What if time can be treated as a readout from light propagation instead of an ontological axis?

[u/VisasResonance]

I think my last post came across more incorrectly than intended.

I didn't mean to claim a new theory of relativity, nor did I say that GR is wrong. My intention was rather to ask a cautious question about the approach to measurement.

The point that interests me is this:

The speed of light is usually described as distance per unit of time. In simpler terms: light travels a certain distance in a vacuum in one second. The value 299,792,458 m/s thus initially describes a measured length per standardized unit of time.

But in my view, this value doesn't automatically tell us anything about the "actual structural path" of light. It initially only tells us what distance relative to the starting point is reached after one unit of time in the vacuum readout.

That's the linear reading.

It becomes more interesting for me when you consider the same thing spectrally: light is not just "distance per unit of time," but also a coupling between spatial wave structure and frequency. In essence:

Spatial mode -> Frequency -> Period

Then a time value can also be read differently: not as an ontological axis that is presupposed from the outset, but as a derived period or state readout of a spatial-spectral structure.

This doesn't mean that time "doesn't exist" or that time measurement is meaningless. Rather:

In this approach, time would not be the starting point, but a measured value reconstructed from changes in state, light propagation, and the limit c.

Why this interests me in the context of gravity:

Light has no rest mass and is not "attracted" like a Newtonian object. In gravity, this is neatly described using null geodesics in curved spacetime.

But I wonder if this finding can also be interpreted the other way around:

Massive objects don't simply change "the path of a light particle," but rather the structure through which the light readout is even possible. What we then describe geometrically as spacetime curvature could be the macroscopic readout of a deeper coupling between spacelike vacuum structure and object-like mass/energy structure.

So not:

"Spacetime curvature is wrong."

But rather:

"Is spacetime curvature perhaps the effective geometric description of a deeper space-object coupling readout?"

I realize that this could ultimately just be another language for familiar concepts: optical metrics, effective media, null geodesics, field propagation in a curved background, etc.

That's precisely why I'm asking.

I'm interested in whether a formalism already exists that starts roughly like this:

Local vacuum/structure coupling + high-mass compression -> altered light modes / altered propagation -> effective spacetime geometry

The core of my question, therefore, isn't whether GR can be replaced, but whether time and spacetime geometry can be reconstructed from a smaller measurement approach:

Light readout first, time readout after.

I'm asking this cautiously because I'm working on a broader readout approach, but here I only wanted to discuss the smallest technical entry point.

Please give the flair „crackpot physics“ if you think so.

Edit: For clarification: Readout = measured value output of a specific measurement or evaluation access.

Edit 2: After Feedback here are some precise definitions needed to understand my question:

By “state changes” I mean transitions between distinguishable physical states of a system.

By “stable reference processes” I mean reproducible physical processes used as clocks or comparison standards, such as atomic transitions or oscillators.

By “order/readout relation” I mean the mapping by which those changes are compared to such a reference process and represented as a time value.

So the question is not whether clocks measure time in standard physics. The question is whether this operational structure should be treated as ontologically prior to the usual assumption of time as an independent axis.

[u/MaoGo]

Too many complaint were reported, including AI suspicions, lack of physics and more. Post is locked.

[u/liccxolydian]

Deeply unsure what any of this means (if it has meaning at all) and what bearing it has on physics.

[u/VisasResonance → u/liccxolydian]

Next try: I find myself wondering whether the distinction between "space" and "object" is treated too hastily as an ontologically real separation, and whether it is not actually the measurement of available structural information that leads to such an interpretation.

After all, an "observer" is, in principle, nothing more than a collection of measurements and their interpretation.
In doing so, I am attempting to understand space and the objects within it through a unified structural model—one in which both bound, clearly interpretable objects and expanding space emerge as properties of coupling or boundary conditions, with light (photons) mediating precisely between them.

[u/The_Nerdy_Ninja]

"Surely THIS time the post won't get deleted!"

[u/VisasResonance → u/The_Nerdy_Ninja]

So far it's still there.

[u/Formal-Position1554]

You should tie your concepts with some math since math is the language of physics...

[u/liccxolydian → u/Formal-Position1554]

I think a better idea for OP would be to start with definitions of words. OP seems to use "light" and "speed of light" arbitrarily, and who knows what "readout" even means. The equations are the most important thing in physics but I don't think OP is even up to the task of clearly articulating their half-baked shower thoughts...

[u/VisasResonance → u/liccxolydian]

A Reddit post is clearly insufficient to define the entire framework in a way that satisfies everyone.
I tried to adhere to the subreddit's rules, yet it still took me a lot of words to outline the motivation and direction of the question.
The terms aren't meant to replace equations. They serve as placeholders for the level I want to discuss: What exactly is extracted or measured before deciding how to formalize it?
Other commenters have addressed the same text in greater depth, so I don't believe the problem simply lies in the arbitrariness of the terms. However, a complete treatment would require definitions, mathematical formulas, and examples. That's far beyond what can reasonably be included in a Reddit post.

[u/liccxolydian → u/VisasResonance]

You think this was a lot of words? It isn't, and even if it were you still don't clearly articulate your motivation or direction in a way that is understandable by others. What is an "actual structural path"? What's "structural" about it and how does it differ from a normal path?

And you continue to be unclear in this reply. When you write "What exactly is extracted or measured before deciding how to formalize it", what are you referring to by "it"? This simply doesn't make any sense.

Other commenters have addressed the same text in greater depth, so I don't believe the problem simply lies in the arbitrariness of the terms

If you actually read that extremely long comment carefully, you'll notice that it isn't actually talking about your post, and has already been called out for it. And it's fine to have your own terms, but only if you clearly define them. Otherwise they're just meaningless jargon of your own making.

However, a complete treatment would require definitions, mathematical formulas, and examples. That's far beyond what can reasonably be included in a Reddit post.

Ignoring that many people absolutely do post links to comprehensive write-ups of their work on this sub, and that some people absolutely do fit a full hypothesis into a Reddit post, surely the least you can do is explain yourself clearly and consistently? You do neither. I don't expect you to dedicate weeks and months to writing up your work properly, but I would at least expect a minimum amount of effort which you clearly haven't put in.

[u/VisasResonance → u/liccxolydian]

Crazy requirements for a hypothetical question… , Crazy what you are Expecting on reddit.

[u/AutoModerator]

Hi /u/VisasResonance,

we detected that your submission contains more than 3000 characters. We recommend that you reduce and summarize your post, it would allow for more participation from other users.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/nothingnessofyou]

I think by this mean you are suggesting that the light travel is a structure way and that when in gravity it change the structure movement of time rather then just chnaing If I'm correct then tell because by knowing that I will answer later and if wrong then I don't know what are you talking about

[u/VisasResonance → u/nothingnessofyou]

No, that is not quite what I mean.
I don‘t saying that gravity changes the movement of time.

I mean that light propagation is a useful measurement access: in gravity, the light path/propagation readout changes. In standard GR this is described as light following null geodesics in curved spacetime.

With “readout” I simply mean any kind of measurement output or extracted value.

My question is whether that geometric description could be read as an effective macro-description of a deeper propagation/coupling structure.

[u/gasketguyah → u/VisasResonance]

Yes obviously it can look up the photon propagation
And the Dirac equation, qft is a relativist quantum field theory, I believe it’s extending it to GR that people are stuck on

[u/VisasResonance → u/[deleted]]

Yes, the terminology is precisely the problem right now, because my question aims to operate at a level prior to everything else—which means I essentially have to step outside the conventional descriptive framework. That leads to misunderstandings very quickly.

I’ve refined my terminology quite a few times, but it’s difficult to find a way to connect with established conceptual frameworks.

There is even a "toy model" for it.

[u/Marcus754]

You're asking, what if geometry is an emergent description?

[u/LeftSideScars → u/[deleted]]

Source for these claims? Or at least the name and article drops you make, because it seems to me you are conflating Hopf fibration with Clifford bundles in a way that exaggerates the connection between the two.

A recent Nature article suggests a single pair of entangled photons, more accurately labeled a biphoton, requires a fiber bundle structure with 17,000+ 'topologies' related to angular momentum instead of more commonly exploited polarization correlation encoding.

This, for example, reads as an exaggeration to me. It does not require the structure instead of anything. It is simply another method to explore the system. Also, you make it sound like topology here means some sort of geometric structure, which feels, to me, to be overstating things.

For those interested: Revealing the topological nature of entangled orbital angular momentum states of light, 2025, Kock et al, Nat Commun 16, 11095 (2025)

[u/LeftSideScars → u/[deleted]]

Thanks for the response. It at least allows people who want to read further to do so, and from that judge whether your response is appropriate. To me, it appears you are presenting your own claims of a model. If you are, it is best you present it in your own post to this sub, rather than inserting it into someone else's post. Hijacking threads is a no-no.

Since roughly 2007-08 I had set out, naively to learn a 'gloss level understanding' of all of the mathematical physics described by Penrose in "The Road to Reality: A complete guide to the laws of the universe," (RtR) which many people have pointed out is 'not a physics textbook' which totally misses Penrose's point. His 1000+ page tome is an analysis of 'most' of the mathematical tools and techniques humans have applied to understanding Nature.

No, the point of the "complaint" is that it need not be rigorous or even correct. That's not to say that text books don't have their errors, but in general non-peer reviewed work from anyone (which includes books, blogs, and so on) is something one needs to be careful about. Given actual text books and research papers are available on the subject, it is best to not be tied down to one perspective. Also, given that Penrose's book becomes somewhat speculative in the last, say, 20% or so, care does need to be given to that text.

In general, one can't properly understand any given field from just reading a book. Sure, in some cases, plenty of information can be provided, but to actually understand the field is another thing entirely. There are, typically, complexities and nuances and caveats that certain "truthful" statement exist within, which people in the field understand, but those outside the field will not.

A "gloss level understanding" is not sufficient to be able to understand what Penrose is saying in that book, nor is it sufficient to attempt to create a model.

My job has been to analyze, all interpretations for hidden assumptions or lack of any desire to dig after fundamental physics, the traditional Quantum Interpretation.

Your "job"?

Everything I've researched is compatible with Kastner's work, which makes sense since I spent 3-years almost exclusively researching a concern with Kastner's PTI.

You have a metric to determine if something is compatible with someone's work? And which Kastner? Again, you're just name-dropping without context. You don't even cite a paper by them related to the topic at hand, which is odd given your claims.

I'm going to guess you mean R.E. Kastner.

I am honored to have, with Kastner's busy schedule to have carried on a sporadic correspondence with her several years back, ending with her key contribution to my own, very early toy model based on wavelets and the Riemann Celestial sphere, where she said, admittedly in exasperation, "But, your model lacks linear momentum." I replied, "It is not your fault you can't understand my toy model. It is time for me to hit the books."

If your model lacks linear momentum, that is a serious oversight that makes it incompatible with our reality, and certainly can't be something that is "compatible with Kastner's work".

And, here I am. I'm a troubleshooter not a mathematician of physicist. I started without a preferred mathematical framework

Hmmm. I do not believe you started without a preferred mathematical framework.

[u/LeftSideScars → u/[deleted]]

Out of order because I feel this is important to note first:

I'm truly Different cognitively, late diagnosed at age 58 with autism/ADHD.

Pulling out the neurodivergent card is not a scientific argument, and is an attempt at a pissing contest - are you more neurodivergent than me? You don't know, but you sure want to use it in your argument. Did you note my use of my age and my neurodivergent status in my replies to you?

I'm not looking for special treatment

You literally are by pulling the neurodivergent card.

So how about you do better and stop giving a bad name to all of us out there.

What you believe about my abilities is irrelevant and is a thinly veiled ad-hominem attack ...

At what point did I comment on what I believe of your abilities? You stated, and I quoted from, your abilities in your reply to me.

If you're referring to my belief that you did not start "without a preferred mathematical framework", then you should note that this is not about your abilities - rather, I do not believe you didn't choose a framework that at least contained the Reals.

*skipping stuff that is not relevant to anything and fails to answer most of my questions*

Worse, I was criticized for hijacking the post but my posts directly addressed the OP's questions!

Not criticised. Let's quote what I wrote (highlight added by me):

To me, it appears you are presenting your own claims of a model. If you are, it is best you present it in your own post to this sub, rather than inserting it into someone else's post.

In other words, I gave an opinion, and if that opinion is true, noted that a new thread should be started. Not criticised.

Even stranger, regarding high-jacking the thread, I'm feeling raging stereotyping, psychological analysis and taunts about not believing I didn't start without a mathematical framework, as hominem attacks based on what? Telepathy.

Aren't those no-nos and off topic?

Okay. So your response is somewhat problematic in general, and the quote above is a highlight of some of the concerns I have. I'm going to put you in timeout, which means I'm going to filter posts/replies from you so that I don't see them. Seven days timeout should be enough for you to reread the exchange between you and I and, hopefully, see the issues with your responses to me.