Recipes—as with virtually anything else in our world- change with time. You wouldn’t dream of making that green bean aspic from your grandmother’s old recipes, but with a few touches of modernization, it becomes a perfectly functional Thanksgiving side dish. Like the green bean aspic, the current recipe for nature and the universe is one that seems confusing, lacking in purpose, and even nonsensical at times. Why did your grandmother decide to include frankfurters in that aspic? Why are we using outdated and unnecessarily abstract models to guide our studies of the universe? Both questions lead to equal befuddlement. Yet remaking a recipe does not need to be difficult. In either case, it is best to start with the basics and avoid overcomplicating things. Use a conservative collection of ingredient types, but retain the flexibility to increase quantities in ample supply- infinite supply, if we are discussing the matter on a universal level. From there, you develop a recipe that is understandable, logical, and comprehensive in the modern era.

Our recipe is called “Neoclassical Physics and Quantum Gravity”. The degree to which this narrative describes the reality of nature is unknown, but at a minimum it generates insights that, if accepted, lead to a revolution in physics and cosmology. In this work, we hope to show you, the reader, what we’ve done so far to modernize the old recipes. At the end of the day, though, there is a redeemable quality of Grandma’s green bean aspic. It is still the foundation of our modern recipe; take that foundation away, and everything collapses. Its value still must be acknowledged, the progress made recognized in that surely, this aspic must itself be a modernization of something far more abhorrent in the past. Therefore, a tremendous effort will be required, and attempted, to integrate and reconcile existing physics and cosmology theory and experiments with the concepts and insights of our new recipe, and to establish and verify new testable predictions. The greats before us made significant strides in discovering a wealth of information regarding the nature around us, and that is certainly not to be disregarded, but it is time to bring it all into a contemporary perspective.

This book will imagine a recipe for nature and the universe from first principles with a conservative collection of ingredient types—some of which are needed in ample, if not infinite supply. From these ingredients it will become evident that nature and the universe are emergent and steady state. A new narrative will explain nature and the universe understandably, logically, and comprehensively. The degree to which this narrative describes the reality of nature is unknown, but at a minimum it generates insights that, if accepted, lead to a revolution in physics and cosmology. That said, a tremendous effort will be required to integrate and reconcile existing physics and cosmology theory and experiments with the concepts and insights of Neoclassical Physics and Quantum Gravity and to establish and verify new testable predictions.

Let us start with space. The term “space” is one that is colloquially vague. Ask one person what comes to mind when they think of the word, and they might start talking about outer space, the universe that surrounds us. Ask another, and they might define it as air unoccupied by concrete objects. The answer? In fact, each of those is correct to some extent, because space characterizes both of those situations. But how can we define the nature of this undefined idea that we call “space”, something so familiar yet so difficult to put into concrete terms? What, precisely, constitutes the space between and around us?

Something we know, certainly, is that space is far from empty air, or a void or vacuum. Introductory science textbooks will talk about how everything is made up of atoms and molecules. Space and spacetime are not so much a formless nothingness as they are some combination of particles, sometimes interacting with each other, in different ways depending on the circumstances, or more abstractly, a quantum vacuum. We cannot simply remain at the surface level of atoms or even of standard model particles; we must continue to dig deeper. Yet despite our best efforts, until we really understand what is happening, everything will be merely a model. This is not a loss in itself but harkens to a principle often unrecognized: a theory or model can provide accuracy within a certain range of scales, but this accuracy may not extend to all of nature. For instance, in Einstein’s estimation, spacetime would be described continuously as a curvy geometry, but this idea falls short because it does not provide any natural explanation for how this is possible. In fact, Einstein’s theory is a mathematical construct devoid of any fundamental understanding of the universe from first principles. Digging for additional complexity is fruitless in the grand scheme of things unless the model we develop is universal across all scales of nature.

NPQG is nothing radical in this regard. Fundamentally, spacetime is implemented by some combination of particles. Yet it is what these particles are, and the effects of their identities and properties, that make all the difference.

What exactly is the foundation for the universe; or more specifically, the vessel in which the universe emerges? To answer this question, we must recall a few basic ideas from geometry, the mathematical field that was established by the Greek mathematician Euclid around 300 BCE. Geometry describes concepts in terms of coordinates in an *n*-dimensional space. On the simplest level, a straight line can be considered a one-dimensional space, and a certain set of mathematical principles, axioms, and logic may be applied to this line. From any given point on a line, a single number can be used to locate another point on the line, as long as we know the orientation, i.e. which direction on the line are the positive coordinates. Likewise, an example of a two-dimensional space would be a flat piece of paper. From any given point on that piece of paper we can locate another point by two numbers and their orientations, which we call coordinates. Now let’s turn to three-dimensional volumes, which are the dominant geometry evident in the universe. Geometrically, space is a three-dimensional Euclidean volume. What this means is that starting at any point in three-dimensional space, the location of another point in this space can be described with three coordinates and the orientation of the coordinates. A familiar example of this is the well-known x-y-z system of the Cartesian coordinate system. This is simply a development upon our previous descriptions of one- and two-dimensional space; that is, the principle remains the same across dimensions, avoiding unnecessary complexity.

To reiterate, the space which is a foundation for our universe is a three-dimensional Euclidean volume. Space itself is empty, a void. Space does not interact, curve, or stretch. As it turns out, the matter—no pun intended—is wholly uncomplicated. In empty space, we cannot define the orientation of a coordinate system, or the point described by the coordinates (x,y,z) = (0,0,0), or direction, or any measure of distance or volume. It is only when we add the remaining ingredients to our universe that we can complete our recipe, establishing relative coordinates, scale, measure, and direction within space. Let’s assume for now that the void space that makes up our universe is infinite in any direction. The following chapters will explore this assumption in more detail and examine alternatives of the universe possessing boundaries, edges, or surfaces.

One key ingredient of the universe is an ample, perhaps infinite, set of fundamental particle pairs. In each pair, one particle has a negative electric charge and the other has a positive electric charge. These particles behave according to Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism, which were developed by James Clerk Maxwell, from Scotland, in the 1800’s. The modern version of these four equations completely describe electromagnetism at a fundamental mathematical level. Oppositely charged particles attract each other, while particles with the same charge repel one another. Let’s use the term ‘electrino’ for the negatively charged particle type and ‘positrino’ for the positively charged particle type. At rest, the characteristics of the electrino and positrino are equal and opposite.

Electrinos and positrinos have the smallest size possible, which is defined in natural units utilizing the Planck scale. Max Planck labored through dimensional analysis of the constants of physics to determine the limits of many dimensions – such as the smallest physical distance, the maximum particle energy, and so on. If we imagine electrinos and positrinos as spheres, they would have a radius equal to the Planck length, some 35 orders of magnitude below human scale. These fundamental particles can be neither created nor destroyed. It may be evident thus far that the definitions of the electrino and positrino are, as aforementioned, not a radical departure from the familiar, established physics principles that exist. By defining the electrino and positrino as the fundamental particles of NPQG theory, the complicated concepts of quarks and other particles are eschewed in favor of a simple and unpretentious foundation. Composite particles become patterns of the fundamental particles, and this includes patterns of patterns, and so on.

Electrinos and positrinos are the sole carriers of energy. This energy comes in two fundamental forms: electromagnetic and kinetic. A particle always emits an electric field, and if it is moving, creates a magnetic field. The electromagnetic forces that attract and repel particles can transfer energy to and from kinetic particle motion.

Since the universe contains only fundamental electrino and positrino particles, it must logically be the case that all other particles found in nature are composite particles made from a group of electrinos and/or positrinos. All particles of the standard model of physics, including the electron, proton, neutron, neutrino, and photon are made from electrinos and positrinos. The electron, proton, and neutron then form all atomic elements of the periodic table, such as oxygen, iron, and gold.

How are composite particles formed? NPQG posits a shell and payload model. A shell is made of equal parts electrinos and positrinos, so the shell has a neutral net charge. The electrinos and positrinos in a shell orbit along the surface of a sphere or more correctly an oblate spheroid. More properly, orbits are described by wave equations. There can be small deviations in orbits caused by nearby shells and payloads of other particles. The payload is a conglomeration of electrinos and positrinos in various combinations and it need not be electrically neutral. If the shell has enough energy it can maintain containment of the payload for long periods of time. If the shell does not have enough energy for containment, the particle will eventually decay into fragments. Some particles are shells only with no payload, such as the photon and the spacetime æther particle. Other particles have both a shell and a payload, such as the neutron, proton, and electron. One of the most important behaviors of particle shells is that they shrink in volume as they gain energy and expand in volume as they lose energy. Said differently, the orbital radius is shorter at high energy and longer at low energy. This is a very important point, especially as it pertains to Einstein’s theories because the curviness of spacetime is implemented by the changing size of spacetime æther particles. Also, time dilation and length contraction are closely related to the size of particle shells.

The emerging universe so far has the following ingredients: empty 3D space, electrinos, positrinos, and energy. It is guided by Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetic physics. From these ingredients arise all other composite particles including a particulate æther that implements spacetime and generally follows Einstein’s theory of general relativity. What exactly is the ‘time’ in spacetime?

If nothing ever changed, there would be no dimension of time. Change creates a dimension of time. What can change in the universe? Empty space does not change, and therefore has no dimension of time. Electrinos and positrinos cannot be created or destroyed, and it is impossible to alter their native characteristics such as size or electric charge. The only aspect that can be changed, ultimately, is the position in space of a fundamental particle relative to that of other particles. When we change the position in space of a particle, we also change the electromagnetic fields emitted by that particle; therefore, it is necessary to additionally consider how changing the position of a fundamental particle may be affected by, or affect, the electromagnetic fields of other particles around it. The process of change in the location of a particle is what we call kinetic motion. Relative to other particles, a particle initially exists in, and its fields emit from, one position. At a subsequent moment in time, that particle exists, and its fields emit from, a different position. Change in position relative to other particles in the universe establishes a dimension of time. In conclusion, time at the most fundamental level is experienced by individual particles, but only when they are moving. As we continue with our exploration of the emergent universe, we will see that almost all particles in the universe experience change and therefore time.

We also use the word ‘time’ in a collective sense to describe the group experience of a localized collection of particles, such as the particles comprising a rock or a lifeform. In actuality, the individual particles each experience time in a slightly different manner, but for many situations, the collective experiences time so equally that it appears that the individual particles are in synchronization. As the familiar saying goes, “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts”. When approaching the universe on a larger scale, it is therefore more convenient to use a version of time that simulates approximate homogeneity over the environment or situation being scrutinized.

Overall, the rate of time experienced by a particle can vary depending on conditions. From the perspective of a particle, time can never go backwards, but it can stop. Likewise, the collective experience of time can vary. You may be familiar with stories of twins where one stays on Earth and the other orbits in a spacecraft and how they age differently. These stories are usually explained via Einstein’s general relativity, which many people find complex and confusing. Fortunately, NPQG lends itself to an easy to understand explanation. The pace of time is related to particle energy. The higher the energy of the particle, the slower it experiences time. If a particle reaches the Planck energy, time stops for that particle.

Even more complex physics deals with Einstein’s concept of spacetime, an abstract, curvy, geometrical entity. But why does this need to be so complex in the first place? NPQG makes matters simple—spacetime is merely a real, physical implementation derived from the aforementioned low-energy particles that permeate space. In addition, as it turns out, there is still room for Einstein after all in this theory. These particles create a standard matter background that is generally lightly interacting, which for our purposes, will be termed the spacetime æther. This spacetime æther is composed of low-energy neutrinos, photons, and spacetime particles that each have a wave equation and combine to form a collective state, not dissimilar from a Bose-Einstein condensate. Due to its properties, the spacetime æther can still implement curvy spacetime and general relativity, but in a physical, rather than abstract, manner. It permeates three-dimensional Euclidean space, and therein we find the answer to our initial question—space is filled with this spacetime æther. Intriguingly enough, Einstein himself had contemplated a physical model of spacetime, and NPQG provides a solution that integrates both Einstein’s theories and a more tangible model.

*J Mark Morris and Athena Dong : San Diego : California : May 15, 2020 : v1*

*Athena grew up in San Diego and graduated from UCLA in 2019 with a bachelor’s degree in biology. She has always enjoyed writing and the limitless pursuit of knowledge that science provides. During her time at UCLA, she worked as an undergraduate researcher with the W. M. Keck Center for Neurophysics, which helped cultivate her interests in biophysics and the field as a whole. Athena will begin medical school in fall 2020, and is currently working at a biopharmaceutical company to develop antibody therapies for critical illnesses. Her hobbies are drawing, baking, exploring art galleries, and spending time with family and friends. *

Mark is originally from the midwest U.S. and he relocated to San Diego in *1994. He has enjoyed a long career in the database systems industry in both technical and managerial roles. Mark took a sabbatical in 2017 and began working full time on a theory of nature and the Universe in January 2018. Since then he continues to advance the ideas and seek collaborators on this open-source research that he calls Neoclassical Physics and Quantum Gravity. Mark’s hobbies include his fruit tree orchard and his electric motorcycle.*