Emergence of Time and Physical Interactions in Fractional

N-dimensional Euclidean Space Volumes

Pinhas Ben-Avraham, 63 Rehov Kibbutz Galuyot, Ofakim 80300, Israel1

March 25, 2010

Keywords: Electric charge, emergence of time, fractional charge, fine structure constant,
fundamental constants, fractional dimensionality, uncertainty principle, quantization of time,
mathematical universe, physical reality, Mach’s principle.

Abstract

We try to demonstrate a simple mathematical structure’s properties as an observable physical reality or toy universe.
Commencing from properties of an n-dimensional Euclidean structure we analyze the properties of such space and
some of its Fourier transforms related to velocity, acceleration and “jerk” as motion spaces. We develop the motion of a
point within that structure into a means to determine one or more interaction constants for this point in its (fractional) n-
dimensional geometrical environment. We discuss the implications of dimensionality of motion spaces and try to find a
reasonable minimum amount of interpretation to let the mathematical structure resemble an observable physical reality
without “plugging in” constants. Instead, we only “plug in” some elementary concepts of physics we try to keep to a
minimum. We discuss, without any claim to completeness, in what way the mathematical structure could be conceived
as a physical reality or whether it could be a physical reality. In this exercise we find the fine structure constant to be
the most naturally emerging constant, and the other interaction constants dependent on it. It is also shown that motion
spaces derived as Fourier transforms of a spherically symmetric n-dimensional Euclidean position space are Lorentz
invariant. Quantum mechanical effects like zitterbewegung and quantization of topological charges including the
electric charge are discussed in the light of n-dimensional space-volumes. In light of the possible fractality and with
that non-differentiability of motions we discuss scale-dependent effects and sensibility of the quantization of space and
time and their relationship to mass and charge, respectively. We find reasons for a direct dimensional relationship of
the emergences of charge and time prior to space and gravity.

1. Introduction

In 2006/7, Frank Wilczek [1, 2] stated that fundamental constants in physics, like for
example interaction constants are purely numerical quantities whose values cannot be derived
from first principles, meaning, they are not derivable from equations describing certain
physical theories, let alone real phenomena that also are not derivable from such equations
without “plugging in” natural constants. He further stated that these natural constants make
up the link between equations and reality, and their values cannot be determined
conceptually.

Arthur Eddington [3] tried for the greater part of his later life to find a geometrical principle
to describe physics on the basis of the fine structure constant’s peculiar numerical value,
1/137, to no avail. Koschmieder [4] uses lattice theory to explain the masses of the particles
of the Standard Model, concluding that “only” photons, neutrinos and electric charge are
needed to explain the masses of all the particles. He refers to MacGregor [5, 6, 7] who shows
in three papers that the masses of the particles of the Standard Model depend solely on the
electron mass and the fine structure constant’s numerical value in natural units. Nottale et al.
[8, 9] propose a model of “scale relativity” that solves the problem of the divergence of
charges or coupling constants and self-energy with the fine structure constant, α = 1/137, on
the electron scale. They attempt to devise a geometrical framework in which motion laws are
1
Email: benavrahampinhas@gmail.com, Tel. +972-50-863.9107, +972-8-996.3527
completed by scale laws. From these scale laws they obtain standard quantum mechanics as
mechanics in a non-differentiable space-time2. In particular, in reference [8] Nottale
demonstrates a derivation of the fine structure constant by “running down” the formal QED
inverse coupling from the electron scale (Compton length) to the Planck scale by using its
renormalization group equation3. The numerical value achieved by this procedure is pretty
close to reality. A shortcoming of this approach is it yields different values for the “bare
charge” or “bare coupling”. Again, he needs to refer to experimental observation to choose
the “correct” or “physical” of the three possible solutions. Furthermore, specific length scales
like the Compton and the Planck length have to be “plugged in” to come up with realistic
values for the coupling constants he determines. Similarly, Garrett Lisi [10] needs to choose
the symmetry breaking and the action by hand to achieve an otherwise compelling proposal
for a “Theory of Everything” matching the Standard Model. Other approaches to derive the
numerical values of coupling constants, and in particular the fine structure constant, border
on numerology or other “esoteric” approaches bearing little resemblance of physical
reasoning that can be derived from observational experience underlying the construct of the
mathematical structures proposed. Relativistically, one needs to “plug in” the velocity of light
as a maximum velocity to obtain Lorentz invariance. We shall determine whether and how
this invariance may be derived from geometrical considerations only.

In our approach we try to avoid any input of numerical values for interaction or coupling
constants, but resort only to some fundamental concepts of elementary physics where
necessary. By allowing generalized dimensionality we include the possibility of a fractal
picture of space-time that seems to be, at least tentatively, justified by phenomena such as
Brownian motion and zitterbewegung, the latter of the two showing true fractional
dimensionality, and by quantum theory itself that proposes the Planck length and Planck time
as a smallest scale. We shall attempt to show fundamental differences in the properties of
Euclidean position space and the Lorentz invariant motion spaces related to momentum
(velocity), force (acceleration), and impact (jerk), and with that fundamental differences of
space and mass versus time and charge. It shall, however, become clear in the course of our
treatment of the underlying mathematical structure we have assumed that physical
phenomena are the result of the underlying mathematical structure, if so interpreted by an
observer.

The introduction of additional dimensions in Kalutza-Klein theories or string theory as well

as the above mentioned approaches seems to warrant two fundamental questions:

1. Is there a fundamental connection of space geometry to at least one of the coupling

constants?
2. What role plays dimensionality in the sense of Hausdorff’s extended view on
dimensionality and fractional dimensionality in physical interactions and the fabric of
space-time?

We attempt to shed light onto these questions considering some properties of spaces seen as
mathematical structures containing, resembling or being such physical interactions without
claiming the identity of our structures with physical reality as such. We try to keep the

2
They do not arrive at a discrete space-time, but rather postulate it.
3
Such equation needs physical insight to be “derived”. A merely mathematical reasoning without reference
to phenomena or physical concepts is impossible.

2
physical reality as simple as possible to see how much “physical law” in form of properties of
the underlying structure such simplistic example can produce, and how much additional input
in form of mathematical structure or its properties is needed to make our structure be a
realistic “toy” universe.

Max Tegmark [11] proposed in 2007 a mathematical universe hypothesis stating “Our
external physical reality is a mathematical structure”, based on the assumption that “There
exists an external physical reality completely independent of us humans”. He argues for the
equivalence of a mathematical structure and the physical reality it describes and we observe,
not merely the mathematical structure describing the physical reality. Despite his effort to
encode numerically elements of language defining or describing mathematical entities or
(partial) structures, at least one information theoretical problem remains: one need to agree
on the encoding. We do have no proof of a “natural” encoding mechanism that would be
provably inevitable by emerging from the structure itself as a “by nature preferred encoding
mechanism”. We hold against the quest for an absolutely mathematical nature of physical
reality that human language and its content may well be translated into mathematical
symbolism or “language”, but cannot be immune against a decidedly willed, random or even
illogical treatment of that physical reality by humans. Furthermore, any distinctions within
the structure are arguably man-made, except they would “automatically” emerge from the
structure itself. Thereby the choices made what to look for inside the structure may be also
arguably man-made. Besides this caution we find it enormously interesting to try to build a
mathematical structure “from scratch” that describes or resembles a physical reality. We are
not insisting on what is the “ultimate scratch”, but are interested whether we will be able to
argue in favor of an identity of mathematical structure and physical reality.

We will try in the following to investigate a mathematical structure resembling a physical

reality using a simple example for such a reality. A central question we shall try to answer is
whether and how such structure can provide us with numerically acceptable unique values
for, say, conditions of minimal physical (inter-) action. The choice of our example cannot be
completely arbitrary and random. Hence, we try to determine from the properties of a simple
structure and first principles4 whether we can find a physical (inter-) action we can observe.

In section 2 we choose as a starting structure for our example Euclidean space 5 in arbitrarily
many dimensions. To include fractional dimensions into our discussion we construct an n-
dimensional structure with n a real number. We further allege all physical reality should look
the same in any arbitrarily chosen locality of that space. By the introduction of time we
introduce a structure similar to Minkowski space, but we shall use complementary spaces
such as momentum space as a basic structure to arrive there. In section 3 where we also try to
define what is movement and how time-like coordinates arise from it. In sections 4 to 6 we
construct such complementary spaces and demonstrate some properties of “position space”
and “velocity space”6, taking into consideration “acceleration space”, all in particular
dependent on dimensionality. We use the conditions we found in those sections to derive a
possible physical interaction in section 5. In sections 6 and 7 we attempt a discussion about
the physical meaning of dimensionality and a relativity of space-volume in n dimensions and
4
We try to limit these to the definitions of position, time, velocity, acceleration and higher time derivatives
as specified in section 3.
5
NOT space-time!
6
Velocity space shall be at this stage identical with momentum space as we try not to define anything like a
mass yet.

3
try to give an interpretation of a possible dependency of observed physical interactions on
dimensionality by discussing velocity or momentum densities in different dimensions for
identical movements taking “acceleration space” and “jerk space” into consideration, to
finally conclude in section 8 with a discussion of our findings and try to assess how much
interpretation is necessary to find the physical reality in the mathematical structure. In a brief
outlook we try to suggest a program for systematically exploring avenues towards the
development of a TOE based on purely geometric considerations.

2. Space and Time

2.1. N-dimensional Euclidean Space

For a (geometrical) object or its motion to be described or to take place, a certain minimum
volume of space is necessary even if we follow Mach’s and Leibniz’s argumentation in favor
of the non-existence of absolute space and time. Mach insisted that science must deal with
genuinely observable things which made him deeply suspicious of the concepts of invisible
space and time. Mach’s idea suggests that the Newtonian way of thinking about the working
of a universe, which is still deep-rooted, is fundamentally wrong. The Newtonian philosophy
describes objects of the universe contained in a space-time that exists before anything else.
The Machian idea takes the power from space and time and gives it to the actual contents of
that space and time which is seen as a holistic interplay of space and its contents. This means
the actual structure of space and time is determined by the dynamics and spatial distribution
of its contents. We will see in this treatise how such space can emerge from a very simplistic
dynamics7. Depending on the nature of such dynamics, complementary spaces will play an
important role in demonstrating “physicality”8.

In regard to scale, we do not assume any scale but define the length of elementar movement
as one and the resulting time interval also as one. We want, for the moment, not too strictly
adhere to Mach’s principle but allow a spherical space in n dimensions enclosing our object
or its movement. To avoid more restrictive assumptions we allow highest possible symmetry
of our space which is spherical symmetry. We also choose to allow arbitrarily many
dimensions n (real number), and our space shall be Euclidean. We reserve the right to further
generalize as we progress building our structure. It shall be understood that space with n = 0
+ ε with ε being a very small positive number unequal to zero, can contain a point, n = 1 a
line, n = 2 a surface and n ≥ 3 a voluminous object. For the word “volume” we want to allow
besides a conventional voluminous geometrical object an area of a surface and the length of a
line as a volume; only a point without any motion shall have zero volume. We will see the
reasons for our choices during our construction process. We further generalize dimensionality
to n [12].

For example, in Nottale’s scale relativity particles are identified with a family of fractal
trajectories within scales smaller than the particle itself like the Planck or Compton scales,
described as the geodesics of a non-differentiable space-time. These trajectories have fractal
internal structures, meaning they are explicitly dependent on at least one scale variable
7
We do not, however, adhere rigorously to Mach’s principle.
8
Cf. sections 4 to 6.

4
characterizing “resolution”. If we consider an electron in an electromagnetic potential, its
wave function’s phase contains the products of fundamental quantities like position, time and
angle together with their conjugates or complementaries momentum, energy and angular
momentum as they are related through Noether’s theorem and Heisenberg’s uncertainty
relations. The conjugate variables are the conservative quantities that originate from space-
time symmetries. The gauge transformation for the electric charge comes out here as a
conjugate of the charge itself. The question is, if scale relativity allows the derivation of the
electric charge from the properties of space-time alone, then it should be possible to
determine within space and time a fundamental fractal relationship between particle
properties, quantizations and fundamental limits like the speed of light, but what is the
fundamental ingredient of such a relationship between fundamental properties of space and
physical interactions and particle properties? According to Nottale and Feynman the quantum
behavior of physics is a manifestation of fractal geometry of space-time, in the same way as
gravitation is, in Einstein’s theory, a manifestation of the curvature of space-time. An
important part in such non-differentiable but continuous space-time is played by curves,
surfaces, volumes, and more generally spaces of dimension n being a real number. To allow
physics or interactions, as well as dynamics, the properties of such n-dimensional space-time
need to be discussed as they are generally not well understood, in particular, if n is a real
number.

To illustrate n-dimensional space including its fractal properties, let us consider a space of
position that is isotropic and homogeneous: the spherically symmetric n-space. To satisfy the
conditions of interaction, we need to provide volumes where these interactions can happen.

Before we embark into any reasoning about (inter-)actions, we discuss the behavior of the
volume of a sphere as a function of its radius and of dimensionality without suggesting or
assuming a special metric or gauge invariance we normally would use to describe physics. A
spherical volume element of radius one (unit radius) is described by Hamming [13]:

(π ⋅ r 2 ) k
V ( r , n) = C n r n = , with n = 2k
k!

Since Γ(k + 1) = k!, n will be even for integer k. Generalizing n yields a function V(r, n)
that is continuous and differentiable in respect to radius and dimensionality including
fractional dimensions. With

k!= Γ ( k + 1) = Γ ( n2 + 1)
we get for our spherical volume element of radius r and dimensionality n

n
(π ⋅ r )
2 2

V ( r , n) =
Γ ( 1+ n2 )
as its volume. For unit radius this yields a dependency of the volume from dimensionality as
shown in Fig. 1a, and Fig.1b shows a plot of V(r, n).

5
 V

n
5 10 15 20
Figure 1a

1
0.75

0.5 r

0.25

6
V
4

0
0 2 4 6 8 10

Figure 1b n

Figure 1c

As we can see, the voluminosity

of our n-dimensional sphere
behaves counter-intuitively. The
volume reaches a maximum for
unit radius and decreases to zero
2 for large n. Furthermore, the
1.5 dimension where the maximum
1 -0.5 volume occurs increases with
Vs 0.5
increasing radius. If we look at
0
1

0
dimensions n < 1 and r < 1, we
0.75 encounter more counter-intuitive
n behavior of the volume function.
0.5

r
0.5 As we can see from Figure 1c
0.25 and from V(r, n), at r = 0 and n =
0 the equation has no solution.
0 1

6
Hence, the existence of a point or a point-like object in a spherically symmetric environment
at zero dimensions does not exist. The point-like object can only exist there either with an
infinitesimally small radius or infinitesimally small dimensionality. In the immediate
neighborhood of r = n = 0 the volume function has a very steep slope and “jumps” from zero
volume to V = 1 for positive n. There are no solutions for r = 0 and n ≤ 0. For n = 0 and r  0
the volume is always equal to one. In one dimension, our intuition is rectified by a point
being a sphere of radius zero with zero volume. So we have established the existence of a
point with zero volume and zero radius occurs only at n > 0. The existence of differentiable
lines occurs at n ≥ 1, that of differentiable surfaces at n ≥ 2, and that of differentiable
volumes and hyper-volumes at n ≥ 3, which is straight forwardly understood. What is less
understood is the occurrence of sets of finite separated lines at ½ dimension, that of sets of
finite separated surfaces and sets of separated three dimensional volumes between one and
two dimensions. Here we see that deterministic fractals exist in the neighborhood of integer
dimensions, and that some of them may require a higher dimensional environment to be able
to exist. Examples are two and three dimensional Cantor dust. There the elements of the dust
are two or three dimensional by themselves, but the set itself has a lower fractional
dimension. This means, the respective volumes for such sets can be determined by a smallest
sphere enclosing the set and having the same dimensionality as the set.

In such a space we can describe the positions of points or objects relative to each other and
arrive at a description of dynamical behavior of a system of objects by looking at changes of
their positions relative to each other. We agreed above that we want to enclose such an object
or system of objects by a suitable sphere representing a geometric space spanned up by the
“physical” action9. We will see later that for our considerations it is sufficient to simply look
at the volumes of such enclosing spheres. We remind the reader about such spheres being
chosen for the convenience of having highest possible symmetry.

2.2. The Role of Time

Asking the question “What is time?” is as old as mankind. At a fundamental level of physics
space and time are basic ingredients for the understanding of any process, any dynamics and
any interaction, but the fundamentality of space-time may be not enough to understand the
principle nature of dynamics or interaction, as such space-time is a combination of
fundamentally different basic ingredients: space allocating position, and time allocating
change. A timeless quantum mechanics for instance is possible without destroying the
descriptive power of the theory, but relativity cannot be timeless without becoming
meaningless. Noether’s theorem shows us that time’s translational symmetry is identical to
the conservation of energy while space’s translational symmetry is identical to the
conservation of linear momentum. The rotational symmetry of space is identical with the
conservation of angular momentum. Here we see that Noether’s theorem is directly related to
conjugate or complementary observables related to each other in quantum mechanics by
Heisenberg’s uncertainty relationship, and mathematically by Fourier transformations. To
henceforth see time as orthogonal to position space coordinates is acceptable, but to fully
treat time and space coordinates on an equal footing remains very questionable.

To give meaning to time, we need to consider change. In a universe or space where there is
no content that exhibits any motion or not any object in such space displays any relative
9
One could argue the action of a moving point to be “mathematical” as well.

7
motion or change in at least one property relative to any other object that space contains, time
is meaningless and cannot be measured within that space. From now we want to identify
changes of properties of objects with motion in “property spaces”. For example a color
change would happen to be represented by a motion in color space. Hence, we need to define
time differently from position space and its properties. We can measure the distance of
objects, say, points in our “toy universe” by using a rigid rod as a unit length, but if we want
to measure time, things are not that simple. First, the measurement of position space is direct,
we actually can measure, strictly speaking, nothing else but positions of objects contained in
a space or the changes of their relative positions. Second, time cannot be measured but via
the observation of changes in general. This means, time can only be measured indirectly. All
our time measuring devices such as clocks, pendula, and any other frequency rendering
devices are using repeated uniform displacement in space as a measure of time units. From
this follows that at least two positions in space frequented by a moving object are necessary
to define a time interval. This time interval can be divided into infinitely many small time
sub-intervals that can, purely geometrically become infinitesimally small, but never are able
to reach the properties of a point. Also, such time intervals cannot be separated from each
other, so to speak into time and timeless intervals, while space can be divided into “object-
occupied” and “non-occupied” volume elements. In other words, space can be discontinuous
while time cannot; meaning, time’s minimum dimensionality is one while space can have less
than one dimension. This is very important in regard to fractional dimensionality of physical
processes, and it implies that in any fractal geometry physics makes only sense if position
and time coordinates (space and time) are not freely interchangeable, and “instants of time”
are non-existent.

2.3. Space-Time

If we want to construct a space-time in fractal geometry, we need to consider time as always

continuous while space can have any properties regarding differentiability and continuity.
Therefore, a minimally dimensional space-time has one dimension, if we consider it empty
but comparable to some other space containing a clock. What is the minimum dimensionality
of a fractal space-time if it contains a “minimal clock”? This is a very delicate question and
needs careful attention.

In the immediate neighborhood of zero dimensions a length-less zero-volume object can only
be realized as something point-like while continuous change needs besides the one time-like
dimension at least a fractional dimension that allows the existence of a minimal one-
dimensional Cantor dust consisting of two points moving infinitesimally slow relative to each
other in a neighborhood of positions that, if filled by points, would produce a line.
Theoretically we can state that such a space-time would exist in n > 1 dimensions inclusive of
time but not in exactly one dimension. This is valid if we assume spherical symmetry to
allow the full validity of Noether’s theorem in fractional dimensions. Hence, a minimum
spherically symmetric space-time in n > 1 dimensions must be asymmetric in regard to
dimensionality. We will see in section 7 what this exactly means in mathematical and
physical terms. Furthermore, in a fractional dimensional or fractal space the meaning of time
needs to be more precisely defined in regard to processes of change. We need to discuss not
only time as a result of motion in different complementary spaces, but also its role in the
process of “becoming” rather than “being”. Since a one-point universe cannot yield time, and

8
a point cannot exist as a sphere with zero radius in zero dimensions, there is a need to answer
the following questions:

• If the universe emerged from a singularity, was this singularity a point or an empty
set?
• How can a point singularity (point in infinity) evolve from zero dimensions?
• How does time emerge from a singularity in position space?
• Is frequency a time-like volume that emerges with the emergence of motion-like
volumes as a volume in negative dimensions of such motion-like spaces or their
quotient spaces or is there an interaction that has a closer link to the emergence of
time?
• How do motion spaces emerge from changes in position or property space?

Time and its reciprocal, frequency, are in classical and quantum physics regarded as scalars
while positions and their time derivatives are denoted by vectors. However, we have an arrow
of time resulting from thermodynamics’ second law and from the information-theoretical
conditions of causality. This causality, challenged by quantum eraser and delayed choice
experiments and their combinations, poses a formidable challenge with the questions:

• Is negative time a motion in time affecting the arrow of time with time as a scalar or
do we have to introduce at least additional fractional dimensions to time and
frequency to allow time-reversal or do we have to regard time as a volume?
• If time is a volume-like scalar, what is the nature of time-reversing or seemingly
time-reversing experiments?

This set of questions suggests we shall have to concern ourselves with information theoretical
issues as well as thermodynamic and statistical physics issues. At this stage, before we have
analyzed the properties of motion spaces related to time-derivatives-of-position spaces these
questions will not be answerable. We shall now embark into a discussion of motion spaces to
facilitate a background to discuss the above open issues.

3. Motion

We need to agree on the following facts as philosophically necessary to describe a space

emerging from a point which is, according to our deliberations above, non-existent as having
zero volume, zero dimensionality and zero extension (radius in the spherically symmetric
case) at once:

As we can see from Fig. 1 c, the point can exist as a sphere of zero volume and zero radius at
any dimension greater than zero. It has co-dimension zero in all these n-dimensional
environments. The emergence of position and motion spaces from moving points and their
volume constraints shall be the subject of our further investigation. Similarly, the emergence
of time and its properties as a result of the geometry of motion spaces both dimensionally and
from their spatial and dynamic properties opens a new view of both relativistic and quantum
properties of motion. To make such multi-dimensional approach intelligible, we start with a
one-dimensional motion of a point relative to another point at rest, and define the length of
such motion as the radius of an n-dimensional sphere. For the derivation of minimal

9
interactions and maximum velocities and their time derivatives we shall primarily look at
volume properties of the different motion spaces and of position space, as well as at
uncertainties arising mathematically and by measurement constraints.

Let us assume that there exists a point in no environment or space (single universe) that we
let move over a length one to create a straight line that we want to consider as the radius of
our n-dimensional sphere we discussed above. Our initial point shall have no physical or
other attributes attached to it other than that of a point resting. This resting we have, due to
the condition of a point having no volume, radius or dimension, to challenge in regard to our
discussion above. According to that, we deal with an object that has at least one of these
properties unequal to zero, if we assume it spherical, unless we accept it as an empty set.
There are three possibilities for the point to exist “in no environment”:

• At n = 0 we require an infinitesimally small radius that lets the volume “jump” to

one.
• The radius can have any length at n = 0 and the volume will always be one.
• For zero volume and radius we require at least an infinitesimally small
dimensionality.

The first two conditions show that we can have unit volume emerging from a point in infinity
or from a point at any distance from the empty singularity at the origin, if we consider zero-
dimensional Cantor dust as residing in or slightly above zero dimensions. As we can see from
Fig. 1 c, unit volume is reached between 0 < n ≤ 1 at about r = 1/2 very weakly dependent on
dimensionality. Only the function how unit volume is reached from zero volume varies from
a step function very near n = 0 to a smoothened step function at n = ½ to a linear function at
n = 1. Furthermore, near zero dimensions the existence of one point at any distance from the
empty origin creates a unit volume. This unit volume is thereafter, at higher dimensions, only
achieved by the coming into existence of such point at a minimum distance of ½ near zero to
2 in about 64 dimensions. Within radius one a significant volume is only available up to 23
dimensions. Hence, we shall concentrate on the dimensional interval 0 ≤ n ≤ 23.

We further agree that we can move our point from one to another position as we decide or it
is able to emerge at any other position while “fading” from its original position. The familiar
definitions of “position”, “velocity” and “acceleration” shall hold, but we do not want to
introduce definitions like “force”, “momentum” or “energy” at this stage. The term
“existence” shall be defined as a variable that enables emergence and fading at different
positions in the case of dimensionalities smaller than one. This existence shall be dependent
on time. Any other properties of the point like “mass” or “charge” shall also be un-defined
“unknown labels”. We only allow mathematical entities to exist together with our three
“physical” definitions as follows:

1. Position as a vector x = (x1, x2, … , xn);

2. Velocity shall be a vector v = dx/dt;
3. Acceleration shall be a vector a = dv/dt, and its further time derivatives shall also
exist.

The time shall be denoted by t and higher time derivatives of a shall be considered for non-
uniform accelerations of our point. The concept of time has to be introduced as a comparison

10
of the motion of our point relative to a clock-mechanism which imposes a formidable
problem in so far as uncertainty is concerned. For convenience, we shall regard the time as a
continuum to allow differentiability and integrability, but for a realistic picture of physical
reality we would have to assume, strictly speaking, a clock with infinitely high frequency 10 to
achieve that.

This said we can now investigate how we can describe the movement of our point that
constructs our sphere. Thereby we do not scale any lengths except that the observed
movement shall end at length of radius one and the two known positions shall be at r = 0 and
r = 1 at t0 and t1 respectively.

The velocity of the moving point can only be determined, if one knows at least two different
positions at two separate “instants of time”11 which have to be treated as the ends of a time
interval that is divisible into smaller ones, but not into point-like instants of time. John
Wheeler remarked in his article “Law without Law” [14]: What we call reality consists of a
few iron posts of observation between which we fill in by elaborate papier-mâché
construction of imagination and theory. Thus, we have to consider two separate points in
space as well as in time as the minimum information we can obtain to determine a velocity,
and hence, our assumption made above for r and t is justifiable.

If one regards a static position of a point as zero dimensional, it can be at any position
relative to another point at rest in any dimensionality except zero. If we construct a velocity
space in n dimensions, both points will be resting at the origin of that space. This means
according to Mach’s principle that velocity space does not exist for those static points or is
represented by one point. This point lies in the origin of the function Vp (p, n) as opposed to
the “resting point in Vs (r, n) which does not exist. When the one point changes position
moving relative to the other at some not necessarily constant velocity, the moving point will
be able to construct a “velocity-sphere” in n dimensions12. In position space such movement
will be represented by a line of minimum one dimension which is a co-dimension in position
n-space, because the line can be existent in many dimensions. In velocity n-space a point
with uniform velocity existent in many dimensions will be represented by a resting point in
that velocity space and must have a minimum co-dimension of one in position space. This
implies that any movement represented by less than one co-dimension in position space is un-
physical or at least physically questionable for now, because it cannot move but only fade in
one position and emerge in another when dimensions lower than one are concerned. We want
to restrict this implication for the moment until we have discussed the meaning of fractional
dimensions in the context of movement. To effect any interaction13, a minimum volume in
spatial and velocity space is necessary, allowing for acceleration (change in position and
velocity) at all times. From this we can conjecture that any change in velocity or any
interaction needs to take place over at least one co-dimension within the respective n-spaces
10
We do not want to indulge further in fundamental discussions about the nature of time in this paper, but
we point out that any definition of time should be dependent on motion, if we accept the 2nd law of
thermodynamics as the origin of the arrow of time we observe classically.
11
We can, in the simplest case have a uniform velocity or a velocity reaching the value 1 after time and
space interval one, if it is considered to rest at the beginning of the movement.
12
Again, it is and remains the choice of the observer, how many dimensions he or she chooses to construct
a spherical volume element with a radius determined by the displacement of a point in position and time.
13
For any interaction (or physics) to take place, change in motion must be allowed to observe that
interaction.

11
for position and velocity, if there are no effects present such as zitterbewegung. Hence, any
motion connected to an interaction constructs a minimum volume of position and velocity
space as well. If the acceleration changes we also have a voluminous acceleration space
which is represented by the Fourier transform of velocity space.

After all these considerations we are left with position space and time derivative spaces that
are Fourier transforms and describe motion of any kind. They do not have to contain time as
a separate coordinate to describe the physics and its constraints happening inside position
space. The volume functions of such position and motion spaces make, as we shall see later,
the construction of a space-time obsolete. From products of complementary spaces we can
derive uncertainty relations and construct interaction spaces and their volume functions in n
dimensions.

The current view of Mach’s principle in the context of general relativity that one creates a
problem with handling a space-time metric, in particular concerning problems of masses
relating to space-time curvatures, can be weakened by our above assertion of a minimum
volume of both types of spaces being required for any interaction or being constructed by
those interactions. If one further accepts the equivalence of energy density and space-time
curvature and the resulting assertion that all matter can be expressed by the geometrical
structure of space-time, one has to accept also that dynamics should be expressible in terms
of changes of that very structure which in our case is a change in radius with time. Those
changes, however, are constraint naturally by the relationship between the space “hosting”
dynamics, momentum space14, and that “hosting” position, spatial space. Changes of this
structure are a critical issue, whether one can assume a mathematical structure to be a
physical reality. Only in Mach’s sense this would be correct.

4. Some properties of position and motion

Let us take our point and move it from position x1 to position x2. This movement can be
described as Δx = x2 - x1. In Euclidean space we can connect the two positions with a straight
line, and in other types of space with a geodesic line. To define another distinction, because
we consider one point moving from one position to another, we need to introduce another
label or coordinate, time. In n dimensions, this can be regarded as the construction of a
quotient space of position change versus velocity change, fixing the time scale by
implication. If the point is considered moving continuously from one position to the other,
our time coordinate can be considered continuous as can its path. Since we have not agreed
on a particular scale or system of units, we want to define this movement as having length
one in position space and length one on the time coordinate. We remind ourselves again of
Wheeler’s remark cited above, which implies that if the point moves through positions x1 and
x2 at a constant velocity, this velocity can have any value in between these points and remains
unobserved. If we, however, consider the point resting in its first position and then covering
unit length in unit time, the start velocity will be zero and the velocity in the second position
will be one, if the point is uniformly accelerated over a time interval of one. The mean
velocity over the distance will be ½. According to our above assertion the spheres in our n-
dimensional spaces will be built by giving a radius to position and velocity spheres. If the
acceleration changes on the way but remains over the unit time interval at unit value, we do
14
This we simplified to velocity space as we have given no mass to our point.

12
not know the exact relationship between position and velocity. The velocity known between
the two positions is always between zero velocity and the end velocity in the accelerated
case, since the point rests in its first position and reaches the second position in unit time. If
we do not know whether and how the point is accelerated, the uncertainty of velocity lies
between the mean value and one, in this case it will be ½, if the position and time differences
are precisely known. For |Δx| = 1 we will induce an uncertainty of |Δv| = ½, so that their
product becomes ½. We will show later, how this relatively sloppy estimation of uncertainty
can be more rigorously derived from purely geometrical considerations and first principles.

Above we agreed that in our case only mathematical structure in form of Euclidean space
exists in form of an n-dimensional sphere constructed by the displacement of a point
representing its radius. Whether we decide to move the point to a unit sphere surface with
constant velocity or accelerated from rest leaves us no choice regarding the introduction of
movement, meaning, if we have only a resting point that we want to move and define its
displacement as our radius, we have to start at velocity zero and produce with that an
acceleration. To measure the position of a point while moving, it is not necessary to bring it
to a halt. Hence, we do not worry about what happens to our spherical space in its totality
after the introduction of movement but decide only to look at a spherical volume element
with maximum radius one within the evolving space.

We can now further argue that besides acceleration introduces a velocity to a resting point,
acceleration also needs to be introduced by a “jerk” j = da/dt. This would produce the
following scenario: let us assume, |j| = 1, then a(t) = ∫01j dt = 1t =1, and v(t) = t2/2 with x(t) =
t3/6. Vice versa, we need a mean jerk <j> of 6 for the point to reach length one in unit time.
Now we can introduce infinitely many “introductions” of the motion in question and will end
up with x(t) tn for reaching length one. Could this be a quantum jump? – We will suggest an
answer later when we know more about uncertainties, but one thing is sure: for higher order
jerks we get nonlinear acceleration and with that chaotic behavior of the equation of motion
that applies, and even the uncertainty relations between position and acceleration or jerk
behave chaotic themselves. We will see this towards the end of the paper.

At this point of our construction of a mathematical structure describing accelerated motion in

n-dimensional spherically symmetric space we need to define a velocity space corresponding
to our position space. We need to look at the velocity change over unit length and time once
more. Let us look at a simple case:

If the acceleration is known as one, the integral of dvdt equals ½. If Δx = 1 and Δv = ½, then
their product will be half, with x = v2/2 from Fx = max = mv2/2 for starting from zero velocity
and static zero position. Hence, Δx Δv = ½.

A change in position of length one in a time interval of one means a velocity over that
distance of one. This is only valid, if the velocity is considered constant over the time interval
in question. For an accelerated motion of our point, the velocity reaches one at the end point
of the interval, so that for a = 1 = const. the mean velocity <v> = ½. Since only two positions
are known for position and velocity, there is no way in telling whether the motion is
accelerated or not. Hence, the velocity can lie between the two extremes of ½ and 1, and the
uncertainty of v becomes ½.

13
Furthermore, an uncertainty in mathematical structure of a similar type exists also in the
context of complementary n-spaces. The complementary spaces can be expressed as Fourier
transforms of the spaces representing lower time derivatives than themselves, so that a
position space can be transformed into a velocity (momentum) space, transforming into the
time domain. We have argued above that our point moves in an n-dimensional spherical
volume. This volume is a function of radius and dimensionality. According to our construct
of a velocity space being the Fourier transform of our spatial volume function, we argue that
for n-dimensional displacement or movement from rest (accelerated motion) there exists an
n-dimensional displacement or movement in velocity space. If this is the case, we need to
determine minimum conditions of both volumes for enabling such movement in n
dimensions. Above we have analyzed the uncertainty relation for a movement of unit length
through unit time without scaling such units. We can see, similarly to our two cases above,
that there is also an uncertainty of purely mathematical nature in the relation between a
mathematical structure like our Euclidean n-sphere volume and its Fourier transform. For a
simple real space displacement and its transformation there is a minimum uncertainty:
∞ ∧ ∧
For ∫
−∞
| f ( x ) | 2 dx =1 normalized, the Fourier transformation f ( p ) = f (v) is also
normalized, according to Plancherel’s theorem. The dispersion about zero is
∞
D0 ( f ) = ∫ x 2 | f ( x) | 2 dx , and
−∞
∧ 1
D0 ( f ) D0 ( f ) ≥ , according to [15].
16π 2

So we can write for space and velocity a minimum mathematical uncertainty of:

∞ ∞ ∧ 1
( ∫ ∆x 2 | f ( x) | 2 dx )( ∫ ∆v 2 | f (v) | 2 dv ) ≥ , [16].
−∞ −∞ 16π 2

This value is the general mathematical uncertainty for complementary variables. The
numerical value for such uncertainty can be determined for any structure and its
transformation. One can therefore state for complementary mathematical sub-structures that
if one of them is precisely known, the other is only known in a very imprecise way or not at
all. Hence, in such a case it is questionable whether the complementary structure has any
reality at all [17]. Anyway, we can say if both structures are known and have reality, both
structures are showing a dispersion of accuracy. For that reason we may allege a slightly
blurred structure, not to be confused with space-time “foam”. If the precisions of both
position and velocity are equal, we have a noise or “blurring” of the structure of 7.957% for
both of them, but that depends strongly on the conditions of the respective experiment chosen
by an observer.

The fundamental question arises, how to accommodate uncertainty in our mathematical

structure and how to interpret it in physical reality. If, as alleged at the beginning, the
mathematical structure not only represents physical reality but is it, the introduction of
dynamics in the mathematical structure creates complementary variables (observables) and
with that uncertainty arises, where the uncertainty of one sub-structure determines the

14
uncertainty of its complementary sub-structure, and hence, is observer-dependent. If we then
want to quantify such uncertainty, we can do this in two ways:

1. By introducing dispersion or probability distributions and their respective functions

and their relationship to each other;
2. By examining the fractional dimensional behavior of the structure and deducing
probability distribution functions from them taking behaviors such as Brownian
motion, random walk or zitterbewegung into consideration.

The very impossibility to assign to each position of our moving point a velocity lies in the
fact that the distance the point covers to exhibit a velocity can be regarded as unit length no
matter how short this distance becomes. Even by introducing differentials we end up with
uncertainties being dependent on the dispersion of the function describing position. Hence,
no matter how tiny we choose our distance covered by the point in an equally tiny amount of
time, the product of the dispersion integrals will always be the same, meaning, the
uncertainty is self-similar regarding length and time scaling. It is well known that random
walk, noise, zitterbewegung and the like are exhibiting fractional dimensions. In our further
investigation of the behavior of a moving point in n-dimensional space we shall analyze an n-
dimensional generalized uncertainty relation and scale-invariance of our propositions.

A further consideration is the role of space as a mathematical structure. We have assigned a

volume to both position and momentum or velocity space, employing the conditions of
uncertainty derived from purely mathematical reasoning. We further analyze the resulting
product function of p or v dependent on x or r and n15. As a minimum velocity or momentum
we take ½ as the minimum velocity of our point determinable by observation. We arrive at
the following results:

The spherical position space volume element dependent on radius and dimensionality is
determined by

(π ⋅ r 2 ) 2
n

V s ( r , n) = ,
Γ ( 1+ 2 )
n

as we have seen above. Its Fourier transform represents the velocity or momentum space
volume and is determined by

− 12 + n2 nπ
2π | p −1− n | Γ (1 + n) sin( )
V p ( p, n) = − 2 .
Γ (1 + 2 )
n

For Vp (p, n) we have integrated over the radius and arrive at a function of momentum and
dimensionality. If we imply an uncertainty principle, we can argue that before the point
moved there were neither position nor velocity or momentum space volumes available. With
15
Since we have no mass defined, there shall be equivalence of p and v as well as s and r.

15
movement we enable at least a position volume element Vs with its complementary volume
Vp. Before that both were zero, so that we can speak of Vs and Vp as ΔVs and ΔVp. If we accept
our above reasoning for our two cases of uncertainty for accelerated and un-accelerated
motion, we arrive at a generalized uncertainty relation 2 ΔVs ΔVp = 1. This yield

1 −n
−n
2 2π 2
(r ) | p − 1− n | Γ (1 + n) s in n(2π )
2 2

− 1= 0,
Γ (1 + 2 )
n

and solving for p representing momentum or velocity results in

1
 π 2 −n ( r 2 ) 2 csc( nπ )Γ(1 + n ) 2  −1−n
1 −n

± 
3

p ( r , n) = 2 2 ( 1+ n ) 2 2 .
 Γ(1 + n) 
 

If we set, as outlined above, p (r, n) = ½, and we consider an interaction constant α

proportional to r2, we can obtain plots for p (√α, n)16. Our solutions will be complex, so we
can plot the modulus, the real part and the imaginary part of the momentum or velocity.

5a. Interaction for a momentum or velocity larger than ½ in the first 6 dimensions
containing the purely real dimensions 1 and 5
Plotting the momentum (velocity) versus α (in our units r = α if we consider the generalized
charges as one) and n renders for the first six dimensions a rather surprising result. In Fig. 2 one
can clearly see the minimum mathematical uncertainty’s square-root emerging as a minimum
α around the fifth dimension. This value is not far away from the numerical value of the

square-root of the fine structure constant in natural units, 1 1 3 7.0 3 5 9 9 9,1 which is the elementar
electric charge in the same units. Results are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1
Dimensions Co- n for pmax Min. α Fraction of
dimension α
0-2 1.4217 0.72 0.02685 1
1.0875 0.64 2/3
0.24 0.525 1/3
4-6 1.1061 4.96 0.07826 1

16
In the following all plots have to be understood that p ~ v and r ~ α .

16
 0.02

0.04
r

0.06
0.2
p
0.1
0 0.08
0
2
4
n
6
Figure 2
A search for the value of the fine structure constant’s square-root value renders a remarkable
result. For the area between four and six dimensions we have solutions for p ≥ ½ as well as in
the area between zero and two dimensions. Around five dimensions the area with positive
real momentum for p ≥ ½ and the interaction resembling an electric charge, spans a little
more than one co-dimension. Between zero and two dimensions we obtain the same
conditions of a little more than one co-dimension around one dimension for ⅔ of an
elementar electric charge, while ⅓ of a charge appears around ½ dimension with a co-
dimension of a little less than one quarter co-dimension, as can be seen in Fig. 3.
Figure 3

0.0265 0.03

0.027
0.04
r
0.0275
r

0.05
0.02 0.028 p0.1
p 0.05
0.01 0
0 0.25
0.5
0.4 0.75
1
0.6 n 1.25
n 1.5

17
Puzzling is the emergence of a numerical value of an elementar electric charge from the
conditions given above and its nearness to the value of 1/4π (square root of the minimum
mathematical uncertainty of complementary space integrals) around the fifth dimension,
while around one dimension the numerical values of fractional charges are emerging. The co-
dimensionality slightly bigger than one hints to a slightly chaotic behavior of the movement
of our point that we let span up our space. The question arises why no other interaction
constant emerges from our geometrical structure other than the fine structure constant. A
further investigation rendered the same behavior for all odd dimensions greater than five (see
Fig. 4).

0.04

r
0.06

p0.1
0.05
0 0.08
0
10

n 20

Figure 4

5b. Characteristics of the limitation of velocity by momentum volume

Let us assume that the Fourier transformed space volume function belongs to a velocity
space, and a point moving over length one in unit time, spanning up a position space with
radius one. The volume created by this motion is 2. Since in velocity space this motion
produces an end-velocity of one, one would expect the velocity one to be achieved within a
volume Vs = ½. In reciprocal space this becomes a volume Vp = 2. As we can see in Fig. 5b,
the intersection between the velocity space function (p, n) at volume 2 cuts off at v = 0.894 of
the expected velocity. Only at a dimensionality of n = 1.4217 unit velocity is reached as a
maximum velocity. This dimensionality coincides with the co-dimensionality of the minimal
electromagnetic interaction around one dimension. We could therefore argue that
electromagnetic interaction around one dimension reaching the maximum velocity c = 1 is
only possible, if there is a minimum dimensionality available that allows zitterbewegung.

For a massive particle with unit mass this above scenario could be interpreted as follows: If
we assume that the Lorentz transformed mass of our unit mass particle is 2.2318 at a velocity
of 0.894, the total momentum is 1.995 which is in the one dimensional case the volume of the
momentum space. Taking rounding errors into consideration, we can claim this volume to be

18
 2

0
1
€€€€€€€=Vp -1
Vs
-0.5
-2

0.5 0

n
0 0.5

-0.5 1

-1

Figure 5b

about 2. This would show that our Fourier transform of the n-dimensional sphere volume is
for massive particles Lorentz invariant in at least one dimension. Furthermore, this shows
clearly that the maximum velocity is c = 1.

Our interpretations show that Vs in this case is only half filled with action, and hence VpVs =
½, which is the generalized Heisenberg uncertainty minimum.

Why can this be argued? – We have a point moving over a distance of one within a sphere of
radius one. The Fourier transform of Vs shows Vp = 2 for c = 1, meaning the diameter of Vs is
2. Within this diameter we can start and end the motion over distance one wherever we want
inside the sphere with diameter 2. Only half of the sphere is used for n = 1 without affecting
the momentum volume. Hence, if p is known, the uncertainty of position is ½.

Following this line of argumentation we can see that the minimum uncertainty and the
obvious Lorentz invariance shows that for particles with low or no mass the velocity of light
can only be reached in dimensions larger than one, depending on the mass of the particle
which is related to dimensionality, with c reached finally at 1.4217 dimensions. This means
that any particle with a smaller mass than unit mass moves with an overlay of zitterbewegung
or random walk. In case of a massless particle the dimensionality equal to the co-
dimensionality of electromagnetic interaction suggests a direct relationship with the nature of
the elementar charge, zitterbewegung, and the volume functions of spherical position space
and its Fourier transforms. In the course of our treatise we shall see acceleration space
volume as a Fourier transform of velocity space volume produces besides these relationships
a direct relationship to spin. However, let us first explore interactions other than
electromagnetic interactions governed by the fine structure constant.

19
Can the other known interaction constants be derived from the fine structure constant and
what conditions we have to look at in our mathematical structure? Maybe if we look at
momentum density as a measure of interaction-spaces and their minimum conditions, we can
reach at least an estimate where to look for other interactions. This means also gauging the
time to the same scale in all dimensions including the fractional ones.

6a. Momentum or velocity densities within a spherical n-dimensional space element

We found that the numerical value of the fine structure constant can be determined from
geometrical considerations only, if one makes the simple assumption of constant
acceleration, but its value still emerges in a very unexpected way, at least superficially. The
value does not appear as any local minimum of α (n), but at a co-dimensional range between
about 4.5 to 5.5 dimensions. The exact value of Δn being slightly larger than one may suggest
an overlaying minimal zitterbewegung for such (inter-) action which would be very
interesting to investigate further. The fractional dimensionality further suggests that for
example an electric discharge almost never takes place on a straight line, but on an erratic
path. Additionally we want to argue that the boundary condition of pmin. = ½ over a constant
acceleration within unit distance and time is a legitimate one in the sense of Wilczek’s
condition of “minimum phenomenon contribution” to our structure. It is merely a logical
consequence of our observability we have constrained to two instants of time. We need to
remark that the deviation for pmin. at 5 dimensions from ½ is +0.01020489005 for the exact
value of the fine structure constant, and the deviation of xmin. from one is -0.0728. This yields
an overall error of the uncertainty at 5 dimensions of 0.16975%. This error’s contribution to
the deviation of the co-dimensionality is negligible.

Surprising, however, is the fine structure constant’s emergence dressed as the elementar
electric charge from an n-dimensional spherical position-momentum volume element, while
all other constants do not appear. This may suggest a dominance of the fine structure constant
over all other known interaction constants so that

1. either all other interaction constants are dependent on it or

2. the other interaction constants are independent from the geometry of space.

In particular, the other 1/r2–dependent constant, the gravitational constant, seems in this
context not to be affected by the application of an uncertainty relation to Euclidean space at
all. We therefore suggest exploring whether the induction of acceleration in form of higher
derivatives of spatial motion may be related to the emergence of different interaction
constants in different dimensions or whether momentum or velocity densities in different
dimensions could be related to a length of motion similar to an uncertainty principle. For the
latter case, if we assume pmin. = ½ over unit length motion, we should be able to find a
minimum interaction dependent on momentum or velocity density in different
dimensionalities of our spherical space element. Since the volume changes with
dimensionality and the distance in form of the radius does not, we should be able to find
some relationship like that.

To test our hypothesis we shall construct a momentum (velocity) density space we will relate
to a length of motion. We determine the function for the volume of a momentum density

20
space based on a Euclidean spherical volume element in n dimensions. The momentum as a
function of radius and dimensionality at minimum uncertainty is
1
 π 2 −n ( r 2 ) 2 csc( nπ )Γ(1 + n ) 2  −1−n
1 −n

± 
3

p ( r , n) = 2
2 ( 1+ n ) 2 2 .
 Γ(1 + n) 
 
Assuming the same conditions as above, we can set the momentum ½. We assume further the
proportionality of interaction constants to powers of r such as the fine structure constant and
the gravitational constant being proportional to the square of the radius. We further assume
generalized charges to be one and let the point bearing that set of unit charges move from its
position at rest to the surface of our n-dimensional spherical volume element. The momentum
density will therefore vary between zero at the center and one at the surface of the sphere.
Here it is assumed that the velocity of the point changes linearly from zero to one. Hence,
p ∝ r (t ) , while r and p are complementary observables underlying the same conditions as
we have established above for the finding of the fine structure constant.

To determine whether the other interaction constants somehow depend on the fine structure
constant we try to find the smallest volume required for an interaction that we norm to one in
all dimensions. This allows determining the radius of the smallest sphere in n dimensions
enabling an interaction resulting in a movement over unit length and time.

A smallest sphere is in this case (n-1)-dimensional. According to [18] the radius R of the
smallest sphere in n dimensions enclosing an object with diameter one is given by

n
R= ,
2(n +1)

which averages over the dimensions in question to about ½ (we only try here to get a rough
estimate).

With
p 2 2αq 2 / r
=
r2 r2

we can see for p = ½ that α = r5/8. This shows the dependence of the fine structure constant
on five dimensions and that we need to divide our momentum volume by the real volume
multiplied with its square root to norm five dimensions to the fine structure constant. If the
other interaction constants really depend on the fine structure constant, at least dimensionally,
we should find them by applying our generalized uncertainty relation.

Let us first look at unit momentum density. We obtain from p(r, n) = ½ and dividing by the
volume of a smallest sphere with radius ½ with the condition mentioned above

21
 5
 (π / 4) 2 
n 2
 
 Γ(1 + n2 ) 
α ( n) =  
−1 / n
  1+ 3 1+ n 
  2 (1+ n )   nπ  .
 2 π −0.5+n Γ(1 + n) sin  
  2 
2 2  
 Γ(1 + n2 ) 
 
 
 

A semi-logarithmic plot over the inverse radius dependent on dimensionality obtained from
the above conditions is shown in Fig. 5a. Here log r = log √α.
log r

n
5 10 15 20 25

-5

-10

-15

-20
Figure 5a

A numerical value of about 10 for the strong interaction is obtained between zero and two
dimensions, around n = 1. The electromagnetic interaction follows between four and six
dimensions around n = 5, followed by the numerical value for weak interaction between eight
and ten dimensions around n = 9. The numerical value for the square root of the gravitational
interaction related to the fine structure constant emerges around n = 21-23 which contain the
sixth dimension with purely real solutions for momentum. It appears from these results that
in this structure only odd dimensions and their surroundings yield “ground state velocity” or
momentum, because they have real solutions.

It seems that first of all the fine structure constant is the dominating constant that exists in all
dimensions as a result of the uncertainty of the complementarity of momentum and position
space. Only in regard to momentum densities (Poynting vector) on a constant momentum
density surface in n dimensions it seems to appear “dressed” in different strengths of
interaction dependent on n. Hence, it can be that we can observe dimensions higher than 4 as
“labels” like electric charge or mass on an elementar particle. The dominance of the fine
structure constant suggests Lorentz invariance, so that vmax. = 1 = c. This implies for p = 2 the
introduction of an additional term that could be mass, as we have already seen above.

6b. Conditions for acceleration inducing velocity and acceleration induced by a jerk

22
In our results above we can clearly see that the interaction constants are never found in a way
that they occur at integer values for n with p = ½. We alleged a superposition of
zitterbewegung to explain this behavior. We find, by the same token, the numerical value of
e.g. the fine structure constant in a region where the co-dimension is slightly greater than one.
One could argue, why should a strictly one dimensional interaction not be possible and our
point have the velocity ½ with co-dimension one at the experimental numerical value of the
constant? – Zitterbewegung might be the answer, but how can we show any supporting
evidence for such a possibility in our mathematical structure that is purely geometric? The
geometries of velocity and position spaces give enough volume for such an effect, but we
could also allow a different type of motion added instead of the zitterbewegung, e.g. some
regular vibration or the like. As we will see below, this bears the difficulty that a(r, n) is not a
continuous function and with that a continuous vibration is not provided with enough space.
It will be a chaotic vibration. A more extensive analysis of the chaoticity of such a vibrating
moving point (or string) is beyond the scope of this paper, but will be treated elsewhere.

We stated above that position and velocity are complementary observables, and we therefore
treat acceleration and jerk analogously as Fourier transforms of velocity and acceleration
respectively. Thus we can conjecture position, velocity, and acceleration and jerk to be
complementary to each other. Velocity is complementary to position, acceleration is
complementary to velocity and position, and jerk is complementary to acceleration, velocity
and position, so that uncertainty relations between all of their pair-wise combinations can be
established. To obtain expressions for the volumes of acceleration and jerk we Fourier
transform Vp to Va and Va to Vj as follows:

1
Va = − ×
Γ (1 + n2 )
 −1+ n2 n
π
 | a | Γ ( − n ) Γ (1 + n ) sin
 nπ

 2


(
 1 + (−1)
− 2n
) nπ 
 2 
( )  nπ
cos  + i − 1 + (−1) − 2 n sign(a) sin
 2
  
  



1
Vj = ×
2Γ (1 + n2 )

[
× π
− 3+ n
2  nπ
| j −1− n | Γ (− n)Γ (1 + n) 2 sin
 2

(
 1 + (−1)

−2n
)  nπ 
cos
 2 
(
 + i − 1 + (−1)
−2n
)  nπ  
sin   ×
 2 


(
×  i − 1 + (−1) 2 n cos

)
 nπ 
 2 
( nπ  
 sign( j ) + 1 + (−1) sin
2n
 
 2 
) ]

23
 0.08

r0.082

0.084

21
1´10
a
20
5´10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5

n
Figure 6

For a qualitative discussion of the results we first present a plot of Vs Va = ½ (Figure 6), where
1/2 denotes the uncertainty. We obtain at n ≤ ⅔ (upper dimension of ⅓ of the electric charge)
a large acceleration space of a ≈ 1021. For n ≥ ½ and a > 0 we obtain a relatively random
distribution of real solution “patches” for the acceleration. We can clearly see that in the
region occupied by ⅓ charge, below ½ dimensions there is no space for acceleration, while at
n > ½ there is a strongly chaotic behavior of the function a(r, n), reaching acceleration values
of over 1037 within unit distance (determined by calculation, but not depicted in this
qualitative plot).

24
 0.08

r
0.082

0.084

0.03

0.02 p

0.01
0
4.5 4.75 5 5.25 5.5

0.08

r
0.082

0.084

20000
15000
a
10000
5000
0
4.5 4.75 5 5.25 5.5

Figure 7

If we then look further at the conditions our acceleration minima (a = ½) show in the same
dimensionality, and if we notice the “patched” allowed paths of our point having an
acceleration, we see that our point needs slight dimensional changes to cover its path through
acceleration space. These changes look random like a “dimensional percolation” rather than a
straight path, and thus we can expect zitterbewegung or random walk that will for larger r
cover two dimensions and resemble Brownian motion. This type of motion is suggested by
the properties of the available space constructed by our moving point.

The acceleration plots show a constraint to constant acceleration only between n = even + ½,
while around odd dimensions (reminder: every second odd dimension is purely real) the
acceleration space allows (or even suggests) strong chaotic accelerations and with that
zitterbewegung. In Figure 7 the overlap regions of the constant acceleration regions in a(r, n)
with the regions of p ≥ ½ in p(r, n) are very small and occur very closely around the
experimental numerical values of the interaction constants (error ~1.8%). In the other regions
where zitterbewegung dominates, an additional velocity or momentum component needs to
be added to our half momentum. It is remarkable that the interaction constant is determined

25
by constant acceleration and not by the minimum r ~ α of the momentum (velocity) p(r, n)
≥ ½, where the acceleration a(r, n) shows chaotic behavior. Vj shows as well chaotic behavior
and is dimensionally discontinuous.

Va 2

0 1

2 n
0
a

3
-1

Figure 7b

Fig. 7b gives a plot of the real part of the acceleration volume dependent on acceleration and
dimensionality. Surprisingly, the function is not symmetric regarding positive and negative
accelerations. Let us discuss some possible consequences of this property of the “available”
acceleration space. If we assume that negative acceleration denotes acceleration towards an
observer, and positive acceleration away from him, we can interpret the above graph as
follows: Around one and three dimensions the volume allows only negative accelerations
while around two dimensions there is more positive than negative acceleration possible.
Depending on the dimensionality of a particle path we can then determine the acceleration
volume or maximum possible acceleration change for any given acceleration or, in other
words, we can determine the constraints of available space for accelerations dependent on
dimensionality, and with that for different types of interactions. The two-dimensional case
shows an asymmetry that could be interpreted as being able to result in angular momentum.
If we consider a small disk being accelerated in two dimensions within the full allowed
volume of this function, it will spin. Since lower dimensional objects need less volume to
accelerate than higher dimensional objects (or paths), as we can easily see from Fig. 7b, only
a full disk on a one-dimensional path will be accelerated uniformly. Any uncertainty,
zitterbewegung or random walk that has a dimensionality greater than 1.5 will lead to
asymmetric acceleration for all parts of the path with n > 1.5. Hence, the acceleration pattern
over a certain path length or radius will determine in a, say, two-dimensional object, how and
whether its different outer edges will move relative to each other. To get an idea how such
accelerations might be oriented, we shall look at the phase factor of our acceleration volume,
dependent on acceleration applied and dimensionality (Fig. 7c).

26
 5
2.5
0
F a-2.5
-5
1
1

n
0 2
a

-1
3
Figure 7c

We see the phase factor is zero in all integer dimensions while in fractional dimensions there
are strong asymmetries for fractional dimensions. On for example a 1.8 dimensional
accelerated path, we will observe a lower phase factor for negative than for positive
acceleration. If we now compare this with the acceleration volume’s real part in 1.8
dimensions, we see a larger volume for positive than for negative accelerations. Depending
how we define the directions of our fractional dimensional path, we see that left-right
accelerations in addition to the one dimensional acceleration of the object that determines its
flight direction, will show an asymmetric pattern that leads to a screw-like dithering path.
Such a scenario was proposed by David Hestenes [19] in a totally different approach to show
that local circulatory motion of zitterbewegung determines the spin of a particle. In addition,
we can state that there is besides spin, also a general chirality involved that has a preferred
direction, namely left-handed. If we just qualitatively look at the phase factor asymmetry we
just talked about, we see larger phase factors in one preferred direction, in particular between
one and two dimensions. A detailed analysis of this problem is beyond the scope of this
paper, but very well worth to investigate by simulations of different fractal trajectories in
position, velocity and acceleration space.

A short discussion of one possible scenario referring to the initiation of acceleration by a jerk
function alone or by a jerk initiated by a snap may direct to some fundamental ideas about
motion and interaction. What does the geometry of the spherical n-dimensional space
element tell us about interactions, minimum time intervals and minimum lengths? – An
instant of time, for example, cannot be determined at a ground state with zero energy. Time
would spread to infinity, and according to our discussions above, it never can reach the
properties of a point-like “instant of time”. According to Machian ideas time as a result of
motion of points without further properties is therefore not determinable without the
knowledge of two positions and will always have the properties of a time interval. If we do
not know the energy and angular momentum of a Newtonian system, we need at least three
instants of time to reconstruct the space-time where Newton’s laws are fulfilled. In a

27
Machian system, however, two instants of time suffice, and the two configurations can be
“best matched” to recover the information [20]. This still does not give us an absolute
minimum time or space interval, but we know that Δx and Δt cannot be zero for two
distinguishable configurations, and hence, space-time itself underlies uncertainty principles.
The quantization itself is determined by the products of the respective complementary space-
volume functions and their dispersion relations, as we have seen above. Furthermore, any
interaction is also dependent on space volume functions.

We will now discuss the scenario of a uniform jerk of strength 6 over unit time and what it
does to our point. Therefore we determine the product volume of position and acceleration
under those conditions and get

1
πn
a ( r , n) = −2
×
 n n
Γ1 + 
 2
 nπ   nπ   nπ 
n n
× [ −2π n ( r 2 ) 2 cos  Γ( −n)Γ(1 + n) sin   − 2 ( −1) −2 n π n ( r 2 ) 2 cos  Γ( −n)Γ(1 + n)
 2   2   2 
2 2 −1
 nπ   nπ   nπ 
n n
sin   + 2iπ n (r 2 ) 2 Γ( −n)Γ(1 + n) sin   − 2i ( −1) −2 n π n ( r 2 ) 2 Γ( −n) sin   Γ(1 + n)]
n

 2   2   2 

For the real part of a (r, n) we can plot 100 dimensions where the dimensions 1, 5, 9, …
possess real solutions only. This is shown in Fig. 8. According to the conditions evaluated
above we subtract 6 from the acceleration so that only values equal or bigger than 6 are
shown in our plot. We can clearly see the region where a ≥ 6 which is necessary to transport
our point over unit length in unit time will limit the smallest length for each dimension below
which the acceleration will be higher than 6. Analyzing rmin.(n) we find a minimum at 40
dimensions (which is around the 10th purely real dimension) of the order of magnitude of one.
The lowest dimensions resembling unit length with 10 to 20% zitterbewegung we found to be
20 to 24 which is the region where we find the square root of the gravitational interaction
constant as shown above. In our system of units this minimum length is very close to the
Planck length. The same order of magnitude acceleration that allows the transportation of the
point to v = c = 1 we find in the appropriate dimensions of electroweak interaction at the
Compton length scale. Below those lengths the acceleration would lead to superluminal
speeds reversing the charge-parity-time product or violating Lorentz invariance. It seems to
follow that for each interaction type there is a minimum length set by the limit of maximum
velocity c.

28
 1.2

1.4
r
1.6

1.8

0.75

0.5 a

0.25
0 20
40
60 80 0
100
n

Figure 8

Klinkhamer [21] argues for a fundamental length scale not necessarily equal to the Planck
scale that is related to a non-vanishing vacuum energy density or cosmological constant. If
there is no direct presence of matter or non-gravitational fields this fundamental length can be
different from the Planck length. He further alleges that a sub-Planckian space-time structure
determines certain effective parameters for the physics over distances of the order of the
Planck length or larger. Seiberg [22] states that gravitational interactions cause a black hole
at r < lPlanck. From the calculations of section 5 we saw that from five dimensions onwards the
momentum becomes larger than ½ at a length scale of the order of the electric charge’s
numerical value. This lies within the Planck length as well as all the other fundamental
constants’ numerical values found in section 6a. The exception is the strong interaction, but it
lies well within the Compton scale and well within the region where a ≥ 6.

We may speculate that we can regard the physics within the Planck length as a sort of
reservoir for interactions. According to Seiberg’s statement we may regard the domains
below the critical lengths found for different dimensions as a formation length for different
“charges” characteristic for the fundamental interactions. If we take the black hole idea for
gravitation seriously, we might as well generalize this for all other interactions and propose a
scenario where length-like dimensions swap into time-like dimensions. There then remains
for all interactions only one spatial dimension the point can move on. This region can be
described as a mirror image of negative dimensions, where we can regard the negative
dimensions as time-like. Probing this, we found that in negative dimensional space the
acceleration reaches an average of 6 over a time interval of about one in -21 to -25
dimensions which corresponds to 20 to 24 dimensions in positive dimensional space. The
point acquires zero acceleration at t = 1. This means after such time interval we have force
free movement along one spatial dimension. After this time the acceleration within these
dimensions reaches values below 6 so that it can be transposed into positive space. With that
happening sequentially through all relevant dimensions, the point may acquire all its

29
properties as a particle on its way to the Compton scale. As we will see, this includes also
spin.

Since the induction of acceleration is jerk, we need to determine what orders of magnitude
jerk are available to transport the point into n-dimensional space and which preferred
interaction governs which dimension. It seems that if the jerk j = 6 (in Fig. 9 j = 0 is
equivalent to j = 6) over minimum a length of one continuously, the dimensional maximum
for that condition lies just below 10 dimensions, suggesting dominant electroweak and strong
interactions, leaving gravitation untouched. As we can see from Fig. 9, gravity shows only a
tenth of the length of a jerk present in the first ten dimensions. Additionally the strength of
the jerk becomes weaker with increasing dimension. This clearly means a delay for the point
to reach over the Planck length in the gravitational dimension.

0.25

0.5
r

0.75

1
0.75
0.5 j
0.25
0
5 10 15 20

Figure 9

We can interpret this further in the sense that the strong and electroweak forces thermalize
long before gravity comes into the play outside the Planck length. This means the
gravitational energy would remain within the Planck scale until the electromagnetic part of
our point reaches the Compton scale and acquires mass as its gravitational part leaves the
Planck scale. Speculating further, the not yet thermalized gravitational degrees of freedom
remain inside a very small volume for a longer time than the degrees of freedom of the
standard model forces. They cannot leave this volume element inside the Planck scale, but
have to overcome a volume inflation of a factor of 4×1023 from r = 0.1 to r = 1. Since we talk
about negative energy here, and this process takes about 1020 Planck time units until the other
forces reach the Compton length and gravity comes out of the region where the energy
(acceleration) space is larger than necessary to accelerate our point’s gravitational degrees of
freedom to c, but the jerk to do that is not strong enough to achieve this, our spatial volume
around the gravitational degrees of freedom stays small (1.5) against the spatial volume
around the standard model degrees of freedom (2×10240) at the Compton scale. The geometry
became with that: three real dimensions with their surroundings spanning up a six
dimensional spheroid wrapped into a six dimensional spheroid with hardly any volume but a

30
high negative energy density. This could be interpreted as a possible cause for inflation. To
test this interpretation our “one point moving” scenario to make up an n-dimensional sphere
needs to be modified to an energy density model similar to existing inflationary models, but
this is beyond the scope of this paper.

To go further to a snap as the cause for our point to move and span up a space does not
fundamentally change the above scenario. We think, however, it may be worthwhile to
examine the issue of inflation further in a different paper.

On the curve of Fig. 5 we can find the numerical values of the fundamental interaction
constants in Table 2.

Dimensional range 0-4 4-8 8 - 12 12 - 16 16 - 20 20 - 24

Interaction strong Electromag. weak spin spin gravitation
Numerical value 9.98 1/√137.036 8.3×10-4 1.3×10-10 5×10-16 4.18×10-23
√αr2 or αr
Purely real 0<n<2 4<n<6 8<n<10 12<n<14 16<n<18 20<n<22
dimensions
Table 2

Besides the four fundamental forces we found around the dimensions 13 and 17 orders of
magnitude for interactions that could resemble the Lorentz invariance violating spin
dependent interaction constants predicted by Arkani-Hamed et al. [23]. Insofar as spin is
concerned, we have not yet made attempts to find conditions for the induction of spin in this
structure besides the numerical values as we became aware of Arkani-Hamed’s work during
the compilation of this paper. We included the numerical values of his predictions, because
we find it highly interesting that they appear seemingly “at the right spots” but regard these
dimensions with caution.

7a. Time as a result of change and interaction

To see the behavior of time as a function of space and dimensionality, let us look at
frequency as a measure of time (ν = 1/t). To look at this in the same manner as we did before,
using position, velocity and acceleration volumes as our building blocks to describe
properties of basic fractional dimensional physics, we determine the frequency constraints
dependent on distance and dimension as a quotient of momentum (velocity) and position
(length). We get for

Vp  nπ  1
Vs
=−
2
π
(r )
2 −n / 2
p
−1−n
Γ(1 + n ) sin  = .
 2  t

Plotting this function for 0 ≤ n ≤ 2, we obtain a rather interesting plot, if we limit the
frequency to one and the length to one. For the momentum we chose the momentum
maximum in one dimension determined above of our unit mass particle, 0.894, as shown in
Fig. 10.

31
 1

0.75

0.5 r

0.25


-0.25

-0.5
1 t

-0.75

-1
0.5 0
1.5 1
2
n Figure 10a

As we can easily see, the frequency is strongly dependent on length and dimension. If we
analyze what we are seeing here with the assumption that unit length is the Planck length,
and unit frequency is the Planck frequency, this very frequency only emerges at the
dimensionality where the full electric charge emerges at lowest dimensionality: n = 0.23.
This is very remarkable, as the full frequency at any tangible radius or with that, size of a
space, emerges exactly there. Around zero dimensions, there is no frequency, as can be seen
in Fig. 10b.
1

0.75

0.5 r

0.25


-0.25

1 t-0.5

-0.75

-1
0
0.4 0.2

n Figure 10b

The full frequency exists at zero radius from about 0.05 to 0.23 dimensions. Closer to zero
dimensions, the frequency falls rapidly to zero. As we have seen, at r = 0 and n = 0 there
exists only an empty set. This, of course, cannot oscillate. Leaving the radius of our position
sphere at zero, but increasing the dimension allows first a point to exist, and gives this point
the possibility to oscillate, but not spatially. The only oscillation we can suggest for a single
point at smallest dimensionality is one that oscillates between existence and non-existence, or
if we want to see this information-theoretically, a bit erasing and emerging periodically. The

32
very profound question would be which of erasing and emerging takes place first. As we
know from Shannon’s information theoretical thermodynamics [26, 27], erasing a bit
produces heat. If we further conjecture that the empty set at the origin of our position sphere
volume function contains one bit of information, namely that the set is empty, an erasure of
that bit would produce heat and with that motion. The idea behind this is that time does not
describe “being” but rather “becoming”. Since irreversible bit changes produce heat, we have
to discuss how dimensional fluctuations are caused by random bit changes that are erased in
history, and how the emergence of an electromagnetic interaction could make space and time
emerging as well, but we want to do this only qualitatively, leaving a quantitative analysis for
another publication. Such emerging or erasing might, due to heat generation, lead to line-like
objects or higher dimensional objects building according to the Machian view space.

The common dimensionality of frequency (time) and charge suggests a common feature:
charge is quantized and in thirds not divisible. Time should, by its very nature of being
dimensionally line-like (as a time interval rather than an instant), be quantized in the same
way as charge. The full electric charge emerges at 0.23 dimensions and spans 1.4217
dimensions. This dimensionality coincides with that where we reach c = 1 in our momentum
space volume function, hinting to c being the propagation speed of electromagnetic radiation.

-0.25

-0.5

t-0.75
-1

0.5
1

0.75
n
1
0.5
r

0.25
1.5

0
Figure 10c

Looking at the time t (r, n) plot in Fig. 10c we see unit time at a noticeable radius emerging at
0.23 dimensions, reaching a maximum at 1.4217 – 0.23 dimensions to finally reach unit time
and unit length at 1.4217 + 0.23 dimensions, meaning its co-dimension of emergence is
1.4217 dimensions, the same as that of the electric charge. The relativistic time dilation of Δt
= + 0.118568 for unit mass at a length of 0.894 traveled by the massive particle in that time
renders a co-dimension of exactly one (Fig. 10d). This suggests that time dilates as the fine
structure constant increases at high energies, but position space does not; only the stretch the
massive particle covered is shorter in one dimension, but not on its more realistic fractal path.

33
 0

0.2

0.4
r

0.6

0.8

-0.25

-0.5
t

-0.75

-1
0.5
1
1.5
n
Figure 10d

According to the plot of Fig.10d time “pops” into existence as unit time in 0.05 up to
0.23(+0.0095) dimensions and possibly wildly fluctuates as there is no significant radius of
our position space. Surprisingly, to build up a co-dimensionality of 0.2395 the time needed is
at c = 1 in one dimension, exactly 0.1 while Δr = [√α]/3. Again, this is another hint that time
and charge emerge together. Since we obtained the dimensional properties of fractional and
full charges using a generalized Heisenberg uncertainty principle, we suggest that the
emergence of time, the fluctuation of bits, the emergence of charge and their quantization is
strongly dependent if not totally caused by the properties of fractal n-dimensional spherically
symmetric space volume and its Fourier transforms representing its complementary space
volumes. We emphasize that the spherically symmetric nature of the underlying position
space may not change any of its properties to achieve running interaction constants, time
dilation and relativistic mass increase, because otherwise the properties of momentum space
would allow speeds faster than c in one dimension.

7b. Some suggestions and speculations on the question of dimensionality

It seems disturbing that the electric charge and its fractions appear within the realm of six
dimensions at places that are anything else but straight forward integer dimensions. The fact
that the smallest fraction of ⅓ charge appears explicitly around half a dimension and has a
co-dimension of little less than about a quarter suggest that the existence of a “point charge”
is questionable in any dynamic system. Since any interaction constant needs motion or
dynamics to be able to be determined, by experiment or by mathematical technique, the terms
“complementarity” and “uncertainty” become a key feature of both mathematical and
physical reality. For the dimensionality of a moving point to be determined, we need to
consider that we need one dimension to enable movement of a point which has zero co-
dimensions as such, if existing at n > 0. The minimum value of the uncertainty between
position and momentum is ½. Hence, we can conjecture that a “point particle” in the
conventional picture needs to be replaced by a point-like geometrical object of a dimension
between 0.23 and n dimensions. Remarkable here is the asymmetry around n + ½
dimensions. The exact meaning of n + ½ dimensions is not very clear, but may be derived
from the meaning of 1.5 dimensions, as we will see. If this point would move without

34
uncertainty in position, it would create at least a second point which creates a line between
the point’s positions before and after movement. If now some noise or zitterbewegung is
added to its movement due to uncertainty, the total co-dimension becomes greater than one.
If the point stays in its position with uncertainty and thus exhibits dimensionality of smaller
than one and greater than zero, a quarter co-dimension may be explained by its uncertainties
in velocity (momentum), position (radius) and dimensionality. One could say, the point tries
to move and become a line. The nearer the dimensionality gets to co-dimension one the
greater the probability that it actually will move. A quarter co-dimension suggests that ⅓ of a
charge cannot be isolated on a particle which is experimentally verified, while ⅔ of a charge
has a little more than one co-dimension and can move alone which is also in agreement with
experiment (quark isolation problem).

We have used a product of momentum difference and difference in position to determine the
dimensions where the interaction radius corresponds to the experimentally determined
charge. Hence, the uncertainty in position needs to correspond to an uncertainty in dimension
as well. In this picture, a point’s dimensionality between zero and one dimension denotes its
readiness to move at the minimum average speed of ½.17

A further interesting issue is that because of the fractional dimensions involved in our
determination of minimal interaction constants, we need to consider defects in the space
structure which automatically will lead to defects in the time structure. Rowlands [24] points
out some very interesting aspects on continuity and divisibility of space and time. In the
conventional perception time seems to be infinitely divisible. At least two arguments may be
considered against such an allegation. First, there arises the very well known paradox of Zeno
of Elea, and second, if we would try to infinitely divide time we would need to construct a
periodic motion of infinite frequency which means infinite energy would be needed to drive
such motion. Space, on the other hand, gives no rise to the allegation that it is not infinitely
divisible as such, but this becomes a fundamental issue if such space contains dynamic
systems or, in the Machian sense, is dynamically evolving due to the dynamics of its
contents. In the definitions of velocity, acceleration, jerk or snap, time is the independent
variable, and space is the dependent variable. As we have seen above, time evolves above the
dimensionality of the evolution of charge and not of (position) space, and interactions are
taking place where irregularities like zitterbewegung are involved and acceleration in regards
to the radius of our toy universe becomes noisier the smaller our structure is.

Regarding dimensionality n < ½ the only known fractals are sets of points disjoint from each
other. The lower the dimension, the less dense the point arrays become. Since methods of
fractal dimensionality in this regime is very scarcely researched and criteria depend on how
Hausdorff’s and Lebesque’s definitions are applied, not to speak of the relatively young work
of Mandelbrot, Peitgen and others, any physical interpretation of this dimensional regime is
speculative. Mathematical uncertainties arising from Fourier integrals and their dispersion
functions leading to uncertainty relations suggest further research into such uncertainty
relations. Nevertheless, the emergence of charge and time at identical dimensionalities
despite uncertainties suggests that dimensionality analysis and fractal properties of
fundamental physics should be furthered more than it is at the moment.

17
Our calculations above rely often on mean values, because of the imposed constraints in observability.
We remind the reader that we look at our length and time interval defined as one as the smallest discernable
distance which is not scaled.

35
Another suggestion regarding fractional dimensionality below n = ½ could be to analyze
spatially fixed emerging and vanishing sets of points and compare them to distinct moving
points, because momentum space suggests its continuity and differentiability in contrast to
position and acceleration spaces and their Fourier transforms. For instance the onset of the
Big Bang, inflation and the Planck epoch with their extremely high entropy might have
emerged from an empty set, if one defines its entropy as infinite, because there is no order
and there are no distinctions at all possible to define such order. For instance, the emergence
of frequency in a space of infinitesimally small radius is independent of such radius and only
dependent on dimensionality where the order of magnitude of dimensionality is the same as
the frequency as one can see in Fig. 10e.

- 240
1´10
-241
8´10
- 24 1
6´10
r
4´10 - 2 4 1

-2 41
2´10

0
0


-8
-2 ´10

1-4t´10 - 8

-8
-6 ´10

-8 ´10
-8 -8 0
-8 2´10
4´10
n
Figure 10e

This also suggests that if there is an arbitrarily small radius, there is a frequency defined,
otherwise not. As we have seen above a point cannot exist at zero dimension, and hence there
is no frequency defined either, but in addition at zero radius there is no frequency defined
either. If, however, there exists a point or comes into existence, or fluctuates at first at a very
long frequency between non-existence and existence, with each state change heat is
produced. This may give rise to frequency increase and with that dimensionality increase
until charge and time in our sense emerge as described above. If the heat then allows our
point particles to move within the Planck and up to the Compton scale, they can acquire their
properties. With motion, the radius increases and allows position and motion spaces to form a
Planck bubble, we can speculate. Again, further investigation is needed which is beyond the
scope of this paper.

According to Seiberg’s allegation mentioned above, we swapped space-like coordinates into

time-like ones and tacitly accepted this also happening to fractional dimensions. If we accept
this, we have to accept defects in time and allow fractal time. In such case it is essential to
discuss the effect of defects in time on the physics that is happening around such defect. If we
allow fractional dimensions for space, our situation is somehow clear and the consequences

36
for experimental predictions are known, but if we allow a deviation from the one-
dimensionality of time, those consequences are not entirely clear. If we, however, define the
arrow of time or the flux of time as a consequence of the thermodynamic behavior of the
distribution of matter in space, a fractal time dimension becomes thinkable. This may result
in a discontinuous and heterogeneous flux of time.

In Kobelev’s papers [25] the fractality of time produces preferred coordinate systems, but we
think this can be remedied by leaving the overall dimension of time an integer, meaning the
fractality is localized. One possible solution to this dilemma is to consider an initial jerk or
snap for an input of energy, but then we consider our toy universe as open to inputs from
objects of negative dimensionality which could be regarded as reservoir spaces or sinks
making the observable universe a dissipative system. We have such objects in the form of
black and white holes or naked singularities available in our universe. The contents of such
objects may reside inside the singularities, and could be interpreted as residing in negative
dimensions, if one accepts the notion that negative dimensional space is contained in a
singularity. Both positive and negative dimensional spaces together may then be regarded as
a conservative system with an average integer time. An interesting feature of fractal space-
time is its time asymmetry that is restored to symmetry if the fractal and non-differentiable
features are taken out of this picture.

This speculative discussion reveals a very essential question: Is the presence of

zitterbewegung a necessary requirement for time asymmetry? – If the answer is yes, this has
far reaching consequences for how we need to look at the physics of our universe. Fractality
and non-differentiability of time-related spaces that we represented as Fourier transforms can
become a very simple explanation for time-asymmetry, uncertainty and similar features of
the structure describing physics of the universe, but building such structure still requires
observation and interpretation. Otherwise we have no right to assume that we see the
emergence of for example the fine structure constant from the geometry of an emerging
spherical n-dimensional space, and we have to assume Einstein’s relativity principles as valid
for motion spaces, but not necessarily for position space.

Another point that we want to put our attention to in future work is the influence of the
acceleration function a (r, n) and the jerk and snap function on the behavior of strings. In
particular the acceleration’s irregular surface may cause some interesting chaotic behavior
when applied to strings. Furthermore, the questions of “moving back in time” and
superluminal effects like photon tunneling need to be investigated within the above
geometrical context to establish a justification of time as a scalar or not.

Mass as a source of gravity or vice versa we saw only emerging much later in the process of
emerging dimensions as well as their emergence from the Planck scale. This needs much
more investigation and suggests that with the emergence of Planck space in its maximum
dimensionality of n = 23 (dimension where gravitational interaction is found in this model),
all relevant interactions and topological charges including mass were established.

37
 1

0.75

0.5 0
Vs 0.25

0
2 5

1.5 10

n
1
15
r

0.5
20

0
Figure 11

It can clearly be seen in Fig. 11 that significant volume is reached within the Planck length in
maximum 23 dimensions. The time-line of the emergence of interactions was discussed
above and showed gravity as the last emerging interaction. Also this needs much further
investigation.

8. Conclusions and outlook

We have demonstrated the dependence of a purely mathematical uncertainty on

dimensionality. From geometrical considerations we have arrived at numerical values for
minimum space for movement and movement densities in n dimensions. We have not scaled
our results to any physical size; nevertheless the results are somehow intriguing, if we scale
to natural units. We have done this implicitly by scaling to one. We want to conclude with a
discussion what the dimensional treatment of a moving point in n dimensions reveals and
what it does not.

The moving or emerging and fading point’s velocity or momentum can only be determined
by two positions in space-time. If the movement is accelerated, one does not know what
exactly happens between these two positions, mathematically and experimentally. We
determined an emergence of the numerical value of the fine structure constant at co-
dimension ≈1.1 around 5 dimensions in our representation. This reveals that the point needs
at least one dimension to move plus some dispersion of that movement. To cover around one
co-dimension between zero and two space dimensions we need at least ⅔ of that value of the
fine structure constant. Between the same dimensions momentum density considerations
revealed numerical values in the range of the strong interaction at mZ [2], where fractional
electrical charges occur as charges of quarks. This should be further investigated but lies

38
beyond the scope of this paper. Furthermore we have to ask the question whether time is
determinable with absolute exactness. The answer is no, because time is measured by clocks,
and clocks have the intrinsic property of periodic movement to which we compare a position
in space-time. Hence, space-time has to be “rough” and only differentiable in a “blurred”
picture. If this is taken into account, our spherical position space element needs to have a
rough surface as well which amplifies the effects observed on our allegedly smooth model.

Because of the minimum momentum and uncertainty considerations as well as the existence
of an empty set at zero dimensions and radius, it can be alleged, a resting point fulfilling both
cannot exist. Hence, we cannot speak of a zero-dimensional object, if any interaction and
with that any physics is concerned, also because any interaction requires motion or at least
motion-like behavior of said object as below one dimension. Quantum mechanically, we
would need a ground state of zero momentum (energy) for the realization of a resting point.
For p = ½ this cannot be realized, unless we expand our sphere to infinite radius in zero
dimensions. What this means is not entirely clear and shall be treated elsewhere. For now, we
only want to suggest some speculative ideas which might be interesting for considerations
such as the growth of a mathematical structure from nothingness that could represent or even
be a physical reality.

Before we do that, we want to give an interpretation of dimensionality in position and

velocity space. In our representation the movement at p = ½ alongside a particular dimension
gets a real value only at odd dimensions while even dimensions are asymptotically
approached. Between zero and two dimensions the case seems to be clear cut how to interpret
what is allowed to happen to a movement of a point on a two-dimensional surface, while in
higher dimensions we see a certain analogy, but is it a necessary or sufficient (or both)
condition to generate an electric charge by a point in moving same within e.g. 4.5 and 5.5
dimensions at a little more than p = ½? -- What our analysis does not show is how exactly
this object or its movement looks like when it makes up that charge. We only know that a
slight zitterbewegung is involved besides a straight and smooth movement. It also does not
show us why such charge necessarily should be quantized except that it emerges at the same
dimensionality as time emerges. The only plausibility is to look for standing waves in a
resonator (space?), or just take multiples of unit intervals in position space and relate them to
a set of dimensions as we have done with momentum density volumes. For that set of
dimensions we take the largest radius equivalent to an interaction constant minimum as a
measure for our volume element and extrapolate to the other dimensions.

We conclude that we found an interesting way to construct a mathematical structure around a

very simple “phenomenon”, a moving point producing a unit n-sphere by its motion. By
minimal input of phenomenology we succeeded to reliably find the numerical value for the
fine structure constant (in natural units) which also seems to be the most fundamental
constant as it can be found without resorting to calculate momentum densities. Using the
simple concept of position and some of its time derivatives we arrived at a (less reliable) way
to determine numerical values of other interaction constants. A remarkable and somewhat
surprising property of our “evolving toy universe” is the behavior of its shape when Fourier
transformed into complementary spaces. By simple conceptual assumptions of limitations of
observability it rendered at least the fine structure constant reliably and showed conditions
for chaotic movement like zitterbewegung being included in that fine structure constant. We
think we have shown a simplistic but viable example for a relatively naïve mathematical

39
structure and minimal conceptual input, what richness lies in the structure’s (spherical
space’s) transformations, if interpreted. Without such interpretation there is no way of
recognizing such structure as a (simplified) physical reality, and such interpretation has to be
made by an observer. So, we come back to Wheeler’s signposts and the space between them:
only if all the space between them can be filled with certainty, we can say we have a
mathematical universe that is determinable without an observer and his or her participation.
The very scalability of r = 1 in our model and the independence of the fine structure constant
from this scaling shows at least in this model no reason for a Planck or Compton scale as they
appear to us in meters, seconds and other arbitrary man-made units. The nature of time and
our conclusion of the inevitable “roughness” of space-time, however fine that may be, it will
be a finite value dependent on the means of the observer, forces us to assume mean values for
position or for time derivatives of position. Uncertainty is mathematically ubiquitous even
without quantum mechanics; it exists for complementary spaces and definitely for classical
mechanics as well.

Besides the unfinished items “beyond the scope of this paper” mentioned above we want to
suggest a few things worth looking at in the context of this little model that rendered α =
1/137 so surprisingly:

A paper by David Hestenes [19] tries an interpretation of quantum mechanics by

zitterbewegung. Extending our little toy universe towards such an idea would be interesting.
Another idea is the generalization of charges to Noether charges representing symmetries
could help to understand symmetry breakings in a dimensional context. An action
minimalization and such symmetry breaking could be helpful as a “conceptual” plug-in for
Lisi’s TOE attempt. However, we have shown that our model of motion spaces obviously
holds to quantum mechanical requirements and is Lorentz invariant, and it supplies a
maximum possible speed near one dimension. Questionable remains, whether position space
can “bend” or, by alternative interpretation, only its Fourier transforms show “bending”
because mass and time as well as the interaction constants dilate or “run”.

Last not least we ask whether the constraint of minimum two space-time points in the
primary structure of position space to determine any complementary spaces with all its
uncertainties is a must for observer participation or not. We think it is, because of Wheeler’s
signpost model and Mach’s principle where we define time by movement.

Mathematical structure and physical reality can well be the same thing, but will that structure
ever be complete? – We doubt it, without observer participation in form of at least
interpretation, not to speak of measurements, and encoding it into something we call
“insight”, it may well be the same thing and even complete, but we will not recognize it for
lack of completeness in our human way of using mathematics as a language. Some fill-ins
between Wheeler’s signposts will always remain papier-mâché as long as mathematics is
incomplete, at least for a TOE (this expression is also subject to a definition agreed upon by
individuals by consensus – a compromise). Last not least we need to remark that all
distinctions like Tegmark’s “reality independent of us humans” are man-made separations
dependent solely on the man-made decision where to draw the line. In a real GUT or TOE
those lines must be moveable at random, because all needs to be one and indistinguishable,
otherwise it cannot be a GUT or TOE.

40
Acknowledgements:

The author thanks Ehud Duchovni of the Department of High Energy and Particle Physics of
the Weizmann Institute of Science for the suggestion to look at the “strange geometry of n-
dimensional objects” and Lorne Levinson, Moshe Kugler, Gad Maimon, Israel Oshry, Ofir
Aharon and Shlomo Makmel for many fruitful discussions. The author thanks Shlomo’s and
Ofir’s families for their hospitality and his fiancée Haya for her deep understanding and
support during the sometimes difficult times of total immersion in thought about this work
and its compilation in form of this paper.

References:

[1] F. Wilczek, Fundamental Constants, ArXiv: 0708.4361v1 [hep-ph] 31 Aug 2007

[2] M. Tegmark, A. Aguirre, M. Rees, F. Wilczek, Dimensionless Constants and other
Dark Matter, ArXiv: Astro-ph/0511774v3 11 Jan 2006
[3] A.S. Eddington, Fundamental Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1946
[4] E.L. Koschmieder, Theory of Elementar Particles, ArXiv: 0804.4848 [physics, gen-
ph] 15 May 2008
[5] M. MacGregor, A “Muon Mass Tree” with α-quantized Lepton, Quark and Hadron
Masses, ArXiv: 0607233 [gen-ph] 20 July 2006
[6] M. MacGregor, Electron Generation of Leptons and Hadrons with Reciprocal α-
quantized Lifetimes and Masses, ArXiv: 0506033 [gen-ph] 25 May 2005
[7] M. MacGregor, The experimental lifetime α-quantization of the 36 metastable
elementary particles, ArXiv: 0806.1216 [gen-ph] 1 June 2008
[8] L. Nottale, Scale Relativity, Fractal Space Time, and Quantum Mechanics, in Chaos,
Solitons and Fractals 4, 361-388, Pergamon Press 1994
[9] L. Nottale, The Theory of Scale Relativity: Non-differentiable Geometry and Fractal
Space-Time, Computing Anticipatory Systems, CASYS 03 – Sixth Int. Conf. (Liège,
Belgium, 11 – 16 Aug. 2003), Daniel M. Dubois (ed.), American Institute of Physics
Conference Proceedings, 718, 68 – 95 (2004)
[10] A. Garrett Lisi, An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything, ArXiv: 0711.0770
[hep-th] 6 Nov 2007
[11] Max Tegmark, The Mathematical Universe, subm. to Found. Phys., ArXiv:
0704.0646v2 [gr-qc] 8 Oct 2007
[12] F. Hausdorff, Dimension und äuβeres Maβ, Mathematische Annalen, 157 – 179,
1918
[13] R.W. Hamming, Learning to Learn, Session 9, n-dimensional Space, Naval
Postgraduate School, U.S. Navy, Feb. 2008.
[14] J.A. Wheeler, Law without Law, in J.A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek, Quantum Theory
and Measurement, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. 1983, p. 182 -216
[15] M. Pinsky, Introduction to Fourier Analysis and Wavelets, Brook/Crole 2002
[16] E. Stein, R. Shakarchi, Fourier Analysis – an Introduction, Princeton University
Press, Princeton, N.J., 2003
[17] A. Einstein, P. Podolski, N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 – 780, 1935

41
[18] H. Jung, Ueber die kleinste Kugel, die eine räumliche Figur einschliesst, Journal für
die reine und angewandte Mathematik 123, 241 – 257, 1901
[19] D. Hestenes, The Zitterbewegung Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Found.
Phys. 20, No. 10, 1990, 1213 – 1232
[20] J. Barbour, The End of Time, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London 1999.
[21] F.R. Klinkhamer, Fundamental length scale of quantum space time foam, JETP Lett.
86, 73 (2007), ArXiv [gr-qc] 0703009v5.
[22] N. Seiberg, 23rd Solvay Conference in Physics, Dec. 2005, ArXiv [hep-th]
0601234v1, 31 Jan 2006.
[23] N. Arkani-Hamed et al., Universal dynamics of spontaneous Lorentz violation and a
new spin-dependent inverse square law of force, ArXiv 0407034v3, 2004.
[24] P. Rowlands, A foundational approach to physics, ArXiv [physics] 0106054, 19 Jun
2001.
[25] L.Ya. Kobelev, Physical consequences of moving faster than light in empty space,
ArXiv [gr-qc] 0001043v1, 15 Jan 2000.
L.Ya. Kobelev, Can a particle’s velocity exceed the speed of light in empty space?,
ArXiv [gr-qc] 0001042v1, 15 Jan 2000.
[26] Landauer, R. “Irreversibility and Heat Generation in the Computing Process”, IBM J.
Res. Develop. Vol. 44 No. ½ Jan./Mar. 2000.
[27] Shannon, C.E. “A Mathematical Theory of Communication”, The Bell System
Technical Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 379-423, 623-656, July, October, 1948, and
references therein.]

42