©PAS2023 Quit making your brain explode, you’re worrying about nothing. Unfortunately for science, theory developed by mathematicians is usually wrong - mainly because they’re building equations that are based on bad or missing or misinterpreted data. Math is an exact science - all the ‘stuff’ has to be exact for the math to ‘work’. Math equations built on bad data can be made to work, but only by shoring it up with more bad math and suppositions that don’t exist (like wormholes and parallel dimensions and alternate time lines and such). Once the data is verifiably correct - THEN the math can quantify the phenomena being studied and be accurate (to a certain degree - consider the universe has a slight case of ‘chaos’ happening which causes the data to fluctuate some while the math doesn’t - this is why it’s called “theory”).

So the process should be “figure out what’s happening and why” and THEN write equations to quantify it.

Saves a lot of time and a LOT of misdirection.

And time. My god I’m tired of that word showing up in cosmology other than guessing at how old stuff is.

There really is no such thing as “time” in the universe. Humans (organisms) made up the concept for scheduling and measuring purposes but the universe has no such meter to it. True, phenomena can somewhat be measured by time, but as far♪♫ as the universe is concerned, there is no “time” - only progress… the universe progresses. (more interesting, it progresses from “now” - there is no past or future as far as the universe is concerned… and no, this does not equate to “frames” - another failed concept).

On to your brain exploding… no such thing as “time” as far as the universe is concerned, there are no “parallel dimensions”, parallel universes, wormholes, folded space, time travel, … - none of that is real but IS mathematics “making shit up” in order to make their equations work - which they don’t. And still don’t even after making up lemmas to support the “almost” equations.

Unfortunately “theoretical physicists” need results else they lose funding (if they can get it at all), and so they’ll find an equation that somewhat explains a process and clamor about finding “the solution”. Point in case that scientists with the really big tokamak STILL trying to create a “fusion device”… (it won’t work either… she’s missing the massive gravity of a star to make it work. Worse, it’s probably NOT fusion in a star, but gravatically ‘controlled’ fission. But this for another time).

Another point in case: Mr. Hawking. Brilliant mathematician and theoretical astrophysicist. Unfortunately his brilliance was shrouded because he had “bad data” to work with. Had be been born 20 years later he would be alive during the time of ‘space satellite telescopes’ starting to correct some of that bad data. There is no “cosmic background radiation” - the WEBB telescope dispelled all that by showing us we are inside the veil of a nebula and what appeared to be universe wide ‘radiation’ turned out to be a local phenomena. The WEBB also made the universe a LOT bigger after just a year or so by seeing ‘farther’ than before. It’s corrected data on structure movement through space (the whole ‘expanding universe’ thing). It’s shown that “space” was “here” before all the stuff our universe is made of “got put here”.

More points to the case: “curved space”, spherical universe, finite universe, “insignificant particles/waveforms”, etc etc etc. All of these (and more) concepts that have somehow been given credence where none is due - they don’t work and they are wrong and they are STILL considered viable. A shame.

Frankly, that one satellite as tossed a LOT of bad data and given science more accurate data from which to work. And herein lay the rub - all the “OLD” science doesn’t want to change or die out. Face it, some of those guys have been working on this stuff (how the universe works) for their entire lives - and to suddenly have the rug pulled out from under you is rather disconcerting. Kind of like having the almighty “string theory” suddenly dismissed because its author realized it’s wrong because it was based on bad data. They don’t want to change. Some have realized the “old” is incorrect and are trying to revamp their outlooks, which is heartening. Hopefully a new and much more accurate picture of the universe will emerge within the next 20–30 years, or less.

So stop your brain from bleeding - there’s no need. What you have to do in order to progress in theory is toss most of the old stuff (DON’T toss standard physics, chemistry, “natural law” - all that stuff is quantification of processes and doesn’t change regardless and is necessary to understanding “how things work”). But incorporate the quantification into theory built from, basically, the ground up.

After all, the theory and the math HAS to describe a process or phenomena EXACTLY else the math is useless, and the only way the math can accurately describe a process is to succinctly understand the process and all its parts before committing the effect to an equation or theory.

©PAS2023