The more physicists know about the universe, the larger loom some questions about ultimate realities. A number of recent articles have been exploring them. Here are five:

1. Singularities Are Hard to Kill

At Quanta, staff writer Charlie Wood tells us, “Black hole and Big Bang singularities break our best theory of gravity. A trilogy of theorems hints that physicists must go to the ends of space and time to find a fix”:

… as physicists take steps toward that truer and more complete theory by merging general relativity and quantum physics, singularities are proving hard to erase. The British mathematical physicist Roger Penrose won the Nobel Prize in Physics for proving(opens a new tab) in the 1960s that singularities would inevitably occur in an empty universe made up entirely of space-time. More recent research has extended this insight into more realistic circumstances. One paper established(opens a new tab) that a universe with quantum particles would also feature singularities, although it only considered the case where the particles don’t bend the space-time fabric at all. Then, earlier this year, a physicist proved(opens a new tab) that these blemishes exist even in theoretical universes where quantum particles do slightly nudge space-time itself — that is, universes quite a bit like our own. 

“Singularities in Space-Time Prove Hard to Kill,” May 27, 2025

Physics does not seem destined to give us the simple answers many hoped for.

2. The Numbers That Shape Our Universe Remain Mysterious

At Space.com, Stony Brook University astrophysicist Paul Sutter muses, “There is a set of very special numbers, known as the fundamental constants of nature, that cannot be explained. Where do they come from?”

We can never 100% prove that the constants really are constant. That’s because there is always some uncertainty in our measurements, so there will always be room for some possible variation, even if it’s incredibly tiny.

But for now, the fundamental constants of nature appear to be constant, and we do not know why they have the values they do. We strongly believe that the story of discovery in physics is not over and that there is much more to uncover in the mysteries of the universe. But for right now, we have to live with the fundamental constants as they appear to be: raw numbers that defy explanation. 

“Why do the numbers that shape our universe exist at all?,” May 13, 2025

Sutter is assuming that we don’t live in a designed universe. Thus the numbers should have been really simple and obvious, such that they might have come about by chance. But if it is a designed universe, we cannot expect its intricacies to be simple because a design is intended to accomplish purposes, perhaps a variety of them.

3. The Universe Appears Fine-Tuned for Life

According to many cosmologists, fine-tuning for life is a problem because the universe is supposed to have come about randomly. Paul Sutter explains at Space.com again,

What’s especially unnerving about these numbers is how carefully crafted they appear to be. If any were different, even by a tiny amount, our universe would be radically altered. For example, stronger gravity would make stars burn out faster, preventing the rise of solar systems and life-bearing planets like Earth. If the speed of light were faster or the electron were heavier, stars wouldn’t even form in the first place. If Planck’s constant were different, the cosmos would be totally unrecognizable. 

“The physics of the universe appear to be fine-tuned for life. Why?,” May 21, 2025

He brings up the conventional “multiverse” claim that the solution is really simple: There are countless universes out there and ours just happens to be like this. But he rejects that approach because, like string theory, it is “hypothetical and not supported by any available evidence,” adding “I suppose we’ll just have to keep digging.”

4. Logical Problems with the Concept of a Multiverse

At Physics to God, mathematician and rabbi Elie Feder and physicist and rabbi Aaron Zimmer ask “Is the Multiverse Real?” They note:

The initial problem with an infinite varied multiverse in which everything possible happens is that it seems like a naive theory of the gaps that can explain any observation — even a voice from heaven proclaiming the fallacy of multiverse theory. To get around this problem, multiverse scientists need their third premise which claims that in an infinite varied multiverse, our universe is a typical universe with intelligent observers. This allows the multiverse to make its sole prediction that our universe is typical.

While this might seem promising at first, the problem is that in an infinite varied multiverse, not only does every possible universe exist, but there exist infinitely many identical copies of each universe. This makes it impossible to calculate probabilities in any straightforward manner and thereby evaluate if our universe is typical.

To fix this problem, multiverse scientists introduce a measure, an externally imposed rule that generates a “prediction” about the typical universe. However, the measure approach has serious problems — namely, measures are intrinsically ad hoc additions, all intuitive measures don’t work, and any contrived measure begs the question of what fine tuned and designed it.

Finally, because the multiverse deviates from the scientific method which rightly demands prediction and testing, it’s not a good scientific theory.

“Is the multiverse real?”

In short, the multiverse is not a solution; it’s an obfuscation.

5. In the End, You Can’t Take the Religion Out of Cosmology

That is the conclusion that astronomer Niayesh Afshordi and science writer Phil Halper reach in their new book, Battle of the Big Bang (University of Chicago Press, 2025), of which you can read an excerpt at IAI.TV:

We tend to think our scientific and cosmological theories are devoid of religious thinking. But, it was actually a priest, George Lemaître, who originally proposed the Big Bang theory. In this extract from their new book… they argue belief in the Big Bang as a singularity and the beginning of space and time, is just that, a belief. We have no evidence that can prove this version of the Big Bang. Afshordi and Halper argue some of our cosmological models have taken on creation myth status and attract very religious styles of thinking in the scientific community. 

“The Big Bang can’t escape its religious beginnings,” May 16, 2025

Afshordi attempts to debunk the idea that the Big Bang was a beginning to the universe and that it is a singularity. He — inevitably — has a cosmic theory of his own:

My own point of view is somewhat more nuanced: that growing entropy, like the sunrise and sunset, is an observer-dependent effect. Simply put, the second law of thermodynamics says that if you start from a special state, you are likely to evolve to more and more random states, but the state that I find special may be different from yours: a boring day in my life may be the day that you win the lottery. One can describe a deck of cards being shuffled as a process that increases entropy. But in some sense the original order is just as unlikely as any other sequence, and it’s our arbitrary choice to call the starting state one of low entropy. Similarly, it’s not that the entropy was low at the Big Bang; that’s just how it appears to us. 

“Its religious beginnings,”

But if everything is as subjective as that, have we not lost sight of science altogether?

At this point, a question looms: What would go wrong if we just accepted that we live in a universe designed by a Mind far greater than ours? Would that really be the end of science? Or just an end to conundrums that aren’t really conundrums if that fact is faced.

There is a lot we could be doing with the same expenditure of time, energy, and intellectual skill.