[bsaul]

Ok, so i've got another question : why didn't general relativity raise the same kind of debate about its "interpretation" ?

It does have its share of counter intuitive predictions ( twin paradox), new concept that are difficult to grasp ( relation between acceleration and time clock), yet i've never heard a physisict starting its general relativity course saying things like "you won't understand it, and neither do i" ( which is what feynman did in this video, and he isn't the first professor i saw doing this).

[TheOtherHobbes]

GR's conceptual model is fairly clear. It's completely unintuitive and hard to understand. But - so far at least - it's not open to multiple competing interpretations.

QM doesn't have an agreed conceptual model at all.

Stuff happens, and you can predict it statistically with a lot of accuracy. But the math doesn't reduce to a physical explanation that makes sense and everyone agrees on.

No one knows if a wave function is a physical thing, or if there's some other physical process which defines the wave function, or exactly how a statistical process with spatial and temporal indeterminacy gets turned into a physical observation.

These are all complete unknowns. And you can't say you understand something when you have equations that work, but no idea how or why they work.

This matters because when a scientific revolution happens the conceptual model everyone uses is transformed. The math tags along behind as a proof of consistency and accuracy, but it's not the primary driver of change.

If you don't have a conceptual model, you're stuck.