Actually, the guy who wrote the article is on very solid ground. One could easily make the argument that time MUST function in three dimensions and that space is merely the manifestation of that dimensional time.
In a sense I guess that is similar to what I've argued for years just that this guy has semantically shifted the terminology. In fact, looking at the problem his way actually solves one of the semantical problems with looking at it the other way.
The specific predictions and agreement with experiment caught my eye.
As you could see from the other thread, it's hard enough getting people to consider time in two dimensions. The simple concept of "relative phase" seems to throw people off.
In physics there is the luxury of measuring one cosine against another. In neuroscience we measure phase relative to the extracellular potential, which is itself the average of thousands of biochemical interactions.
For example - in neurons in the hippocampus, there's three things going on: there's spiking (ordinary action potentials), there's sub threshold membrane oscillations even in the absence of input ("spontaneous activity"), and there's calcium regulation which has to do with extracellular averages but directly impacts the membrane potential. What happens is there is a global synchronization called the
theta rhythm that travels from one end of the network to the other. (Fast, about 7 times a second). When the wave hits, the neurons wake up and start firing, but the exact firing times are encoding phase relative to theta
and relative to the internal rhythm. You end up with a number, that is essentially an angle, that tells you how far along the rotation you are.
So now you know why I'm interested in compactification. To curl up dimensions into tiny balls something has to set the boundaries of the interval, yes? Seems to me we should be able to come up with some math to describe that constraint.
unionrayo.com
