# Discrete space notions

#### A lattice configuration with scale

Space is made of tiny (think quark size) discrete sphere-like bubbles in a hex lattice. We’ll call them ‘pockets’. They exist in either 4 or 8 spacial dimensions, one of which is the dimension of scale… So maybe technically 9. When a discrete space ‘pocket’ is filled, it scales proportionally to the energy of the contained particle.

Particle position is not continuous, but discrete . Matter and energy can only move from one pocket to an adjacent pocket, obeying lattice layout… like Chinese checkers. Least radial distance. When filled pockets scale up in proportion to their content, they displace the adjacent spaces, which do the same, rippling out and preserving the lattice structure. In this way, space appears to be locally parabolic or hyperbolic, depending on the mass distribution… so depending on how many adjacent pockets because of scaled displacement. It’s not really “bending”, but, sure.

When adjacent pockets are filled (and thus scaled) beyond a certain threshold, the ‘negative space’ between them that holds it all together becomes large enough that a new ‘pocket’ is created in that negative space, preserving the lattice and creating space from, essentially, mass beyond a threshold. This topological defect creates new adjacent pockets, filling the negative space, for some mass/energy to be distributed in. (This is like the excessive particle energy ‘paying it forward’ to rent a hotel room to calm down in.) Particles, as a result, can be seen to oscillate, and space ripples outward in scale displacement, as the pockets resettle into the lowest energy lattice.

In this way, space’s size/scale depends on mass density. Moreover, space’s scale graduates beyond the mass concentration. Mass, force carriers, and the like move faster in emptier space, because the smaller pockets are tighter in their lattice layout, and so better approximate a straight line.

The point is really continuing Einstein’s work by attempting to explain Why space bends, which he never got around to. And, in doing so, I caught a glimpse of a quantum mechanism to explain it… and it doesn’t curve so much as scales… which looks very much like 3d curving. This also provides a mechanism for dark energy.

Tightest sphere packing is hexagonal, with a maximum density of 74.05%. This means there would be 25.95% pure empty and unoccupiable negative space between the pockets remaining, if space had no matter. Dark matter is estimated to be about 27%, and matter as we know it is estimated to be a bit over 5%.

So matter we know about is 3d, and space/time is 4 or 5d, if 4, time is an emergent property of space’s extra dimension of scale.

Once I get the scale of discrete space and use a few trusted observations, I should be able to derive the amount of space created within a region of space above a critical mass. I should be able to refine further based on current Hubble constant.

Should roughly agree with an expansion rate of 45 miles per second per megaparsec. If I’m right, galaxies with a super-masive blackhole would act as a “dark energy” factory… pushing away from other galaxies more than would be expected.

Is there a certain condition or amount of mass required for space pockets to be created from negative space, or is this something occurring everywhere at all times? I’m wondering how relativity works in this model. When I walk across a room, am I creating new space pockets or do I just evenly displace the ones that are there?

There’s a lot I am still trying to piece together about this idea, but I believe new space generation requires a great deal more concentrated mass than we can muster. Some number of solar masses should do the trick. But, yes, there would be a threshold.

Is there a way to deduce what this threshold would be mathematically? I think that you mentioned “the scale of descreet space” as an unknown along with some other variables, but I’m having trouble understanding what that term actually means. Is there a way to put this into an equation form to help solidify this idea and to help me understand where you are with it?

There will be a way to work out the threshold at which space is created, but not until I work out the approximate pocket size and make a few (dozen) simulations. The best hint is in what happens when quark pairs are pulled apart. This should potentially give me a range of scale and energy to test against. I just need to make some time and code. Get it wrong a few times, realize my blunder in the middle of the night, rinse and repeat.

Fair enough. You talk about the creation of space without mentioning time. Does this model fundamentally change the way we should think of spacetime and/or gravity? Should we reevaluate the mental image of the ball on a sheet, or is all of that still just as relevant?

The ideas here extend gravity and spacetime theories into the quantum realm, where they have not ever fit, and provide something of an explanation as to the mechanism by which mass curves space. I suggest it appears to be and may as well be curving at the macro scale, but when you get down deep enough, it’s not curving… it’s discreetly scaling, displacing, creating new space, and reorganizing. I see it as finally providing a quantum theory of gravity. More over, I see a possible larger unification that I’ll get into in a later post, once I can spare some time to organize my thoughts and produce some show-me material.

For now, the ball on a sheet analogy is just as frustratingly inadequate but still somewhat helpful as it was before my notion… unless you care to go deeper and see how come the ball bends the sheet. Then my stuff gets interesting, even if it all turns out to be an unprovable or completely wrong hunch. Schildkröten not quite all the way down. Fun fact: Schildkröte literally means “shield toad”.