A Crackpot's Vision of Future Physics: Quarks

Quarks are hard.  Really, really hard.  I don't understand them at more than a superficial level; I don't know anybody who does.  The math is notoriously difficult, and the philosophy appears nearly nonexistent, limited largely to naming the phenomena the math predicts.  So this section is going to be wrong in a lot more ways than normal.

First, my suspicions: Quarks are extremely complex configurations of an absurdly large number of smaller particles, typically called gluons, across six phases of our mass wave.  Which is to say, three pairs of attractive and repulsive phases of the wave, corresponding roughly to what in chromodynamics is referred to as "color".  There are both matter and antimatter configurations, although that is an incomplete description, because I think all the configurations are composed of both matter and antimatter in part.  Because these configurations are larger than a single phase of the gravity wave, you get an interlocking behavior we don't see much of at larger scales until you get to molecules, in which the different phases of the mass wave are, at a comprehensive scale, often in opposition; pull on opposing ends of a quark and there's a lot of give to it, stretching it out, as the conflicting waves give a stretchiness to the underlying behavior until they are no longer in conflict; at which point an abrupt and massive increase in the energy required to continue stretching occurs, no longer assisted by the conflicting wave patterns, beyond which the quark will "snap" in half.  So much energy that new particles will be created to fill in the gaps.

We see this behavior; it is only the description of the phenomena that differs.  Behavioral particulars aren't really addressed here except to say that they're complex, because the particles are complex.

A Crackpot's Vision of Future Physics: Quantum Physics

Yes, this model suggests quantum physics isn't quite right, or perhaps more accurately is a simplification.  How do we go about using quantum physics?

First, the perturbation model is key.  That model works quite perfectly in this framework.

Second, Hamiltonian operators, the mathematical mechanism of incorporating the "quantum" from quantum physics... also continue to work perfectly.  They're still the only non-neglible energy under consideration.  All energy below the quantum level has no macroscopic ramifications, until and unless it achieves the quantum minimum, at which point a configuration change occurs, and a quantum event - specifically some energy emission at a quantum scale - takes place.

Virtual particles get interesting, or rather, stop being interesting, which I think is more interesting.  Since all interactions between mass in this model is the result of the interactions between mass waves, most interactions have a mutuality component.  The virtual particle, traveling backwards in time, is a mathematical fix for a model which represents interactions as arising from particle interactions - A affects B simultaneously to B affecting A, and a mathematical representation of the interaction that describes information passing from A to B necessarily needs B to transmit information to A.  Because the information has locality limits, however, the math only works if the virtual particle travels backwards in time to arrive back at A at the same time it "emitted the force carrier particle" that would eventually arrive at B.  Virtual particles are just a fix to make the mathematical model arrive at the correct conclusion.

By and large, quantum mechanics remains surprisingly unchanged.  The subtle shift from "Energy only comes in multiples of X" to "Energy below X has no effect" would be far more significant if not for uncertainty; with uncertainty, the model already accounts for occasional unexpected energy emissions.

What about uncertainty?  I am honestly not certain.  It seems to persist in electron double-slit experiments, if nowhere else.  We'll devote a section to uncertainty however.

A Crackpot's Vision of Future Physics: Uncertainty

We've lost quantum mechanics.  We have not lost uncertainty, although we see a lot less of it.

There are a few reasons to expect to see something like uncertainty in the universe; the most important is locality.  Information can't exceed the speed of light, yet phenomena exist in the universe which must simultaneously be observed, yet simultaneously prohibit observation.  I am, of course, talking about black holes.
Within the event horizon, where does the singularity lay?  Impossible to say.  If the singularity were to move, the update wave to move the event horizon couldn't reach it to move it in turn.
Black holes are messy, mathematically.  White holes more so, being unapproachable from either side; matter can neither enter nor escape.  I don't know if white holes can even be said to be connected to our universe anymore; the spacial density interpretation suggests an effectively infinite distance involved, which implies to me that maybe the contents of white holes aren't meaningfully in our universe anymore, since spacetime should be conserved, and an infinite distance would otherwise fail to conserve it.
Black holes, by comparison, are still connected, albeit in a curious manner; there is still an infinite distance involved, however.  I think the interior edge of the event horizon of a singularity of either type can be described as a cylindrical dimension, and more, I think this cylindrical dimension may be the Kaluza-Klein dimension.  The surface area of an event horizon is two-dimensional, after all; I think the third dimension gets closed on itself.
If, as I posit in the section on time, the Kaluza-Klein dimension is what physics refers to as time, this means time may be a phenomenon that arises from singularities themselves.  Thus, particles are three dimensional; two dimensions form a surface area that connects their spacetime to the rest of the universe, and the third dimension gets bound up and closed.  In fact, all three dimensions are effectively closed, but this is a little hard to conceptualize.

When we remember that mass is a wave, and in particular a standing wave that occupies the entire universe, however, the nature of the connection between our closed three dimensional construct and the open three dimensions we are more familiar with gets a little... odd.  We could say it is connected where it is connected, and just posit an origin, a particular space it occupies.  But we come into this already knowing that there's going to be some oddities involving position, because we have observed them.

There's a simple solution, of sorts.  The closed three dimensional area of a singularity particle is only partially connected to the universe, through its own mass wave; there is an origin, but the particle actually occupies the entire universe, proportional to the amplitude of its mass wave at that position.  (Well, there are zeroes in its wave, places it doesn't occupy.)  This is equivalent, in some significant respects, to uncertainty; it is less that mass has an uncertain position, however, so much that position ceases to be a particularly meaningful concept.

This ends up working surprisingly well, in a specific way: Acceleration isn't a discrete operation.  You don't accelerate "the particle", you accelerate some portion of it's mass wave.  It will self-correct over time, at lightspeed, but if there are multiple possible end destinations (as with the double slit experiment), you can temporarily split the mass wave, and it will self-interfere until it stabilizes.  The section on Collisions describes part of this process.

This hints at an explanation for the fact that position and velocity have a similar factor in uncertainty: Velocity is only ever a transformation of a part of the mass wave.

A Crackpot's Vision of Future Physics: The Big Bang

Okay.  It's turtles all the way down; or particles, at least.  Where did it begin?

Strictly speaking, in this model, it didn't.  The universe had simultaneously existed for a finite amount of time, and also never actually started.  This is because of the curious, scale-symmetric properties of the speed of light.
The speed of light - the speed of propagation through spacetime - is both the maximum on speed, and also a throttle on the passage of time.  The speed of events at a scale of observation is limited by the speed of light.  To make sense of this, imagine a brain the size of our galaxy.  Imagine the time it takes a piece of information to travel from one point to another; because of how long it takes information to move, from this superbrain's perspective, events at our scales happen absurdly quickly.  It would observe the motion of galaxies as something happening quickly.
The same principle applies when you get smaller in scale, although it is perhaps harder to visualize.  The distances are closer; light traverses small distances at the same speed it traverses large distances, so events at a smaller scale happen more quickly, from our perspective.  From a sufficiently small-scale perspective, the first few milliseconds of the big bang were, scale-relative, billions of years.  Galaxies formed, grew cold, and died.  In that time, any beings at that scale would have wondered about when it all started, and where it is all going.  They perhaps may have discussed the beings who might have existed in the first few milliseconds of the big bang.

Because the big bang wasn't an event, and it isn't over.  Zoom out, in both time and space, and you will eventually reach a point where the universe looks like a dense hot plasma.  There was no beginning, even if it has only been going on for a finite amount of time, because the meaningful concept of the relevant scale of time is constantly increasing.  There is no end.  The big bang, and the universe - because they are the same - are an ongoing process.

A Crackpot's Vision of Future Physics: Energy

You may, at this point, have started to gather that this model doesn't have quanta (that is, an energy "atom", an amount of energy which is the minimum amount possible).  This isn't quite accurate; quanta still exist, but they are more a macroscopic (from a certain perspective) phenomena than a property of the universe.  A quantum of energy is simply the smallest amount of energy necessary to move from one stable configuration to another, and vice versa, the amount released when moving from a higher-energy stable state to a lower-energy stable state.
More, energy levels below the level of the quantum stop looking like "energy".  Something that looks like negative energy becomes possible at that level; since everything is the interaction between waves, some of those interactions will move configurations towards stable configurations, and some will move those configurations away.  Energy below the level of the quantum is effectively negligible, from our macroscopic perspective, because the net effect is generally nil.

Generally, but not always.  Under certain circumstances, sub-quantum energy suddenly becomes important, because fluctuations in the density of this energy can make it easier for a given, say, electron, to move to a different stable configuration. Say, when we are shining a very weak amount of light on a phosphorous surface.  Under these circumstances, random variations in sub-quantum energy will result in some electrons being more energetic, and thus more likely to change configurations, and emit light in return.  This looks, from a macroscopic perspective, like randomness.

From a certain perspective, however, sub-quantum energy isn't energy at all.  We can't utilize it, as far as I can see, and even if we could there's not enough of it to be worth doing.  We can't even measure it, and I don't see that changing in the next century or two; in order to measure it with current technology, we'd have to somehow get it to condense to the point where it could cause a configuration shift, because that is the smallest event we can currently measure.
This is to be expected.  Given the scales involved, sub-quantum energy is effectively and permanently in a state of maximal entropy; any work it could do was expended in the first few seconds after the big bang.  Although sub-quantum energy may exist, this doesn't imply that subatomic events are dynamic; the subatomic galaxy-equivalents were cold and entropically dead long before atoms could form at our scales.  Our observed universe will be cold and entropically dead long before what we observe forms part of some still-larger configuration.  Entropy marches upward, in terms of scale.

A Crackpot's Vision of Future Physics 4: Light and Other Waves

The model doesn't have a collection of fields; it has a single wave.  This leaves us with something that is, with respect to the Standard Model, problematic.  I've briefly described light, but let's discuss it in more depth.

Light in this model, like everything, is a wave.  It is specifically a wave in a wave; it is the change in the mass wave, propagating at lightspeed.  A change in the change of density is itself a change in density.  Which means we can simplify the idea a bit: Light can be treated as a wave in spacetime itself.  It has some particular properties arising from it's origins in specific subatomic particles, and more specifically a particular range of sizes of particles, namely that it has a range of frequencies limited to Rhydberg's model of light, of resonant frequencies.  Mostly.

Bosons in general are waves in spacetime of varying frequency, depending on the size and resonant frequency of the originating particles.

Note to self for future: Light as continuous Fourier transform of zero-width, infinite amplitude Lorentz Contraction, hence "speed of light".  Tie into other sections explaining speed of light as irrelevant constant (speed of light doesn't matter, mediates all interactions including clocks timing it's speed)

A Crackpot's Vision of Future Physics 3: Motion

If you've grokked what I've written so far, you may have noticed something.  Without a particle, without mass, without a "thing" the property of "velocity" can be attached to, velocity becomes kind of difficult to reconcile with the universe as we observe it.  What is motion?  How can what is, basically, a wrinkle in spacetime be said to meaningfully "move"?  As it turns out, we already have the answer in relativity.
Lorentz Contraction is the phenomenon in relativity in which objects contract along their axis of motion relative to the direction of motion.  It isn't just the objects themselves, either; everything contracts, even the objects' own gravitational fields.  By "contract", I mean that they get flatter, from an outside observer's perspective, along the direction of motion, as a proportion of lightspeed; an object somehow moving at the speed of light would appear as a perfectly flattened object.
At first, this might appear to be a product of subjectivity, rather than something that is "really" true.  The trick in understanding Lorentz Contraction is to notice two things: First, that the gravitational field is also contracted, and second, that this means the density of spacetime is being distorted.  Which is to say, the object isn't "really" flattening, but rather it is occupying a space that is bigger lengthwise (where length is parallel to the direction of motion) than the surrounding space.
And it isn't symmetric lengthwise; the space forward of the origin is slightly denser than the backwards section.  Which is to say, space is denser forward of the ship than behind it.  If you'll recall how gravity moves things, this is the same principle.  We typically think of Lorentz Contraction as being a property of motion, but it is equally valid to think of motion as a property of Lorentz Contraction.  And once you notice this, the notion of motion causing Lorentz Contraction becomes unnecessary; they're the same phenomenon, with Lorentz Contraction being the more basic.
Once we start thinking in these terms, we can start to redefine "motion" as a wave distortion in spacetime, or more specifically a wave distortion in the wave that is mass.  This is a useful concept, but we aren't quite done yet; we need a mechanism of imparting this wave distortion on our mass-wave.
It's already been invented.  I mean, I figured it out, but somebody figured it out long before I did, so I can't claim any credit.  When objects are accelerating, they get an additional kind of distortion applied to them, which looks - not without accident - exactly like gravity.  This phenomenon is called "Rindler Coordinates".
Now, I just made a massive leap, so let's take a quick step backwards.  Let's try to figure out what gravity looks like to an object in it's influence, and what acceleration looks like.
Imagine two point masses in space.  We'll simplify our mass wave to a single gauge, gravity.  Point A, Point B, and us an observer at Point C.  From Point C, the region between the two masses is denser.  No surprise there.  The interesting thing happens when we only examine the gravitational field of one of the two points, completely ignoring the other.  Let's say we are looking at Point B.
Because the density between the two points is higher, this means that, from our outside perspective, the nice neat even distribution of spacial density, cleanly increasing as you approach Point B, no longer applies.  It is flattened on the side facing Point A, because on that side, it has further to go, so weakens more quickly.  More importantly, on its own, without any consideration of Point B's own gravity now, spacial density on the side facing Point B rises more quickly as we approach Point B.  That is, even if we removed Point A entirely at this point, Point B's own gravitational field is already distorted such that it will pull -itself- towards Point A, through the simple expedient of moving through time and the side facing Point A being denser and thus more distance.  (We are, for now, going to take motion through time as a given.  It is the only motion we take for a given.  Everything else arises from this single motion.)

Acceleration, and Rindler Coordinates, look exactly the same.  Flattened more on the side oriented toward motion.  This makes sense, if you think in terms of the speed of light; if you had reaction-less acceleration, that is, you weren't throwing particles out the back end of the ship, you'd get the same shape, just because the lightspeed "update" to the gravitational field takes time to propagate, such that, from an outside perspective, the forward region of  fiethe gravitational field is always slightly behind, time-wise, the backward gravitational field.  It takes time for light to reach things.
Of course, that is reaction-less acceleration; it presumes acceleration through some other mechanism causes this effect.  I think this is slightly backwards; acceleration doesn't cause this shape, this shape is the phenomenon we call açceleration.  This distortion is temporary, caused by the interaction of fields, such as gravity.  But to explain this, we need to look at collisions, and more generally acceleration that isn't reaction-less.  We haven't discovered reaction-less acceleration anyways, and this may help to illustrate why.

Collisions will require us to expand our gauge to include the repulsive phase of the wave just below gravity; gravity pulls things in, this phase pushes them away.  Just as the attractive phase distorts the mass wave to be shorter on the near side, the repulsive phase distorts the mass wave to be longer, the opposite distortion, imparting acceleration.
If the two objects are approaching each other at speed, they'll get that much closer before the velocity is reversed, and have that much more time to accelerate away; greater velocity coming in means greater velocity going out, all things being equal.
Now, this acceleration has an interesting property that distinguishes it in relativity from Newtonian acceleration - it is relative.