Quantum Physics as Classical Continuum Physics

The fundamental theories of modern physics appearing as revolutions of classical physics at the turn to the 20th century are: 

• Quantum Mechanics QM of atoms and molecules based on Schrödinger's equation. 
• Einstein's General Theory of Relativity GR theory of space, time and gravitation. 

QM offered a fundamentally a new view on the microscopical world of atoms and molecules and GR a likewise fundamentally new view on the cosmology of largest scales, while the macroscopical world of human perception of classical continuum physics such as solid/fluid mechanics and electromagnetics, was left untouched. 

Modern physics offered theories fundamentally different from the well understood and experienced theories of classical continuum physics, which was certainly grand but came with difficulties of understanding from human experience. 

QM described an atom or molecule with $N$ electrons in terms of a Schrödinger wave function $\Psi$ depending on $3N$ spatial variables with electron living in distinct 3d worlds, in a model which did not make sense from classical continuum physics point of view and thus required a new form of physical meaning as the essence of modernity.

But this showed to be very difficult and no consensus on physical meaning has formed despite very serious efforts over 100 years. The message is instead that there is no observation which is not in perfect agreement with computations using QM and so QM is a machine that works perfectly even if it is not understood why. In other words: Shut up and calculate.    

But is it necessarily so that the microscopical world of atoms and molecules must be fundamentally different from the macroscopical world of continuum physics, which we as human beings can experience and understand? Maybe this world is like ours, just a bit smaller?

Let us consider a key example: QM describes the ground state of the Hydrogen atom with one electron as the state minimising the total energy as the sum of "gradient energy" and potential energy.

• $\frac{1}{2}\int\vert\nabla\Psi (x)\vert^2dx-\int\frac{\Psi (x)^2}{\vert x\vert}dx$ 

under the side condition $\int\Psi (x)^2dx =1$, where $\Psi (x)$ is a function depending a 3d spatial variable $x$ with $\Psi (x)^2$ representing electron charge density and $\frac{1}{\vert x\vert}$ is the Coulomb potential of the kernel at $x=0$. The ground state comes out as a multiple of $\exp (-\vert x\vert)$ as an electron charge density decaying away from the kernel with total charge of 1, which seeks to be as close as possible to the kernel at a "gradient cost". 

We can give this problem a different interpretation in classical continuum physics as the basic mode of vibration of an elastic body subject to a potential force with the "gradient cost" expressing an "elastic compression cost".  We can thus, if we want, view the electron of Hydrogen atom as a form of "elastic medium" subject to attraction from the kernel. 

This is not the view of an electron as particle, which is not true physics, but instead as an extended object in 3d space with a certain "elasticity", which appears as true physics.  It is the "gradient energy" which gives the electron extension in space. 

We can thus fully understand the Hydrogen atom as a form of classical continuum physics, with spectrum in spectacular perfect agreement with observation. 

RealQM offers a generalisation into a model of atoms and molecules as classical continuum physics in the form of non-overlapping "elastic" charge densities interacting by Coulomb potentials, which is understandable in the same sense as the Hydrogen atom, and agrees with observations, and is computable in the same efficient way as classical continuum physics. 

RealQM is fundamentally different from the accepted multi-dimensional QM for which physics is missing. 

Note that the novelty of the Schrödinger equation for the Hydrogen atom presented by Schrödinger in 1926, was the appearance of the "gradient energy" of an electron  not present with a particle view as in Bohr's failed atom model. This was a revolution!

Note that the "uncertainty principle" is simply a reflection of the presence of the "gradient energy" forcing an electron density to be distributed over space and so like anything with spatial extension being a bit uncertain as concerns precis point location. Nothing new and strange. 

Note that the fact that a ground state is not radiating, which Bohr tried to explain, is that in the vibrating mode of the ground state the electron density is constant over time. On the other hand excited states give rise to charge densities changing over time and thus radiate.

The paradigm of modern physics is that the microscopical world is fundamentally different from the macroscopical world, and so cannot be understood from human experience.  

RealQM offers a microscopical world of fundamentally the same form as the macroscopical world, just smaller. 

When seeking some response to RealQM from physicists and chemists, I meet attitudes of skepticism, which is natural, of flat neglect, which is understandable, but very little understanding as if classical continuum physics is no longer part of physics and chemistry education. 

It would be sufficient with one physicist/chemist expressing understanding of the basic principles of RealQM and either refuting as unreasonable or accepting them as reasonable.