Physics, as practiced in this 21st century, suffers from a fatal defect. It refuses to consider the non material aspects of existence to be relevant for our understanding of universe. In characteristic fashion, Nikola Tesla the great genius of the 20th century has practically been removed from the books of history while Thomas Edison is celebrated as the prolific inventor and Einstein’s relativity theories have been given all the undivided attention of physicists.

Something strange happened with this article. I recently got inspired to write down some thoughts about access to higher dimensions, and I found, when I completed the article and looked around for some links, that more than three years ago, I had written a very similar piece, which however was never published. The reason it languished in the guts of my computer was that, at the time, I had lost access to my blog and couldn’t publish. When the blog was re-established in a new place, I did not think to fish out that old article and put it up.

So here we are, with two similar articles on the very same subject. I was thinking to work it all into one, but then decided to give you both, the more recent one and the article that was written some years ago, to show how ideas change over time. Not much of a change really, but there definitely is a shift in emphasis. The latest article is titled Dimensions and Dimensionality, while the older one was called Dimensions of Universe. So here we go…

Dimensions and Dimensionality

The mathematicians would tell you dimensions are all mathematical, they are geometries of space. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even the generally accepted “three dimensions” of physical space as we know it, are nothing but a mathematical abstraction, a crutch invented to aid orientation in omnidirectional space…

We say physical space has three dimensions. That concept goes back to René Descartes, a 17th century scientist, mathematician and philosopher. According to anecdote, Descartes was trying to mathematically describe the erratic course of an insistent and rather irritating fly in his study. He hit on the idea that the position of the fly could be mathematically described with reference to its position relative to three axes, which were the lines emanating from one corner of his study, defining the length, breadth and height of the room. Eventually, this gave rise to the x-y-z grid system of Cartesian coordinates which are still widely used today. 

Omnidirectional extension

When we say physical space is three-dimensional, we are really talking about a mathematical abstraction, not about anything inherent in physical reality. I have earlier shown that, if we adopted a different geometric conception of space, for instance one based on the tetrahedron instead of the cube, we could see space having four dimensions instead of three. Abandoning the 90 degree angles of the cube and modeling spatial geometry with reference to the four faces or angles of the tetrahedron, we could describe four distinct directions of measurement, or four “dimensions”. 

In reality, leaning on Buckminster Fuller, I would say that space is space, and it has “extension” rather than any limited number of dimensions to be described by geometry and mathematics. This means that within physical space, we have freedom of movement not only on three or four or any other arbitrarily chosen limited number of axes, but we can move in any direction we choose, therefore we can see space having “omnidirectional extension”. 

Vibration and density

So if dimensions aren’t directions of extension in our omnidirectionally extended physical space, what are they?

When speaking about “higher dimensions” from a spiritual point of view, we generally mean realms that are characterised by a different or higher rate of vibration. Those higher realms seem to be ordered in concrete steps or “bands”, characterised by higher and higher frequency and consequently by progressively lower physical density. Those dimensions have been given numbers, fourth, fifth, and so on higher dimensions. The numbering isn’t really accurate since, as we have seen, the three physical dimensions are nothing but a mathematical abstraction. Our arbitrary three degrees of freedom of movement in physical space cannot really be called dimensions. So we are naming the higher dimensions starting from three upward, when we probably should be describing the physical world we live in as the “highest density” realm, or the one distinguished by the lowest rate of vibration. 

This misconception of dimensions being synonymous with “directional extension” makes it difficult for us to imagine a higher dimensional world. Geometry and mathematics can be employed to describe higher dimensions and there is apparently no end to the complexities this may lead to. Those concepts are however in the realm of mathematical speculation and they are difficult to imagine as real physical constructs. 

It does get easier if we think in terms of vibration. We have the precedent of our vision being limited to a certain part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and our hearing to a limited range of vibrations. Spatially, the higher dimensions are not distinct from our physical reality. They are not located “elsewhere” but are said to co-exist in the same physical space, just at a different frequency. They inter-penetrate our space in other words. 

Portals of passage

How can we pass from one “dimension” or density to another then? We must find an opening or a portal. A portal is a point where two or more dimensions meet, and where passage from one to another is possible. Portals can be natural or artificial. They allow us to temporarily enter into a different density dimension, normally for the purpose of traveling faster from one point in physical space to another. It would take more time and effort to travel the same distance while staying in our dense “3D” space going “through” it. 

In this sense, portals have been imagined as openings that lead into what may be described as dimensional tunnels or worm holes through which we can travel to get from one point in physical space to another, distant point. 

The technology to do this, to enter into “hyper space” for purposes of interstellar or intergalactic travel, has been developed and is well understood by humans. It is in use in what for us are the “secret space programs”. Those are government and corporate programs that use advanced technologies, back-engineered or otherwise obtained from technologically advanced spacefaring civilisations. 

Stargates and human portals

As I said, portals could be either natural or technological. I believe that in space travel, we have a mix of both. Natural portals and corresponding “corridors” of travel exist between star systems, and between galaxies. Some technologies use those natural connections. Yet Hyperspace drive technology may also allow spaceships to open their own passage, independent of those natural highways, and to establish a travel corridor allowing a ship to arrive at a physically distant point in space, circumventing light speed limitations. 

The Stargates of science fiction fame may be based on more than just some clever author’s imagination. They are described as technological wonders that are able to link into existing natural corridors between different locations, enabling instant or near-instant travel between different locations served by Stargate entry and exit points. 

But even us humans, we are walking portals in some sense. It might be a surprising thought that human beings themselves are portals into higher dimensions of their own right. We are energy beings and we possess a physical body. Our living bodily appendage allows us to easily anchor ourselves, and to interact with others, in this dense physical reality. 

As energy beings, we also link directly to the higher dimensions from our “heart space”, a central point in the body that is also the centre of our energetic presence. Most of us have lost conscious awareness of that heart space, and consequently of the existence of the higher dimensions. 

Now why am I saying that humans are walking portals? In a sense it is our “paranormal” abilities that are connected to and emanate from our energetic heart-space portal. Telepathy connects us directly to the thoughts and ideas of other energetic beings, bypassing the limitations of spoken or written language. Telekinesis lets us reach out and “touch” distant objects, affecting their physical integrity and their motion in space. And finally, teleportation lets us open our own “tunnel” or “wormhole” through which we may reach, with our physical body intact, a distant point in space. 

Before you start asking what I was smoking when writing this, know that I am well aware that most of us are not able to access those abilities at this time. But I am also aware that we all have the potential to do so. All we are missing is encouragement and the right circumstances. And I am also aware of the existence of the so-called secret space programs, through accounts of people who have served in them and recovered some of their memories. 

Material vs. Spiritual/energetic

Physics as currently practiced is limited to a purely material conception of the universe, disregarding anything that cannot be directly measured. The word “dimensions” is at a crossroads between that purely material and a spiritual/energetic conception of the universe. Physics, as long as it teaches its materialistic, purely mathematical view of dimensions and universe, will not help us to arrive at an understanding of higher spaces. The human and technological capabilities that depend on such an understanding will thus be continue to be closed to us. 

So yes, dimensions in a spiritual/energetic conception of the word, they are the unseen worlds that exist, not somewhere else, but right here, right now. Those worlds are ours as humans, just as much as this world of physical bodies and rocks water and trees and animals is. THAT is an important frontier to explore, the zero point of our heart space and the passage to other dimensions which lays right at the centre of our being. 

Oh yes, and I know that this is about as “scientifically incorrect” as you can get. Perhaps I am, as usual, ahead of the curve by too much for some to be comfortable with, but not to worry, take what you like and discard the rest. 

Sepp Hasslberger
Terceira, Azores
May 2021

This was the more recent article, and here now the article as it looked three or four years ago…

The dimensions of universe

“Space is not limited by dimensions, it is characterised by omnidirectional extension”

We humans generally believe that ‘our’ universe is three-dimensional, a very limiting view we have inherited from a guy called Rene Descartes, a 17th century French scientist/philosopher who is perhaps most well known for having said “I think therefore I am”. He did have that one all wrong. In real life, being (I AM) comes first and thinking (mind and ego) is a distant second. 

As all natural philosophers at the time, Descartes was also a mathematician, and he was irked by a problem: how to describe, in terms of mathematics, the erratic course of a fly zooming by him and leaving him no peace. Brooding and thinking about this problem, he came up with what seemed a great solution: he could mathematically describe the location of the fly in relation to other objects in the room by taking the edges, where the room’s walls met with the floor or the ceiling, as a system of reference. 

And thus was born the cubic system of coordinates, with its x, y and z axes, each in 90 degree relation to the other two. However by taking the inside of a room and constructing a coordinate system around it, Descartes also put us in prison. We believe the walls and the bars of this prison to be our world, to be the universe we live in … and we couldn’t be more wrong. 

Why are we limiting our conception of the world to three dimensions? 

Well, Descartes said so and it is mathematically convenient. There is nothing in Nature though, that says the world has these dimensions or that they are arranged in 90 degree angles with respect to each other. The three axes are merely the walls and edges of a room, very much a human construct. One wonders what Descartes would have come up with, had dwellings at the time been circular…

It was two decades ago that I realised there was something wrong with the view that a system based on the x, y and z coordinate axes can adequately describe our reality. It is more complicated than needed if we want to describe not a room, but all the space around us. The origin of the x-y-z axes is at the edge of a space we describe, it’s off in one corner. If we want to look out and describe ‘the rest of space’, which is most of it, our system really fails. We suddenly lost orientation. To describe all space with Cartesian coordinates, we have no choice but to double the x-y-z axes to make six vectors instead of three – a plus and a minus along each axis. This can be done mathematically and it works fine, but it is hell on imagination. It is anything but intuitive. 

So one day, after attending an alt physics conference on the work of Rene Descartes, I came up with the idea of a different system of coordinates, based on the tetrahedron. The tetrahedron is the most basic geometric form that can enclose space. It is a pyramid delimited by four equilateral triangles. the ‘bottom’ is one of those and the three sides make up the rest to meet at the top, in a point. So four sides and four vertices. If we look at angles, there are six edges to a tetrahedron. Wikipedia has more…
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahedron )

My argument at the time was that you can use the tetrahedron to describe all space in a more simple way than is possible with the cube. While in a cube-based system we need six vectors to describe all space, in a system based on the tetrahedron we only need a minimum of four. 

Starting from a point of origin at the center of the tetrahedron and exiting through the center of each one of its faces, we have four directional vectors that suffice to define and embrace all of space. To locate anything anywhere around a fixed point of reference and orientation, we only need two data points: the direction and the distance of the object.  If we combined this with a colour coding scheme to distinguish the four principal directions and any ‘hues of colour’ in-between, we could have instant and quite intuitive location of any object in space. 

So what is the difference

So what’s the difference between the cartesian and a tetrahedral, vector-oriented system of coordination?

It appears to me that there is a very fundamental difference. In cartesian orientation, we find ourselves enclosed, almost imprisoned, in a three-dimensional matrix of space that is defined as a cubic lattice. The tetrahedral system instead puts us at the point of origin, looking out in every direction. We are at the center, we’re stable, and we can orient ourselves and locate an object of interest in the blink of an eye. 

Something else very interesting is happening, too. Suddenly we are finding ourselves at the point of origin of not one but two worlds. Imagine reversing the vectors of the four axes used to describe space in the tetrahedral system. You will get two different yet interpenetrating worlds. Those worlds, one within the other, are like two different “dimensions” that co-exist but are separated through one common point of origin, you! The common origin of both seems to be a point so small we could call it “the eye of the needle”…

There is ancient symbolism that points us to this as well. When you take two tetrahedra and inter-penetratingly reverse them, you get what is known as a star tetrahedron stella octangula, an eight-pointed star. This has also been called a Merkaba. The six-pointed star of David is a two-dimensional representation of the Merkaba’s two inter-penetrating tetrahedra. 

The star tetrahedron or ‘stella octangula’ fits right inside a cube. One could say that our tetrahedral point-of-origin or merkaba has been ‘imprisoned’ in a cubic matrix… (3)


Most of us are stuck in this heavy “three-dimensional” reality so much that we can’t even imagine another kind of existence. Yet, there on the other side of our own point of origin, our “eye of the needle”, there appears to be this other world, a world of miracles where we aren’t weighed down as we are here. 

We should really explore that world. 

First, let’s find out how to slip through the “I”, the eye of the needle, to the other side. Perhaps in meditation, we should find our center, which really is our heart and there, we should look for the light I am pretty sure is there, shining through from the other side… 

Let’s go explore together. 

Post a comment if you’d like to tell others what you find … 

I would really like to know if this intuition of mine on the “eye” of the needle, our point of origin, can help us expand our horizons. 

Sepp Hasslberger
Terceira island
12 August 2017

References and resources to both articles

Image found at 





(1) Tetra Space Coordinates http://history.hasslberger.com/phy/phy_6.htm

(2) Tetrahedral coordinates – mathematical elaboration blog.hasslberger.com/2010/10/tetrahedral_coordinates_mathem.html

(3) Stella octangula inscribed in a cube en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellated_octahedron#/media/File:CubeAndStel.svg