Could spacetime be an infinitely stretched/redshifted photon?

[DaveC426913]

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?

No one said you can't or shouldn't discuss them. But they should be in the right section so as to provide the correct context for readers and potential responders.

Your ideas are highly speculative, but you posted them in one of the hard science subforums; you will very soon be getting questions like "can you show the math that supports your idea?" and "what specific testable predictions does your idea make?"

I'm presuming, based on the number of "what if" type conjectures, that your idea has not reached the hypothesis stage, let alone the theory stage, which means it may get shut down for lack of evidence before you are satisfied.

The best thing for it is to place it in the right forum where it will invite the kinds of questions are you are prepared to answer at this stage. Ideas without supporting evidence should go in an apppropriate forum, such as PseudoScience.

 

[foghorn]

But that's the real point of the idea, to finally equate EM with spacetime itself,

I think I know where you’re going.
It has been said of gravity being the spacetime field of the universe.

Why Gravity and not the Electromagnetic field, because gravity ‘acts’ (< misleading word) on everything equally.

Can you say the same of an electromagnetic field ‘acting’ (<misleading word again) on everything equally?
Remember Galileo’s balls?? NASA vacuum chamber.
Hopefully it should start at time mark 2:45

 

[exchemist]

I think I know where you’re going.
It has been said of gravity being the spacetime field of the universe.

Why Gravity and not the Electromagnetic field, because gravity ‘acts’ (< misleading word) on everything equally.

Can you say the same of an electromagnetic field ‘acting’ (<misleading word again) on everything equally?
Remember Galileo’s balls?? NASA vacuum chamber.
Hopefully it should start at time mark 2:45

Ah, do you think he's an electric universe crank?

 

[Cyperium]

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.

That's like saying that water and waves on the water aren't the same because they are defined differently. I'm just saying that the electromagnetic field are a subset of spacetime, a different scale bringing different equations, they are still embedded in the fabric of spacetime, but can they join? That's the question. Something made them appear seperate but there should be a way to link them still, the way back to the unification.

 

[Cyperium]

No one said you can't or shouldn't discuss them. But they should be in the right section so as to provide the correct context for readers and potential responders.

Your ideas are highly speculative, but you posted them in one of the hard science subforums; you will very soon be getting questions like "can you show the math that supports your idea?" and "what specific testable predictions does your idea make?"

I'm presuming, based on the number of "what if" type conjectures, that your idea has not reached the hypothesis stage, let alone the theory stage, which means it may get shut down for lack of evidence before you are satisfied.

The best thing for it is to place it in the right forum where it will invite the kinds of questions are you are prepared to answer at this stage. Ideas without supporting evidence should go in an apppropriate forum, such as PseudoScience.

Not really a math guy, but the math would just be the math describing a photon getting more and more redshifted to the limit of infinity. It's not hard to do that math. Are you unable to see that or are you just stubbornly biting at me?

I am discussing this to see if we can find testable predictions, that would be one goal, but you have to start somewhere, with an idea. Sorry, but I just don't get people like you. You take the air out of the room. No wonder science has difficulty progressing if you're stuck with pseudoscientists that tries to prove ghosts when you get an original idea. The state of science these days are very gray. Completely unlike those days when there actually was creative thought in the science community. Thankfully maybe AI can do some real work.

 

[Cyperium]

I think I know where you’re going.
It has been said of gravity being the spacetime field of the universe.

Why Gravity and not the Electromagnetic field, because gravity ‘acts’ (< misleading word) on everything equally.

Can you say the same of an electromagnetic field ‘acting’ (<misleading word again) on everything equally?
Remember Galileo’s balls?? NASA vacuum chamber.
Hopefully it should start at time mark 2:45

You are making a great point! I'm a fan of Brian Cox, he always explains things with true enthusiasm.


Anyway, no matter if gravity should be seen as a force or not (I think it should not), it still behaves as a field, just much weaker than the electromagnetic field but in turn acting on far greater distances. There is a greater "pull" if you could call it that, on something close to earth than on something further away from earth, if you take the bowling ball and the feather and have them at much greater distances from eachother you could have the feather being pulled by gravity while the bowling ball isn't pulled much at all. The same goes with the electromagnetic field, the distance on which it acts are much shorter though, but the effect is much greater, gravity is after all the weakest force (or as we would have it, the weakest that looks like a force but isn't). Maybe the same can be said of electromagnetic force, that it looks like a force, but actually isn't. That is also an area that I'm interested in.

 

[DaveC426913]

Not really a math guy, but the math would just be the math describing a photon getting more and more redshifted to the limit of infinity. It's not hard to do that math. Are you unable to see that or are you just stubbornly biting at me?

I'm simply saying this is too speculative to be in a hard sceicne forum.

I am discussing this to see if we can find testable predictions, that would be one goal, but you have to start somewhere, with an idea. Sorry, but I just don't get people like you. You take the air out of the room. No wonder science has difficulty progressing

But this isn't science. That's not what you're doing. You're merely supposing. Saying "an infinitely stretched photon" is more a matter of word salad. And then saying "how is that not like spacetime?" is not critical thinking.

if you're stuck with pseudoscientists that tries to prove ghosts when you get an original idea.

Ideas aren't science until and unless there's some evidence and math associated with them.
I simply want it to be put in a more speculative forum where it belongs.

The state of science these days are very gray.

Then why make it worse with wild speculation?

Completely unlike those days when there actually was creative thought in the science community.

Creative thought is fine. But what you ar talkino about has nothing to do with Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology, which is what this sub forum is called.

Thankfully maybe AI can do some real work.

Well that speaks volumes...

 

[Cyperium]

Ah, do you think he's an electric universe crank?

I don't have any affiliation.

 

[DaveC426913]

Maybe the same can be said of electromagnetic force, that it looks like a force, but actually isn't. That is also an area that I'm interested in.

Except that we have actually detected particles that are the carriers of the other three fundamental forces.

 

[Cyperium]

I'm simply saying this is too speculative to be in a hard sceicne forum.

That is your opinion. I'm saying it's just enough speculative to be interesting. But I'm also biased.

But this isn't science. That's not what you're doing. You're merely supposing. Saying "an infinitely stretched photon" is more a matter of word salad.

Universe might be infinite for all we know. Is spacetime being infinite also a word salad? If not, then I don't see why the concept of a infinitely stretched photon would be a word salad. It would just be the electromagnetic field seen in a different "light".

And then saying "how is that not like spacetime?" is not critical thinking.

It's a begging of understanding. It is indeed critical thinking, since it is questioning your idea of spacetime. You shouldn't just assume you know everything. Questioning concepts that we take for granted is one of science's great tools.

Ideas aren't science until and unless there's some evidence and math associated with them.

Every concept I talked about have evidence and math associated with them. Exploring ways to join one concept with another doesn't need to have math until you find a plausible way to join them and are ready to test them mathematically.

I simply want it to be put in a more speculative forum where it belongs.

I think it belongs in Cosmology since it deals with cosmological concepts. You can have your opinion on where it belongs, I don't agree with it.

Then why make it worse with wild speculation?

Speculation doesn't make science worse. That's where you are wrong. Speculation is needed, and more of it.

Creative thought is fine. But what you ar talkino about has nothing to do with Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology, which is what this sub forum is called.

It specifically has to do with Cosmology.

Well that speaks volumes...

It does.

 

[Cyperium]

Except that we have actually detected particles that are the carriers of the other three fundamental forces.

We are still looking for gravitons that supposedly should carry the gravitational force even though we've known since about 1915 that gravity is not really a force. Why do you think that is? Since science doesn't rule out particle carriers of force for gravity though it isn't really a force, we shouldn't rule out electromagnetism being not a force just because it has particles that seem to carry the force.


NOT sure about this but I think a theory of Quantum gravity would require a graviton, no matter if gravity is a force or not. We shouldn't be stuck on semantics.

 

[DaveC426913]

That is your opinion. I'm saying it's just enough speculative to be interesting. But I'm also biased.

It is not my opinion; it is speculative. The "what-ifs" are what gice it away. Unless you're about to start prodcung some numbers or something.

I did not say it wasn't interesting; I said it doesn't belong in a hard science forum, and it defintely has nothing to do with the topic you started the thread in.

Is spacetime being infinite also a word salad?

No.

If not, then I don't see why the concept of a infinitely stretched photon would be a word salad.

We've explained why.

It would just be the electromagnetic field seen in a different "light".

Except you can't explain in a rational way how or why.

It is indeed critical thinking, since it is questioning your idea of spacetime.

I could question if stars are made of unicorns, but that does not make it critical thinking.

You shouldn't just assume you know everything.

I do not, nor have I suggested in any way I might.

Questioning concepts that we take for granted is one of science's great tools.

There's a saying we use around here a lot:

Before you can think outside the box, you need to have an idea what's in the box.

Fanciful ideas with no evidence behind them are a dime a dozen. Discuss them - it's just not suitavble for the forum you've posted it in.

Every concept I talked about have evidence and math associated with them.

That claim can be applied to any word salad.

Exploring ways to join one concept with another doesn't need to have math until you find a plausible way to join them and are ready to test them mathematically.

Yes. That's what Free Thoughts is for.

I think it belongs in Cosmology since it deals with cosmological concepts.

It's really just a "what if this was that"? Adding the word "universe" in there doesn't really ground it in cosmology.

You can have your opinion on where it belongs, I don't agree with it.

And that's OK.

But now you know that AE&C is really more of a hard science forum, and "how is it not like a something-something photon" is the opposite of hard science.

Speculation doesn't make science worse. That's where you are wrong. Speculation is needed, and more of it.

Informed speculation. i.e. when one is adept in the subject.

 

[Cyperium]

It is not my opinion; it is speculative. The "what-ifs" are what gice it away. Unless you're about to start prodcung some numbers or something.

Now you're moving the goalpost. That makes me believe that you aren't arguing in good faith.

I did not say it wasn't interesting; I said it doesn't belong in a hard science forum, and it defintely has nothing to do with the topic you started the thread in.

This argumentation doesn't belong in a hard science forum. You are derailing the thread for no good reason, except that you have a stubborn opinion of what this forum should be about.

No.

We've explained why.

No you haven't and I've answered to your "explanation why" and why talk for others, talk for yourself, how do you know they weren't convinced of my explanations to them?

Except you can't explain in a rational way how or why.

Ok, so I do it again; the electromagnetic field when disturbed enough will give rise to a photon. If that photon is stretched enough it will merge again with the electromagnetic field so being in a state where it is indistuingishable from the electromagnetic field (which is when it is infinitely stretched - redshifted). This equates the infinitely redshifted photon with the electromagnetic field. The energy should then be preserved and it turns out that the energy is transferred to the gravitational field. Which I didn't know about when I started the thread but has since been revealed, giving further credence to my idea that we could find a link between the electromagnetic field and spacetime itself.

I could question if stars are made of unicorns, but that does not make it critical thinking.

Sure it would. You wouldn't need much of it to rule out that the stars isn't made of unicorns but you could certainly critically think about it. You can also critically think about if the moon is made of cheese or whatever topic you would want to critically think about. In fact, the reason you don't believe that the stars are made of unicorns or that the moon is made of cheese is because you have already critically thought about it and ruled it out, even if that critical thought only lasted for a moment. You may find that my idea is more stubborn than that though if you try to actually critically think about it.

I do not, nor have I suggested in any way I might.

You do and have suggested in many ways you might. You are doing it right now, stubbornly believing that you know why my idea isn't based on science, or that my idea isn't fit for this topic.

There's a saying we use around here a lot:

Before you can think outside the box, you need to have an idea what's in the box.

Fanciful ideas with no evidence behind them are a dime a dozen. Discuss them - it's just not suitavble for the forum you've posted it in.

You are making the irrational assumption that I don't know what's in the box, and the assumption that you understand my idea good enough to rule it out of being based on science.

That claim can be applied to any word salad.

It can? Then apply it to your idea of the stars being made of unicorns.

Yes. That's what Free Thoughts is for.

This is just an attempt to ridicule my idea. What you find ridiculous might not be what everyone find ridiculous. Man you are really rising up like a God placing His judgement on this.

It's really just a "what if this was that"? Adding the word "universe" in there doesn't really ground it in cosmology.

It's really just you thinking you understand that my idea is nonsense without giving it much thought.

And that's OK.

But now you know that AE&C is really more of a hard science forum, and "how is it not like a something-something photon" is the opposite of hard science.

Don't belittle me, I've known this forum for longer than you have. You do *not* have authority over me nor these forums. This serves only to derail my thread and to try to ridicule my ideas, which *are* based on science, believe it or not.

Informed speculation. i.e. when one is adept in the subject.

Yes.

 

[James R]

But the field itself is only defined by mathematical abstractions, there are no actual vectors/directions/arrows, it's just an abstraction, you are talking about the abstraction as if it was a thing.

It's a convenient shorthand. But you are correct: we should be careful about mistaking models for the things they are modelling.

Can we agree, then, that fields and spacetime are both abstractions, used to model different aspects of the natural world?

You see that the photon model is not the same as the spacetime model, do you not?

Seeing it as a photon stretched infinitely would make it a thing that actually exists...

Are you talking about the photon model, or the physical thing it is modelling (e.g. light etc.)

... the energy it holds...

Real things don't "hold" any energy, though, as I'm sure you'll agree. Energy is another mathematical abstraction.

... would be quantum foam that we can measure...

Quantum foam is an abstraction. I'm sure you'll agree. We can't "measure" it.

...it would be a superposition of all the fields into one *thing*.

An abstract thing?

Which is ultimately what we expect a theory of everything to produce.

Abstract mathematical models of reality? Certainly.

After all, there should have been, at least in the first moment of spacetime, a moment where everything was the same thing.

Why? What makes you think that?

 

[James R]

But what if energy can't be destroyed even if something is stretched infinitely much?

Well, energy is not a thing. Like you said. There's no "destroying" an abstract idea.

Maybe there is a lowest possible state where energy just can't be zero even though the calculation says so?

Not for free photons, there isn't.

What if we use calculations that give infinities and other impossibilities even if we know they don't exist?

What are you talking about? How is this relevant to your claim about photons and spacetime?

 

[James R]

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.

It doesn't sound like you follow the scientific literature very closely.

As a matter of fact, science is advancing faster than it ever has before. Apart from anything else, there are more scientists working on stuff than there ever have been before, and quite a few of them are bright cookies.

Did you miss the invention of anti-viral drugs, for example? Remember Covid-19 and the vaccines?
Did you miss the invention of the laser?
Did you miss the discovery of the Higgs Boson?
Did you miss the improvements in average life expectancy made in the past 50 years?
Did you miss all of quantum computing?
etc. etc.

But clearly we are missing some pretty big pieces.

Pieces of what? What are you thinking of?

 

[James R]

I agree. I also think that the EM field is actually just spacetime but at a different scale.

You must have missed where I walked you through why this wrong, previously. Oh well.

 

[James R]

That's like saying that water and waves on the water aren't the same because they are defined differently.

Water and waves aren't the same. Hence they are "defined" (described) differently.
The same goes for spacetime and photons.

I'm just saying that the electromagnetic field are a subset of spacetime...

It isn't. There's nothing "sub" to spacetime. Spacetime is the backdrop of space and time, against which events take place in the universe. Including electromagnetic events.

... a different scale bringing different equations...

Please show me, mathematically, how applying a "different scale" to spacetime can create a magnetic field.

Then we can discuss further.

Anyway, no matter if gravity should be seen as a force or not (I think it should not), it still behaves as a field, just much weaker than the electromagnetic field but in turn acting on far greater distances.

The gravitational interaction is influential over exactly the same range of distances as the electromagnetic interaction. For instance, the gravitational force between two masses drops off as the inverse square of the distance between the masses, which means the "range" of the force is infinite. Similarly, the electric force between two electric charges drops off as the inverse square of the distance between the charges, which again means that the "range" of the force is infinite.

There is a greater "pull" if you could call it that, on something close to earth than on something further away from earth, if you take the bowling ball and the feather and have them at much greater distances from eachother you could have the feather being pulled by gravity while the bowling ball isn't pulled much at all.

No. In the force picture, the force of Earth on the bowling ball will always be greater than the force of Earth on a feather, if the feather and the ball are at equal distances from Earth. This is is grade-school physics.

We are still looking for gravitons that supposedly should carry the gravitational force even though we've known since about 1915 that gravity is not really a force. Why do you think that is?

Because the 1915 theory of gravity is a classical theory, whereas gravitons would be part of a quantum theory of gravity.

In a quantum theory of gravity, the gravitational interaction would be on a similar footing to the other three fundamental interactions, all of which have force carrier bosons.

Since science doesn't rule out particle carriers of force for gravity though it isn't really a force...

You're mixing up two different theories of gravity. You can talk about one or the other, but not both at the same time. You don't get to just mix and match concepts from one theory with concepts from the other.

... we shouldn't rule out electromagnetism being not a force just because it has particles that seem to carry the force.

Electromagnetism can't be modelled as a curvature of a spacetime-like manifold. In a gravitational field, all objects with mass accelerate at the same rate due to gravity. But in a electric field, for example, objects with different electrical charges can accelerate at different rates due to the same electric field.

That's a fundamental difference, right there.

NOT sure about this but I think a theory of Quantum gravity would require a graviton...

That's standard physics. It's nice that you agree with some standard physics, I suppose.

 

[exchemist]

That's like saying that water and waves on the water aren't the same because they are defined differently. I'm just saying that the electromagnetic field are a subset of spacetime, a different scale bringing different equations, they are still embedded in the fabric of spacetime, but can they join? That's the question. Something made them appear seperate but there should be a way to link them still, the way back to the unification.

That's a useful analogy actually. They are not the same thing, obviously.

If you were to stretch (don't ask me how) a water wave infinitely, you would just have a flat water surface, i.e. with no wave and which would have no wave energy. Similarly, if you were to stretch a photon (don't ask me how) infinitely you would just have a static EM field with no wave energy, i.e. no photon.

I still don't see how you can equate an EM field with spacetime. Excitations of spacetime are gravity waves and these have been observed. Excitations of the EM field are photons. Photons and gravity waves are clearly not the same thing at all.

 

[DaveC426913]

Please show me, mathematically, how applying a "different scale" to spacetime can create a magnetic field.

Cyperium: I tried to warn ya...

Anyway, the thread has been moved. You're welcome. I helped you, (whether you like it or not). Now your ideas won't be derailed by all the pesky "rooted in existing physics and math" business, or by you triyng to defend it as hard science.

Carry on.