Why Hyperspace and a Two Reference Frame System?

A compact extra dimension has a completely different effect on the Newtonian

force law. In a D-dimensional space with one dimension compactified on circle of
radius R with an angular coordinatea that is periodic with period 2p, the line
element becomes

The force law derived from the potential that solves the Laplace equation
becomes

So if we added an extra compact space dimension to our three existing

noncompact space dimensions, then D=4, but D-2=2, so the force law is still an
inverse square law. The Newtonian force law only cares about the number of
noncompact dimensions. At distances much larger than R, An extra compact
dimension can't be detected gravitationally by an altered force law.

But you might be asking how does this extra space manage to act like its horizon
is set at the horizon of our universe? Part of the answer lies in its own local
velocity of light. If that velocity crosses its own universe in 1 second then in
essence as you shrink that universe in volume size one still has a lightcone
extending far further than our own. When you try to compare both these frames
even though C is a constant in any one frame the velocity of C remains different
from each other. The result is any information carried from our space-time
through it seems to transfer non-local due to differences in our measuring rod,
while information transferred from hyperspace to here is forced to remain local so
that we only get a fraction of the total information.

This is where the difference between quantum derived expectation values for the
ZPF and observed values comes into play. Quantum Theory deals with the
Planck scale. By nature it measures value from this external frame of reference
and derives answers that do not equal those based upon observation. If one
knows the actual velocity of C within hyperspace one can reduce those answers
back to our observed ones simply by division of those answers by that value for
C there. That leads one to assume that the local velocity of C is some 120
powers higher in hyperspace than here (see author notes 2). Such a large
velocity as far as localized lab experiments go would seem infinite. But if we
could perform quantum information transfer via entanglement over a very large
distance then one could detect that actual local value for C in hyperspace.

Dirac waves transfer through hyperspace the same as they do here using the
model I have proposed. The difference is in the wavelength spread due to the
much faster local velocity of C. The energy spectrum is simply spread out to the
point that we can only measure a small fraction of its total energy per Planck unit
here. That’s why we observe an energy for the vacuum some 120 powers
smaller than theory predicts. Its actual energy is the higher value. But we only
see part of the picture due to the wave function spread. The only thing required
to solve this quantum problem is the acceptance of a two reference frame system
instead of one.

The effect of adding an extra compact dimension is more subtle than that. It
causes the effective gravitational constant to change by a factor of the volume
2pR of the compact dimension. If R is very small, then gravity is going to be
stronger in the lower dimensional compactified theory than in the full higher-
dimensional theory.

So if this were our Universe, then Newton's constant that we measure in our
noncompact 3 space dimensions would have a strength equal to the full
Newton's constant of the total 4-dimensional space, divided by the volume of the
compact dimension. The actual volume internal for hyperspace is set by its
lightcone horizon. In hyperspace all four forces (strong, weak, EM, and Gravity)
are equal. But their transfer into our noncompact 3 space dimensions alters
these forces to all look different.

This leads then to the issue that quantum information is different from normal
information, yet, it in its own frame it is the same. In theory, normal information
could be sent through hyperspace. But to get the correct picture of that
information so as to restore it correctly we’d have to measure the return over a
far longer time period. What we’d get is just bits of the information that we’d
have to add together to get the whole message. In essence every EM signal
ever sent out has traveled through hyperspace. But we only get the results back
in a limited fashion here because of the frame difference. In essence those
signals traveled ahead in time all the way to their course end in a fraction of a
second there. But we only arrive at that point here in a much slower time rate.

Consider a 5-dimensional space-time with space coordinates x1,x2,x3,x4 and time

coordinate x0, where the x4 coordinate is rolled up into a circle of radius R so that
x4 is the same as x4+2pR

Suppose the metric components are all independent of x4. The space-time metric
can be decomposed into components with indices in the three noncompact
directions (signified by a,b below) or with indices in the x4 direction:

The four ga4 components of the metric look like the components of a space-time
vector in four space-time dimensions that could be identified with the vector
potential of electromagnetism with the usual field strength Fab
The field strength is invariant under a a reparametrization of the compact x4
dimension via

which acts like a U(1) gauge transformation, as it should if this is to act like
electromagnetism. This field obeys the expected equations of motion for an
electromagnetic vector potential in four space-time dimensions. The g44
component of the metric acts like a scalar field and also has the appropriate
equations of motion.

In this model (see author notes 1, 3), a theory with a gravitational force in five
space-time dimensions becomes a theory in four space-time dimensions with
three forces: gravitational, electromagnetic, and scalar. But the idea that Dirac
waves can carry through in hyperspace also brings up in itself that there is more
than 1 extra dimension at play here.

So the answer to the question about why hyperspace is simply that everything
we know from quantum theory at the current time requires that a compact extra
set of dimensions is in existence. Once one accepts those extra dimensions as
real then the idea of a two frame system begins to make a whole lot of sense
when you examine certain quantum effects like entanglement, tunneling, etc.

Author’s notes

1.) This model I am using has similar properties to the one used under Double
Special Relativity (see: Jerzy Kowalski-Glikman, Sebastian Nowak, Non-
commutative space-time of Doubly Special Relativity theories, Int.J.Mod.Phys.
D12 (2003) 299-316). But the two frames system here is different from the one
employed there owning to the PV nature of this model The actual model
employed and its implications can be found at: Hyperspace a Vanishing act,
http://doc.cern.ch//archive/electronic/other/ext/ext-2004-109.pdf, Implications of
the Dutch Equation Modified PV Model,
http://doc.cern.ch//archive/electronic/other/ext/ext-2004-115.pdf, and Why
Quantum Theory does not fit observational data,
http://doc.cern.ch//archive/electronic/other/ext/ext-2004-116.pdf

2.) The strongest basis for assuming that C stays constant in hyperspace is from
observations of the CMB itself. However, it is possible that C may also vary in
hyperspace. The implications of such have not been worked out in this model to
date. Also to be noted the K=0 in the original paper assumes that value for
hyperspace itself before inflation took place. The best fit currently with our
space-time is that K would equal 1. The usage of K=0 was to simplify the
modeling. In reality I suspect that K=1 for both space-time frames.
3.) In many respects hyperspace under such a model is a static space-time
since all events here we witness in broken fashion have already transpired within
hyperspace in an instant of its time. But it is also dynamic in that under this
model its volume in relation to our space-time changes.