on the interpretation of quantum physics Everyone (well, almost everyone) at RPI is afraid of quantum physics. I think they've heard about how difficult it is (or how difficult it sounds) and they always give me strange looks when I tell them I'm taking it. The course IS a lot of work, but it's very rewarding. I think a lot of people are afraid of advanced physics because they don't see it as rewarding, just as a ton of work. Of course, most of RPI's courses require a lot of work, but not as much abstraction as quantum physics.
I've heard so many times (from the uninitiated) that the Uncertainty Principle necessarily signifies that measurement of one quantity greatly changes another quantity's value. This is vague, imprecise, and not at all satisfying. (It's only partly right.) There are so many interpretations of quantum mechanics (good, bad, ugly, and outright misguided) that aren't satisfying. Crackpots love weird interpretations; some in fact think that if they make up their own interpretations, they're qualified to write bad science articles!
There are even some physicists who interpret quantum mechanics in bizarre ways. Some of them want to alter it in order to make it less mathematical. Smolin is very philosophical in his approach to quantum gravity; he thinks that physics should rely less on mathematics. I don't think that's possible, but it's an interesting idea nonetheless. Wolfram's book "A New Kind of Science" also advocates a less mathematical approach to "complexity theory"... which is bizarre because he created MATHematica and MATHworld!
More recently, some physicists have commented on the anthropic principle without really understanding it. Island's blog talks about that in great detail; his last several posts have defended the entropic interpretation, which many physicists don't understand. If you want more info on the entropic interpretation, I suggest you look there.  ¶ 3:50 PM