Orbs apparently crossing walls and UFOs vanishing under observation make the interdimensional hypothesis worth investigating. Elizondo’s five observables raise questions about geometry and interaction with matter. But spacetime engineering, extra dimensions, emergent spacetime, and consciousness-first reality are different proposals. The task is to connect a specific model to measurable effects; unfamiliar appearances and deeper physics do not, by themselves, establish either NHI origins or fundamental consciousness.
What would it mean for a luminous orb to drift down a hallway and apparently pass through a wall, or for a craft to disappear while pilots watch? If some UAP involve non-human intelligence, would that intelligence be traveling through our spacetime, accessing additional dimensions, or manipulating the structure from which geometry emerges?
Unfamiliar technology could challenge our assumptions about engines, trajectories, and locations. But a geometric theory and a report of unusual behavior still need a bridge between them.
This post builds on my earlier essay, Does Modern Physics Point Beyond Spacetime?, which develops the physics background (https://x.com/m_yudysky/status/2111337092194218249). Here the focus is the proposed connection to NHI.
WHAT WOULD “BEYOND SPACETIME” MEAN?
Something can be real without being fundamental. Temperature arises from microscopic behavior; discovering that behavior does not make temperature an illusion. The comparable question in quantum gravity is whether distances, geometry, and gravitational dynamics arise from a deeper description. “Beyond” need not mean another place outside the universe.
Several proposals that appear together in UAP discussions need to be separated:
| Proposal |
What it would mean |
| Extraterrestrial origin |
An intelligence evolved elsewhere in the universe; its travel technology is a separate question. |
| Additional spatial dimensions |
Our familiar spatial directions belong to a larger geometry that the proposed intelligence can access. |
| Spacetime engineering |
A technology changes geometry or clock relationships within spacetime. |
| Emergent spacetime |
Familiar geometry arises from deeper physical relationships. Access to those relationships would be a further hypothesis. |
| Consciousness-first reality |
Consciousness is fundamental, with matter or spacetime derived from it. |
An extraterrestrial civilization might use spacetime engineering. An inhabitant of additional dimensions could still be entirely physical. Establishing either would leave the consciousness question open. An intelligence’s origin, present residence, and means of access are three different questions.
VALLÉE, DAVIS, AND PUTHOFF: BROADENING THE POSSIBILITIES
In their paper “Incommensurability, Orthodoxy and the Physics of High Strangeness: A 6-layer Model for Anomalous Phenomena,” based on a presentation at the 2003 Science, Religion and Consciousness forum at University Fernando Pessoa in Porto, Jacques Vallée and Eric Davis consider parallel universes and additional spatial or time-like dimensions. Their framework encompasses physical manifestations, apparently anti-physical effects, psychological and physiological factors, psychic effects, and cultural responses. It is a framework for investigating reports, rather than a demonstration of extra dimensions (https://www.jacquesvallee.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Incommensurability_Orthodoxy_and_the_Phy.pdf).
Vallée’s 1990 Five Arguments Against the Extraterrestrial Origin of Unidentified Flying Objects discusses sudden appearances, disappearances, shape changes, and apparent merging with objects. He considers control systems and spacetime manipulation, while retaining extraterrestrial visitors using radical travel methods such as wormholes (https://www.jacquesvallee.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Five_Arguments_Against_the_Extraterrestr-1.pdf).
Hal Puthoff’s Ultraterrestrial Models considers concealed terrestrial populations, resident extraterrestrials, and interdimensional or time-traveler hypotheses. Its candidate signatures include appearances, disappearances, and humans reportedly gaining portal access to other realities. These are proposed explanations and signatures, not demonstrated access (https://thejournalofcosmology.com/Puthoff.pdf).
An intelligence could be difficult to encounter without being astronomically distant. The challenge is to specify the inaccessible relationship and its consequences, rather than use “interdimensional” for everything unfamiliar.
GRUSCH’S SUGGESTION AND HIS QUALIFICATION
With Ross Coulthart, David Grusch explains that “non-human intelligence” leaves origin open, including possible additional physical dimensions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBAISwCZ2v0&t=463). He also speculates about a higher-dimensional setting co-located with us and different access to time (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBAISwCZ2v0&t=722).
His claim that particle collisions already support extra dimensions goes beyond the evidence. Additional spatial dimensions remain unestablished; CERN describes signatures to search for (https://home.cern/science/physics/extra-dimensions-gravitons-and-tiny-black-holes/). CMS’s April 2025 photon-plus-missing-momentum search found no significant excess above Standard Model expectations, constraining the tested model rather than every possible additional dimension (https://cms.cern/news/beyond-light-probing-dark-matter-and-extra-dimensions-cms).
At the July 26, 2023 House hearing, Representative Eric Burlison asked Grusch to elaborate. Grusch said he was there “as a fact witness and not an expert,” introduced the holographic principle, and compared a higher-dimensional projection to a three-dimensional object casting a two-dimensional shadow. Asked whether he had seen documentation that this was occurring, he answered, “Only theoretical framework discussion” (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-118hhrg53022/html/CHRG-118hhrg53022.htm).
This was his proposed interpretation, not documentation of dimensional crossing. The shadow analogy also needs comparison with what holography actually says.
ORBS AND APPARENT PASSAGE THROUGH WALLS
In an ABC interview about Imminent, Luis Elizondo described diffuse green balls of light moving through his home, down the hallway, and apparently through a wall. He said family members and neighbors witnessed them, and that others in the program reported similar residential encounters. He was unsure the lights were UAP-related and named ball lightning, St. Elmo’s fire, and a plasma static charge in the air as possible natural explanations (https://abcnews.com/US/luis-elizondo-offers-window-us-governments-hunt-ufos/story?id=113152292).
With Curt Jaimungal, he added that family members sometimes watched together, the light illuminated nearby drywall, its motion was smooth and roughly walking pace, and it seemed to pass through walls or doors without sound or disturbance. These are descriptions of naked-eye experiences in a familiar room, rather than orbs appearing only in photographs (https://podscripts.co/podcasts/theories-of-everything-with-curt-jaimungal/lue-elizondo-speaks-with-curt-jaimungal).
In a 1993 interview, psychiatrist John Mack described encounter narratives in which people reported paralysis, being floated out of bed, and movement through walls or windows before entering a craft. He also discussed using hypnosis in his work. The source documents those narratives and his interpretation, rather than demonstrating a body’s passage through matter (https://johnemackinstitute.org/1993/06/interview-with-john-e-mack-by-robert-hieronimus/).
A higher-dimensional route could hypothetically bypass a barrier closed within our space. But apparent wall passage might involve matter crossing, light ending and resuming, or an experience with another cause. I would seek continuous observations on both sides, independent viewpoints, and physical changes in the surroundings. For a person reporting transport, where was their body independently recorded? Recurring descriptions invite investigation without determining the mechanism.
DISAPPEARANCES DURING AN ONGOING SIGHTING
In their published account of the July 14, 1952 Norfolk encounter, Pan American pilots William Nash and William Fortenberry said luminous discs went dark together and returned, then disappeared individually while climbing. Their report leaves open whether bodies disappeared or their light stopped reaching the observers (https://www.ufology.patrickgross.org/htm/newportnewstrue.htm).
David Fravor’s congressional statement describes a different disappearance. During the November 2004 Nimitz encounter, he said the Tic Tac accelerated and disappeared in front of his aircraft at roughly half a mile; the crew above also lost visual contact. He then reported being told radar had reacquired it at the combat air patrol point about 60 miles away. This combines visual disappearance with a reported distant radar return, but describes acceleration rather than a stationary object demonstrably dematerializing (https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/David-Fravor-Statement-for-House-Oversight-Committee.pdf).
Did an object outrun visual tracking, stop emitting light, become obscured, or cease interacting with our observable region? A dimensional model might address the last possibility, while propulsion or visibility models address others. Calling all these events “disappearance” loses the distinctions that could identify their causes.
ELIZONDO’S FIVE OBSERVABLES
The To The Stars presentation lists sudden acceleration, hypersonic velocity without expected signatures, low observability, trans-medium travel, and positive lift without obvious conventional means. These are reported performance categories; the list does not establish that any one public recording demonstrates all five (https://tothestars.media/blogs/press-and-news/five-characteristics-unique-to-uaps).
Here is how I would connect them to geometric hypotheses:
| Reported trait |
Why geometry enters the question |
What must be measured |
| Extreme acceleration |
Is this an ordinary trajectory or a changing intersection with our observable space? |
Distance, continuous position, and actual acceleration. |
| Hypersonic motion without expected signatures |
How does the object interact with surrounding air? |
Speed relative to the air, heating, and detectable acoustic effects. |
| Low observability |
Does something leave our accessible region or become difficult to detect? |
Simultaneous records from independent instruments. |
| Trans-medium travel |
Could one mechanism reduce interaction with different environments? |
A continuous track across the interface and its effects on the water. |
| Positive lift without obvious propulsion |
What supports hovering or motion without visible aerodynamic means? |
Forces and whether ordinary support was genuinely absent. |
A sphere moving through a flat plane would produce a circular intersection that appears, grows, shrinks, and disappears to observers confined to that plane. An analogous intersection of a body in four spatial dimensions with our three-dimensional region could behave unlike an ordinary solid confined here. This illustrates a possible geometry; it does not identify a UAP as such an intersection.
A physical model must also explain light, energy exchange, and encounters with obstacles. Trans-medium travel crosses an interface between materials, which is a different proposition from crossing between dimensions. NASA’s independent study emphasizes calibrated sensors, synchronized records, and timing and location metadata precisely because apparent behavior must be separated from the observing system (https://science.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/uap-independent-study-team-final-report.pdf).
PARTIAL PRESENCE AND THE PROBLEM OF APPEARANCE
Eric Davis supplies a useful counterpoint to projection accounts. In his 2026 Good Trouble Show interview, he describes large amber luminous objects at Skinwalker Ranch with Colm Kelleher in 1996, including a claimed right-angle turn without audible noise. He distinguishes them from smaller orbs, while acknowledging that the bright light prevented him from resolving their structure (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-TlUnnJduQ&t=273). Asked later whether UAP might be interfaces or projections rather than vehicles, he insists they are physical (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-TlUnnJduQ&t=7709).
A luminous outline could hypothetically be a body, a surrounding region, or an emission. A periscope illustrates seeing a component without seeing the whole system; an exhaust illustrates a conspicuous emission obscuring its source. Neither locates the unseen remainder outside our space.
A body could also be synthetic or remotely operated. Appearance would not identify species, faction, or origin. A useful model would distinguish body, operator, vehicle, and emission, and predict their different signatures across detectors.
BUBBLES, CRAFT SHAPES, AND FREQUENCY SHIFTS
In his interview with Max Moszkowicz, Elizondo imagines a vehicle fitting inside a finite spacetime bubble, with overlapping bubbles accommodating longer or triangular configurations. This is a design hypothesis connecting different shapes to a common proposed drive, rather than a measured construction recovered from a craft (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqtSWD6PYW8&t=3055). A drive model might predict a shape; seeing that shape would not uniquely identify the drive.
Elizondo suggests that changing bubble strength could redshift or blueshift radiation and alter visible colors (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqtSWD6PYW8&t=3279). With Chris Ramsay, he proposes shifts into visible light or X-rays, without supplying a calibrated spectrum (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGUb1JKxBDo&t=6091). A separate interview proposes distortions of light and radar resembling spoofing or jamming (https://scientificinquirer.com/2024/09/30/conversations-with-luis-elizondo-part-2-on-uaps-warping-spacetime-and-whether-earth-is-just-an-inter-planetary-gas-station/amp/).
Redshift means a recognizable spectral feature is received at a longer wavelength; blueshift means a shorter one. Relative motion produces Doppler shifts (https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/What_is_red_shift). Gravitational differences also change frequency and clock relationships: JILA researchers resolved gravitational redshift across a millimeter-scale atomic sample (https://www.nist.gov/publications/resolving-gravitational-redshift-across-millimetre-scale-atomic-sample). These measured effects do not require an additional dimension.
Hal Puthoff’s 2010 Defense Intelligence Reference Document, Advanced Space Propulsion Based on Vacuum (Spacetime Metric) Engineering, considers altered clocks, frequencies, apparent motion, size, and visibility, including blueshifting an infrared spectrum into visible light. These follow from assumed metric changes, not UAP measurements (https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116282/documents/HHRG-118-GO06-20230726-SD005.pdf). It was produced under the Pentagon’s AAWSAP program, whose documentation is collected by the Black Vault (https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/the-advanced-aerospace-weapon-system-applications-program-aawsap-documentation/).
The attraction is explanatory economy: one structure might connect several effects. The test is whether the same specified geometry predicts their quantitative relationship. A red or blue glow alone does not establish a frequency shift; we need identifiable spectral features, reference wavelengths, calibration, and an independently measured trajectory (https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/Documents/References/zdef).
GEODESIC PROPULSION AND ITS MISSING DYNAMICS
The archived UAPTheory article proposes controlling local geometry so that a craft follows a geodesic, connecting this to apparent acceleration, reduced interaction with air or water, optical distortion, and changing visibility. It invokes entanglement and emergent spacetime as a possible deeper route to control (https://web.archive.org/web/20260406024734/https://www.uaptheory.com/).
The starting distinction is meaningful: a freely falling body can have zero proper acceleration—what an onboard accelerometer measures—while moving relative to distant surroundings. But a complete account includes the source supporting the geometry. Bobrick and Martire distinguish the passenger region from the shell and emphasize that warp drives still require propulsion; their work includes positive-energy subluminal constructions, rather than an arbitrary maneuvering system without a physical source (https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.06824).
Alcubierre’s original warp construction describes an effective faster-than-light journey relative to distant observers through a spacetime distortion, while requiring exotic matter. It supplies a mathematical travel geometry, not a demonstrated drive, and requires no extra spatial dimension (https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009013).
“Change the geometry” must specify energy, stresses, dynamics, and control. Keeping occupants in free fall would not establish harmless tidal effects or an undisturbed atmosphere. A quantum-information description also does not show how a local machine could cheaply select any trajectory.
AGUADILLA AS A CONTROL CASE
UAPTheory treats the 2013 Aguadilla infrared footage as support for gravitational lensing, disappearance, splitting, and water interaction (https://web.archive.org/web/20260406024734/https://www.uaptheory.com/). Elizondo has also interpreted it as water entry without a splash (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gLPtRwXgCM).
AARO’s Senate presentation assesses with high confidence that the UAP showed no anomalous speeds or flight characteristics. Its reconstruction describes two distinct objects flying near each other, rather than one splitting; they remained airborne, moved at wind speed, and never entered the water. It attributes apparent speed to parallax and discusses thermal crossover and intermittent views in explaining fading and apparent splitting (https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/aaro_slides.pdf).
These are AARO’s conclusions to test against original frames and reconstruction assumptions. Which model reproduces background motion, separation, and visibility? “The image changed” does not establish gravitational distortion.
I would not use Aguadilla as established phasing through water. A stronger metric test would predict a new event’s lensing, frequency changes, and viewing-angle dependence, rather than fit the case used to develop the proposal.
UNDERWATER SPEED AND PHYSICAL COUPLING
Ross Coulthart relays submarine personnel’s claims of objects moving faster than sound underwater (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRaSvwRemko&t=239s). Bob McGwier describes hearing a disturbance aboard USS Hampton and a sonar chief reportedly interpreting a contact in similar terms. The conversation does not supply tracking records for public reconstruction (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faMt1TEzh8Q&t=159s).
NOAA gives a representative underwater sound speed of about 1,500 meters per second, varying with conditions (https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sound.html). That is roughly 2,900 knots. “Hundreds of knots” and “faster than sound underwater” are substantially different claims.
Active sonar detects returning echoes; passive sonar detects incoming sound (https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sonar.html). A validated acoustic contact therefore requires physical interaction with water. A wholly decoupled object cannot explain it without an account of that interaction. A component, surrounding field, or disturbed region could hypothetically provide the signature, but the model must explain how detectability coexists with the claimed reduction in drag or other effects.
WORMHOLES AND PORTALS
Davis connects UAP discussions to traversable wormholes and warp geometries, acknowledges energy requirements beyond present engineering, and speculates about quantum-information approaches (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-TlUnnJduQ&t=6995).
Morris and Thorne’s 1988 analysis supplies concrete traversable geometries and examines unusual supporting stress-energy. It is an investigation of mathematical possibilities, rather than an observation of a passage (https://doi.org/10.1119/1.15620). Davis’s wormhole presentation also considers flat-faced openings (https://www.earthtech.org/publications/teleportation_via_Wormhole-Stargates_Eric_Davis.pdf). A doorway-like geometry still needs a physical means of creation, stabilization, and control.
A wormhole could connect regions of one spacetime without accessing another universe or extra spatial direction. Morris, Thorne, and Yurtsever also conditionally investigated converting a traversable wormhole into a time machine, emphasizing unresolved quantum and gravitational questions (https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.61.1446). That conditional analysis does not identify an observed disappearance as time travel.
For an encounter claim, I would ask what should be visible through the opening, how nearby light should behave, and where a marked object should emerge. Those are consequences a geometry could predict; a luminous boundary alone cannot establish its topology.
APPORTS AND DAVIS’S 2005 PSI BRIEFING
An “apport” is an allegedly paranormal arrival or movement of an object, often into an enclosed space. The term identifies a report, not its cause (https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/coin-apports-the-mexico-city-case/). Davis’s 2004 Teleportation Physics Study includes apports under proposed psychokinetic teleportation and separately considers quantum, metric, and extra-dimensional routes. Its publication notice distinguishes distribution from government approval of its contents (https://www.coscienza.org/wp-content/uploads/Teleportation-Physics-Study.pdf).
A persistent object permits tests a fleeting light may not. Was it uniquely identified beforehand, and was arrival recorded or only discovery? Tracking a marked object tests transport rather than creation or delayed detection. If intention triggers the effect, controlled changes should produce specified statistical differences.
Davis’s presentation Teleportation: Mind & Intelligence is dated October 21, 2005, and identifies an Air Force future-technology workshop at MITRE in McLean, Virginia. Its cover lists the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin and an EarthTech email address. On PDF page 19, he calls Bigelow his former boss and lists NIDS’s Consciousness Research Division among efforts he describes as defunct. This establishes a historical research connection, rather than identifying the briefing as an ongoing NIDS project (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pSq4TAyoucCcM6WNR8I94iete4DdtrZL/view).
The psi connection is explicit. Pages 33–38 discuss a hypothetical sub-quantum information domain, consciousness, and biological systems. A slide labeled “Conjecture” asks whether intent could exploit entanglement to transfer information, suggesting remote perception, psychokinesis, and telepathy as phenomena it might explain. The closing work list includes quantum information, biological entanglement, random-event-generator experiments, and a synchronicity test.
Some slides assert an information-based account; others call for empirical data. Davis was exploring a link between intention and anomalous effects, without demonstrating intention-controlled teleportation. He also acknowledges that reliable quantum teleportation requires classical information. Intent would need a defined role in those operations and statistics. I would require preregistration, random assignment, blinded scoring, sham sessions, and independent replication before using an intention effect to explain a UAP encounter.
Even a reproducible psi effect would leave its mechanism open. It would not automatically identify NHI, an extra dimension, or consciousness as the source of spacetime. Davis’s interest in psi and his insistence on physical craft concern different parts of an explanation: what is present and how it might operate.
BELL EXPERIMENTS: A RESULT WITH A SPECIFIC SCOPE
Bell inequalities constrain correlations in certain locally causal models, assuming statistical independence between measurement settings and relevant hidden variables. The constraint covers probabilistic models as well as predetermined instructions (https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.2849). Superdeterminism drops that independence; Hossenfelder and Palmer defend it as a research option (https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2020.00139).
In 2015, Hensen and colleagues tested electron spins 1.3 kilometers apart while closing the major detection and locality loopholes. Their 245 trials gave a CHSH value of 2.42 ± 0.20 against a local bound of 2, with p = 0.039 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949). The case does not rest on Delft: Vienna and NIST closed the same major loopholes with photons that year (https://www.iqoqi-vienna.at/news-events/ehrenfest-award/2015). Vienna reported a violation corresponding to about 11.5 standard deviations (https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.03190).
These experiments rule against the specified class of explanations. They do not eliminate hidden variables as a category or establish consciousness as the cause of outcomes. Entanglement supplies no controllable faster-than-light signaling channel. Bell tests also use a spacetime arrangement of sources and detectors; they do not themselves show spacetime is emergent. Borrowing Bell nonlocality as a craft-relocation mechanism would require a separate physical model.
THE PLANCK SCALE DOES NOT ESTABLISH PIXELS
The Planck length, about 1.616 × 10⁻³⁵ meters, and Planck time, about 5.391 × 10⁻⁴⁴ seconds, are constructed from physical constants (https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/pdf/all.pdf). They motivate a regime where classical geometry may fail; they are not measured pixels or ticks. Minimum-length arguments depend on additional assumptions about quantum gravity (https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.6191).
Gamma-ray bursts test some proposed microscopic effects. Under the tested assumptions, Fermi’s GRB 090510 constrained a linear energy-dependent change in photon speed to a suppression scale above the Planck energy (https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0349); LHAASO’s GRB 221009A analysis pushed it above ten times that energy at 95% confidence (https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.06009). This constrains models predicting that effect, rather than all discreteness. Gravity also has a successful low-energy quantum effective description; the unresolved issue is a complete theory beyond its validity (https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.09902).
BLACK-HOLE ENTROPY AND HOLOGRAPHY
Bekenstein linked black-hole entropy to horizon area (https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.7.2333). Hawking’s radiation calculation supplied a temperature and fixed the familiar expression S = k_B A / (4 l_P²), where A is horizon area and l_P the Planck length (https://projecteuclid.org/journals/communications-in-mathematical-physics/volume-43/issue-3/Particle-creation-by-black-holes/cmp/1103899181.pdf).
Area scaling, unlike ordinary matter’s typical volume scaling at fixed density and temperature, helped motivate holography: describing a gravitational region through lower-dimensional boundary degrees of freedom. This is a theoretical clue, not experimental proof of emergent spacetime or consciousness.
Maldacena’s AdS/CFT correspondence proposes that certain gravitational theories in anti-de Sitter spacetime and quantum field theories on lower-dimensional boundaries describe the same physics (https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9711200). Ryu and Takayanagi relate boundary entanglement entropy to the area of a bulk minimal surface in their original static, classical-gravity setting (https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0603001). Van Raamsdonk explores how reducing entanglement makes corresponding bulk regions pull apart and their connecting geometry narrow, with a smooth description potentially failing before entanglement reaches zero (https://arxiv.org/abs/1005.3035).
Pastawski and colleagues construct quantum-error-correcting toy models encoding an interior in boundary degrees of freedom (https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.06237). Their application to our universe remains unsettled: the best-understood dualities have a negative cosmological constant, while observations favor a positive one for ours (https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.03096).
Emergent space is not automatically emergent time: familiar boundary theories retain time. Boundary and bulk are equivalent descriptions, rather than necessarily two habitats. Grusch’s shadow analogy is loose; a holographic duality is more than an optical projection and supplies no vehicle route between realities.
“Information” here means states, correlations, and what can be reconstructed or distinguished. Identifying it with awareness requires another argument.
ENTANGLEMENT AND TRAVERSABLE GEOMETRY
Gao, Jafferis, and Wall show that coupling the boundaries of a particular anti-de Sitter black-hole system can generate negative averaged null energy whose backreaction makes the bridge traversable. They relate this to quantum teleportation and state that their construction cannot violate causality (https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.05687).
The 2022 quantum-processor experiment often called a “wormhole experiment” realized teleportation dynamics consistent with a proposed traversable-wormhole description in emergent geometry. The team explicitly says it produced no wormhole deformation of our ordinary three-spatial-dimensional spacetime, and that its small system’s exact gravitational dual is unknown (https://inqnet.caltech.edu/wormhole2022/).
These results connect quantum dynamics and geometry without demonstrating a passage through the laboratory. A propulsion proposal still needs an available physical operation that produces the required geometry. Equivalent descriptions do not automatically supply separate engineering methods.
THE AMPLITUHEDRON AND CONSCIOUS AGENTS
Arkani-Hamed and Trnka introduced the amplituhedron to describe scattering in planar N=4 supersymmetric Yang–Mills theory, a special and highly symmetric quantum field theory (https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.2007). Scattering amplitudes calculate interaction probabilities. The construction uses positive geometry from which locality and unitarity emerge within the framework, rather than making local interactions explicit through conventional Feynman diagrams.
A successful representation need not start with explicit spacetime properties. That does not experimentally abolish spacetime or establish which mathematical description is fundamental.
The program has broadened: curve-integral formulas describe a simple non-supersymmetric scalar theory at all loop orders (https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.09284), with related shifts yielding pion amplitudes (https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.16282) and a version of non-supersymmetric gluons (https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.00041). These remain scattering reformulations, without gravity or the full Standard Model.
Donald Hoffman, Chetan Prakash, and Robert Prentner explicitly connect consciousness to this mathematics. They model conscious agents with Markov chains, map them to decorated permutations used in the amplituhedron program, and propose that spacetime and particles encode agent interactions (https://doi.org/10.3390/e25010129). This gives their proposal mathematical content. But the cited work does not reproduce established particle physics or supply a confirmed distinctive prediction; a colloquium proposes future calculations of quark and gluon momentum distributions inside protons (https://www.uprm.edu/math/wp-content/uploads/sites/170/2023/11/hoffmanColloquium.pdf).
My assessment is that the map concerns Markov chains generally. Calling the chains conscious adds an interpretation that the mathematical correspondence alone does not select. The amplituhedron is also not an identified place where NHI reside.
CONSCIOUS REALISM: IS SPACETIME AN INTERFACE?
Hoffman’s conscious realism takes conscious agents and their experiences as fundamental, with the physical world represented through perceptual interfaces. It posits other agents, rather than only one person’s mind. This is a claim about reality’s constituents, going beyond selective perception or awareness affecting a measurement (https://sites.socsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/ConsciousRealism2.pdf).
The associated interface theory uses a desktop analogy: an icon can guide useful action without resembling the processes it represents. Hoffman and collaborators also model evolutionary situations in which fitness-oriented strategies outperform strategies aimed at estimating the world’s true state (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33231784/). My inference is that these are separate steps. Adaptive perception failing to reveal underlying structure would not by itself establish that structure as consciousness.
Applied speculatively to NHI, an unfamiliar intelligence might appear within our interface without its nature being exhausted by the body or location we perceive. That is my extrapolation, not a UAP result from these papers. It differs from adding a fourth spatial direction. An interface account of wall passage would still need rules predicting what witnesses and instruments record.
Conscious realism also goes further than Davis’s proposed role for intent: a causal relationship between mental activity and an effect would leave minds’ and matter’s ultimate nature open. Hoffman instead treats spacetime as a "headset" used by conscious agents outside it (https://www.caltech.edu/campus-life-events/calendar/consciousness-reality-colloquium-consciousness-and-its-physical-headset). That is a candidate foundation, rather than a conclusion selected by evidence for deeper geometry.
EXPERIENCING TIME DIFFERENTLY
Elizondo’s cigarette analogy casts ash as the past, the unburned portion as the future, and the burning edge as the present, asking whether another species could experience a wider slice (https://audioboom.com/posts/7788135-episode-27-luis-elizondo).
Different temporal experience is distinct from causal access to future or past events. An organism might integrate information differently without receiving it from the future. Neither proposition entails an extra spatial dimension or explains wall passage. Likewise, a higher spatial coordinate would not automatically imply higher intelligence, awareness, or spiritual status. Those are further properties to specify.
THE MEASUREMENT PROBLEM AND CONSCIOUSNESS
Quantum evolution generally entangles a system and apparatus with different possible records. Understanding definite outcomes is the measurement problem (https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312059).
Decoherence explains environmental suppression of accessible interference between macroscopically different records (https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105127). It does not select one outcome from the full state. Detectors register results without awareness; the problem does not establish consciousness-caused collapse.
Two ambitions should be distinguished: an interpretation identifying underlying reality with consciousness while retaining existing predictions, and a model giving consciousness a causal role that changes predictions. The latter must define the relevant variable, reproduce established results, and permit observations that could count against it.
Objective-collapse research illustrates that standard. The Majorana Demonstrator searched for predicted X-ray emission, found no evidence in its analyzed range, and constrained collapse models. That tested specified dynamics rather than consciousness (https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.01343).
Chalmers and McQueen combine integrated information theory with spontaneous collapse. Their simplest versions are ruled out by the quantum Zeno effect, while more complex ones remain compatible with the evidence considered and could in principle be tested on quantum computers (https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.02314). Eren and Davoody Beni argue that detecting collapse would still not identify consciousness as its cause (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.102102). The consciousness variable must distinguish predictions from a model assigning the same dynamics to a nonconscious property.
The Gran Sasso radiation search ruled out the natural, parameter-free Diósi–Penrose model (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-1008-4). A follow-up judged Orch OR highly implausible when based on that simplest collapse version (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2022.05.004). McQueen replied that Penrose and Hameroff had not advocated the refuted variant (https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.12306). Curceanu noted that Penrose’s own formulation does not predict the radiation, so the test does not reach it (https://www.azoquantum.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=356). The scope of the test matters as much as the result.
WHAT WOULD MAKE THE NHI CONNECTION STRONGER?
I would prioritize one model predicting a relationship among trajectory, spectral shifts, timing, and optical distortion in the same event. Linked predictions are more informative than separate explanations for each anomaly.
| Proposed mechanism |
A discriminating question |
| Visibility change |
Did other detectors continue to track the body after visual disappearance? |
| Spacetime engineering |
Does one metric predict trajectory, spectra, timing, and image distortion together? |
| Extra-dimensional intersection |
What relationship among viewpoints, shapes, and barrier interactions depends on the added dimension? |
| Traversable connection |
Can a marked object be tracked through a specified route, with predicted signals at both ends? |
| Consciousness-linked effect |
Does a defined awareness intervention change statistics beyond a model without that variable? |
A dimensional model needs couplings and energy–momentum accounting; metric engineering needs a source and control; emergent-spacetime access needs operations on underlying degrees of freedom. Emergence alone supplies none of them.
This requires synchronized observations, calibrated spectra, independent distance and velocity estimates, and instrument metadata. NASA identifies calibration and metadata as central obstacles (https://science.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/uap-independent-study-team-final-report.pdf). A coordinated indoor record could test barrier crossing better than another distant light.
Unfamiliar physics and intelligence are also separate inferences. Establishing a process comes first. Agency would call for evidence of organized control or responsiveness; non-human origin would require another argument. An intelligence accessing an unfamiliar domain could hypothetically have reasons to watch our world, but a proposed motive does not identify its route of access.
A deeper quantum description could still be physical. Physicalism need not mean classical objects moving on a fixed background, and evidence against that classical picture does not select conscious realism.
My conclusion is therefore open but specific: physics may point beyond fundamental spacetime without pointing specifically toward consciousness. Emergent does not mean unreal, and information does not automatically mean awareness. Reports of wall passage and abrupt disappearance give us questions to investigate. An interdimensional explanation of NHI encounters becomes stronger when a specific model predicts what independent instruments should record, and the next well-documented event bears it out.
