Yes, I know. But I think skepticism is healthy, and there isn’t any here. There is a herd mentality with QM. Of course, it is not just QM. Relativity is another theory that has been “proven” correct. But there is a conflict between relativity and QM. They can’t both be right. It’s sort of like the question of what happens if an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? I suspect that in reality, they are both not quite right. Quantum mechanics is the one that I think may be off the most. The idea of probability playing such a huge role in all this doesn’t make any sense to me. The fact that the mathematics works out doesn’t save it in my mind, especially when you see stories like this one, reporting that the physicists’ calculations of the probabilities told them one thing, but the experiment is telling them something different.
The defects in relativity can’t be very big. But I would not even discount the possibility that there are problems with it. When you hear physicists say that it’s the most extensively tested theory of all time, they are just talking about certain aspects of it, especially the Lorentz transformation. Other aspects, like time dilation, have only been tested in a superficial way, and the simultaneity conclusions have not been tested at all, except to the extent you can say that they are a necessary result of the time dilation conclusions.
The recent dark energy and dark matter observations ought to be a clue that there is something not quite right with the theory of relativity. Maybe you need to observe these things on a universal scale to see that the theory deviates from reality. When you are measuring things on the scale of a laboratory, there is not much difference between x and dx. But if you are measuring on the scale of the universe, you better have the derivative correct, or it will noticeably affect the conclusion.
A lot of what went into Einstein’s theory was his conviction that it had to be right because of the beauty of the rotational and lateral invariances resulting from the Lorentz transformation. Other aspects of the theory, like the twin paradox, which results from the time dilation conclusions, aren’t so beautiful. He traded one kind of beauty for another. But I think he could have come up with a theory that did away with the twin paradox, while making only a minor change to the Lorentz transformation. Obviously, that would have done away with the lateral invariance, and possibly the rotational invariance. But maybe not in a significant enough way to be noticeable in experiment.
Quantum mechanics is the one that I think may be off the most. The idea of probability playing such a huge role in all this doesn’t make any sense to me.Quantum uncertainty provides the very key to our understanding of atomic structure and the periodic table, which by the way, has to be considered the "crown jewel" of quantum theory, IMO. The uncertainty relation is what defines the ground state of each atomic element, and the basis for all the common material properties that we accept as natural and obvious.
Consider the Hydrogen atom. Why doesn't the single electron just collapse into the nucleus? We can see that uncertainty provides the answer. As it is confined to a smaller and smaller volume, decreasing the uncertainty in position and increasing the ( negative ) binding energy, the uncertainty in velocity grows, giving it a greater ( positve )kinetic energy. At some point the growth in kinetic energy balances the binding energy, and this defines the "ground state", which is a purely quantum concept.
Of course we don't have to be content with a conceptual explanation. All the features of atomic and molecular spectra, binding, reactions, and crystal structure, are beautifully predicted to an astounding degree of exactitude. Further than that, many new predictions are made, and have been exploited to found, among other things, our silicon based society.
What more could one ask? As a theory, it far surpasses any sort of historical expectation. But it doesn't make sense to you! You've got lots of company to be sure. Feynman advised that we should just make our peace with it, and not try to make it conform to our own prejudices. I have found that by thinking in terms of phenomena, and the way they are uniquely accounted for by QM, this is easy to do.
Here's a snapshot I took of my desk lamp. I might give it the title, MY QUANTUM WORLD AND WELCOME TO IT
