QM is fundamentally not correct. They assume energy and matter is interchangeable, which is not.
Build me a proton from energy and I will shut up, you can't.
The appearance of positions can be explained much much much much easier, once you got your electron model correct.
When I studied physics I never saw the periodic table as the result of QM model, never made sense for me. Now I understand, thanks to a more advanced, but classical model.
QM and GR can never be unified because GR is a effect of surface pressure and QM has the wrong surface.
Those mangeled protons are not anti-protons. They are not stable but only a Proton with damaged outer shell (the one that breaks at 5 MeV). Get it stable like the Proton and we talk again.
Sigh. For your benefit more than mine, I’d like to make you aware that you sound like a Markov chain trained on science-sounding words, because those words don’t fit together in the order you have combined them.
If you are so good, please explain me the black spot.
I just follow quite different, more classical model that is not invented by me.
What most people think is is a very bad truth function.
I care about the number of assumptions required for a model and the number of papers falsifying it. I don't care if a paper praises how good prediction X fits, you have a infinite number of models that predicted exactly the same value. But through falsification you can sieve out the wrong ones and guess what, most of the models commonly proposed as "truth" are long falsified. The standard model is not even logically sound and combined with GR/SR highly paradoxical.
When I studied physics I never saw the periodic table as the result of QM model, never made sense for me. Now I understand, thanks to a more advanced, but classical model.
QM and GR can never be unified because GR is a effect of surface pressure and QM has the wrong surface.