Do you think fundamental math concepts such as prime numbers correspond to physical truths about the universe?

And I agree - somewhat - with tmatsci here: I don't believe an actual singularity exists at the center of a black hole.

Firstly, on purely theoretical grounds, I don't believe any real infinities exist in the physical world, and that it is a mistake to use infinity in mathematics pertaining to physics.

Secondly: The intense gravitational field of a black hole warps not just space but also time. And time literally stops at the event horizon. Leading to two thoughts, each of which presents difficulty for a singularity.

1) If time reverses on the other side of the event horizon, anything that falls in will immediately fall back out again, and all accreting matter would almost immediately form an ultra-thin shell right at the horizon.

2) Whatever may happen beyond the event horizon, it will not happen in the lifetime of the outside universe.

(Nevertheless, it seems the initial mass, that existed before it had sufficient gravity to form an event horizon, may yet exist as a tiny nearly-point-like mass at the center.)

But, thirdly: the entire concept of a singularity results from treating matter as a particle. But Indications are that at quantum scales it exhibits almost exclusively wave-like properties. Under extreme gravitation pressure, rather than compressing it would, I think, spread out.

Hence no singularity.

Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner said the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the physical sciences” is a mystery demanding an explanation. He notes the fact that a mathematical formulation “leads in an uncanny number of cases to an amazingly accurate description of a large class of phenomena”, with accuracy “beyond all reasonable expectations”. He describes the usefulness of mathematics as “bordering on the mysterious” and says “there is no rational explanation for it”. “It is difficult”, he says, “to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here.”1

This “unreasonable effectiveness” has only grown wider and deeper in the years since Wigner made these remarks in 1959.

He also said “Naturally, we do use mathematics in everyday physics to evaluate the results of the laws of nature, to apply the conditional statements to the particular conditions which happen to prevail or happen to interest us. In order that this be possible, the laws of nature must already be formulated in mathematical language.”

The very idea that there is an underlying order, and a distinctively mathematical order, to things that appear to have arisen from random chaos, should make any scientist, like Wigner, pause, and wonder.

If “reality” is derived from random chaos, why should the results not be random, irrational, chaotic. Why should we expect it to make sense?

It’s one of those things we take for granted, seems normal and natural, until, like Wigner, we step back and really look at it.

And in many cases it is the beauty or elegance of the equation that scientists consider to be the strongest argument for its being applicable to the natural world. If it works, that’s good. But if it works beautifully and elegantly, it’s much more likely to have some real-world usefulness.

And for many this beauty and elegance in the natural world brings on a strong attraction to the idea of intelligent design.

The world operates according to mathematical principles.

Is, as Galileo said, "written in the language of mathematics."

Fundamental constants, forces, ratios, may vary, but a sphere is a sphere, a parabola a parabola, a fractal a fractal.

The Pauli Exclusion Principle, in particular, seems to be not simply a regularity, like most other natural "laws", but an actual law, a mathematically formulated constraint imposed on the system.

How can mathematical principles be anything other than mental constructs?

The evidence for intelligent design, and a transcendent intelligent designer, is, I think, overwhelming.

Even notoriously "hard" atheist Sir Fred Hoyle came, late in life and somewhat reluctantly, to accept a sort of deism - no religion or dogma, but the evidence-based conclusion that this material cosmos was carefully planned, designed and engineered by a super-intelligent, non-material agency.

I am not a mathematician or physicist. Perhaps this is a question with a simple answer. In the center of a black hole, shouldn't there be zero gravity (vortex?) because the mass creating gravity would be equal in all directions? Traveling out from the center, the zero balance would change as the event horizon is approached. If the total mass is greater than what is required to create an event horizon than the balance pont and the thickness (?) of the event horizon increases.

I don't understand.

I am not a mathematician or physicist. Perhaps this is a question with a simple answer. In the center of a black hole, shouldn't there be zero gravity (vortex) because the mass creating gravity would be equal in all directions? Traveling out from the center, the zero balance would change as the alleged singularity was approached. If the total mass is greater than what is required to create a singularity than the balance pont and the thickness (?) of the singularity increases.

I don't understand.

This whole discussion rests on the existence of singularities. I suggest that singularities do not exist at all. To use a directly observable example, fluid mechanics suggest that vortices exhibit a singularity at their centres but observations clearly demonstrate that this is not the case. Vortices always exhibit a static core whether they result from water running down a drain or they are as large as a hurricane. In the case of the hurricane the static core is known as the "eye of the hurricane".

A hurricane is a free standing vortex in the form of a flattened torus or a flattened donut shape if you prefer. The hurricane forms from a "hot tower" of convecting air that is drawn into rotation by the Coriolis effect. Effectively the singularity predicted by the conventional vortex theory collapses into a "ringularity" at the horizontal central core of the donut. I use the term "ringularity" partly because this is a term used in the cosmology in connection with black holes and partly to point out that in a real sense a circle or a ring is effectively infinite. In other words it is the real manifestation of a singularity that avoids those pesky infinities that mess up the mathematical descriptions.

Turning now to black holes of which we now have images. It seems to me that black holes are also toruses and that what is described as the accretion disk is actually the black hole itself or rather light escaping from the just outside the black hole event horizon. The central black core of these images is not the location of the black hole but is just the interior of the donut. Many of the images also show material spiralling around the torus which is analogous to the way air circulates in a hurricane.

I am aware that Stephen Hawking has demonstrated that toruses are not stable but as I understand it this is only true for an isolated torus. I believe that in the real universe where black holes are accreting matter and energy, the in-falling matter/energy serves to stabilise the torus.

It also seems to me that given the vibration modes of a sphere, that in-falling matter can trigger the conversion of a spherical unstable singularity to stable ringularity and thereby eliminate the infinity. I cannot prove any of this but the overall conception seems reasonable to me.

I welcome any feedback on these ideas.