Quantum Contradictions 23: The Truth

Daniel Greenberger states in the Preface to Fundamental Problems in Quantum Theory: A Conference Held in Honor of Professor John A. Wheeler:

• Quantum theory represents one of the great and most beautiful structures in all of physics.  
• Nonetheless, despite its uncontrovertible experimental successes, the theory has a very shaky philosophical foundation. 
• The standard Copenhagen interpretation(whatever that is) requires us to accept so many assumptions that defy common sense that ever since the theory was first developed it has led to enormous debates concerning its interpretation. 
• Most modern physicists accept it without qualification and, indeed, one can develop a creative intuition for using it. 
• The fact that many of its founding fathers turned against the standard interpretation, whereas their followers have tended to accept it without second thoughts can only partly be ascribed to the circumstance that anything tends to grow more familiar with repeated use. 
• Part of the explanation must be related to the fact that those very founders were much moreculturally well rounded than most modern physicists. 
• They were philosophically trained and philosophically inclined and did not like what they saw.
• In spite of their doubts, the subject grew rapidly and it became fashionable to avoid questions concerning the foundations. 
• This attitude only started to change after Bell’s famous theorem in 1964. He showed that one could pose some of one’s intuitive doubts experimentally. 
• Since then, a number of alternate interpretations have grown and new experimental tests devised.
• Today, we know that the strange predictions of the theory hold up experimentally (even though the foundations remain shaky). 
• We will never go back to classical physics - we must learn to accept and live with the world as it actually is.
• What makes quantum mechanics so much fun is that its results run so counter to one’s classical intuitions, yet they are always predictable, even if unanticipated. 
• That is why I like to say that quantum mechanics is magic, but it is not black magic. 

This may well be the truth about quantum mechanics as one of the two pillars of modern physics:  

• A magic perfect theory counter to classical intuition, which we all have to accept without understanding its foundations and without asking the questions the founding fathers posed without ever giving any answers. 
• A magic perfect theory which (self-proclaimed) physics experts (like Lubos Motl of the Reference Frame) pretend to understand perfectly well, but refuse to answer any question with the excuse that all questions were answered by the founding fathers.  

This is the truth also of the other pillar of relativity theory: a magic theory which we all have to accept without understanding, a magic theory which the experts claim to understand but are not willing to explain with the excuse that all questions were answered by its founding father Albert Einstein (who explained very little),  

The same phenomenon has come to dominate climate science with a magic counter-intuitive  "greenhouse effect" which we all have to accept without understanding, a magic theory which the experts claim to understand but are not willing to explain with the excuse that all questions were answered by the founding fathers (Tyndall and Arrhenius, who explained very little).

The same phenomenon has come to dominate modern fluid mechanics with a magic counter-intuitive boundary layer theory which we all have to accept without understanding, a magic theory which the experts claim to understand but are not willing to explain with the excuse that all questions were answered by the founding father Ludwig Prandtl (who explained very little).