"Shut up and calculate"

[gen x]

Why today so many world-class physicists(so no pseudo or charlatans physicists), even some Nobel price like genius Gerard 't Hooft talk about quantum physics as incomplete, wrong etc?
What do you think of Gerard opinion that every single particle follow some for human still unknown deterministic rules and probability only comes from our incomplete knowledge?

​

 

[javisot]

Why today so many world-class physicists(so no pseudo or charlatans physicists), even some Nobel price like Gerard 't Hooft talk about quantum physics as incomplete, wrong etc?

The only people who can resolve your question are the authors of those statements themselves.

If by "complete" we mean describing everything that can be described regarding quantum effects, then it is complete. If by "complete" we mean describing absolutely everything, then it is not complete. Only the author himself knows what he intends to say.

What do you think of Gerard opinion that every single particle follow some for human still unknown deterministic rules and probability only comes from our incomplete knowledge?

I think it is easier said than proven.

 

[Matterwave]

Why today so many world-class physicists(so no pseudo or charlatans physicists), even some Nobel price like genius Gerard 't Hooft talk about quantum physics as incomplete, wrong etc?

There's commonly two things people flag when making such statements, but as has already been pointed out, only the authors of those statements can tell you what they actually mean.

1. Lack of quantum gravity. There's as-yet no unified quantum theory of gravity.
2. Open questions in Quantum foundations, most prominently, the measurement problem.

Talk about the latter usually belongs better in the quantum interpretations subforum. Discussion of the former might belong more in Beyond the Standard Model.

 

[gen x]

The only people who can resolve your question are the authors of those statements themselves.

Here I try to understand his views

 

[FactChecker]

Here I try to understand his views

In the first few minutes (t=5:30): "The real world isn't probabilistic. It's only probabilistic if you don't have all information."
That is a common belief and one that Einstein had. IMO, it shows a limitation of a human to accept that the real world might just be intrinsically probabilistic in some things. Einstein famously said "God does not play dice." Does that assume God would be intimidated or confused by probabilities?
I think this is a philosophical (religious?) objection, but I am certainly not qualified to argue with Einstein.

 

[Demystifier]

The standard QM postulates that the non-deterministic aspect of QM is described by the collapse postulate, and that this postulate only needs to be applied at the measurement. The measurement itself is a macroscopic notion, related to the interaction with the macroscopic measuring apparatus with many degrees of freedom. This already suggests that quantum randomness only appears when there are many uncontrollable degrees of freedom, namely, that randomness is an artifact of the lack of knowledge about those degrees of freedom. In other words, this suggests that quantum systems are, at the fundamental microscopic level, intrinsically deterministic. Otherwise, the microscopic equations themselves would be probabilistic (which they are not, the Schrodinger equation is deterministic), without a need to appeal to the vague notion of measurement to see where the randomness come from.