It is easier to show than you may think.
I was seven when my brother told me all about Santa. The funny part is that I did not even question his words. I took them for the truth. People are gullible; they believe what they want to believe.
—
In science, believing is not supposed to be part of the equation. And yet… many scientists cannot distinguish well between the virtual reality they often have to work in and reality itself. Though the distinction may appear minimal, a belief may sneak in, not suspected to be there, when we work with models.
As quick example how working with models can contain a fallacy, draw a Cyclops on a piece of paper. Even when you produced the most realistic drawing ever, with hair, ears, nose, chin and cheeks perfect imitations of what we see in real life, the single eye in the Cyclops’ face is clear evidence how paper, a form of working in a virtual reality, can help establish an unnatural outcome.
Scientists, talented in many ways, believe that singularities are real. There are so many of them supporting the idea that for most scientists it is hard to ignore this awkward suggestion. No surprise, therefore, that the idea is widespread among scientists how singularities could be true. Yet singularities exist within their models only. There is no evidence that singularities are natural.
—
Though one has to pay close attention to see it, there is evidence to show that singularities are brain farts.
First the lay of the land: a description of a scientific singularity.
- From Wiki: A gravitational singularity, spacetime singularity or simply singularity is a condition in which gravity is predicted to be so intense that spacetime itself would break down catastrophically. As such, a singularity is by definition no longer part of the regular spacetime and cannot be determined by “where” or “when”.
Did you get that? Not only must we accept that there is something real about spacetime and sidestep the notion that spacetime is in reality just part of a calculation framework that Einstein devised to declare something important about the behavior of matter moving through space. Yet on top of that, we must accept that within that spacetime setting a condition can exist that equals a singularity in which everything breaks down.
- Obviously, that is an over-asking. It is like accepting that there is a God and subsequently accepting, without questioning, that God can create the world out of nothing. Those are two separate acceptances of immense proportions in a row. It is fine to start out with God, but we have to remain realistic about God, or the structural setup ends up as very weak.
Einstein’s Spacetime is a calculation framework, correct onto itself; we do not need to abandon it. The framework is about matter moving through space. Obviously, there is no option for a calculation framework to break down. The framework is either applicable to matter or it is not. It is incorrect to state that the framework is about the universe.
The subtlety of the problem may not yet be clear. The essential problem is how within a given model a subsequent jump is made that is not inherent to the model.
As a different example, we do have heroes who remind us of Superman indeed. There are real-life heroes. No question about it. Yet a fist and a stretched-out arm will not make them fly through the sky.
—
The locations where scientists consider singularities for real are in Black Holes and with the Big Bang event.
If you know my work, then you know how the gravitational monster of the Black Hole is simpler to understand, mechanically, as a Scientific Black Eye. The gravitational outcome is based then simply on all matter in a galaxy.
I also wrote how the Big Bang cannot be a scientific event based on the beginning of Time, Space, Energy, and Matter, simply because the scientific data supports the beginning of Matter only. There is no data about the beginning of Time, Space, or Energy.
—
Let’s focus this article here on looking at the evidence that undermines the idea of singularities.
To place the following information in its correct conceptual structure, we need to talk about the egg and the omelet first. It will help keeping the different levels of reality apart.
The omelet tells us an important truth about an action hidden from sight.
- An omelet declares that the egg broke.
We do NOT need to see the egg or the eggshells to know that the egg broke, because we already see the omelet.
We do NOT need to investigate the substance of the omelet itself to know that the egg broke. There is no data about the omelet’s matter that will confirm how the egg broke beyond the 100% certainty we already obtained at first sight of the omelet.
With the omelet, we know something to be true about the original larger level. It is not a positive truth; it is a negative truth.
Alright, keep the egg and the omelet analogy in mind. Here we go!
—
Gödel’s In-completeness Theorems
Gödel showed that a completeness can get established per whichever axiom (accepted truth) we desire. Human beings, for instance, roam the planet, and we can count each and every one of us to declare a contemporary completeness of all human beings on this Earth.
Gödel showed as well that when we desire to lift up a completeness to the overall level, then we bump into an in-completeness. The axiom we started out with includes just human beings that roam the planet. Yet we share the planet with so many other life forms. We may think we are the holy completeness itself for the entire Mother Earth, and quite frankly we behave like that is the case, but that is really not true.
Here is the structural trick:
The completeness of including all human beings on the planet can be declared as a whole with the already used analogy of the omelet. The omelet is whole by itself. We collected in our minds all humans correctly.
Meanwhile, the in-completeness of this planet as established just for us humans can be declared an egg, a truth that is inherently incorrect. This is a broken egg at the overall level; if we think it is true then this is a brain fart.
- Many people do think this is their planet and they do behave like it.
The additional part of the trick is that all these other plant and animal species inhabit the planet in their own versions of omelets. None of the species can claim that this planet is their egg.
Interestingly, Gödel’s evidence includes the option of trying to find the egg by considering everything — all plant and animal species, and us as well, all at the same time. Yet even then one will not find an egg.
- Rather, the true outcome one will find is that of many, many omelets forming a single planet.
We hold in our minds the idea that the planet is one, and at the abstract level that is indeed correct. There is just one planet we live on. But the planet is not the only planet in the universe. So, we have to view the planet itself in two realities at the same time. ‘Our planet’ and ‘a planet’ are labels that can both be placed on planet Earth. They provide different view points of rather great importance.
- It should not come as a surprise that the planet is also an omelet; the planet is an outcome that is not part of the original egg any longer.
Finally, the universe as a whole is of course not a unit. The material entities within the universe are units; the whole of all units is not a unit. The universe is a structure of structures, itself not singular in essence.
—
In detail, one can state that Gödel delivered this evidence for formal systems only. Indeed, we can stay at the omelet level and discuss just the omelet contents ad nauseam, reject any other talk.
Yet the egg would still be broken in the overall natural version of reality. When every distinctive system and truth is shown to be an omelet, but we do not have that same information about the natural reality, then we have all the evidence still to declare the natural egg broken as well. Declared from the other direction, if the natural egg was not broken, then there would not be an outcome of omelets only in all other possible manners.
In another view, we can state that even science is an omelet, and not an egg. Though one may consider everything the true Realm of Science if so desired, one should be aware that the actual Reach of Science automatically falls short from capturing everything.
The already mentioned lack of data about the beginning of Time, Space, and Energy means that Science is automatically an incompleteness. Scientists cannot know everything. Though it is possible that scientists fool themselves into thinking they can know everything.
—
An important point to make here, not readily understood by most physicists, is that the Big Bang event was a one-time event. All we have as scientific data is the beginning of matter. The surprise for some may therefore be that matter is itself already like the omelet.
With this, something important can get mentioned:
E=MC² is unfortunately not always true.
- The true version is MC²=E.
My mother made this distinction clear to me already at the time when my brother told me about the larger Santa story. She said that a dog is an animal, but an animal is not automatically a dog.
So, E = (automatically) MC² is truly incorrect because it is presented as a truth without distinctions.
- Dogs = (automatically) animals
- Animals ≠ (automatically) dogs
In translation: not all energy in the universe became matter, and E=MC² reads how all energy is matter. It must be declared incorrect, therefore.
- MC²=E is the correct version. We do not know everything about Energy. Yet indeed, energy is an essential aspect of matter.
Matter is not the egg; matter is the omelet.
Energy is the (broken) egg.
—
As you may know, I have evidence that you can read about for yourself. Yet the simple essence of this evidence is that all comprehensive systems contain a zero aspect. Meaning, any comprehensive system contains an aspect in which that system has zero value while remaining important for that system. Let’s find a simple example.
- Take the invention of money, which is a good example of a virtual reality in which we have entangled ourselves deeply. The zero value of money, of not having any money in your wallet, is not without importance. Entire nations rise early in the morning to make sure their wallets are not empty. Numerous people have committed suicide over the lack of money. The zero value of money is a vital aspect of this system.
Any comprehensive system has such a spot that makes it important while lacking value, nevertheless. That is the evidence you can read about.
And this is exactly what Gödel showed as well, but from a different angle.
The omelet is no longer the egg. The outcome of the omelet is whole onto itself. It no longer represents the whole egg at the overall level. There is a zero spot associated with the omelet’s outcome because the egg shells are not part of the omelet.
—
Physicists work with natural outcomes, but in particular they work with models. By mistaking the model for reality, they incorporate an aspect in with their models that does not exist in nature.
It is not uncommon that scientific models predict what is later discovered to be true. Yet when a Cyclops is shown as an outcome in a drawing, and then accepted as an outcome for real, then reports about Cyclopes seen in dark alleys at night should come pouring in. Fortunately, no one believes that Cyclopes are real; these reports will not be forthcoming.
Still, scientists predicted a singularity on paper for the existence of a Black Hole, with an enormous yet invisible mass in the center. So, when they encountered the real gravitational monster in the center of galaxies, they then congratulated themselves on seeing this monster coming well in advance. They did not consider the religious aspect inside their model. They embraced the Cyclops as real.
When physicists dug into the beginning of the materialization process, commonly known as the Big Bang, they melded all they could imagine into one aspect on paper. We only have data about the beginning of matter, but they threw in the beginning of time, space, and energy, apparently for good measure. They veered away from the scientific data. They centered data and non-data alike in a single spot.
—
People are gullible. It is easy to believe, even though scientists should never be in the business of believing. But… scientists are people, aren’t they?
As such, we have evidence that physicists’ brains can fart indeed.
