Physics is Incomplete at Every Scale of the Universe
Michael Rowen
July 17, 2026
Physics, chemistry, and biology comprise a set of theories and models developed to provide causal explanations for the behavior of matter and energy in the universe at different scales. While science has made incredible progress over the centuries, a significant amount of anomalous evidence gathered by scientists that lacks causal integration into existing scientific theories resulting in explanatory gaps at every scale. This discussion will highlight the major explanatory gaps at different scales of the universe to illustrate the incompleteness of existing scientific theories. This incompleteness argues for taking a pragmatic approach when interpreting what scientific theories and evidence might be telling us about the intrinsic nature of reality.
Cosmic Scale Explanatory Gaps
Matter-Antimatter Imbalance: The Big Bang hypothesis is the leading candidate for an explanation for the origin of the universe. When the standard model of cosmology (the Lambda Cold Dark Matter cosmological model, or LCDM) is applied to the Big Bang hypothesis, it predicts the universe should contain equal amounts of matter and antimatter, yet the observable universe is dominated almost entirely by matter. The theory to explain why matter and antimatter behave differently (Charge-Parity or CP symmetry violation) was recently confirmed in a particle collider experiment in 2025. Perplexingly, the amount of CP violation predicted by quantum physics is many orders of magnitude too small to account for the matter-antimatter asymmetry observed in the universe, suggesting the existence of new sources of CP violation beyond those predicted by current theory. This anomaly is genuinely existential because without it, matter and antimatter would have annihilated each other completely after the Big Bang, leaving a universe of pure energy and no matter whatsoever. That we exist at all is a direct consequence of unknown physics that modern science cannot account for.
Hubble Tension: Two highly precise methods for measuring the expansion rate of our universe (the Hubble constant) yields conflicting results. Estimates using the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation from the early universe and estimates using specific types of stars and supernovae in galaxies deviate by more than 6 sigma of standard deviation (99.99966% confidence the deviation is real). This "Hubble Tension" is widely interpreted as a sign that new physics is required to reconcile these two precise measurements in order to explain the expansion rate of the universe.
Cosmic Dipole Anomaly: The "Cosmological Principle" states that the large-scale universe is homogeneous and isotropic, a foundational assumption in the LCDM. A key prediction of this principle is that if the CMB temperature exhibits a directional dipole due to our motion through space, surveys of distant radio galaxies and quasars should show an identical dipole. Yet another deviation between theory and measurement based on analysis of over 1 million radio sources and half million quasars has now reached 5-sigma (99.99994% confidence). The tradition in science is that theories are invalidated or confirmed by anomalies that reach the 6-sigma confidence level, which seems likely in the near future as upcoming surveys are expected to reach 6-sigma. This anomaly shows that at least one of the core assumptions in cosmological principle that supports the LCDM is wrong, specifically the assumption of homogeneity and/or isotropy that underpin nearly every equation in modern cosmology.
Constants of Nature: The "cosmological constant problem" relates to the extreme discrepancy between theoretical quantum vacuum energy density calculated using Quantum Field Theory (QFT), and the hypothetical dark energy (Lambda, or "L" in LCDM) that is hypothesized to be the cause of the accelerated expansion of the universe. QFT predicts vacuum energy that is 120 orders of magnitude larger than what is inferred by cosmic expansion. This is widely regarded as the single most embarrassing prediction in the entire history of science (known as the "Vacuum Catastrophe"). A much broader issue related to the constants of nature is the "fine tuning problem." This involves 26+ constants of nature that appear to be set with extraordinary precision to values that enable the existence of stars, planets, atoms, and life. If even one of these 26+ constants was changed by just a few percentage points life as we know it could not exist in our universe. The constants of nature appear to be finely tuned for intelligent life to emerge in our universe. Fine tuning is not something that will "one day be explained by known physics" because these constants are "inputs" to existing physics theories as opposed to predictions that can be made using first principles. This means that any explanation for why these constants have the values they have lies far beyond current science and thus remains in the category of metaphysical interpretation. The debate on fine tuning is whether the values of the constants are the result of random or non-random factors. The leading random speculation is that we live in a "multiverse" that contains an infinite number of parallel universes where every possible combination of the 26+ constants is expressed in a unique universe, and since we observe the constants that we do means we live in one of the extremely rare universes that can support life. The leading non-random speculation is "intelligent design" which views fine tuning as evidence of an intelligent designer that exists beyond our universe, such as a universal mind or a God. Both views are "consistent" with existing scientific evidence and theory, but neither is "supported" by it, thus both remain pure metaphysical speculation on par with one another that should be relegated to one's personal belief system as opposed to being framed as supported by science.
Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB): The CMB is the oldest light in the universe and has been mapped with extraordinary precision by modern technology. At small angular scales the CMB matches the homogeneity and isotropic assumptions of the LCDM almost perfectly. But at large angular scales anomalies appear that are steadily rising in their statistical confidence, but still well below 6-sigma. Particularly striking is that these anomalies appear to suggest the large-scale structure of the universe may have a preferred direction in the distribution of matter that is aligned with the plane of our solar system (referred to as the "Axis of Evil" by cosmologists who are deeply troubled by this finding). If confirmed in the future, this anomaly would independently invalidate the cosmological principle and thus the LCDM.
The LCDM Model Itself: Modern physics cannot explain the causal factors behind the accelerating expansion of the universe, leading to the dark energy hypothesis (the "L" in LCDM) to provide the missing repulsive force necessary to explain why galaxies are receding away from us at an accelerating rate. Meanwhile our most accurate theory of gravity is contained within Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, which treats gravity as the curvature in the fabric of spacetime due to the presence of mass. But Einstein’s theory of gravity breaks down at the largest scales of the universe, as evidenced by the fact that it cannot explain the causal factor(s) that keep stars orbiting in galaxies as opposed to flying off into interstellar space. This has led to the "Cold Dark Matter" hypothesis (the "CDM" of LCDM) providing the missing mass necessary for relativity theory to explain the existence of galaxies. “Dark” in the context of these two hypothetical phenomena relates to the fact that neither the missing mass nor missing energy interacts with any of our existing scientific instruments, making them completely invisible to modern science, hence the term "dark." This hypothetical dark energy and dark matter together account for over 95% of the matter and energy that physicists believe exists in our universe, which helps to illustrate why the LCDM is facing so many fundamental challenges from anomalous evidence. This means that the entirety of existing physics describes less than 5% of what physicists believe exists in our universe, a sobering illustration that physics is incomplete at the largest scale of the universe.
Human Scale Explanatory Gaps
The Mystery of Life: The incredible complexity of cellular life defies scientific explanation as evidenced by the absence of theories for the origin of life, embryo development, and how cells communicate and coordinate activity with one another. Consider that scientists have been watching cells divide in their microscopes for centuries, imaging and describing the process in incredible detail. Yet despite having this front-row seat, no theory has been developed to explain how cells can create new life from a collection of non-living molecules using the laws and theories of physics, chemistry and/or biology. Before we can ever hope to explain how the first living cells emerged from a collection of non-living molecules 3.5 billion years ago, we first need to explain how living cells are created from non-living molecules 3.8 million times every second inside each of our bodies.
The Mystery of Evolution: The "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" combines Darwin's theory of natural selection with the hypothesis that random DNA copying errors occurring during reproductive cycles are the underlying events that lead to evolutionary mutations. This was a strong hypothesis when it was first formulated 70+ years ago, but subsequent research has largely invalidated it. An example of the inadequacy of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis can be seen in a 2019 experiment performed by developmental biologist Michael Levin of Tuft's University [1]. The experiment involved placing worms in a barium chloride solution which dissolves the heads of the worms but did not kill the cells in the rest of the bodies. In five weeks, the worms grew new heads that were able to survive in the barium chloride solution.
Genetic analysis of the worms found that 9 genes were changed during the development of the new barium chloride-resistant heads. This means the cells of the worms found new proteins to produce barium chloride resistant heads and subsequently encoded the proteins in the worm’s edited genome to pass on to future generations. This single experiment directly refutes the modern evolutionary synthesis by demonstrating that:
-
Random DNA copying errors are not the driver of this mutation.
-
Evolution does not require eons of natural selection - it requires just 5 weeks in this experiment.
-
The mutation in this experiment can only be explained as the result of some unknown, non-random, goal directed process related to the relentless pursuit of survival by the cells of the worms.
Despite evidence of this magnitude directly contradicting the modern evolutionary synthesis, it remains the default theory taught in biology classes at all levels because no alternative theory has gained sufficient support from the broader evolutionary science community to supplant it as the mainstream evolution paradigm. This is similar to the LCDM model persisting despite being incomplete and having a flawed assumption in its framework. Both theories sit on scaffolding built on "randomness" assumptions that recent evidence is demonstrating is clearly "non-random." The next gen models for both phenomena will likely replace randomness assumption with non-random factors.
The Mystery of Consciousness: There are many ways to illustrate the difficulty in explaining consciousness with existing physics. One method was articulated in the proposed solutions to the combination problem which discussed how the “quantitative, 3rd person, objective, physical, external behavior” theories and models of physics have been unable to explain the “qualitative, 1st person, subjective, internal, mental experiences” of the human mind, arguing the hard problem of consciousness is unsolvable by existing science because the attributes of physics and mind are polar opposites of one another and thus have no overlap from which to construct a scientific theory of mind.
Another way to illustrate the problem is to quote a July 2026 lecture by theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind who articulated 10 arguments for why consciousness “may be genuinely incompatible with physics as it currently stands.” Susskind's views are featured here because (a) they capture the essence of the macro-argument, (b) he is one of the most respected and accomplished theoretical physicists alive today, and (c) he is a personal favorite of mine because he focuses on facts and evidence without metaphysical bias. Below are selected quotes from his lecture which summarize his 10 arguments. The full 24 minute lecture can be listened to by clicking here.
-
The Hard Problem of Consciousness. “Why physical processes in a brain produce subjective experience at all…The equations of quantum mechanics, general relativity, statistical mechanics, and all other established frameworks describe state evolution, probability distributions, and correlations between observable quantities. None of them contain the concept of inner experience and none of them predict that complex information processing should be accompanied by the existence of a point of view.”
-
The Measurement Problem and Associated Collapse of Wave Functions. “The physicist John von Neumann concluded that the collapse occurs at the interface between the physical world and consciousness and his collaborator Eugene Wigner developed this line of argument explicitly proposing that consciousness plays a fundamental role in collapsing quantum superpositions. This remains one of the most controversial and unresolved positions in the foundations of physics. But it was proposed not by mystics but by two of the most technically capable mathematicians physics has ever produced.”
-
The Binding Problem. “When you perceive a red apple moving across a table, your visual system processes color information in one cortical region, motion information in another, shape in another, and spatial location in yet another, each through distinct neural populations using distinct computational mechanisms. Yet your experience is of a single unified object with all these properties simultaneously present….How the brain binds these separately processed features into a unified conscious percept….why any synchronization of electrical activity in physically distinct brain regions should produce a unified subjective experience remains entirely open.”
-
The Violation of Causal Closure. “Standard physicalism….implies that the physical processes in your brain are entirely causally sufficient to determine all your behavior with no additional contribution from non-physical mental states…If consciousness plays no causal role in behavior, it becomes difficult to explain why it exists at all since evolution would have no mechanism for selecting for traits with no behavioral consequences. But if consciousness does play a causal role, it seems to violate the causal closure of physics by introducing non-physical causes into a domain that physics claims to fully account for.”
-
The Failure of Neural Correlates to Explain Consciousness. “Identifying the neural correlate of a conscious state is not the same as explaining why that neural state is conscious rather than merely a highly complex pattern of electrical activity in the dark…The explanatory gap between neural correlate and phenomenal experience is precisely as wide after the correlation is established as it was before.”
-
Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory (IIT) “proposes that consciousness is identical to a specific kind of integrated information processing…implies that consciousness is not exclusive to biological brains but is present wherever the relevant information integration structure exists…The disturbing implication of IIT is that consciousness may be a fundamental property of certain physical organizations rather than something produced by brains specifically, which either trivializes consciousness by making it ubiquitous or profoundly changes what we mean by the physical world.”
-
Penrose & Hameroff’s Orch OR Theory “proposes that consciousness involves quantum gravitational effects occurring in microtubule structures within neurons…begins from Godel’s incompleteness theorems and argues that human mathematical insight involves a non-computational process that cannot be replicated by any classical algorithm…The Orch OR hypothesis remains highly controversial…but it represents a serious attempt by a (Nobel) winning mathematician to connect consciousness specifically to the deepest and least understood regime of physical law where quantum mechanics and general relativity intersect in ways that no complete theory yet describes.”
-
The Existence of Qualia, “the intrinsic non-relational phenomenal properties of conscious experience…qualia are not reducible to functional or physical properties, and consciousness contains something that physics and neuroscience working on the functional level can never fully capture.”
-
Anesthetics “abolish consciousness reliably and reversibly through a variety of chemical mechanisms…The fine line between consciousness and its absence apparently corresponds to a dramatic and total qualitative change in the subjective character of brain states rather than a gradual diminution. This all or nothing character of anesthetic induced unconsciousness suggests that consciousness is not simply a matter of more or less neural activity but involves a specific organizational property that either exists or does not. A property that anesthetics eliminate while leaving behind enough neural activity to support many complex physiological functions.”
-
Lack of a Physics Framework for an Experiencing Subject. “Physics as currently constituted describes the evolution of physical states, the correlations between measurements, the transformation of energy and information…What it does not describe and has never had a framework for describing is why any of this structure and dynamics should be accompanied by an experiencing subject…The existence of consciousness is in this sense not a problem within physics but a problem for physics. A feature of reality that current physical theory cannot accommodate without either expanding its conceptual framework beyond anything currently available or accepting that the physical description of reality is incomplete in a way that may never be fully addressed within the current paradigm.”
Suffice it to say that the explanatory gaps related to consciousness, the emergence of life from non-living molecules, embryo development, and evolution theory are significant enough to assert that biology, neuroscience, and biophysics are incomplete at the scale of everyday human life.
Quantum Scale Explanatory Gaps
Physics is also incomplete at the smallest scales of the universe. While Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is the most precise and experimentally verified theory in the history of science, it offers no explanation for the most well-known force of nature that each of us experiences every moment of our lives – gravity. Physicists have been searching for a quantum theory of gravity since quantum theory was first developed a century ago, yet the hypothetical graviton particle has continued to evade discovery, thus relativity theory remains the only scientific explanation for gravity. Both quantum and relativity theory have been experimentally verified to incredible precision, yet they are fundamentally incompatible with one another.
String theory is the closest framework developed thus far as an explanation for gravity at the quantum scale. It proposes the core of reality is made of Planck scale strings that have unique modes of vibration that correlate to the various elementary particles. String theory produced many insights and even new branches of mathematics during its development but appears to be falling out of favor in the theoretical physics community in recent years. String theory is able to embed gravity into quantum physics in 10 dimensions, and its sister theory called Membrane theory (M-theory) does so in 11 dimensions. Speculating the existence of higher dimensions is nothing new in physics as evidenced by the wave functions used in every quantum mechanics calculation being modeled in an infinite dimension Hilbert space. Einstein's theory of relativity moved our view of the universe from 3 dimensions to 4 dimensions, with the 4th dimension being time, meaning we live in a "spacetime" universe. Kaluza-Klein extended relativity theory to 5 dimensions with the 5th dimension being the electromagnetic force, and string theory adds additional dimensions to incorporate the remaining forces of nature (i.e. strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and gravity).
String theory elegantly combines all known forces of nature in a quantum theory that works for a nearly infinite number of possible universes, but sadly our universe is not one of them. String and M-theory only work in universes that are finite in size and either shrinking or stable in size (i.e. anti-deSitter universes) yet our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate (i.e. deSitter universe). String theory is sometimes invoked as providing scientific support for the multiverse hypothesis discussed earlier, but it would be a multiverse that does contain our actual universe thus does not even qualify as a valid metaphysical assumption because it is inconsistent with known physics.
There are many mysteries and paradoxes in quantum physics that illustrate its incompleteness, and the Frauchiger-Renner thought experiment is one that does so directly. This thought experiment is involves 4 observers structured as two nested Wigner's Friend experiments running in parallel, and logically concludes that one of the following three core assumptions in the foundations of quantum physics must be incorrect:
-
Universality: Quantum theory can be applied to everything, including observers and measurement devices.
-
Consistency: Two physicists performing the same calculations on a quantum system will agree on the resulting statistical predictions of the system.
-
Single Outcomes: Two physicists observing the same measurement of a quantum system will agree on the result.
Physicists agree on the implications of this thought experiment but disagree which of the 3 assumptions is likely to be wrong. This puts QFT on the same shaky scaffolding that the LCDM cosmological model discussed earlier finds itself, both are incomplete and sit on invalidated foundational assumptions.
Despite being incomplete and resting on an invalidated assumption, Quantum Field Theory (QFT) has made the most precise predictions in the history of science by far, with one prediction validated via experiment up to 12 significant digits. The prediction that achieves this trillion-to-one difference between theory and experiment is the value of the Electron Anomalous Magnetic Moment, a dimensionless ratio of 5 of the 26+ constants of nature discussed earlier.
QFT is strikingly accurate in some of its predictions and strikingly inaccurate in others such as theoretical vacuum energy versus experimental measurement discussed earlier, the "Vacuum Catastrophe."
QFT holds the all-time records for the most accurate and inaccurate predictions in the history of science. It clearly does an amazing job at describing certain aspects of the smallest scale of the universe while being unable to explain others. The evidence is clear that physics is also incomplete at the smallest scale of the universe.
Conclusion
The incompleteness of physics at all scales leads to a number of causation issues and explanatory gaps in our scientific theories. Logician, mathematician, and philosopher Kurt Gödel developed two “Incompleteness Theorems” in 1931 which together prove that no purely “rules-based mathematical system” can provide a complete explanation of the system it was developed to describe. Since physics is a “rules-based mathematical system” Gödel's theorems seem to imply that physics will remain incomplete unless and until it is expanded to include a "non-rules-based" and/or a "non-mathematical" aspect in its formalisms. While the direct applicability of Gödel's theorems to physics remains a matter of philosophical debate, the broader point stands: the persistent incompleteness of physics at every scale — from quantum gravity to the hard problem of consciousness to missing matter & energy at cosmological scales — suggests that the purely quantitative mathematical formalisms of physics may be insufficient to ever fully describe reality. This argues for taking a pragmatic approach when interpreting what scientific theory and evidence may be telling us about the fundamental nature of reality, which will be the subject of my next paper.
[1] Emmons-Bell M, Durant F, Tung A, Pietak A, Miller K, Kane A, Martyniuk CJ, Davidian D, Morokuma J, Levin M. Regenerative Adaptation to Electrochemical Perturbation in Planaria: A Molecular Analysis of Physiological Plasticity. iScience. 2019 Dec 20; 22:147-165.