This post was rejected for the following reason(s):
Difficult to evaluate, with potential yellow flags. We are sorry about this, but, unfortunately this content has some yellow-flags that historically have usually indicated kinda crackpot-esque material. It's totally plausible that actually this one is totally fine. Unfortunately, part of the trouble with separating valuable from confused speculative science or philosophy is that the ideas are quite complicated, accurately identifying whether they have flaws is very time intensive, and we don't have time to do that for every new user presenting a speculative theory or framing (which are usually wrong).
Our solution for now is that we're rejecting this post, but you are welcome to submit posts or comments that are about different topics. If it seems like that goes well, we can re-evaluate the original post. But, we want to see that you're not just here to talk about this one thing (or a cluster of similar things).
Hello LessWrong community,
I’ve been developing an alternative perspective on light, spacetime, and their relationship in the context of relativity and quantum physics. The idea I’m proposing challenges some of the fundamental assumptions in modern physics, particularly how we understand the motion of light and its connection to the fabric of spacetime.
The Current Paradigm: In our standard model, light (photons) is considered massless and travels at the speed of light (c) through spacetime. In special relativity, light’s speed is constant in all inertial reference frames, and the movement of light is central to understanding spacetime geometry.
The Core Idea: What if light is not moving at all? Instead, what if it is stationary, and everything else moves through it?
Here’s the reasoning behind this idea:
Light as a Constant Reference: The speed of light is considered a universal constant, independent of the motion of the observer. This has always struck me as odd because, if everything else is moving through spacetime, shouldn’t light also be subject to that motion? Instead, we assume light is moving through spacetime, even though we have no clear explanation of how a massless object can generate energy and propagate without an initial push.
Spacetime Movement: What if instead of light itself moving, it is the spacetime itself that is moving? Think of a pole sticking out of the ocean that remains stationary while the water moves around it. Light could be akin to this stationary object. It remains at rest, but the surrounding spacetime (the "water" in this analogy) moves around it.
No Initial Motion for Light: In current models, light is considered to have motion from the moment of its creation. However, if we treat light as stationary, this paradox disappears. Instead of thinking of light as somehow "accelerating" from zero speed to the speed of light, we could view it as a stationary phenomenon in the fabric of spacetime. The motion we observe is not the light itself moving but rather the movement of spacetime around it, causing energy and momentum to propagate.
Implications: If light is stationary, it would be the universal constant, and everything else would move relative to it. This would provide a simpler and more intuitive explanation for why light behaves the way it does and how we can reconcile it with quantum mechanics and general relativity.
Potential Observational Consequences: This idea could provide alternative explanations for the behavior of photons and the transfer of energy. It may offer new insights into quantum entanglement or the nature of spacetime itself, particularly in regards to how massless particles like photons interact with their environment. It might help address some questions related to vacuum energy or even dark matter if these are seen as manifestations of variations in spacetime itself, rather than separate phenomena. Challenges: I understand this concept goes against much of what we currently believe about the nature of light and spacetime. However, I believe it aligns with the principle of relativity that all reference frames are valid. If we take light as stationary, the relativity of motion still holds—everything else is in motion relative to light. The concept of energy transfer could be reconsidered—light as the "reference" of the universe, with everything else moving relative to it, may provide a more elegant solution to some of the unresolved questions in physics. I’m curious to hear your thoughts on this perspective. Does it hold up under scrutiny? Are there any specific phenomena that could be explained better or more simply using this approach?
Looking forward to your feedback!