I think that you can find many answers to your questions in the cited works.

Chapter Equations of Relativistic and Quantum Mechanics (without Spin)

Chapter Spinor Fields

«Despite Dirac himself proposed a system of linear first-degree relativistic equations in the matrix representation that described the system with spin 1/2, the contradictions did not disappear, and he himself remained unhappy with the results of his theory. As Dirac wrote in 1956 [24], the development of relativistic electron theory can now be considered as an example of how incorrect arguments sometimes lead to a valuable result. In the 70s, it became clear that the relativistic theory of quantum mechanics does not exist, and new, fundamental approaches and equations should be sought for constructing a consistent theory of relativistic quantum mechanics. And in the 80s, Dirac already spoke about the insuperable difficulties of the existing quantum theory and the need to create a new one [25].»

[25] The Birth of Particle Physics. Laurie B and Lillian H, edittors. Cambridge University Press; 1983. p. 432. Origin of quantum field theory, Paul A. M. Dirac, pp. 39-55. International Symposium on the History of Particle Physics, Fermilab, May 1980.

“Some new relativistic equations are needed; new kinds of interactions must be brought into play. When these new equations and new interactions are thought out, the problems that are now bewildering to us will get automatically explained, and we should no longer have to make use of such illogical processes as infinite renormalization. This is quite nonsense physically, and I have always been opposed to it. It is just a rule of thumb that gives results. In spite of its successes, one should be prepared to abandon it completely and look on all the successes that have been obtained by using the usual forms of quantum electrodynamics with the infinities removed by artificial processes as just accidents when they give the right answers, in the same way as the successes of the Bohr theory are considered merely as accidents when they turn out to be correct.”

It’s not useful to start with a wrong statement, which leads to further wrong statements. Waves and particles are classical concepts and quantum mechanics does not state that events can and can’t happen. What quantum mechanics does imply is that superpositions are well-defined states, to which a probability can be assigned. It’s just easier to perform real experiments on superpositions of magnetic moments or polarizations of electromagjetic waves, than it is to do on superpositions of ``alive" and ``dead" cats, for the interesting reason that it isn’t at all obvious, even now, how to define these states precisely enough. The mathematical description is tte same as for magnetic moments, however and real experiments on superpositions of magnetic moments have been done.

It would be useful to learn quantum mechanics from a textbook.

Unfortunately, our science is wrong track from last century ideology, when, atom become quantum mechanic without any clarification, and speed of flashlight in vacuum become "sunlight" , one dimension flat static of equation describing three dimension that it is changing constantly....

Article Title: Science is wrong on…Light & Photon

There are many experiments and the Special Relativity (c speed limit) that have to united. So, the theory problem in UNITING the models , not creating ADDITIONAL sub-divisions of models. But the number of experiments that are problems to accepted physics is very large and becoming larger. The net results is (as T. Kuhn suggests) a start-from-scratch model is needed. This would require ALL textbooks to be redone. A very objectionable prospect for people that have been immersed in the current paradigm.

Modeling, prediction, postulate, probability for nature is not science.

Empirically, one dimension static formula does not present three dimension nature that it is changing constantly...

Who are the iron guards of the Bohr-Copenhagen interpretation of the Shrodinger equation?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

They are the kind of mathematicians and physicists who literally cling to it to the last breath more than Bohr himself and stand out for their contradictory response due to a lack of understanding.

Bohr once said that those who claim to understand his interpretation either don't understand anything or are just plain liars.

Classical physics has always distinguished particles from waves.

However, at the beginning of the 20th century, the newly discovered phenomena of atomic and subatomic particles as well as the interaction of radiation with matter seemed to challenge these classical conceptions. In the years 1925-1926, E. Schrödinger (student and collaborator of A. Einstein) invented and published his quantum mechanical equation QM Schrödinger SE as a mathematical formalism that accurately describes the experimental results of quantum particles.

The Copenhagen interpretation itself was a group work of the greatest scientists of the time led by N. Bohr and W. Heisenberg and not a one man show as many people would think!

QM seems to reject these classic designs. Instead, it posits quantum probability and discontinuity in addition to the concept of wave-particle duality. Moreover, SE is an eigenvalue equation involving allowed and forbidden energy levels and bands.

However, when the SE and Copenhagen interpretation of psi and QM as a whole went wild, Einstein and Schrödinger himself opposed it.

How does an event happen and not happen at the same time (Schrödinger's dead or alive cat paradox)? And how is it possible to transfer information instantly between quantum states at a speed greater than c (Einstein interception - spooky action at a distance)?

Moreover, SE is reversible in time and does not respect the arrow of time.

Not to mention the introduction of the so-called complex probability amplitude which is not a type of probability and needs dozens of postulates to support it afloat.

At that time, the pragmatic philosophy of the 1950s and the old collaboration of the iron guards "Shut up and calculate We have an equation of precise calculations up to 10 digits!", prevailed and the objections of Einstein and Schrödinger disappeared. or left to the wind.

The question arises, how can this be fixed?