Quantum Mechanics Not the Real Thing

Most famous physicists over the 100 years since Quantum Mechanics QM was formed based on Schrödinger's linear differential equation in a wave function $\Psi$ over $3N$-dimensional configuration space for a system with $N$ electrons, have expressed serious doubts about QM as the right description of atomic physics: 

Physicist	Claim	Representative Quote
Albert Einstein	QM incomplete / wrong picture of reality	“Quantum mechanics is not yet the real thing.”
Erwin Schrödinger	QM wrong or absurd for macroscopic reality	“I’m sorry I ever had anything to do with it.”
Louis de Broglie	QM incomplete	“The present quantum mechanics is a complete theory only for statistical predictions.”
David Bohm	QM incomplete; deeper order needed	“The quantum theory is only an approximation to a deeper order.”
John Bell	QM ambiguous or incomplete	“Either the quantum theory is wrong or it is incomplete.”
Richard Feynman	QM not understood	“Nobody understands quantum mechanics.”
Niels Bohr	QM correct but conceptually radical	“If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet.”
Werner Heisenberg	QM difficult to interpret	“Physics concerns what we can say about nature.”
Paul Dirac	QM not in final form	“It seems clear that the present quantum mechanics is not in its final form.”
Roger Penrose	QM incomplete; gravity must modify it	“Quantum mechanics is not exact.”
Gerard ’t Hooft	QM emergent; underlying determinism exists	“I do not believe that quantum mechanics is the final story.”
		“At the most fundamental level, the world is deterministic… Quantum mechanics emerges from our ignorance.”

Despite all these reservations, QM is presented as the most successful theory of physics all times serving as the perfect foundation of all the wonders of modern physics from computers to nuclear weapons. 

This appears as a true miracle, but can be understood recalling that QM is not a theory about real physics, but instead a purely mathematical theory which cannot be in conflict with observation and experiment, because the wave function over configuration space has no real physical meaning in physical space.

The consensus is that there is no single prediction made by QM whatsoever, which is not in perfect agreement with experimental observation. It is then forgotten that QM does not predict any realities only a wide range of possibilities always including observations made.

The core difficulty with QM as theory about physics, is that there is no physical connection between a physical system described mathematically by a wave function, and experimental event detection like a blip on a screen, since a mere possibility cannot trigger a blip. This is the problem of "collapse of the wave function" which is fundamental but unresolved after 100 years of brooding.

Atom physics is microscopic physics about small things like atoms which in principle must be simple objects as a kernel surrounded by electrons, to be compared with classical macroscopic physics about complex object composed of many parts. One would then naturally expect to see simpler mathematical models for microscopic physics than for macroscopic physics, but with QM it is the opposite. The simple is the complex. Logic collapses (1984). QM cannot be the real thing.  

RealQM offers an alternative to atomic physics of the same form as classical macroscopic continuum mechanics.  

Comment by chatGPT

✅ What the post does right — legitimate critiques & open questions

1. It highlights real interpretational problems.
   As Johnson notes, many great physicists over the decades — Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, John Bell, Roger Penrose and others — indeed voiced deep doubts that standard quantum mechanics (QM) provides a coherent picture of reality. claesjohnson.blogspot.com+2Scientific American+2
   That is a historically accurate and philosophically important point: many physicists consider QM successful in predictions, yet remain uneasy about its meaning. A recent survey confirms the division persists even among working physicists. The Quantum Insider+1

2. It underscores the “measurement / collapse” problem.
   Johnson is correct that standard QM — the wavefunction evolving under Schrödinger’s equation — does not provide a clear physical mechanism for the transition from possibilities to actual outcomes (the “blip on a screen”). That is the core of the famous “wave-function collapse” or “measurement problem.” claesjohnson.blogspot.com+2Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy+2
   Many serious researchers regard this as a genuine conceptual gap. So criticism on these grounds is not fringe; it's part of long-standing foundational debate.

3. It calls attention to the difference between mathematical formalism and “physical ontology.”
   Johnson draws the distinction between the wavefunction in a high-dimensional configuration space and “real space” where we observe outcomes. This raises a legitimate question: what is physically real? Is the wavefunction just a calculation device, or does it represent something ontological? That is precisely what interpretations of QM try to answer. Wikipedia+1

4. It reminds of the underdetermination / interpretational plurality in QM.
   As laid out in philosophical analyses, there exist many different interpretations (Copenhagen, pilot-wave / Bohm, many-worlds, collapse theories, etc.), all empirically equivalent (in ordinary QM). That the formalism underdetermines ontology is a well-known difficulty. Philosophy Stack Exchange+2PhilSci Archive+2

So overall: Johnson is raising serious, known, and debated issues about what QM tells us about reality, not just about measurable outcomes.