13 minutes ago, joigus said:

Metaphors won't get you where you want to go.

Do you realise you're trying to use gravity to explain quantum gravity via photons? That's what your LLM of choice is suggesting you to do. Doesn't that sound ill-conceived?

Remember the most useful tool for a theoretical physicist is actually the wastepaper basket.

Do you think that I got this idea from AI?
If yes, then you are wrong, sir.I had the question: what if light is the source of everything — and by light, I mean the photon.
Science grew this much because of foolish ideas and so-called nonsense,then why don’t we let our brains be free and explore this universe?
If I’m wrong, then I’m wrong.
I will throw it in the bin if needed,I don’t care about that.

I am here to explore, create, and not to obey a foolish system.

If you take a look at history, then in this century there are no revolutionary theories,but we have more advanced tools and access to any information we want.
Back then, they wrote freely, with the pure intention to know the universe,not just to protect careers or chase recognition.

I will do as much as I can.

If you ask an ill-posed question to an AI, it will give a reasonable sounding answer, and lead you down a rabbit hole with erroneous backing evidence.
The advice given by Joigus is sound ( as always ). Try not to be so thin-skinned in science; a big part of critical thinking is criticising.
I, myself, find the question "what if light is the source of everything" ill posed, as lead-up to explain a particle which may not exist if the gravitational field cannot be quantized.

That's not to say that this a useless exercise, as it will teach you limits of your ( and the AI's ) knowledge such that you can expand it.

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

If you ask an ill-posed question to an AI, it will give a reasonable sounding answer, and lead you down a rabbit hole with erroneous backing evidence.

Exactly. This is a pattern. At least at the point we are now in the development of language-based AI. It will almost never say: "Your question is flawed". Many questions and instructions one can think of are flawed.

"Move five meters north of the North Pole " is flawed.

IMO, gravity (collapse is a mechanism of gravity) explaining gravity (gravitons are the source of gravity) through photons must be flawed. It must be. I don't have to think about the details.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Exactly. This is a pattern. At least at the point we are now in the development of language-based AI. It will almost never say: "Your question is flawed". Many questions and instructions one can think of are flawed.

"Move five meters north of the North Pole " is flawed.

IMO, gravity (collapse is a mechanism of gravity) explaining gravity (gravitons are the source of gravity) through photons must be flawed. It must be. I don't have to think about the details.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

If you ask an ill-posed question to an AI, it will give a reasonable sounding answer, and lead you down a rabbit hole with erroneous backing evidence.
The advice given by Joigus is sound ( as always ). Try not to be so thin-skinned in science; a big part of critical thinking is criticising.
I, myself, find the question "what if light is the source of everything" ill posed, as lead-up to explain a particle which may not exist if the gravitational field cannot be quantized.

That's not to say that this a useless exercise, as it will teach you limits of your ( and the AI's ) knowledge such that you can expand it.

I understand sir.
But if i get motive to learn then i will continue with this thing until it either fails or become perfect.
The world needs more losers to win.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

I don't have to think about the details.

As for the line “I don’t have to think about the details” —
To be honest, that made you sound amateur and arrogant in my view.

Update!
I have removed some extra claims and sections for now as i will research more before adding them.
PoRes might be removed from Version 2.I will ready complete progress update and post in while.

GraviGenesis – Progress Update

Since my initial post, I’ve made several meaningful refinements to the GraviGenesis model. The framework now focuses more precisely on how high energy conditions at fundamental scales could give rise to gravitational behavior, using a structured field approach. I’ve developed a custom Lagrangian for a spin-2 gravitational field that avoids ghost instabilities and respects gauge symmetry. The model has also been reshaped to recover Newtonian gravity through numerical tests, increasing its consistency with known physics. One of the most important conceptual additions is the idea of curvature decay — a natural weakening of spacetime curvature over time due to redshifted field energy. Overall,the theory has moved away from symbolic intuition and is now taking a more mathematical and falsifiable form, open to review and criticism.

Small Update
349 views and growing — appreciate everyone who’s read or engaged so far. I’ll continue improving the structure and testing the model as far as it holds. Still a work in progress, but the goal remains the same: to either shape something solid or watch it collapse for the right reasons.

53 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

To be honest, that made you sound amateur and arrogant in my view.

The thing is, when you understand why mainstream theories work and are familiar with the evidence, you can tell when some proposals are not going to work.

You mentioned the Planck density (is that an energy density?) at one point but I don’t see where you calculated what this is. It’s not going to be a large value because the planck volume is quite small - ~10^-105 m^3, so the planck energy density is around 10^-95 J/m^3

An IR photon with an energy around 10^-19 J with a 1 micron wavelength has an energy density of somewhere around 10^-37 J/m^3. Any visible photon is going to be even higher. Photons from any light source would be collapsing all over the place with that criterion.

(quantifying things is often a much more direct path than hand-wavy narratives)

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

The thing is, when you understand why mainstream theories work and are familiar with the evidence, you can tell when some proposals are not going to work.

You mentioned the Planck density (is that an energy density?) at one point but I don’t see where you calculated what this is. It’s not going to be a large value because the planck volume is quite small - ~10^-105 m^3, so the planck energy density is around 10^-95 J/m^3

An IR photon with an energy around 10^-19 J with a 1 micron wavelength has an energy density of somewhere around 10^-37 J/m^3. Any visible photon is going to be even higher. Photons from any light source would be collapsing all over the place with that criterion.

(quantifying things is often a much more direct path than hand-wavy narratives)

I understand Sir.

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

The thing is, when you understand why mainstream theories work and are familiar with the evidence, you can tell when some proposals are not going to work.

You mentioned the Planck density (is that an energy density?) at one point but I don’t see where you calculated what this is. It’s not going to be a large value because the planck volume is quite small - ~10^-105 m^3, so the planck energy density is around 10^-95 J/m^3

An IR photon with an energy around 10^-19 J with a 1 micron wavelength has an energy density of somewhere around 10^-37 J/m^3. Any visible photon is going to be even higher. Photons from any light source would be collapsing all over the place with that criterion.

(quantifying things is often a much more direct path than hand-wavy narratives)

I understand Sir.

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

The thing is, when you understand why mainstream theories work and are familiar with the evidence, you can tell when some proposals are not going to work.

You mentioned the Planck density (is that an energy density?) at one point but I don’t see where you calculated what this is. It’s not going to be a large value because the planck volume is quite small - ~10^-105 m^3, so the planck energy density is around 10^-95 J/m^3

An IR photon with an energy around 10^-19 J with a 1 micron wavelength has an energy density of somewhere around 10^-37 J/m^3. Any visible photon is going to be even higher. Photons from any light source would be collapsing all over the place with that criterion.

(quantifying things is often a much more direct path than hand-wavy narratives)

that issue was present in the early version but has been fully addressed in Version 2. The updated model includes proper thresholds to ensure ordinary photons cannot collapse, and all relevant conditions are now quantified. Appreciate the critique — it helped improve the work.

8 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

As for the line “I don’t have to think about the details” —
To be honest, that made you sound amateur and arrogant in my view.

I don't think it's arrogant.

You want to explain gravity (the quantum version, that is; gravitons).

In order to do that you need photons to "collapse". I'm assuming you mean "gravitational collapse". If you mean quantum mechanical collapse, say so. But then quantum mechanical so-called "collapse" is not well understood and/or presently disfavoured as an interpretation of quantum mechanics. If you mean "collapse" in other sense that's completely new, the new ambiguous concept deserves an explanation/introduction.

Therefore, the idea is ill-conceived because you're appealing to gravity to explain gravity.

Your basic assumption rests on a monumental begging-the-question fallacy, it seems to me. If not, please clarify.

When the idea is ill-conceived from the start, you don't need to look any deeper. Other times you do.

Some of the greatest physicists of the 20th century were known to have dismissed silly ideas very quickly. Heisenberg himself generated some of the craziest, silliest ones after WWII. It seems he had 'lost it' by then.

Other members are giving you more specific criticism. I suggest you examine that.

56 minutes ago, joigus said:

you're appealing to gravity to explain gravity

Thanks for the feedback. Just to clarify — the issue you raised has already been addressed in GraviGenesis V2. The model doesn't assume gravity to explain gravity. It proposes that when two high-energy photons interact and their combined energy exceeds the Planck threshold within a small volume, they can form a spin-2 graviton. This is explicitly stated and based on known quantum spin coupling rules (1⊗1 = 0⊕1⊕2). So the graviton emerges from photon interactions — not from gravity itself.

(I’ve used some tools to write this am reply as was unable to write 1⊗1 = 0⊕1⊕2 manually)

1 minute ago, Dhillon1724X said:

It proposes that when two high-energy photons interact and their combined energy exceeds the Planck threshold

The Planck threshold is defined by G, besides c and h bar. Please, do study elementary physics.

1 minute ago, joigus said:

The Planck threshold is defined by G, besides c and h bar. Please, do study elementary physics.

You're absolutely right — the Planck threshold is defined using fundamental constants including G, along with h and c. That’s fully acknowledged in the model. But just to clarify: while G is part of the definition, the theory does not assume gravitational effects to cause graviton formation. It uses energy density at the Planck scale as the trigger, not pre-existing gravity or curvature.

Thanks again for the correction — I genuinely appreciate the engagement and respect your words.

Just now, Dhillon1724X said:

You're absolutely right — the Planck threshold is defined using fundamental constants including G, along with h and c. That’s fully acknowledged in the model. But just to clarify: while G is part of the definition, the theory does not assume gravitational effects to cause graviton formation. It uses energy density at the Planck scale as the trigger, not pre-existing gravity or curvature.

Thanks again for the correction — I genuinely appreciate the engagement and respect your words.

If the energy is not gravitational, where does it come from ?

3 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

Thanks again for the correction — I genuinely appreciate the engagement and respect your words.

And I yours.

Whenever you have a G you have gravity. Otherwise, it would have been named otherwise. "Collapse" just means gravitational collapse. When you introduce G and c, it signals GR, when you further have h-bar your dimensional analysis signals quantisation of the horizon areas. I think it's safe to assume we still don't totally understand why the combination of the three leads us to an almost unfathomably-small distance (and therefore area, and volume), an almost unfathomably small time, and a chunk of energy that's approximately the relativistic energy of an amoeba. I have a feeling that might be significantly related to some amount of minimal information that does something. I'm not sure of what that is or does.

Edited July 7Jul 7 by joigus
minor correction

I understand that many of the critiques may be based on my earlier foundational version, which did have several gaps in explanation — it was still in development at that stage. But I’ve since worked hard to fix those issues.

In the current version (GraviGenesis V2), the core assumptions have been clarified, logical structure strengthened, and key points like photon-photon interactions, spin-2 graviton formation, and Planck threshold mechanisms are now properly defined.

I’ve also added observable evidence references (like light-by-light scattering) and fully aligned the model with Newtonian and relativistic predictions. I’m currently expanding the theory into black hole formation — including a graviton-based mechanism that naturally explains Hawking radiation through graviton field dissipation.

Happy to share the updated version and always open to constructive critique as the theory evolves further.

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

If the energy is not gravitational, where does it come from ?

Good question — and you're right to press on the source of energy. In this model, the energy doesn't come from a pre-existing photon field, but from the initial conditions of the Big Bang itself. The universe began in an extremely hot, dense state, and that energy was initially carried by photons.

What the model proposes is that, during the earliest instants after the Big Bang, the photon energy density crossed the Planck threshold. This triggered a quantum transition, where photon-photon interactions at those extreme scales led to the formation of gravitons — which then began to shape spacetime.

So the energy is not gravitational to begin with. It’s just raw radiation energy from the Big Bang, and gravity emergesfrom how that energy evolves at the quantum level.

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

If the energy is not gravitational, where does it come from ?

Exactly.

5 minutes ago, joigus said:

And I yours.

Whenever you have a G you have gravity. Otherwise, it would have been named otherwise. "Collapse" just means gravitational collapse. When you introduce G and c, it signals GR, when you further have h-bar your dimensional analysis signals quantisation of the horizon areas. I think it's safe to assume we still don't totally understand why the combination of the three leads as to an almost unfathomably-small distance (and therefore area, and volume), an almost unfathomably small time, and a chunk of energy that's approximately the relativistic energy of an amoeba. I have a feeling that might be significantly related to some amount of minimal information that does something. I'm not sure of what that is or does.

Really appreciate your thoughts — and I agree, the way GG, ℏℏ, and cc come together at the Planck scale does seem to point to something deeper we still don’t fully understand. The scales they define are so extreme, it feels like nature is telling us there’s a limit to how small, energetic, or short-lived things can get.

And yes, having GG in the formula does bring gravity into the picture, no doubt. But in my model, GG is part of setting the threshold — not assuming that gravity is already active. The idea is that once energy density crosses that boundary, then gravity (via gravitons) begins to emerge.

I also found your point about minimal information really interesting. Maybe that’s part of what links energy, geometry, and quantum gravity together. I don’t have a full answer either, but I think it’s the kind of question worth looking into more deeply.

Thanks again for engaging — I really respect your view.

One thing worth mentioning: A single photon travelling in free space cannot gravitationally collapse, regardless of how much energy it has. Any photon exists in frames of reference where is has any particular value of energy. Since this energy can be arbitrarily high, there can be no gravitational collapse. Also, a single photon travelling in free space cannot split into other particles because this would violate the conservation of energy-momentum. However, a single photon can collide with some object, or two photons travelling in opposite directions can collide with each other, to produce... whatever.

Just now, Dhillon1724X said:

Good question — and you're right to press on the source of energy. In this model, the energy doesn't come from a pre-existing photon field, but from the initial conditions of the Big Bang itself. The universe began in an extremely hot, dense state, and that energy was initially carried by photons.

What the model proposes is that, during the earliest instants after the Big Bang, the photon energy density crossed the Planck threshold. This triggered a quantum transition, where photon-photon interactions at those extreme scales led to the formation of gravitons — which then began to shape spacetime.

So the energy is not gravitational to begin with. It’s just raw radiation energy from the Big Bang, and gravity emergesfrom how that energy evolves at the quantum level.

Unfortunately that is not a good answer.

Blaming a phenomenon on 'the big bang' is really no different from saying God did it, or that our model doesn't explain it or simply we don't know.

If you are going to propose gravity as an emergent phenomenon you need to offer the mechanism (and maths) to say how this conversion occurs.

You can't just pull in myhtical event ant woo because you hypothesis doesn't work without them.

18 minutes ago, studiot said:

Unfortunately that is not a good answer.

Blaming a phenomenon on 'the big bang' is really no different from saying God did it, or that our model doesn't explain it or simply we don't know.

If you are going to propose gravity as an emergent phenomenon you need to offer the mechanism (and maths) to say how this conversion occurs.

You can't just pull in myhtical event ant woo because you hypothesis doesn't work without them.

Sir I am adding maths and have added atleast basics.I know that it will be just a fantasy without maths.

Edited July 7Jul 7 by Dhillon1724X

2 hours ago, KJW said:

One thing worth mentioning: A single photon travelling in free space cannot gravitationally collapse, regardless of how much energy it has. Any photon exists in frames of reference where is has any particular value of energy. Since this energy can be arbitrarily high, there can be no gravitational collapse. Also, a single photon travelling in free space cannot split into other particles because this would violate the conservation of energy-momentum. However, a single photon can collide with some object, or two photons travelling in opposite directions can collide with each other, to produce... whatever.

Sir you are right,but as i mentioned there were some explaination mistakes in V1.Its explained properly in V2.I will welcome any new critique.
Thanks for giving your precious time.

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Unfortunately that is not a good answer.

Blaming a phenomenon on 'the big bang' is really no different from saying God did it, or that our model doesn't explain it or simply we don't know.

If you are going to propose gravity as an emergent phenomenon you need to offer the mechanism (and maths) to say how this conversion occurs.

You can't just pull in myhtical event ant woo because you hypothesis doesn't work without them.

that’s a valid concern. I agree that simply invoking “the Big Bang” without mechanism or math is weak, and early versions of the theory (V1) did leave that point vague.

In the updated GraviGenesis V2, gravity is not just said to “emerge from the Big Bang.” Instead, it emerges from a precise quantum threshold condition involving collapsing photon energy:

∑Eγ≥EPandV≤VP⇒γ+γ→g\sum E_\gamma \geq E_P \quad \text{and} \quad V \leq V_P \quad \Rightarrow \quad \gamma + \gamma \rightarrow g∑Eγ≥EPandV≤VP⇒γ+γ→g

This equation says: when the total energy of a photon ensemble confined within Planck volume exceeds the Planck energy, graviton formation becomes possible — not from myth or mystery, but from well-defined field interactions under extreme conditions.

The mechanism proposed is:

• Photons dominate the earliest universe (as in ΛCDM).

• Photon-photon interactions become possible at Planck densities (similar to how γ+γ→e++e−\gamma + \gamma \rightarrow e^+ + e^-γ+γ→e++e− becomes possible above pair production threshold).

• These photons, in ultra-confined regions, generate quantized curvature — gravitons — through nonlinear coupling of the electromagnetic and metric fields.

The graviton here is not magic — it’s a result of collapsing radiation energy satisfying a relativistic and quantum condition. The universe doesn’t need to “start with gravity.” Gravity, in this theory, starts with photons crossing a Planck-scale interaction threshold.

So yes — early answers were vague, but V2 does offer a mechanism and mathematics for emergent gravity, without falling back on metaphysical assumptions.

3 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

∑Eγ≥EPandV≤VP⇒γ+γ→g\sum E_\gamma \geq E_P \quad \text{and} \quad V \leq V_P \quad \Rightarrow \quad \gamma + \gamma \rightarrow g∑Eγ≥EPandV≤VP⇒γ+γ→g

This equation says: when the total energy of a photon ensemble confined within Planck volume exceeds the Planck energy, graviton formation becomes possible — not from myth or mystery, but from well-defined field interactions under extreme conditions.

This is absolutely right, however ...

When the energy density exceeds the Planck energy within a Planck volume You have gravitational collapse, and an event horizon is formed.
I don't know what effect the collision of two hi-energy photons, to produce the required greater than Planck energy density, would produce, but I would assume the momentum simply adds to the energy density to produce the gravitational collapse.
Accepted Physics has a mechanism for this.
What mechanism do you propose for the creation of a hypothetical particle, the Graviton, which may not actually exist ?

13 hours ago, MigL said:

This is absolutely right, however ...

When the energy density exceeds the Planck energy within a Planck volume You have gravitational collapse, and an event horizon is formed.
I don't know what effect the collision of two hi-energy photons, to produce the required greater than Planck energy density, would produce, but I would assume the momentum simply adds to the energy density to produce the gravitational collapse.
Accepted Physics has a mechanism for this.
What mechanism do you propose for the creation of a hypothetical particle, the Graviton, which may not actually exist ?

You're absolutely right — when energy density exceeds the Planck scale, general relativity predicts gravitational collapse and the formation of an event horizon. My approach fully agrees with that outcome.

However, my model focuses on the pre-collapse regime — a phase where photons dominate and gravity hasn't yet emerged as a classical field. In this state, I propose that extremely energetic photons, when confined to Planck-scale volumes, undergo a quantum transition into spin-2 bosons (gravitons). This is based on spin-coupling rules and supported by high-energy QED effects and string-theoretic analogies.

The key idea is that gravitons are not assumed, but generated under specific physical conditions. They represent the first quantized units of curvature, and their formation marks the beginning of gravity in this framework.

In the updated version (V2), I’ve worked more deeply on black hole formation and the role of graviton.I have also tried to predict nature of graviton

Note: Now my school has re-opened so my replies will be slower and my work will be delayed too.

Update on GraviGenesis V2: Approaching Deeper Territory

Just a quick note — the current direction of GraviGenesis V2 is taking a deeper turn.

After careful thought and continued analysis, the model is now beginning to align with some of the more advanced ideas in modern theoretical physics, including frameworks from quantum theory and string theory. Certain assumptions have been restructured, and the internal consistency of the model has significantly improved.

I won’t reveal details yet — but the next phase will shift the conversation entirely.

More to come.

On 7/7/2025 at 2:23 PM, KJW said:

One thing worth mentioning: A single photon travelling in free space cannot gravitationally collapse, regardless of how much energy it has.

Agreed. A bunch of photons could. A simple picture of black-hole formation is actually modelled with a number of photons converging towards a point in space with a distribution of momenta that's ingoing and spherically symmetric.

At some point I think I understood the OP as implying it was pairs of photons that gave rise to the gravitons though. The argument also surfaced that at the level of spin it also fits: (1+1 = 2 ). Maybe you've dug deeper into that.

Anyway, as I said, invoking gravity to explain gravity is so logically flawed it's my head that's spinning.

16 minutes ago, joigus said:

At some point I think I understood the OP as implying it was pairs of photons that gave rise to the gravitons though. The argument also surfaced that at the level of spin it also fits: (1+1 = 2 ). Maybe you've dug deeper into that.

Sir, if you are referring to me, I would like to clarify that if version 1 of my theory was about 40% developed, then version 2 is currently around 80–90% and it will not stop at 100% as i will go deeper and deeper. I have explored the subject deeply enough that my model unifies General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and reproduces precise classical results, such as Newton’s equations. I am also working on an even deeper extension that aligns with String Theory, but I prefer to fully test all possibilities before making any announcements.

As i said now i have to go to school,now i have limited time,However, I find that the school curriculum limits me, as the science taught is very basic compared to what I am working on and due to assignments and homework i have to pause my work.

37 minutes ago, joigus said:

Anyway, as I said, invoking gravity to explain gravity is so logically flawed it's my head that's spinni

.

The GraviGenesis model does not invoke gravity to explain itself. Rather, it proposes that under Planck-scale photon energy density, a collapse occurs not due to gravity, but due to quantum-scale confinement and energetic saturation. This leads to the emergence of spin-2 gravitons — which then cause gravitational interaction and curvature of spacetime. Gravity is not an assumption — it is an emergent result.

I can only explain this much here.

This paper was built by a student who always tried to skip homework — but couldn’t skip the urge to understand the universe.

Edited July 8Jul 8 by Dhillon1724X

58 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

The GraviGenesis model does not invoke gravity to explain itself. Rather, it proposes that under Planck-scale photon energy density, a collapse occurs not due to gravity, but due to quantum-scale confinement and energetic saturation. This leads to the emergence of spin-2 gravitons — which then cause gravitational interaction and curvature of spacetime. Gravity is not an assumption — it is an emergent result.

"Quantum-scale confinement and energetic saturation" is a wording that strikes me as word salad.

And we're not having the discussion again on how the Plack scale itself is a consequence of gravitation.

Just now, joigus said:

"Quantum-scale confinement and energetic saturation" is a wording that strikes me as word salad.

Methinks this whole thing is a giant leg pull.