Scientists, skeptics, and critics often ask me “where’s the math?” when I describe Neoclassical Physics and Quantum Gravity. It turns out that is a complex and nuanced question to answer.
We know that the math of general releativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM) works very well for a reasonably large set of conditions. Yet neither of these theories accounts for gravitons nor the recycling universe in their physical/geometrical model. Objectively, GR and QM are wrong, because they do not have the correct physical model. How could they given the new physics of NPQG?
Perhaps it is fortunate that I do NOT know GR and QM math inside-out and backwards because it might limit my imagination and creativity. I do understand the shapes of the curves and fields and manifolds described in the educational and outreach material. Instead of math, I focus on the narratives and interpretations and the hierarchy of scaffolding built by the scientists. In doing so, I pick up on the “poker tell” when the theoretical or observational foundation or the narrative interpretation is weak, illogical, or contrary to my intuition about nature. Understanding these weaknesses has provided many clues on where to examine closely for insight into NPQG. .
As much as we would like to have easy math, we need to remember that everything is not rainbows and rosemary. Nature makes all math possible (in myriad ways), but nature itself may be modeled at different levels of complex reality vs. accuracy vs. precision vs. cost vs. response time vs. other application specific metrics. While NPQG may be the basis for a theory of everything, we will always need a wide variety of application specific models.
At the most detailed model of reality, we need to think about the geometrical struture of the graviton superfluid. Are there multiple geometries of gravitons themselves at different energy-temperature-gravity levels? Is the superfluid a foam? Is it a lattice? Does it tend to arrange in an FCC structure over some or all temperatures? Are there multiple geometrical lattice superfluid arrangements under different conditions? How does each form of standard matter-energy move through the superfluid? What about faults, rips, tears, and holes in superfluid spacetime? What is the drag applied to each standard matter-energy particle under all conditions? What about turbulence? What level of math is needed for the application? GR and QM work well as mentioned. We also have simulation. It’s going to be a large effort by many people to sort all this out.
Given all these factors, creating NPQG math has been a low priority compared to learning the prior era science and performing the thought experiments that lead to physical insight about the model. Eventually the math will reveal itself. Hopefully there will be aspects of the math that can be used to simplify and enhance QM and GR.
Despite these explanations, the questioners are never satisfied. Ask me about the math one more time, as Samuel L. Jackson’s Pulp Fiction character would say.
J Mark Morris
June 12, 2019 San Diego v1