Physics is supported in all its weird present day pronouncements by a combination of observation and mathematics, but it doesn't actually work as a theory of everything.
As I understand it, every galatic centre has a black hole that is approximately 1000th of the mass of the entire galaxy, a perplexing and unexplained relationship. The galactic black hole thus has a mass, but goes down into a singularity. Then there are numerous stellar black holes from the collapse of large enough stars, to again produce a singularity.
The problem is that the black hole, the result of relativity, cannot be understood by quantum - the problem is that gravity as something that involves movement is effectively an infinite to an infinite, just as at the no size point small space with no time has an infinite density.
Now beyond all this I have been told, I can know no more, but something intuitive seems to suggest itself and I can't understand why no one else has suggested this. It's that from the small point comes new time and new space, and out goes the material that went in. We don't see it because it is new time and new space, just as our galaxy started with an explosion of new time into new space.
It could be that the little stellar explosions form not very big multiverses, nor do galactic ones, but I bet anyway that orbiting a black hole is a form of maintenance anyway. Galaxies don't disappear down their own black holes, thus the event horizon, though perhaps in the very very long run they can. Perhaps the clue to this inverse relationship between size of the black hole as orbiting object and orbiting galaxy itself (other than how big is the reach of the black hole to force the orbit far out) is in the dark energy, an outward pushing force that is part of the unseen universe, along with dark matter, that should have the opposite, or pulling in effect (except that it is likely dispersed). Energy and matter are interchangable, except one pushes and the other pulls. Thus the black hole pulls but also maintains.
These are idle cosmic speculations. They might not impress the likes of Brian Cox or similar, but they are on the lines of physics-thought.
Another thing too is the plurality at the heart of quantum mechanics, where anything that can happen does happen, which suggests to me that every possibility has a particle arrangement for it, and one in its potentially observable outcome (when many become one, for that situation), and therefore that consciousness is backed up by physical phenomena, even if dependent on the brain. There is a construction to every outcome, and perception might just have a moment of its own: perhaps in experience momentarily following death. From the inside, so to speak, that momentary existence may have its own relationship with time and space and may (may) account for impressions of other space at the moment of death (a kind of starvation) in the carrier brain.
A view from the gallery - http://changingattitude.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/GS-A-View-From-the-Gallery-75x42.jpg 75w" sizes="(max-width: 299px) 100vw, 299px" /> When I was a ...