Lee Smolin
I always heard Smolin's name associated with Loop Quantum Gravity, an alternate group of physicists looking for the Holy Grail - unification of all forces of nature and quantum mechanics. But Smolin apparently has a seperate research on his own and recently published a book called Einstein's Unfinished Revolution.
In it he describes his ensemble approach, or temporal relativism which does away with space, makes time essential and posits behind the curtain the only thing needed is the concept of a relationship graph with nodes and connections. A certain interpretation of these graphs is what creates space; closeness means having similar views (as in neighbors), and the system always tries to maximize variety of views. Macro objects like people would have less change to have similar views, but small objects can and do have similar views such as a water molecule, which is similar to all water molecules. This similarity, seeking of diverse views while it transitions into what we see is space, is what creates the illusion of QM and its weird outcomes, like "spooky action at a distance".
Smolin can generate QM as an approximation from this model.
Smolin categorizes physicists as realists or anti-realists, some believe the universe exists without anyone interacting with it, others, like Copenhagen QM people who say "measuring something bring that thing into existence".
Interview with Smolin
More from Smolin:
"Certainly, quantum mechanics explains many aspects of nature, and it does so with supreme elegance. Physicists have developed a very powerful tool kit for explaining diverse phenomena in terms of quantum mechanics, so when you master quantum mechanics you control a lot about nature. At the same time, physicists are always dancing around the gaping holes that quantum mechanics leaves in our understanding of nature. The theory fails to provide a picture of what is going on in individual processes, and it often fails to explain why an experiment turns out one way rather than another.
These gaps and failures matter because they underlie the fact that we have gotten only partway toward solving the central problems in science before seeming to run out of steam. I believe that we have not yet succeeded in unifying quantum theory with gravity and spacetime (which is what we mean by quantizing gravity), or in unifying the interactions, because we have been working with an incomplete and incorrect quantum theory.
But I suspect that the implications of building science on incorrect foundations go further and deeper. The trust in science as a method to resolve disagreements and locate truth is undermined when a radical strand of anti-realism flourishes at the foundations of science. When those who set the standard for what constitutes explanation are seduced by a virulent mysticism, the resulting confusion is felt throughout the culture"
He says science inspires a lot of other things, and the more science remains in its current insane position, the more insane the world around will get. Just look at all the baseless multiverse bullshit stories and the bullshit discourse of the body politic. There is also the escapism aspect of course which must be why the general public is so interested in such theories. Art, interpretation of everything around us, degrade. Soon you go cuckoo and start watching stuff like this.
For the future of physics and in terms of personality if there is to be someone to fix the current state of affairs, Smolin is probably the right guy (or someone like him). First of all the fixer has to be an American; that's where the energy was and has been for decades on theoretical physics and for some other cultural reasons, at least for the era we are in. "The guy" would have rubbed shoulders with the greats, and Smolin has, with Penrose, Feynman (he asked Feynman about the initial version of his theory, he reportedly replied 'not crazy enough to be right' - vintage F).
Beyond the findings, I agree with LS emphasis on where and how to look for the grail - background independence, reciprocity (u effect particle, particle must effect u back), and generating the visible from an unvisible -but real- construct.
I particularly enjoyed his book's historical emphasis on the divisions between Newton and Leibniz who independently invented Calculus. There was much argument thereafter abt who invented it first, but apparently there were deeper differences between the two. Smolin took his idea of relationalism from Leibniz who argued, centuries ago, that space cannot be assumed to be omnipresent, or taken at its face value, but has to be something "emerging" from something else.
Additions
Not having QM randomness does not mean "clockwork universe" coming back; there are still many sources of randomness, including ourselves, as players in an ancestral simulation bcz we are somewhat from outside of "the game". Smolin's own approach leaves the possibility of unexpected events.
But with the right general enough question, future does become predictable, one cannot discount that either. Especially when decisions come from a small, finite set of choices for social science, chaos is not so chaotic (as Bruce B. de Mesquita showed).
Then there is also the tiniest measurement mistakes in the beginning blowing up in time later for non-linear systems thing that are completely determinisitic, but that is another story. Lota nuance here.