Am I the only one who finds it odd that there is a field of study (quantum mechanics) for which the “foundation” of it is as of yet not certain?
The race is on to develop a computer based on entwined subatomic particles.
Happens all the time. It's a normal part of the scientific process.
For example, gravity. When Newton developed his theory of gravity it described a force pulling every object in the universe towards every other object. The theory worked perfectly well. It explained all the observations, and you could predict the motions of the planets, and falling objects. It was clearly right. Yet Newton was troubled by having to postulate this mysterious force. How could there be a force pulling two objects together when nothing connects those objects?
It wasn't until Einstein came along with his General Theory of Relativity that there was an explanation for this force.
I think that there are at least two fundamental sets of rules, if you will, which govern the universe. One we are familiar which describes the electromagnetic spectrum, machines, etc.
The other we know nothing about but which describes devices - things that act like and maybe even look like machines, but are not. These devices would exist as solids with no moving parts or circuits as we think of them, yet perform actions and function unattended for extremely long periods of time, since there is nothing to wear out. Commonly, these devices would be made of stone or other solids. I’d go on about this point, but too many would either laugh or stop reading.
String theory and quantum mechanics either attempt to bridge or are part of this second set of rules - which is why both are so convoluted and difficult to make sense of, as we are trying to fit one into the other of two entirely different rule sets. A bit like trying to fit a size 13 foot into a size 8 glove and wondering why the shoe feels odd.
Human beings today want everything to fit neatly into one thing, have everything descend form one event in a linear, gapless, evolutionary progression. But what if that is not how the universe is? That different things came together to create what we see and call the universe?
Newtonian physics describes most of the first rule set, while Einsteinian physics describes still more of the first set, but also begins the path to the second set. And James Clerk Maxwellian physics goes almost wholly to the second set. It was Oliver Heavyside who took Maxwell’s 200 quaternions [Maxwell’s name for his equations] and changed 4 of them from field to vector {while discarding the other 196} which gave us the knowledge to create all the machines we are familiar with today, and upon which Einsteinian physics is built.
It is this wide-spread failure (or refusal) to look at all Maxwell’s physics as fields from which theoretical physics suffers today, creating the difficulties of comprehension and uncertainty, and why the ‘foundation’ looks so shaky.
My 2 bits ...