Thoughts on quantum mechanics, general relativity, and special relativity:

Certain interpretive dilemmas seem to beset physical theory today, and I have developed some ideas which pertain to my own (probably deeply flawed) understanding of these issues.
The first issue concerns the understanding of the so called "wave function," in modern quantum theory: I have tried to give a definition of the "wave function" in the only way that I can conceive of it, namely as a comprehensive description of all possible space time paths—and thus all geometries that are generated from the various states of the atom in its various states of energy: If the electron (moving in my conception forward in time as opposed to the electron's anti-particle, the positron) in all possible states of energy—and this undoubtedly goes to the heart of modern quantum field theory—exhausts its course, then it has delineated all possible space time paths available to it, and something like a very complicated "matter wave" has then been formed: this is what I describe as "The Universal Wave Function."—the Universal Wave Function is either a completed function or a function in process of completion, but it helps, perhaps, to see that this is only a way of understanding these "fundamental concepts," and that I am not asserting the truth of this description, only suggesting this for its heuristic value.
My understanding, I think, is a way of making sense of Max Born's statistical, or stochastic, way of understanding the wave equation. The most interesting consequence of this way of explicating the statistical and ontological stratification of the wave function as the electron progressing through all of its possible states is that the geometry of this "Universal Wave Function" is given as the most basic consequence of the electron's mere "existence" qua electron; this is to say, that the problem of uniting General Relativity and quantum mechanics seems to assume that any state of the electron and its associated nuclei already has an inbuilt geometry.
The gravity of the system, just as Einstien argued, is already part of the electrodynamics of the moving body: its energy curves space—and thus affects time—as is predicted by the general theory. When I recently began thinking about Paul Dirac and his work "Principles of Quantum Mechanics" (which I have not read, but have only read about), I began to reflect on how his algebraic unification of special relativity and quantum mechanics would appear to have cosmological implications and thus, just possibly, already imply a geometry: for Descartes invented analytic geometry, and therefore, the question arises—does Dirac's system further unite quantum mechanics to general relativity by implication if not explicitly?
Many fine physicists today are working on just this problem, and no authors have done as much to stimulate my thinking on these matters as Lee Smolin and Ernest Sternglass.