1. Space does not exist independent of its contents. There is no underlying invisible Euclidean grid to the universe; General Relativity already shows that spacetime is dynamic - the 'grid' fluctuates. Whatever 'space' or 'spacetime' is, it has to be made of 'something', and could not act as an underlying grid since an object would displace whatever 'it' is since two 'things' can not occupy the same location simultaneously, This paradox is resolved by viewing space as the sum of its contents, without there being any underlying grid to the universe.

2. Since time only has a metric based on changes in distances, and distance only has a metric based on the time it takes something to travel between two points, then space only exists as the position of its contents relative to each other, and the particle contents of space only have distance between each other relative to other particles - thus, when two particles are closer in proximity to each other than any other particles, the distance between them is indefinite, and the time it takes for the particles to travel that distance is infinite (as with nothing between them, there is no metric for time, since time only exists as a change in distances). Although stationary relative to each other, a particle pair may be rotating through space relative to other particles - observed as 'coupling' between particles.

But wait, I typed out even more!

Zitterbewegung, being the hypothetical trembling motion of elementary particles, could explain the uncertainty of an electron's location resulting in its orbital (with the electron orbital viewed as an electron's probable location around an atomic nucleus).

Basically what I think is that residual amounts of external radiation from the rest of the universe affect the electron, causing trembling motion. The electron still stays coupled with the atomic nucleus following a path of least resistance.

The Zitterbewegung resulting from residual radiation throughout the universe causing a trembling motion in the electron makes its coupling to an atomic nucleus uncertain, allowing for non-permanent coupling between protons and electrons; instead of viewing particles as 'binding together', opposite electromagnetic charges could be viewed as coupling together momentarily/temporary out of a path of least resistance.

With this hypothetical model, space/distance as well as time at this scale would have to be reconceptualized. Since time only has metric based on changes in distances, and distance only has metric based on the time it takes something to travel between two points, then space exists as the position of its contents relative to each other, and the particle contents of space only have distance between each other relative to other particles - thus, when two particles are closer in proximity to each other than any other particles, the distance between them is indefinite, and the time it takes for the particles to travel that distance is infinite. Although stationary relative to each other, a particle pair may be rotating through space relative to other particles - observed as 'coupling' between particles.

Electromagnetic charge then, results from the direction of this rotation after point-particle pairs coil into structural formations with other point particle pairs into larger structures with a specific, intrinsic orientation to the rotation of pairs.

Positives and negatives could then be thought of as gears spinning clockwise and counter-clockwise: gears spinning in the opposite direction mesh together and stay coupled - while gears spinning in the same direction kick off each other, exhibiting a 'repulsion'.

The principles which this model relies on could be summed up with central principle: space does not exist independent of its contents. Whatever 'space' is, it has to be made of 'something', thereby being part of space's contents; this paradox is resolved by viewing space as the sum of its contents, without there being an underlying Euclidean grid (as such a grid would have to be made of 'something', returning to the paradox).

With space conceptualized in this manner, it becomes possible for the macroscopic (as well as the microcosmic) universe to take on an oblong, branch-like, or coiling shape.

Another principle central to this hypothesized model (although it wasn't thought-up by me, but it is pertinent) is that there is no such thing as 'collision' between particles. At a subatomic scale, particles do not 'collide', but stay coupled with each other based on relative proximity. If you've ever wondered why an electron and a proton don't meet and cancel out each others' charges, the answer is that their electromagnetic charge must actually be a geometrical phenomena exhibited on the surrounding grid of space-time. When bringing this stuff up to some people over a physics forum, one of them told me it sounds a lot like Kaluza-Klein theory; which I had never heard of before then. Kaluza-Klein theory started out with a colleague of Einstein trying to apply the same tensor calculus for warped space-time in Einstein's Field Equations to electromagnetism at the subatomic scale, with a 5th dimension being added to the equations; a cylindrical dimension assumed to exist at every point in the universe, with the direction of rotation in that 5th dimension determining the electromagnetic charge of a particle. However, due to inconsistencies between predicted measurements and observed measurements, the theory was abandoned. It was picked up by various physicists repeatedly throughout the 20th century, but would always end up being abandoned due inconsistencies. It was, however, credited with inspiring string theory.