General Relativity vs. Quantum Mechanics
I have claimed that this is a model for theory of everything. But so far I have not offered a direct answer for the central question.
Why is there incompatibility between the two pillars of physics? This question has created much controversy over the past century. In specific terms, if gravity dictates a smooth curved spatial geometry (what we actually encounter in macrocosm), why is it that in Planck scale we face such severe distortions and wrapping of space-time and quantum frenzy?
This view offers the following answer;
We postulate that our space-time universe is exposed to a mass-less singularity in every Planck hole. In other words, Planck scale is the boundary of the space-time universe in micro scale. In such a paradigm, gravity is not the only factor. The fabric of universe in Planck scale is severely affected by energy from singularity. This energy demonstrates deflective force. Since according to Grand Unified theory, in Planck scale different forces are supposed to be unified, this energy is invariant and different forces are in a way in superposition of states. We further have speculated that particles in their wave motion are under influence of this force. Since in majority of occasions the particles have to return the energy that they borrowed, back to singularity during their wave function, the turbulence does not extend far beyond Planck Scale, therefore we have smooth and curved spatial geometry in large scale.
I further speculated that the elasticity of the fabric of space is the Counter-force, which returns the particles back to singularity.

Zeros and Infinities
One would ask why there is the tendency to avoid zeros and infinities in theoretical physics. The answer is these domains cannot be designated to any entity inside space-time universe. Our world is finite and zero does not point to any quantity so it cannot be defined in space-time. But the fact is they are very powerful elements in our mathematical calculations. So we have to embrace them. If we cannot accommodate them inside our universe may be we have to accept their existence outside it. Modern physics and specially Quantum Mechanics in addition to our everyday experience suggest that there are factors affecting our everyday endeavor, which we cannot attribute them to known physics. Just like zero and infinity which are affecting math calculations but we cannot assign them to any element in space-time. Therefore, we have to open our scopes to new horizons.
On the other hand, many believe that if an out of universe entity exists we cannot observe or understand it. So they prefer to leave it untouched or ignore it. The presented model in particle wave chapter suggests that we are constantly in contact with this entity in more profound level. So by this definition, singularity should be comprehensible.

On the other hand, many believe that if an out of universe entity exists we cannot observe or understand it. So they prefer to leave it untouched or ignore it. The presented model in particle wave chapter suggests that we are constantly in contact with this entity in more profound level. So by this definition, singularity should be comprehensible.
Others believe that if we accept a kind of outside entity affecting our world, we have to blindly accept a supreme power that we don't have any clue about it. This would imply that science accepts religion.
Lee Smolin describes it very clearly. He denotes, if we accept that amongst countless possibilities, our universe chose the one, which is hospitable to life, we have to accept that something outside our universe made the decision: 
“This is the exact point at which science becomes religion. Or to put it better, it will be rational to use science as an argument for religion.”²⁷ 
Of course, linking to religion with all of its shortcomings is not acceptable to mainstream science. Thus, this choice is out of question.
However, this reminds me how fifteenth century priests were so afraid of any new scientific thought or finding. They were afraid that it would deny religion and god. So they religiously fought against the new scientific findings to the point that they would kill the scientific belief and the believer at the same time, if it was needed. They were scared and did not want to come out of their cave. One wonders, what would happen to their god if Galileo showed that the earth is round? Do we also avoid, kill and normalize a big portion of our findings and evidences just because it may shake our philosophical belief?

Carrying the myths and beliefs of our ancestors over only creates disaster. I can't imagine how anybody can take those kind of stories seriously. We need to build new theories based on today's knowledge. Traditionally humans take advantage of knowledge and intuitions of previous generations and use current findings to reach to new perceptions and beliefs. However, it seems that old religions are facing a dead end. trying to prove the old concepts by using today's knowledge is futile. We need a new vision.

Spirituality is a portion of our everyday experience. We have to redefine it but we can not deny it. Consciousness researches are in their preliminary stages. Future is going to reveal a new and exotic picture of reality. Surely twenty first century human is going to move ahead. Humans are truth hunters. Slowly but surely we are going to devolve into deeper levels of reality.
As I mentioned, one reason for objections that is normally put forward is that, anything out of our universe is not accessible to us. Thus, we cannot observe and understand it or experiment with it. So it does not fit inside scientific domain.
Above, I tried to show that some of the characteristic of the entity outside of the space-time is debatable by scientific methods. Quantum mechanics, positive cosmological constant, dark energy, dark matter, black holes and transpersonal psychology are expanding our horizon to the boundaries and beyond. Is it time to expand our exploration beyond the boundaries? Isn't it the time to at least fantasize, and hypothesize theories, which expand beyond space-time? I believe, if it offers logical solutions to our questions, it worth the speculation.
One may rightfully oppose this concept being a physical model because it lacks the mathematical structure that a physical model should have. I am drawing this mathematically consistent structure to convince these opponents.

This is a mathematically fine structure, but as Wolfgang Pauli once said, only the details are missing. I hope the details can be worked out by future minds.

The arguments presented are open for debate. The reader is encouraged to email his/her inputs to correct, modify or develop the contents. Please send your emails to; zpfields@yahoo.ca 

Last Word
A new way of looking at the physical world is presented in this view. Roger Penrose suggests that:
“Physics has to find an objective reduction theory to connect Quantum level to Classical level. While these two levels are computable, the new theory has to be non-computable and non-local.”⁵
It seems this view meets the above requirements. Because the presented concept has the potential to offer solutions to some of our long lasting questions, it deserves further attention and speculation. This view not only can offer solutions for a number of unanswered problems in physics, but it has the potential to shed light onto many mysteries such as life and death, mind, life sciences and psychology, Para-psychological findings, etc.

The concepts presented may not only change the way that we look at our world, it also can change the way we live.