How Mathematics Misleads Physics: 6 The Shape of Spacetime and the Shape of Equations

Physics prides itself on the elegance of general relativity. The theory is often said to reveal the true architecture of spacetime: curvature as gravity, geodesics as free fall, geometry as destiny. And yet, this triumphal narrative masks a deeper confusion—one that sits squarely within the relational pathology traced throughout this series.

The conflation is simple to state and devastating in consequence:

The geometry of the equations is treated as the geometry of the cosmos.

This is not physics discovering the shape of spacetime.

It is physics inheriting the shape of its chosen mathematical formalism—Riemannian differential geometry—and then mistaking that shape for reality.

This post exposes how the formalism over-inclines the construal, locking physics into a narrow way of carving possibility that makes singularities not inevitable features of the universe, but predictable artefacts of a particular geometric commitment.

---

1. The Riemannian commitment: a perspectival narrowing posing as revelation

General relativity begins with a decisive choice: spacetime is represented as a differentiable manifold equipped with a metric tensor of Lorentzian signature and a Levi-Civita connection.

This framework already embeds:

• smoothness assumptions,

• locality assumptions,

• metric primacy,

• differentiable structure down to arbitrarily fine scales,

• and a commitment to curvature as the fundamental diagnostic of relationality.

These are not discoveries.

They are inclinations—structured decisions that orient how the model construes phenomena.

But once the formalism is adopted, physics performs the familiar reversal:

The model’s inclination becomes the world’s ontology.

Thus curvature becomes “real,” smoothness becomes “fundamental,” and geodesic incompleteness becomes “the universe collapsing into a singularity.”

---

2. Over-inclination: when the geometry overcommits

If earlier posts dealt with openness or closure, GR introduces a distinct pattern: over-inclination, where the chosen orientation of the mathematics is so specific, so rigid, and so all-encompassing that it constrains the kinds of phenomena the model can recognise.

Over-inclination shows up in several ways:

a. The metric as totalising structure

The metric tensor is made responsible for all relations—intervals, causal structure, volumes, lengths, curvature.

This is not ontological unity; it is representational compression.

b. Smoothness as an unquestioned foundation

The manifold is assumed to be smooth at all scales.

This is insinuated as a fact about spacetime; in fact, it is a fact about the formalism.

c. Curvature as the only admissible relational dynamism

The Einstein field equations legislate curvature as the way mass-energy orients spacetime.

This is not an empirical discovery; it is a structural demand of the Riemannian machinery.

Once these commitments are made, the path to singularities is already paved.

---

3. Singularities as artefacts of geometric commitment

Every physicist knows the standard line:

• singularities are “regions where curvature diverges,”

• or “places where spacetime ends,”

• or “boundaries of physics.”

But all of these descriptions smuggle in the same assumption:

that curvature—and its pathological failure to remain finite—reflects the world rather than the model’s own geometric overcommitment.

A singularity in GR does not mean:

• spacetime literally pinches off,

• physical quantities grow without bound,

• the universe collapses into metaphysical incoherence.

It means simply:

the Riemannian construal has exceeded the range of its own inclination.

The model overcommits to smoothness, overcommits to metric continuity, and overcommits to curvature as the mediator of gravitation. When the phenomenon cannot be articulated within that orientation, the model fails—catastrophically, but predictably.

Singularities are not cosmic mysteries.

They are sites where the mathematical cut refuses to flex.

---

4. The misleading rhetoric of “geodesic incompleteness”

The celebrated Hawking–Penrose singularity theorems do not prove spacetime ends.

They prove that within the Riemannian framework—with its metric, connection, differentiability assumptions, and energy conditions—certain configurations force geodesic incompleteness.

But geodesic incompleteness is a failure of geometric continuation, not physical continuation.

The model says:

“I cannot extend my geodesics any further.”

Physics then interprets this as:

“The universe cannot extend any further.”

The inversion is total.

It is the formalism that hits its boundary, not spacetime itself.

---

5. Disentangling the shape of equations from the shape of the world

To restore clarity, we must make the relational boundary explicit:

• The shape of spacetime is not what the equations describe.

• It is what the phenomenon affords once cut through the construal that generates spacetime as a modelling category.

The metric is not spacetime’s essence; it is a representational affordance.

Curvature is not reality’s architecture; it is the model’s grammar for describing gravitational behaviour.

Singularities do not reveal a universe breaking; they reveal a formalism that has over-inclined itself beyond its domain of articulation.

The cosmos is not obliged to honour the differential structure of the mathematics that depicts it.

---

6. What comes after Riemannian over-inclination?

This series does not advocate discarding GR; rather, it restores the theory to its rightful status:

• a sophisticated modelling practice,

• not a metaphysical revelation.

In doing so, it opens a more coherent path forward:

• recognising where over-inclination constrains intelligibility,

• rethinking the representational commitments embedded in geometric formalisms,

• and building models where the relational cut is allowed to reorient rather than calcify.

The phenomenon does not collapse into singularity;

the model does.

---

Next: Post 7 — The Myth of Mathematical Transparency

The next post steps back to gather the threads:

the way mathematics persuades physics that it is transparent, neutral, and ontologically thin, when in fact it is saturated with inclinations, decisions, omissions, biases, and cuts.

We bring these illusions into full view.