The theme of Sabine Hossenfelder's book (Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray) is that high energy physicists, in particular the CERN/LHC community, use mathematical beauty as a guide to forming ever more sophisticated theories where (new) experimental evidence is scant to non-existent. She correctly, imo, raises a red flag about this and her book has, afaik, generated intense discussions/reflections/controversy in the high energy physics community.There are no 'priests' of quantum theory. It isn't a religion. And if anyone is giving you the impression that they have the news on anything to do with quantum physics they are probably trying the priestly approach.
The truth is that no one yet knows, because all we have in examining the quantum space is a distance between the standard model and a newer model which explains mathematical oddities such as the supposition that dark matter exists. It has to in order to reconcile what we know of the standard model against the mathematical issues in applying the standard model to what we observe.
I know that a quantum physicist in Frankfurt, Sabine Hossenfelder, whose area of specialisation is the phenomenology of quantum gravity, has suggested recently that we may have a categorisation problem which stems from trying to explain the difference between the standard model and what we appear to be observing of movement and expansion rate of the universe.
She makes the rather shocking suggestion that dark matter is only appearing in our calculations because we are applying the formulae we know, to an unknown problem. She says it is entirely possible we need dark matter in the model of the universe we are slowly building because we are using incorrect formula to calculate mass and its movement in the Universe.
I take her point that if we are trying to measure a slope using a plumbline and a spirit level sort of calculation then of course we are going to get odd answers.
I don't know if she is right. I don't know if Sabine Hossenfelder thinks she is right. She's certainly not standing on any altar announcing she is about to eat mr god. She has put forward an entirely appropriate question in the science environment. I have no idea what she thinks of fractals. Never heard or seen her refer to fractals at all.
However, you and others on this thread seem to be incorrectly interpreting this issue as casting a shadow on quantum mechanics, which is by far the most spectacularly successful physics theory ever devised, using the only criterion that actually matters in physics: how accurately it agrees with experiment. In some cases, agreement to 10 decimal places has been achieved. It is true that quantum mechanics is difficult to 'understand', if understanding is to be related to our everyday experiences. However, the mathematics of quantum mechanics is very well understood. Einstein himself never accepted the non-deterministic nature of QM ("God does not play dice with the universe"), but ironically, his increasingly ingenious attempts to pick a hole in QM led to the famous EPR (Einstein Podolsky Rosen) paradox published in 1935 which purported to show an inconsistency in QM. This was brilliantly resolved by Belfast man John Stewart Bell who published what became known as Bell's Theorem in 1964. This in turn was the genesis of quantum entanglement - a concept famously derided earlier by Einstein as 'spooky action at a distance'.
P.S. The title of this thread displays an ignorance of physics on the part of its instigator that is not worthy of a rebuttal.