The theory is that matter warps space-time. What if it’s the other way around?
You state a theory that B causes A, instead of A causing B, but your title says what if A equals B.
The OP might want to try explaining what exactly it means for space-time to warp matter. Any set of tensor equations would help.
What I’m pondering is “what causes what?” Does matter cause space-time to warp OR does warped space-time cause matter?
Do rocks cause ripples in a pond, or do ripples in a pond cause rocks?
It wouldn’t work like the real world, since we can see from gravitational lenses that empty space is warped.
This idea has arisen before.
It’s definitely an idea we can ponder.
In order to take this idea seriously, I’d want to see some argument for why patterns of curvature of spacetime should inherently follow the conservation laws associated with stress-energy*.
But maybe there is such an argument, and so I’m also not willing to discard this notion out of hand.
*It’s not just matter that’s associated with curvature of space in general relativity, but a more complicated 4-dimensional property with ten independent components, called the stress-energy tensor. In familiar experience, the by far largest of those components is energy density, and the by far largest contributors to energy density are what we call matter, but the other components (pressures, shears, and momentum fluxes) are still there, and can in some contexts be relevant.
John Archibald Wheeler got interested in something like this in his speculations about what he called geometrodynamics. He hoped that things like the electron could be explained with geometry. I never studied this, but I think one of the notions was that the ends of electric field lines, which would normally be a charged particle, could be a worm hole. So electrons are just the ends of these field lines. No matter particles, just geometry. This is just from memory, I could have this all wrong.
I ran across the idea in this book and was wondering if anyone else had heard of it. Excellent book BTW.
It’s attributed to Sir Arthur Eddington (1882-1944)
The [warp in space] and [matter] can be viewed as a different aspect of the same thing. The disturbance IS matter.
An interesting example of a physical theory inspiring developments in pure mathematics is that Kelvin’s vortex theory (that atoms are knots in the aether) inspired Peter Tait to study knots mathematically and produce a huge table of all possible knots up to a certain complexity. His work was the origin of knot theory, a deep branch of topology that is still an area of research to this day.
see below
Great. Giving context helps. The rest of us can read page 108 of Cole’s book that you linked to here.
I’m not sure of where Eddington stands these days. By coincidence, I just read the new biography of Roger Penrose. He was always looking at relativity through the lens of geometry, which made him sort of an outlier in the field. But Wheeler, who @JWT_Kottekoe mentioned, was also an outlier for similar reasons and therefore gets mentioned a lot in the Penrose book. If you read p. 108 of Cole’s book, it quotes Wheeler “famous summation” as a sort of continuation of Eddington:
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.
Cole’s point reads to me that spacetime is foundational and everything is just an aspect of it, which is not quite the same as saying that spacetime is matter or causes it. But it can be read in other ways. Probably a deep knowledge of the different theoretical and philosophical schools of relativity is necessary to know whether Cole is just a disciple or saying what everybody believes, or did back in 2001.
I’ve been on a roll lately. Sean Carroll, Brian Greene, Lee Smolin, Lawrence Krauss. Those are all very tedious. Cole’s book is entertaining. I’m on the second read now. And you’re right, page 108.
Why does something always have to be the effect of a cause? Maybe the universe just is what it is. The universe is large and complicated. Can there really be just one single cause for anything? Maybe causality is just a human-constructed concept that makes humans more comfortable when they ponder the reasons why things are what they are.
The premise of Cole’s book is that NOTHING is the cause of everything.