What is the grid of the universe and how does it explain the bending of space?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MacElliott
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Grid Universe
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of a "grid" of the universe and its potential implications for understanding the bending of space in the presence of gravity. Participants explore whether such a grid exists, how it might be defined, and its relevance to physical phenomena, including gravity and spatial measurements.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that the universe operates on a 3D grid, suggesting that space itself could be the grid, composed of particles that allow for specific locations.
  • Others challenge this idea, arguing that there is no physical evidence for such a grid and that it confuses measurement scales with physical reality.
  • Some participants assert that while gravity is measurable, the concept of a grid lacks empirical support and is not necessary for understanding spatial relationships.
  • There is discussion about the nature of "location," with some suggesting that the existence of distinct locations implies a quantifiable space, while others refute this logic.
  • Participants mention the Planck length as a theoretical scale that might suggest a "grainy" nature of space, but emphasize that this remains a hypothesis without empirical evidence.
  • Several replies highlight the distinction between theoretical constructs and measurable phenomena, emphasizing that ideas alone do not constitute scientific evidence.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the existence and definition of a grid in the universe. While some find the idea plausible, others firmly reject it, asserting that it lacks empirical support and conflates measurement with physical characteristics.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include the lack of consensus on the definition of a grid, the ambiguity surrounding the concept of location, and the unresolved nature of the proposed relationship between spatial quantification and physical reality.

MacElliott
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
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?
 
Space news on Phys.org
MacElliott said:
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.

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.
 
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.
 
ZapperZ said:
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.

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 that's 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
 
And if there were a grid - what sort: Cartesian (rectangular or non-rectangular), cylindrical polar, spherical polar to give but 4.
 
MacElliott said:
Weve never proven where gravity physically is either,
But we can detect gravity - and feel it. But there's no "grid" that has been detected.
 
Last edited:
MacElliott said:
Weve never proven where gravity physically is either, yet we know it exists
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 :smile:
 
DennisN said:
But we can detect gravity - and feel it. But there's no "grid" that has been detected.

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?
 
MacElliott said:
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? (my bolding)

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:
  • #10
MacElliott said:
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?

Define "location".
 
  • #11
DennisN said:
In science? Sorry - no. An "idea" is not any evidence whatsoever. Evidence come from experiments. You could have a look at what the "scientific method" means:

  • Introduction to the Scientific Method (University of Rochester)
  • An Introduction to Science (Miami University)

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
MacElliott said:
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 that's 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

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
WannabeNewton said:
Define "location".

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
MacElliott said:
The specific space an object occupies.

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
MacElliott said:
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?

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
MacElliott said:
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?
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 :biggrin:.
 
  • #17
ZapperZ said:
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.

I never said objects can't 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
ZapperZ said:
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?

Zz.

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
MacElliott said:
I never said objects can't 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?
There is no indication that the fundamental particles of the standard model have a specific size.
 
  • #20
MacElliott said:
Couldn't you create a mathematical theory based off the bending of space in the presence of large amounts of gravity?
That has already been done. It does not involve a grid.

MacElliott said:
Furthermore, how can space possibly bend without it being comprised of particles?
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:
  • #21
MacElliott said:
I never said objects can't 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?

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

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

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
ZapperZ said:
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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my logic is essentially "what is space but a grid?"
 
  • #24
MacElliott said:
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?

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
  • #26
phinds said:
You can bend a steel rod. Do you think you are bending the particles that make it up?

No, that's my point
 
  • #29
MacElliott said:
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?
As I already said, there is no evidence that elementary particles have a size. It doesn't make any sense to talk about bending something that doesn't have a size.

Since you have yet to post any references it seems that you are engaged in personal speculation, so this thread is closed.
 

Similar threads

High School How did the universe start and evolve into what it is today?
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
High School Low entropy early Universe and the heat death musings
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Undergrad How Does Space Expansion Affect the Velocity of Galaxies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
7K
High School Does dark energy or cosmic inflation explain flatness?
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
High School Clarification on how old the Universe is
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
High School The infinite and the infinitesimal
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
High School Red shifted tired light doubts
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Undergrad Why is the observed local region of space flat?
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
High School Does the Expansion of the Universe Affect Gravity?
  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
8K
Undergrad How does the Singularity produce all the diverse matter in the universe?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K