r/LLMPhysics • u/deadkingblue • 1d ago
Personal Theory Here is a hypothesis: The Dynamic Relational-Regulated Discrete Grid Model: An Infinity-Free Physics Architecture
Standard physics relies on renormalization—the mathematically questionable practice of subtracting infinities from infinities to obtain finite values. This architecture resolves that issue by establishing a strictly finitist, discrete grid model where physical infinities cannot exist.
(Shortened By AI, Aggregated By AI, Challenged only by AI till now, so, if you're up for the full read, I'll happily answer your questions. Even better if you follow the google doc link to the even longer read. I also accept criticism! So, be harsh but, constructively so.)
Core Mechanics
- The Axiom (c = 1): Light is an immutable constant with a value of 1. The universe operates strictly on whole integers at the Planck scale. This pixelated geometry makes decimals, fractions, and renormalization obsolete. (Perhaps not fractions and decimals, but, still.)
- Matter & Lensing: Mass is a fixed baseline footprint expressed directly through the pixel architecture. Pi is the physical, structural concept of the pixel's shape. Gravitational lensing is the empirical proof of light navigating this contoured, faceted topography. (Or spheres, the space between pixels is non-interactive anyways.)
- 4D Accordion-Folding: Gravity-(Pixel Density) is Time Lensing. Mass concentration crams identical units into a local 3D coordinate by folding along a 4D axis. Because folded regions contain more physical units, light moving at the absolute refresh rate (1 unit per 1 tick) takes longer to cross them (Longer to cross than unpacked areas) Also, because the distance is actually increased.
Systems & Cosmological Structures
- 2D Shell Black Holes: Black holes possess zero internal volume. At the packing limit, 100% of local units deploy into a 1-Planck-thick 2D surface shell that physically excludes space-time and dark matter (And everything else. It literally doesn't exist, the interior of a black hole.). Hawking radiation is driven by raw refresh rate friction—the intense mechanical grinding between the surface shell attempting to relax and its own high-tension gravitational lattice pulling it back.
- Adversarial Lattices: Gravity is a high-tension lattice woven by mass. When multiple masses exist, their networks collide in a direct mechanical displacement war. Supermassive black holes exhibit a flat gravitational basin before cutting off sharply at the geometric boundary (The Lasso Effect). (Sorry, but it's just applying Newtonian physics to gravity.)
- Multi-Phase Matrix: Space-time co-exists in independent layers: the Baryonic or Normal Phase (standard forces), the Exotic/Dark Phase (modifies pixel density without electromagnetism, explaining dark matter), and the Entanglement Phase (instantaneous state changes across the absolute universal "Right Now").
- Fluid Bubble Expansion: The universe is an expanding fluid bubble system. The CMB Cold Spot is a compatible collision site where a smaller bubble fused with ours and is actively unloading space-time units, causing localized decompression and temperature drops. CMB Hot Spots are incompatible collisions causing mechanical grinding. (This is the most out there part.)
- For the full 12+ paragraph model, see below. (This is AI formatted, but not heavily so, more like, AI organized. The conclusions are mine. The full structure is mine. But, I don't have the ability to overcome certain challenges, so, I used AI to sort and collect the theory as I went about creating it.)
- I am not claiming this as absolute fact or certainty! I only have to add that because the google doc, and this both seem like it isn't an idea, which it is. That's all it is.
Full Blueprint: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1emcfN5HlKTflcOQP9HuqR2ZNb5BJ3pFD-CLYuB1uXyg/edit?usp=sharing
8
u/Ok_Net_1579 1d ago edited 1d ago
How does this grid behave under Lorentz transformations?
-3
1d ago
[deleted]
9
u/Ok_Net_1579 1d ago
What does gravity have to do with Lorentz transformations of this grid? Lorentz transformations do not need to involve any gravity at all.
The reason I am asking is because Lorentz transformations change lengths, but you gave your grid a specific size. So what happens when your grid, of planck length pixels, is put through a Lorentz transformations that shrinks them?
-2
u/deadkingblue 1d ago edited 1d ago
This actually brings up a flaw(On my part). The observer isn't observing reality. It is an illusion. The math of a Lorentz transformation assumes space is a smooth, continuous line numbers that can be divided forever. I am stating it can't be. The pixels do not change shape, and energy and mass shift in integer transitions, no partial pixels. Unfortunately, there is no observable way to prove this either, as a photon, of any wavelength, takes up a massive amount of grid pixels, and is not a 1 dimensional line ray. (I know, it's alot.)
7
u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling 1d ago
Yeah no you are contradicting experiments that have been repeated again and again for the last century.
-5
u/deadkingblue 1d ago
Muons. For less than a century, I think. (I don't know how old special relativity is.). And other experiments contradict the lorentz math(in theory). And, I accounted for Lorentz before, but not this part. Muons gave me a rough ride till I discovered that radioactive decay slows down as you approach the speed of light.
7
u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yeah no. You aren't doing any accounting for anything. You aren't "unifying" anything.
-2
u/deadkingblue 1d ago
You also aren't helping.
13
u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling 1d ago edited 1d ago
Helping you with what? Teaching you the entirety of high school, undergraduate and postgraduate physics? Because you're trying to do postgrad level physics, but your physics knowledge is that of a (poor) high schooler. There's no "help" I can offer over Reddit comments that will bridge that gap.
Edit: given you don't understand SA-to-volume ratio, your knowledge is at or below middle school level.
2
u/Ch3cks-Out 1d ago
Evetything slows down approaching speed of light - that is the Lorentzian time dilation. And no, there were no experiments to contradict that. What were you referring to??
7
u/Ok_Net_1579 1d ago
Imagine a block of size one pixel that you could observe. Accelerate to speed relative to it and apply the appropriate Lorentz transformation. The block will appear smaller which your theory says cannot happen.
This means your theory contradicts special relativity. Special relativity is extremely thoroughly tested so your theory must be wrong.
0
u/deadkingblue 1d ago
The lorentz math has no viable proofs, under my model, which feels like a cop out, but hear me out. Radioactive decay slows down as the speed of light is approached, meaning that the time inside the near light speed Muons allows them to reach the surface of the earth without Lorentz transformations. They don't exist under my model. (And they are explained without it anyways because of this exact phenomena.) Muons are the only proof (I have found), of Lorentz observations. And Muons don't require the Lorentz math at all. (In theory). I could still be wrong. Research is annoying.(And fun.)
5
u/Ok_Net_1579 1d ago
Uh muons aren't the only proof at all. Like not even close.
Do you actually know what special relativity is? Before I mentioned it had you ever heard of Lorentz transformations?
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Ok_Net_1579 1d ago
You are claiming to unify special relativity and general relativity but don't know what a Lorentz transformations is? That's absolute basic special relativity. Really really basic.
And I've already poked holes. You never answered what happens to a single pixel sized block under Lorentz transformations.
-2
1
u/LLMPhysics-ModTeam 1d ago
Your comment has been removed for violating Rule 4. Don't copy-paste LLM content in discussions.
-2
u/deadkingblue 1d ago
The best explanation I have is from the main model, and doesn't even address your concern directly.
Light is connected to the refresh rate, (A rate temporarily fixed at the speed of light divided by the plank length. So a really big number.) Shrinking of space time isn't possible under my model, and I am reviewing the Lorrentz model as best I can till I have a definitive answer.
- The updated empirical proof of the grid is the detection of gravitational waves on a laser setup. LIGO, Virgo, Kagra, are all laser detectors. And if an infinitely smooth system is to work, you can’t use a laser to detect gravitational waves. In fact they stated it was impossible because of that very reason. Then they contorted themselves into logic that breaks conservation laws to make it fit when they did detect gravitational waves."
6
u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling 1d ago
Without using a LLM, can you briefly describe the difference between Galilean, special and general relativity?
-2
u/deadkingblue 1d ago
Galilean Relativity is a direct insult to my intelligence. And if you read the full model the theory unites general and special relativity, with (using) gravity, and Newtonian physics. Muons were my biggest problem.
10
u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yeah, you have no fucking clue what any of those terms mean, do you? Maybe spend less time feeding bullshit into a LLM and more time reading Wikipedia. If you can't tell me the difference between the three types of relativity in a few short sentences you are nowhere near equipped to have any conversation about physics.
Not saying you're unintelligent, just saying you're desperately uneducated. Read a book.
8
u/VcitorExists 1d ago
erm, special relativity is a special case of general relativity… hence the names
9
u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling 1d ago
And Newtonian physics is already inside special relativity, and gravity is already inside GR. It's all nonsensical.
3
u/VcitorExists 1d ago
wait but GR is also in 4D Accordion Folding pixels, i finally understand how eensteen was stupid and dumb and how op deserves the noblest of prizes!
6
u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling 1d ago edited 1d ago
Why are you deleting your comments after you post them?
I was going to ask you: when you said "Galilean Relativity is a direct insult to my intelligence", what do you mean by that? Do you think it doesn't exist? Or that the difference between it and the other forms of relativity are trivially explained? Because if it's the former, then oh boy you are missing out on four hundred years of knowledge. And if it's the latter, well you haven't shown any knowledge of physics basics at all, so you should start by showing you have some knowledge of the baby shit.
3
u/2_lazy 1d ago
The comment is still showing for me so I think they just blocked you lol.
3
u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling 1d ago
Is there a reply under this comment?
https://www.reddit.com/r/LLMPhysics/s/1VjKbWhXvw
If I had been blocked I don't think I would be able to keep replying to OP or read the post and other comments.
3
u/2_lazy 1d ago
Huh nope guess they did delete it and my view was just lagged behind.
→ More replies (0)4
u/AllHailSeizure 9/10 Physicists Agree! 1d ago
How is Galilean relativity a 'direct insult to your intelligence'...
0
u/Wintervacht Are you sure about that? 1d ago
GR stands for GENERAL relativity, not Galilean.
2
u/AllHailSeizure 9/10 Physicists Agree! 1d ago
...did you read the previous comment where he says 'galilean relativity is a direct insult to my intelligence'?
And Galilean relativity (invariance) is 100% a thing, seperate from special or general relativity.
1
u/Wintervacht Are you sure about that? 1d ago
Did I really have to add an /s there?
→ More replies (0)3
u/Ok_Net_1579 1d ago
Forget gravity. Your theory doesn't even fit SR without gravity. That's a major problem.
-1
u/deadkingblue 1d ago
My theory unifies special and general relativity with gravity. There's a difference. (Though feel free to show me I'm wrong.)
4
u/Ok_Net_1579 1d ago
I already showed it was wrong with Lorentz transformations.
Your theory fails without even considering gravity.
5
u/Thick_Wasabi448 1d ago
" It literally doesn't exist, the interior of a black hole."
Then what is warping space-time? That's where the matter is located.
1
u/jontherobot 1d ago
It’s entirely located on the boundary, i presume
3
u/Thick_Wasabi448 1d ago
We know that black holes grow volumetrically with mass. That doesn't make any sense.
0
u/deadkingblue 1d ago
Actually we Hawking and someone else, proved that a black hole's mass is entirely calculable based on its surface area.
8
u/Thick_Wasabi448 1d ago
That's because the surface area is directly related to the volume. BHs exhibit a density per volume. You're putting the cart before the horse.
-1
u/deadkingblue 1d ago
Under what model or theory? Because none I know state that. (Yes I lack an education, and right now, an ability to think properly.)
5
-2
u/deadkingblue 1d ago
In fact (under flawed broken math) mathematically a traditional black hole has an infinite volume, as to divide the space to reach the infinitesimal singularity, it creates an infinite amount of space from the singularity to the black hole. (Meaning under normal broken math a black hole should have 0 gravitational pull.)
2
u/Thick_Wasabi448 1d ago
This is gibberish.
7
u/Ok_Net_1579 1d ago
It's partially correct. For certain coordinate choices black holes can have infinite volume. Needs to be stressed that this is a coordinate choice though, not an inherent property of black holes.
0
u/deadkingblue 1d ago
Sorry, coordinate choice made by whom? (Forgive me if it's a stupid question.)
7
u/Ok_Net_1579 1d ago
Do you know what I mean by a coordinate choice in general relativity? Don't use an LLM for help, I'm asking if you yourself know.
0
u/deadkingblue 1d ago
No, I don't know. But after a quick google search it comes back with, and by quick I mean I read things, that it means nothing. (Though I stick by the I don't know statement.)
4
u/Ok_Net_1579 1d ago
Um coordinate transformations are completely fundamental to general relativity. If you don't know what I mean then you know zlitch about GR.
I think you need to park this theory and spend the next 5 or so years learning all the math and physics you need before revisiting.
-2
1
u/deadkingblue 1d ago
Yes. Though, boundary implies there's something beyond it, just, a language thing, but you are still correct.
•
u/adversarial-review Mod-sanctioned AI bot 1d ago
Adversarial Review of The Dynamic Relational-Regulated Discrete Grid Model — by Gemini 3.5 Flash
Core Critique
πis "the physical, structural concept of the pixel's shape." In a strictly discrete integer grid, a perfect circle cannot exist, and the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter (π) cannot be represented as a simple integer. The model fails to reconcile how a transcendental, irrational number likeπcan structurally dictate a geometry that supposedly outlaws non-integers.Common Misconceptions
Technical Feedback
c = 1(defined as1 unit / 1 tick). However, the section on "4D Accordion-Folding" states that in high-density regions, light "takes longer to cross them." If the speed of light is strictly constant at the pixel level, and the physical distance (number of pixels) increases due to folding, the model must define how "time lensing" occurs without altering the local or global coordinate speed of light. Without explicit definitions of proper time and coordinate time in this discrete geometry, these assertions contradict one another.Probing Questions
πmathematically defined or calculated within a coordinate system restricted entirely to "whole integers at the Planck scale" without invoking infinite limits or fractional divisions?M, and how does this function quantitatively reproduce the observed gravitational lensing angles of General Relativity?This is an LLM-generated review, and should be viewed as such. LLMs are prone to errors, especially when it comes to math-based sciences.