I deeply respect leading models like ΛCDM and others. The challenges I’m going to present do not contradict their data but bring into question some of their assumptions on the basis of which they make claims and commit the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.
Challenge 1: What intrinsic property does baryonic matter possess which would allow its density to get smaller beyond Planck scales and reach infinity?
Physics and unproven narratives in the age of information
In 1939 Oppenheimer & Snyder published “On Continued Gravitational Contraction” in the journal Physical Review. It was subsequently adapted by mainstream physics as the narrative for what happens beyond the event horizon, despite the fact that Einstein did not agree with the findings of this paper. Subsequent decades saw the growth of physics and quantum mechanics, but the narrative or myth of singularity still holds.
For example, take a star of 100 solar masses: it is made of baryonic matter that will eventually collapse into a black hole. However, despite advancements and scientific breakthroughs, we have not yet discovered a single property of baryonic matter which would allow infinite compression. Physics tends to invoke the geometry and gravity of black holes for the argument of singularity, but it must first empirically establish this from what we know of baryonic matter before pushing a narrative which invokes the domain of geometry and gravity. Science should start at the point of what is known and established; in light of that, it makes sense to make hypotheses and assumptions about what is not known. Humans have access to baryonic matter all around us, but not to the geometry and immense gravity of a black hole. If physics cannot prove such a property of baryonic matter in any form, then the narrative of singularity must be dubbed a modern myth, and physics should distance itself from it rather than pushing the narrative to mainstream audiences and lay people who are interested in understanding the universe.
If this narrative continues, it makes physics no different from the mythos of an ancient bard or heavenly narratives by established state religions of the past, where questioning leads to corner cutting. When it comes to our modern physics, it’s no different: when cornered, the typical answer is “our current mathematical understanding breaks down”, or they expect everyone to have a Ph.D. in physics and mathematics to prove a counterpoint, which is a prejudice against human intellect. To help you picture it, imagine science as the state religion asking Galileo to read all the scripture and prove his point once he has enough knowledge, and his answer will be accepted in light of scripture; if the point does not align with scripture, then he is imagining things and must be deemed a heretic.
Modern physics assumes narratives such as these are harmless, but wherever I go on the internet, anyone who is speculating about black holes has the same narrative pushed by modern physics. Perhaps they need to look into the sociology of religions to understand what unproven narratives do to people when adopted by the masses. Imagine someone aspiring to become a physicist: these narratives are baked into the mainstream, so how would someone meaningfully think outside the box? Instead, physics could simply say that we know that black holes exist, but we do not know what really happens past the event horizon or at the event horizon. At least it will give other individuals opportunities to think in creatively different ways and bring forth the brilliant potential of many.
In fact, in his 1921 lecture Geometry and Experience, Einstein famously said exactly this. But nobody took him seriously, nor did they heed his 1939 paper in the Annals of Mathematics, because his logical and intellectual intuition was that such a pitiless hole to infinity is not possible. It was the responsibility of the scientific community to take Einstein’s view into account, because it was as important as the work of Oppenheimer & Snyder.
Challenge 2: What is space really? How does it meaningfully differ from the primitive concept of space?
The primitive eyes and perception of space
We have no evidence for what humans thought of space in early agricultural communities in the pre-history era, but they were doing agriculture. Imagine you have a person in pre-history: you have a patch of land, you know the area in which you have to place the seeds, so you move forward, backwards and sideways, and you plant the seed down into the ground and cover it with soil, and eventually it grows up. How does the symbolic representation with x, y, z coordinates that Descartes presented meaningfully differ from that of the ancients?
Modern science took space for granted as well; it was just a new playground with new tools. They are and were measuring the bending of space and light without even asking: “Hey, wait a minute, does space not surround this object with mass from all sides?”, “Is the massless photon particle following the space or the gravitational pull of an object?”. Did they meaningfully test these assumptions? From what has been established, their existing data aligns very beautifully, because of course coordinates work fantastically well in local or near-local spaces. But the question keeps staring you in the face: what is space, really? It’s not just some graphics or pixels; this is where we see all baryonic matter. And to assume space to be nothing more than a grid fabric is perhaps the biggest blind spot in human history ever known. Physics never considered what the universe being “flat” meant; it gets treated more like a data point. On one hand they say space is “nothing”, then they also say it “wraps”: how are we meant to logically conflate these two things? Something wrapping must have properties, no? But once again they’re blind to the fact that space surrounds an object from all sides, be it a star, be it a galaxy, be it clusters of galaxies, and light follows space.
Here we meet Euclid. His abstract geometry departed from what we know of “space”, or the primitive concept of it, and I will publish an article explaining what Euclid’s postulates meant. But the people who came after Euclid looked at his abstract geometry with primitive eyes and perception and called it obnoxious. Even the renowned mathematician David Hilbert reworked many of them in his own system of axioms: he judged several to be redundant, and others, most famously the fifth postulate, seemed to him to make no sense at all. You see, Euclid is not some random Greek philosopher; he is a scholar of his age, and he collected and wrote down all of the math that came before him. The Greeks were deeply vested in geometry with utmost intellectual rigor and unbridled logic; they were not taking things for granted. In my upcoming articles I will elaborate on my hypothesis on space.
Because they keep using broken geometry, they always run into numbers that shoot to infinity. What do they do? Renormalization for data fitting, just to keep the model alive and working; precisely that’s the reason why physics finds itself in a dogmatic slumber.
These ad-hoc data-fitting practices do remind me of something, oh yes, exegesis modification in religions, because why not? The human’s urge to be “Right”.
The only thing we know of space is that quantum fluctuations are happening all the time; that’s why humans cannot have “true vacuum”. This gets tied to quantum mechanics: tiny excitations of quantum particles appear and disappear all over the universe, resting on the bedrock of space, and this gets treated as “nothing”, as if the quantum realm were separate from space. Whether you are here or at the far end of the universe, you will find the quantum realm everywhere in space. Am I hearing right, from physics, that this space teeming with quantum fluctuations all over the universe is “nothing”? Well, the silence is deafening.
