What is the Problem with Stochastic Electrodynamics

i posted a thread a little while ago called ‘i will now coherently explain quantum mechanics’ and all i basically said was that the fully unexplained randomness of quantum mechanics could be explained by including the presence of the random zero point field in the pictures of atoms. i dont know what use you could get out of saying ‘its random because random zpf particles are messing with it’ but i think that would be better than ‘quantum mechanics is random because that shit is crazy’

so im reading the link tminion gave me on his first post in ‘shadow gravity’ and its all about the ideas that have sprouted out of new revelations regarding the zero point field. most notably, the orbit of the electron used to not make any sense. it was thought that it would shoot out its energy and fly out of orbit or into the nucleus, something like that. the zpf helps it make sense because it refuels the energy that the electron spits out so that it has the right amount to stay in orbit.

apparently there are other things that make more sense when you include the zpf, and it was said that if the scientists who came up with QM knew about the ZPF when they started, QM would look a lot different and more coherent. so they started a new deal and called it Stochastic Electrodynamics, the coolest sounding couple of words i remember hearing in the world of physics.

but i remember hearing some time before that this system isnt perfect, and QM is perhaps even preferable in some ways? extremely smart physicists who actually know something: what is its problem? tminions website says
"There are also some notable failures in SED, such as transparent derivation of something as simple as Schrodinger’s equation, which turns out as yet to be an intractable problem. Therefore, it is unlikely that quantum theory as we have come to know it and love it will be entirely replaced by a refurbished classical theory in the near future. "

i hate shrodingers stupid cat. i dont care if i see the cat, hes alive for christs sake, and if hes not, give him an autopsy and you can find out when he died. so what does “transparent derivation” mean? whats the problem with stochastic dynamics and shrodingers cat? whats any problem with it?

(if youre curious, shrodingers cat is what a guy said to explain the craziness of QM. theres a cat trapped in a box, and the door is rigged with a shotgun so that when you open it, it shoots the cat. whether or not the cat is alive, when you look at him, his state changes to dead. so therefore, for all intents an purposes, he is always dead, or he is both dead and alive. something annoying like that)

heres a fun exercise: what is something crazy that quantum mechanics says and lets find a completely ignorant and amusing way to describe it. for example, ‘in the H-bar’, you can jump through a wall if youre lucky. i would picture a writhing mass of ping pong balls covering the surface of a sphere. they are the zpf photons of a 2d universe curved around a 3d sphere, just like ours is a 3d universe curved around in the 4th dimension (or so i assume). when the ping pong balls bounce around, they can bounce up off the surface. when you have a macroscopic object looking at the ping pong balls, he can only see them when they are touching the surface.

so, something so crazy and unintuitive as jumping through a wall makes complete easy sense when exaplined like this. is this completely plausible? and more importantly what are some other quantum phenomena that seem to defy all reason

SED is incomplete, so it’s too early to tell if it will be a complete theory. As of now it does not adaquately explain barrier tunneling, and the diffraction effects seen even with single photons…

Schroedinger’s equations essentially says that particles don’t exist as little grains, but as a probability wave function, and when we detect the particle, it “appears” in a random location. Single photons repeatedly shot through a double slit will recreate the diffraction pattern seen when you shine a laser through those same slits. The best (most accurate) explantion is that the probability wave of each photon is diffracting, and when the wave hits the detection surface, it collapses into a point.

SED doesn’t yet explain that (as far as i know), so it is not yet accepted.