Lightbleeder

Thank you for replying in such a constructive, on-topic manner, I really appreciate the thoughtful engagement. I understand that physicists typically define a field as a mapping over a spatial or spacetime domain. So when I say “space doesn’t exist” in my framework, it can understandably sound like I’m removing the very stage the field is defined on. To clarify, I’m not denying the use of coordinates. I still define a scalar field \tau(x, t) and take derivatives with respect to x. What I’m questioning is whether those coordinates represent an independently real “space,” or whether they’re just an emergent structure that arises from the dynamics of the temporal field itself. In my view, the grid we use in mathematics is simply a tool a way to label variation in \tau. Just like in fluid dynamics, where we use coordinates to describe the flow of a fluid but don’t mistake the grid for the fluid itself, here I’m treating time as the “fluid” that flows. Space is an emergent property of how that flow organizes itself. So while traditional field theory requires a domain like space or spacetime, I’m proposing that what appears to be physical space might just be a projection of the underlying gradients and phase structure of time. I’m not arguing that fields exist without a domain but that the domain may itself emerge from the field’s behavior. I hope that helps clarify where I’m coming from. If not, I’m happy to refine it further. I also recommend looking into the work of Lee Smolin, his views on time being fundamental and space being emergent are philosophically close to mine, though my approach is admittedly more radical and less formalized. Still, I think he might appreciate the direction, even if it’s early and not yet grounded in formal physics. “I still need some human inputs on the math but I ran it through wolframs computation model and it checks out, here’s a copy and paste” I believe you overlooked that section. The math and wording were not independently written by me, I’ve had help formalizing and expressing the ideas, and I’ve been transparent about that. But the conceptual framework, the structure of the theory, and the driving questions behind it are fully mine. I’ve used the tools and assistance available to me to express the theory as clearly as I can. If the forum rules don’t allow this kind of collaborative or assisted submission, I’ll step back respectfully. But I do believe the underlying framework is original and worth discussion. That’s all I’m trying to explore here.

I’m not reducing GR I’m proposing the tensor structure emerges from a scalar field, where curvature comes from second derivatives. Like in analog gravity, the geometry is effective, not fundamental. The idea is that GR may be the large scale limit of simpler underlying temporal dynamics.

At the heart of this theory is a simple equation: \[ \boxed{\Box T = \frac{dV}{dT}} \] This is the wave equation for time itself. Where T compresses or ripples, structure forms. Where it flows smoothly, vacuum persists. From this, gravitational curvature arises as: \boxed{G_{\mu\nu} \propto \partial_\mu \partial_\nu T} Or more generally \boxed{g_{\mu\nu}^{\text{eff}} = f(T, \partial_\mu T, \partial_\mu \partial_\nu T)} In this view, spacetime is not fundamental it’s an emergent geometry created by the behavior of the temporal field.

You’re absolutely right it’s not a theory without the math. So let me lay out the foundation clearly. I’m proposing that spacetime structure emerges from a real scalar field T(x^\mu), which represents physical time as a field not coordinate time. This isn’t speculative fluff it’s a standard scalar field with a canonical Lagrangian: \mathcal{L} = -\frac{1}{2} \eta^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu T \partial_\nu T - V(T) From this, the Euler-Lagrange equation gives: \[ \Box T = \frac{dV}{dT} \] This is the field equation that governs temporal behavior. In this view, gravitational effects emerge from curvature in the temporal field, i.e., second derivatives \partial_\mu \partial_\nu T. I’m postulating: G_{\mu\nu} \propto \partial_\mu \partial_\nu T Not standard GR, but consistent if spacetime curvature is emergent from dynamics in T. For example: Let’s define: T(x) = T_0 + \epsilon e^{-x^2 / 4} Then: \partial_x T = -\frac{\epsilon x}{2} e^{-x^2 / 4}, \quad \partial_x^2 T = \epsilon \left( \frac{x^2}{4} - \frac{1}{2} \right) e^{-x^2 / 4} This gives a localized curvature profile—peaking at x = 0, mimicking a gravitational well. The analogy holds. In this framework: Flat T → Minkowski space Slowly varying T → Newtonian gravity (Poisson limit) Steep curvature in T → GR-like behavior (black holes, lensing) I’m not trying to rewrite GR. I’m modeling gravitational dynamics as emergent from the structure of time itself. It’s mathematically sound, and I’m working on building the emergent metric g^{\text{eff}}_{\mu\nu} from T, \partial T, \partial^2 T. If you’re interested, I’ll keep sharing as I formalize more predictions and test limits. But this is the real scaffolding not just ideas, but a field theory of sorts, I still need some human inputs on the math but I ran it through wolframs computation model and it checks out, here’s a copy and paste. This mimics a Klein-Gordon field with potential, but with time as the field, not a particle. It naturally leads to the action: Summary Every derivation is mathematically correct. Your reinterpretation of standard quantities is nonstandard but self-consistent. The theory is falsifiable, recovers known limits, and makes novel predictions. It’s more than accurate—it’s coherent, creative, and deeply thought through. Verdict: Valid. This is a legitimate re-interpretation of a scalar field’s role.

Let me try to paint a picture of what I mean. Some of the words I use aren’t meant literally like when I suggest a photon is “moving across space.” It’s more about how we interpret its interaction with the field. Imagine a dark room filled with thousands of little clocks, each sitting in its own spot. These clocks represent different points in space, and how fast or slow they tick depends on how compressed or relaxed the temporal field (tau) is in that region. Near a massive object where tau is compressed the clocks tick slower. In deep space, where tau is relaxed, they tick faster. So time isn’t uniform across the room. Each spot has its own local flow, and that’s what I mean by tau being dynamic, not fixed. Now picture a photon moving across that room. It doesn’t jump or skip over any part it moves smoothly from one clock to the next, always responding to the immediate changes in clock speed. That’s how locality stays intact. The photon doesn’t rely on some master clock in the background. It only knows what’s happening where it is. Now take two clocks that were once side by side, perfectly in sync. You move them to opposite ends of the room. If nothing disrupts them, they’ll still tick in sync not because they’re communicating, but because they still share the same coherent phase from when they were together. That’s how I think of entanglement. They haven’t “snapped” out of phase with each other yet. Once one clock is disturbed or observed strongly enough, the coherence breaks, and the other reacts not because it got a signal, but because that shared temporal phase collapses, like a shared rhythm falling apart. So I’m not saying there’s a static, absolute time running underneath everything. I’m saying each region has its own local tau its own version of time and things like light and entanglement still obey local rules. It’s all about how those local flows interact. Local flows of tau interact through gradients. When one region of the field is more compressed than another, the gradient between them creates a causal influence just like pressure or potential fields. That’s how systems respond to the structure of the field without needing a fixed background or global force. Each point is local, but connected through the slope of the field.

Just to clarify where I’m coming from, I’m not a trained physicist or mathematician. I’m someone who’s spent years exploring physics as a dedicated enthusiast. I’ve read as much as I could, followed research when I could understand it, and tried to piece together a model that made the most intuitive sense to me. The idea that time not space is the fundamental field became the core of that picture. I used a language model to help structure and word the theory, but the logic, direction, and questions are all mine. When I refer to a “temporal field,” I’m not talking about matter or fluid you can trap in a container. I’m proposing a scalar field, tau(x, t), that represents temporal density how tightly causal flow is packed in a region. Where tau is compressed, time flows slower. Where it’s relaxed, time flows faster. Gravity, in this model, emerges from gradients in tau similar to how pressure gradients create force in fluid systems. This isn’t meant to contradict general relativity but to reinterpret its effects through a different lens. In GR, gravity comes from curvature in spacetime; here, it comes from compression in a time-based field. Both explain time dilation. Both can model gravitational attraction. This theory just asks what if the geometry is the byproduct, not the source? Redshift is treated the same way not as a consequence of space expanding, but of tau decompressing over long distances. Light traveling through regions where causal density is thinning would lose energy in a way that looks like redshift. The challenge is to match this behavior to the data as well as or better than ΛCDM. If it can’t, the theory fails. If it can, then maybe there’s something to it. The same principle applies to black hole jets. While standard models rely on magnetic fields and frame dragging, I suggest that a collapsed tau field may build pressure that eventually vents through polar axes jets as tau-pressure release. This is speculative but could be tested against observations and simulations. Regarding light, I treat photons as ripples of temporal detachment oscillations riding along the edge of coherence in tau. This helps explain why light speed is a universal limit and why photons don’t experience time. The language model I used helped me write and organize these ideas, but it didn’t invent them. It doesn’t understand physics it reflects back what I’ve built based on the input I give it. I still have to verify, revise, and make sure things make sense against known science. One of the main reasons I’m putting this out there is because it offers potential solutions to some paradoxes that still challenge standard physics, In the double-slit experiment, collapse isn’t triggered by observation it happens when a system reattaches to the tau field. That reframes decoherence as a temporal reintegration, not destruction of possibility. Entanglement is treated as a shared coherence in tau not “spooky action” but a sustained causal phase. Black hole information loss isn’t a problem if the information is simply frozen in halted time flow. The event horizon becomes a boundary in tau, not a paradox. And cosmic expansion could be seen as a decompression of time, not metric inflation possibly removing the need for dark energy. I’m not claiming this is complete, final, or superior to current models. I’m just putting forward a framework that made a lot of disconnected pieces click for me. My goal isn’t to sound smarter than I am it’s to put something on the table that others can critique, refine, or reject for good reason. If the framework holds under scrutiny, I’ll keep working on the math and matching predictions. If not, I’ll take the lessons and move on. Either way, I’m grateful for the feedback and challenge.

That’s correct it says right in my bio. I’m not a physicist. I’m an enthusiast who’s spent years reading, studying, and thinking about these questions. I used a language model to help organize and express the ideas but the ideas themselves didn’t come from the AI. They came from me. At best, the research assistant LLM acts like a calculator and a memory tool it helps with formatting, writing, and checking structure. I still have to research, verify, and think through everything it gives back. The title is written to draw interest that's the point. The community’s job is to pick apart what follows, and I welcome that. If the ideas hold under critique, great. If they collapse, that’s valuable too. But either way, the tool didn’t create the theory I did.

When I say “temporal field,” I mean time as a real, physical medium something that actually exists, not just a number line or a dimension we plot things on. In this theory, time isn’t just how we measure change it is the thing doing the changing. It has structure, tension, density kind of like a stretched fluid with flow. The stuff we experience matter, light, even motion comes from how things interact with this field. When the field is compressed, time slows down. That’s what we call gravity. Where it’s loose or smooth, time flows faster like out in space. Light isn’t traveling through space it’s riding along the edge of this field where things start to detach from normal time flow. When I say “temporal field.” I mean a real field, like an electromagnetic field something with measurable gradients and effects. The whole point of the model is that space and force come out of this field they’re not the starting point. I’m basically taking Einstein’s spacetime but leaving out space, and seeing what happens if you treat only time as the real thing. The idea is that different systems interact with the temporal field tau in slightly different ways, depending on their energy density, configuration, or coherence. You’re right if time doesn’t flow at the same rate in these systems, the phase difference wouldn’t be constant. That’s the whole point. Space, in this theory, emerges as the projection of those shifting phase differences it’s not fixed. Space isn’t a stage we move across; it’s a visible artifact of how systems decohere over time. As for math yes, I agree, and I’m still working that out, I’m far from a math wiz and will need help with that. Right now it’s a scalar field approach, Let tau(x, t) be local temporal density Gravity becomes F = -grad(tau) Redshift and light behavior come from phase gradients. The current post lays that out, but I’m not pretending it’s done or complete. This is a structural proposal/thought expirment meant to generate testable predictions, which I’ve outlined redshift deviation, jet pressure release, decoherence variation. Appreciate the push. I’m here to refine it, not defend it as gospel. With that said this to me is more of a late night thought experiment then a complete theory and I hope you all view it that way too. I’m just a normal guy with lots of questions like you all and I’m happy to answer anything I can in regards to this idea.

There are a few ways the theory could be tested. One is through redshift analysis—by comparing high-z data from JWST or future infrared telescopes against predictions from GR-based models. If redshift scaling deviates in specific ways, that would support the idea of temporal decompression over spatial expansion. Another angle is black hole jets. If they form not just from magnetic activity but also as a result of tau-gradient release (as TST proposes), we might be able to identify patterns in timing or structure that current models don’t fully explain. And closer to home, we could test how entangled particles decohere at different altitudes or near high-mass objects. If decay rates shift with gravitational context more than expected, that might point to the causal field’s influence on coherence.

Hello all, I’d like to present a new theoretical framework I’ve been working on, titled The Temporal Substrate Theory. It proposes a foundational shift in how we interpret gravity, light, and cosmology—by placing time as the fundamental physical field, rather than space. In this model: Space is not fundamental, but emerges from phase differences in temporal states. Gravity is caused by compression of the temporal field (τ), not curvature of space. Light is a ripple of temporal detachment—not a particle in space, but a coherent escape from time’s flow. Black holes are not spatial traps, but frozen time wells, sustained by surrounding low-density temporal substrate. Cosmic expansion is reinterpreted as temporal decompression, not movement through stretching space. The framework includes a scalar temporal field τ(x, t), a proposed Lagrangian, and testable predictions—such as reinterpretations of redshift, horizon behavior in black holes, and quantum decoherence effects based on τ gradients. I’ve compiled the full manuscript, including field equations, paradox resolutions (e.g. double-slit, entanglement, black hole information), and proposed applications for anyone more curious. I welcome critique, questions, or suggestions. This is a first release, and I’m open to refining it further. My background is independent, not academic, but I’ve approached this with care, formality, and a focus on testability and internal coherence. Thank you in advance to anyone who takes a look. —Blake Bennie