# The grid of the universe

1. Mar 9, 2014

### MacElliott

Since everything in the universe can be calculated using 3D grid mathematics, it seems logical that universe would be ON a grid of some sort.

So then what would the grid be, exactly?

After dwelling on this idea for a while, I came to the conclusion that it would have to be space itself, because, it just makes sense. Otherwise, how else could something possibly exist in a specific location OF space?

But said conclusion would logically imply that space is comprised particles (just like the rest of the universe) otherwise how would there be actual points on the grid?

Not only that, but using the distance between the points of space could be used to explain how space could POSSIBLY be "bent" as its predicted to do so in the presence of large amounts of gravity, just by factoring in a varying/closer distance between said space particles proportional to the amount of gravity present.

Thoughts? Agree/disagree?

2. Mar 9, 2014

### ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
No, it is not logical. Where exactly is this grid physically? As an experimentalist, I haven't detected it. So you are applying something that hasn't been shown to be true.

I think you are confusing the measuring scale that we use with the actual physical characteristics of space. This is not correct.

Zz.

3. Mar 9, 2014

### phinds

I agree w/ zz that this is not logical at all. You're just making it up.

You can apply ANY set of 3D co-ordinates that you like to the universe in order to specify where something is in that grid but unless you specify how you have defined your grid, no one will know what you are talking about.

4. Mar 9, 2014

### MacElliott

Weve never proven where gravity physically is either, yet we know it exists, so it could just be on a subatomic level we've yet to access, and yes its a measuring scale but thats the point, the fact that we CAN measure everything using mathematical relationships means that they're an important part of the functioning of our universe, its essentially like saying time doesn't exist in the universe because we use man-made measurements like seconds

5. Mar 9, 2014

### bhillyard

And if there were a grid - what sort: Cartesian (rectangular or non-rectangular), cylindrical polar, spherical polar to give but 4.

6. Mar 9, 2014

### DennisN

But we can detect gravity - and feel it. But there's no "grid" that has been detected.

Last edited: Mar 9, 2014
7. Mar 9, 2014

### Staff: Mentor

We know that gravity exists because it has measurable experimental consequences. There is no such measurable evidence supporting the idea of some sort of universal grid.

EDIT: and DennisN gets the scoop

8. Mar 9, 2014

### MacElliott

Couldn't one argue that the fact that the idea of a "location" exists in space as evidence? Otherwise, how could anything possibly be located anywhere?

9. Mar 9, 2014

### DennisN

Do you mean evidence of a grid? If you mean this, then:
Sorry - no, not in science. An "idea" is not any evidence whatsoever. Evidence come from experiments. You could have a look at what the "scientific method" means:

Last edited: Mar 9, 2014
10. Mar 9, 2014

### WannabeNewton

Define "location".

11. Mar 9, 2014

### MacElliott

Maybe "idea" was a poor choice of words, but the fact that you and I don't exist on top of/within each other proves that locations exist, does it not?

12. Mar 9, 2014

### ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
There is no such thing as "proven" in science.

We have mathematical theory of gravity, which have been verified by experimental evidence. Can you state your "grid" theory at the same level?

Time exist. We use seconds or other unit of time to measure time. However, the UNITS and scale that we use to measure time does NOT define time. I could use any device I like! I can use the propagation of light as time measuring device. Where is the "scale" there?

Again, you are using the units of measurement to define the physical characteristics of what you are trying to measure. This is not correct. You came here to ask. You have been told of your mistakes.

Zz.

13. Mar 9, 2014

### MacElliott

The specific space an object occupies. However, the fact that an object can only occupy so much space implies that space can be quantified, and would theoretically have a limit for how small it can be broken down, like matter, would it not?

14. Mar 9, 2014

### WannabeNewton

That can be measured in principle using radar signals and depends on the motion of the observer making the measurement. There's no grid involved. Nature doesn't provide us with a grid. There are only space-time events that we may represent for our own calculational facility using a grid. The fact that certain objects occupy space is a consequence of quantum mechanics and more specifically Fermi-Dirac statistics, it doesn't imply the existence of some grid.

15. Mar 9, 2014

### ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
No it doesn't. There's no logic to that based on your description.

There are proposed ideas of the Planck length scale as being the impetus for the possibility that our space is "grainy". But even with such a proposal that has a lot of theoretical basis, it is STILL a hypothesis that haven't been tested and has no empirical evidence.

Your idea is not even in the same league as this one considering that you are somehow using the fact that "specific space an object can occupy only so much" is not only vague, but also incorrect. Bosons can occupy the SAME space as described in the bose-einstein statistics. Photons have no issues of occupying the same location in space, as many as they want!

Zz.

16. Mar 9, 2014

### DennisN

How does it imply that?
EDIT: Never mind my question, Zapper already answered right above, and he was also more thorough. I'm getting slow .

17. Mar 9, 2014

### MacElliott

I never said objects cant occupy the same space, I said objects can only occupy SO MUCH space, ie why isn't a photon the size of the entire universe, or why does it stop at a specific size?

18. Mar 9, 2014

### MacElliott

Couldn't you create a mathematical theory based off the bending of space in the presence of large amounts of gravity? Furthermore, how can space possibly bend without it being comprised of particles?

19. Mar 9, 2014

### Staff: Mentor

There is no indication that the fundamental particles of the standard model have a specific size.

20. Mar 9, 2014

### Staff: Mentor

That has already been done. It does not involve a grid.

Why should curvature imply particles? That is a very random association.

If you wish to continue this discussion then please post a reference to the peer reviewed journal (see the forum rules) article that you wish to discuss.

Last edited: Mar 9, 2014
21. Mar 9, 2014

### ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
But different objects "occupy" different amount of space. An atom occupies a certain amount, a galaxy occupies a different amount. How does that translates into space having grids? Again, this is what I meant by your logic just doesn't make any sense. There is no logic here in how you somehow arrive at your conclusion.

Zz.

22. Mar 9, 2014

### MacElliott

I guess the question lies in whether or not you can bend elementary particles themselves, ie is it possible to bend the matter that is a photon?

23. Mar 9, 2014

### MacElliott

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my logic is essentially "what is space but a grid?"

24. Mar 9, 2014

### phinds

You can bend a steel rod. Do you think you are bending the particles that make it up?

Besides, space doesn't bend anyway. Space-time has geodesics that appear "bent" based on a pure Euclidean straight line but that's hardly the same as saying that space bends.

25. Mar 9, 2014