All these people working on the foundations of quantum mechanics must somehow have missed the fact that quantum mechanics has been superseded by quantum field t

All these people working on the foundations of quantum mechanics must somehow have missed the fact that quantum mechanics has been superseded by quantum field theory. Quantum field theory resolves basically all of the typically interpretation of quantum mechanics questions in a rather sophisticated way. Unfortunately and I guess this is why these "Interpretation of QM" are still popular most things become harder to calculate with QFT instead of plain old quantum mechanics. Still I think that the perspective of taking quantum fields and the path integral as fundamental clarifies a bunch of things even about measurements. In the path integral formulation you can view a measurement as an additional term in the Lagrangian (for example a non-zero external magnetic field for Zeeman-Splitting). You then have to expand around the classical solutions summed over all initial conditions, so if you have for example a spin-1/2-based dependence as it is the case for the Zeeman-Effect, you would have to expand around these two different classical solutions. There is nothing mysterious about this and in the cases where you can carry the calculation out you get the correct predictions. Fundamentally there is no such thing as measurements, just local interactions of quantum fields and any measurement can be either modelled as such an interaction or as an additional term in the Lagrangian. The truly interesting things discoveries within in the framework of quantum field theory, such as ADS/CFT, going from String Theory to low energy effective theories or the Amplituhedron. All of those have direct and immediate connections to state of the art quantum field theories. What is done in (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.06462.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.06462.pdf), especially the last part, where they suddenly invoke p-adic numbers in support of a very vague argument and a cartoon of Penrose's impossible triangle in a similar vague manner, won't be taken serious by most physicists, but is sufficient apparently to convince non-technical people to continue funding them. Nautil.us probably is just grateful for the free content.