There is a point within the microcosm at which the precepts of classical mechanics seem to break down. In the realm of the very small it seems two elemental particles - bosons - can occupy the same place at the same time. Some things can even occupy more than one location, others can move from one position to another without traversing the space between. Louis Carroll couldn't have imagined a world more curious, but in reality there is a very simple explanation - the laws of nature that apply to subdimensions.

Two independent entities cannot simultaneously occupy the same space. Obviously that law only pertains to three dimensional space because when one entity comes into contact with another there IS a two dimensional region - the area of contact - at which both entities share a point or points in common. It is an area, a two-dimensional derivative of a three-dimensional reality in which the properties of two separate entities define a region with its own distinct set of attributes. One side has the qualities of one entity, the other side has the qualities of the other entity - and there is no distance between the two sides.

If you slap a third entity up against the common boundary of the two already mentioned, a one-dimensional 'linear' derivative will be defined by three sets of attributes. And if you cap the collection with a forth element - a NON-dimensional 'point' (no size - only a location) will be defined by the properties of all four independent entities.

If an entity is completely enveloped in an ethereal environment (space), the qualitative value at the region shared between that entity and the space in which it rests is governed by the properties of the entity and the properties of the space which surrounds it. If a particle of space is displaced by a particle of material, then the condition of the entity at its surface is REDEFINED (ditto the other particle, but we will concentrate on the initial entity for now). That region of surface area is no longer defined as 'entity in contact with space', it is defined as 'entity in contact with matter'. The properties which co-mingle within that region have qualitative 'inertia' and both entities struggle to maintain their state of being by dominating the two-dimensional area they share at their periphery.

When a warm body comes into contact with a cold body, the warm body cools and the cold body warms. In an isolated system this process will continue until both bodies achieve the same temperature. In effect, there is a battle going on in the region of contact where each body strives to maintain its state of being - its 'inertia' - as the condition at its surface is dynamically redefined by its companion. The temperature at the point of contact will obviously be the average between the two bodies and for the warm body to maintain temperature at its surface it would have to change its internal nature in such a way as to supply heat while the cooler body would have to change its nature in order to absorb heat. Each simply acts upon and reacts to the other - changing and being changed - until their temperatures level out and the temperature differential between them is Ø. (There it is again. Zero. Nothing. Null. Do you detect a pattern here?)

The phenomenon of change is driven by the dynamics of the properties of two (or more) qualitative values in direct contact with each other. Each changes its condition in such a way as to minimize and eventually eliminate the differential between them.

The phenomenon we call gravity may, indeed, be the explained by this process of reciprocal alteration. Matter is condensed - its density is measurable, space is ethereal - rarified to the point its density is immeasurable. Is it possible that space, itself, condenses somewhat when it comes into contact with matter? And if two material objects are in proximity to each other, would this not draw them together? Space condensation would certainly act just like the 'space-warp' of Einsteinian theory, but it's a much simpler concept to ponder.

If the basic structure of fundamental elements includes a nucleus from which they 'project' themselves into three dimensional space, the effect of that sub-dimensional feature could well explain some of the strange behavior often observed within the microcosm. A nucleus would be a true point - just a location with no relative size. If, as it projects itself into space, a feature of the nucleus were to change its relative position - say rotate 90 degrees - no distance would be traversed (and no time would lapse) because it has NO size, only the angle of projection would change in an instantaneous movement. Such morphing (rearranging the substructure) of internal conditions may produce some of those weird and seemingly impossible effects which puzzle contemporary particle physicists. Mass is simply a property - a condition. With the ability to change instantly, a portion of an entity's substructure which has the property of 'mass' may suddenly disappear and simultaneously reappear elsewhere without any motion taking place. This would give rise to the illusion that the 'mass' has no real location and can only be given a probability of existing at any given coordinate. The phenomenon of morphing could also give the illusion that some sub-structural facet can be in in two different states or locations simultaneously - i.e. 30% in one location and 70% in another. Such phenomena have been observed in the microcosm and particle physicists tend to attribute them to the existence of extra dimensions.

E=mc² is the simplified form of an equation given to us by Albert Einstein to describe the relationship between energy and mass. Translated into words, it says the amount of change - or energy (E) - that we may expect a material to be able to produce is directly proportional to it's mass (m) and the square of the speed of light (c²). It is certainly a very useful formula; however, in order for it to work, the subject must have the property of mass. But what about things which have no mass - things like space, for example?

Motion of an ethereal substance through space would certainly produce change - but would it require energy? The subject would have to displace whatever lies in front of it and this change would certainly take an instance of time (t). Mr. Einstein's equation may be accurate, but it is incomplete. It addresses only the special case of things which have the attribute of mass. I wonder if an equation which addresses the phenomenon of change in both material and ethereal substances might finally resolve the issue of that pesky imaginary number: