A model is merely a model, which is to say that every model is only a kind of analogy; it does not explain or illustrate every aspect of the real thing. It represents certain features only. Therefore we should not insist that it fulfills every function, satisfies every requirement. But wherever any model falls seriously short we should certainly modify it or abandon it for a better one.
Different analogies deal with different facets or aspects of the thing itself. So a group of models could enable us to cover greater ground. That's why I use several.
The Atomic Model was supposed to, but fails, divide matter up into units that still retain the same properties of the original material. This is not the case, not unless the matter in question consists of a pure chemical element. So it's an example of a model that falls short. However, the Sliver Model succeeds in this respect. It generates the sorts of particle that retain the properties of the original.
Slivers are infinitely small yet, paradoxically, they are the same size as the universe. We have no choice but to work on that scale - the reason being that everything is one (one of the axioms that I accepted as given). To deal with anything smaller would involve an unnatural simplification. Those smaller pieces would be artifacts since, as I explained, their properties are different from the properties of the original thing.
The original problem was how to divide the perceived universe that we exist in into infinitesimally small pieces, without actually dismantling it.
I managed to do that, not in terms of any physical dimension, but in the dimension of time.
One thing that the Atomic Model needed to explain was how to think about matter - is it particulate or is it wavelike? I would suggest that it doesn't <ahem> matter; both involve the notion of granularity. Whichever way you look at it, the universe is granular. It has an off/on, yes/no aspect.
I postulate that there is a 'bottom-end' granularity below which one can't delve. I suggest that there's a lower limit in terms of time too, one that I wish to incorporate into the Sliver Model.
Think of the sliver as an instantaneous instant. The crest of a wave would be that instant. And the trough of the wave (or possibly its zero-amplitude point) is the interval between instants. Nothing exists there! The universe switches on-and-off repeatedly.
So, take the entire universe. For the sake of convenience, think of it in terms of three dimensions. Take a snapshot of the whole. Improve its resolution until the digital representation is as good as the original; it will therefore contain all of its information. That, essentially, is the basis of my Sliver Model.
A sliver is an 'existence element'. It is the universe as it exists in its entirety, whole, unbroken, for the briefest instant possible - an instant so brief that it cannot be said to have any duration.
Take that digital picture. Reduce it to a number - or a GPS matrix of numbers - each position in the matrix corresponding to every possible physical position in the universe, with a numerical value that stands for what you could find there (empty space, a photon, electron, whatever).
Next, file away that 3-D hologram in the gallery.
Do that for every possible permutation, each sliver, of the universe.
This gives us something concrete to work with and build upon.