Daryl Janzen
@darylj.bsky.social
physicist/cosmologist trying to understand what reality is. don’t understand fragile egos: valid correction is a gift.
cosmiCave.org
cosmiCave.org
Pinned
Fun fact:
In every black hole merger ever detected, we’re actually seeing the collision of two ultra-compact Kerr-like balls that were still approaching their horizons at the moment of impact.
Not two completed black holes
Not two horizons
Not two singularities
Here’s why (1/)
🧪 ⚛️ 🔭
In every black hole merger ever detected, we’re actually seeing the collision of two ultra-compact Kerr-like balls that were still approaching their horizons at the moment of impact.
Not two completed black holes
Not two horizons
Not two singularities
Here’s why (1/)
🧪 ⚛️ 🔭
For those who’ve read the article
Is the standard conceptual architecture (eg @quantamagazine.bsky.social) structurally coherent if:
-Emergence requires a substrate
-Quantization presupposes an ontology
-Spacetime cannot be both
-Not without conflating representational levels
🧪 ⚛️ #philsci #philsky
Is the standard conceptual architecture (eg @quantamagazine.bsky.social) structurally coherent if:
-Emergence requires a substrate
-Quantization presupposes an ontology
-Spacetime cannot be both
-Not without conflating representational levels
🧪 ⚛️ #philsci #philsky
Events do not exist: they happen.
My inexpert coda: not only does the human-centered desire for events to exist commonly cause confusion in the interpretation of relativity, it is the primary cause of ontological confusion in quantum mechanics as well.
My inexpert coda: not only does the human-centered desire for events to exist commonly cause confusion in the interpretation of relativity, it is the primary cause of ontological confusion in quantum mechanics as well.
Does space-time really exist?
That idea has shaped physics for over a century. But when you look closely, it doesn’t hold together.
This article explains what goes wrong.
Read here: cosmicave.org/links/
That idea has shaped physics for over a century. But when you look closely, it doesn’t hold together.
This article explains what goes wrong.
Read here: cosmicave.org/links/
November 27, 2025 at 3:02 PM
For those who’ve read the article
Is the standard conceptual architecture (eg @quantamagazine.bsky.social) structurally coherent if:
-Emergence requires a substrate
-Quantization presupposes an ontology
-Spacetime cannot be both
-Not without conflating representational levels
🧪 ⚛️ #philsci #philsky
Is the standard conceptual architecture (eg @quantamagazine.bsky.social) structurally coherent if:
-Emergence requires a substrate
-Quantization presupposes an ontology
-Spacetime cannot be both
-Not without conflating representational levels
🧪 ⚛️ #philsci #philsky
Does space-time really exist?
That idea has shaped physics for over a century. But when you look closely, it doesn’t hold together.
This article explains what goes wrong.
Read here: cosmicave.org/links/
That idea has shaped physics for over a century. But when you look closely, it doesn’t hold together.
This article explains what goes wrong.
Read here: cosmicave.org/links/
November 26, 2025 at 4:52 PM
Does space-time really exist?
That idea has shaped physics for over a century. But when you look closely, it doesn’t hold together.
This article explains what goes wrong.
Read here: cosmicave.org/links/
That idea has shaped physics for over a century. But when you look closely, it doesn’t hold together.
This article explains what goes wrong.
Read here: cosmicave.org/links/
Do you think there’s an aspect of reality more primitive than “existence”?
I think existence, and our tacit understanding of it, is so primitive and so subtle that people often assign it uncritically to events/occurrences, which don’t exist.
#philsci #philsky
theconversation.com/physicists-a...
I think existence, and our tacit understanding of it, is so primitive and so subtle that people often assign it uncritically to events/occurrences, which don’t exist.
#philsci #philsky
theconversation.com/physicists-a...
Physicists and philosophers have long struggled to understand the nature of time: Here’s why
How can time feel so obvious, so woven into the fabric of our experience and yet, for thousands of years, remain the bane of every thinker who has tried to explain it?
theconversation.com
November 20, 2025 at 1:53 PM
Do you think there’s an aspect of reality more primitive than “existence”?
I think existence, and our tacit understanding of it, is so primitive and so subtle that people often assign it uncritically to events/occurrences, which don’t exist.
#philsci #philsky
theconversation.com/physicists-a...
I think existence, and our tacit understanding of it, is so primitive and so subtle that people often assign it uncritically to events/occurrences, which don’t exist.
#philsci #philsky
theconversation.com/physicists-a...
My third article on time/spacetime is live.
It isolates the precise category error behind 2,500 years of confusion about time — and shows why the problem finally dissolves once that mistake is fixed.
theconversation.com/physicists-a...
#cosmology #philsci #histsci #astrohistory
It isolates the precise category error behind 2,500 years of confusion about time — and shows why the problem finally dissolves once that mistake is fixed.
theconversation.com/physicists-a...
#cosmology #philsci #histsci #astrohistory
Physicists and philosophers have long struggled to understand the nature of time: Here’s why
How can time feel so obvious, so woven into the fabric of our experience and yet, for thousands of years, remain the bane of every thinker who has tried to explain it?
theconversation.com
November 19, 2025 at 3:03 PM
My third article on time/spacetime is live.
It isolates the precise category error behind 2,500 years of confusion about time — and shows why the problem finally dissolves once that mistake is fixed.
theconversation.com/physicists-a...
#cosmology #philsci #histsci #astrohistory
It isolates the precise category error behind 2,500 years of confusion about time — and shows why the problem finally dissolves once that mistake is fixed.
theconversation.com/physicists-a...
#cosmology #philsci #histsci #astrohistory
Eternalists — from Parmenides to Penrose, Brian Greene, and many philosophers of science today — have long relied on the false idea that space-time exists, taking from it a false sense of security that obscures the deeper error: treating occurrences as things that exist 1/
🧪 🔭 ⚛️ #philsci #philosophy
🧪 🔭 ⚛️ #philsci #philosophy
November 19, 2025 at 2:43 PM
Eternalists — from Parmenides to Penrose, Brian Greene, and many philosophers of science today — have long relied on the false idea that space-time exists, taking from it a false sense of security that obscures the deeper error: treating occurrences as things that exist 1/
🧪 🔭 ⚛️ #philsci #philosophy
🧪 🔭 ⚛️ #philsci #philosophy
Fun fact:
In every black hole merger ever detected, we’re actually seeing the collision of two ultra-compact Kerr-like balls that were still approaching their horizons at the moment of impact.
Not two completed black holes
Not two horizons
Not two singularities
Here’s why (1/)
🧪 ⚛️ 🔭
In every black hole merger ever detected, we’re actually seeing the collision of two ultra-compact Kerr-like balls that were still approaching their horizons at the moment of impact.
Not two completed black holes
Not two horizons
Not two singularities
Here’s why (1/)
🧪 ⚛️ 🔭
November 13, 2025 at 10:05 PM
Fun fact:
In every black hole merger ever detected, we’re actually seeing the collision of two ultra-compact Kerr-like balls that were still approaching their horizons at the moment of impact.
Not two completed black holes
Not two horizons
Not two singularities
Here’s why (1/)
🧪 ⚛️ 🔭
In every black hole merger ever detected, we’re actually seeing the collision of two ultra-compact Kerr-like balls that were still approaching their horizons at the moment of impact.
Not two completed black holes
Not two horizons
Not two singularities
Here’s why (1/)
🧪 ⚛️ 🔭
Why is b always interpreted as the story? It takes a non-Euclidean geometry, describes it in one coordinate frame, projects it onto a Euclidean plane, then makes a Cartesian reading. I think c is a more compelling story, avoids paradox — and GR does not discriminate!! Ie GR only gives us a.
🧪 ⚛️ 🔭
🧪 ⚛️ 🔭
November 12, 2025 at 2:35 PM
Why is b always interpreted as the story? It takes a non-Euclidean geometry, describes it in one coordinate frame, projects it onto a Euclidean plane, then makes a Cartesian reading. I think c is a more compelling story, avoids paradox — and GR does not discriminate!! Ie GR only gives us a.
🧪 ⚛️ 🔭
🧪 ⚛️ 🔭
Can I ask a favour? Could you read this and tell me where you think my argument fails? If you’re not sure, but still think physicists are basically right about black holes, could you ask a theoretical physicist to explain what I’ve got wrong? I’d appreciate it. 🧪 ⚛️
Six decades of black-hole physics built on sand.
The fallacy: mistaking inevitability for actuality, ignoring GR’s most basic rule.
Many will hate this, but:
“You don’t have to like the truth for it to be true.” — Gloria Burgle (@carriecoon.bsky.social)
🧪 ⚛️ 🔭 #cosmology
cosmicave.org/2025/11/06/w...
The fallacy: mistaking inevitability for actuality, ignoring GR’s most basic rule.
Many will hate this, but:
“You don’t have to like the truth for it to be true.” — Gloria Burgle (@carriecoon.bsky.social)
🧪 ⚛️ 🔭 #cosmology
cosmicave.org/2025/11/06/w...
What if black holes never actually form?
For the better part of a century, physicists have treated the inevitable collapse of stars as proof that black holes already exist. But inevitability is not actuality—and confusing the two has prod…
cosmicave.org
November 10, 2025 at 8:19 PM
Can I ask a favour? Could you read this and tell me where you think my argument fails? If you’re not sure, but still think physicists are basically right about black holes, could you ask a theoretical physicist to explain what I’ve got wrong? I’d appreciate it. 🧪 ⚛️
Six decades of black-hole physics built on sand.
The fallacy: mistaking inevitability for actuality, ignoring GR’s most basic rule.
Many will hate this, but:
“You don’t have to like the truth for it to be true.” — Gloria Burgle (@carriecoon.bsky.social)
🧪 ⚛️ 🔭 #cosmology
cosmicave.org/2025/11/06/w...
The fallacy: mistaking inevitability for actuality, ignoring GR’s most basic rule.
Many will hate this, but:
“You don’t have to like the truth for it to be true.” — Gloria Burgle (@carriecoon.bsky.social)
🧪 ⚛️ 🔭 #cosmology
cosmicave.org/2025/11/06/w...
What if black holes never actually form?
For the better part of a century, physicists have treated the inevitable collapse of stars as proof that black holes already exist. But inevitability is not actuality—and confusing the two has prod…
cosmicave.org
November 6, 2025 at 8:37 PM
Six decades of black-hole physics built on sand.
The fallacy: mistaking inevitability for actuality, ignoring GR’s most basic rule.
Many will hate this, but:
“You don’t have to like the truth for it to be true.” — Gloria Burgle (@carriecoon.bsky.social)
🧪 ⚛️ 🔭 #cosmology
cosmicave.org/2025/11/06/w...
The fallacy: mistaking inevitability for actuality, ignoring GR’s most basic rule.
Many will hate this, but:
“You don’t have to like the truth for it to be true.” — Gloria Burgle (@carriecoon.bsky.social)
🧪 ⚛️ 🔭 #cosmology
cosmicave.org/2025/11/06/w...
I hate this cover image, but couldn’t force DALL-E to draw it right. The bounces should be cycloidal, constantly decelerating, like parabolas strung together with sharp bounces between. AI wants to smooth it out. Can anyone fix it?
🧪 🔭 ⚛️ #cosmology
cosmicave.org/2025/10/26/n...
🧪 🔭 ⚛️ #cosmology
cosmicave.org/2025/10/26/n...
No, Professors Penrose, Steinhardt and Turok: Albert Einstein did NOT propose a cyclic cosmology
They’ve proven themselves fallible—not just capable of error, but of seeing what they want to see; inventing their own truth. Once you’ve seen that, can you ever trust it’s the only time?
cosmicave.org
November 3, 2025 at 5:46 PM
I hate this cover image, but couldn’t force DALL-E to draw it right. The bounces should be cycloidal, constantly decelerating, like parabolas strung together with sharp bounces between. AI wants to smooth it out. Can anyone fix it?
🧪 🔭 ⚛️ #cosmology
cosmicave.org/2025/10/26/n...
🧪 🔭 ⚛️ #cosmology
cosmicave.org/2025/10/26/n...
My article published today at ScienceDaily. Is it really that bold to call out an incoherent idea??
November 3, 2025 at 2:12 AM
My article published today at ScienceDaily. Is it really that bold to call out an incoherent idea??
Have you ever heard that Copernicus independently rediscovered heliocentrism and wasn’t aware of Aristarchus? Or that ancient Greeks rejected Aristarchus’s heliocentric model because they were unable to observe stellar parallax?
Both are false
🧪 🔭 #historyofastronomy
cosmicave.org/2025/07/30/s...
Both are false
🧪 🔭 #historyofastronomy
cosmicave.org/2025/07/30/s...
Setting the Record Straight: How Copernicus Concealed His Debt to Aristarchus—and Claimed an Intellectual Priority He Knew Wasn’t His
There’s a prevailing myth in the history of science that Copernicus rediscovered heliocentrism independently—and that he had no real connection to Aristarchus, whose own theory was vague, obscure, …
cosmicave.org
November 1, 2025 at 4:57 PM
Have you ever heard that Copernicus independently rediscovered heliocentrism and wasn’t aware of Aristarchus? Or that ancient Greeks rejected Aristarchus’s heliocentric model because they were unable to observe stellar parallax?
Both are false
🧪 🔭 #historyofastronomy
cosmicave.org/2025/07/30/s...
Both are false
🧪 🔭 #historyofastronomy
cosmicave.org/2025/07/30/s...
Sorry not sorry.
They’ve proven themselves fallible—not just capable of error, but of seeing what they want to see; inventing their own truth. Once you’ve seen that, can you really trust them?
🧪 ⚛️ 🔭 #cosmology #historyofastronomy
cosmicave.org/2025/10/26/n...
They’ve proven themselves fallible—not just capable of error, but of seeing what they want to see; inventing their own truth. Once you’ve seen that, can you really trust them?
🧪 ⚛️ 🔭 #cosmology #historyofastronomy
cosmicave.org/2025/10/26/n...
No, Professors Penrose, Steinhardt and Turok: Albert Einstein did NOT propose a cyclic cosmology
They’ve proven themselves fallible—not just capable of error, but of seeing what they want to see; inventing their own truth. Once you’ve seen that, can you ever trust it’s the only time?
cosmicave.org
October 26, 2025 at 7:24 PM
Sorry not sorry.
They’ve proven themselves fallible—not just capable of error, but of seeing what they want to see; inventing their own truth. Once you’ve seen that, can you really trust them?
🧪 ⚛️ 🔭 #cosmology #historyofastronomy
cosmicave.org/2025/10/26/n...
They’ve proven themselves fallible—not just capable of error, but of seeing what they want to see; inventing their own truth. Once you’ve seen that, can you really trust them?
🧪 ⚛️ 🔭 #cosmology #historyofastronomy
cosmicave.org/2025/10/26/n...
Space-time does not exist. And the distinction matters for #physics, #cosmology, and the #philosophy of #time
🧪🔭
🧪🔭
October 5, 2025 at 2:03 PM
Space-time does not exist. And the distinction matters for #physics, #cosmology, and the #philosophy of #time
🧪🔭
🧪🔭
Einstein gave us relativity. But what if he misunderstood its true meaning — and led generations of physicists astray? In this essay, I argue that he did exactly that. Curious whether you find the reasoning convincing.
🔭🧪#cosmology
cosmicave.org/2025/10/01/d...
🔭🧪#cosmology
cosmicave.org/2025/10/01/d...
Did Einstein misunderstand relativity?
Einstein gave us relativity. But what if he misunderstood its true meaning — and led generations of physicists astray? In this essay, I argue that he did exactly that. Curious whether you find the …
cosmicave.org
October 1, 2025 at 7:19 PM
Einstein gave us relativity. But what if he misunderstood its true meaning — and led generations of physicists astray? In this essay, I argue that he did exactly that. Curious whether you find the reasoning convincing.
🔭🧪#cosmology
cosmicave.org/2025/10/01/d...
🔭🧪#cosmology
cosmicave.org/2025/10/01/d...
Reposted by Daryl Janzen
"The idea that space-time exists is no more viable than the outdated belief that the celestial sphere exists: both are observer-centred models that are powerful and convenient for describing the world, but neither represents reality itself." www.realclearscience.com/articles/202...
Space-Time Doesn't Actually Exist
Whether space-time exists should neither be controversial nor even conceptually challenging, given the definitions of “space-time,” “events” and “instants.” The id
www.realclearscience.com
September 25, 2025 at 12:58 PM
"The idea that space-time exists is no more viable than the outdated belief that the celestial sphere exists: both are observer-centred models that are powerful and convenient for describing the world, but neither represents reality itself." www.realclearscience.com/articles/202...
Space-time is a powerful and useful map — but it isn’t reality itself. Building from first principles, I argue that space-time, as the sum of all events, literally cannot exist. Recognising this distinction clears up a century of conceptual confusion in physics.
🔭🧪 #cosmology
🔭🧪 #cosmology
Space-time doesn’t exist — but it’s a useful framework for understanding our reality
Space-time doesn’t exist — but it’s a useful framework for understanding our reality
Space-time isn’t an actual object or event, it’s a conceptual framework for understanding reality.
theconversation.com
September 24, 2025 at 4:46 PM
Space-time is a powerful and useful map — but it isn’t reality itself. Building from first principles, I argue that space-time, as the sum of all events, literally cannot exist. Recognising this distinction clears up a century of conceptual confusion in physics.
🔭🧪 #cosmology
🔭🧪 #cosmology
My article on the nature of space-time just crossed 100,000 reads. This isn’t just a milestone — it’s proof that big, difficult questions about the nature of reality still resonate. Here’s why that matters, and why I think this is just the beginning.
cosmicave.org/2025/09/22/o...
🔭🧪#cosmology
cosmicave.org/2025/09/22/o...
🔭🧪#cosmology
One Hundred Thousand Reads: How a Big Idea About Space-Time Found a Big Audience
My Conversation article on the nature of space-time just crossed 100,000 reads. This isn’t just a milestone — it’s proof that big, difficult questions about the nature of reality still resonate. He…
cosmicave.org
September 23, 2025 at 12:56 AM
My article on the nature of space-time just crossed 100,000 reads. This isn’t just a milestone — it’s proof that big, difficult questions about the nature of reality still resonate. Here’s why that matters, and why I think this is just the beginning.
cosmicave.org/2025/09/22/o...
🔭🧪#cosmology
cosmicave.org/2025/09/22/o...
🔭🧪#cosmology
SciTechDaily republished my article yesterday: scitechdaily.com/does-space-t...
#science #physics #philosophy #cosmology #astronomy
#science #physics #philosophy #cosmology #astronomy
Does Space-Time Really Exist?
Is time something that flows — or just an illusion? Exploring space-time as either a fixed “block universe” or a dynamic fabric reveals deeper mysteries about existence, change, and the very nature of...
scitechdaily.com
September 15, 2025 at 4:52 PM
SciTechDaily republished my article yesterday: scitechdaily.com/does-space-t...
#science #physics #philosophy #cosmology #astronomy
#science #physics #philosophy #cosmology #astronomy
Reposted by Daryl Janzen
What, exactly, is space-time?
What, exactly, is space-time?
Physicists often say space-time “exists,” but what does that really mean? A hidden confusion between happening and being could be warping our view of reality.
theconversation.com
August 24, 2025 at 1:28 PM
What, exactly, is space-time?
Reposted by Daryl Janzen
Few ideas in modern science have reshaped our understanding of reality more profoundly than space-time. But what does it mean to say that space-time exists? What kind of thing is it — is space-time structure, substance or metaphor? Read here: buff.ly/fg3RmlO
📸 Rick Rothenberg/ Unsplash). CC BY 4.0.
📸 Rick Rothenberg/ Unsplash). CC BY 4.0.
August 31, 2025 at 2:33 PM
Few ideas in modern science have reshaped our understanding of reality more profoundly than space-time. But what does it mean to say that space-time exists? What kind of thing is it — is space-time structure, substance or metaphor? Read here: buff.ly/fg3RmlO
📸 Rick Rothenberg/ Unsplash). CC BY 4.0.
📸 Rick Rothenberg/ Unsplash). CC BY 4.0.
Cool! Thanks @earthskyscience.bsky.social for republishing my article!
earthsky.org/space/space-...
#astronomy #cosmology #physics #philosophy
earthsky.org/space/space-...
#astronomy #cosmology #physics #philosophy
Space-time, the interwoven fabric of space and time
earthsky.org
August 31, 2025 at 2:41 PM
Cool! Thanks @earthskyscience.bsky.social for republishing my article!
earthsky.org/space/space-...
#astronomy #cosmology #physics #philosophy
earthsky.org/space/space-...
#astronomy #cosmology #physics #philosophy
My article came out today in The Conversation: theconversation.com/what-exactly...
#astronomy #cosmology #physics #science #philosophy
#astronomy #cosmology #physics #science #philosophy
What, exactly, is space-time?
Physicists often say space-time “exists,” but what does that really mean? A hidden confusion between happening and being could be warping our view of reality.
theconversation.com
August 24, 2025 at 2:09 PM
My article came out today in The Conversation: theconversation.com/what-exactly...
#astronomy #cosmology #physics #science #philosophy
#astronomy #cosmology #physics #science #philosophy