Unified Field Model as Macro-Micro Continuum Model

It was Niels Bohr who in the 1920s implanted the idea into modern physics that the microscopic world of atoms cannot be understood/described using the concepts of classical physics, which had served so well to describe the macroscopic world we can directly experience. The new understanding/description took the form of Quantum Mechanics QM based on a multi-dimensional Schrödinger Equation SE of a non-classical form. 

With the help of Heisenberg Bohr managed to let his idea take over modern physics into our days, on the way crushing Schrödinger asking for "Anschaulichkeit" or "possible to visualise" as understanding in terms of classical physics. The essence of the Bohr-Heisenberg dogma was:

• Only observation/measurement counts. Underlying ontology left out. Visualisation impossible.
• Complementarity: Contradicting physics allowed. Both particle and wave.
• Uncertainty Principle: Limit to what can be measured.
• Separation ontology (classic, what is) and epistemology (new, what we can say)

The result today is a science of physics in a state of crisis. The new concepts required by Bohr could never be clarified resulting in a QM which "nobody can understand" in the words of Richard Feynman. The basic form of a classical mathematical model of the physics of a solid, fluid or gasses is a partial differential equation involving functions $u(x,t)$ depending on a real variable/spatial coordinate $x$ ranging over some domain in 3d space and a time coordinate $t$. This is a continuum mechanics model with the set of real numbers offering space as a continuum without preset smallest spatial scale. The function $u(x,t)$ could represent the density at time $t$ of a fluid with $x$ ranging over the 3d domain occupied by the fluid.

Continuum mechanics as classical physics is described by a mathematical model covering all physical scales from micro to macro and thus does not single out micro-scopics as conceptually different from macro-scopics, which could be the case if macro-scopics is "continuous" and microscopics "discrete".

In continuum mechanics both micro- and macro-scopics are "continuous". Nothing is "discrete". No "particles". The continuum of real numbers can represent a continuum mechanics without smallest scale.

The multi-d SE depends on continuous spatial variables, and in this sense is a continuum model, but not a classical continuum model since the continuum is not 3d (for system with more than one electrons). 

RealQM offers a different Schrödinger equation as a non-linear system of non-overlapping charge densities in 3d thus in the form of classical continuum mechanics with a seamless connection to macro-scopics. 

It is thus possible to formulate a Unified Field Model combining classical Newtonian continuum models like Navier-Stokes and Maxwell's equations with a Schrödinger equation of the same principal form. This was what Einstein tried to accomplish, but did not succeed with because he was stuck with a perceived incompatibility between General Relativity and QM.  

 

Microscopics of Macroscopic Continuum Physics

Continuum waves even on smallest scale.

Quantum mechanics as the crown jewel of the modern physics of the 20th century is commonly viewed to be fundamentally different from classical physics reaching full bloom towards the end of the 19th century with Maxwell's equations for electromagnetics. Together with Navier's equations for solid mechanics and Navier-Stokes equations for fluid mechanics this offered a complete picture of the World in the form of continuum physics described by partial differential equations in 3 space dimensions and 1 time dimension.

Quantum mechanics is viewed to describe the microscopics of small scale atom physics while classical continuum physics is viewed to describe macroscopics of bigger scales. A consensus developed to view the microscopic world to be fundamentally different from the macroscopic world, the reason being that the quantum mechanics of microscopics could not be understood in classical terms of continuum physics. 

In short, classical continuum physics could be understood and used as a reasonable model of the macroscopic world, while quantum mechanics could not be understood as a resonable model only used. 

The reason quantum mechanics cannot be understood is that it is based on Schrödinger's equation in a multi-dimensional configuration space without reasonable physical interpretation. Quantum mechanics is unreasonable because Schrödinger's equation is unreasonable. Quantum mechanics is viewed to be fundamentally different from classical continuum physics because Schrödinger's equation is fundamentally different from the models of continuum physics, more precisely no agreement has been reached concerning its physical meaning despite 100 years of dispute. 

Is then Schrödinger's multi-dimensional equation the only thinkable model of the microscopics of atoms? Maybe, but anyway I test as Real Quantum Mechanics RealQM a different model, which has the form of classical continuum physics and as such can be understood in physical terms. 

With RealQM there is no fundamental difference between microscopics and macroscopics since all physics is described as continuum physics. This is not unreasonable since in continuum physics there is no smallest scale, as this is the nature of the continuum like the continuum of real numbers where more decimals always can be added if needed. 

The beauty of continuum physics is that it can handle all scales from microscopics to macroscopics in a unified way. In continuum physics there are no (elementary) particles of zero spatial extension. Everything is waves and matter with spatial extension, which can be captured in the partial differential equations of continuum physics. This is physics without the mysteries of standard QM.