Quantum mechanics is the newest science and should therefore be the most precise, but unfortunately, it's quite the opposite. If you don't understand quantum mechanics, ask yourself if I'm right, because others don't either. The field of experimental quantum mechanics is so vast and confusing that its theoretical practitioners will always have to adopt new explanations from their own context to conform to the facts of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics was created in the early 20th century to establish mathematical and physical laws or rules for subatomic objects subject to an external potential field in order to explain so-called quantum systems. Studying the spatiotemporal evolution of a quantum system, defined as a microscopic subatomic system of low energy density subjected to a potential field, external or internal, is a rather complex subject. However, in 1927, the well-known Schrödinger PDE, valid for infinite free space subject to Dirichlet boundary conditions, was introduced. Schrödinger's PDE must be complemented by the Bohr/Copenhagen interpretation of the wave function Ψ involving the rules of quantum systems of instantaneous entanglement and superposition. We all know that the Schrödinger equation is incomplete because it lives and operates in the incomplete space R^4 and therefore the wave function Ψ is incomplete in itself and cannot be defined as scalar, a vector, nor a tensor. The complex wave function Ψ has never been properly defined. Moreover, the Schrödinger PDE is not Lorentz invariant and is not compatible with the special theory of relativity, and is obviously even less so with the general theory of relativity. However, quantum mechanics has come a long way, both in theory and practice, since 1927, nearly a century ago. This long journey has added even more illogical and confusing properties to the Ψ wave function, such as causality and wave function collapse. Many attempts have been made over the last century to reform the Schrödinger equation, the most notable being to combine it with the general theory of relativity, but all these attempts have been in vain. The breakthrough came in 2020-2024 [2,3,4], when the author of this article claimed to replace the classical Schrödinger equation Ψ with the PDE for its square Ψ^2, which is logical and physical. Ψ^2 is needed to express the quantum energy density flux (U(x,y,z,t) = Ψ^2 (x,y,z,t)) and we therefore propose a new Schrödinger equation for Ψ^2 which should have the form of the energy density diffusion PDE such as that of thermal conduction. Equation 3 should be supplemented by the advanced artificial intelligence proposed by the author [5,6]. Comparing Schrödinger's classical PDE of 1927 with the PDE proposed for Ψ^2 in 2020 shows that we currently have two different or distinct theories of quantum mechanics! Which one is more theoretically true and more practically useful? This is the purpose of this article.
Quantum mechanics is the newest science and should therefore be the most precise, but unfortunately, it's quite the opposite. If you don't understand quantum mechanics, ask yourself if I'm right, because others don't either. The field of experimental quantum mechanics is so vast and confusing that its theoretical practitioners will always have to adopt new explanations from their own context to conform to the facts of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics was created in the early 20th century to establish mathematical and physical laws or rules for subatomic objects subject to an external potential field in order to explain so-called quantum systems. Studying the spatiotemporal evolution of a quantum system, defined as a microscopic subatomic system of low energy density subjected to a potential field, external or internal, is a rather complex subject. However, in 1927, the well-known Schrödinger PDE, valid for infinite free space subject to Dirichlet boundary conditions, was introduced. Schrödinger's PDE must be complemented by the Bohr/Copenhagen interpretation of the wave function Ψ involving the rules of quantum systems of instantaneous entanglement and superposition. We all know that the Schrödinger equation is incomplete because it lives and operates in the incomplete space R^4 and therefore the wave function Ψ is incomplete in itself and cannot be defined as scalar, a vector, nor a tensor. The complex wave function Ψ has never been properly defined. Moreover, the Schrödinger PDE is not Lorentz invariant and is not compatible with the special theory of relativity, and is obviously even less so with the general theory of relativity. However, quantum mechanics has come a long way, both in theory and practice, since 1927, nearly a century ago. This long journey has added even more illogical and confusing properties to the Ψ wave function, such as causality and wave function collapse. Many attempts have been made over the last century to reform the Schrödinger equation, the most notable being to combine it with the general theory of relativity, but all these attempts have been in vain. The breakthrough came in 2020-2024 [2,3,4], when the author of this article claimed to replace the classical Schrödinger equation Ψ with the PDE for its square Ψ^2, which is logical and physical. Ψ^2 is needed to express the quantum energy density flux (U(x,y,z,t) = Ψ^2 (x,y,z,t)) and we therefore propose a new Schrödinger equation for Ψ^2 which should have the form of the energy density diffusion PDE such as that of thermal conduction. Equation 3 should be supplemented by the advanced artificial intelligence proposed by the author [5,6]. Comparing Schrödinger's classical PDE of 1927 with the PDE proposed for Ψ^2 in 2020 shows that we currently have two different or distinct theories of quantum mechanics! Which one is more theoretically true and more practically useful? This is the purpose of this article.
Quantum mechanics is the theory of physical phenomena at the atomic and subatomic levels. Historically, quantum mechanics began and took the modern form in the first quarter of the 20th century. The appearance of quantum mechanics was due to the fact that at the end of the last and beginning of our century, there arose a series of experimental facts that could not only get explanations in classical physics but were in contradiction with it: Planetary model [ 1–4 ] : The existence of the planetary atom itself (Rutherford-Bohr model presented by Niels Bohr and Ernest Rutherford in 1913) was in contradiction with classical mechanics and electrodynamics. After the experiments of Rutherford on the planetary model of the atom (the electron revolves about the nucleus), it was necessary to examine the experimental facts on the one hand and theory on the other. From classical mechanics, an electron moving in a definite orbit around the nucleus is constantly accelerated. Knowledge of a classical charged particle shows that when it is accelerated, it emits radiation. From electrodynamics, it is well known that any charged particle with an accelerated motion should emit an electromagnetic wave. So an electron moving around the nucleus would continuously emit radiation and consequently become less energetic. This is because as the electron emits the electromagnetic wave, it loses energy and, consequently, its kinetic energy as well as its velocity reduces. Consequently, from the laws of classical physics and electrodynamics, the radius of the orbit would constantly shrink in size until the electron falls into the atomic nucleus. But this does not take place. Blackbody radiation [ 5–8 ] : Theoretical calculations of blackbody radiation spectrum assume electromagnetic radiation to be a wave and so can exchange energy in any continuous amount and yields a result that does not match with experimental facts. The assumption of Planck shows that electromagnetic radiation of frequency https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> ν https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_1.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> to exchange energy only in units of https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> ℏ ν https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_2.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> . Planck's calculations agree very well with experimental facts. The Planck constant has the value: 1.1 https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> h = 2 π ℏ = 2 π × 1.054 × 10 - 27 e r g - s e c https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_3.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> Photo-electric effect : The release of electrons from a metal by irradiating it with electromagnetic waves or light is called photo-electric effect [ 9–11 ] . To free an electron from a metal, the light radiation should have a frequency greater than a critical frequency, a characteristic of the metal, while light radiation frequency lower than this critical frequency would not lead to the photo-electric effect. This was shown by Einstein to be consistent with Planck's hypothesis, considering light with frequency https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> ν https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_4.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> to only exchange energy in the amount https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> h ν https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_5.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> . In order for the electrons to be released from the metal, the following energy is needed: 1.2 https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> Ε = h ν = h ν 0 + Τ k i n , Τ k i n = h ν - ν 0 ≥ 0 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_6.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> 4 Here, https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> h ν 0 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_7.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> is the binding energy for the given metal and https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> Τ k i n https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_8.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> is the kinetic energy of the electrons. From the above relation, it is not possible to have any emission of the electrons unless 1.3 https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> ν ≥ ν 0 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_9.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> From the blackbody radiation and photo-electric effect, it is seen that though classically light is a wave, it has a particle nature which is confirmed by the Compton effect. All these can only be explained by quantum mechanics. Compton effect : The scattering of light by an electron can only be explained if a photon of frequency https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> ν https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_10.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> is considered as a particle moving with energy, https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> Ε https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_11.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> , and momentum, https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> p https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_12.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> : 1.4 https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> Ε = h ν , p = p → = Ε c = h ν c = h λ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_13.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> Here, https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> c https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_14.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> and https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> λ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_15.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> are, respectively, the speed and wavelength of light wave. From relativistic mechanics, mass and energy may be considered as a manifestation of the same thing. The energy of a particle can be expressed through its momentum as: 1.5 https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> Ε = p 2 c 2 + m 2 c 4 , p → = m v → v → = Ε v → c 2 , m v → = m 1 - v 2 c 2 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_16.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> Here, https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> m https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_17.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> with https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> v → https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_18.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> are, respectively, the rest mass and velocity of the particle. For the case of the photon, which is a particle moving with the speed of light, https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> c https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_19.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> , if it equals https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> 0 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_20.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> , we have https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> m v → = 0 0 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_21.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> . The photon momentum has the value 1.6 https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> p = Ε c c 2 = Ε c = h λ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_22.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> So if we consider a photon as a particle, its rest mass should vanish (see details in references [ 12–14 ]). It is obvious from here that electromagnetic radiation has the property of dualism, i.e., it possesses the corpuscular and wave nature. Davisson - Germer experiment : The notion of the trajectory does not coincide with the experimental fact of the diffraction of an electron. The diffraction of the electron was theoretically foreseen by Louis de Broglie in 1924 (wave character of material particles) and experimentally founded by the American physicist Clinton J. Davisson [ 2 , 4 , 15 ] and the Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger (1887–1961) in 1927. Davisson and Germer in 1925 and also the British physicist G. P. Thomson (son of J. J. Thomson, discoverer of the electron) in 1926 showed scattered electrons from crystals and found diffraction patterns consistent with the interference of electrons having the de Broglie wavelength and similar to light interacting with a diffraction grating. G. P. Thomson [ 16 ] found diffraction rings produced by electrons passing through thin foils. Considering an electronic beam incident on a crystal lattice, we observe a diffraction pattern. As diffraction is a wave phenomenon, the electron having a corpuscular nature sometimes has a wave nature. Such observations lead to a general conclusion that all objects have both corpuscular and wave nature. The question on the wavelength associated with the particle was given by Louis de Broglie's hypothesis through the relation: 1.7 https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> λ = h p https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_23.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> It is instructive to note that experimentation on atomic systems shows that measured quantities achieve quantized values unlike classical mechanics’ predictions, where observables achieve continuous values. 5 Experimentation on dualism : For the dual nature of the particles, sometimes the particles have a corpuscular as well as a wave nature. Classically, particles follow definite trajectories and so do not show interference, whereas waves show interference. These and other experimental facts gave birth to quantum mechanics.
The explanation of quantum mechanics has never been satisfactory. The successful application of quantum mechanics is generally attributed to the mathematical system of quantum mechanics. The application research of quantum encryption communication and quantum computers using quantum entanglement is very difficult. The binary opposition between quantum and classical has hindered human scientific thinking. The widespread quest to quantize gravity mirrors humanity's enduring drive to unify quantum and macroscopic physical frameworks. This research initiates its inquiry by integrating quantum mechanics with classical mechanics, yielding novel analytical perspectives, and introduces the Schrödinger-Tu equation—a wave function that incorporates gravitational potential energy and is capable of describing macroscopic objects. Validating the practical viability of merging quantum and classical approaches, several computational cases involving atoms and molecules yield successful outcomes. Additionally, this study derives a wavemechanical formulation of classical mechanical laws, furnishing direct empirical evidence that quantum mechanics and classical mechanics are not mutually exclusive but rather compatible and complementary. Further substantiation of their compatibility encompasses the following key points: The mass term m in the Schrödinger equation (SE) can be scaled to sufficiently large values to characterize macroscopic entities; The steady-state SE (Tψ+Vψ=Eψ) inherently integrates the wave function ψ with the classical energy conservation relation T+V=E; Potential energy functions within the SE can be derived from macroscopic force fields; Newton's second law F=ma and the SE are mutually derivable, establishing a fundamental theoretical linkage; Electron diffraction experiments concurrently demonstrate wave-particle duality, a phenomenon that bridges both mechanical frameworks. This paradigm shift—recasting the relationship between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics from one of incompatibility to compatibility—represents a pivotal theoretical advancement, with the potential to catalyze the development of a generalized wave mechanics.
Unlike special relativity, quantum mechanics was not the inspired product of one mind. It developed, in fits and starts, over a period of 25 years (1900–1925), and many cooks stirred the broth. Even now, a century later, quantum mechanics raises profound conceptual questions. Every competent physicist can “do” quantum mechanics, and the predictions it makes are in spectacularly good agreement with experimental results; there can be little doubt that quantum mechanics is “right.” On the other hand, as Richard Feynman once remarked, “nobody understands quantum mechanics.” I'll tell the story in two parts. First the history (how the essential pieces of the puzzle were assembled), and then the implications (what the finished picture has to say about our world). Photons Like relativity, quantum mechanics began with the study of light. In both cases, this historical association is misleading. Relativity, really, has nothing to do with light – to be sure, it involves that magic speed limit, c , and of course the most familiar thing that travels at speed c is light. So light is a convenient vehicle for introducing the subject. But it is perfectly possible to imagine a universe in which there is no such thing as light, and yet relativity might still be valid. Quantum mechanics, too, starts with light – in this case the “quantum” of light (the photon). But, as it turns out, this is just one rather specialized example of much more general principles – in fact, a rather bad example, because photons are by their nature relativistic (they travel at the speed of light), and it would be more natural to begin with the quantum mechanics of slow-moving objects, in analogy with Newtonian mechanics.
In 1948, Richard Feynman published the first paper on his new approach to non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Before Feynman's work there were two mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics. Schrödinger's formulation was based on PDE (the Schrödinger equation) and states representation by wave functions, so it was in the framework of analysis and differential equations. The other formulation was Heisenberg's matrix algebra. Initially, they were thought to be competing. The proponents of one claimed that the other was “ wrong. ” Within a couple of years, John von Neumann had proved that they are equivalent.\nAlthough Feynman's theory was not fundamentally new, it nonetheless offered an entirely fresh and different perspective: via a precise formulation of Bohr's correspondence principle, it made quantum mechanics similar to classical mechanics in a precise sense. In addition, Feynman's approach made it possible to explain physical experiments, and, via diagrams, link them directly to computations. What resulted was a very powerful device for computing energies and scattering amplitudes - the famous Feynman's diagrams.\nIn his formulation, Feynman aimed at representing the solution to the non-relativistic Schrödinger equation in the form of an “ average ” over histories or paths of a particle. This solution is commonly known as the Feynman path integral. It plays an important role in the theory but appears as a postulate based on intuition coming from physics rather than a justified mathematical object. This is why Feynman's vision has caught the attention of many mathematicians as well as physicists.\nThe papers of Gelfand, Cameron, and Nelson are among the first, and more substantial, attempts to supply Feynman's theory with a rigorous mathematical foundation. These attempts were followed by many others, but unfortunately all of them were not quite satisfactory. The difficulty comes from a need to define a measure on an infinite-dimensional space of continuous functions that represent all possible paths of a particle. This Feynman's measure has to produce an integral with the properties requested by Feynman. In particular, the expression for the Feynman measure has to involve the non-absolutely integrable Fresnel integrands. The non-absolute integrability of the Fresnel integrands makes the measure fail to be positive and to have the countably additive property. Thus, a well-defined measure in the case of the Feynman path integral does not exist.\nExtensive research has been done on the methods of relating the Feynman path integral to the integral with respect to the Wiener measure. The method of analytic continuation in mass defines the Feynman path integral as a certain limit of the Wiener integrals. Unfortunately, this method can be used as definition for only almost all values of the mass parameter in the Schrödinger equation. For physicists, this is not a satisfactory result and needs to be improved.\nIn this work we examine those questions which originally led to the Feynman path integral. By now we know that Feynman's “ dream ” cannot be realized as a positive and countably additive measure on the path-space. Here, we offer a new way out by modifying Feynman's question, and thereby achieving a solution to the Schrödinger equation via a different kind of averages in the path-space.\nWe give our version of the question that Feynman “ should have asked ” in order to realize the elusive path integral. In our formulation, we get a Feynman path integral as a limit of linear functionals, as opposed to the more familiar inductive limits of positive measures, traditionally used for constructing the Wiener measure, and related Gaussian families. We adapt here an approach pioneered by Patrick Muldowney. In it, Muldowney suggested a Henstock integration technique in order to deal with the non-absolute integrability of the kind of Fresnel integrals which we need in our solution to Feynman's question. By applying Henstock's theory to Fresnel integrals, we construct a complex-valued “ probability distribution functions ” on the path-space. Then we use this “ probability ” distribution function to define the Feynman path integral as an inductive limit. This establishes a mathematically rigorous Feynman limit, and at the same time, preserves Feynman's intuitive idea in resulting functional. In addition, our definition, and our solution, do not place any restrictions on any of the parameters in the Schrödinger equation, and have a potential to offer useful computational experiments, and other theoretical insights.
By expanding the research paradigm and reconciling the two binary oppositions of "relative and absolute" and "quantum and classical" in physics, a new theoretical framework that is compatible with relativity and quantum mechanics is proposed. Firstly, excavate and establish three universal axioms: Axiom 1 (consensus guarantees equal rights), Axiom 2 (objective existence independent of measurement), and Axiom 3 (universality of causality and dialectical logic), based on which to criticize the logical contradictions of existing theories. In the field of relativity, this article points out that there is a logical paradox in the explanation of "clock slowing down depends on relative motion" in special relativity (A clock is both faster and slower than B clock), and proposes a relative absolute spacetime view that "absolute motion leads to clock slowing down". By extending the Lorentz transformation, absolute motion and relative motion are unified, solving problems such as the twin paradox. At the same time, based on the prediction of the Dirac equation for negative mass matter, the "negative mass spacetime curvature paradox" is proposed, challenging Einstein's physical explanation of spacetime curvature and arguing that it is only a mathematical tool (the mathematical expression of gravity) rather than a physical reality. In the field of quantum mechanics, this article criticizes the Copenhagen interpretation for violating Axiom 2 (denying the independent eigenstates of microscopic particles). By modifying the Schrödinger equation twice (For the first time, electromagnetic potential energy was replaced with gravitational potential energy, and the Schrödinger-Tu equation was established to describe macroscopic objects such as the Earth's revolution; The second step is to convert potential energy into electromagnetic/gravitational force and derive the wave mechanics equation of classical mechanics laws, such as Newton's second law with force operator), proves that quantum and classical theories are compatible within the same mathematical framework. In the experiment, it was demonstrated through the "anti-interference electron diffraction experiment" that a strong magnetic field only changes the shape of diffraction fringes without causing them to disappear, denying the inevitability of quantum decoherence. The establishment of "generalized wave dynamics" and "relative absolute spacetime view" breaks the binary opposition of traditional theories and provides a new paradigm for the unity of relativity and quantum mechanics. The core value of these jobs lies in: In terms of theoretical innovation, reconstruct the space-time and quantum interpretation system, while retaining the original mathematical form system; In terms of experimental verification, design feasible schemes such as hollow glass disk Jones experiment and geometric optical velocimetry experiment; In terms of philosophical significance, replacing "mathematical symmetry" with "content unity" and returning to the objectivity of physical mechanisms. The research conclusion indicates that by expanding paradigms and axiomatic constraints, the contradiction between relativity and quantum mechanics can be transformed into a complementary relationship, laying the foundation for the great unity of physics theory
Quantum mechanics presently has many unanswered questions, paradoxes, and even outright logical contradictions. To make progress in understanding quantum mechanics, we begin by proposing that relativity be set aside in favor of an absolute aetherial theory. Once that step is taken, we can understand quantum collapse as a description of real wave-packets collapsing in a faster-than-light way. By assuming that a partially observable reality exists, we can then extend our analysis of wave-packets into the subquantum, and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle then follows from the Fourier uncertainty principle coupled with the de Broglie relation. Further progress in understanding quantum mechanics is possible by modifying the de Broglie and Planck relations. Those modifications lead to matter-waves moving at the speed of light rather than superluminally as presently theorized, and they allow the results of matter-wave two-slit experiments to be understood from any reference frame. A modified time-dependent Schrödinger Equation results from our modifications, but the spatial time-independent Schrödinger equation is retained.