Nature is both discrete and continuous. GR-QM era physics models nature and “particles” as fields. Everything is a field. In contrast, the NPQG model is based upon two fundamental particles (electrino and positrino) and the fields they emit. In NPQG particles are discrete, and local fields are continuous. If the natural world is physical with real particles, then the pure math used in GM-QR physics is employed at a scale where pure math works. However, at smaller and smaller scales the discrete nature of the fundamental electrino and positrino particles plays an important role.
At the scales of concern in the GR-QM era, the contemporary mathematics works well because the discrete aspect of nature is at scales well beyond consideration. It is as if the discrete nature of particles is like the epsilon-delta that leads to calculus. The granularity is so fine, that continuous math works.
One notable exception is the case where infinities arise in GR-QM theories. In the natural world, there may be a limit where nature does not continue to infinity in some dimension. A great example is the so called singularity in a supermassive black hole. Thankfully, a singularity can not occur, because the Planck scale is the limit of size and energy of a particle. Discrete nature means that divide by zero or integrals with infinite bounds may not match reality. If nature is truly quantized then as we approach the limit of nature, nature’s math may behave differently than theoretical math. It depends on the question.
Aren’t these different scales already assumed in physics — quantum vs. classical worlds? Yes, but at a different level. Classical physics is done at the macroscopic level and quantum physics at the microscopic level represent the progression of science in the GR-QM era. For many applications, classical models are still quite good.
If the NPQG model is correct and there are only two fundamental particles types (electrino, positrino) that occupy Euclidean 3D space, then these fundamental particles have real (3D) positions in 3D Euclidean space at all absolute times. Not uncertain quantum positions, not curvy spacetime, but real and continuous positions in absolute 3D space and absolute time. Then we can add layers of emergent behaviour as groups of particles form certain standard-matter particles, or as they become particles of spacetime, or as they are subjected to the intense energy of a supermassive black hole, or as groups of them become atoms, or molecules.
“In mathematics, a dynamical system is a system in which a function describes the time dependence of a point in a geometrical space.”Wikipedia
Would the NPQG system of nature qualify as dynamical? Perhaps. We can definitely place nature in a 3D Euclidean space. No twisting or compression or curving of 3D space. We can place each fundamental particle in a real location in that volume. Those same particles make everything, including Einstein’s spacetime. Spacetime coordinates becomes a transformation based on the density and energy of the low energy composite particles that make the spacetime superfluid (a Bose-Einstein condensate gas).
We can also think of absolute mathematical time within our Euclidean space. Next we need to define relative time, but it may be a bit trickier to undertand. Time is related to the energy or temperature of particles. As if time is a measure of the how much particle energy remains before depletion. At high energy, time moves slow, because depletion is so many orders of magnitude below. At low energy time moves faster.
It remains to be seen what applications will emerge that require the lowest level granular understanding of nature. It will be interesting, because certainly there is some level of chaos in the discrete arrangements of all the particles and composite particles.
J Mark Morris
San Diego October 20, 2019 v1