the person you consider ignorant and insignificant

is the one who came from God,

that he might learn bliss from grief

and knowledge from gloom.

Kahlil Gibran

| Duo_379

This fellow’s name was Jeroen Offermann (if I remember his name rightly) he was one of the bizarre In-significat’s troupe of artist from different countries like Iceland, Germany and the Netherlands…

…they were a weird lot with strange art videos and happenings, they were all rather strange and evasive, so except for Stefan Saffer this fellow was the only one I ever really became friendly with, he had imaginary pet flies that no-one could see :)

Peace and Noise!

MushroomBrain once in an artistic mental institution

this day would be a speck in my life......one of those the countless days passed.....a little insignificant one.like every other countless insignificant ones.

yet i remember

a day.....no..

a moment

a moment when i touched your hand for the first time

a moment when i saw a purple glow

a moment when i searched and found a beloved face in a bustling crowd

a moment when i said.....i love you.

insignificant days and moments in the tide of eternity.....but ....

my dear...i have lived thousand eternities in those moments ....

Two men standing on a log appear insignificant. The 14,000+ ft Maroon Peaks are in the grey background; hidden behind thick clouds. South of Aspen, Colorado.

The white bracts are the visible 'flowers' now doing their magic transformation into pink ones. The actual flowers are insignificantly small and green in the centre of the bracts.

The people here are insignificant compared to the nature around them.

This pond, created by the sand company many, many years ago, serves as a magnet for sun worshippers & those looking for a get away. Here you can see part of an old barge left behind by the owners of the sand plant.

A Sunday 78 approaches Rosthwaite against a backdrop of the Borrowdale Valley and Catbells.

A five-dimensional space is a space with five dimensions. If interpreted physically, that is one more than the usual three spatial dimensions and the fourth dimension of time used in relativistic physics. It is an abstraction which occurs frequently in mathematics, where it is a legitimate construct. In physics and mathematics, a sequence of N numbers can be understood to represent a location in an N-dimensional space. Whether or not the universe is five-dimensional is a topic of debate.Three Logical Proofs: The Five-Dimensional Reality of Space-Time

West Virginia University at Parkersburg Physics, 300 Campus Drive Parkersburg, West Virginia 26104 e-mail: jebcolst@aol.com

Abstract- A century and a half ago, a revolution in human thought began that has gone largely unrecognized by modern scholars: A system of non-Euclidean geometries was developed that literally changed the way that we view our world. At first, some thought that space itself was non-Euclidean and four-dimensional, but Einstein ended that 'speculation' when he declared that time was the fourth dimension. Yet our commonly perceived space is four-dimensional. Einstein unwittingly circumvented that particular revolution in thought and delayed its completion for a later day, although his work was also necessary for the completion of that revolution. That later day is now approaching. The natural progress of science has brought us back to the point where science again needs to consider the physical reality of a higher-dimensional space. Science must acknowledge the truth that space is four-dimensional and space-time is five- dimensional, as required by accepted physical theories and observations, before it can move forward with a new unified fundamental theory of physical reality.

Keywords: four-dimensional-five-dimensional-space-time-Einstein- Clifford- Kaluza- Kaluza-Klein- magnetic vector potential- electromagnetism- Yukawa potential- xpanding universe- general relativity-unification-superstrings-branes-Randall-Sundmm

Introduction

Individual scientists have been searching for evidence of a fourth dimension of space for more than a century and a half. That search subsided somewhat after Albert Einstein identified time as the fourth dimension and developed the theories of relativity. However, Theodor Kaluza added a fifth dimension to space-time in 1921. Others have contributed to this line of scientific devel- opment, but not to as high an extent. Given the fact the physicists have now developed 10- and 11-dimensional theories of reality, it would seem that the search for a fourth dimension of space would have taken on a new and sig- nificant meaning, but it has not. Yet several generally accepted scientific theories and concepts do imply the existence of a fourth spatial dimension.

On the other hand, a growing number of scientists have acknowledged and embraced the simple fact that physics needs a single fundamental theory to

524 J. E. Beichler

continue its astonishing rate of progress. A complete unification of the funda- mental forces of nature has itself been a long process predating the 1970s, but that unification was made basically from the relativistic point-of-view by Einstein and a few other scientists before the 1960s. Einstein searched for a successful unification of gravity and electromagnetism for the last three decades of his life, hoping that the quantum and quantum effects would emerge from the mathematical formalisms of his unified field theory, but most other scientists shared neither his optimism nor his goal. During the 1970s, quantum physicists finally adopted Einstein's goal, but not his emphasis on a unification based upon general relativity and a continuous view of the ultimate nature of reality. Quantum theorists began their own long search for unification with the discovery of the standard model, then the electroweak force and finally the hope that gravity would eventually submit to quantum analysis. They have utterly failed to achieve this last step toward unification.

All that science can say for certain is that there are presently two theories that can claim to represent the most fundamental nature of reality: Quantum theory and relativity. Unfortunately, these two are mutually incompatible. The near complete dominance of the quantum paradigm over the last century has led most physicists to conclude that any future theory that unifies physics must be based upon a discrete quantum model rather than a continuous relativistic model. The attitude that discreteness can replace continuity at all levels of reality is prob- lematic: It reflects a general disregard for the depth and extreme nature of the major differences between the two theories. This disregard has led scientists to speculate on the structure of reality at as small a level as the Planck length, resulting in the development of quantum loop theories and other attempts to find a quantum gravity theory. Whether the existence of a major conflict between the discrete and continuous is acknowledged or not, the fact that these two models of reality are mutually incompatible is generally minimized or belittled by many theoretical scientists who overwhelmingly assume that discreteness offers the only possible solution to the problem of unification.

Recent attempts to overcome this incompatibility, such as the supergravity, superstring and brane theories, have relied heavily upon the concept of hyper- dimensional spaces. These models have been unsuccessful, yet the overall notion of hyper-dimensionality still offers a way out of the dilemma. Einstein first rendered the notion of a higher-dimensional reality plausible in 1905, but the revolution that Einstein began when he unified three-dimensional space with time to form a four-dimensional space-time continuum has never been fully realized. In the meantime, the opposing quantum concept may have fully run its course and reached its inherent theoretical limits. The modem unification theories based upon the quantum model do not seek to rectify the fundamental differences between the quantum theory and special relativity. Quantum field theories only calculate quantum effects in the relativistic limit; they do not unify the theories at the necessary fundamental level that is often claimed. Many scientists ignore the extent and importance of the differences between continuity

Five Dimensions of Space-Time 525

and the discrete and instead worry about the insignificant problems of inde- terminism and counting bits of information. So the latest attempts at unification have failed utterly even though the quantum theory has been attempting to quantize gravity for several decades.

There are many levels to the hyper-dimensionality problem, many of which have not yet been explored even though the central problem of dimensionality for present day science dates back a century and a half. Science has been misled and has failed to recognize the significance of a far more fundamental revolution that began in the 1850s when Bernhard Riemann developed a generalized system of non-Euclidean geometries (Riemann, 1854). Riemann's work directly implied that space is four-dimensional as well as continuous. His new system of geometry remained relatively unknown for more than a decade and was only popularized within the scientific community in the late 1860s. Simultaneously, James Clerk Maxwell developed Michael Faraday's field concept of electro- magnetism into a complete theory of electromagnetism. Whether the timing of these developments was coincidental or not, and only a careful review of historical documents can determine if the simultaneous development of these theories was truly a coincidence, the two fundamental concepts of the continuity of the electromagnetic field and the four-dimensionality of space are physically related. There are three logical proofs that this fact is true.

The first logical proof derives directly from Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and deals directly with the inability of science to sufficiently explain the nature of the vector or magnetic potential used to explain magnetic induction. The second logical proof deals with the nature of matter itself as represented by the Yukawa potential and the atomic nucleus. The Yukawa potential is normally used to explain how electrical repulsion is overcome to bind particles within the nucleus. However, the mathematical expression for the potential also matches the general shape of space-time curvature within the individual particles that combine to form the nucleus. And finally, the last proof is a more general argu- ment dealing with the simple three-dimensional orientations of spiral galaxies relative to the Riemannian curvature of the universe as a whole. Although these proofs are independent of any particular modern hyper-dimensional theory, they are supported by Kaluza's theory of five-dimensional space-time.

Electromagnetism Speaks Up

The popular concept of a 'force field' is completely erroneous. Even in a classical sense, no force is associated with a field until a material particle or body interacts with it. Force is not a characteristic of the field alone. The interaction of the field and matter results in the force, but the interaction can also be characterized by a potential energy. The energy results from the force acting on the particle in one sense, or from the relative position of the particle in the field in another sense. What exists at any particular position in the field before the interaction takes place is called the potential. So a physical field is char- acterized by the potential of the field, not a force.

526 J. E. Beichler

Gravity presents a good example for the concept of potential. Gravitational field strength decreases radially outward from the center of gravity of a material body like the earth according to the inverse square law. All points that are equidistant from the center of gravity form a surface in three-dimensional space along which the gravitational potential is constant, an equipotential surface. At each point on this surface, the surface is perpendicular to a radial line drawn from the center of gravity. A material body orbiting the earth would have a constant speed along any equipotential surface. Electricity presents another simple example. In this case, the units of potential are 'volts', a common electrical unit with which everyone is familiar. Equipotential surfaces representing specific volt measurements are a commonly accepted fact of electrical fields. The fact that an equipotential surface can be formed and that the surface is perpendicular to the radius of curvature at each and every point where they intersect is a general property of fields. From a theoretical point-of-view, equipotential surfaces must exist for all physical fields. For any field, successive equipotential surfaces form onionskin-like concentric surfaces around point charges or charged bodies.

There is a direct equivalence between electricity and magnetism and that equivalence forms the basis of the electromagnetic theory. Any physical quan- tities or properties of electricity correspond to similar quantities and properties for magnetism. But that equivalence has not yet been fully realized since there is no such thing as magnetic 'volts' or measurable magnetic potential. Magnetic potential has been, is now and will be in the future a mathematical entity alone, given the three-dimensionality of space. Consider a simple magnetic field, per- haps that of a bar magnetic. An equipotential surface cannot be drawn or represented visually as it can for an electric field, although magnetic field lines can still represent the field. A line perpendicular to any field line through a given point on that field line, representing the magnetic vector potential at that point, cannot be connected to neighboring points of equal potential on other field lines to form a continuous surface. In other words, an equipotential surface cannot be formed in the three-dimensional space of the magnetic field represented by the field lines. All equipotential surfaces would go through the same point on a field line in three-dimensional space, which is impossible, but no other conclusion can be reached from the given physical geometry of the magnetic field.

According to Roger Penrose, the magnetic potential is "not uniquely determined by the field F, but is fixed to within the addition of a quantity dO where O is some real scalar field." The scalar field is taken to be a purely mathematical entity, such that the magnetic potential A "is not a locally mea- surable quantity" (Penrose, 2005).The magnetic potential A exists, but no phys- ical experiment can measure or otherwise determine the value of A plus the additional quantity dO, so the value of A alone cannot be uniquely determined. In a sense then, the magnetic potential exists only at the point of intersection, not beyond that point in three-dimensional space. Magnetic potential is purely a point phenomenon in three-dimensional space no matter what its value. It is a mathematical paradox, but the paradox can be solved if a higher dimension to

Five Dimensions of Space-Time 527

space is used. Any connection between a given potential on one field line and neighboring field lines must be in another dimension (orthogonal direction) other than the three normal directions of common space, in order for there to exist an equipotential surface. The 'gauge factor' dO mentioned by Penrose actually represents a minuscule measurement or perturbation in the fourth direction that does not otherwise affect normal three-dimensional field variations in the local environment. This fact can also be seen in the equations that are commonly used to express and model magnetic potential.

Although it cannot be described or measured in a normal three-dimensional space, the magnetic potential can be expressed mathematically, by its rela- tionship to the field, as

and

where B is the magnetic field strength. In this form, the quantity A is known as the magnetic vector potential or just the vector potential. Since the operator

V= (dldxi,dldyj,d/dzk),

taking the curl of A would be the mathematical equivalent of constructing the magnetic field B point-by-point by simultaneously looking at the perpendicular components to A in each of the three dimensions of space. These equations may seem trivial to physicists, but they have far more physical meaning than they have been given in the normally accepted electromagnetic interpretation.

The potential A must be simultaneously perpendicular to all three coordinates used to represent a point in space according to these formulations. However, the only 'thing' that can be perpendicular to all three dimensions of space simulta- neously would be a fourth orthogonal dimension. Therefore, changes in the magnetic potential as well as magnetic potential itself are perpendicular to all three directions at any spatial position in our normally perceived physical space. Different equipotential surfaces would still be expressed by three-dimensional equations even though they are displaced in the fourth direction because they would act like three-dimensional spaces that are parallel to or stacked on top of our common three-dimensional space in the fourth direction. Given the con- tinuity of space, our three-dimensional material world is actually embedded in a four-dimensional space (or manifold). Bernhard Riemann's original develop- ment of the generalized formulations of non-Euclidean geometry posited that an n-dimensional space would be embedded in an n+l-dimensional manifold, which implies that the physical reality of our three-dimensional space (where n= 3) requires the existence of a higher-dimensional manifold. In present theories of higher-dimensional spaces, such as the various superstring theories, several higher embedding dimensions are used, but the Riemannian mathematics used in general relativity only 'requires' one higher embedding dimension.

528 J. E. Beichler

The fact that magnetism implies a fourth dimension is not new. William Kingdom Clifford, a British geometer, tried to express Maxwell's electromag- netic theory using a four-dimensional space model in the 1870s. Clifford is better known for offering the first translation of Riemann's Habilitationsschrift lecture, " On the hypotheses which lie at the bases of geometry" , into English in 1873, among other things. Based on his understanding and interpretation of Riemann's geometry, Clifford claimed that what we sense as matter is nothing more than three-dimensional space curved in a fourth dimension and what we conceive as matter in motion is no more than variations in that curvature (Clifford, 1870). For having stated this, Clifford's geometrical model of space is normally regarded as a precursor to Einstein's model of space-time curvature in the general theory of relativity. Most twentieth century scholars have also concluded that Clifford never developed a theory and had no followers (Eddington, 1921; d'Abro, 1927; Bell, 1940; Jammer, 1954; Hoffman, 1972; Kilmister, 1973; Swenson, 1979)' so his theoretical work is viewed in this regard as a historical footnote and no more. The mathematician and historian E.T. Bell has gone so far as to characterized Clifford's anticipation of Einstein as little more than a case of some lucky person hitting "the side of a barn at forty yards with a charge of buckshot" (Bell, 1937), but this view of history is completely false. While Clifford's physical theories have gone unnoticed, Clifford numbers and his system of bi-quaternions have found new uses in some modern interpretations of quantum theory and relativity (Power, 1970; Gurney, 1983; Chisholm and Common, 1985) even though they were originally developed to describe his four-dimensional space, a fact that should imply new ways of interpreting the quantum.

Many modern scholars have mistakenly interpreted Clifford's theoretical model of a four-dimensional space in physics against a historical mindset biased by an early twentieth century view of general relativity (Beichler, 1996). Clifford's main purpose was not to develop a new theory of gravity, as did Einstein several decades later. Clifford's original theoretical work only dealt with Maxwell's electromagnetic theory even though he planned to add gravity to his theory at a later date (Clifford, 1887), if he had not died. Actually, Clifford was developing what we would today consider a unified field theory or better yet a theory of everything. He was fond of saying that he was " solving the universe" (Pollock in Clifford, 1879),which was his way of describing a single theory that covered all of the natural forces. Clifford attempted first to explain magnetic induction, not gravity, with his four-dimensional geometry (Pearson in Clifford, 1885). Magnetic induction is governed by the equation B = V@A, providing a direct link between the current logical argument for a four-dimensional space and Clifford's interpretation of Maxwell's electromagnetic induction.

Clifford published numerous mathematical papers on the motion of three- dimensional matter in four-dimensional elliptical (single polar Riemannian) spaces. He also published a book that actually presented his first step in building a proper theory, that is, for any of his peers who understood what he was trying to do. Historians and scholars today do not understand what Clifford was

Five Dimensions of Space-Time 529

attempting to accomplish, so they only see the book as a simple introductory trea- tise on kinematics. Anyone looking for a completed gravity theory in Clifford's work simply will not find it. Nearly all modern historians have mistakenly claimed that he never published his theory because they are looking for a nonexistent gravity theory with time as a fourth dimension.

Clifford expressed the opinion that all energies are either potential or kinetic (Clifford, 1880), but he also believed that kinetic energies in three-dimensional space would become potential energies in his four-dimensional spatial frame- work. In other words, forces in three-dimensional space would reduce to constant variations in position along paths in a four-dimensional curved space, an idea that was made current in general relativity. However, the modern concept only deals with gravity as modeled by modem relativity theory while Clifford meant to apply the concept to all forces in his model. Upon this hypothesis, he published the first volume of a series of books titled Elements of Dynamic (Clifford, 1878). His first volume was subtitled Kinematics. Everyone that knew Clifford or his work knew that dynamics in three-dimensional space is just kinematics in Clifford's four-dimensional space, that is why he referred to his explanation of Dynamics as Kinematics in the book title. He was writing about four-dimensional kinematics, which was equivalent to three-dimensional dynamics in his mind and theoretical model. Coincidentally, this same book is recognized by historians as the first published statement by a mathematician that distinguished between the cross and dot products in vector algebra (Crowe, 1967), the same dot and cross products that are used in the vector and scalar representations of magnetic potential given above. It should be clear then that Clifford understood the four- dimensionality of magnetic potential a full century before the modem scientific community took the unification of gravity and electromagnetism seriously.

In developing his theory, Clifford faced the problem that no mathematical formalism existed to express his four-dimensional ideas. So he used a form of quaternions of his own invention (bi-quaternions) to express his four- dimensional model of space (Clifford, 1882). Unfortunately, quaternions lost favor in the late nineteenth century to vectors and their use was largely aban- doned during the first few decades of the twentieth century. So no one today would even recognize that Clifford's mathematics represented his four- dimensional theory of physical reality. Einstein's theoretical work on a theory of gravity used the Levi-Civita tensor formalisms that had developed along a different line of reasoning than Clifford used for his quaternion algebra. The tensor calculus used by Einstein was only developed after Clifford's death.

As stated above, Clifford did not ignore the effect of his four-dimensional model of matter on the Newtonian theory of gravity. Clifford died of consumption in 1879 at the age of 34 and never completed his research, but it is still possible to discover what he planned to eventually accomplish with his four-dimensional model. His colleagues were so impressed with his theoretical ideas that both his published and unpublished works were collected, edited and published within a decade after his death. His followers and colleagues

530 J. E. Beichler

published everything that they could find, including lecture notes of classes that he taught, because they thought that his theoretical work was important enough to save for posterity and the future. Clifford's outline for the second volume of his Elements of Dynamic was among the unfinished works that were published. His student Robert Tucker edited this book. In it, Clifford stated his views on the theory of gravity and outlined how he would change gravity given his new four- dimensional geometry, thus indicating the fact that he was searching for, and may have found but never published, a unified field theory. But we will never know that fact for sure.

Of course, philosophical and mathematical arguments are not as valuable in science as observation and experimental verification. Yet there is some experi- mental evidence supporting the existence of magnetic potential in the Aharonov- Bohm effect (Aharonov & Bohm, 1959). In the Aharonov-Bohm experiment, an electron beam is split in such a manner that the two resulting beams pass on either side of an upright solenoid before coming back together on a screen. The solenoid is oriented in such a way that the twin beams cut across the field lines (perpendicular to B) and thus the net force acting on them is zero. Yet when the beams come together at the screen they interfere with each other. The interference clearly shows that the wave functions associated with the electron beams are out of phase, yet they should not be out of phase by the normal standards of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory. Although the effect is somewhat paradoxical, it is normally interpreted as evidence that the magnetic potential associated with the magnetic field is real even though it cannot be measured or experimentally determined. While the net force is zero, an integration of the potential A in a closed loop around the coil is not zero. The common interpretation of this experiment introduces a quantum solution (Bohm & Hiley, 1993). However, this effect can be simply explained and understood within the four-dimensional framework of electromagnetic induction. In other words, a classical electromagnetic interpretation can be used to explain the results if a physically real four-dimensional space that is associated with the magnetic vector potential is assumed.

While the net force is zero on either of the electron beams, the electrons are moving at a constant speed through different portions of the coil's mag- netic field. So they each follow paths of varying potential (surfaces) in four- dimensional space corresponding to the portions of the magnetic field through which they travel. Since they are following four-dimensional paths of different lengths, they are out of phase when they reach the screen and interfere with each other. The principle is similar to a satellite orbiting the earth at a constant speed. The constant speed holds the satellite to a path along a gravitational equi- potential surface. When the speed changes, the satellite follows a path through different equipotential surfaces. The orbital speed determines the altitude of the orbit and the potential path (surface) along which the satellite travels. The electrons in the beam also follow curved potential paths in the fourth dimension, which are different according to the portions of the magnetic field through which

Five Dimensions of Space-Time 531

they pass in three-dimensional space. The difference in curved paths in four- dimensional space puts them out of phase at the end of the trip even though their paths in three-dimensional space, the projections of their paths in four- dimensional space, are not curved.

And finally, given a real fourth dimension of space that is characterized by magnetic potential, anything that emits a normal transverse electromagnetic wave in three-dimensional space would also cause a corresponding compressive wave of magnetic potential variation in the fourth direction of space. Numerous scientists have claimed to show the mathematical possibility of such longitudinal electromagnetic waves. Edmund T. Whittaker's model of 1903 is perhaps the best known of these attempts (Whittaker 1903, 1904). According to Whittaker,

... thus we have the result, that the general solution of Laplace's equation

wheref is an arbitrary function of the two arguments z+ix cos u+iy sin u and u.

Moreover, it is clear from the proof that no generality is lost by supposing thatf is a periodic function of u (Whittaker, 1903).

The variable u actually represents the fourth dimension of space while V is the magnetic potential. This interpretation renders Whittaker's formulation com- patible with modem advances in the laws of electromagnetism without surren- dering the possibility of a longitudinal electromagnetic wave. The function f is periodical with respect to u, which means that the fourth dimension is closed with respect to the other three dimensions of space. This closure corresponds completely to Kaluza's closure condition for the fifth dimension of space-time, while the factor of du over which the function f is integrated corresponds to Penrose's gauge invariance dO.

In this respect, the fourth dimension of space is independent of the length of the extension in the fourth direction, such that the fifth direction of space-time can be either microscopic or macroscopic in extent. There is no difference between the two in the functionf as long as the fourth dimension of space is closed. Whittaker then analyzed the general form of the differential equations for wave motion

to demonstrate that the mathematical model can account for a longitudinal

532 J. E. Beichler

electromagnetic wave. However, if V is taken to mean the magnetic potential in the fourth direction of space, then the magnetic potential V can be related directly to the concept of proper time in special relativity. Whittaker's concept

I of a longitudinal component of electromagnetic waves can thus be rendered

~

in relativistic terms, which implies that the concept is actually a wave of changing magnetic potential propagating in the fifth direction of a five- dimensional space-time continuum.

Whether or not Maxwell's electromagnetic theory requires a longitudinal wave in its classical three-dimensional interpretation is open to debate, but the existence of a fourth dimension to space would require a corresponding longi- tudinal wave that propagates throughout the fourth dimension relative to the normal three dimensions of space. No one has ever detected a three-dimensional longitudinal wave, but that does not mean the wave cannot be four-dimensional. After all, no one has ever detected or measured a 'magnetic-volt' of potential in three-dimensional space either, even though the potential exists in four- dimensional space.

The Yukawa Field

Modern physics also requires the existence of a fourth spatial dimension, but this time the culprit is the Yukawa potential. The Yukawa potential normally takes the form

The quantity g is real. It represents the coupling constant between the meson field and the fermion with which it interacts, at least in the normal quantum interpretation. The Yukawa potential itself arises from the exchange of a massive scalar field or particle such as the pi meson or pion (Yukawa, 1935). The nega- tive sign guarantees that the force between particles in the nucleus is always attractive.

This potential is associated with the extremely short-range strong nuclear force and it is usually only interpreted as a quantum phenomenon. The potential associated with the Yukawa field decreases exponentially, guaranteeing the short range of the Yukawa field to little more than the outer boundaries of the nucleus. It is simply assumed that the Yukawa field cannot be interpreted within a non-quantum context, yet there is no hard and fast rule that states that the Yukawa potential cannot be interpreted geometrically. Classical fields are nor- mally interpreted geometrically, so it would seem that the Yukawa field should also have a geometrical interpretation. Even the modern view of gravity as resulting from the curvature of space-time is geometrical in nature.

According to a simple interpretation of physical laws, the field strengths of both electric and gravitational fields vary as llr2. Traditionally, this inverse square law has been interpreted as resulting from the three-dimensionality of

Five Dimensions of Space-Time 533

this may seem, the inverse square law has been used in the past to explain the necessity of a three-dimensional space to the laws of physics (Whitrow, 1955; Abramenko, 1958; Biichel, 1963; Freeman, 1969). In other words, the inverse square law is normally thought to imply (if not prove) that space 'must be' three-dimensional. It has also been a common practice in the past to criticize higher-dimensional theories by pointing out that gravity would not work in a higher-dimensioned space because the inverse square law would not apply. However, we commonly accept the notion of a four-dimensional space-time without any alteration to the inverse square law without realizing that we do so. The fourth dimension of time is both qualitatively and quantitatively different from the normal three dimensions of space, so it does not affect the inverse square law. By the same token, there is no hard and fast rule that unequivocally requires that a fourth dimension of space would be both quantitatively and qualitatively the same as our normal three dimensions of space. In fact, given the reality of a fourth dimension of space, nature seems to have ordained that the fourth dimension is different from our normal three dimensions of space and nature rules physics instead of the other way around. So there is no valid or compelling reason to assume that a fourth spatial dimension would have any effect on the inverse square law and gravity. In fact there are reasons to believe that the opposite is true.

Many scientists have long believed that matter is electrically constituted and electricity acts according to the inverse square law. Our perception of space is dependent on the relative positions of matter in that space. So if matter is three- dimensional we sense space as three-dimensional. The three-dimensional surface curvature of a material particle or material body may be sufficient to determine the three-dimensionality of space, but the complete three- dimensionality of the particle is not necessary according to how it outwardly appears. Nor is it complete. The interior portion of a material particle could still be higher dimensional. For instance, the interior of a proton could be a physical singularity stretching into a higher fourth dimension even though the exterior surface of the proton is still curved spherically in three-dimensional space. Space

1 could have any number of dimensions while three-dimensional matter only determines that part of the space or manifold in which the electrical field acts and reacts. Our normal senses evolved in the three-dimensional material world of nature, so they would be limited to detect only the three-dimensionality of matter even given a real fourth dimension. Since gravity acts between material particles, which are three-dimensional due to their electrical nature, it would also act three-dimensionally even if space had four or more dimensions. While it is commonly argued that space is three-dimensional because of the inverse square law, it could also be argued that we only sense three out of a greater number of dimensions because of the inverse square law by which gravity and electricity act as they do in three dimensions.

It seems that the inverse square law only guarantees the three-dimensional actions and interactions of matter, not the other way around. The forces

534 J. E. Beichler

associated with common fields act three-dimensionally and no more. The inverse square law does not guarantee that either space itself or fields in general are three-dimensional or otherwise limited to three dimensions. Fields could be higher-dimensional entities just as space could be higher dimensional even though we only sense three dimensions of space. Matter reacts with fields in three- dimensional space because matter is outwardly three-dimensional, not because fields are three-dimensional. If fields are higher dimensional, there may be field- field interactions that occur only in the higher dimensions of space and thus remain undetected in the three-dimensional material space except by their sec- ondary effects. An effect such as quantum entanglement could be explained in this manner. When all is taken into account, neither physical fields nor space need be limited to three dimensions by either the laws of nature or logic and reason.

On the other hand, the potentials associated with fields vary as llr. So

a physical field associated with a particular potential has one more factor of the

2

variable 'r' than the potential itself because fields vary as l/r . The dimen-

sionality of the space that the field occupies is generally two greater than the exponent of the variable 'r' in the denominator of the formula representing the potential. This logic also follows for the Yukawa potential: The variable 'r' in the denominator reflects the three-dimensionality of the field, but there is another term with an 'r-' factor in the exponent in the numerator of the formula. The variable 'r' in the numerator of the formula could easily represent another dimension, so the Yukawa potential would require that the space occupied by the Yukawa field is four-dimensional, not three-dimensional. The exponential term eKkrrepresents both the geometrical structure of the particle and its associated field as extended into the fourth dimension of space. The extension of a particle in the fourth direction would occur internally relative to three-dimensional space so that the part of the material particle that we sense or detect remains the three- dimensional exterior surface of the particle.

In this model of the Yukawa potential and field, the variable 'r' in the denominator would account for the spherical shape of elementary particles and the nucleus itself. By analogy, this would indicate that the exponential term in the numerator would refer to the geometrical shape of the Yukawa field in the higher fourth dimension. If the Yukawa field conforms to the shape of an exponential curve in the higher dimension, as opposed to the spherical shape in three-dimensional space, then the fourth dimension of space is most certainly different from the other three dimensions of normal space, as noted above.

In fact, elementary particles such as protons and neutrons would be small singularities according to the general theory of relativity; or rather they would be singular at their centers. They would therefore follow curved space-time in a shape similar to a rotated exponential curve, as shown in a normal drawing of the curved metric of a singularity (see Figure 1).

So the Yukawa field would correspond to the shape of a nucleus or elementary particles predicted by relativity theory, if general relativity is taken to depict a real curvature of three-dimensional space in a higher embedding fourth

Five Dimensions of Space-Time 535

Exponential curves define the outer shape of the singularity in

Fig. 1. The internal curvature of an elementary particle.

dimension of space. At this point, there is no need to assume a dimensionality greater than four as used in some recent theories, although there are no re- strictions on space having more than four dimensions. Moreover, the curvature of space-time in general relativity is a function of the mass of a particle or body. The constant k in the Yukawa potential is also related to the mass of the exchange particle between nucleons. In both cases, the mass is related to the curvature explicit in the mathematical model, which indicates that the Yukawa potential could be modeled by the curvature of space-time as expressed by the theory of relativity rather than the particle exchange concept of quantum field theory. In either case, the Yukawa potential logically requires that space is four- dimensional and thus the space-time continuum of relativity is five-dimensional. The relationship between the Yukawa potential and general relativity leads to the third logical proof that space is four-dimensional, only this time the proof deals with the macroscopic world of the greater universe rather than the microscopic world of the quantum.

The Cosmological Connection

In the late 1920s, Edwin Hubble observed that other galaxies were receding from our Milky Way galaxy with increasing speed as the distance to the other galaxies increased. These observations indicated that our universe is expanding. Georges-Henri Lemaitre and others who developed the expansion hypothesis by a theoretical application of general relativity had already predicted the expansion. The marriage of observation and theory in this case produced one of the most spectacular successes for science in the twentieth century. The simple notion of an expanding universe is usually explained by analogy to a two- dimensional surface expanding in a third dimension.

A good example would be a balloon with spirals drawn on its surface to represent galaxies. When the balloon is blown up and expands, the spirals spread

536 J. E. Beichler

apart and move away from each other in the same pattern of motion that the receding galaxies show during astronomical observation. The expanding surface of the balloon is analogous to our expanding universe, the difference being that the balloon is a two-dimensional surface expanding outward in a third direction while the universe is a three-dimensional surface expanding into 'who knows what'. Although the phrase 'who knows what' is not an appropriate phrase for scientific use, it does represent how science views the question of what the universe is expanding into.

Some versions of modern brane theory postulate variously dimensioned branes curved in higher-dimensional bulks, so brane theorists could claim that the universe is expanding into the embedding bulks. However, brane theories have other problems to overcome: There is a discontinuity between the branes and the bulks in which they are embedded, such that the branes and bulks are separate things. As such, they break the continuity of the space-time continuum. The brane theories are based upon Klein's interpretation of Kaluza's five-dimensional theory of space-time, but they violate the basic assumptions upon which Kaluza unified electromagnetism and gravity as expressed by general relativity: Kaluza assumed the continuity of four-dimensional space-time with the fifth and higher dimension. So it would seem that the brane theories as well as the superstring theories upon which they were conslrucled are at odds with their own basic premise.

However, the balloon analogy gives more information about the expansion than ordinarily suspected, which implies an answer to this unanswered question about what the universe is expanding into. The spirals drawn on the balloon's surface are all rotating and expanding relative to a single point, the geometric center of the balloon, rather than any center on the surface of the balloon. This part of the analogy is often used to argue that our universe has no center within its three-dimensional expanse, which is true. The curvature of space-time in general relativity has always been considered an intrinsic property of space-time such that a higher embedding dimension has been unnecessary to explain observed and suspected phenomena. However, a higher embedding dimension, demonstrating that the curvature of space-time is an extrinsic property, is still perfectly compatible with general relativity (Misner et al., 1973). Extrinsic curvature is sufficient to explain the effects of general relativity, but has never been considered necessary as long as the idea of intrinsic curvature was con- sidered more likely. But if the concept of extrinsic curvature and a higher embedding spatial dimension does not represent our true reality, simple rela- tivity will be violated in the case of the expanding universe and other astronomical observations.

In the balloon analogy, as stated above, the plane of rotation of the spirals and the recession of the spirals as the balloon expands are all oriented relative to a single point, the center of curvature of the balloon's surface. In the real three-dimensional spatially extended universe, all of the galaxies rotate and recede from each other at all possible angles or orientations in three-dimensional space. Yet you cannot have a mathematical property true for one configuration

Five Dimensions of Space-Time 537

of spatial dimensions (two dimensions embedded in three-dimensional space) that is not true for another configuration (three dimensions embedded in a four- dimensional space). Such an inconsistency would destroy the validity of the mathematical model. The general geometric properties are the same for all spaces and embedding manifolds for an n-dimensional geometry embedded in an n+l-dimensional manifold. Riemannian geometry is based upon this simple idea. So, there is a logical necessity that the orientation of all of the galaxies in the expanding universe be relative to a single point or center of curvature of the universe. The natural rotations of galaxies in the universe are all relative to the same point, and the planes of galactic rotation are all tangential to the three- dimensional surface that is our space, which is perpendicular to the real extrinsic radii drawn between them and the center of a physically real curvature of our universe in a fourth spatial dimension.

In this case, it is illogical to speak of the overall curvature of the universe and then deny the reality of the higher embedding dimension because of a human sensory and perceptual bias against the possibility of a fourth spatial dimension. Perhaps local spatial curvature can be explained away as an intrinsic charac- teristic of the space-time continuum, but the concept of intrinsic curvature on a global level is untenable. The notion of an intrinsic radius of curvature for the whole of the universe is illogical. The three-dimensional surface of our universe is closed such that it forms a Riemannian sphere, which would require a higher embedding dimension to account for the closure. Once again, the only way to derive a direction perpendicular to all three dimensions of space simultaneously would be to adopt the geometry of a real four-dimensional embedding space. That fourth dimension or direction is orthogonal to the normal three dimensions of space. So the observed three-dimensional orientation of astronomical bodies directly requires the reality of a fourth spatial dimension. In effect, our three- dimensional universe is expanding into a fourth dimension of space. The simple fundamental notions of relative motion and actual observation, rather than any specific theory, logically require that our space is four-dimensional and thus space-time is five-dimensional.

The Kaluza Confirmation

While these logical proofs may not be completely persuasive or even persuasive enough to sway the attitudes of many within the general scientific community, there are other extenuating factors and circumstances that should be persuasive given the validity of the logical proofs. Also, these three logical proofs should be considered independent of any particular hyper-dimensional theory of space-time. They only indicate that some higher-dimensional theory would give a more correct picture of our physical reality without specifying the exact theory to be used. Yet there is already a specific scientific theory that successfully utilizes a five-dimensional space-time geometry to unify general relativity and electromagnetism: Kaluza's 1921 theory. Kaluza's theory has been largely ignored in spite of its successful derivation of Maxwell's electromagnetic

538 J. E. Beichler

theory from the general relativity of a five-dimensional space-time continuum. Most modern scientists are only familiar with Kaluza's theory through its association with the work of Oskar Klein, altering the theory to the Kaluza-Klein model of space-time. Little is known of Kaluza's original theory under these circumstances. Klein's subsequent adaptation of the theory (Klein 1926a, 1926b, 1927) was an attempt to incorporate quantum theory into the geometry of space-

time. But Kaluza's theory can stand alone on its own merits, without considering 7

Klein s extended version of the theory into the realm of the quantum. Kaluza's original theory had nothing to do with the quantum.

According to Kaluza's original theory, two mathematical conditions are necessary to unify general relativity and electromagnetic theory. All points in the four-dimensional space-time continuum are extended orthogonally into the fifth dimension along what Kaluza called A-lines. The A-lines follow circular paths in the fifth direction back to our space-time continuum, so they are closed with respect to the fifth direction. Kaluza's first condition was to close the system in the fifth direction, but the A-lines were also required to be of equal length, giving the second condition. Kaluza also suggested that the A-lines are infinitesimally short to guarantee that we could not detect the fifth dimension, although this suggestion was not a required mathematical condition. The two conditions were necessary to guarantee the mathematical consequences of add- ing the fifth dimension: Deriving the equations of general relativity by applying a four-transformation while obtaining the equations of electromagnetism by applying a cut-transformation.

If either of the initial conditions were to be changed or relaxed in any manner, it is possible and even likely that the results of the change would render electromagnetism and gravity incompatible if not break Kaluza's link between them altogether. But Kaluza also assumed, without so stating, a third condition of continuity in the fifth direction. Continuity was built into the calculus that Kaluza used to develop his geometrical model. So if continuity is forfeited, then Kaluza's theory could still fall apart. Before any of these conditions is changed in new extensions of Kaluza's theory, it must be shown that any of these changes, or any combination of them, does not alter Kaluza's results, the unifi- cation of gravity and electromagnetism. There are no middle roads to take here; it is all either black or white. If Kaluza's initial conditions were altered in any manner that breaks or weakens the link between gravity and electromagnetism, then the extension would be invalid for having destroyed the very foundations upon which the new theory is based. Yet changes in these conditions have been made to expedite the development of modern theories and thus could have a direct bearing on the validity of the supergravity, superstring and brane theories, all of which depend on extended versions of the Kaluza-Klein model.

When Klein adopted Kaluza's theory in an attempt to quantize the unified field, he did not relax or alter Kaluza's conditions. He merely followed Kaluza's suggestion that the extension in the fifth direction must be extremely small since we cannot detect the extra dimension. Klein equated the periodicity in the

Five Dimensions of Space-Time 539

'closed loop' condition to the quantum of action. At the time, Klein's version of the theory was largely ignored by the scientific community, which was mesmer- ized by other developments in quantum theory such as quantum mechanics and wave mechanics. Unfortunately, Klein could not make his theory work. He rejected his first theory and made two later attempts to rectify the errors in his theory, in 1939 and 1947 (Klein 1939, 1947), but eventually rejected his basic hypothesis and gave his theory up as a lost cause.

Klein's adaptation of Kaluza's theory, the Kaluza-Klein theory, was re- discovered in the 1970s and adopted by supergravity theorists as a method to unify gravity with the latest versions of the quantum field theories and the standard model of elementary particles. The superstring theorists adopted the Kaluza-Klein theory a few years later, but both groups of theorists have expanded the number of dimensions to 10,11or more. However, these scientists have never demonstrated that adding the extra dimensions above Kaluza's original five would remain consistent with the original purpose of Kaluza's theory to unify general relativity and electromagnetism. These theories are untenable and speculative and they will remain so until superstring theorists can demonstrate that adding the extra dimensions does not alter the connection between Einstein and Maxwell's theories that Kaluza's five-dimensional structure established.

On the other hand, any extension of the Kaluza-Klein theory that is super- imposed on a quantum field theory should also suffer from fundamental problems because quantum field theories are by their very nature based upon a discrete model that is at odds with the assumed condition of continuity in Kaluza's original theory. Nor have the superstring theorists explained how the curvature of space-time fits into their theories, even though they take general relativity for granted as the basis of their theories. Any Kaluza or Kaluza-Klein theory that retains the infinitesimal (or Planck) extension of length in the fifth direction must deal with the same fundamental problem. The adoption of a real physical five-dimensional space-time structure, instead of a limited purely mathematical model, implies that curvature is an extrinsic characteristic of our common four-dimensional space-time continuum. However, an infinitesimally extended fifth direction seems to retain the intrinsic nature of the four- dimensional space-time by not explaining how the concept of curvature fits into the model, creating a paradox.

The superstring theories have evolved into the more general 'brane' theories. Several 'brane' theorists have speculated on all types of structures including dual three-dimensional branes, five-dimensional branes, colliding branes and curved branes within a bulk, to mention only a few examples. But it seems that they have yet to demonstrate whether these geometrical structures conform to the basic hypotheses upon which their theories depend, Kaluza's initial derivation of the general relativity and electromagnetic formulas from an extremely limited and conditional five-dimensional mathematical model of a continuous space- time. The Randall-Sundrum theory offers a case in point (Randall & Sundrum,

1999a, 1999b). In the Randall-Sundrum model, two branes are separated

1

540 J. E. Beichler

by a higher-dimensional bulk. One of the branes represents our common three-dimensional curved space, while gravitons traveling from our brane to the other brane are the only direct links between the branes. In one model, the second brane is an infinite distance away, effectively limiting our world to the single brane embedded in the bulk and guaranteeing a weak gravitational force. However, this model is in direct violation of Kaluza's condition that our four- dimensional world is closed with respect to the higher fifth dimension. Brane theories of this type must be required to demonstrate that their models do not disrupt the unification of electromagnetism and gravity in the Kaluza model upon which they are based. Yet no one has ever argued or even explored how such changes would affect the basic underlying principles of the original mathematical unification model developed by Kaluza.

The only theoretical research ever conducted to determine the mathematical consequences of changing Kaluza's theory only considered the relaxation of his initial suggestion of an infinitesimal extension, rather than changing any of his initial conditions. Einstein and Peter G. Bergmann completed this change in 1938 (Einstein & Bergmann, 1938). Einstein, Bergmann and Valentine Bargmann again considered it in 1941 (Einstein et al., 1941). They retained the 'closed loop' and 'equal length' conditions and remained within a continuous mathematical model of five-dimensional space-time, but allowed for the possibility of macroscopically extended lengths of the A-lines. Under these conditions, they were still able to derive Maxwell's formulas and thus maintain Kaluza's unification. But Einstein eventually gave up this avenue of research toward his goal of a unified field theory because he could not justify the notion of a normal sized fifth dimension that could not be sensed or detected in any manner. Even so, Einstein listed the five-dimensional approach as one of three possibilities to develop a unified field theory in his last published book before he died (Einstein, 1956). He stipulated that the five-dimensional hypothesis would only be tenable if it could be explained why the fifth dimension cannot be detected.

Conclusion

These three logical proofs, in themselves, will not immediately change the course of science. Science has ignored the implied existence of a real fourth spatial dimension for more than a century, so it will not be so easily compelled to accept it now. However, it is not just the three logical proofs that indicate the existence of a fourth spatial dimension to our universe. It is a preponderance of the evidence that will soon force science to accept the four-dimensional reality of space. The value of these three logical proofs will only become evident over [he lvnger term of scientific advances.

While logically proving the existence of a fourth dimension to space, these proofs also imply the geometric structure of that dimension relative to the other three. First of all, the fourth dimension of space would be different, like time, from the other three common dimensions of space. Otherwise, four- dimensionality would adversely affect the inverse square law and thus conflict

Five Dimensions of Space-Time 541

with normally accepted physical laws. Instead, the fourth dimension should be characterized by changing magnetic potential except inside elementary particles where the space curvature corresponding to matter would assume the shape of an exponential curve. Both of these characteristics imply that the total extension of space in the fourth direction cannot be infinitesimally small or even microscopic as in Klein's version of Kaluza's theory. The exponentially shaped singularity at the center of elementary particles such as protons would require a non- infinitesimal extension of space in the higher dimension.

In other words, if the magnetic potential and Yukawa potential exist in nature as described, then the fourth dimension of space, or the fifth dimension of space- time, cannot be infinitesimally extended. Both logical arguments imply that the extra higher dimension is macroscopically extended as Einstein, Bergmann and Bargmann demonstrated. It is provident that Kaluza's theory has already been developed as the basis for a new unification, but the macroscopic extension in the fourth direction of space means that the present unification theories that are based upon Kaluza's suggestion and Kaluza-Klein models are not valid. The path of unification that science must follow is the path that physics and nature leads us down, not the path that some scientists decide that nature must logically follow, no matter how 'beautiful' or aesthetically pleasing those theories might be. The path that nature has decided for science is the one that leads to the four- dimensionality of space (the Clifford model) and the five-dimensionality of the space-time continuum (the Einstein-Kaluza model).

Much of the early work on five-dimensional space was in an attempt to develop a theory that unifies the four fundamental interactions in nature: strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity and electromagnetism. German mathematician Theodor Kaluza and Swedish physicist Oskar Klein independently developed the Kaluza–Klein theory in 1921, which used the fifth dimension to unify gravity with electromagnetic force. Although their approaches were later found to be at least partially inaccurate, the concept provided a basis for further research over the past century.

Space-time--time couples Kaluza's five-dimensional geometry with Weyl's conformal space-time geometry to produce an extension that goes beyond what either of those theories can achieve by itself. Kaluza's ``cylinder condition'' is replaced by an ``exponential expansion constraint'' that causes translations along the secondary time dimension to induce both the electromagnetic gauge transformations found in the Kaluza and the Weyl theories and the metrical gauge transformations unique to the Weyl theory, related as Weyl had postulated. A space-time--time geodesic describes a test particle whose rest mass, space-time momentum, and electric charge q, all defined kinematically, evolve in accord with definite dynamical laws. Its motion is governed by four apparent forces: the Einstein gravitational force, the Lorentz electromagnetic force, a force proportional to the electromagnetic potential, and a force proportional to a scalar field's gradient d(ln phi). The test particles exhibit quantum behavior: (1) they appear and disappear in full-blown motion at definite events; (2) all that share an event E of appearance or disappearance do so with the same charge magnitude |q| = phi(E); (3) conservation of space-time--time momentum at such an event entails conservation of electric charge in addition to conservation of space-time momentum, among the participating particles; (4) at such events the d(ln phi) force infinitely dominates the other three --- this strongly biases the appearance and disappearance events to be concentrated deep in the discretely spaced potential wells of ln phi, and sparse elsewhere.

To explain why this dimension would not be directly observable, Klein suggested that the fifth dimension would be rolled up into a tiny, compact loop on the order of 10-33 centimeters. Under his reasoning, he envisioned light as a disturbance caused by rippling in the higher dimension just beyond human perception, similar to how fish in a pond can only see shadows of ripples across the surface of the water caused by raindrops.[2] While not detectable, it would indirectly imply a connection between seemingly unrelated forces. The Kaluza–Klein theory experienced a revival in the 1970s due to the emergence of superstring theory and supergravity: the concept that reality is composed of vibrating strands of energy, a postulate only mathematically viable in ten dimensions or more. Superstring theory then evolved into a more generalized approach known as M-theory. M-theory suggested a potentially observable extra dimension in addition to the ten essential dimensions which would allow for the existence of superstrings. The other 10 dimensions are compacted, or "rolled up", to a size below the subatomic level. The Kaluza–Klein theory today is seen as essentially a gauge theory, with the gauge being the circle group.

The fifth dimension is difficult to directly observe, though the Large Hadron Collider provides an opportunity to record indirect evidence of its existence. Physicists theorize that collisions of subatomic particles in turn produce new particles as a result of the collision, including a graviton that escapes from the fourth dimension, or brane, leaking off into a five-dimensional bulk. M-theory would explain the weakness of gravity relative to the other fundamental forces of nature, as can be seen, for example, when using a magnet to lift a pin off a table — the magnet is able to overcome the gravitational pull of the entire earth with ease.

Mathematical approaches were developed in the early 20th century that viewed the fifth dimension as a theoretical construct. These theories make reference to Hilbert space, a concept that postulates an infinite number of mathematical dimensions to allow for a limitless number of quantum states. Einstein, Bergmann and Bargmann later tried to extend the four-dimensional spacetime of general relativity into an extra physical dimension to incorporate electromagnetism, though they were unsuccessful.[1] In their 1938 paper, Einstein and Bergmann were among the first to introduce the modern viewpoint that a four-dimensional theory, which coincides with Einstein-Maxwell theory at long distances, is derived from a five-dimensional theory with complete symmetry in all five dimensions. They suggested that electromagnetism resulted from a gravitational field that is “polarized” in the fifth dimension.

www.scientificexploration.org/docs/21/jse_21_3_beichler.pdf

The main novelty of Einstein and Bergmann was to seriously consider the fifth dimension as a physical entity, rather than an excuse to combine the metric tensor and electromagnetic potential. But they then reneged, modifying the theory to break its five-dimensional symmetry. Their reasoning, as suggested by Edward Witten, was that the more symmetric version of the theory predicted the existence of a new long range field, one that was both massless and scalar, which would have required a fundamental modification to Einstein's theory of general relativity. Minkowski space and Maxwell's equations in vacuum can be embedded in a five-dimensional Riemann curvature tensor.

In 1993, the physicist Gerard 't Hooft put forward the holographic principle, which explains that the information about an extra dimension is visible as a curvature in a spacetime with one fewer dimension. For example, holograms are three-dimensional pictures placed on a two-dimensional surface, which gives the image a curvature when the observer moves. Similarly, in general relativity, the fourth dimension is manifested in observable three dimensions as the curvature path of a moving infinitesimal (test) particle. 'T Hooft has speculated that the fifth dimension is really the spacetime fabric.

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-dimens

A silhouetted couple atop a mountain, small and insignificant against the backdrop of the ocean.

This image is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Please feel free to share, remix, and use it in your own creations, as long as you attribute the original source (preferably with a link here or to my website: Tinker & Rove). Thanks!

via Instagram ift.tt/1NLxDlv

Badwater Basin, Death Valley N.P., California

A rather boring & insignificant macro of Sacha's little freckled nose.

The Pink-eared Duck is named after an insignificant spot of pink feathers on the side of the drake’s head. More striking are the bold black-and-white stripes which dominate the ducks’ neck, breast and underparts, giving rise to its vernacular name of Zebra Duck or Zebra Teal. Pink-eared Ducks have odd-shaped bills, evolved to feed in a specialised manner: water is sucked through the bill-tip, then expelled through grooves along the side of the bill, filtering out tiny invertebrates in the process.

Sitting small and almost insignificant beneath the mass of the Langdale Pikes, The Old Dungeon Ghyll hotel provides a sense of scale to the landscape

part of a new project ; insignificant.

All photos taken on iPhone 6

Macro x10

© Copyright SASnashall 2015. All Rights Reserved.

A tour of the Non - Monuments of Green Lane.

An Essex agricultural landscape take on Robert Smithson's 'Tour of the Monuments of Passaic'

It's good to remember why some of the first humans settled somewhere, often for reasons insignificant to modern society. But back when we were a far more waterborne species, a tidal slough like this would be an ideal place to run aground. First came the Miꞌkmaq, then later Europeans, searching for shelter from the otherwise imposing sea. Now, nearly no one comes this way at all. I walk down from the road alone on almost any occasion, hop some rocks and soak in the sun-warmed water — absorb the smells of a domain well-drenched twice daily. This is where worlds collide, but only in the gentlest sense. The sea and the shore get into each other all friendly-like. I think they look good together.

August 30, 2025

Lequille, Nova Scotia

Year 18, Day 6502 of my daily journal.

bluesky | etsy | facebook | instagram

substack | threads | tumblr | youtube

You can support my work

get things in the mail

and see everything

first on Patreon

Jumbo

The mighty west coast.

It makes humans seem so insignificant.

Looking rather insignificant, Northern Class 150/2 150225 was running through the wide expanse of Farington Moss whilst working the 13.01 Ormskirk to Preston service (2N06) on February 4th 2022.

Sometimes we can feel insignificant in life, overwhelmed, in fear or awe of our surroundings.. But it is not true. Everyone can make a difference, big or small, in some way, if you just put your mind to the task.

Petit flascó d'oxid de deuteri, vulgarment coneguda com aigua pesant. Es tracta d'aigua H2O, aparentment normal, però amb deuteri en comptes d'hidrogen normal (el deuteri és l'isotop 2 del hidrogen, és a dir, amb un neutró al nucli, apart del seu unic protó). Ah, i soc de lletres eh? ;-)

El que fa rellevant històricament aquest insignificant potet és que l'aigua pesada fou importantment perillosa a la II Guerra Mundial, ja que era un dels millors "moderadors" per crear un reactor nuclear. Un moderador és un material que alenteixi els neutrons entorn l'urani, que d'aquesta manera es pot material per bombes atòmiques. Concretament aquesta mostra prové de la mismissima planta noruega que Norsk-Hydro tenia a Vemork. El III Reich provà de proveir-se allà d'aigua pesanta per fer un reactor nuclear, i els anglesos llençaren diverses operacions especials per destruir-la, cosa que aconseguiren el 1943.

La pel·licula "Els herois de Telemark" va d'aquestes operacions britaniques.

Per sort aquesta obsesió nazi per l'aigua pesanta es donava pel seu error en no veure que el grafit, molt més facil d'obtenir, era encara millor com a moderador nuclear.

Foto presa al museu de la historia de la ciencia, Oxford.

ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aigua_pesant

ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batalla_de_l%27aigua_pesant

es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_h%C3%A9roes_de_Telemark

es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderador_nuclear

=================================================================

A small ampoule of heavy water (deuterium oxyde) in the Old Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. It's a piece of history, has it was produced in the very Vemork Norsk-Hydro plant, in Norway. This factory was a very important element in the german nuclear program. Heavy Water is extremely expensive to produce, and Vemork was one of the few places in the word with industrial level production. Heavy water was targeted as one of the best nuclear reactor moderators by the germans, so the british tried to destroy Vemork, finally doing so in 1943. Luckilly the Germans did a mistake and concetrated in heavy water, while the much more available graphite is an even better moderator (a moderator is an esential element in an uranium enrichement reactor in order to produce nuclear weapons).

The Kirk Douglas film "The heroes of Telemark" is about the british raids against Vemork.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_heavy_water_sabotage

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heroes_of_Telemark

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_moderator

The Albertina

The architectural history of the Palais

(Pictures you can see by clicking on the link at the end of page!)

Image: The oldest photographic view of the newly designed Palais Archduke Albrecht, 1869

"It is my will that ​​the expansion of the inner city of Vienna with regard to a suitable connection of the same with the suburbs as soon as possible is tackled and at this on Regulirung (regulation) and beautifying of my Residence and Imperial Capital is taken into account. To this end I grant the withdrawal of the ramparts and fortifications of the inner city and the trenches around the same".

This decree of Emperor Franz Joseph I, published on 25 December 1857 in the Wiener Zeitung, formed the basis for the largest the surface concerning and architecturally most significant transformation of the Viennese cityscape. Involving several renowned domestic and foreign architects a "master plan" took form, which included the construction of a boulevard instead of the ramparts between the inner city and its radially upstream suburbs. In the 50-years during implementation phase, an impressive architectural ensemble developed, consisting of imperial and private representational buildings, public administration and cultural buildings, churches and barracks, marking the era under the term "ring-street style". Already in the first year tithe decided a senior member of the Austrian imperial family to decorate the facades of his palace according to the new design principles, and thus certified the aristocratic claim that this also "historicism" said style on the part of the imperial house was attributed.

Image: The Old Albertina after 1920

It was the palace of Archduke Albrecht (1817-1895), the Senior of the Habsburg Family Council, who as Field Marshal held the overall command over the Austro-Hungarian army. The building was incorporated into the imperial residence of the Hofburg complex, forming the south-west corner and extending eleven meters above street level on the so-called Augustinerbastei.

The close proximity of the palace to the imperial residence corresponded not only with Emperor Franz Joseph I and Archduke Albert with a close familial relationship between the owner of the palace and the monarch. Even the former inhabitants were always in close relationship to the imperial family, whether by birth or marriage. An exception here again proves the rule: Don Emanuel Teles da Silva Conde Tarouca (1696-1771), for which Maria Theresa in 1744 the palace had built, was just a close friend and advisor of the monarch. Silva Tarouca underpins the rule with a second exception, because he belonged to the administrative services as Generalhofbaudirektor (general court architect) and President of the Austrian-Dutch administration, while all other him subsequent owners were highest ranking military.

In the annals of Austrian history, especially those of military history, they either went into as commander of the Imperial Army, or the Austrian, later kk Army. In chronological order, this applies to Duke Carl Alexander of Lorraine, the brother-of-law of Maria Theresa, as Imperial Marshal, her son-in-law Duke Albert of Saxe-Teschen, also field marshal, whos adopted son, Archduke Charles of Austria, the last imperial field marshal and only Generalissimo of Austria, his son Archduke Albrecht of Austria as Feldmarschalil and army Supreme commander, and most recently his nephew Archduke Friedrich of Austria, who held as field marshal from 1914 to 1916 the command of the Austro-Hungarian troops. Despite their military profession, all five generals conceived themselves as patrons of the arts and promoted large sums of money to build large collections, the construction of magnificent buildings and cultural life. Charles Alexander of Lorraine promoted as governor of the Austrian Netherlands from 1741 to 1780 the Academy of Fine Arts, the Théâtre de Ja Monnaie and the companies Bourgeois Concert and Concert Noble, he founded the Academie royale et imperial des Sciences et des Lettres, opened the Bibliotheque Royal for the population and supported artistic talents with high scholarships. World fame got his porcelain collection, which however had to be sold by Emperor Joseph II to pay off his debts. Duke Albert began in 1776 according to the concept of conte Durazzo to set up an encyclopedic collection of prints, which forms the core of the world-famous "Albertina" today.

Image : Duke Albert and Archduchess Marie Christine show in family cercle the from Italy brought along art, 1776. Frederick Henry Füger.

1816 declared to Fideikommiss and thus in future indivisible, inalienable and inseparable, the collection 1822 passed into the possession of Archduke Carl, who, like his descendants, it broadened. Under him, the collection was introduced together with the sumptuously equipped palace on the Augustinerbastei in the so-called "Carl Ludwig'schen fideicommissum in 1826, by which the building and the in it kept collection fused into an indissoluble unity. At this time had from the Palais Tarouca by structural expansion or acquisition a veritable Residenz palace evolved. Duke Albert of Saxe-Teschen was first in 1800 the third floor of the adjacent Augustinian convent wing adapted to house his collection and he had after 1802 by his Belgian architect Louis de Montoyer at the suburban side built a magnificent extension, called the wing of staterooms, it was equipped in the style of Louis XVI. Only two decades later, Archduke Carl the entire palace newly set up. According to scetches of the architect Joseph Kornhäusel the 1822-1825 retreaded premises presented themselves in the Empire style. The interior of the palace testified from now in an impressive way the high rank and the prominent position of its owner. Under Archduke Albrecht the outer appearance also should meet the requirements. He had the facade of the palace in the style of historicism orchestrated and added to the Palais front against the suburbs an offshore covered access. Inside, he limited himself, apart from the redesign of the Rococo room in the manner of the second Blondel style, to the retention of the paternal stock. Archduke Friedrich's plans for an expansion of the palace were omitted, however, because of the outbreak of the First World War so that his contribution to the state rooms, especially, consists in the layout of the Spanish apartment, which he in 1895 for his sister, the Queen of Spain Maria Christina, had set up as a permanent residence.

Picture: The "audience room" after the restoration: Picture: The "balcony room" around 1990

The era of stately representation with handing down their cultural values ​​found its most obvious visualization inside the palace through the design and features of the staterooms. On one hand, by the use of the finest materials and the purchase of masterfully manufactured pieces of equipment, such as on the other hand by the permanent reuse of older equipment parts. This period lasted until 1919, when Archduke Friedrich was expropriated by the newly founded Republic of Austria. With the republicanization of the collection and the building first of all finished the tradition that the owner's name was synonymous with the building name:

After Palais Tarouca or tarokkisches house it was called Lorraine House, afterwards Duke Albert Palais and Palais Archduke Carl. Due to the new construction of an adjacently located administration building it received in 1865 the prefix "Upper" and was referred to as Upper Palais Archduke Albrecht and Upper Palais Archduke Frederick. For the state a special reference to the Habsburg past was certainly politically no longer opportune, which is why was decided to name the building according to the in it kept collection "Albertina".

Picture: The "Wedgwood Cabinet" after the restoration: Picture: the "Wedgwood Cabinet" in the Palais Archduke Friedrich, 1905

This name derives from the term "La Collection Albertina" which had been used by the gallery Inspector Maurice von Thausing in 1870 in the Gazette des Beaux-Arts for the former graphics collection of Duke Albert. For this reason, it was the first time since the foundation of the palace that the name of the collection had become synonymous with the room shell. Room shell, hence, because the Republic of Austria Archduke Friedrich had allowed to take along all the movable goods from the palace in his Hungarian exile: crystal chandeliers, curtains and carpets as well as sculptures, vases and clocks. Particularly stressed should be the exquisite furniture, which stems of three facilities phases: the Louis XVI furnitures of Duke Albert, which had been manufactured on the basis of fraternal relations between his wife Archduchess Marie Christine and the French Queen Marie Antoinette after 1780 in the French Hofmanufakturen, also the on behalf of Archduke Charles 1822-1825 in the Vienna Porcelain Manufactory by Joseph Danhauser produced Empire furnitures and thirdly additions of the same style of Archduke Friedrich, which this about 1900 at Portois & Ffix as well as at Friedrich Otto Schmidt had commissioned.

The "swept clean" building got due to the strained financial situation after the First World War initially only a makeshift facility. However, since until 1999 no revision of the emergency equipment took place, but differently designed, primarily the utilitarianism committed office furnitures complementarily had been added, the equipment of the former state rooms presented itself at the end of the 20th century as an inhomogeneous administrative mingle-mangle of insignificant parts, where, however, dwelt a certain quaint charm. From the magnificent state rooms had evolved depots, storage rooms, a library, a study hall and several officed.

Image: The Albertina Graphic Arts Collection and the Philipphof after the American bombing of 12 März 1945.

Image: The palace after the demolition of the entrance facade, 1948-52

Worse it hit the outer appearance of the palace, because in times of continued anti-Habsburg sentiment after the Second World War and inspired by an intolerant destruction will, it came by pickaxe to a ministerial erasure of history. In contrast to the graphic collection possessed the richly decorated facades with the conspicuous insignia of the former owner an object-immanent reference to the Habsburg past and thus exhibited the monarchial traditions and values ​​of the era of Francis Joseph significantly. As part of the remedial measures after a bomb damage, in 1948 the aristocratic, by Archduke Albert initiated, historicist facade structuring along with all decorations was cut off, many facade figures demolished and the Hapsburg crest emblems plunged to the ground. Since in addition the old ramp also had been cancelled and the main entrance of the bastion level had been moved down to the second basement storey at street level, ended the presence of the old Archduke's palace after more than 200 years. At the reopening of the "Albertina Graphic Collection" in 1952, the former Hapsburg Palais of splendour presented itself as one of his identity robbed, formally trivial, soulless room shell, whose successful republicanization an oversized and also unproportional eagle above the new main entrance to the Augustinian road symbolized. The emocratic throw of monuments had wiped out the Hapsburg palace from the urban appeareance, whereby in the perception only existed a nondescript, nameless and ahistorical building that henceforth served the lodging and presentation of world-famous graphic collection of the Albertina. The condition was not changed by the decision to the refurbishment because there were only planned collection specific extensions, but no restoration of the palace.

Image: The palace after the Second World War with simplified facades, the rudiment of the Danubiusbrunnens (well) and the new staircase up to the Augustinerbastei

This paradigm shift corresponded to a blatant reversal of the historical circumstances, as the travel guides and travel books for kk Residence and imperial capital of Vienna dedicated itself primarily with the magnificent, aristocratic palace on the Augustinerbastei with the sumptuously fitted out reception rooms and mentioned the collection kept there - if at all - only in passing. Only with the repositioning of the Albertina in 2000 under the direction of Klaus Albrecht Schröder, the palace was within the meaning and in fulfillment of the Fideikommiss of Archduke Charles in 1826 again met with the high regard, from which could result a further inseparable bond between the magnificent mansions and the world-famous collection. In view of the knowing about politically motivated errors and omissions of the past, the facades should get back their noble, historicist designing, the staterooms regain their glamorous, prestigious appearance and culturally unique equippment be repurchased. From this presumption, eventually grew the full commitment to revise the history of redemption and the return of the stately palace in the public consciousness.

Image: The restored suburb facade of the Palais Albertina suburb

The smoothed palace facades were returned to their original condition and present themselves today - with the exception of the not anymore reconstructed Attica figures - again with the historicist decoration and layout elements that Archduke Albrecht had given after the razing of the Augustinerbastei in 1865 in order. The neoclassical interiors, today called after the former inhabitants "Habsburg Staterooms", receiving a meticulous and detailed restoration taking place at the premises of originality and authenticity, got back their venerable and sumptuous appearance. From the world wide scattered historical pieces of equipment have been bought back 70 properties or could be returned through permanent loan to its original location, by which to the visitors is made experiencable again that atmosphere in 1919 the state rooms of the last Habsburg owner Archduke Frederick had owned. The for the first time in 80 years public accessible "Habsburg State Rooms" at the Palais Albertina enable now again as eloquent testimony to our Habsburg past and as a unique cultural heritage fundamental and essential insights into the Austrian cultural history. With the relocation of the main entrance to the level of the Augustinerbastei the recollection to this so valuable Austrian Cultural Heritage formally and functionally came to completion. The vision of the restoration and recovery of the grand palace was a pillar on which the new Albertina should arise again, the other embody the four large newly built exhibition halls, which allow for the first time in the history of the Albertina, to exhibit the collection throughout its encyclopedic breadh under optimal conservation conditions.

Image: The new entrance area of the Albertina

64 meter long shed roof. Hans Hollein.

The palace presents itself now in its appearance in the historicist style of the Ringstrassenära, almost as if nothing had happened in the meantime. But will the wheel of time should not, cannot and must not be turned back, so that the double standards of the "Albertina Palace" said museum - on the one hand Habsburg grandeur palaces and other modern museum for the arts of graphics - should be symbolized by a modern character: The in 2003 by Hans Hollein designed far into the Albertina square cantilevering, elegant floating flying roof. 64 meters long, it symbolizes in the form of a dynamic wedge the accelerated urban spatial connectivity and public access to the palace. It advertises the major changes in the interior as well as the huge underground extensions of the repositioned "Albertina".

Christian Benedictine

Art historian with research interests History of Architecture, building industry of the Hapsburgs, Hofburg and Zeremonialwissenschaft (ceremonial sciences). Since 1990 he works in the architecture collection of the Albertina. Since 2000 he supervises as director of the newly founded department "Staterooms" the restoration and furnishing of the state rooms and the restoration of the facades and explores the history of the palace and its inhabitants.

www.wien-vienna.at/albertinabaugeschichte.php

Even the smallest pond, so insignificant that it is filled only with the waste of winter runoff, can reflect the magnificence of the world surrounding it and the ominous sky above.

Yellowstone National Park.

A tour of the Non - Monuments of Green Lane.

An Essex agricultural landscape take on Robert Smithson's 'Tour of the Monuments of Passaic'

That was another one of those insignificant moments just before i took off my pants to pee.

See once in a while when it's good

It'll feel like it should

And they're all still around

And you're still safe and sound

And you don't miss a thing

'til you cry when you're driving away in the dark.

Cause now I see I'll never stop this train

- John Mayer, Stop This Train

Watch and listen.

Having one of those days where it's tough to wrap my brain around life. Got a call from my mom last night letting me know that my grandpa was in the hospital after he suffered what they thought was a stroke. Spent the day in the hospital with him today. It turns out that it wasn't a stroke, but a Transient Ischemic Attack caused by 70% blockage in his left carotid artery. He takes a baby asprin every day and the neurologist said that's what saved him from a massive stroke. He has to stay at least one more night in the hospital, much to his dismay, so that they can get him set up to see a cardiologist within the next couple of days. He's going to need either surgery on his carotid artery or a stent to clear the blockage so that he doesn't suffer a full blown stroke.

I'm so thankful that his prognosis is good. But it's stuff like this that just reminds me of the fragility of life. And I hate being forced to acknowledge that my family is aging. I've been so blessed to grow up with all four of my grandparents alive and healthy. I mean, I'm thirty-two years old and I still have both sets of grandparents alive and kicking. They all made it to my wedding. They live twenty minutes away and I see them often. But I think sometimes their nearness and their constant presence in my world makes me take for granted how incredibly lucky I am that they're all still around. Many of my friends don't have a single grandparent alive. Hell, more and more of my friends seem to not even have all of their parents around anymore. I hate thinking about how my world would change with the loss of even a single family member. And scares like this just force me to recognize how helpless I am to slow down the increasingly quick march of life. For them, for me, for anyone.

It makes me feel small.

Although there is nothing here to note it, nor that the company's official website lists it, this intersection of Florence and Western, is where restaurateur Carl Karcher started selling hotdogs and tamales in 1941. He would eventually grow his Carl Jr. and Hardee's resturant to become the 4th largest fast food chain in the world.

At least Burger Palace #3 is continuing his legacy by using the charbroiled method of cooking that he introduced to the fast food industry.

Processed with VSCOcam with lv03 preset

the love we may have thought to be insignificant...may be the most important of all...

I saw them in the street nor far from my house. I thought they were glasses and paused to take a look. They weren't. The were just a cord in the shape of glasses. Pure chance? What are the odds. Sometimes one sees small, insignificant things that still make us wonder.

A vegades el món, el nostre món privat, se'n fa petit tant que ens sentim mig ofegats, ens manca aire per tot arreu. Altres vegades es adonem que allò minso, quasi insignificant té una bellesa esfereïdora que ens transporta a imaginar, a crear un gran món de petites preciositat.

Trobar tot un jardí en un test petit em fa valorar que és gran o petit, que és bonic o no tant.

Intentar convertir-ho en un immens petit jardí de flors que es van fonen en un espai reduït i es converteix un petit miracle. Dit d'una altra manera els nostres ulls mai ho podríem veure així o semblant només ho podem crear a partir de l'objectiu de la càmera. Convertim un test petit en un gran jardí de colors grans que taquen el retrat de tons i colors.

Sempre que ens sigui possible cerquem com apropar les petites meravelles i fer-les com un petit jardí.

La vida serà més suau i assequible. Serà més amable.

“Crome Yellow” ―Aldous Huxley, 1921

"Troubles, and Other Insignificant Things.

Sometimes there come moments in my life when things seem to overwhelm.

I have become a master at the art of facade, and social chameleon. It's easy for me to wall out things which bother me, and masquerade as if I was happy with life.

I guess a descent into depression I hadn't felt in years began, right around when I became something I'd sworn to never be. I started hurting the one girl I'd ever truly been romantically inclined to. No one deserves the type of thing I do. If anyone could be considered a master of psychological warfare, it would be me. I began a subtle, subconscious, but steady campaign with an intent to hurt, yet it was unintentional at the same time. This stems from a childhood wrought with strife, where I learned that if I wanted something to go away, I'd manipulate it into doing so.

Now, this came into play with this girl. There had always been an... Obscene amount of strange connection, sexual tension, and unwarranted feeling between she and I. A previous escapade left us both with a bitter, bitter taste, which was only absolved by time and forgetfulness. Upon a whim, we reconnected, and this time swore to each other it would be different. And it was, it was pure heavenly bliss being with a girl who put up with my instabilities, my sociopathic tendencies. There was always an "I forgive you" inside of her. And with that sort of trust, a sort of nearly unconditional love, comes physical intimacy. And being young and unwise, we became intimate. All was well, for a while. I felt I had found someone that I could truthfully tell that I loved them, not in a familial way, but in a romantic way. The first real emotions I felt were when I was with her. More on this later.

I don't remember what period of time passed, but, one day I was informed by this girl that another guy had kissed her. She stressed to me, "I pushed him away, he did it to me!". I asked her, calmly albeit, who it was... And I guess this is where my warpath began. She would not tell me, told me that she had promised she wouldn't tell because I would harm the other guy. Thinking back, I still can't remember what I would have done. But I eventually got the truth out if her, after breaking up with her, and her showing up at my house in a state of distress I hadn't seen since my mother lost her wedding band. She refused to leave, until I took her back.

I don't know if I made the right decision then, but I took her back. From then on, things felt different. I began my charade that I had perfected, playing with my own emotions as well as hers, showering her with gifts and such. But these times were not without fights. You see, because of what happened, I guess I lost my trust.

I came back from Christmas, with my last ditch effort to convince myself. I spent around $240 of my money on lavish gifts for her, promising myself that I meant it, and telling her that we'd go somewhere fancy in her new dress and such, we'd be like the beginning. It was a fools endeavor. The aura around us was the same, strained.

New Years Eve, she and I are talking. What do we plan for the year? Will we see each other? The further the conversation goes, the more evident it is, that this feeling would come to an end soon. Eventually I grant her permission to be in the company of the guy who kissed her those months back. The night wears on, and I become increasingly aware of my loneliness as I frantically intake alcohol as a buffer to my emotions. Finally, the dawning of the realization that the end was near, my year was ending alone in my room, drinking my sorrows away and mourning the loss of my love, with no chance of a kiss from her, as she is with the guy who nearly tore us apart prematurely. So I ended it.

I still question myself whether it was the right decision. Do I continue to weigh her down with my baggage, and secretly continue my hate campaign against her that was almost suicidal in nature? Or was ending it then before I became hopelessly drowning in my self inflicted agony a better idea? The contrast haunts me still. I've told her, myself, "Move on, it's over. Do not dwell on the past, you'll miss your life."

But I am the largest hypocrite who has ever spoken those words. I cannot listen to certain music, because when I do I find myself submerged in my own head, swimming around in a muddy sea of thoughts as cloudy as the Ganjes. Yet there are glimmering and striking clarities there. The memories of feeling on top of the world while I was with her. It's this that baffles me the most. How can I be such an awful, and manipulative person, if all I can remember are the good things? For me to remember the bad things, I have to do it on purpose.

This is compounded by the daily reminder that I have grown so far apart from my childhood best friend that when I speak to him, it's like I'm talking to a stranger, or worse, someone I had known for my whole life yet wronged deeply. Even as I write this the tears stream down my face as I blubber about, reminiscing the past and what I could have done to save my REAL relationship. This guy, he's been here for me since before I had a real dad. He never changed his thoughts about me no matter what the hell I did wrong. I struggle to cope with knowing that I could have prevented a loss if this magnitude, yet I didn't. I can't express how much I love him. He was... Still is a brother to me, even though he probably doesn't feel that way about me. If I could change one thing, and one thing only, it would be to be as close to him as I used to. But I can't. The memories associated with this person.. they will never leave me, and the longing for them to be more vivid drives me to tears and sobs that wrack my body. We still see each other. There are weekly gatherings, and jokes, jibes, standard thoroughfare is exchanged between us. And even then, on rare occasion I'll see him in a more quiet setting. But it's not the same. I grow closer to adulthood, and leaving this place forever. And in effect, leaving him.

On my father: I was abandoned by my father before my memories take me back. The most vivid memory I have of my biological father is when he showed up at my mothers apartment with his new girlfriend. I guess this is the root of my trust and security issues. I tend to build up walls that are impenetrable by anything that could affect me emotionally. And not only that, I take an offensive stance on a lot of things. I fight back. Don't come into my heart, stay out, I'll never need it.

A man came into my life soon after that. He brought out emotions in my mother that quite honestly I'd never seen. She smiled. She laughed. She sang. Oh, her voice. I inherited it from her, and she still can make me cry by singing. But he did that. They were soon married.

The initial years of having a stepparent are... Awkward, to say the least. You must adjust, you must learn how they work. My mind hasn't developed into the cold, calculating, sadistic machine it is now in that time, but it was just as sharp. I watched this foreign man. Can I trust him? I would think. And I did. For years.

In the midst of this I was diagnosed with severe clinical depression. I can't say I remember ever being sad, or suicidal, but I watch videos of myself during that time and I see a broken hearted child. I look devoid of happiness. It's baffling how one so young can look like this, and it was like seeing something you'd see on a documentary. But it was there. I was prescribed almost every synthetic, psychoactive, mind altering drug ever produced. At this time, these pills were largely untested. Nobody knew the long term effects. I was a guinea pig for big pharma.

That's when I began a hate campaign against him. The one man, who had ever loved me enough to call me his own. I want even his. And yet he took the responsibility of raising me to become a real man. But I wouldn't have it. Everything was wrong. We fought. Screaming matches, "I hate you" ringing in my head from my own mouth for days after an argument. You see, the medication had taken its toll already. My mind was stolen from me. Guilt? The emotion does not exist anymore. A sense of when to stop? It's not there. All I knew was hate. And it got worse.

He was soon diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. The first operation was inmediate, followed by another and then the long road of chemo. Did my twisted mind care? No. We still fought. The same words, repeated. "I hate you". The pain in his eyes... It was pain from the treatment. But even that couldn't hide the pain he had from hearing me say that to him, as his body died, and was eaten away by something that we had no control over. I was off of medication at this point. But I would soon learn some things are permanent.

It took a near fistfight between me, and my father who was crippled by chemo and radiation for me to realize all of this. How I had these security issues. How I had built defenses into myself. How pills had stolen emotions from me, some of which now are faintly returning, but some of which I can't even remember the names, it's been so long.

I realize, that I love him. Despite all if the things I've done, to try to push him out, he has fought back with every ounce of strength he DOES NOT HAVE, to persevere through me destroying him.

And now I realize, that maybe the reason he's dying now is because he has used what was left of his will to fight to get me to realize all of this.

The feeling of knowing that someone who isn't even related to you, has most likely sacrificed his life, his actual life, to return you to a state if being where you are capable of true love... This is love. This is sacrifice.

The feeling of knowing that there was someone that always forgave you, that always looked past your awful, awful self destructive behavior and offensive being, and always stuck next to you when you needed him... That's love.

And the feeling of falling in love with someone you love to hate, and cutting her out of your life not only to save her, but to save yourself from imminent death... I guess that's love, in a way too.

I've been surrounded by this sort of thing my whole life. I've managed to destroy it every fucking time. And the more I dwell on it, the more I want to scream into my own face "You're fucking stupid. You are a worthless human being, built and engineered only to destroy what you are gifted, what you are given. You are the source of your own pain. You're not unfortunate, you're the cause of misfortune. Deal with your own problems, you selfish bastard. And you make damn well sure you fix it yourself, because you deserve no help from anyone you've ever associated with."

Even as these emotions pour out of me, I masquerade as a happy guy. I act the same in school. I don't get depressed. It's all bottled up, either in my heart or in my head. Don't let it out, I tell myself. You're weak, and you know it. So don't let it out.

So, I ask you. Can I let you in?" - Tyler Talley

www.booksie.com/memoir/short_story/whimsicalfuntime/troub...

www.facebook.com/bookhead.talley?fref=ts

Empty sign next to green house that's now a martial arts studio

We have such a high opinion of ourselves, and it is so undeserved.

tagged.

1. i wish my hair was long right now. i feel like this sometimes.

2. the camera i use belongs to my dad. i don't know what i'll do when i move.

3. i hate not being the best at something. it makes me want to give up. but i won't. not this time.

4. i think i annoy people and make them not want to be around me.

5. i tend to be a little paranoid. see #4.

6. i seriously cannot wait to move out. i cannot describe my disgust and disdain for this place.

7. i have to have a fan on when i go to bed. it makes it hard for me to stay asleep otherwise.

8. i read before i go to bed no matter how late it is.

9. i do things at the last minute and they end up not being as good as they have the potential to be.

10. i still haven't found me yet. that sounds so corny.

sorry these aren't light-hearted and cute. i'm not in that sort of mood tonight. :/

NOTE: people i tagged; sorry if i don't know you, you don't have to do this. i just only know about 2 people on flickr personally. :)

One of those shots where you're really glad you have Pan-F loaded....

Merry Christmas all, and here's hoping for some good weather soon.

We are constantly on the lookout for anything different, however tiny and insignificant to the mainstream visitors, for there is such a wealth of unique creatures that can be so rewarding to see in person. In this case, the Beetle, known as the Four-Lined Plant Bug, caught our attention. Nature certainly has a way to express beauty in all sizes, and the patterns and colors on this tiny beetle were rather remarkable.

The late, Doris Duke, had left a wonderful legacy in converting a good portion of her magnificent estate into a Natural Wildlife Preserve for the public’s education and enjoyment—just short of 1,000 of the almost 3,000 acres is open to visitors. The other area is restricted to staff and for a wide range of projects. The paths throughout the estate offer such splendid scenery. One is forever exploring, always seeing something beautiful. There are so many pleasant surprises, from the general landscape scenery with the many lakes, ponds, and waterfalls, plus old stone structures in bridges and buildings, to the world of birds and other wildlife, including furry critters, tiny insects, and wonderful plants, from fascinating wildflowers to such impressive trees. The bucolic nature of the preserve is so relaxing—akin to meditating while experiencing the preserve. Also, if one appreciates fine, classic sculptures, some of Doris Duke’s collection can be seen around the park, including the statue garden court within the old hay barn ruin.

There is no best time to visit, for throughout the year’s seasonal changes, visitors will never leave disappointed, for each trip offers something memorable.

CHECK OUT OUR ALBUMS ON DUKE FARMS, FOR IT IS SUCH A WONDERFUL PLACE FOR ALL TO ENJOY AND LEARN ABOUT NATURE’S ENDLESS GIFTS.

I'm not sure how I feel about this picture, but I thought I'll upload it anyway!

Press L to view large if you wanna see the particles up closer