All of Science is Circular

Published on September 17, 2025 By Mrityu Darpan

What if an atom is, on a fundamental level, one of the largest things in existence? And our entire universe is, in comparison, profoundly small?

This sounds like a paradox. But it only feels that way because our perception of the world is built on a foundation of seemingly obvious truths. To see reality more clearly, we must first have the courage to question the very ground we stand on.

For our entire lives, we’ve operated on a simple, intuitive rule: small things add up to create big things. Bricks build a house. Cells form a body. Atoms create a star. This "bottom-up" logic has served humanity well, allowing us to build, innovate, and understand our immediate world.

But is this rule a fundamental law of the universe, or is it simply a law of human experience? This "common sense" is a kind of scaffolding, a tool we constructed to help us make sense of things. It is useful, even essential for a time. But to see the true architecture of the building, we need to step away from this man made structure.

To see beyond our human scale, we need a more fundamental way to classify existence. If we strip away the complexities of our universe, we’ll find that it is composed of only three distinct constituents:

1. Matter: The tangible "stuff" — planets, stars, our bodies.
2. Space: The vacuum in which matter exists.
3. Singularities: The enigmatic cores of black holes, where even space itself collapses.

Modern science understands the first constituent reasonably well. All the complex matter we see — from chains of protein to massive stars — is made of molecules, which are made of atoms. Science then showed that atoms are themselves made of smaller particles, and at the very bottom of this rabbit hole, we find fundamental particles called quarks.

Therefore, on a fundamental level, all the matter we see around us is simply a vast collection of quarks. This leads to a crucial realization: on an individual level, there is no single unit of matter larger than a quark.

But what about the other two constituents? Ask science what Space and Singularities are made of, and the answers describe a function or a condition, not a substance. We are told that space is a 3D arena where matter exists. But notice what this is: a description of its role as a container. It tells us what space does, but not what space is. It’s treated as a stage, not an actor with its own fundamental composition.

The same is true for singularities. They are defined as extreme locations where the curvature of spacetime becomes infinite. Again, this describes a condition at a specific place. Calling it a "location" doesn't tell us what it's made of. The gap in our knowledge remains.

Let’s observe the relationship between these three constituents and our ability to perceive them.

• Matter is the most perceptible. It is tangible and directly interactive.
• Space is far less perceptible. We only notice it by the absence of matter.
• Singularities are the least perceptible of all, completely hidden from view.

A clear pattern emerges: a hierarchy of perceptibility. Is it not logical to assume that the fundamental nature of these constituents might reflect this hierarchy? What if the very 'size' of their most basic unit is inversely proportional to how perceptible they are?

This line of reasoning leads to a powerful hypothesis: the fundamental unit of Space must be smaller than the fundamental unit of Matter (a quark). And the fundamental unit of a Singularity must be smaller still.

If this logic holds, a staggering but self-evident truth reveals itself.

Consider everything you think of as "big" — a mountain, a planet, a galaxy. None of these are single, individual things. They are collections, or vast crowds of quarks. The largest individual, fundamental unit in the material universe is the quark itself. There is nothing that is, on its own, bigger.

The quark is not the first brick at the bottom of a great pyramid. It is the capstone at the very top.

This is not merely a conjecture. The formal proofs are coming in future articles. When they arrive, they will rewrite the established worldview of modern science and also the humanity's understanding of existence forever.

For now, hold this idea in your mind. The biggest things you see are just crowds. The individual remains supreme. And the smallest is, in fact, the biggest.

It's time to awaken a truth that, once seen, can be confirmed from within. What are your thoughts on this new perspective? Let me know.