Scientists, skeptics, and critics often ask me “*where’s the math?*” when I describe Neoclassical Physics and Quantum Gravity (𝗡𝗣𝗤𝗚). It turns out that is a complex and nuanced question to answer.

First, I’ll list some of the blog posts that have at least a modicum of mathematical concepts.

- A Vulnerability in the Mathematics of Physics
- The Mathematical Foundation of NPQG
- Freeman Dyson: Is a Graviton Detectable?
- Planck Core Energy
- Nature and Math
- A Tale of Two Geometries (Nature is a Trickster)

Objectively, we can state unequivocally that general relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM) are incorrect because they do not have the correct physical model. Neither GR nor QM theories account for Planck sphere particles (electrino and positrino) nor spacetime æther nor the recycling universe in their physical models. However, we also know that the math of general relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM) works very well for a reasonably large set of conditions and that those theories make many predictions that match the real world. *How can this be? *

Let’s imagine that you are researching a large collection of X-rays and magnetic resonance images (MRI’s) of human hands in different positions, and you also have a well fitting glove for each hand studied. With these, you could develop a model for how a human hand works, without ever actually seeing or touching a human hand. Your model might actually be quite sophisticated and accurate. Still the fact would remain, that you had **never** observed a human hand directly. This is like GR and QM. GR is like the glove and QM is like the X-rays and MRI’s. The hand is the 𝗡𝗣𝗤𝗚 electrinos, positrinos, and spacetime æther and how they behave in reality.

GR and QM math do not describe a classical foundation of the universe. Yet NPQG is a classical model. GR is based on a Riemannian spacetime geometry, yet the space in our universe is 3D and Euclidean. A spacetime æther overlays the Euclidean space and implements a Riemannian spacetime. It would be a poor approach to adapt GR and QM math for a classical foundation. It is far better to approach GR and QM from fundamentals and first principles. Eventually this will lead to the ability to reproduce GR and QM math in their ranges and scales of applicability. I focus on the narratives and interpretations and the hierarchy of scaffolding built by the GR-QM era 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 reasoning, logic, and intuition about nature. Understanding these weaknesses has provided many clues on where to examine closely for insight into 𝗡𝗣𝗤𝗚. Those insights have led to hypotheses that, if proven, will create a firm foundation for ongoing science.

Consider scale. The electrinos and positrinos are Planck scale particles. They have a radius of the . Configurations of these particles make everything – spacetime æther particles, photons, neutrinos, protons, neutrons, electrons and all the other exotic particles of the Standard Model and Particle Data Guide. However, the most sensitive equipment in particle colliders can only detect particles of order . That is a sixteen order of magnitude gap. So when folks ask for the math, I sometimes think “**You can’t handle the scale!**” because nothing would be directly testable in the next decade at the scales I am imagining. Even so, given that NPQG is a classical theory, it may be possible to eventually develop math for the Planck scale that when scaled up would reproduce GR-QM era math.

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. Similarly, while 𝗡𝗣𝗤𝗚 may be the basis for a theory of everything, we will always need a wide variety of application specific models. This raises the interesting question of which math to develop first.

Which math is a priority? Shall we start with the classical math of harmonic series? How does 𝗡𝗣𝗤𝗚 math map to GR or QM? Is the thermodynamic version of general relativity relevant to NPQG? What is the math associated with a Planck core and the conditions under which it will emit as a jet or rupture? At the most detailed model of reality, we need to think about the geometrical structure of the spacetime æther. Does its geometrical structure change as a function of æther energy? Is the æther a foam? Is it a lattice? Does it tend to arrange in a face centered cubic (FCC) structure over some or all temperatures? Are there multiple geometrical lattice arrangements of spacetime æther particles under different conditions? How does each form of standard matter-energy move through the æther? What about faults, rips, tears, and holes in the spacetime æther geometry? What about turbulence? What level of math is needed for the application? What math is required for simulation of various aspects of 𝗡𝗣𝗤𝗚? These are **all** great maths to pursue at the appropriate time and it will require a large effort by many people to sort all this out and get it done.

As of early 2020 the foundation of NPQG has become stable and parsimonious to a large degree. Therefore, I have embarked on the classical mathematics that describe NPQG from fundamentals and which are directly tied to the implementation of nature.

*J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : June 12, 2019 : v1**J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : February 22, 2020 : v2*