What Does the Schrödinger's Equation Say?

Nobel Laureate in Physics Gerhard t' Hooft is not happy with the prime jewel of modern physics in the form of Schrödinger's Equation SE as expressed in Un Unorthodox View on Quantum Mechanics:

• We know very well how to use the equation. The properties of atoms, molecules, elementary particles and the forces between all of these can be derived with perplexing accuracy using it. The way the equation is used is nothing to complain about, but what exactly does it say?
• What do these wave functions represent? In particular the ones that are not asso- ciated to photons (the energy packets of the electromagnetic field, which we think we understand very well). 
• What do those waves stand for that are associated to electrons, or other elementary particles, or even molecules and larger things, including cats, and eventually, physicists? What happens to its wave function when you actually observe a particle?
• Almost a full century has passed since the equation was written down, and fierce discussions have been held, quite a few standpoints were vigorously defended and equally vigorously attacked. We still do not know what or whom to believe, but it still goes on, while others get irritated by all this display of impotence. 
• Why is it that we still do not agree? I think I know the answers, but almost everyone disagrees with me.
• Not only may quantum mechanics be a description of the sub-microscopic world that is profoundly different from what is often asserted, particularly concerning 'what is really going on', but questions such as these may well be essential for finding new ways of constructing models beyond what is now called the Standard Model of the sub-atomic particles.

t' Hooft describes modern physics in a state of stalemate, impotence and irritation and asks for new ways of constructing models. 

I will send RealQM t' Hooft RealQM and will report his reaction. 

Note that t' Hooft repeats the mantra the physicists know very well how to use SE to derive properties of atoms and molecules with perplexing accuracy... there is nothing to complain about. Yet t' Hooft does complain because he does not understand what all this highly accurate information in fact does say?