimensional’ way of viewing reality commonly attributed to Winston Churchill, for more
about this idea check out entries like You Are the Point and Being More Fifth-Dimensional


We keep returning to this idea – every time we add a spatial dimension, we need to find a way to think about how the new dimension is at right angles to the ones that have come before. Another word for this concept is that each new dimension is orthogonal to the previous ones.  Here’s the definition of that word from the Merriam Webster online dictionary:

a : intersecting or lying at right angles
b : having perpendicular slopes or tangents at the point of intersection

Last entry we looked at how it makes the most sense to say that the fourth dimension is space-time, a dimension which enfolds length, width, depth, and duration, and to accept that the fourth dimension is spatial. Yes, as creatures who get their energy from chemical processes that obey the thermodynamic laws of entropy, we appear to be moving in only one direction within that dimension, a direction which we call “time”. But the evidence is strong that the opposite direction, anti-time, is just as valid and just as real, and having two opposing directions is one of the basic attributes added by any additional spatial dimension.

So what’s at right angles to space-time?

It’s interesting to read this quote from a lecture by Stephen Hawking:

“One can think of ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line. On the left, one has the past, and on the right, the future. But there’s another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time, because it is not the kind of time we normally experience. But in a sense, it is just as real, as what we call real time.”

And it’s interesting to think about this: one of the central ideas to this project’s approach to visualizing the extra dimensions is Everett’s Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which explains how every possible outcome for our universe is equally real, but as observers we can only see one of those universes at a time. According to Everett’s “Theory of the Universal Wave Function”, the reason we can’t see any of the other universes is because they exist within a subspace which is orthogonal to the one we are are observing at any particular instant.

But even though Hawking has talked about another kind of time which is at right angles to our space-time, and Everett has talked about the other parallel universes being orthogonal (at right angles) to the version of the universe any one of us is observing right “now”, neither of them have said that these additional realms are in the fifth dimension. Why is that? Is this a failure of imagination from two of the most brilliant minds of the twentieth century?  Or is this a free will discussion?

Both Hawking and Everett have said they believe free will is an illusion. From Hawking’s viewpoint, free will is a convenient fiction, only useful in recognizing how complex the factors are that cause one inevitable outcome or another to occur. Everett’s viewpoint was similar – because an observer can only see one outcome, even acknowledging the existence of the other outcomes makes no difference to any one observer – because within the world line that they occupy, stretching from the beginning to the end of the universe, only one outcome could possibly have occurred. And Everett’s viewpoint was that for a different version of the same person, within their parallel universe where they observe a different set of outcomes, those would be equally as inevitable! In either case, the other possible outcomes become part of a set of universes which are inaccessible, or decoherent, to the one being observed.

Is it easier to believe that free will is an illusion if there’s nothing beyond space-time? And even when great minds like these are talking about versions of our universe which are at right angles to our space-time, is that why they continued to portray these as being part of the fourth dimension? Perhaps that’s a philosophical rather than a scientific question. If so, then my philosophy is that the fifth dimension exists, and that’s where each of us have the free will to navigate through the branching possibilities that Everett’s Many Worlds Interpretation tells us really do exist.

Last entry we talked about how envisioning 3D space in its largest possible state is a way to think of a “quantum frame”, and thinking about 4D space-time in its largest possible state encompasses an entire “world line” for our universe, extending from its very beginning through its very end. But you and I are not infinitely large within 3D space or 4D space-time, and what we’re trying to visualize here is how those dimensions can have an additional degree of freedom that allows those connections to occur. This is where my project’s line-branch-fold concept for imagining dimensions becomes particularly useful: the 5th dimension, by virtue of being at right angles to all of the dimensions that have come before, gives us a way to get to those other connections of the quantum world and Everett’s Many Worlds that might seem unimaginable  from the viewpoint of someone who believes there’s nothing more than 4D space-time.

I have a lot of respect and admiration for physicist David Deutsch, so you can imagine how excited I was to receive an email from him about this project back in 2007. David wrote to say he enjoyed my animation but thought it made no sense past the fourth dimension, and he added this explanation: “the multiverse is simply not a manifold, or space, whose ‘points’ are universes, nor are the universes ‘stacked’ or ‘clustered’, with a notion of near and far, adjacent etc”. My question back to him was this:

“As I understand it, the term “multiverse” has two aspects to it: there is the multiverse represented by the bush-like branching structure of a potentially observed wavefunction for our own universe from instant to instant, and there is the multiverse of other universes with different basic physical laws. As our own universe makes its selections from the quantum wavefunction, it never wanders off into those other different-initial-conditions universes, even though those other universes are just as real as our own. If there is no near/far/adjacent within the probability space of the “next available set of choices” at the quantum and physical levels for our universe, then what constrains those choices to keep us from jumping around in the multiverse with no logical progression, no coherent experience?  This is what I like about the idea of our limited fourth-dimensional “line of time” actually being selected from within a bush-like branching structure of fifth-dimensional paths, that are still constrained by their “position” within the multiverse.  It also gives us a way to see how the past is just as fluid as the future – as per Feynman’s sum over paths, there are many ways we could have gotten to this instant in time that we call “now”.”

David Deutsch has long been a strong supporter of Everett’s Many Worlds Interpretation. What I was trying to get him to discuss with me is how the many universes of Everett’s Relative State Formulation (and the ten to the power of 500 other universes with different basic physical laws potentially described by string theory) exist out there within the timelessness that a number of the great minds of the twentieth century have told us we should imagine as “really existing, in the same way that space really exists” (to use a phrase from Brian Greene’sThe Fabric of the Cosmos).

Dr. Deutsch never responded to that question, I’m sure he’s a very busy man and I’m grateful that he took the time to write me at all. My own answer would be that ultimately we’re talking about an underlying structure where all those universes exist not sequentially, butsimultaneously, within an underlying state that everything we are witness to (and not witness to!) comes from. So the universe where I got up five minutes earlier this morning is not in some other part of an infinitely large 4D plane (even though that is the way some cosmologists describe it): as I say in my song The Unseen Eye, that other universe is “just around the corner in time”, accessed via the fifth dimension. And I contend that those other universes with different physical constants from ours (each with their own unique set of all possible states within the lower dimensions) can only be accessed by moving in a higher dimensional multiverse landscape which is well beyond the fifth dimension.

In 2007, a team of scientists at Oxford under the direction of David Deutsch published a new proof equating Everett’s MWI with the probabilistic outcomes at the quantum level and the parallel universes resulting from chance and choice, and New Scientist magazine declared this to be one of the top science news story of the year. In 2010, a team of scientists at Oxford participated in a speculative art project created by Jon Ardern and Anab Jain as “Superflux”: “The Fifth Dimensional Camera Project“. David Deutsch acted as one of the consultants on this project too, but of particular note is the following video featuring Dr. Simon Benjamin, who is from the QIP IRC (Quantum Information Processing Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration), based at Oxford University. If you jump to the 5:43 mark, you will see he shows a diagram very similar to the ones from my project, of branching timelines resulting from chance and choice, and he suggests that these are occurring at the fifth dimension. Jon and Anab did show my tenth dimension animation to these scientists, so this is not just a coincidence. Is my idea of the fifth dimension as our probability space catching on with the mainstream? Inch by inch, it would appear to be so.

A direct link to the above video is at

Einstein, another of the great minds of the twentieth century, accepted the existence of the fifth dimension. He did take a while to get used to the idea, but in 1921 he eventually gave his approval to Theodor Kaluza‘s proposal that the field equations for gravity and light are resolved for our space-time when they’re calculated at the fifth dimension. The fifth dimension, then, becomes a way to combine Einstein’s theory of general relativity with Maxwell’s equations describing electromagnetism. A few years later, with Oskar Klein‘s additional input, the resulting Kaluza-Klein theory would eventually become the starting point for string theory.

But if we’re talking about something that is at right angles to space-time, why can’t we see it? Well, we’ve already talked about our mythical 2D flatlanders, who would be unable to perceive “up and down” because it was outside of the length and width of their 2D world. And we’ve also discussed that although we’ve been taught that the world around us is 3D, the startling fact is that the time it takes for light to travel to our eye means it’s impossible for us to see the third dimension by itself. So asking why we can’t see the fifth dimension may be like asking why we can’t see the other side of a building as we stand in the middle of a street: it’s not that the back of the building isn’t there, or that it’s impossible to see, it’s just that we can’t see it from our current reference frame.

But the standard explanation for why we can’t see the fifth dimension (and beyond) is because it’s compactified, or “curled up at the planck length”. Since we’ve already established that our 4D space-time is not continuous, but is divided into 3D frames, or quanta, I have proposed that it follows that our physical “window” into the fifth dimension is only one planck frame wide, and that various aspects of our awareness can, as we saw in our opening quote from Winston Churchill, connect into the fifth dimension more fully.

Make no mistake about it: with this project I am insisting that we are really not in the third dimension, or even the fourth dimension. Our “now” is a moving point within a fifth dimensional probability space, and I believe the more that people embrace this idea the deeper their understanding of our reality will become.

The analogy often used in string theory is to think of the fifth dimension as being like a garden hose stretched out on the ground. From a distance, the hose looks like a line. But up close, we can see that the walls of the hose are curled up on themselves, so that if an ant were to walk inside that hose, it could go from one end to the other (the “straight line” of the fourth dimension), but be moving in a second dimension as well as the first.

In my Imagining the Tenth Dimension animation, I showed a Möbius strip, and asked people to think about how a flatlander moving on this strip would feel like they were traveling in a straight line, but in reality they would be twisting and turning in the dimension above. This is useful as a way to think about the fifth dimension, but the garden hose analogy adds one further wrinkle – what if a fly were to enter our hose? Unlike the ant, the fly would be able to travel not just in a second dimension but a third: so if our hose were 4D space-time, the ant would be moving in the fifth dimension and the fly would be moving in the sixth!

You and I, it appears, are ants rather than flies. But next entry we’ll talk about how that’s a good thing, as we move on to Imagining the Sixth Dimension.

Before we finish though, I want to mention one final thing: some critics of this project say I mistakenly try to combine unrelated ideas: that Everett’s Many Worlds Interpretation is not related to string theory, that general relativity doesn’t require extra dimensions, that anyone willing to consider discussions of the more metaphysical or spiritual ramifications of all this should be immediately dismissed as a lunatic. On the other hand, every day I receive positive feedback from people who see ways in which my approach to visualizing the extra dimensions connects to their own ideas about how reality fits together, and in this blog I have tracked scientific developments that connect to my “new way of thinking about time and space”. Needless to say, I was thrilled to read recently that well-known physicists Leonard Susskind and Raphael Bousso have published a proof equating the branching probabilistic outcomes of Everett’s Many Worlds with the string theory multiverseHere’s a link to Sean Carroll’s blog entry about the new proof, and here is a link to the paper as it was published at And while we’re looking at links, here’s a Discovery channel blog entry about a new theory analyzing black holes from the perspective of the same compactified fifth dimension we’ve been talking about in today’s entry.

Enjoy the journey!

Rob Bryanton

Imagining the Fourth Dimension
Imagining the Third Dimension
Imagining the Second Dimension

P.S. – After publishing this entry I forwarded it on to David Deutsch to see if he had softened his position on this concept of the “fifth dimension as a representation of the probability space of Everett’s Many Worlds”. He did reply, and his answer was short and to the point: ” ‘Fraid not.”. Oh well!

Policy Enforcer vs. Peaceful Traveler


By Randy Stroud

March 17, 2014

This is a traffic stop based on true events that happened to me about 2 years ago. I tried to keep the script as close as possible from my memory as to what was said. This demonstrates the violence that agents of the state are willing to use in order to enforce their opinions upon the mass. Less than a third of the population even votes, yet these small group of men/women, calling themselves “public servants” believe that they can call us criminals, even if we haven’t harmed anyone or their property.  Furthermore, the services they offer are completely monopolized and propped up by racketeering. Enjoy the following scenario.

Officer: Hi, I need your Drivers License and registration, this is a safety checkpoint.

Me:   I am being stopped without cause? And I am not driving , Im traveling privately and am not conducting commerce. I don’t have licenses, and if I ever have had one it was created under duress. And I am who I am. I am not a name. And if I did have those things, they are private property and you need a warrant for those things.

Officer: What is your social security number sir?

Me: I do not recognize such a number as I do not accept the mark of the beast. I conduct commerce peacefully sir.

Officer: How do you work if you dont have a social security number?

Me: I use my hands to work with sir.

Officer: When is your date of birth?

Me: I do not recall that day, as I had no cognitive abilities. My birthdate is only hearsay. However, I can give you a guess as to when I was conceived.

Officer: What’s your nationality?

Me: Pledging allegiance to a flag or a king, also violates my religious beliefs. As far as I know, I am just a natural inhabitant of North America. I am not familiar with such classifications.

Officer: what is your current address?

Me: Where I lay my head is home sir. I am a nomad.

Officer: Hmmm….are you a liberal or a conservative?

Me: I am male, whom is 5’11 and 165 pounds sir. I am not familiar with such labels.

Officer: Do you know why I stopped you?

Me: I only stopped because you have a gun, and I am very afraid for my life. I haven’t harmed any persons or property. Please don’t kill me.

Officer: Im not going to kill you! I just pulled you over because your headlights were not on and its raining, and the law says you must have them on so Im going to write you a ticket, sign it here please. This is a routine matter. We often set up checkpoints during inclement weather to make sure folks are driving safe.

Me: Do I have to sign it?

Officer: You dont have to. But, if you don’t a warrant will be issued for your arrest.

Me: So If I don’t sign it, you will kidnap me?

Officer: Call it what you want, but I’m not going to arrest you. A warrant will be issued and someone from county will come find you and arrest you later.

Me: So one of your co-workers will kidnap me?

Officer: It’s not kidnapping, you broke the law, and their are consequences for breaking the law.

Me: Who is the “law”, and what harm have I brought to him or his property?

Officer: The law is not a person, its rules that the legislators write up that we as a society have to follow. I don’t have time for this, sign the ticket, or be arrested. It’s your choice!

Me: But, I thought you said I didn’t have to sign it. Now you are saying if I don’t then i’ll be kidnapped by men carrying guns. How is that choice?

Officer: You have five seconds to sign it or else I’m calling you in.

Me: If I don’t sign it, you will issue a warrant for my arrest. And once the officers attempt to kidnap me, what will happen if I defend myself against my kidnappers?

Officer: If you resist arrest you could face additional charges or potentially meet lethal corrective actions taken by the officers.

Me: So you are saying that by not having my headlights on while their is a light drizzle at 3 o clock in the afternoon, that I could be killed by agents of the state for not complying?

Officer: If you continue to resist, then possibly. But, it would only be because you are forcing us to.

Me: With all due respect sir. During this conversation, I’ve already turned on my headlights. Thank you for your concern. You have done a good deed by looking out for my safety, yet how is extorting me of my hard earned money and threatening me with violence going to solve anything?

Officer: That’s great that you turned your lights on, but I can’t just let you go. Because then no one would turn on their headlights. We have to use force in order to gain compliance.

Me: Have you ever heard of positive propaganda and self-responsibility? You can encourage a message and promote a certain behavior without using violence. And my actions have not caused any damage to any property or person, so if I do go to court, who would be the victim?

Officer: I understand where you are coming from, but the law is the law. And in your case, the “State of Tennessee” would be the victim.

Me: Will he be in court that day?

Officer: Who?

Me: The state of Tennessee. You said he was the victim. Or is it a she?

Officer: Sir! The State of Tennessee is not a person. It’s a governing body. For example, I work for the state. The state is just an organization or title. Like “Mcdonalds”.

Me: If this so called “organization” called “The state” is acting as the victim, dont I have the right to face my accusor and cross-examine the victim?

Officer: Well, the state of Tennessee is made up of citizens. And by breaking our laws, you are victimizing the people of Tennessee. And public servants such as myself, represent the people.

Me: Which people? What are their names? Their are millions upon millions of people who live within these lands. And do you have evidence that they have authorized you to represent them? Am I considered a part of “the people”. Have I victimized myself today?

Officer: Alright, I’m going to let you off with a warning. From now on, keep your headlights on when it’s raining. Drive safe.

Me: I’m not driving, I’m traveling. And thank you for your concern. Have a nice day. (In my head: Thanks for not kidnapping me or killing me)

Drives off slowly………. I notice in my rear view mirror that two other cars had been pulled over at the checkpoint. This particular checkpoint was under a bridge.

(This scenario could have easily played out differently. You CAN be killed over not wearing your seat-belt . The “law” is just an opinion with a gun. True law is natural and common sense in nature. No victim, no crime! I have no idea why the officer didn’t proceed, perhaps he thought it wasn’t worth it, or maybe he just thought he could meet his quota faster by pulling over more compliant victims.  I was extremely lucky.

The truth remains. Failing to wear your seat belt can cause you death in two ways. By getting into a wreck , or by refusing to pay a traffic ticket and resisting your kidnappers attempt to lock you into their cages.   The only difference is, being in a wreck is usually an accident. But, being pulled over and threatened with guns is NOT an accident. These officers choose to enforce laws that punish people for victimless actions.

The idea of arresting someone for something that “might” happen is absurd and immoral.

I salute officers who take down rapists, serial killers, robbers, vandals and those who do harm against others and their property. But, I cannot support their actions against the innocent.

It is my belief that through logic, philosophy, technology, and through understanding how a true free-market works, that monopolized government services can be ultimately rendered obsolete and replaced with privatization whereas anyone would be allowed to build roads, offer protection, ect…

It’s not a far-fetched idea. It’s just the facilitation of an age old practice called “Voluntary trade”.


Randy Stroud 2014

Newly Found Megalithic Ruins In Russia Contain The Largest Blocks Of Stone Ever Discovered

Source: The Truth Wins

By Michael Snyder

Mount Shoria

An incredible discovery that was recently made in Russia threatens to shatter conventional theories about the history of the planet.  On Mount Shoria in southern Siberia, researchers have found an absolutely massive wall of granite stones.  Some of these gigantic granite stones are estimated to weigh more than 3,000 tons, and as you will see below, many of them were cut “with flat surfaces, right angles, and sharp corners”.  Nothing of this magnitude has ever been discovered before.  The largest stone found at the megalithic ruins at Baalbek, Lebanon is less than 1,500 tons.  So how in the world did someone cut 3,000 ton granite stones with extreme precision, transport them up the side of a mountain and stack them 40 meters high?  According to the commonly accepted version of history, it would be impossible for ancient humans with very limited technology to accomplish such a thing.  Could it be possible that there is much more to the history of this planet than we are being taught?

For years, historians and archaeologists have absolutely marveled at the incredibly huge stones found at Baalbek.  But some of these stones in Russia are reportedly more than twice the size.  Needless to say, a lot of people are getting very excited about this discovery.  The following comes from a Mysterious Universe article

Alternate history buffs are about to be whipped into a frenzy!  OK, maybe not, but they will find this interesting.

An ancient “super-megalithic” site has been found in the Siberian Mountains.  Found recently in Gornaya Shoria (Mount Shoria) in southern Siberia, this site consists of huge blocks of stone, which appear to be granite, with flat surfaces, right angles, and sharp corners.  The blocks appear to be stacked, almost in the manner of cyclopean masonry, and well…they’re enormous!

Russia is no stranger to ancient megalithic sites, like Arkaim or Russia’s Stonehenge, and the Manpupuner formation, just to name two, but the site at Shoria is unique in that, if it’s man-made, the blocks used are undoubtedly the largest ever worked by human hands.

When I say that this is a new discovery, I am not kidding.  In fact, the very first expedition to study these stones happened just a few months ago.  Prior to this expedition, there were no known photographs of these megalithic stones.  Archaeologist John Jensen is mystified by these ancient ruins, and the following is an excerpt from a post on his personal blog

The super megaliths were found and photographed for the first time by Georgy Sidorov on a recent expedition to the Southern Siberian mountains. The following images are from Valery Uvarov’s Russian website.

There are no measurements given, but from the scale depicted by the human figures, these megaliths are much larger (as much as 2 to 3 times larger) than the largest known megaliths in the world. (Example: The Pregnant Woman Stone of Baalbek, Lebanon weighs in at approximately 1,260 ton). Some of these megaliths could easily weigh upwards of 3,000 to 4,000 tons.

Below, I have posted some of the images that he was referring to.  As you can see, they are absolutely stunning…

Russian Megalthic Ruins Discovered 1

Russian Megalthic Ruins Discovered 6

Russian Megalthic Ruins Discovered 7

Russian Megalthic Ruins Discovered 8

Mount Shoria 2

Another very unusual thing about these stones is that they caused the compasses of the researchers to start behaving very strangely.

The following is an excerpt from a story on a Russian news source

Some events that were happening during the autumn expedition could probably be called mystical. The compasses of the geologists behaved very strangely, for some unknown reason their arrows were deviating from the megaliths. What could this mean? All that was clear was that they came across an inexplicable phenomenon of the negative geomagnetic field. Could this be a remnant of ancient antigravity technologies?

Of course much more research needs to be done on this site.

Nobody knows who cut these stones or how old they are.

Jensen believes that they come from a time “well back into the mists of pre-history”

These megaliths reach well back into the mists of pre-history, so far in fact, that conjecture about their ‘builders’, methods, purpose and meaning is pure speculation, and as such, I would hesitate to offer any observation at all, other than to say our pre-historical past is richer than we ever dreamed.

These stones are likely to remain an unsolved mystery for a very long time.

But what is abundantly clear is that according to the commonly accepted version of history they should not be there.

And of course this is far from the only site around the world that contains massive megalithic ruins.  Perhaps the most famous are the megalithic ruins at Baalbek, Lebanon…

Baalbek Stone

The following is some information about Baalbek from one of my previous articles…

The ancient city of Baalbek is one of the greatest archaeological mysteries of all time. Located east of the Litani River in the Bekaa Valley of Lebanon, Baalbek is world famous for its exquisitely detailed yet monumentally scaled Roman temple ruins. In Roman times, Baalbek was known as Heliopolis (after the sun god) and it contained some of the largest and most notable Roman temples ever built. In fact, the Romans had constructed an extraordinary temple complex in Baalbek consisting of three separate temples – one for Jupiter, one for Bacchus and one for Venus. But what these Roman temples were built on top of is much more important. These Roman temples were actually built on top of an ancient 5 million square foot platform that was made from some of the largest stones ever used in any construction project in the history of the earth.  In fact, the largest stone found near the Baalbek ruins weighs approximately 1200 tons and is about 64 feet long.  To put that in perspective, that is the equivalent of approximately 156 full size African elephants.

How people in ancient times were able to move such massive stones is a complete mystery.  In fact, these giant construction stones were stacked so closely together that you can’t even fit a piece of paper between many of them.  Many of the architectural feats found at Baalbek cannot even be duplicated with 21st century technology.

So how did they do it?

How did they move such massive stones to create a structure of such intricate precision?

Keep in mind that the base of the Baalbek ruins alone weighs approximately 5 billion tons.

Evidence continues to mount that very sophisticated technology was used in the ancient world.

These megalithic ruins are undeniable reminders of highly advanced ancient civilizations.

So who were they and what happened to them?

Could it be possible that they were wiped out by a massive global cataclysm such as a global flood?

Please feel free to share what you think by posting a comment below…

About the author: Michael T. Snyder is a former Washington D.C. attorney who now publishes The Truth. His new thriller entitled “The Beginning Of The End” is now available on