The physics and astro/cosmology articles presented below are not organized in any particular order, and will be added to on an ongoing basis.  They are simply meant for browsing; some may catch the reader's attention more than others.  These fields frequently have a large speculative component to them, and are also rapidly changing due to new discoveries and interpretations.  Some of them may contradict each other - that is the state of current knowledge.  The articles presented below are not designed to present any particular viewpoint, but are simply articles that may be of interest.  They are frequently  not easy to understand, and may require some existing knowledge, at least on a layman's level, of current physics and cosmological issues.  Enjoy!

The Basics:  

Physics studies how the matter in the universe behaves, with its associated forces and energies.  Although historically philosophy has attached itself at times to a certain extent in the discipline, we are currently at a very materialistic place in physics.  (And many would say, that's exactly as it should be.)  Physics is important because all of the other sciences can trace their roots back to this basic understanding of the physical world.  No physics = no chemistry, botany, biology, astronomy, etc.  Physics is not an easy discipline even at its root; by the time one considers quantum physics, even the experts and big names will say that they don't really understand what is going on.  Happily, however, if one leaves the math off to the side, the concepts of physics are understandable even to the lay person who is willing to put forth a little effort.  It's fascinating and rewarding.  It is, in fact,  the world we live in (at least physically).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics

Here's a portal to some basics physics concepts.  Also, check out  the videos for physics in the Videos section.  Physics lends itself well to the visual and spacial.  (Perhaps that's why men have traditionally been more attracted to the discipline than women, although that is changing.)  In fact, physics in its simplified form is possibly best taught through videos.  There are also quite a few popular physics books out there that have the purpose of teaching physics concepts to the lay person.  Some of them are quite good.  The Dance of Astrology has a brief history of physics and its concepts as well.  Here on this site we are most interested in relativity and, especially, quantum mechanics.  That's because these both point to new levels of reality or ways of looking at the universe that are only about a hundred years old.  Fresh thinking brings fresh potentials for understanding.  This is a fast-changing discipline, although at any given point in time many people will give out the party line that they are pretty sure about what they know.  A hundred years from now, we'll see if that's still the case.   And while scientists continue to try and pigeonhole astrology into a 19th century view of physics (where it is bound to fail), these newer discoveries in physics are pointing the way for gaps and possibilities in the knowledge of the world that astrology might eventually squeeze into.  But this section is about physics, not astrology.
http://physics.about.com/od/physics101thebasics/u/basicconcepts.htm

Here's some more physics portals:
http://www.physics.org/

Many of these sites are very advanced.  Here's where physics insiders go to ask questions and share information:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/

Some of these sites are news aggregators:
http://physicsworld.com/

Things move quickly in the physics world.  Keep checking back:
http://physicscentral.com/

Daily:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/matter_energy/quantum_physics/

Here's Einstein's old hang:
https://www.princeton.edu/physics/

(The links to these university sites are just for fun.  There are probably very few people reading this who are in these schools.)
http://physics.berkeley.edu/
https://www.physics.harvard.edu/
http://web.mit.edu/physics/

Salman Amin Khan has been very successful and popular with his online site Khan Academy.  Plus, he's from the suburb where I went to high school!
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics


Relativity


A treasure trove of good stuff and links:
http://www.ws5.com/spacetime/

Relativity explained:
http://www.perkel.com/nerd/relativity.htm

Or:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

General Relativity:
http://www.space.com/17661-theory-general-relativity.html

But how do we know that relativity is real?
http://www.livescience.com/48922-theory-of-relativity-in-real-life.html

Modern science is complicated and specialized.  Most people can't really explain much about the theory of relativity, even though it has celebrated its 100th anniversary, and permeates popular culture.
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21679172-century-ago-albert-einstein-changed-way-humans-saw-universe-his-work


Quantum


A treasure trove of good stuff and links:
http://ws5.com/quanta/index.html

Quantum field theory for 5 year olds.  Maybe.
http://physics.about.com/od/physics101thebasics/u/basicconcepts.htm

Seven essential elements of quantum physics.  You can see here by reading the comments that many of the principles of quantum physics are not that difficult to comprehend, but when one digs even slightly below the surface...
http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2010/01/20/seven-essential-elements-of-qu/

Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Please allow me to introduce:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics

OK, here's the deal.  Even the people using quantum mechanics (and it's used for pretty much anything electronic, starting with your cellphone) don't really know what it means.  It's damned weird.  It's completely non-intuitive to our Newtonian mindset.  It will ultimately require either another theory to put it into perspective, or a level of understanding that we just haven't reached yet.  Some of the most problematic areas include entanglement, uncertainty, particle/wave duality, and the "measurement problem."  Nonetheless, that hasn't stopped more than quite a few good minds from putting their particular pony into the race.  Here's Wikipedia's list of interpretation options.  The so-called Copenhagen interpretation remains the front runner, and has the momentum of history.  There are many other possibilities, however:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

Surely there must be room for consciousness and astrology in there somewhere!

What interpretations do quantum physicists themselves prefer?
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/poll-quantum-physicists-shows-agreement-disagreement-and-something-between

And Sean Carroll's comments with a graph:
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/17/the-most-embarrassing-graph-in-modern-physics/

There are many attempts to "make quantum physics easy."  (Again, videos seem more powerful in many ways.)  You can have a crack at it with the next article, but the bottom line is: it's not easy.  It's especially not easy because it requires us to accept a whole new way of looking at the world which is completely contrary to the billiard-balls-on-a-table variety of physics (Newtonian) that we learned in school.  The following site does a pretty good job, but the rest of the articles following will not be so much concerned with teaching, but with what's going on in modern physics and cosmology, and will require some knowledge of these. 

The author below also addresses "quantum mysticism" through another page which is linked at the bottom of the main page.  Like most mainstream physicists, he derides the use of quantum principles to justify New Age type of ideas.  This is well-written and offers many needed caveats, as well as other necessary material for consideration.  Nonetheless, there have been a parade of prominent physicists through the years (including Nobel prize winners) that have questioned how and whether the new world of quantum may be tied to larger philosophical speculations.  So while it's true that there is much "quantum flapdoodle" out there, it's also true that these issues are not as settled as many physicists would have folks believe. 
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/views/qm17.htm

Let's make it easier.  Here's six things to know.  We should have started here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/07/08/six-things-everyone-should-know-about-quantum-physics/#3d23394741f8

All computers, cell phones, and other electronics are made of transistors. Here's a very brief page on one of the weirdnesses of quantum.  Along with other quantum effects, it underlies the workings of the transistor.
http://www.pbs.org/transistor/science/info/quantum.html

More quantum stuff:
http://www.livescience.com/33816-quantum-mechanics-explanation.html

The Uncertainty Principle.
Here's a great explanation.  Notice how simple Heisenberg's equation actually is.
http://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry/Quantum_Mechanics/09._The_Hydrogen_Atom/Atomic_Theory/Electrons_in_Atoms/Uncertainty_Principle

"This is perhaps the most famous equation next to E=mc2 in physics."  Truth is often simple and elegant, yet with great implications.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec14.html

Quantum vs. General Relativity

One of the most intractable controversies going on in physics and cosmology currently is the battle between quantum theory and general relativity for the primacy of which will "explain" physical reality better and lead to a "theory of everything" (TOE).  Both have been proved over and over mathematically and through experiments.  Both work, and yet they are incompatible.  Quantum explains the atomic world with great validity, and general relativity explains the macroscopic/ larger cosmic world with great validity.  But neither explains the other's world very well.  Why not?  Here's a nice article that lays out the problem:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/nov/04/relativity-quantum-mechanics-universe-physicists

And:
http://nautil.us/issue/29/scaling/will-quantum-mechanics-swallow-relativity

Why Hell can't freeze over:  "Classical" physics (of which relativity is only a modification) would allow motion to stop, the river to freeze, an object to just sit there without any energy or movement.  However, in this most interesting and simple of articles, we find that this is not possible in the quantum world.  In the quantum world, thanks to Heisenberg's wonderfully simple equations, we find that motion and energy are built into the universe.  The universe is a dynamic, humming sea of energy that is ever-changing, and has no rest..  We are definitely not in Kansas anymore!
http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/01/17/510214434/why-hell-can-t-freeze-over-quantum-physics-and-absolute-zero

Here's a scholarly site that gives an example of how quantum and relativity are different, and yet may work together.  Not ultimately (that's the subject of the articles above), but in a way that shows what both are about.  Here, the double slit may be performed in two different frames of reference.  We find that a) the experiment works the same in both, giving the same results in different frames of reference.  That's relativity.

But in the example, we also find that b) the double slit experiments themselves will yield results that are unpredictable except on a probabilistic basis, and will demonstrate varying results (wave vs. particle) depending upon observer/measurement technique.  That's quantum.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/305153/why-can-we-combine-the-special-relativity-and-quantum-mechanics

It's so tantalizing:  there's got to be a way for the two get along.  Here they are, existing side-by-side, and yet...
http://www.sciencealert.com/we-just-got-the-first-real-evidence-of-a-strange-quantum-distortion-in-empty-space

Einstein's unfinished dream:  At some point it will be finished.  The author has an appropriate caveat regarding string theory, which has been a darling for several years, but whose hopes for being a solution are currently wavering:
http://www.space.com/31156-how-do-relativity-and-the-quantum-world-coexist.html

EPR Paradox (technical version):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

The Double Slit

The double slit experiment leads directly to the heart of the strangeness of quantum mechanics, and is one of the most important and stunning experiments in the history of science:
https://www.wired.com/2014/09/double-slit-empzeal/

A bit more technical:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

In fact, the double slit experiment was rated "The most beautiful physics experiment of all time" by Physics World readers in 2002.  It's mysterious results inform all of the rest of the articles on quantum physics in this section:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00016-011-0079-0

Time

Einstein came up with the idea of time as the 4th Dimension, right?  Umm...
https://medium.com/the-nonlocal-journal/the-house-where-spacetime-began-cf2b42cbcb80#.3mb1n3ixp

But what IS time?  Turns out, time is a much more complicated concept than it seems.  In fact, much like quantum, no one really even knows what it is.  It's very important, however, and not just in the scheduling of our daily lives.  Einstein showed that time could join length, width, and height as a descriptor of the world, the vaunted "4th dimension."  We now exist not just in space, but in spacetime: we are provided more accurate coordinates.  However, modern physicists can't even agree as to whether time is "real" (in the sense of a primordial principle of the universe), or whether it is a property overlaid on more core principles, an "emergent" property of the universe.  Both gravity and time have been mentioned as possibly being properties that "emerge" from quantum mechanics.  But what did quantum mechanics emerge from?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

Sean Carroll is the big dog in the world of time:
https://www.wired.com/2010/02/what-is-time/

WHY do those damn philosophers keep gumming up my pristine calculations??
http://physicscentral.com/explore/plus/timeless.cfm

More philosophical speculations, by a philosopher: we see that physics and philosophy are much more difficult to separate than we thought.  This is in defense of a "block universe" approach; the author acknowledges that this is, however, incompatible with quantum.  Therein lies the problem.  (the link below is a tease for a (worthy) paid sign-up.  By searching for the article title, however, you will discover a pdf which may be read in full)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-time-an-illusion/

Here's a formal theory which supports a "block universe."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time

The block universe works equally well in any direction.  But why do we experience time as moving in one direction?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time

Here's some heavy thinking on the block universe thing.  It's a bit of a brain twister to try and follow him allowing the block universe to accommodate free will.  And what about that quantum probability vs certainty thing, which is accepted by most physicists?
http://archive.is/0pC8J

And more.  Here, one of the commenters (possibly) correctly asserts that only the present actually exists.  (See metaphysics and mindfulness.)
http://discovermagazine.com/2015/june/18-tomorrow-never-was

The dreaded and difficult to understand Light Cone:
http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/memory-and-time.cfm

Here's that physics question-and-answer site:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/71823/is-there-a-proof-of-existence-of-time

This physics stuff can get pretty far out there:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/feb/17/gravitys-effect-on-time-confirme

Paradigms


Paradigms are not something that most people sit  around and think about.  That includes scientists as well as lay people.  The reason is simple:  For most purposes, they are invisible.  They are thought patterns and assumptions that are so deeply ingrained within us that we are not even aware of them.  It's kind of like water to a fish or air to a bird:  they are the medium that we live our intellectual lives in.  That can, however, cause problems when our paradigms don't match reality.  Science itself may be seen as the search for new and better paradigms.  However, that doesn't mean that scientists themselves don't fall prey to being unhealthily attached to their favorite paradigms: they're human, too.  Paradigms are things such as:  Everything is connected (Eastern philosophy) or Everything is separate from everything else, but may interact (Western philosophy).  The earth is the center of the universe (pre-Copernican position) or the earth revolves around the sun, which revolves around the galaxy, which... (modern position).  Most things that are new are resisted; relativity and quantum certainly were.  The reason that it's valuable to study the idea of paradigms is simply to help us stay open-minded in our quest for the truth.  Here's a wiki article on the subject, leaning heavily on Thomas S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.  Paradigms aren't just scientific, however:  they permeate everything in our lives, from our own examinations of our selves, to our families, to our place in the world, to how the world works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm

Misc. grab bag of articles:

We haven't reached the Metaphysics section yet, but here's a taste.  In a unified reality, all of this blurs together.
http://detechter.com/6-famous-international-physicists-who-were-influenced-by-hinduism/

Can quantum phenomena apply to the macro (our scale) world, and not just at the atomic scale?
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18695/can-actual-quantum-effects-occur-on-a-macro-scale

Humans looking at the sky and wondering goes waaay back:
http://swarajyamag.com/culture/discovery-of-indias-oldest-observatory-reconnects-us-to-our-ancient-sacred-culture

A history of Quantum Mysticism (scholarly).  The author focuses on the founders, but leaves out the important era of the Fundamental Fysiks Group in the 1970s.  The subject will be back again.  In the meantime, shut up and compute!
https://phys.org/news/2009-06-quantum-mysticism-forgotten.html

Why, it's back already!  That was quick!  Interesting interview with the author of Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness:
http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org/index.php/Holos/holos-rosenblum.html

Modern physics is so cool.  There are so many wild speculations and theories, and the cool thing is that some of them pan out and become part of accepted physics.  Here's a wild one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe

The "multiverse" is one solution to the quantum measurement problem.  Plus, it's great for science fiction stories.  Here's everything you need to know about the multiverse:
http://3tags.org/article/nine-theories-of-the-multiverse-promise-everything-and-more

The strangeness of quantum has attracted some very deep minds with some very deep speculations.  None of them (unlike classical physics and relativity) have universal acceptance.  Take your pick.
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/introduction/physics/interpretation/

Here's someone that's really gung-ho for the consciousness/physics thing.  It's a review of the book Quantum Enigma mentioned above by Bruce Rosenblum.   The reviewer correctly points out that if there were something to these sorts of theories, it would by far be the most important discovery since Newton/Einstein/Quantum.  If. 
http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/quantum.enigma.html

A bit confusing version of an amazing idea:
https://narinderkw.wordpress.com/2016/10/30/matter-is-no-more-than-fluctuations-in-vacuum/

Another version:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations/

And lastly on the subject, good information from pros.  From nothing came something.  (Or more precisely, from the vacuum came matter):
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/276182/did-quantum-fluctuations-create-matter-and-energy-out-of-nothing

Here's an intriguing idea:
http://io9.gizmodo.com/an-experiment-that-might-let-us-control-events-millions-1525760859

Wheeler's delayed choice experiment.  Here, moving matter seems to know in advance which way we will direct or measure it.  What does this say about the universe or reality?  Maybe the static block idea of spacetime is correct after all.  Or maybe not.  We are in such odd, speculative territory here that we have no idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment

A simpler view of the same.  "Quantum theory is strange, but very real," says the author.  That's really strange.  (See also videos on this.)
https://briankoberlein.com/2015/06/04/real-and-unreal/

Here's the pros.  Here, the author warns "Don't trap your mind in a logical framework..."  Because the point again is this:  the quantum world works, we use it, and yet the quantum world isn't logical by our entrenched Newtonian/Einsteinian minds.  By trying to understand it according to those standards, we are entirely missing the point.  Unfortunately, we actually don't even know what the point is yet.  :(  Bummer.  Wish I could live forever to find out!
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15776/what-is-the-meaning-of-wheelers-delayed-choice-experiment

What is a particle?  What is a wave?
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/what-is-a-particle

Quantum foam:
http://io9.gizmodo.com/there-is-no-such-thing-as-emptiness-there-is-only-quan-453814024

Vacuum energy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

It's not just theoretical:
http://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-say-they-ve-managed-to-manipulate-pure-nothingness

OK, that stuff above was too easy.  Let's move on to something really odd.  Quantum's full of 'em.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect

You can stop activity in the quantum world just by observing it.  But don't take my word for it:
https://www.engadget.com/2015/10/25/scientists-prove-zeno-effect-in-quantum-physics/

If you have the time, the following goes straight to the heart of quantum mechanics.  It is the thought experiment that Einstein felt confident would get rid of quantum mechanics.  Unfortunately for him, it didn't.  He spent much of the last 20 years of his life continuing to try and disprove quantum.  The most brilliant physicist of all time, after overthrowing Newton, ultimately couldn't move beyond most of Newton's view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

On the other hand, even though the Bell experiments showed that it was mathematically impossible, there are those who still cling to the idea that hidden variables will ultimately return things to a Newtonian, classical physics plane.  Many people really don't like uncertainty, let alone entanglement.

Here's wiki's in-depth article on Bell's theorem (which relates to entanglement):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

And, here's the New York Times celebrating the 50th anniversary of Bell's ideas.  Einstein did not live to see Bell's ideas accepted and verified through tests.  It is an unresolvable but interesting speculation as to whether or not he may have changed his mind about quantum had he lived this long.  Physicists are humans, and are thus attached to their ideas and opinions just like the rest of us, but are also theoretically are more open to new information.  This information was not available in Einstein's day.  We'll never know.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/opinion/sunday/is-quantum-entanglement-real.html?_r=0

And:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/science/quantum-theory-experiment-said-to-prove-spooky-interactions.html

But there may indeed be loopholes.  The fact is, the idea of  "proof" only exists in mathematics.  It does not exist in science.  You cannot "prove" that the sun will come up tomorrow.  It's only very, very likely.  Science is always a "best answer" exploration of our world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments

There are even those who question whether one of the universe's great constants, the speed of light, will eventually be exceeded.  However, every test of Einstein and this constant shows the original concept to be correct.
http://www.livescience.com/23789-einstein-relativity-faster-than-light-travel.html

The phenomena of entanglement (see EPR above) is commonly thought of as occurring at the atomic/quantum level, not at our macro level of existence.  But do quantum processes only occur at the atomic level?  There is no theoretical reason that they couldn't occur at the macro level, but complicated mathematics describe why they are not typically seen there.  But...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-sync-on-a-quantum-level/

Things such as Heisenberg's "uncertainty principle" would have huge implications for reality (and fate vs. free will) if they were demonstrated to occur at the macro level. 
http://www.livescience.com/27137-uncertainty-principle-measured-macro-scale.html

But what about "real life"?  That calls for some deep philosophical as well as scientific thinking.
https://www.quora.com/Can-Heisenbergs-Uncertainty-Principle-be-applied-in-real-life

Unlike traditional physics, which has an "analog" character, quantum has more of a "digital" feel.  In fact, the very word quantum comes from "quanta," which was being used to describe discrete packets of energy.  Might all of reality be digital?
(again, search for pdf version of the article)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-space-digital/

Recipe for a universe.  Don't forget to add a salad:
http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/recipe-universe

Science in action!  Here's a short article about the Higgs boson (the "God Particle") that was written shortly before the Higgs was actually found and verified at CERN.  So science is: speculation, theory, and reality.
http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/03/higgs-boson-what-you-should-know/

Here's a scholarly article, now that it's moved from if-we-find-it to here it is, part of our current physics reality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

Seems like a simple question:  if I am traveling at the speed of light, can I see my reflection in a mirror?  Things aren't always what they seem, however!
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13917/reflection-at-speed-of-light

Where else but modern physics can you get away with such wild speculations as the one below?  If you came up with this stuff in the fields of consciousness, or metaphysics, or (God forbid) astrology, you'd be run out of town on a rail.  Just sayin'.  Your choice: red pill or blue pill:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/blogs/sideshow/whoa-physicists-testing-see-universe-computer-simulation-224525825.html?ref=gs

What is real?  Another teaser with pdf available through search:
https://www.google.com/search?q=whoa%3A+physicists+are+testing+to+see+if+universe+is+a+computer&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=scientific+american+august+2013+what+is+real

The 10 weirdest physics facts.  And there are a lot to choose from:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00016-011-0079-0

Wiki on quantum entanglement.  Along with superposition, this brings us into the modern world from that of classical physics.  The mystics have said that "everything is connected."  Might that be true?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Voodoo physics:
http://www.davidreneke.com/hard-science-action-at-a-distance/

Big, small.  It's all relative.
http://io9.gizmodo.com/how-einsteins-theory-of-relativity-makes-you-smaller-1220187429

And the ladder paradox:
http://io9.gizmodo.com/discover-the-ladder-paradox-relativitys-greatest-thou-1219502372

And the twin paradox:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-relativity-theor/

Do we move at the speed of light relative to light?  Yes, sort of.  It's tricky.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73973/do-we-move-at-the-speed-of-light-relative-to-light

Want to read Einstein in his very own words?  Here is the small but mighty paper that introduced the Theory of Relativity (click on link at the end of the introduction).  Even without following the math, you're standing at a moment in history:
http://io9.gizmodo.com/do-yourself-a-favor-and-read-einsteins-paper-on-special-1545377104

Back to quantum.  Does an electron in wave form have mass?  Let quantum physics pioneer deBroglie himself explain it towards the end.  He also says "These are difficult questions and to discuss them would take us too far and even to the confines of philosophy."  That damn philosophy again.  The world seems shot through with it.  Is nothing simple anymore?  Just plain old physics?  No.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/100443/does-electron-in-wave-form-have-mass

"The problem you have here, is not physical, but rather philosophical. Your reluctancy to accept quantum mechanics is based on your intuition gained from living in a "classical world."
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/113061/double-slit-experiment-and-single-particles-is-the-wave-function-just-a-mathema

What's up with physics these days?  Oh, nothing.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physicists-debate-the-many-varieties-of-nothingness/

Exotic theories such as the multiverse, string theory, and supersymmetry are glamorous and have become the darlings of physics for some, because they promise a tantalizing vision that might unite the disconnected threads.  But unless more evidence starts piling up, they will have to ultimately take their places with other promising footnotes in science.  Search for the pdf.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/supersymmetry-and-the-crisis-in-physics/

"Scientists  achieve reliable quantum teleportation for the first time."  Yes, you read that right.
https://www.cnet.com/news/scientists-achieve-reliable-quantum-teleportation-for-the-first-time/

Quantum is so weird it lends itself well to "I can top that bizarre phenomena with...".  Try this one.  In the classical world, material objects aren't able to magically find themselves on the other side of a locked door without the door opening.  But in the quantum world....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling

And:
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_quantum_uncertainty.html

It's refreshing to see comments below an article that don't have a "trollish" flavor to them.  Here's another person's attempts to tackle the quantum/Einstein issue.
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/maybe-classical-clockwork-can-explain-quantum-weirdness

Another effort that has been having a bit of a place in the sun just recently is Pilot Wave theory.  This would also turn quantum back into classical physics.  It was originally proposed by Louis de Broglie in 1927, and became a darling of David Bohm, who also put much effort into it. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave

And:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160517-pilot-wave-theory-gains-experimental-support/

And:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a24114/pilot-wave-quantum-mechanics-theory/

But:  (Doesn't mean that it's wrong... just means that no one knows yet.  Doesn't mean it's even close to being right, either.  Like all other theories, it's speculation.  When the answer emerges, it will not be speculative, but will be clear and plain for everyone to see and agree on.  Please, hurry.  The suspense is killing me!)
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/189047/flaws-of-broglie-bohm-pilot-wave-theory

OK, you guys.  Hold it right there.  What's going on here?
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18945/which-physically-acceptable-quantum-interpretations-do-not-require-the-existence

That quantum stuff is exhausting!  Let's switch gears.  How many stars are there?  The generic ballpark used to be something like 100 billion stars in our Milky Way galaxy, 100 billion galaxies in the universe.  That number seems to be expanding greatly just recently.  When the new James Webb space telescope supersedes the current Hubble telescope shortly, our knowledge will also likely be superseded.  The real answer?  Lots.
http://www.space.com/26078-how-many-stars-are-there.html

http://www.space.com/25959-how-many-stars-are-in-the-milky-way.html

http://www.space.com/25303-how-many-galaxies-are-in-the-universe.html

Are there more stars out there in the sky than all of the grains of sand on all of the beaches of earth?  Good question.  Short answer:  yes.  Wow.
http://www.universetoday.com/106725/are-there-more-grains-of-sand-than-stars/

The "standard" black hole story. 
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2014/03/black-holes/finkel-text

Stephen Hawking is the current expert on black holes, and has added much to our knowledge and speculation.  The stereotype of a black hole is that it just keeps taking in more and more matter that ventures too close, which would seem to make black holes as eternal and ever-increasing.  The current thinking, however, is that (due to quantum processes: you just can't get away from quantum) black holes not only aren't black, but that they eventually "evaporate" and disappear, although that would take a veeerrry long time.  The process is cousin to the "vacuum energy" dynamics mentioned above. 
http://www.universetoday.com/119794/how-do-black-holes-evaporate/

So maybe our universe came from a single tiny black hole.  If that were the case, then where did that black hole exist or come from?  You can go on and on with this stuff.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/08/the-black-hole-at-the-beginning-of-time-we-may-have-emerged-from-a-black-hole-in-a-higher-dimensiona.html

This hints at one of the many ways that quantum (the very small) may be involved with our universe (the very large):
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2015/06/quantum-origins-of-the-universe-seeded-the-early-galaxies-and-clusters-weekend-feature.html

Don't put your brain away yet.  Let's keep going.
http://nautil.us/issue/40/learning/how-much-more-can-we-learn-about-the-universe

Black holes, wormholes, and quantum spacetime.  Here's a teaser.  Go to the library or sign up.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/entangled-wormholes-could-pave-the-way-for-quantum-gravity/

Here's a graphic from the above article:
http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v315/n5/box/scientificamerican1116-26_BX1.html

Here's a REAL mind-blower.  Including aliens!  What it really accents is just how big our universe is:
https://qz.com/704687/there-have-probably-been-trillions-of-alien-civilizations-and-yet-we-may-still-never-see-one/

And then there's Dark Matter and Dark Energy.  You know, come to think about it, we really do have a long way to go to figure out this universe of ours.  Everything you see in the universe around you?  It's really only about 5% of what's really there.  The rest?  We just can't find it or see it or know what it is.  Even though it's right in front of us and all around us.  Sit on that for a while.
A graphic from the Scientific American article "The Puzzle of Dark Energy":  search for full pdf.  It's mysterious enough to wonder where the universe came from.  But where is it going to?
http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v314/n3/box/scientificamerican0316-38_BX1.html

Dark Matter.  Back to the library:
http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v313/n1/full/scientificamerican0715-32.html

Here's one in full from National Geographic:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/01/hidden-cosmos/ferris-text

OK, here's a chart.  See that tiny slice that says "atoms 4.6%"?  That's the part of the universe (including all of the galaxies, stars, and planets) that we can actually see.  Wow.
https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/080998/

Two amazing concepts.  One: In Einsteinian space-time, nothing can go faster than the speed of light.  But the expansion of the universe is being caused by the expansion of space itself.  Therefore, we may never even be aware of galaxies that are on the far side of the universe, because they may be moving away from us faster than the speed of light, and therefore their light will never reach us. Double Wow.  And you thought quantum was odd!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ethansiegel/2015/06/08/dark-energy-renders-97-of-the-galaxies-in-our-observable-universe-permanently-unreachable/#1d8ffeca2c2c

Not only are we not the center of the universe (hear your mom's voice here?), but our universe may not even be the center of the universe:
http://discovermagazine.com/2014/oct/18-beyond-the-outer-limits

People used to think that the earth was flat, right?
http://www.newsweek.com/even-middle-ages-people-didnt-think-earth-was-flat-420775

That universe is just too big.  Let's go back to the small.  How small?  Well, the quantum world regularly references "the Planck scale."  A proton in an atom's nucleus is about 100 million trillion times larger than the Planck length.  That small.
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-planck-scale

Things seem so solid:
https://narinderkw.wordpress.com/2016/10/01/solids-are-mostly-empty-space/

Here's a question that makes sense:  if atoms are 99.999% empty space, then why can't matter simply "pass through" other matter?  Here, we can thank our buddy Wolfgang Pauli, who discussed his dreams with Carl Jung; together they came up with the idea of synchronicity, the subject of another section.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/126512/why-doesnt-matter-pass-through-other-matter-if-atoms-are-99-999-empty-space

How to understand e=mc^2. 
And even though this is Phys.org, they have made a mistake.  The title of the article concerns general relativity, but the topic is really matter/energy equivalence, a different brilliant insight of Einstein's.  Fun illustration, though.
https://phys.org/news/2014-09-fun-einstein-theory-relativity.html

Disagreements and conflicts in physics remain strong.  The momentum of physics in recent years has been moving away from string theory, but science popularizer Brian Greene remains a fan:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/string-theory-about-unravel-180953637/

How strong must gravity be to affect time?
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/161184/how-strong-must-gravity-be-to-stretch-time

Is there another version of you in a parallel universe?  Here are some speculations working backwards from the idea, for example, that the "multiple worlds" theory creates another universe every time a measurement is made with varying possibilities.  But how would that universe have arrived at that point?  Where would it have been previously?  (There are a lot of holes as to how this might actually interface with MW theory, but it's interesting, nonetheless.)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/11/18/is-there-another-you-out-there-in-a-parallel-universe/#7a598778309e

By now, you probably need another theory of quantum mechanics.  Here you go (search for pdf):
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wave-function/

Or
https://www.outerplaces.com/science/item/10547-new-theory-claims-quantum-weirdness-only-exists-in-our-imaginations

Einstein was not the only educated person who resisted the new (while simultaneously inventing it).  Copernicus himself had more difficulty convincing others of his new ideas about the solar system than most people think.  It's hard to resist the current paradigm and "common sense," whether it's geocentrism or the the idea that matter should be fixed and stable, and not subject to quantum nonsense.  (search for pdf):
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-case-against-copernicus/

What the heck IS real?
https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/01/22/quantum-mechanics-and-scientific-realism/

If you're a Matrix fan:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

Why is it possible that consciousness may collapse the wave function?  Seems like a pretty straightforward question.  However, the answers on our expert site give a very clear view towards the state of quantum interpretations at this time:  they're a mess.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35328/why-does-observation-collapse-the-wave-function

We keep hearing that "everything is energy."  Is that true?
http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/01/q-is-it-true-that-all-matter-is-simply-condensed-energy/

Physics meets philosophy.  Eugene Wigner is only one of many physicists who were fascinated by the philosophical implications of physics, and especially quantum.  (We can also  see this in the endless fascination with Schrodinger's cat.)  Some of this stuff is pretty far out there.  But so was everything else in science when it was first introduced.  Relativity?  The earth going around the sun?  You've got to be kidding!...
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/wigner/

Physics is full of "thought experiments."  One of them is "Wigner's friend."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend

Or, if you prefer the "shut up and compute" mainstream explanation:  (It has an excellent point, however, regarding whether or not one can change quantum experiments by "staring at them."  That's something the alternative crowd needs to think about.  But nothing in science is settled, or at least shouldn't be.  So we'll see.)
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/48383/connection-between-quantum-physics-and-consciousness

Back to the problem.  This goes 'round and 'round:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/59974/does-the-observer-or-the-camera-collapse-the-wave-function-in-the-double-slit-ex

Perhaps we need a new paradigm completely.  (Ruth Kastner has her own ideas about all of this.)
http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/09/27/443899221/quantum-physics-and-the-need-for-a-new-paradigm

The oddities just keep coming.  That's why science is always in progress, and never arriving.
http://www.ibtimes.com/proton-radius-puzzle-very-real-new-experiment-confirms-2401224

"Scientism."  The belief that science is all there is, will be able to explain everything, and is infallible.  That doesn't sound very scientific.
http://disinfo.com/2016/08/scientism-called-experts/

(More articles to be added...)