The Value of Incorrect Theories of Physics?

Incorrect (or correct?) Theory of the World

This is a return to a previous post on the book 

• Foundations of Quantum Mechanics An Exploration of the Physical Meaning of Quantum Theory  

after a lengthy discussion with its author Travis Norsen. The book presents the three basic problems of  Foundations of Quantum Mechanics QM:

1. Measurement Problem 
2. Locality Problem
3. Ontology Problem 

along with the following attempted “solutions” 70-90 years old: 

• Copenhagen Interpretation 
• Pilot Wave Theory
• Many Worlds Theory
• Collapse Theory

none of which is considered to be satisfactory. Travis favours the Pilot Wave Theory, which apparently does not solve the problem, since the other "solutions" are also given wide attention.

When confronted with RealQM as my attempted solution to all three problems, Travis says that this appears to be a new solution, while stressing that something like that cannot possibly be true!

Fair enough. It is not to be expected that yet another "solution" will be welcomed into the circle of physicists still working on the Foundations of QM despite so little progress over so many years. But I welcome the information that RealQM seems to offer new ideas.  

What can be the scientific value of theories which are incorrect and so cannot be really useful or at least are risky to use? 

Well, you can apparently fill text books and give courses with such material. For the student to learn many incorrect theories may serve to protect from believing in them. But there are infinitely many incorrect theories, so the curriculum will be vast. If there was at least one correct theory, then the curriculum could be shortened to the satisfaction of the student. RealQM may offer something in that direction.

The situation is the same in the classical area of aerodynamics where NASA presents three incorrect Theories of Flight, but no theory claimed to be correct. Also here is there a new theory, which has many signs of being correct as presented on Secret of Flight.

The role of a scientist (and politician) is to have answers to questions and solutions to problems. To not be able to deliver is a sign of weakness resulting in lack of funding or votes, and then a resort to incorrect theories may be the quick "solution" (like printing money or referring to dark energy), even if over time it does not work. 

I have asked Travis about a comment.