The problem is that to be accepted in an area of science that's basically nothing more than a consequence of the maths, you have to show the maths that generate the results you expect.
I'm a mathematician. I don't claim to understand 1% of 1% of quantum mechanics at all. But it comes from a mathematical model that happens to have real-world consequences that are weird and wonderful. When we then tested for those consequences, we found out that they exist in nature. Which, to a scientist mind, kind of hints that the maths must have been at least somewhat correct (or at least on the right lines).
I have my own understanding and theories, but I would also have to state, quite clearly, that quantum physics isn't really "physics". This isn't Newton seeing an apple fall and realising there's a force at play. This is someone (probably THE most famous genius) sitting down for decades with almost unsolvable equations that make absolutely no sense until they realise that it works if you have 11 dimensions, or if space and time are two different elements of the same thing, etc. And that was back in the 1900's when quite a lot of physics and maths we enjoy now didn't even exist.
Then you go out and measure in real life and you find that, actually, it turns out that your theory fits what happens in the world, not the other way around.
As such, I don't for a second think that I can just posit a hypothesis (theory is a slightly stronger word in any science) and have any concept of if I'm talking gibberish or not. The maths of quantum mechanics is horrendous and complicated and quantum theorists spend more time in front of the blackboard than they do the LHC.
If you wish to contribute, even if you don't intend to be taken seriously, it's only proper to get yourself a decent grounding in not just "hey, there's something smaller than an electron and weird stuff starts to happen at that scale, I bet I can guess what else happens", but in WHY that's so and HOW we got to that point. And in anything quantum, that means understanding the maths behind it.
As someone with a degree in maths, I tell you now, you're going to need a decent grounding in quite a lot of basic physics and huge amounts of maths and that "real world intuition" will basically be next-to-useless until the very end. That's not to mention the level of things like calculus and linear algebra you'd need to even get close to learning how we got to all of the old "wrong" models, let alone the newer ones.
This doesn't mean that wild ideas and theories have no merit, it's just that you're theorising about something that you probably don't understand the basics of. I know I don't. And I *can* read the mathematics and, given enough time, understand it.
It just comes across to any mathematician or physicist as someone who is looking at a car for the first time and saying "You know, I bet if you made the whole thing ten times bigger, it would go even faster" or "If it goes that fast with four wheels, imagine what it'll do with 10!".
In a way it reminds me of the Moon conspiracy theorists. They can come up with a million weird and wonderful things that intuition says "must be wrong". But it turns out that a few simple tests or bits of maths show them to all be nonsense. "The shadows are wrong" - fine, go out into the street on a sunny day and try hard to replicate them. If someone can replicate something that's "wrong" in the space of ten minutes, then maybe you are reading far too much into the image, or commenting on something you just don't understand.
Seriously, just on that page there are some 16 equations, and that's not even a millionth of what you need to understand where those equations come from.
Honestly, I DON'T understand quantum mechanics at all. I believe it, because it's accepted as the best self-consistent theory we have that has made verifiable predictions, and I use its results every day (GPS, computer processors, etc.). But I don't understand even the bare minimum of it, past a handful of experiment names and a brief summary of what their results should mean for physics. I don't understand work that was done on it over a hundred years ago (and, hell, that predates most of graph theory, which I consider a particular fascination of mine whose first textbook only arrived in 1936 - whole areas of mathematics have sprung up and matured in that time and STILL I don't understand how people arrived at those equations for quantum theory at that time). I don't understand even the bare foundations of it.
Thus, simple statements and assertions over how I think it works? They - rightly - mean nothing at all.
And the bigger problem? Because quantum theory is a result of some very high-end mathematics, the real truth is probably MUCH, MUCH too weird for us to contemplate at the moment. Chances are, anything you can think of to add to quantum theory just won't be weird enough and will be far too "logical" and grounded in an intuition that was taught Newtonian physics from the start.
Quantum theory sprung up because we hit a mathematical dead-end on quite a simple question (relatively speaking) and it took people who believed the maths had to be right even when it looked like they were going wrong, and they bent their minds in knots trying to find ways to make the maths work in reality. In doing so, they truly thought so far out of the box that they were laughed at for decades until others could get their head around it. And then they'd invented a whole new era of science (at some point in the future, there will no doubt be a reference to "The Quantum Age" as an entire era of science).
I don't intend to say "don't have an opinion" or "pssh, without a maths degree, you're nothing". But if you wonder why you don't get taken seriously, you should just take a quick course in quantum theory, starting from what we were learning in the late 1890's / early 1900's. Otherwise you come across as, say, a shaman from the Egyptian times trying to tell a modern neurosurgeon that "you have this fabulous idea about the brain".