Ah but you are forgetting E=hν. If you "stretch" a photon - by whatever undisclosed means you have in mind - you reduce its energy. So if you stretch it infinitely, you reduce its energy to zero. And then it's gone!
But what if energy can't be destroyed even if something is stretched infinitely much? Maybe there is a lowest possible state where energy just can't be zero even though the calculation says so? What if we use calculations that give infinities and other impossibilities even if we know they don't exist? Fluid mechanics around sharp corners for example, nature doesn't have to fit the equations, the equations fit nature to the extent they are useful.
Is it at all possible you are just making this idea up in your own imagination? Are you expecting us to entertain a bunch of "what if"s strung together?
The electromagnetic field fills all that space and time, yet can't be shown to have an existence of its own until there is a disturbance in it, which could equally well be a disturbance in spacetime itself.
How else would I make up the idea? Imagination is a wonderful thing, and to the extent that it can be entertaining I could expect you to entertain it. The "what if's" are important though, cause your objection wasn't without exceptions, exceptions that arise all the time when it comes to math vs nature. Also, the supposed existence of the field, which does stretch infinitely (as far as we know) has zero energy if nothing disturbs it. Though it is disturbed by quantum fluctuations, which is because we can't have zero energy, looping back the argument into itself. Because of that the infinitely stretched photon, if there was such a thing, wouldn't actually have zero energy, as there is demonstrably *no* *such* *thing* as zero energy.
So you've answered your own question then.
Made me giggle, but the best of science is to be stubborn, quickly abandoning ideas could lead you to miss something important. After all, the idea might be wrong in the end, but the path that leads there might show important things.
The problem is you can't just stretch a photon without any consequences. All red shift processes reduce the energy of the photon in the frame of reference of the observer.
As I said in post 11, an infinitely stretched photon would be a static EM field - and thus not a photon. And it would have zero energy.
Perhaps if one had infinite time.
We have already followed where the evidence leads, what you find is nothing new at all, since otherwise we would have found it. Following where the evidence leads doesn't uncover new things, cause evidence is what is of old things. What you need are new ideas and see if the evidence supports it. Otherwise you won't take even one step forward, science is stagnating because of ideas like yours. Just continue to read the books. I promise you, you won't find anything new.
Obviously anything infinite can't begin as anything else than infinite, so as you say, you can't stretch a photon to infinity if it wasn't infinite to begin with. There is no process to it, I suppose it is stretched infinitely to begin with, or at least equal to a photon as if it had already been stretched to infinity.The problem is you can't just stretch a photon without any consequences. All red shift processes reduce the energy of the photon in the frame of reference of the observer.
If you insist "what if" you could, then you are already abandoning physics, in which case you might as well invoke purple unicorns or something.
Perfect. I have this idea that the universe is powered by pixie dust.
We are advancing our knowledge every day. Science is not stagnating at all.
I don't think an infinitely stretched photon would be a static EM field, in fact, I think it would be equal to the EM field, which isn't static, as you pointed out. I'm just saying that there is an equivalence of the EM field and an infinitely stretched photon. I don't see any reason why that wouldn't be the case. What else could it be?
What arguments would you have for those ideas?
That we are advancing our knowledge doesn't mean that science is not stagnating. There has been no major discoveries in quite some time, and none of the semi-major discoveries made compares to the ones that were made 50+ years ago. You could say that this is because there isn't much more to discover, no major revolutions to be found. But clearly we are missing some pretty big pieces.
Since there are still missing pieces we can't avoid novelty.
Reporting in contempt of new ideas seem to me to be very unscientific. Trying to ridicule new ideas is also very childish. What is the point of a discussion board if no one tries to break new ground, or have novel ideas? What would there be to discuss even?
I agree. I also think that the EM field is actually just spacetime but at a different scale. I think exploration of that could be fruitful. I don't really see the need to separate them. When a photon loses energy due to being stretched that energy is taken up by the gravitational field, (at least according to these answers from Stack Exchange - Have redshifted photons lost energy and where did it go?), so there seems to me that there is a relation there. At least I think it's worth exploring ideas where the fields could be unified, since that could give us ideas or at least hints for a theory of everything.
Science, maybe. After all, this is a science forum. There is a difference between new ideas based on science and just new ideas vaguely.
But that's the real point of the idea, to finally equate EM with spacetime itself, unifying those two aren't at all unscientific but something that at least some scientists strive for, at least those that haven't given up hope on it and certainly traditionally scientists have looked for ways of unifying the fields and spacetime itself. Cause if everything came from a singularity it would probably have been unified, so there should be a way of linking them together again.
There can’t be. The units of an electric field are volts/metre. And a volt is a unit of energy/ electric charge. You cannot equate that with metres. Or with seconds. You are trying to set colour equal to smell.