The Dimensional Overlap Hypothesis.pdf

Abstract

This paper proposes a unified hypothesis connecting cosmic expansion, human perception, and dimensional overlap, incorporating spiritual insight into the understanding of reality. Observations suggest that reality may consist of layered frequencies, which occasionally interact with human consciousness, resulting in perceptual shifts, memory anomalies, and other phenomena often dismissed as coincidence. Earth, composed of materials from multiple cosmic sources, functions as a node where these frequencies intersect. Historical and philosophical traditions suggest that conscious beings are naturally limited by a “veil,” which aligns with the proposed frequency and dimensional interactions. This framework integrates physical, biological, and metaphysical considerations, inviting independent investigation.

________________________________________

1. Introduction

The universe is in continuous expansion; the Big Bang remains an ongoing process rather than a completed event. This expansion influences matter, energy, and potentially the perception of conscious beings within it. Humans perceive only a fraction of light, sound, and electromagnetic frequencies. Other species, such as bees, perceive signals invisible to humans, demonstrating that reality exists in layers beyond ordinary perception.

Philosophical and spiritual traditions speak of a veil separating what is perceptible from what is hidden. This veil, interpreted here as a natural boundary in frequency and dimensional perception, may explain phenomena such as memory anomalies, déjà vu, and shifts in subjective reality.

________________________________________

2. Observations

2.1 Cosmic Origins and Planetary Composition

Earth contains elements from multiple cosmic sources:

• Water, likely delivered via comets or other extraterrestrial bodies

• Metals formed in ancient supernovae

• Minerals and elements that conduct and resonate with vibrational energy

These materials may facilitate the intersection of cosmic and dimensional frequencies, allowing the planet itself to act as a resonant node influencing living systems.

2.2 Biological Frequency Perception

• Bees and other species detect ultraviolet and electromagnetic frequencies beyond human perception.

• Disturbances in these frequencies, such as electromagnetic pollution, result in behavioral anomalies.

• Humans, less sensitive to these signals, may experience indirect effects through shifts in consciousness or memory.

2.3 Human Design and Sensitivity to Cosmic and Spiritual Frequencies

Humans appear designed for equilibrium — internal, social, and emotional harmony corresponds to specific frequency ranges. External disturbances — natural, cosmic, or man-made — create interference patterns. Some individuals maintain alignment, while others experience perceptual anomalies or heightened awareness. This interaction suggests that consciousness is sensitive not only to physical frequencies but also to metaphysical patterns, traditionally described as the “veil” between visible and hidden realities.

________________________________________

3. Dimensional Overlap and the Veil of Perception

The hypothesis proposes that multiple frequency layers or dimensions coexist and occasionally intersect. These intersections manifest as:

• Memory shifts and perceptual anomalies

• Déjà vu or unexplained resonance

• Awareness of hidden patterns

The veil serves as a natural limitation in human perception, preventing full exposure to overlapping dimensions except in brief, spontaneous alignments. The veil is not merely a metaphor; it is a structural feature of consciousness and dimensional interaction.

________________________________________

4. Integrating Physics, Biology, and Spiritual Insight

Earth’s composition — metals, water, and organic systems — functions as a conductor and recorder of vibrational and dimensional information. Conscious beings interact with these frequencies constantly.

Spiritual insight aligns with this model: what is unseen exists, and human awareness is naturally limited. The veil preserves balance, allowing survival while providing occasional glimpses of deeper truth. Historical accounts, philosophy, and metaphysical teachings reference this principle consistently, suggesting that what is invisible to the senses still interacts with perception.

________________________________________

5. Implications and Testable Observations

• Memory anomalies and shifts in perception may correlate with electromagnetic fluctuations or environmental frequency changes.

• Regions with specific mineral and metallic compositions may demonstrate stronger dimensional resonance effects.

• Biological species sensitive to frequency can act as indicators of dimensional overlap or frequency shifts.

• Temporal observation during high cosmic activity (e.g., solar storms, geomagnetic events) may reveal subtle effects on human perception and memory.

________________________________________

6. Conclusion

This theory proposes that human perception is influenced by intersecting layers of frequency and dimension, operating in parallel with cosmic expansion. Earth serves as a natural node, and living beings experience resonance shaped by both physical and metaphysical structures. The veil — a protective and guiding limitation of perception — allows consciousness to interact with reality without overwhelming it. Observed phenomena such as perceptual shifts, memory anomalies, and déjà vu may be explained through these interactions, bridging physics and spiritual insight into a unified framework.

________________________________________

Author’s Note

This is an original, independent theory. Its purpose is to provoke observation and exploration, not to assert established scientific fact. Those who feel compelled to challenge or investigate this hypothesis will find themselves drawn to engage — not by persuasion, but by the natural force of curiosity and awareness itself.

Edited October 16Oct 16 by haroonkhan87
Feedback

12 minutes ago, haroonkhan87 said:

The Dimensional Overlap Hypothesis.pdf

Judging by the title, this is not quantum theory.

By the way, you need to post material for discussion here rather than expecting us to download stuff. And what you post needs to be your words, not AI.

It would be best if you can copy/paste it here (I tried and it was taking forever for just 3 pages).

2.3 Human Design and Sensitivity to Cosmic and Spiritual Frequencies

Humans appear designed for equilibrium — internal, social, and emotional harmony corresponds to specific frequency ranges.

Designed, by a designer?

And can you give me an example of something, anything in the universe that doesn't seek equilibrium? Or are you defining that word differently?

Minerals and elements that conduct and resonate with vibrational energy

The only references I can find for vibrational energy are trying to sell me crystals and woo. Is there any science behind this?

Thank you for the feedback.
This theory and concept are entirely my own — developed from my personal observations and ideas. AI was only used to help me format and present it clearly. The concept itself is original and newly introduced in this area. I truly appreciate you providing these guidelines and will make sure to follow them in my future submissions.

Abstract

This paper proposes a unified hypothesis connecting cosmic expansion, human perception, and dimensional overlap, incorporating spiritual insight into the understanding of reality. Observations suggest that reality may consist of layered frequencies, which occasionally interact with human consciousness, resulting in perceptual shifts, memory anomalies, and other phenomena often dismissed as coincidence. Earth, composed of materials from multiple cosmic sources, functions as a node where these frequencies intersect. Historical and philosophical traditions suggest that conscious beings are naturally limited by a “veil,” which aligns with the proposed frequency and dimensional interactions. This framework integrates physical, biological, and metaphysical considerations, inviting independent investigation.

I appreciate you may have put appreciable work into producing this, particularly as it does not seem to be unacceptable AI pap but your own work,

But I am sorry to tell you that it falls way short of the scientific bar.
Particularly introducing religious concepts designed to control peasants a millennium and more ago.

@Phi for All

Thank you for raising these two points.

1. Human Design and Sensitivity to Cosmic and Spiritual Frequencies
I’m not a degree physicist, but my approach is based on observation and logical extension rather than formal equations. My idea is that the human body is a highly complex structure that reacts differently to various energy frequencies. Some people have stronger emotional control and stability, which makes them less affected by subtle energetic or vibrational changes. Others, with higher emotional sensitivity or weaker control, may pick up these fluctuations more easily — almost like how certain materials respond differently to magnetic or electrical fields. Emotions, rage, and sensitivity might all play a part in how we “tune in” to these unseen frequencies.

2. Minerals and Elements Resonating with Vibrational Energy
In my theory, I suggest that many of the materials and minerals we find on Earth might not all originate from within this single universal framework. Their unique atomic structures may interact with energetic fields in ways that can create, influence, or even bridge dimensional effects. These interactions could play a role in how alternate realities or “Mandela-type” effects manifest — not as pure imagination, but as a result of shifts in the underlying energy resonance of matter itself.

I’m still refining these ideas and open to constructive criticism or alternative interpretations. My goal is not to claim certainty, but to explore possibilities that might connect physics, consciousness, and perception.

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

I appreciate you may have put appreciable work into producing this, particularly as it does not seem to be unacceptable AI pap but your own work,

But I am sorry to tell you that it falls way short of the scientific bar.
Particularly introducing religious concepts designed to control peasants a millennium and more ago.

Thank you for your feedback.

I understand and respect your viewpoint. Everyone has the right to express their own understanding, and mine comes from observation and reasoning rather than any strict doctrine.

From my perspective, there must be an intelligence or force behind the order of the universe- just as this website was programmed and operates through design, not randomness. The complexity and precision of the cosmos make it difficult for me to believe it came from pure chance.

That’s why I think science and spirituality shouldn’t be seen as opposites but as two parallel paths trying to understand the same reality - one through measurable evidence, and the other through meaning and purpose. Both, in their own ways, seek truth.

3 minutes ago, haroonkhan87 said:

I’m not a degree physicist, but my approach is based on observation and logical extension rather than formal equations.

I didn't ask about equations. You used the word "designed" wrt to humans, and I wanted to know if you meant "developed" or "evolved" as opposed to "created by a designer".

Also, I asked about your use of "equilibrium". Isn't it true that everything seeks to find its own balance within its environment? Why is it so special that humans do it too?

10 minutes ago, haroonkhan87 said:

In my theory, I suggest that many of the materials and minerals we find on Earth might not all originate from within this single universal framework.

Where did these materials and minerals come from, if not from the universe, which is the technical boundary for everything that exists?

13 minutes ago, haroonkhan87 said:

My goal is not to claim certainty, but to explore possibilities that might connect physics, consciousness, and perception.

Theory has no place for "certainty", that's not how science works. Your hypothesis should stick to what you can explain through observations backed up by supportive evidence. I recommend you focus more on exploring how you can support these ideas, and leave some of the more speculative areas (alternate realities, etc) out of it.

21 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I didn't ask about equations. You used the word "designed" wrt to humans, and I wanted to know if you meant "developed" or "evolved" as opposed to "created by a designer".

Also, I asked about your use of "equilibrium". Isn't it true that everything seeks to find its own balance within its environment? Why is it so special that humans do it too?

Where did these materials and minerals come from, if not from the universe, which is the technical boundary for everything that exists?

Theory has no place for "certainty", that's not how science works. Your hypothesis should stick to what you can explain through observations backed up by supportive evidence. I recommend you focus more on exploring how you can support these ideas, and leave some of the more speculative areas (alternate realities, etc) out of it.

Thanks, Phil, I really appreciate you taking the time to go through my ideas in detail.

When I used the word “designed,” I meant it more in the sense of how the human body is structured, not necessarily implying a creator, but referring to the way our systems have formed and adapted, whether through evolution or natural development. I find it fascinating how our physical and emotional balance seems to interact with different forms of energy around us.

About the part on minerals and the universe, my thought was that the cosmos might go through endless cycles of birth, collapse, and renewal. Maybe when older universes collapse, some of their matter becomes part of new ones. I know this is speculative, but it helps me think about how the materials we find on Earth could have deeper origins and perhaps different energy properties because of that.

And yes, I understand what you mean about theory and certainty. I’m still learning and exploring. My background isn’t academic physics, but I’m trying to connect what I observe and feel with logical patterns. I’m open to correction and appreciate any guidance on how to shape these ideas into something more consistent with scientific thinking.

The universe doesn't need your 'perception', sensitivity' or 'spiritual vibration' for its function.
Anything of the sort implies the universe is subjectively tuned just for you, because those qualities are different for differing people.
The laws that the universe complies with, are, by definition, objective and the same all over the universe.

You don't think you're special, do you ?

I think you've waisted a lot of time and effort on an idea that isn't at all related to science.

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

The universe doesn't need your 'perception', sensitivity' or 'spiritual vibration' for its function.
Anything of the sort implies the universe is subjectively tuned just for you, because those qualities are different for differing people.
The laws that the universe complies with, are, by definition, objective and the same all over the universe.

You don't think you're special, do you ?

I think you've waisted a lot of time and effort on an idea that isn't at all related to science.

Thank you for taking the time to read my work.

The universe does not need my perception or sensitivity to function, that much is clear. But science itself begins with perception, with someone choosing to observe what others overlook. My theory does not place humanity at the center of the universe, it studies how consciousness interacts with it. You have read my entire paper, which means you saw that my intention was to connect physics and perception through observation, not to claim that the universe bends around me.

Calling it unrelated to science because it introduces an unfamiliar angle is exactly how many early thinkers were dismissed. History repeats that pattern each time someone challenges the conventional frame of thinking. Every discovery began as a question someone dared to ask even when others laughed or rejected it.

So no, I do not think I am special. I simply think differently, and I am not afraid to explore possibilities beyond the boundary of what others have already accepted. Whether my theory is proven or not, it exists as an honest attempt to expand the conversation, not to end it.

You may have misconceptions about the definition of terms such as 'perception' and observation'.
Perception is subjective, and can differ for different people; I may perceive a joke to be funny, while you may perceive it to be offensive.
Observation, such as you and I both measuring the length of a rod to be 10 cm, is what science is based on. If we were to measure it to be different lengths, and others measured even more differences, we could never know the actual length of the rod.
Observations needs to be repeatable by different observers, or it is not science, merely perception.

5 hours ago, haroonkhan87 said:

This theory proposes that human perception is influenced by intersecting layers of frequency and dimension, operating in parallel with cosmic expansion. Earth serves as a natural node, and living beings experience resonance shaped by both physical and metaphysical structures. The veil — a protective and guiding limitation of perception — allows consciousness to interact with reality without overwhelming it. Observed phenomena such as perceptual shifts, memory anomalies, and déjà vu may be explained through these interactions, bridging physics and spiritual insight into a unified framework.

This is word salad. Layers of frequency and dimension? Experiencing resonance? How can anything “overwhelm reality”?

5 hours ago, haroonkhan87 said:

________________________________________

Author’s Note

This is an original, independent theory. Its purpose is to provoke observation and exploration, not to assert established scientific fact. Those who feel compelled to challenge or investigate this hypothesis will find themselves drawn to engage — not by persuasion, but by the natural force of curiosity and awareness itself.

Asserting facts is kinda necessary for a theory. You need to have it be testable - making specific predictions that can be compared to experiment or observation. How does one do this with your proposal? What specific predictions does it make? How is it falsifiable?

On 10/17/2025 at 12:50 AM, MigL said:

You may have misconceptions about the definition of terms such as 'perception' and observation'.
Perception is subjective, and can differ for different people; I may perceive a joke to be funny, while you may perceive it to be offensive.
Observation, such as you and I both measuring the length of a rod to be 10 cm, is what science is based on. If we were to measure it to be different lengths, and others measured even more differences, we could never know the actual length of the rod.
Observations needs to be repeatable by different observers, or it is not science, merely perception.

Thanks, MigL, I appreciate the lesson on perception and observation. It’s always useful to be reminded of basic concepts, even when we already apply them differently. My theory never aimed to replace observation with perception, just to point out that sometimes what we call “objective” can still pass through the filters of the mind that observes it.

Funny thing about science, many ideas once called “just perception” later became accepted observation. So I’ll take your comment as a reminder that maybe we’re both observing the same thing, just standing on slightly different sides of it.

On 10/17/2025 at 1:36 AM, swansont said:

This is word salad. Layers of frequency and dimension? Experiencing resonance? How can anything “overwhelm reality”?

Asserting facts is kinda necessary for a theory. You need to have it be testable - making specific predictions that can be compared to experiment or observation. How does one do this with your proposal? What specific predictions does it make? How is it falsifiable?

I get what you mean, though I think you might be looking at it strictly from a physicist’s framework. Theorists work a bit differently, we build around observation, but our focus is often on the idea before it’s testable. That’s the fun part. Testing, proving, or disproving usually comes later and sometimes by others entirely. So maybe I’m just seeing the same “rod” from another angle.

19 minutes ago, haroonkhan87 said:

Funny thing about science, many ideas once called “just perception” later became accepted observation.

Can you name one?

41 minutes ago, haroonkhan87 said:

I get what you mean, though I think you might be looking at it strictly from a physicist’s framework. Theorists work a bit differently, we build around observation, but our focus is often on the idea before it’s testable. That’s the fun part. Testing, proving, or disproving usually comes later and sometimes by others entirely. So maybe I’m just seeing the same “rod” from another angle.

Theorists in physics are still physicists.

In any event, the board’s rules require it. You need to be able to formulate some way it’s testable.

36 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Can you name one?

Since you asked, people once thought Earth was the center of the universe, gravity was just a guess, and meteorites were myths, all once “perception,” now proven science.

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

Theorists in physics are still physicists.

In any event, the board’s rules require it. You need to be able to formulate some way it’s testable.

As an independent theorist, not a full-time physicist, I may not have spent years in formal study, but I still observe the same reality that physics tries to decode. Consciousness itself can spark insights before they’re ready for instruments to test. I understand the rule about testability, and that’s fair, but some ideas begin as frameworks waiting for the right tools or perspective. The curiosity to ask “what if” has always been the first step before “how to prove.”

1 hour ago, haroonkhan87 said:

Since you asked, people once thought Earth was the center of the universe, gravity was just a guess, and meteorites were myths, all once “perception,” now proven science.

That's not what you claimed though. Earth as the universal center is an example of something people had wrong, not something that was perceived and later confirmed by observation.

Also, the guesswork of gravity also doesn't count as an example of perception later being observation.

Meteorites were myths? Do you have a citation for this? It seems like there is ample evidence once it's here on Earth.

15 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

That's not what you claimed though. Earth as the universal center is an example of something people had wrong, not something that was perceived and later confirmed by observation.

Also, the guesswork of gravity also doesn't count as an example of perception later being observation.

Meteorites were myths? Do you have a citation for this? It seems like there is ample evidence once it's here on Earth.

Thanks, Phi, that’s a fair point. What I meant was that human perception often recognizes a pattern long before science can fully explain it.

People once noticed invisible pulls, lights in the sky, or things falling from above. Their interpretations, like Earth being the center or gravity being just a guess, were incomplete, but the perceptions themselves were real experiences. Over time, observation and testing turned those same perceptions into measurable facts.

That’s really what my theory explores, the space between what we sense and what we later understand. Perception isn’t evidence by itself, but it’s often the first clue that something real is waiting to be discovered.

27 minutes ago, haroonkhan87 said:

Perception isn’t evidence by itself, but it’s often the first clue that something real is waiting to be discovered.

Going back to geocentric times,

It was human perception that the Sun rose in the east, travelled across the sky during the day, and set in the west.. Right ?

It just shows how wrong human perception can be.

1 hour ago, haroonkhan87 said:

The curiosity to ask “what if” has always been the first step before “how to prove.”

I would be happy with that whole paragraph, if you had written the word 'sometimes' instead of 'always'.

52 minutes ago, studiot said:

Going back to geocentric times,

It was human perception that the Sun rose in the east, travelled across the sky during the day, and set in the west.. Right ?

It just shows how wrong human perception can be.

I would be happy with that whole paragraph, if you had written the word 'sometimes' instead of 'always'.

Thanks, @studiot I understand what you mean.

I used “always” because every discovery begins with perception, we first notice something before we try to explain or prove it.

In the geocentric view, yes, people thought Earth was still and everything moved around it. That part was wrong. But the perception that the Sun and stars move across the sky was still real, they just misunderstood how it happened.

So I feel “always” fits better, because perception is the first spark, it might be wrong in detail, but it always starts the process of discovery.

15 minutes ago, haroonkhan87 said:

but it always starts the process of discovery.

We do not use eyes and ears, we use cutting edge ground based and space telescopes, spectrophotometers, interferometers, detectors in particle accelerators, electron microscopes, mass spectrometers, NMR, IR spectrometry.

We then use eyes to look at the data, lots of eyes via peer review and publication.

25 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

We do not use eyes and ears, we use cutting edge ground based and space telescopes, spectrophotometers, interferometers, detectors in particle accelerators, electron microscopes, mass spectrometers, NMR, IR spectrometry.

We then use eyes to look at the data, lots of eyes via peer review and publication.

True, and I fully agree, today’s science depends on powerful instruments and peer review to confirm what’s real.

What I meant was the starting point before all that, every instrument we built came from someone’s first perception or curiosity about what might exist beyond sight.

So while the tools now do the heavy lifting, the spark that led to creating those tools still began with human perception and imagination.

1 hour ago, haroonkhan87 said:

In the geocentric view, yes, people thought Earth was still and everything moved around it. That part was wrong. But the perception that the Sun and stars move across the sky was still real, they just misunderstood how it happened.

But the perception was just plain wrong.

The Sun does not move across the sky.

So the perception did not lead to any understanding.

1 hour ago, haroonkhan87 said:

So I feel “always” fits better, because perception is the first spark, it might be wrong in detail, but it always starts the process of discovery.

Once again NO.

Some things we have neither perception nor understanding of, until we are taught.

That is why we have teachers (have you ever met one ?)

As a for instance I had abosolutely zero knowledge, perception or anything else about the integral, until my teacher presented it to me.

1 minute ago, studiot said:

As a for instance I had abosolutely zero knowledge, perception or anything else about the integral, until my teacher presented it to me.

Me too, add to that Atomic theory, germ theory, QT and all of the other science and mathematics theories.

Perception, intuition and even logic can fail us when trying to make sense of things.

It's nice that generations of scientists did all that for us and now we can just pick up a text book.

11 minutes ago, studiot said:

But the perception was just plain wrong.

The Sun does not move across the sky.

So the perception did not lead to any understanding.

Once again NO.

Some things we have neither perception nor understanding of, until we are taught.

That is why we have teachers (have you ever met one ?)

As a for instance I had abosolutely zero knowledge, perception or anything else about the integral, until my teacher presented it to me.

I see your point about things we have no perception of until someone teaches us. I’ve had teachers myself, and they were essential for understanding things I couldn’t grasp on my own, like integrals or more complex concepts.

But even in your example, perception still plays a role. When people observed the Sun rising and setting, they didn’t understand the heliocentric system or the motion of planets, but their perception of motion existed. That observation, even if misinterpreted, was the first spark that eventually led to deeper understanding and teaching. Technically, the Sun, planets, and the entire solar system are moving through space, so there is a kernel of reality in what they noticed.

In my theory, this is exactly the stage I’m highlighting: perception is the initial step, the pointer toward phenomena that can later be explored, measured, and understood. Teaching refines it, experiments confirm it, but without that first perception, curiosity and discovery never begin. Even if early perceptions are wrong in detail, they are never entirely meaningless, they start the chain that leads to real understanding.

10 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

Me too, add to that Atomic theory, germ theory, QT and all of the other science and mathematics theories.

Perception, intuition and even logic can fail us when trying to make sense of things.

It's nice that generations of scientists did all that for us and now we can just pick up a text book.

I see your point about textbooks, they give us organized, confirmed knowledge, and that’s valuable. But textbooks are not the final word. They are updated edition by edition, reflecting what the current scientific community accepts, not everything that happened over centuries of observation, debate, and experiment.

Every discovery recorded in a textbook started as perception, intuition, or questioning. Textbooks show the result, but not the journey, the mistakes, or the overlooked clues. So while textbooks are useful, they cannot replace the process of noticing, thinking, and exploring, which is where all science truly begins.