What maintains the patterns?

That's a meaningless question. The wave interactions form the patterns. The properties of the waves form the interactions. There is no outside influence maintaining wave interactions.

Which goes back to what I said before -- Quantum Field Theory should then apply to all forms of matter and energy macrocosmically.

On a subatomic level, observed energy may change in ways that is discordant when changing the properties of observation, but on a macrocosmic scale they do not do that.

Quantum field theory does apply to all forms of energy. That's the point of it. You forget how obscenely large the number of molecules are in a mol of any substance, and how thin potential wells have to be for effects like tunneling to occur. Standard matter clusters DO experience quantum effects, but the percentage of the matter affected is so low that it is unable to disrupt the total structure to any degree noticeable without advanced equipment. The numbers you deal with in macroscopic structures is so absurdly huge that the only way to reasonably describe it is using statistics of large numbers.

What you've just described is a rule -- any observable pattern is a combination of elements that repeat within a defined set of actions. Anything that repeats is following a rule of systemic repetition -- otherwise, it would not repeat if it were not a rule.

And since you don't seem to understand what the definition of a rule is, here it is: one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.

I am greatly amused by the fact that you chose to present a definition of rule that explicitly disagrees with your assertion and supports mine. Notice the key words: "explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere."

Nature doesn't have regulations or government principles, nor does it engage in conduct or activities. Nature simply is. It exists, and its fundamental properties interact with one another with no rhyme, reason, or guidance. Water does not flow because gravity makes it; water shares spacetime coordinates with gravitic fields, and does what local conditions allow. The universe does not think nor desire; it simply is, and does what is its nature.

This is why the universe has patterns, not rules. Rules require thought, organization, and intent. There is no intent, and all organization is emergent.

Energy interactions as a set of defined patterns is a rule of scientific law.

That is most certainly not the definition. A scientific law is a theory with enough experimental evidence that the scientific community has agreed that the theory should be considered and presented as generally correct in 99.99...9% of cases. It is descriptive, not proscriptive. There are not rules, only predictions that are either accurate or inaccurate in predicting the behavior of nature under specific conditions.

A good example of this is gravity -- our planets follow orbital rules, without them, the planets would drift apart. Our known universe follows the observed patterns and rules of relativity, without it, everything would fall apart. What keeps the rules of gravity in place? What prevents the orbits from changing? What determines how gravity maintains consistency?

This again is where you're attempting to proscribe the behavior of nature. There is nothing maintaining uniformity amongst natural concepts. Hell, I've read theories that the speed of light was slightly higher back near the start of the universe, and may become slightly lower in the far, far distant future. Heres a link so you can see I'm not talking out of my ass here:

https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.101301

You also keep forgetting to address the point that negantropy prevents everything from operating under the constant rule of entropy.

Biological organisms use energy from external sources to do work on themselves, decreasing their own entropy at the cost of increasing entropy outside themselves. This is entirely consistent with the standard thermodynamic model. We get our energy from the sun, or from organisms that get their energy from the sun. Were the sun to go out, this process would cease. Come back when you've found something that violates entropic patterns, please.

Or are you trying to imply that the ability of complex organisms to engage in self-repair is somehow too complex to be an emergent function, and thus obviously evidence of god, like so many others like to insist?