It seems like you've really missed the crucial part. The whole point is to have a theory which will mirror the relations of objects in the world not the objects

It seems like you've really missed the crucial part. The whole point is to have a theory which will mirror the relations of objects in the world not the objects themselves. The former leads to truth, the latter is silly. All the interpretations stuff you read about is, unluckily (for the public image of physicists), a fools game. QM is as it was 100 years ago and no progress has ever been made in the "foundations of quantum mechanics", most people who work in this area are either philosophers or very confused physicists. Who's to blame for this state of affairs? Well, there has been plenty of wrong stuff said about QM in media and even in academia. Part of the problem is that people still insist on using the old classical language in the description of quantum experiments. Examples: * "nonlocality" - quantum theory is a local theory, it's only when you assume that it's "classical in disguise" you get nonsense * "delayed choice" - should have rather be called "post-factum reasoning" As I said before if you really dig down deep, you'll realize that this is because our classical macroscopic quantities like "value of momentum", "magnetic moment" etc. are not the same things that exist "down there". The language of nature turns out to be much more subtle. Quantum Mechanics is really the best you can get when you try to hold on to the old classical ideas. Thus an alternative to QM would most likely have nothing to do with classical mechanics at all, it would need to be something entirely new.