Hello, I am new to the forum (at least to actually writing posts of my own), but I have given a lot of thought to the problem addressed in this thread, so I thought I would make some comments:
I have not watched Harriman’s video on quantum mechanics, so I don’t know what aspects of the theory he refers to. However, I have studied quantum mechanics at an advanced undergraduate level, and do not find the main body of the theory to be at all irrational.
First of all, I do not count ideas such as Schrodinger’s cat to be legitimate parts of the quantum theory. I believe that the Schrodinger’s cat myth applies quantum mechanics out of its proper context, and thus produces an absurdity. It would be analagous, and equally absurd, to predict that two cats will orbit each other around their common center of mass. Cats are neither electrons nor planets. Why, then, did physicists invent such an irresponsible idea (I agree that it is irresponsible)? The reason, I think, is that it is incredibly difficult (probably impossible) to understand quantum mechanics on the basis of our experiences of the macroscopic world. I do not mean that QM has no basis in reality (all scientific theories must), but that it is hard for us to understand the world on a scale that is so much smaller than anything we can directly observe. It is probably in an attempt to concretize the very indirect observations that support QM that physicists create such myths.
This is unfortunate, but it is important to realize that such things are in no way essential to the quantum theory. Of course, one cannot simply dispense with all unfortunate aspects of a theory in order to claim that it is true (this would be redefining the theory). However, I am defining quantum mechanics according to what I was taught in school (to be consistent with the topic of the thread), and I can tell you that Schrodinger’s cat was never treated as a serious topic by my professor. When he mentioned this sort of thing at all, it was generally in response to student questions, and was treated rather light-heartedly (my professor called the relevant section in our book “summer reading”).
If our professor did not spend his lectures discussing irrational myths, what did he do? He taught us how to solve the Schrodinger Equation, which is the fundamental equation of non-relativistic quantum mechanics. For example, we used the Schrodinger Equation to compute the behavior of the single electron in a hydrogen atom. In particular, one can solve for the energy levels of this electron, go to the lab, pass an electric current through hydrogen gas, and observe these energy levels directly (as colors). This is the sort of thing one actually does in quantum mechanics, assuming one has a competent teacher.
What is the real philosophical basis of quantum mechanics? Physicists observed that small-scale phenomena can seem bizarre and unpredictable. Over time, they began to see some patterns in the phenonmena, and they eventually discovered that a single differential equation (not counting the Dirac equation), along with some relevant physical facts, logically imply all of the phenomena they were observing. Why is this useful? It is useful because it gives us a systematic way of making predictions (by solving that equation), rather than just blind experimentation. Thus, I think that it is proper to consider QM as a tool for making useful predictions. Anything beyond this is suspect, at least with our current level of knowledge.
Science may be becoming more irrational, and scientists less responsible, but this does not mean that we should renounce theories like QM as nonsense. Far from being nonsense, the quantum theory is true, at least in its essentials, and it is a great accomplishment.
Tenzing Shaw