🔥 Roast Review of “The Lifespan of Our Universe”

Fundamental Density Theory (FDT): Dragging Physics Kicking and Screaming Out of a Century-Long Rabbit Hole and Back to Reality.

Subtitle: When you build castles on singularities, don’t be surprised when they collapse faster than your axion field.

Abstract (of this roast)

The authors of The Lifespan of Our Universe attempt to predict the end of everything by stacking assumptions like Jenga blocks in a wind tunnel. Remove the Big Bang singularity — as Fundamental Density Theory (FDT) does — and the entire cosmological melodrama collapses into a pile of unused LaTeX macros.

🚩 Assumption #1: “The Big Bang Happened, Trust Us”

The paper opens with the conviction that the universe began with a singularity — like insisting every movie starts with an explosion because Michael Bay once directed Armageddon.

In FDT, we simply require that

• E/m = c² = 1/(ε₀μ₀) = (d/t)²

always holds.
This identity prevents any denominator from hitting zero.

Translation: no infinities, no singularities, no cosmic “oops, divide-by-zero” moments.
So while the authors forecast a “Big Crunch,” FDT replies: you can’t crunch what never banged in the first place.

🚩 Assumption #2: “Negative Λ Means Doom”

The authors gleefully declare that a negative cosmological constant guarantees a Big Crunch. Cute. In FDT, Λ is bookkeeping — a cosmic late fee invented to patch equations that ignore density invariance.

Their Λ < 0 panic is like declaring the universe bankrupt because your Monopoly money is red.

Under FDT’s invariance, Λ is irrelevant: the geometry never collapses to zero because (d/t)² never vanishes.

🚩 Assumption #3: “Axions Will Save the Plot”

The paper leans on an ultralight axion field to massage dark-energy dynamics. That’s the physics equivalent of writing “a wizard did it” in the margin.

Here, axions function as duct tape: slap one over every crack in ΛCDM and hope the referee looks away.
If your model only works by introducing a particle lighter than a bad excuse, maybe the issue isn’t the universe — it’s the assumptions.

🚩 Assumption #4: “Singularities Are Real, Deal With It”

We’re warned the universe will end in a singularity, as if that were profound. It’s just dividing by zero and calling it “new physics.”

FDT eliminates singularities by construction.
No Big Bang, no Big Crunch, no “giant black-hole finale.”
The universe doesn’t need a melodramatic death scene — it simply evolves under invariant density relations.

🪦 The Fatal Flaw

This paper is a eulogy for a universe that never existed. Remove the singularity assumption and the narrative — negative Λ, axion dark energy, a 33-billion-year lifespan — evaporates like Hawking radiation from a blackboard doodle.

In short:

• With singularities: you get a cosmic soap opera ending in a crunch.
• With FDT: you get a consistent, singularity-free framework where the universe doesn’t implode just because the equations ran out of patience.

🎤 Closing Roast

This is the physics equivalent of predicting the Titanic’s sinking while insisting the iceberg was made of unicorn horns. Entertaining? Sure. Useful? Not so much.

If cosmology wants to stop tripping over infinities, it’s time to retire the singularity crutches and embrace density invariance. Until then, papers like this will keep forecasting the end of the universe — while FDT quietly points out that the universe never began the way they think it did.

Reference
Luu, H. N., Qiu, Y.-C., & Tye, S.-H. H. (2025). The lifespan of our universe. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics (JCAP), 2025.

Physicists, the longer you take to acknowledge the existence of FDT and apply its core concepts to your own frameworks, the more time we have to solve ALL of physics independently.