Citation

Mashrafi, M. A. (2026). The Limits of Science Are Not the Limits of Reality: A Testable Hypothesis on Subsurface Life in Planetary Interiors. International Journal of Research, 13(2), 165–170. https://doi.org/10.26643/ijr/2026/41

Author:
Md. Mokhdum Azam Mashrafi (Mehadi Laja)

Research Associate, Track2Training, India

Researcher from Bangladesh

Email: mehadilaja311@gmail.com

Abstract

Science advances not because reality changes, but because humanity’s instruments, theoretical frameworks, and willingness to question assumptions evolve. Throughout scientific history, ideas once dismissed as impossible—heliocentrism, continental drift, deep-sea ecosystems, and subsurface microbial life—were later validated as observational tools and conceptual models improved. This recurring pattern highlights a fundamental principle: absence of detection is not evidence of absence, but often a reflection of instrumental limitation.

This paper proposes a testable scientific hypothesis that challenges the surface-centric paradigm of astrobiology: if life exists beyond Earth, it may reside within planetary interiors rather than on exposed surfaces. Gas giants and terrestrial planets alike exhibit extreme surface conditions—radiation, pressure, and thermal instability—that are hostile to complex life. However, internal planetary environments may offer comparatively stable regimes governed by pressure balance, thermal gradients, magnetic dynamics, and internal energy redistribution.

The hypothesis does not assert proof, but invites scientific scrutiny. Planetary interiors remain among the least explored domains in modern science, not due to falsification, but because of technological constraints. As with prior scientific revolutions, today’s speculative questions may become tomorrow’s measurable realities. The boundaries of science, therefore, should be understood not as limits of reality, but as temporary limits of measurement.

Introduction

Science is not a fixed collection of truths but a continuously evolving process shaped by observation, experimentation, theory, and—crucially—the limits of available instruments. What humanity understands as “scientific reality” at any given moment reflects not the full structure of nature, but the current reach of measurement, modeling, and conceptual frameworks. Throughout history, many ideas once dismissed as impossible or unscientific were later recognized as foundational, not because reality changed, but because science itself matured. This historical pattern motivates a critical reassessment of how scientific limits are interpreted and how unexplored domains are framed within contemporary research.

One of the most instructive examples is the work of Galileo Galilei, whose support for heliocentrism challenged dominant geocentric assumptions. His claims were resisted not due to empirical falsification, but because prevailing paradigms and observational tools were insufficient to accommodate them. Similar trajectories can be traced in the delayed acceptance of continental drift, the discovery of deep-sea ecosystems thriving without sunlight, and the recognition of extensive subsurface microbial life on Earth. In each case, absence of detection was initially misinterpreted as absence of existence, only to be corrected when instruments and theory advanced. These precedents underscore a central principle of scientific epistemology: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; it is often evidence of instrumental or methodological limitation.

This principle is particularly relevant to the contemporary search for life beyond Earth. Modern astrobiology has largely focused on surface and atmospheric indicators—liquid water signatures, biosignature gases, and Earth-analog planetary conditions. Telescopes, orbiters, and landers are primarily designed to observe exposed environments, implicitly assuming that life, if present, must resemble surface-based terrestrial biology. While this approach has yielded valuable insights, it also reflects a surface-centric bias that may constrain the scope of inquiry. Planetary interiors, by contrast, remain among the least explored regions in planetary science, not because they have been shown to be lifeless, but because they are technologically difficult to access and model.

Many planets and moons within and beyond our solar system exhibit surface conditions that appear hostile to complex life, including extreme radiation, temperature, pressure, and atmospheric instability. However, planetary interiors operate under different physical regimes. Internal regions are governed by pressure gradients, thermal regulation, magnetic field dynamics, and long-term energy sources such as radiogenic heating, gravitational compression, and tidal interactions. On Earth, such internal environments support diverse biological systems, from deep lithospheric microbes to ecosystems sustained independently of solar energy. These terrestrial analogues suggest that life need not be confined to surface illumination or Earth-like climates, but may instead adapt to stable internal energy flows and chemical gradients.

This paper advances a testable scientific hypothesis: if extraterrestrial life exists, particularly on planets with extreme surface environments, it may preferentially reside within subsurface or internal planetary regions rather than on exposed surfaces. This hypothesis does not claim proof, nor does it assert specific biological forms or civilizations. Instead, it reframes the search for life as a question of internal dynamics rather than surface appearance, emphasizing that complex systems are often governed by structures and processes hidden beneath observable layers. Such a perspective aligns with systems science, geology, and planetary physics, where internal structure and energy balance frequently determine observable behavior.

Importantly, proposing this hypothesis does not conflict with established scientific principles. Rather, it extends them into an underexplored domain. Scientific progress depends not only on refining existing models, but also on identifying where dominant assumptions may narrow inquiry. The interiors of planets represent a frontier where theory, modeling, and future instrumentation may converge to reveal new insights into planetary evolution, habitability, and the broader distribution of life in the universe.

In this context, the present study positions subsurface planetary life not as speculative fantasy, but as a scientifically grounded question awaiting systematic investigation. Whether ultimately confirmed or rejected, the hypothesis serves a critical function: it challenges the assumption that reality is limited to what current instruments can observe. History suggests that such limits are temporary. As scientific tools evolve, so too will the boundaries of inquiry, reminding us that the limits of science are not the limits of reality, but merely the limits of present understanding.

Key Scientific Framing

1. Historical Precedent

The history of science demonstrates that resistance to new ideas often emerges not from empirical disproof, but from limitations in instrumentation and deeply entrenched paradigms. A prominent example is the rejection of heliocentrism during the time of Galileo Galilei, whose observational evidence supporting Earth’s motion around the Sun conflicted with the dominant geocentric worldview. The scientific and institutional opposition he faced reflected the constraints of available observational tools and prevailing philosophical assumptions rather than a decisive refutation of his claims. As measurement techniques improved and theoretical frameworks evolved, heliocentrism became a foundational principle of modern astronomy.

Similar patterns can be observed in other major scientific advances. The theory of plate tectonics, once dismissed due to the absence of a known driving mechanism, was later validated through advances in geophysics and seafloor mapping. Likewise, the discovery of extremophile organisms thriving in deep-sea vents and subsurface environments overturned long-standing assumptions about the conditions necessary for life. In each case, ideas initially regarded as implausible were eventually accepted when technological progress enabled observation of previously inaccessible domains. These historical precedents reinforce a central lesson: scientific understanding expands not by defending existing limits, but by revising them as tools, data, and conceptual models improve.

2. Hypothesis

This study advances the hypothesis that if extraterrestrial life exists, it may preferentially inhabit subsurface or internal planetary environments rather than exposed surfaces, particularly on planets characterized by extreme atmospheric, thermal, or radiative conditions. Many planetary surfaces within and beyond our solar system experience levels of radiation, pressure variability, and temperature extremes that are hostile to complex biological systems. In contrast, internal planetary regions may offer comparatively stable physical and chemical regimes, governed by pressure balance, thermal gradients, magnetic shielding, and sustained internal energy sources. From a scientific perspective, such environments represent plausible habitats that have received limited empirical attention due to observational and technological constraints.

This hypothesis is consistent with contemporary Earth science, where life has been conclusively documented kilometers beneath the planet’s surface, thriving in high-pressure, low-light, and chemically distinct environments. Subsurface microbial ecosystems on Earth rely not on direct solar energy, but on geothermal heat, mineral chemistry, and internal energy flows. These findings demonstrate that biological systems can persist independently of surface conditions and sunlight, thereby expanding conventional definitions of habitability. By extending this well-established terrestrial principle to planetary science, the hypothesis reframes the search for extraterrestrial life as a question of internal dynamics and energy balance rather than surface similarity to Earth.

3. Scientific Scope and Boundaries

The hypothesis presented in this study is framed within clearly defined scientific boundaries to avoid speculative overreach. It does not claim that planets are hollow in a literal, mechanical, or structural sense, nor does it challenge established models of planetary formation, internal stratification, or geophysical dynamics. Contemporary understandings of planetary interiors—comprising layered structures such as crusts, mantles, cores, and transitional zones—remain fully acknowledged within this framework.

Furthermore, the hypothesis does not assert the existence of human-like civilizations or intelligent societies as an established fact. No assumptions are made regarding the form, complexity, or consciousness of any potential life. Instead, the focus is placed on fundamental scientific plausibility. The central assertion is that internal planetary regions may host chemical, biological, or pre-biological systems that remain unobservable with current instruments and methodologies. These systems, if they exist, would be governed by internal energy flows, pressure regimes, and chemical gradients rather than surface illumination or Earth-like conditions. By maintaining these boundaries, the hypothesis remains testable, scientifically grounded, and open to validation or falsification as observational capabilities advance.

4. Detection Limitations

A major challenge in evaluating the possibility of subsurface or internal planetary life lies in the limitations of current detection technologies. Conventional radio-frequency sensing and surface-based remote observations are poorly suited for probing deep planetary interiors, as electromagnetic signals rapidly attenuate within dense geological and atmospheric media. As a result, the lack of direct observational evidence for internal planetary environments should not be interpreted as evidence of their biological or chemical inactivity, but rather as a reflection of the methodological constraints that shape present-day planetary exploration.

Meaningful progress in this area will likely depend on the development and integration of alternative investigative approaches. These may include neutrino or gravity-based tomography to infer internal mass distribution and energy flows, advanced magneto-seismic techniques to analyze internal structural dynamics, and high-energy light absorption or particle-interaction models capable of penetrating dense planetary layers. Additionally, next-generation planetary probes designed to investigate subsurface environments—either directly or indirectly—could significantly expand observational capacity. Until such tools are realized, the absence of evidence must be understood as a temporary limitation of methodology, not as a definitive scientific verdict on the existence or nonexistence of internal planetary life..

Cultural and Historical References

References to Gog and Magog, Ya’juj and Ma’juj, and Dabbat al-Ard are best understood as cultural and historical metaphors reflecting humanity’s long-standing curiosity about hidden or inaccessible realms of reality. Across civilizations, symbolic narratives have often been used to express ideas about unseen domains, delayed revelation, and limits of human perception. From a scientific standpoint, such references do not constitute empirical evidence and should not be interpreted as factual descriptions of physical or biological phenomena. When framed as metaphorical or philosophical expressions rather than evidentiary claims, these narratives enrich the broader intellectual context of inquiry while preserving scientific neutrality and methodological rigor.

Key Corrections for Scientific Rigor

To ensure clarity and acceptance within academic and semi-academic contexts, several scientific clarifications are essential. First, planetary rotation is governed primarily by the conservation of angular momentum established during planetary formation, not by internal hollowness or structural voids. While planetary magnetic fields play an important role in plasma interactions and space–environment coupling, they do not directly generate rotational motion. Second, the apparent brightness of planets as observed from Earth is determined by well-established physical factors, including albedo, distance, phase angle, and planetary size, rather than by internal illumination or light emission from within planetary interiors. Third, solar photons do not penetrate planetary crusts to produce internal day–night cycles. Instead, internal planetary energy is derived from radiogenic heat, gravitational compression, and, in some cases, tidal forces. These corrections do not undermine the broader philosophical or exploratory thrust of the hypothesis; rather, they strengthen its scientific foundation by aligning it with established physical principles while maintaining openness to future empirical investigation.

Concluding Statement

Science is not a catalog of final truths; it is a continuously evolving method of inquiry. Reality has never been constrained by what humanity could immediately observe, but only by how far instruments and theory could reach at a given time. The interiors of planets remain one of the least explored frontiers in modern science—not because they have been disproven as lifeless, but because they remain difficult to access.

Whether the hypothesis of subsurface extraterrestrial life is ultimately confirmed or rejected, its value lies in expanding the scope of scientific questioning. Progress belongs to those willing to explore beyond the visible horizon.

The limits of science are not the limits of reality—they are the limits of our instruments.

References

Sullivan, J. W. N. (2018). Limitations of science. Read Books Ltd.

Weisskopf, V. F. (1984). The frontiers and limits of science. Daedalus, 177-195.

Stenmark, M. (2008). Science and the Limits of Knowledge. In Clashes of knowledge: Orthodoxies and heterodoxies in science and religion (pp. 111-120). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Stenmark, M. (2008). Science and the Limits of Knowledge. In Clashes of knowledge: Orthodoxies and heterodoxies in science and religion (pp. 111-120). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Caviness, P. D., & Kenneth, E. (2016). History Highlights the Fundamental Limitations of Science. The Journal of Biblical Foundations of Faith and Learning, 1(1), 1.

Rescher, N. (2014). The Limits Of Science: Revised Edition. University of Pittsburgh Pre.

Polanyi, M. (1967). Science and reality. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 18(3), 177-196.

Poundstone, W. (2013). The recursive universe: Cosmic complexity and the limits of scientific knowledge. Courier Corporation.

Ruse, M. (2013). The Gaia hypothesis: Science on a pagan planet. University of Chicago Press.

Barrow, J. D. (1999). Impossibility: The limits of science and the science of limits. Random House.