Sure. I have some knowledge here, too, and am always looking to learn more. I can speak to specifics like emission lines/"quantum leap", quantum spin, entanglement, so-called spooky behavior, and a few other sub-topics. Beyond that I'll have to open the books or ask university physics faculty(there is a particle specialist and a solid-state specialist that I can rely on if needed).<quoted text>
I understand Blind Faithiness. I am not interested in calling Randi (and as I said, that prize has been withdrawn). It wouldn't meet some scientific standards, yet it is science. Quantum theory does NOT meet scientific standards. Scientific standards had to be changed to accommodate quantum theory. I've studied it so I know. The standard of repeatable results does not apply in quantum mechanics, yet it is deemed as a core part of science. Think on this for a while.
So lets concentrate on Quantum mechanics and how it in many cases cannot give a repeatable experiment given the same initial conditions.
The physicist I know are very confident in QT's track record of predictability and ability for modeling. Quantum computing is on the cusp of reality and we use spectography to read the chemical make-up and distance of stars(Doppler shift using specro lines). Quantum state and spin are measured with high precision, fulfilling once theoretical models. Proton and atom smashers/particle accelerators are revealing the layers beneath the quantum level to further explain the "whys" of the quantum world.
What issues have you identified with QT?