Saroj Joshi’s missing link approach: Einstein, Minkowski, Feser & the progression of physical reality on 4th dimension

By Saroj Joshi, PE, PhD

For a long time, I have been asking a simple but fundamental question about time:

If space has three physical dimensions, why do we automatically call time the “fourth dimension”?

This question led me to look at time from a different perspective.

Einstein established relativity. Hermann Minkowski developed the four dimensional mathematical formulation of spacetime. Stephen Hawking later explored some of the deepest questions involving time, the universe, gravity, and cosmology.

I am not trying to replace their work.

I am asking whether we can make one important distinction clearer.

Space and time are mathematically connected, but they do not necessarily have the same physical meaning.

Space has three familiar dimensions of physical extension.

Time is experienced differently.

We experience time through duration, change, motion, sequence, and physical processes. We measure time with clocks, but we do not experience time as another ordinary spatial direction.

Therefore, I propose a clearer formulation:

3S + 1T

Three spatial dimensions plus one temporal coordinate.

In coordinate form:

(x, y, z, t)

Here x, y, and z describe spatial position, while t represents temporal position.

The fourth coordinate is temporal, not a fourth spatial direction.

This may sound like a small distinction, but I believe it has an important benefit.

When people hear “time is the fourth dimension,” they can easily imagine a fourth direction of space.

My proposed terminology is intended to remove that confusion.

The mathematical framework remains four dimensional.

But physically:

3S = three spatial dimensions

1T = one temporal coordinate

This leads to the deeper question.

If the time-coordinate tells us when an event is represented, what describes the physical progression from one state to another?

A physical system continuously changes.

Its position can change.

Its velocity can change.

Its acceleration can change.

Its energy, configuration, orientation, field properties, and other physical quantities can change.

We can represent these events in spacetime.

But representation is not necessarily the same as physical progression.

This is where I propose the possible “missing link.”

Spacetime structure ≠ physical progression.

A mathematical representation of an event does not automatically explain how physical reality progresses from one state to another.

Consider a simple sequence:

S₁ → S₂ → S₃ → S₄

A spacetime description can represent the events associated with these states.

But what mathematically describes the physical progression connecting them?

That is the question I want to investigate.

The block universe interpretation provides one way of understanding spacetime in which past, present, and future are represented within a complete four dimensional structure.

This raises another important question:

If a future event can be represented mathematically, does that representation by itself establish that the future event is already physically actual?

Philosopher Edward Feser has emphasized distinctions between mathematical representation and questions of physical or metaphysical actuality.

My approach takes this question one step further.

Rather than debating only whether the future already exists in a spacetime representation, I ask:

How does physical reality progress from one state to the next?

This shifts the focus from geometry alone toward physical dynamics.

As an engineer, I naturally look at systems through their changing states and rates of change.

Position changes with velocity.

Velocity changes with acceleration.

Other physical quantities can also evolve.

This suggests investigating whether physical progression can be described explicitly and related to measured time.

For this purpose, I propose λ as a possible physical progression parameter.

An exploratory relationship is:

dτ/dλ = F(dX/dλ, dR/dλ, dV/dλ, dA/dλ, …)

Here τ represents proper time.

λ represents the proposed progression parameter.

X may represent position or configuration.

R may represent rotational or configurational state.

V represents velocity.

A represents acceleration.

This is not presented as an established law of physics.

It is a proposed research framework.

The purpose is to investigate whether measurable rates of physical change can be related systematically to proper time through an explicitly defined concept of physical progression.

My conceptual framework is:

3S + 1T + P

Three spatial dimensions.

One temporal coordinate.

Physical progression.

P is not a fifth dimension.

It is not another coordinate.

It represents a proposed additional layer describing the evolution of a physical system from one state to another.

The conceptual sequence is:

Physical state → Physical change → Physical progression → Proper time → Measured time

This creates a possible bridge between spacetime geometry and physical dynamics.

Einstein gave us relativity.

Minkowski gave us the four dimensional mathematical structure of spacetime.

Hawking expanded our understanding of some of the deepest questions concerning time and cosmic structure.

Feser contributes important philosophical analysis concerning time, causality, representation, and actuality.

My question is different:

What describes the physical progression connecting changing states?

The benefit of this distinction is conceptual clarity.

It preserves the mathematical usefulness of four dimensional spacetime while avoiding the unnecessary interpretation of the time-coordinate as a fourth spatial direction.

It also creates a separate research question about the physical progression of reality.

The key distinction is:

Space = physical extension.

Time-coordinate = temporal position and measurement.

Physical state = condition of a physical system.

Physical progression = evolution from one physical state to another.

Therefore:

3S + 1T + P

The P is not a new dimension.

It is a proposed physical concept that may help connect changing physical states with measured time.

For me, this is the possible missing link.

I am not claiming that Einstein, Minkowski, or Hawking were wrong.

I am not claiming that established relativity has been replaced.

I am proposing that the phrase “time is the fourth dimension” can be made more precise:

Time is the temporal coordinate in a four-coordinate spacetime description; it is not thereby established as a fourth spatial dimension.

This clarification allows us to ask a deeper question.

If the universe can be mathematically represented through spacetime, how does physical reality actually progress from one state to another?

That is the question at the heart of the Joshi Missing Link Approach.

For this proposal to develop into a physical theory, λ must be precisely defined. Its physical meaning, units, transformation properties, and relationship to proper time and relativistic dynamics must be established.

The proposed function F must be derived from physical principles.

The framework must remain compatible with established experimental evidence and ultimately produce testable predictions.

The goal is therefore not simply to introduce new terminology.

The goal is to investigate whether physical progression can provide a meaningful connection between changing physical states and the time we measure.

My central proposition is:

Three spatial dimensions describe physical extension.

The fourth coordinate describes temporal position.

Physical progression describes the evolution from one physical state to another.

And the central question remains:

How does physical reality progress from one state to the next, and how is that progression related to the time we measure?

This is the missing link I propose to investigate.

References

Joshi, Saroj. “Opening a New Chapter in the Equations of Einstein and Hawking: Saroj Joshi’s New Concept of Time and Cosmic Structure.” 2026.

Einstein, Albert. “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.” Annalen der Physik, vol. 17, 1905, pp. 891–921.

Einstein, Albert. Relativity: The Special and the General Theory. Henry Holt and Company, 1920.

Minkowski, Hermann. “Space and Time.” 1908.

Feser, Edward. Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction. Editiones Scholasticae, 2014.

Feser, Edward. Five Proofs of the Existence of God. Ignatius Press, 2017.

Feser, Edward. Aristotle’s Revenge: The Metaphysical Foundations of Physical and Biological Science. Editiones Scholasticae, 2019.