There is this interpretation in modern physics of the particles state of existence which

involves their appearance and disappearance with all kinds of peculiar phenomena connected to
that.
It is conceivable that when we are confronted with discrete states any of the physics laws
that demand continuity might not hold any more if continuity was broken. It is just that mathematics
of the classical laws does not suffice any more at the microscopic scale, when continuity is broken.
In the next I will assert that it is more than that, since when discontinuity is of zero
measure most of these laws if not all still hold.
When one extends the ideas of a microscopic model to a macroscopic scale obtains a
model agreeing with the corresponding classical model, yet that macroscopic model does not point
back to the dicrete nature of phenomena. In order for the correspondence to be symmetrical one has
to suppose that continuity that is required in the classical laws is not "severely", that is in a extended
measure,broken.
That disagrees with the idea of coming to and going out of existence of particles in a sense
that may disrupt continuity. You see for yourselves that in such a situation there would not have
been any means to decide wether we had the same or another particle, if that particle had
disappeared allegedly and then come again into existence somewhere near or perhaps far away.
How on such an occasion could one tell that it was the same particle unless every particle
was distinctly unique, that much unique that we could not have assumed two identical particles in
the world , which as a notion would then have collapsed all the reasoning about populations of
similar particles. How can we tell between something ,being whatever, that had disappeared
before some time and then had emerged again into existence and the idea of two separate particles
that disappeared and appeared separately!
We would start disagreeing about cosmic events through our following that direction of
postulations and that disagreement would have been detrimental to many ideas. We need continuity
even with less monetary effort than particle acceleration establisments!
The idea of appearing and disappearing is not a new idea. Motion is that. And it differs
from a wave spreading in that it maintains a dimension of propagation rather than propagates in all
directions.
Well, there is one deep (actually not so deep) point of difference in the aspects of matter as
particles or waves: In the case of a wave one has to consider a medium for the propagation of the
disturbance while in the particles case one is not obliged to do so. (The isolated nature of the
disturbance is not really a problem)
Yet nowadays we tend to accept things as particles emerging out of nothing and waves
propagating over nothing. So nothing is not such an absolutely nothing. Especially when it becomes
distorted with the establishment of fields of forces.
According to the previous reflection on basic ideas we may as well use the probabilities
distributions for existence of matter at the microscopic scale on condition that we abandon the idea
of motion so that the normal statements about acceleration in mechanics and electromagetism do
not apply and then no discrepancy is raised between data at the microscopic and macroscopic
scale. .
Ofcourse that pattern of dynamical existence has then to underlie and support macroscopic
phenomena. That microscopic pattern has to be considered as given for the specific macroscopic
situation to be noticed. Therefore ,we may have to assume a multiplicity of possible structures for
something that appears macroscopically.