Can you back up your statements with actual theory? Otherwise you are just posting to hear yourself talk and that is bad manners.
Please explain how you would define 'Theory'.
I have put forward two mathematical tables, one uses mass quantities found by experiment to define what determines mass, force and radii; then using the proposed radii I show how waves determine why particles occur in particlular quantities. This has never been done before.
The Standard Model does not have an interpretation , I show that my proposal has an interpretation.
I pointed out that my work is not complete, but the subject of interpretation is so vast, that it is unlikely to be completed in one article.
My proposal does not call for any change to Quantum Theory, rather it does those things that Quantum Theory cannot do. It does however, challenge what little interpretation of Quantum Theory that does exist by claiming that the allocation of fractional charge values to quarks is wrong. In doing so it provides the base that allows a full interpretation of Quantum Theory to be put in place.
My theory is backed up by the same experiments that back up Quantum Theory; but unlike Quantum Theory my theory gives an explanation of how and why.
