Other dimensions as an explanation.

[Lex]

So i remember Vallee saying that this phenomena may involve other dimensions, but without an explanation it seemed just a good place to file away the idea, so to speak.
Well i think i had a bit of a revelation some time back, to explain the behaviour of ufo's, and other weird stuff too.

So first up here is a video by the Royal Institute on the fourth dimension;

And a video of Sagan talking about the same subject.

So some characteristics of a higher dimension 'thing' entering ours;

Ability to appear in any point in space
And to dissapear at any time.
Have unusual physical dimensions, may change shape etc.
Ability (afaik) to observe this dimension whilst remaining outside of it.

Describing a 3d sphere entering flatland is really quite interesting.
First there would be a point that materialises out of thin air, that grows to a sphere, or in the case of flatland a circle. Then as it begins to leave, it shrinks back to a point and dissapears.

It seems being from a higher dimension allows one to stay one step ahead, enabling the Trickster Feat. lol.
I felt this really ticked a few boxes.

 

[Lex]

No thoughts? If anyone can 'poo poo' this please do do that.

 

[Randall]

No thoughts? If anyone can 'poo poo' this please do do that.

The IDH ( Interdimensional hypothesis ) is technically impossible, because dimensions the way they're portrayed in these sorts of examples are not logically consistent. This gets a bit complex, but basically it's not possible for something to exist up in "Dimension 5" and magically move from there down into "Dimension 3". The reason has to do with hierarchical dependency in spatial dimensions.

I don't know if you'll find any other references to this, but it's not necessary once you grasp the core concept. Essentially it means that before a higher level dimension can exist, it requires that all lower dimensions be in place first. There can be no anything without a starting point ( a ). There can be no length without a second point ( b ) which creates D1 ( x ). There can be no area without a third point ( c ) which creates D2 ( y ), There can be no volume without having D1 and D2 and D3 ( z ) height ( y * z ) and so on.

Therefore any fourth or fifth dimensional object in our universe would of necessity also contain x,y,z and as a consequence would be visible to us at all times. Any 5D skyscraper would still have it's foundation planted firmly in your path. What's more, further reflection reveals that in any given universe where there are a given number of dimensions, all dimensions must exist concurrently, therefore everything has all dimensions. If this is a 5D universe, we're also 5D.

Even graphene, which is sometimes referred to as 2D is still one atom thick and therefore isn't actually 2D. If you keep reflecting on the situation what happens is that when you get some 3D object ( say a UFO ) moving between independent dimensional constructs, what you're really talking about is two separate universes.

To some people the words "dimension" and "universe" are used interchangeably. That isn't however conceptually as accurate as it could be. So to sum up, Sagan's analogy isn't really illustrating "higher dimensions" in a spatial sense, but a universe within a universe. Hypothetically there could be many universes within universes. Hope this adds another perspective for you to consider. I believe Rutkowsi and I are both in agreement on this.

 

[Lex]

Therefore any fourth or fifth dimensional object in our universe would of necessity also contain x,y,z and as a consequence would be visible to us at all times. Any 5D skyscraper would still have it's foundation planted firmly in your path. What's more, further reflection reveals that in any given universe where there are a given number of dimensions, all dimensions must exist concurrently. Nothing real can be only 2D or 3D, and therefore everything has all dimensions. If this is a 5D universe, we're also 5D.

First off there is no requirement for something to be visible to us at any time. There is undoubtedly a great deal that is out of reach of our instrumental senses, for example we will need a lot more energy than the LHC to start uncovering gravity. Higher dimensions may not interact at all with the 3 we are familiar with, they may be tiny, we may be constrained to a brane, as string theory would suggest. So it's not as simple as that.
If the universe is 11 dimensional then we are 11 dimensional, but that doesn't mean its obvious to us.



So to sum up, Sagan's analogy isn't really illustrating "higher dimensions" in a spatial sense, but a universe within a universe.

Well isn't it just a question of definition? What warrants the name universe?

I'd have to argue that the IDH as it's called (ikr), is possible. It would be very hard to prove it wasn't.
At some point if we can harness enough energy we may start seeing evidence of higher dimensions.

I don't see any reasons why it would be technically impossible, as you say.

 

[Randall]

First off there is no requirement for something to be visible to us at any time. There is undoubtedly a great deal that is out of reach of our instrumental senses, for example we will need a lot more energy than the LHC to start uncovering gravity.

Visual perception and spatial dimensions are two entirely different concepts.

Higher dimensions may not interact at all with the 3 we are familiar with, they may be tiny, we may be constrained to a brane, as string theory would suggest. So it's not as simple as that. If the universe is 11 dimensional then we are 11 dimensional, but that doesn't mean its obvious to us.

That's not relevant to the point of the explanation given. There can be no 4th spatial dimension the way it's being asserted. The best that can happen is that from the perspective of Universe 1, D4 equals D1 in Universe 2.

So to sum up, Sagan's analogy isn't really illustrating "higher dimensions" in a spatial sense, but a universe within a universe.
Well isn't it just a question of definition? What warrants the name universe?

Universes - What Do We Mean By That?

That's an important question. The word universe has three four main contexts. The first is astronomical, which deals with the observable universe. The second is in a cosmological sense, which deals with the physical universe on it's grandest scale, sometimes referred to as the multiverse, and the third is in a metaphysical sense, which is broader than both the astronomical context and the cosmological context. Metaphysics employs abstract thinking to focus on the nature of existence, time, space, causality and the underlying principles and theories that give rise to concepts of reality and the universe as a whole. The fourth is theological in nature. We won't get into that here.

So in the examples we've used here, were looking at our immediate universe in an astronomical sense U1, which spatially is 3D out to infinity, and therefore there can be no additional spatial dimensions in it, whether they can be illustrated mathematically or not. We can mathematically model Escher's impossible staircase too, but we can never actually make it. However in a cosmological context, U1 could only be one of many other 3D universes that are also expanding out to infinity. So again, from our perspective in U1, the first dimension in the closest other universe can be considered as a fourth spatial dimension within the bigger picture. That could be a sub-universe or a transcendent universe. Either way, when you get to 6D you then have 2 X 3D, or 6 dimensions comprising 2 universes in the multiverse, and so on.

I'd have to argue that the IDH as it's called (ikr), is possible. It would be very hard to prove it wasn't. At some point if we can harness enough energy we may start seeing evidence of higher dimensions. I don't see any reasons why it would be technically impossible, as you say.

You are entirely free to look at the question in whatever way you want. I'm looking at it Cosmologically and Metaphysically. Theologians would no doubt have a completely different take on it. I would however argue that abstract mathematical illustrations don't explain how it's in any way possible for a 3D craft to come from some "other higher dimension" within U1, while the explanation I've given does.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

There are basically two possibilities for higher dimensions: they can either be macroscopic, or they can be extremely tiny and curled up on themselves as we see with string theory. The second type is useless for the purposes of this discussion, because they don't involve new directions for travel or new spatial volumes for objects to exist in. So we're left with higher macroscopic dimensions. But that doesn't work either, because if there were four macroscopic spatial dimensions, then a table with three legs would fall over. It takes one leg per spatial dimension to define a plane. So we're not living in a higher macroscopic dimensional spacetime (and if we are, then the laws of physics perfectly replicate a 4D spacetime in every observable way so far, so the end result is the same - see Itzhak Bars' 6D physics theory with 2 time dimensions to see how the requisite gauge symmetry confines physics in 6D to 4D dynamics).

The word "dimension" just means "direction," like the x and y and z spatial directions. I think a lot of people get kinda mixed up because the word "dimension" is often used in science fiction stories in the manner that Usual Suspect described - as alternate universes or realities. Like you said, there could be other branes - other universes adjacent to our own, if for some reason we exist in a higher dimensional spacetime where matter and energy are confined to the 4D surface of such a brane. But that kind of stuff, and the many worlds interpretation, seems wildly fanciful and unphysical to me. I'd like to see some indication - any indication really - that there's more going on than the 4D spacetime that we're aware of, before resorting to those kinds of explanations.

It seems far simpler to me: we're drifting among an ocean of stars, and roughly 22% of those stars are orbited by Earth-like planets in their habitable zones. And water and amino acids are ubiquitous in planetary systems. So life probably arises all over the place, and some of it evolves into sentient life forms like our own. Some of them seem to have mastered metric engineering - propellantless field propulsion that perfectly explains the inertia-defying maneuvers that we've observed with the ufo phenomenon, and also the only known theoretical model that permits superluminal spaceflight. So in theory, devices from neighboring and more advanced civilizations could be dropping by the Earth as casually as we go out for a carton of milk.

So I just don't see any need to invoke speculative new dimensions to explain what we're seeing - we can model the vast majority of sightings very easily with well-established physical theories and astronomical findings and recent advances in astrobiology. And most of the seemingly radical stuff, like sudden appearances and disappearances, could simply be a device arriving at supersonic speed and coming to a dead stop suddenly. That would appear to our eyes as an instantaneous materialization. And it works the same way in reverse. Or, we could be seeing a visual cloaking system in action, some types of which we've already developed, and others like metamaterials cloaking, which are probably not far down the road for us.

But for even the wildest things I've heard in terms of objects in the skies, general relativity seems to support the notion of wormholes in 4D spacetime. And, mind-bogglingly, the prospect for time travel. With all of these kinds of possibilities arising from the 4D spacetime model that we have - which has been outlandishly successful at every turn - I just don't see a need to invoke new physics to explain anything. New technologies, yes. But not new physical theories or additional spatial dimensions.

 

[William Strathmann]

As a non-physicist, I do not have any helpful thoughts about various additional "curled" dimensions to help explain what might be considered anomalous events.

On the other hand, below is a vid of Dr. Harry Cliff who is directly involved with CERN, and in this quite recent lecture he mentions the deeper aspect of reality that actually involves fields for every so-called "particle" of the Standard Model. Maybe earthshaking to some, or not. What seems to be the bottom line is that fields fill the universe and precede the expression of "particles." In other words, no fields, no particles. You can go directly to the place in the video, just over ten minutes in, where he makes this observation, here. If this is the case, then the universal "fields" in which we all exist are themselves "interleaved" into quite a complex "something" that supports all of "physical" existence. My question remains, what if the "fields" themselves have a sub-structure and their own lower-level "Standard Model" and can support sapient intelligences who do not exist "directly" in our derivative Standard Model world, but can interact with it? And I leave it as a question, not a statement.

 

[Randall]

As a non-physicist, I do not have any helpful thoughts about various additional "curled" dimensions to help explain what might be considered anomalous events. On the other hand, below is a vid of Dr. Harry Cliff who is directly involved with CERN, and in this quite recent lecture he mentions the deeper aspect of reality that actually involves fields for every so-called "particle" of the Standard Model ...

One doesn't need to be a physicist to come up with helpful ideas. The Greeks were philosophers and they're the ones who figured things were made of atoms and voids. That was in the 4th and 5th centuries B.C. I've been saying all along that we're not necessarily dealing with "particles" but with fields and theorized that it provides an explanation for Dark Matter. So don't be afraid to use that thing they call a brain just because some piece of paper giving you permission isn't pinned to your wall.

BTW, in that video he's doing a lot of "almost certainly" and "fairly confidently concluded" when it comes to the Higgs Boson. Other particle physicists have simply said that it hasn't been discovered and they're just dealing with a new set of particles. I'd say it's actually far from "almost certainly" and I'd go a step further a suggest that it will never be found, at least not the way it was originally introduced, which was as a "particle" that imparts mass. We've been seeing a constant shift toward thinking of the fundamental forces and particles both as fields rather than as "stuff" with properties. He does a pretty good job of explaining this in the video ( surprisingly - excellent lecture ).

 

[Realm]

Other particle physicists have simply said that it hasn't been discovered and they're just dealing with a new set of particles.

Can you give some references?

 

[Randall]

I've posted them before on other threads. You just need to Google for things like, Higgs Boson Not Found, and you'll find that the discogvery of the Higgs Boson is far from unanimous. But here are a few examples:

- The Particle That Wasn’t: The Particle That Wasn’t
- Maybe it wasn't the Higgs particle after all: https://phys.org/news/2014-11-wasnt-higgs-particle.html
- It's Official: We Haven't Found a New Fundamental Particle: It's Official: We Haven't Found a New Fundamental Particle
- Why the Higgs Boson Found at the Large Hadron Collider Could Be an ‘Impostor’: Why the Higgs Boson Found at the Large Hadron Collider Could Be an ‘Impostor’

The last one seems fairly up-to-date and I've run across many others, but things also might have changed. I don't follow this on an hourly basis 24/7.

 

[Realm]

- It's Official: We Haven't Found a New Fundamental Particle: It's Official: We Haven't Found a New Fundamental Particle

That's not about Higgs but this:
750 GeV diphoton excess - Wikipedia

They never claimed discovery for that and reminded all along that it can be just statistical anomaly:

The hypothetical particle was denoted by the Greek letter Ϝ (pronounced digamma) in the scientific literature, owing to the decay channel in which the anomaly occurred.[3] The data, however, were always less than five standard deviations (sigma) different from that expected if there was no new particle, and, as such, the anomaly never reached the accepted level of statistical significance required to announce a discovery in particle physics.

- Why the Higgs Boson Found at the Large Hadron Collider Could Be an ‘Impostor’: Why the Higgs Boson Found at the Large Hadron Collider Could Be an ‘Impostor’

The last one seems fairly up-to-date and I've run across many others, but things also might have changed. I don't follow this on a 24/7 hourly basis.

Things have changed. That article was about this decay:

Until we see the Higgs decaying into two bottom quarks, Mallik said, "we cannot tell if this Higgs boson is the Standard Model Higgs boson or an impostor."

It has since been observed with reasonable good confidence already:

The ATLAS Collaboration has reported the first evidence for the decay of the Higgs boson to a pair of bottom quarks, with a significance of 3.6 sigma. Although the Standard Model predicts this decay to occur in more than half of all Higgs boson decays, it is very difficult to distinguish from similar background processes.

"This evidence of the decay of the Higgs boson to bottom quarks constitutes an important milestone in the exploration of the Higgs boson properties,” said Karl Jakobs, Spokesperson of the ATLAS experiment. “It is important for the understanding of its short lifetime and for seeking indirect evidence for other, rarer decays.”

LHC experiments delve deeper into precision | Media and Press Relations

Up to now, researchers have been able to fully prove the decay into other particles - so-called W and Z bosons, photons and tau leptons. But they had not been able to observe the Higgs particle's decay into a couple of b-quarks that is expected to occur with the largest rate of around 60 percent probability. The reason is that a number of other processes exist that are hard to differentiate from the Higgs particle's decay in b-quarks and that occur at a much higher rate.

But now they have discovered new evidence: The probability that the observed signal is feigned solely by other processes is only 0.018 percent. The presentation of these findings was one of the highlights of the conference run by the European Physical Society (EPS) that was held July 5-12, 2017 in Venice, Italy.

https://phys.org/news/2017-07-evidence-higgs-particle-quarks.html

 

[Randall]

That's not about Higgs but this: 750 GeV diphoton excess - Wikipedia They never claimed discovery for that and reminded all along that it can be just statistical anomaly:
Things have changed. That article was about this decay:
It has since been observed with reasonable good confidence already:LHC experiments delve deeper into precision | Media and Press Relations
https://phys.org/news/2017-07-evidence-higgs-particle-quarks.html

Like I said, the claim remains contentious. Even the guy in the video doesn't claim certainty about it. But if you want to fall on the absolute certaintyr side, be my guest. Personally I don't think that the standard model can account for everything. It does a good job of defining relationships between forces, but it doesn't explain how these forces actually are imparted onto the "particle" or "field" or whatever the case may be. In the end they're still "fundamental" and the only explanations I've seen that might work for that get into existential simulation theories. It's all quite fascinating to my little brain.

 

[marduk]

Think about dimensions this way:

The fewest numbers needed to describe an object's position is the number of dimensions. Our universe has four.

If a fifth dimensional object somehow appeared in our universe, it would exist in four dimensions. The fifth dimension would not be represented. It couldn't behave any differently than any other regular object in our universe, because it would still be in our universe.

If a three dimensional object appeared in our universe, well, it wouldn't exist in our universe at all. If it were 3d but lack the time element, it would exist for zero time, which means it wouldn't exist at all. If it existed in two spatial dimensions and time but not the third, then it wouldn't actually exist at all. You can't have an object on an x,y,z plane that has one coordinate undefined. So it wouldn't be here at all, and wouldn't interact with anything even if it could be here.

"Parallel dimensions" is an oxymoron. "Higher dimensions" do not exist, except as mathematical abstractions. String theory posits a spatial topology that has spaces that need 11 numbers (hence dimensions) to describe them, but String Theory hasn't provided a single testable hypothesis ever, and most people view it as a dead end.

Abstract mathematical spaces are fun things, but they don't describe reality - they're used for problem solving, data manipulation, that kind of thing.

You don't find a lot of database administrators claiming they created a real 11 dimensional space when they create an 11 dimensional matrix in memory somewhere.

 

[Randall]

Think about dimensions this way: The fewest numbers needed to describe an object's position is the number of dimensions. Our universe has four.

Time isn't a spatial dimension. It's a rather more abstract concept that deals with changes of things ( positions, states, properties, whatever the case ) in 3D space.

If a fifth dimensional object somehow appeared in our universe, it would exist in four dimensions. The fifth dimension would not be represented. It couldn't behave any differently than any other regular object in our universe, because it would still be in our universe.

If a three dimensional object appeared in our universe, well, it wouldn't exist in our universe at all. If it were 3d but lack the time element, it would exist for zero time, which means it wouldn't exist at all. If it existed in two spatial dimensions and time but not the third, then it wouldn't actually exist at all. You can't have an object on an x,y,z plane that has one coordinate undefined. So it wouldn't be here at all, and wouldn't interact with anything even if it could be here.

"Parallel dimensions" is an oxymoron. "Higher dimensions" do not exist, except as mathematical abstractions. String theory posits a spatial topology that has spaces that need 11 numbers (hence dimensions) to describe them, but String Theory hasn't provided a single testable hypothesis ever, and most people view it as a dead end.

Abstract mathematical spaces are fun things, but they don't describe reality - they're used for problem solving, data manipulation, that kind of thing.

You don't find a lot of database administrators claiming they created a real 11 dimensional space when they create an 11 dimensional matrix in memory somewhere.

Yes, you and I have agreed on this before. Math is a symbolic language and as such all expressions are analogies to the real world, not the real world itself. But math heads sometimes fall so far inside their ketchup bottle that they can't see out.

 

[marduk]

Time isn't a spatial dimension. It's a rather more abstract concept that deals with changes of things ( positions, states, properties, whatever the case ) in 3D space.
Yes, you and I have agreed on this before. Math is a symbolic language and as such all expressions are analogies to the real world, not the real world itself. But math heads sometimes fall so far inside their ketchup bottle that they can't see out.

Agreed, but you still need to describe an objects position in time. Hence it’s a dimesion.

 

[Randall]

Agreed, but you still need to describe an objects position in time. Hence it’s a dimesion.

It's only a "dimension" in an imaginary sense, as in "three real coordinates representing space, and one imaginary coordinate representing time." - Wikipedia.
There's also some varying numbers of opinions about this depending on the context, so I'm not the one to say it either is or isn't a "dimension" in a global sense. I personally just fall in with those who see time not as a spatial dimension. Here's an interesting related article:

Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space

Excerpt: In their paper, Sorli and Fiscaletti argue that, while the concepts of special relativity are sound, the introduction of 4D Minkowski spacetime has created a century-long misunderstanding of time as the fourth dimension of space that lacks any experimental support.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html#jCp

 

[Realm]

Like I said, the claim remains contentious.

I don't think that's a fair description. What exactly is contested and by whom?

I doubt you can find a qualified physicist who would bet against the existence of that particle. Or if you do, I would take that bet. There are of course differing ideas about its properties, as usual, at least as long as some things haven't been observed with sufficient accuracy. But as for the existence, I don't think there's much reason to suspect they gave that Nobel for nothing.

Of your 4 links above, #1 and #3 are not about Higgs at all. As I mentioned above, there's already new evidence it's not an "impostor" as was proposed in #4. #2 is several years old and it doesn't actually claim it's not Higgs but proposes another model that might also fit, and I believe Frandsen has also moved to other models since then.

Even the guy in the video doesn't claim certainty about it. But if you want to fall on the absolute certaintyr side, be my guest.

Science and scientists rarely claim "absolute certainty" on anything. But in this case they have actually calculated the existence of that particle close to 7 sigma level, which roughly translates to 99.999999999% certainty. So in practice there's no question about its existence anymore:

https://phys.org/news/2012-12-cms-atlas-higgs-like-particle-sigma.html
CERN now 99.999999999% sure it has found the Higgs boson - ExtremeTech

Though that doesn't mean its properties would be known with anywhere close to those levels. But so far it has matched predictions, many would say too well, as it hasn't revealed any surprises or new avenues beyond the standard model.

Personally I don't think that the standard model can account for everything.

It doesn't describe gravity, so obviously it's not the whole story.

It does a good job of defining relationships between forces, but it doesn't explain how these forces actually are imparted onto the "particle" or "field" or whatever the case may be. In the end they're still "fundamental" and the only explanations I've seen that might work for that get into existential simulation theories. It's all quite fascinating to my little brain.

Can you elaborate what you mean with those "existential simulation theories" and how they are connected?

 

[Phil]

Anybody read “Flatland” by Abott? The adventures of A Square?

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

It's only a "dimension" in an imaginary sense, as in "three real coordinates representing space, and one imaginary coordinate representing time." - Wikipedia.
There's also some varying numbers of opinions about this depending on the context, so I'm not the one to say it either is or isn't a "dimension" in a global sense. I personally just fall in with those who see time not as a spatial dimension. Here's an interesting related article:

Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space

Excerpt: In their paper, Sorli and Fiscaletti argue that, while the concepts of special relativity are sound, the introduction of 4D Minkowski spacetime has created a century-long misunderstanding of time as the fourth dimension of space that lacks any experimental support.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html#jCp

A couple of points: when physicists refer to time as an imaginary coordinate, they don''t mean "imaginary" in the sense of "not real." This is simply conventional terminology in any complex coordinate system, and Minkowski spacetime can be interpreted as a complex coordinate system, which has the nice effect of turning the Lorentz transform into a rotation.

The other point is far more compelling, imo: space and time are simultaneously distorted to the exact same degree in special relativity, so time sure as hell behaves like a precisely equivalent dimension to space. Which raises the question: why doesn't anyone ever suggest that space is imaginary? Space and time dilation are on the exact same footing in physics, yet nobody ever says that space is some kind of illusory dimension. As I see it, they either both are, or they're both not, and I'm open to either of those two possibilities.

In fact we did a Physics Frontiers episode called "A Gravitational Arrow of Time" about an entirely new way of interpreting physical reality where space and time and other factors that we presently view as fundamental, are derived as emergent properties of a totally fascinating but completely unfamiliar way of modeling the universe.

 

[Randall]

A couple of points: when physicists refer to time as an imaginary coordinate, they don''t mean "imaginary" in the sense of "not real." This is simply conventional terminology in any complex coordinate system, and Minkowski spacetime can be interpreted as a complex coordinate system, which has the nice effect of turning the Lorentz transform into a rotation.

The other point is far more compelling, imo: space and time are simultaneously distorted to the exact same degree in special relativity, so time sure as hell behaves like a precisely equivalent dimension to space. Which raises the question: why doesn't anyone ever suggest that space is imaginary? Space and time dilation are on the exact same footing in physics, yet nobody ever says that space is some kind of illusory dimension. As I see it, they either both are, or they're both not, and I'm open to either of those two possibilities.

In fact we did a Physics Frontiers episode called "A Gravitational Arrow of Time" about an entirely new way of interpreting physical reality where space and time and other factors that we presently view as fundamental, are derived as emergent properties of a totally fascinating but completely unfamiliar way of modeling the universe.

Yes I got all that, but the point remains the same that there's a difference in the context between spatial dimensions and time as a "dimension" in a 4D coordinate system. In other words there's a big difference in context between saying that a location at point x,y,z,t has anything to do with area or volume. It's simply a point coordinate. Point coordinates have no size, therefore they have no area or volume. Also it's hypothetically possible for everything to exist without time. It's just that nothing would change. Just put the simulation on pause. From a perspective outside that universe, all spatial dimensions would remain perfectly intact, but because t=0, it's irrelevant to the spatial elements of the construct.

BTW, I enjoyed the podcast too. Good stuff. You should start a thread for it and post up some links and notifications of new episodes. I don't think Gene would mind ( maybe ask him to be sure ).

Just to add a quick point on time dilation. It seems to be a rather big mystery to most people why it takes place ( why being separate from the math that describes it ), but it seems rather obvious to me that the faster something is moving, the less it will change over the same distance as something moving slower. Or maybe it's just that there's a limit to the amount of change the processors in the system can deal with. At light speed maybe they're so busy calculating the location of an object that there's no time to calculate any changes in it's properties before the next iteration.