The Lattice We BuildFinal episode (Episode 19) / This way the arithmetic is easier

Taking stock of eighteen episodes ── no new physics came out. What came out was a ledger of mistakes, and three tools

This way the arithmetic is easier This series began under the pretext of "going out to make unsolved physics."
Not one piece of new physics came out. Let me say that first.
What came out was four closed doors, one calculation that went through, one falsifiable number.
And one more thing ── a record of which way of writing makes mistakes less likely. That is the last story.

Tools needed: the previous episodes, especially 1, 11 and 17 The core of this episode: a representation carrying an invariant tells you the moment it breaks

This is the final episode, so let us count the results. New physics: 0. Eighteen episodes, and not one formula unknown to humanity.
But not empty-handed either. Four negatives established, one known result rederived myself, one falsifiable number produced. And the most reusable item is probably none of those ── it is the ledger of where I went wrong.
Laid out, the ledger shows a definite skew. The mistakes were not proportional to the difficulty of the physics. What they were proportional to was how many conventions the representation has.

◆ ◆ ◆

01Taking stock of eighteen episodes

kindcountcontents
doors closed4 Ep. 13 no central charge enters BMS₄ (\(\dim H^2=0\)) / Ep. 14 the coefficient does not come from matter degrees of freedom / Ep. 15 the wall was Episode 1's theorem / Ep. 16 emergence leaks at gravity
calculations that went through1 Ep. 17 Mercury on a flat lattice, 42.9807 arcsec/century, GR ratio 1.0000
falsifiable numbers1 Ep. 18 112 PeV (one cell of the table, though)
new physics0Zero. No hedging

The same ending as Episode 1's brute force finishing at \(p=0.67\). Having written then that "a negative is information," I keep the promise ── the four doors count as results.

◆ ◆ ◆

02The ledger of mistakes

Here is the real subject. Every bug from eighteen episodes, laid out.

episodeweight of the representationbugwho caught it
Ep. 1medium (dimension matrix)the kernel of \(c,\hbar,G\) was trivialmyself (swapped the example)
Ep. 3lightextrapolated a weak field into a strong onemyself (restricted the range)
Ep. 8lightconfused threshold width with FWHMmyself
Ep. 9lightmisattributed the source of \(10^{-122}\)a reader (pointed out on GitHub)
Ep. 12lightlattice rounding leaked into the numbersmyself
Ep. 11heavy (BMS central charge)mixed conventions. off by \(\sqrt{12}\)the positive control
Ep. 16, earlymedium (literature dependent)trusted a search summary's number (21× → actually 1000×)the original paper
Ep. 17light (4 ODEs)dropped the \(2\pi\) unwindingthe positive control (isolated at once)
Ep. 17lightcancellation broke the finite differenceexplained by estimate
Ep. 18lightthe title claimed more than the contenta reader
WHAT THE LEDGER SHOWS

The bugs I could not catch myself cluster in the formalism-heavy episodes and the literature-dependent ones.

Whereas the episode built on four ordinary differential equations produced only bookkeeping and rounding ── not one physics bug. Because there was no room for one.

The \(\sqrt{12}\) case is the clearest example. In the episode on the BMS₃ central charge I mixed conventions: writing the algebra in the \(c/12\) convention while using the formula from another. The entropy was overestimated by a factor of 3.46, and staring at the formula shows nothing.

By contrast, Episode 17's bug was merely folding the perihelion azimuth into \(\pi\) and dropping the \(2\pi\). Nothing in the physics was wrong.

◆ ◆ ◆

03Only three tools helped

toolwhat it caught
positive control
try it first where the answer is known
\(\sqrt{12}\) (Ep. 11). \(2\pi\) (Ep. 17 ── light bending already matched 1.75119, so it narrowed to the recording side rather than the integrator). Episode 13's \(\dim H^2=0\) is also trustworthy only because \(m^3-m\) was confirmed to come out for bms₃ first
read the original
do not settle for a summary
21× → 1000× (Ep. 16, early). Evaluating Solodukhin's formula myself gave \(48\pi\) (the summary said \(12\pi\)). The BMS-Cardy convention (Ep. 11)
turn a claim into a number
do not stop at "not in conflict"
Episode 2's "not in conflict" → three orders of margin at \(n=2\). Episode 12's "the coefficient does not come out" → 2.773 Planck areas per bit. Episode 17's "one word is missing" → 1/3. And 112 PeV

None of this improved because I learned more physics. All three are matters of discipline.

◆ ◆ ◆

04Why flat coordinates are easier ── an invariant comes attached

The form used in Episode 17, once more. With \(F\) the magnitude of \(g^{00}\) and \(G\) the coefficient of \(g^{ij}\),

$$H=\tfrac12\bigl(-E^2F+|\vec p\,|^2G\bigr)=-\tfrac12$$

The right-hand side is a constant. If you are integrating correctly, \(H\) does not move. So you can self-check throughout the integration.

A BUILT-IN CHECK (CONFIRMED IN EPISODE 17'S CODE)
  H at the start        = -0.4999999999999999
  max drift of H after 6 orbits (60000 steps) = 2.220e-16

  # i.e. it does not move down to the double-precision limit. you see the moment it breaks.

Integrate a geodesic via Christoffel symbols and this invariant does not come attached automatically. You have to build \(g_{\mu\nu}\dot x^\mu\dot x^\nu\) separately and watch it.

Figure: watch \(|H+1/2|\) step by step. With the correct formulae it stays pinned at \(10^{-16}\). Use the buttons to inject a deliberate error into the formulae and it rises immediately ── that is what "you see the moment it breaks" means
correct formulae formulae with an error injected
BUT SOME BUGS THE INVARIANT CANNOT CATCH Episode 17's \(2\pi\) bug does not violate \(H\) at all. The integration was perfectly correct; it was the recording that broke.
So two tools are needed ── the invariant catches bugs in the "formulae," and the positive control catches bugs in the "bookkeeping." Today's two cases were exactly one of each. Either one alone is not enough.
◆ ◆ ◆

05So you may take the easier one

This is the final episode's conclusion. And the ground for it is not preference but a theorem.

COORDINATES ARE FREE

A coordinate system with \(c=\) constant and one with \(c\cdot t=\) constant (a flat background plus a varying rate of travel) are the same physics. Being diffeomorphism invariance, it can never break.

Episode 17 stepped on that numerically ── 42.9807 arcsec/century on a flat lattice. The same as standard general relativity.

If they are the same, use whichever is harder to get wrong.

And "harder to get wrong" has content ── no three-index contractions. fewer conventions to choose from. an invariant comes attached automatically. Those three.

Indeed, all Episode 17 needed was two scalar functions and their first derivatives, and four ordinary differential equations. No Christoffel symbols (40 components in four dimensions), no covariant derivatives, no coordinate patches.

THIS IS NOT A NEW CLAIM Dicke (Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 363, 1957), in "Gravitation without a Principle of Equivalence," built the formalism of putting a refractive index on flat absolute space and showed that light bending matches observation. It even has a classification name: conservative VSL.
And numerical relativity solves on orthogonal lattices every day. The lattice does not warp. What warps is the field on the lattice.
All this episode can claim is the working property that "that representation, having fewer conventions, breaks less easily."
◆ ◆ ◆

06What need not be decided, do not decide

There is one more framing this series received at the end. There is no need to decide between discrete and continuous.

strength of standingfor how long
equivalence of coordinate systems
\(c=\)const and \(c\cdot t=\)const are the same
a theoremforever
indistinguishability of discrete and continuous
a CD and a record
for nowup to \(\sim10^{-3}M_{\rm Pl}\). it moves

Let us be precise here. Nyquist in signal processing is exact, but a spacetime lattice is not. Even below the cutoff a residual \((E/E_{\rm LV})^2\) appears ── which is why the number 112 PeV exists. Were the indistinguishability exact, no such number would exist.

So ── "need not be decided" is correct, and is not correct forever. It has an expiry date.

◆ ◆ ◆

07What remains

status
the origin of the \(1/4\)not obtained. by Episode 1's theorem, so long as \(G\) carries dimensions it will not come out as it stands (Ep. 15)
the horizon's Carrollian theoryunconstructed (Ep. 8, Ep. 11, Ep. 12)
a 4d Cardy-type formulathe central-charge route is closed. the dimensional-reduction route does not work on its own
is the spacing physical?on hold. the boundary is \(\sim10^{-3}M_{\rm Pl}\); one settlement is 112 PeV
can Kerr be written the same way?probably, but unverified. off-diagonal terms are needed
evolving the fields themselvesnot attempted. numerical relativity's hard parts are not geodesics but constraints and stability

The last two rows are where this series never set foot. "Motion within a given field" went through, but "the side that makes the field" was never touched. I leave that honestly blank.

WORK IT BY HAND (THE LAST THREE)
  1. Verify that \(H=\frac12(-E^2F+|p|^2G)\) is conserved, from the equations of motion \(\dot x_i=p_iG\) and \(\dot p_i=-\frac12(-E^2F'+|p|^2G')x_i/\rho\).
    show the answer
    \(\dot H=\frac12\left[-E^2F'\dot\rho+|p|^2G'\dot\rho\right]+G\,\vec p\cdot\dot{\vec p}\). Here \(\dot\rho=\frac{\vec x\cdot\dot{\vec x}}{\rho}=\frac{G\,\vec x\cdot\vec p}{\rho}\) and \(\vec p\cdot\dot{\vec p}=-\frac12(-E^2F'+|p|^2G')\frac{\vec x\cdot\vec p}{\rho}\). Substituting, the first and second terms cancel exactly. That cancellation is what "the built-in check" really is.
  2. How many components does a Christoffel symbol have in four dimensions? \(\Gamma^\mu_{\nu\rho}\) is symmetric in its lower two indices.
    show the answer
    \(4\times\frac{4\cdot5}{2}=\mathbf{40}\) components, each a sum of three metric derivatives. But \(\partial_\lambda g^{\mu\nu}\) also has 40 components, so on count alone there is no gain. The gain is twofold: not having to write three-index contractions, and getting an invariant attached.
  3. In which episodes were the bugs I could not catch myself? What do they have in common?
    show the answer
    Episode 9 (the source of \(10^{-122}\)), Episode 11 (\(\sqrt{12}\)), Episode 16's early part (21×), Episode 18 (the title). In common: heavy formalism, dependence on the literature, or the prose side. The episodes that ran ODEs produced only bookkeeping and rounding, and even those were caught at once by the positive control. The mistakes were proportional not to the difficulty of the physics but to the number of conventions.

What the whole series learned

New physics: 0. Eighteen episodes, and no formula unknown to humanity. What came out was four closed doors (\(\dim H^2=0\); the coefficient does not come from degrees of freedom; the wall was Episode 1's theorem; emergence leaks at gravity), one calculation that went through (42.9807 arcsec/century), and one falsifiable number (112 PeV, one cell of the table). Having written in Episode 1 that "a negative is information," the four count as results.

The mistakes were not proportional to the difficulty of the physics. The bugs I could not catch myself cluster in the formalism-heavy episodes (Episode 11's \(\sqrt{12}\)), the literature-dependent ones (Episode 16's early 21×), and the prose side (Episodes 9 and 18). The episode built on four ODEs produced only bookkeeping (\(2\pi\)) and rounding (cancellation) ── not one physics bug. What they were proportional to was how many conventions the representation has.

Three tools helped, all of them discipline.the positive control (try it first where the answer is known) ── it caught both the \(\sqrt{12}\) and the \(2\pi\). ② read the original ── the search summary's 21×, Solodukhin's \(48\pi\). ③ turn a claim into a number ── "not in conflict" into three orders of margin, "the coefficient does not come out" into 2.773 Planck areas. None of it improved because I learned more physics.

A representation carrying an invariant tells you the moment it breaks. \(H=\frac12(-E^2F+|p|^2G)=-\frac12\) stayed within \(2.2\times10^{-16}\) throughout the integration. Going via Christoffel symbols does not attach this automatically. But the \(2\pi\) bug does not violate \(H\) ── the invariant catches "formula" bugs, the positive control catches "bookkeeping" bugs. Two tools were needed.

So you may take the easier one. \(c=\)const and \(c\cdot t=\)const are the same physics (diffeomorphism invariance, a theorem that can never break). Being the same, use the one with no three-index contractions, fewer conventions, and an attached invariant. This is not a new claim ── Dicke matched light bending with a flat background plus a refractive index in 1957, and numerical relativity solves on orthogonal lattices every day. All this episode can claim is a working property.

What need not be decided, do not decide. But it has an expiry date. The equivalence of coordinate systems is a theorem and holds forever. The indistinguishability of discrete and continuous holds for now, with the boundary at \(\sim10^{-3}M_{\rm Pl}\). Nyquist in signal processing is exact but a spacetime lattice is not, and a residual \((E/E_{\rm LV})^2\) appears ── which is why the number 112 PeV exists. Were it exactly indistinguishable, no such number would exist.

And the blanks. The origin of the \(1/4\), the horizon's Carrollian theory, a 4d Cardy, whether Kerr can be written the same way, and evolving the fields themselves. The last is the biggest ── this series got "motion within a given field" through but never touched "the side that makes the field." Numerical relativity's hard parts are not geodesics but constraints and stability.

The Lattice We Build ── END

19 main episodes + 3 bonus. No new physics came out, but the ledger of mistakes remains.

Where the sister series "That Clicks" explains known physics, this one's pretext was to show the work itself. That what it had to show turned out to be mostly failures and corrections was according to plan.

Back to contents | read from the start: Episode 1, Let a machine hunt for the ratios nobody has taken yet

This document is the final episode (Episode 19) of the "Lattice We Build" series, a reading piece for high-school and university students who love physics.

Established material: the Hamiltonian form of the geodesic \(H=\frac12g^{\mu\nu}p_\mu p_\nu\) and its conservation; the component count of Christoffel symbols; the Schwarzschild solution in isotropic coordinates; diffeomorphism invariance; Dicke's flat-background-plus-refractive-index formalism (Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 363, 1957); that numerical relativity uses orthogonal lattices; Nyquist's sampling theorem; and the literature cited in each episode of this series.
The numbers in this article (the \(H\) drift \(2.2\times10^{-16}\), the 40 Christoffel components) were computed and checked by the author. The ledger of bugs is this series' actual working record and corresponds to the articles and correction commits of each episode.
The reading that "mistakes are proportional to the number of conventions in the representation" is this series' author's framing and is not a statistical claim ── the sample is a dozen-odd items, and the subject and difficulty differ episode by episode. All that can be shown is "this time the skew came out that way."
The property that "flat coordinates plus the Hamiltonian form are easier" is also limited to solving the motion of particles or light within a given metric. This episode's discussion does not extend to the problem of evolving the field equations themselves (constraints, gauge, stability, the treatment of singularities and horizons). Nor has verification been done for metrics with off-diagonal terms, such as Kerr.

Main series: Episode 1Episode 2Episode 3Episode 4Episode 5Episode 6Episode 7Episode 8Episode 9Episode 10Episode 11Episode 12Episode 13Episode 14Episode 15Episode 16Episode 17Episode 18 | bonus: ── to print, use your browser's "Print" → "Save as PDF."

Print / PDF: ⌘+P (Ctrl+P on Windows). In the figure you can confirm that breaking the formulae makes the check react immediately.