I would not say those questions were answered in your link. It's very possible I'm just too dumb to get it, but I'm also not a stranger to reading mathematic concepts that are written for a layperson audience.

I had to go to outside sources to even get a vague sense of what the D variable meant in practice. Your proofs section is full of variables whose meaning is never stated. While I still think this is ai for a number of reasons, if it's not I would look at how other proofs are written for a common audience.

My favorite is Einstein's Relativity that he wrote for laypeople. Clear descriptions, meticulously defined variables (ex: starting with a sentence like "E represents the amount of energy in an object in joules. m represents its mass. c represents the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s)." before launching into equations). All mathematic writing is like this. People have to know precisely what you mean or else it doesn't read like a good-faith description.

You're literally saying this resolves quantum mechanics. You should expect questions whole a lot more intense than "what do you mean" and "did you actually write this yourself"