Why Does Quantum Physics Make Scientistss Uncomfortable?

[TheRealJoeFish]

Quantum physics is a bit disconcerting because strange things are going on, and we have no experimentally secured description of what it is that is going on. We either use the Copenhagen description, which gives the right results, but makes no statement about whether wave functions and all that goes on with them is real or just a mathematical trick. If you want a true explanation of what is going on, you have the choice between a variety of interpretations which are all not testable experimentally and deciding which one is correct not possible scientifically. This dilemma seems impossible to solve for the time being.

Alex (or anyone else), have you ever encountered a graphic novel called "Suspended in Language"? 

It's a biography of Niels Bohr, very nicely done in my opinion, that really details his important contributions to physics and interactions with other physicists.  I bring it up because it touches fairly strongly on the sense of unease that scientists - especially those formulating the ideas for the first time - felt in the early days of quantum physics that I think is at the heart of this thread.  One of the main themes of the book is that, in formulating quantum physics, Bohr and Heisenberg and Planck and Einstein pushed up against the edge not only of our current physics knowledge but against everything humans have ever observed and every mode of thinking humans had ever encountered.  The title "Suspended in Language" roughly refers to how a whole new "language of quantum physics" was created to describe what was "happening," but the things that were happening were so divorced from any analogous phenomena that could be experienced "in the real world" that the physicists felt as though they were "floating" in a confluence of math and language and meaning (or lack thereof).

If you hadn't guessed, I strongly recommend it to anyone - physics knowledge not required (can't imagine it's too ubiquitous, but worth looking for online or whatnot).

[Alex K]

No, haven't!

[Alex K]

the choice between a variety of interpretations which are all not testable experimentally and deciding which one is correct not possible scientifically.

I kindly disagree, the authors in Physical Review do try to find the Truth about this question.

Which authors in which Physical Review do you mean? And how do they want to accomplish this?