Edition 1 — Saturday 23 May 2026

The Open Visor

Framework

Three dimensions are not enough

Why we understand the world better when we add three new dimensions: scale, value and multiplicity.

We were raised with three spatial dimensions (length, breadth, height) and one dimension of time. Four in total. For picking up a cup of coffee that is quite sufficient. For understanding the universe, a fusion reactor, or a society, it is not.

What I propose: seven dimensions

In my model, three dimensions are added that we usually forget or quietly fold into our formulae:

DimensionSymbolIn plain words
Spacex, y, zWhere something is
TimetWhen something is
ScaleGAt what magnitude you look — atom, human, galaxy
ValueWFrom antimatter to matter — what something "weighs" in terms of existence
MultiplicityNHow many parallel versions of the system there are

Why G is necessary

An ant and an elephant obey the same laws of nature. But at the scale of an ant, surface tension and friction are dominant; at the scale of an elephant, gravity. An ant falls from a skyscraper without injury. An elephant does not. The same natural law, different outcome — depending on G.

The same applies at cosmic scale. Our current gravitational theory describes the path of the moon with impressive precision, but does not explain why galaxies spin far faster than they should on the basis of visible mass. The usual remedy is called "dark matter". My proposal: not a new kind of substance, but the fact that G is a genuine dimension with its own laws that we have not yet written down.

Why W is necessary

Matter and antimatter are each other's opposites. When they meet, they annihilate and leave energy behind. My proposal is that matter and antimatter are not opposites but the two ends of a continuous axis — the W-dimension.

Imagine a slider. At one end: matter as we know it. At the other: antimatter. Between the two lies a whole spectrum of states. Something with a different W-value from our own is invisible to us — not because it is absent, but because it exists on a different "frequency". Like a radio transmitter at 100 MHz that is invisible to a receiver tuned to 90 MHz.

What we now call dark matter would, in this picture, be ordinary matter with a different W. And the gravity we feel from that "dark" matter arises because gravity acts across the W-axis, unlike light.

Why N is necessary

The N-dimension is multiplicity. Not as a fashionable multiverse theory, but as a practical recognition that a black hole may, on the inside, not be a point but an entrance to another system. Two universes can be connected through such an entrance, and matter can flow between N-values.

What use is this in daily life?

Quite a lot, in fact. Because the same framework works for societies too:

  • G (scale): a policy that works at the level of a municipality can backfire at national scale. That is not coincidence — it is a law of scale.
  • W (value): in a society you cannot express everything in money. Respect, dignity and trust carry their own "W-value" that counts, even when it does not appear on a balance sheet.
  • N (multiplicity): one country is an experiment. Twenty countries each making different choices produce evidence. That is why uniform EU regulation is often worse than competition among member states.

Is this science or fantasy?

Honest answer: it is a framework, not a proven theory. I developed it because existing models need too many ad-hoc patches to explain everything: dark matter, dark energy, fine-tuning of constants. A good model explains much with little. My model attempts to do that by adding three missing axes.

Whether it is correct I cannot say with certainty. But the history of science shows that the people who made the breakthroughs — Galileo, Maxwell, Einstein — were all first laughed at for claiming there were more axes than people supposed.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." — Max Planck

Join the conversation

Is it true that we think too much in 4D? Or is the world really as simple as the textbooks say?