Vlatko Vedral’s new book, Portals to a New Reality: Five Pathways to the Future of Physics, takes the view that the way out of such confusion is to remove classical observation. That’s present in most of the major interpretations of QM, and he considers many-worlds just a special case of a larger theory. By doing so he argues that all the seeming contradictions and questions can be answered. The pathways are possible ways to test the theory.
I found the book difficult even though it contains no math. The concepts seem to depend on a deeper understanding of what the problems are than his explanations made clear, even though they were pitched at a very low level.
The best thing about it is his spelling out of the ways that questions like wave/particle duality remain unanswered with current physics and why new approaches are necessary. Spoiler: he argues that everything is waves and waves is everything. We can prove that. But we’re classical creatures so what we see differs.
I would not say there is anything to “beat” in the context of quantum mechanics itself, unless one is making an implication that the theory is somehow false (however, if so, how should it be modified?)
It is important to understand what “particles” actually are. There is some mathematics involved, but an instructive exercise is to work out something like a quantum harmonic oscillator, because you can go through and calculate everything quite explicitly. Then you will see things like, for instance, that a coherent state, which, on one hand, describes an oscillating classical particle in some sense, does not, on the other hand, describe a well-defined number of “particles” or an exact energy.
But Einstein sure hated the idea of the uncertainty principle being fundemental and spent a lot of time at the Solvay conference creating thought experiments to try to disprove it…
Or the Many Worlds Interpretation, which people find “philosophically unsatisfying” for different reasons.
Of course, that’s why they are called “Interpretations”. The math works very well and has very, very strong predictive abilities, but what it actually means we can’t actually determine by evidence yet, if ever. Which rightly bothers scientists because having to choose according to which interpretation “feels right” isn’t scientific at all.