Would Einstein buy into quantum physics as it is taught today?

Carver Mead, Cramer, De Broglie–Bohm all proved Einstein was not wrong, and we have no justification to think God play's dice. John Bell agreed and so did Schrodinger who remarked that his equation was deterministic on its very face.  His example of the cat was merely to show how ridiculous the Copenhagen interpretation was.  As mead said, we are not seeing a fuzzy quantum through clear glasses, but a clear quantum through fuzzy glasses.

In my view Einstein would never come around to accepting the notion of intrinsic uncertainty.  It is unscientific and unnecessary.  Anything can be proven with statistics.  For example when Einstein presented the mechanism of the laser to settle the issue of determinism, Bohr and Heisenberg swore it could never work until after it was demonstrated when they showed how certainty was caused by uncertainty.

Einstein would never in my view accept a timeless model of the universe as it was obvious to him that there was an immutable ordering of local event all observers agree on and those events, and only those events, determine the future deterministically.

Einstein's error was taking this notion of local causality one step too far or not far enough depending on your perspective.  In our participatory universe events are bi-causal, not cause and effect.  Causation is bi-local not non-local.

If you consider Einstein's own relativity and a near light speed observer traveling with a particle, as light speed is approached, distance and time go to zero making the event local to that observer, in the same place, at the same time, preserving Einstein's insistence on local causality despite the fact that the interaction occurred across light years from our perspective.  The fact remains that there is a viable reference frame where the event can be considered local causality and unless there is such a frame, there can be no spooky action.

With respect to many worlds, Einstein was only interested in our world.  The quantum exhibits universal general purpose logic where anything logically possible is possible.  It is "Law without law".  The strange thing is that it is possibilities that exhibit potential, not anything having substance.  We get "It from Bit".  As Smolin remarked, it is not many worlds, but many observers.  Entanglements are logical possibilities, not anything physical.  Lloyd remarked that a quantum computation takes place with perfect precision as if the rest of the universe was not there.  It is the available information that determines what can happen independent of any God's eye view of consistency.   As Feynman said the quantum can be understood as computing.  And it computes only with information (entanglements) available in a locality.

The ideal isolated worlds of Schrodinger and his cat would compute independently as if the other was not there until the box is opened.  Time would progress independently in the two worlds while the box was closed as there would be no mutual clocking of events between them.

I say we are teaching our children an archaic model of the quantum formed before Shannon's theory of communication and if we consider it to be an information universe there is nothing strange about it at all, it is quite logical, and the only way it makes sense for it to be as described by Lao-Tzu 2600 years before Planck and Einstein, the true founders of the quantum physics that is emerging picture of our inflationary information universe not bound to any substance.

I am certain Einstein would never buy into the popular notions of quantum physics today.

Jim