Welcome to the cosmiCave: On Shadows, Relativity, and the Search for Reality

silhouette at cave mouth with star background

Maybe that’s Cosmic Cave—or Cosmic Avenue. Maybe just cosmiCave will do—one word, a few different meanings.

To start, I see this site as a journey—both for me and, hopefully, for you. It’s a space where I’ll be sharing thoughts on cosmology, space-time, epistemology, ontology—in short, on the universe and how we go about understanding it. How we observe, interpret, explain, and sometimes mislead ourselves in the process.

Over time, I plan to branch into a wide range of topics I’ve worked on over the past decade: from course materials I’ve developed for teaching the foundations of astronomy, to tools and techniques I’ve created for student observations using robotic telescopes. But at first, the blog will focus on the project that has consumed most of my energy for the past eight months while I’ve been on leave from teaching: a return to the foundational physics questions I first explored during my PhD.

I recently completed a book—currently under consideration with academic publishers—called Beyond Space-Time: Reclaiming Reality from the Illusions of Relativity. In it, I argue that the “block universe” interpretation of relativity is not just counterintuitive but structurally inert. I then turn to the purely operationalist interpretation, often treated by relativists as a safe ontological fallback. But as I show, this view is neither adhered to in practice nor consistent with large swaths of contemporary physics. Ultimately, I propose a new theoretical framework—Cosmological Relativity—which offers what I believe to be the cleanest and most coherent interpretation of relativistic phenomena.

That said, Cosmological Relativity comes with implications that many physicists and philosophers might find uncomfortable. It implies, for example, that much of what we think we know about black holes is mistaken. It rules out time travel—not just practically, but conceptually. And it challenges widely accepted philosophical views that are often mistaken for objectivity, even when they clash with empirical evidence. In short, it’s a theory that invites us to take a hard look at what we think is real.

The book lays out the argument in full, but this blog will let me explore its details more freely—unpacking the tangents, backstories, cultural links, and philosophical oddities that didn’t fit between its covers.

For example: although I managed to include a short reference to H.G. Wells’ The Time Machine, there’s far more to say. It’s fascinating to see how, even in its opening chapter, Wells introduces a category error through a rhetorical sleight of hand—one that philosophers of time still echo today. In the 1931 prologue to the novel, Wells himself describes how the idea had been “in the air” during his university years, a reflection of the broader conceptual shifts already unfolding in the late 19th century.

My aim here, then, is to bring the book—and the ideas behind it—to life in a broader, more dynamic conversation. The topics will evolve. I’ll revisit old essays I never published, explore newer ideas I’m still testing out, and eventually share course materials that I hope will be useful to anyone fascinated by astronomy and our place in the cosmos.

At its heart, this site is structured around the allegory of Plato’s Cave. It’s a metaphor that has guided science since the beginning: the idea that we see only shadows, and that the real work of science is to trace those shadows back to the structures that cast them. In today’s physics discourse, we often stop at describing the shadows themselves, mistaking successful prediction for understanding. We’ve grown wary of ontology—suspicious of claims about what really exists. I think this is a mistake.

In everything I post here, I’ll be trying to demonstrate how science works at its best: not as a catalogue of predictions, but as a disciplined effort to disentangle projection from reality. To move beyond appearances and toward explanation. To exit the cave, even if just a few steps at a time.

So welcome to the cosmiCave. Whether you’re here for the physics, the philosophy, the pedagogy, or the poetry of it all—I hope you’ll find something that sparks curiosity and encourages reflection.

Thanks for being here. Feel free to share your thoughts below.

—Daryl


Discover more from cosmiCave.org

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

follow for content updates

Responses

  1. Jose Alberto Diaz Reyes Avatar
    Jose Alberto Diaz Reyes

    Kind regards. Regarding the “problem of the value of the Cosmological Constant,” and taking into account the academic recognition that Artificial Intelligence Programs are achieving in Physics and Cosmology consultations, I tell you that: 8 of these programs were consulted about “the origin of the unit of measurement of the Planck constant,” and it turns out that they all agreed in responding that “this unit of measurement has an implicit physical term in its denominator, and that when considered, it allows us to convincingly deduce that the value of the Cosmological Constant resulting from Quantum Field Theory is exaggerated and therefore the real value must correspond to the value obtained in astrophysical measurements”! If you are interested in taking a look at these results, let me know so I can send you the descriptive texts. Sincerely, José Alberto (diazreyesjosealberto62@gmail.com)

    Like

    1. Thanks for your interest, Jose. The cosmological constant is something I have many thoughts on, and I expect I’ll likely write a lot about that at some point in this blog, though I’m a long way from getting to that currently. But I will say I agree that the value suggested by QFT is not reflected in reality, that the real value does appear to be much less. Actually, I think that’s something physicists generally agree on.

      Like

      1. Jose Alberto Diaz Reyes Avatar
        Jose Alberto Diaz Reyes

        Hello Daryl. Without a doubt, the most important problem in contemporary cosmology is the “value of the cosmological constant.” I’d like to tell you that the solution described in the artificial intelligence programs we’ve consulted is very interesting! If you’d be interested in consulting these texts, please send me an email address so I can send them to you.

        Like

      2. Hi José, thanks again for your engagement. You’re absolutely right that the value of the cosmological constant remains one of the major open questions in cosmology—and it’s a topic I’ve been thinking about deeply for years. It actually played a central role in my PhD research.

        As for your offer: I appreciate the enthusiasm, though I’m currently focused on laying the conceptual groundwork for the broader philosophical and physical framework I’m developing here. Once that foundation is in place, I’ll begin turning toward specific interpretive puzzles like Λ, which I look forward to exploring further—including in dialogue with you. While I’m still a long way from drawing the connection explicitly, I do believe there’s a deep link between Λ and the time/space-time structure I discussed in the essay I posted yesterday—you may find that piece interesting in that light.

        Thanks again for your interest and for contributing to the conversation. Feel free to subscribe to the blog for updates as the project unfolds!

        Like

      3. Jose Alberto Diaz Reyes Avatar
        Jose Alberto Diaz Reyes

        Assuming that it might be useful to you in your research, I will give you the following advance: the final result reached by these artificial intelligence programs on the fact that “the value of the Cosmological Constant predicted by Quantum Field Theory is incorrect” has its origin in the deductive discovery that “in the unit of measurement of the Planck Constant that we know, there is an implicit term in its denominator, which allows us to deduce that the Zero Point Energy in certain coordinates of the quantum vacuum can be zero”!!

        Like

      4. Thanks for sharing that, José.

        Like

      5. Jose Alberto Diaz Reyes Avatar
        Jose Alberto Diaz Reyes

        Do you want to analyze the contents of these deductions to verify whether they are useful for your research?

        Like

      6. Thanks, José. I’d like to hold off until the cosmological constant becomes relevant here in the blog. So please stay tuned! There will be lots of interesting topics to discuss and Lambda will enter the conversation eventually!

        Like

Leave a comment

follow and subscribe

About the author

Daryl Janzen is an astronomer, physicist and philosopher based at the University of Saskatchewan, where he teaches astronomy and researches the foundations of cosmology and time. His work challenges dominant space-time paradigms and proposes a new framework—Cosmological Relativity—for understanding the universe’s evolving structure.