Russ_Watters, Regarding your statement, "QM is generally regarded the most tested and successful theory in the history of science." Is Quantum Mechanics really one of the most successful theories in science? I think not. It does not even meet the definition of a theory. So as not to be arguing semantics, this is the definition of theory that I ascribe to: "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force." Scientific theories must be falsifiable to qualify as a theory. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=define: scientific theory Quantum Mechanics is a mathematical and statistical system. It provides no explanations; it is not inductive and it is not explanatory. Quantum Theories on the other hand provide all of these. They are both explanatory and inductive. Theories in general are derived from concepts which can become hypothesis, and later theories if they meet the criteria. There are many quantum "theories" but no consensus agreement amongst practitioners as to their validity. IMO each one might be best described as a hypothesis. Fraggle Rocker, "In the same category as Evolution and Plate Tectonics." Your statement that QM is theoretically on par with Evolution and Plate Tectonics elevates QM to a level it does not deserve IMO. Although the mathematics of QM is based upon a long history of observation and statistics, it rarely makes exact predictions but instead predicts probable outcomes. Evolution and Plate tectonics have a mountain of evidence to support them and their explanatory powers are the basis of the theories. Aspects of both theories (natural selection and the existence of moving plates) are no longer theory but have been confirmed as fact. However the theories as a whole have many unexplained aspects to them which could change over time so for this reason they must remain theories. Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, provides no consensus explanation for its validity, and for the most part IMO it is simply a very good mathematical system derived from a long history of observations of the quantum world. Fraggle Rocker: As to number 1. "....without the mountain of evidence...." after all I am just one person and this is not the place for such detail, is it? This is not my thread but for any interested party, let me know and I will present a great deal of additional evidence to support my statements in the appropriate forum and thread of my making. 2. As to alternatives, they too should not be presented here but the alternatives can be found at pantheory.org. It includes about 400 pages, most of which are my own theory/ hypothesis and related unique equations relating to my model. Some definitions of "theory" require that hypothesis should be "well-known" and have "consensus agreement" to qualify as a theory. With this inclusion in the definition of "theory" my models can only qualify as hypotheses. There is much evidence which I can provide (included in many other papers) to further support my statements but again another thread would be more appropriate since this one is not of my creation. Here I am required to defend my statements relating to the OP, right? and not go on in this thread about alternative theories, unless you think it would be appropriate.