I would like to make a summary as short as possible of how I understand and value Quantum Mechanics.
I also understand that since this theory QM is praised and followed by a vast majority of the scientific world, my criticism of it will have the same result as that of an atheist propagandizing his disbelief in the middle of a papal mass.
Therefore I apologize, but I hope you understand my duty to expose my disagreements.

In all probability, for an immersed scientist and student of Quantum Mechanics, it will be very easy for him to accept it and follow its postulates, moreover, he will have complete security about them.
On the other hand, for me, after 40 years of reviewing it, trying to see its reliability and consistency, and reviewing its conclusions and justifications, I understand that it is an unfortunate theory, lacking in consistency in its basic structure, and contrary to all physical logic.

** It adapts like a chameleon to all the observations that are produced, but cheating of course:
Introducing new parameters (quantum= /quantum number, spin, azimuth, etc.) in such a way that only given the name of the new parameter, we already have the explanation and result that fits the observation, but of course it's all quantum or statistical, no logical physical explanation.
But of course, for those who are not satisfied with statistics, and want to know the real structure of physical events, this theory is not enough, and if you investigate a little, you will see that it has feet of clay and is hollow inside.

2.- Inconsistencies.

A).- The first contradiction that arises with Quantum Mechanics can be the initial postulate:
"In the microcosm the laws of classical physics are not fulfilled, but those of Quantum Mechanics".
In other words, the microcosm follows the mathematical formulas that we have invented (Schrodinger, ..), and they do not follow the physics already known and experienced around us.
For example, the electric and electromagnetic fields and charges that are created and are present in the atoms do not act there, what moves the electrons there is the Schrodinger formula.

B).- When the cosmos is observed, we see that all the systems of particles, bodies and stars; stars, planets; moons; galaxies, etc., even simple large meteorites, all of them join and organize themselves in orbital systems, one around the other, the smaller ones around the larger ones.
That is, the smaller bodies rotate around the larger ones, including the galaxies that produce a nucleus of higher density, on which other groups of less dense stars rotate.
Well, at the atomic level, Schrodinger's quantum formulas distribute electrons (only electrons, not other particles) without rotation around the nuclei, and laterally (pendant, like the grapes in the drawing) following a modality of Cartesian axes, and therefore without balance and compensation by rotation and nuclear attraction (centripetal force), with planetary rotation (centrifugal force).

C).- To solve and settle these incredible quantum postulates, it is enough to propose another, but as an axiom that we have to accept:
"The square of the wave function is to be taken as a possibility of finding an electron in such and such a place."
It's a chance statistic that has never been (and never will) be proven, and that goes against any physical force of movement.
So we have the duty to accept it as an axiom, and if we have doubts, it is enough to say:
"But man, it's been proven thousands of times in quantum experiments."

3.- My model and solution.

Of course, you could tell me, it is very easy to criticize without giving solutions: Well, not in my case.
My cosmic and atomic model structures the cosmos in a very simple way and at all levels of the cosmos, microcosm and macrocosm, structuring particle systems in the form of orbital systems, just as we observe them in the Cosmos. It is also a Theory of Everything that explains and structures all known cosmic forces, such as: Cosmic energy, gravity, matter, mass, magnetic fields and forces, electric charges, etc.

Thank you friends