Re-examining the premise is forbidden.
It's not all premises, but some just seem to "stick". Cosmology is only in very small part an experimental science - it is in very large part a historical science but without the benefit of being able to put your hands on the artifacts in question. You ought to be able to make predictions even with a historical science (palaeontology can, for example), but cosmology seems to be much more often surprised than it should be. It gets really hard to correct sometimes.
What amazes me is how long
some of these things have been going on. The bifurcation of what redshift meant in the 1930s
is still going on today.
They seem to need at least a semi-completed framework to start on, which is aggravating in a way because when people acquiesce and come up with a more encompassing hypothesis (e.g. variable mass hypotheses), then they can wave away the discrepant data by waving away pieces in the encompassing hypothesis. That in itself is maddening.
The simplest explanation is that the universe isn't really the universe. There are things outside of it exerting forces upon it that account for many of the mysterious things that are not yet understood.
I used to figure that too, in a way. In part because I thought, based on the literature of the time, that the universe was a hypersphere - gravity would just been pulling everything towards the middle of that hypersphere, or the hypersphere would be expanding outwards, and matter dragged a bit, creating gravity wells.
These days, however, the experiments to test for some amount of non-Euclidian geometry have been done, and our universe is flat, dead flat, to about one in 1020
. That popped a lot of my bubbles.
Inflationary 'theory' still tries to rescue the hypersphere concept by inflating the universe far above and beyond the speed of light for a time.
Also to note: the 'Things outside of our universe exerting forces upon it' is not a particularly small set of possibilities :)
Also, there is no basis for a "smallest possible particle or entity"
Out of the many modern-day failures of physics, quantum theory is not one of them. It's counterintuitive and annoying, but you can run the math, run the real-life experiment, and it will work
. It also rescues real life from the Ultraviolet Catastrophe
One of the things that freaks me out in quantum physics is the equality QP - PQ = ih/2π. That is, if you multiply out momentum by position, and then multiply out position by momentum, the difference will not be zero. It's small, really small, but it's not zero.
Mathematicians should be on board with this since, in theory, there's no point at which you have to stop halving anything, no matter how small you go.
Relying on the math is how we've gotten ourselves into quite a few pickles already. General Relativity, for one, has gravity as geometry, and as such, is not quantized - its 'spacetime' is infinitely divisible. Getting this to account for measured quantum phenomena has tied up some of the greatest minds of the last decades. The three-decade-long foray into string theory is one of these.
Our brains don't like infinity and infinity doesn't care.
That has not typically been a limitation when it comes to physics :)