In any case, what exactly are these more accurate predictions about the world that pop-physics enables you to make? I would be very curious to hear some examples.

• I will never get a ping time to American servers from my home here in Melbourne of less than the distance times two divided by c.

• If I drop a really heavy rock and a somewhat lighter rock from a moderate height there will be only a slight difference in how long they take to fall to the ground.

• If I find some stuff that is really, really heavy and leave it in my pocket I will probably die of cancer.

• Cars traveling towards me will sound slightly higher in pitch than after they go past me.

• If I buy bullets that are designed to travel slower than sound they will probably make less noise than the bullets that go faster than the speed of sound.

• If you give me some charts that show how much light of various wavelengths there is coming from two different stars and it so happens that they look really, really similar except that one is kind of 'stretched out' over the 'wavelength' axis I can tell you that the stretched out one is farther away from us.

And, the critical one:

• If I make a bet with someone that a survey done ten years from now of prominent physicists fewer will declare affiliation with the Copenhagen Interpretation than if an equivalent survey was done today then I am more likely to make money than to lose money.

You might believe that my lack of status as a mathematical physicist doesn't give me the right to make claims about Quantum Mechanics implications but the universe doesn't care. I can apply basic principles of rational thinking to filter large swathes of evidence from those who popularize physics and, particularly, the verbal, non-mathematical claims of physicists in order to work out whether or not a specific claim is likely to be correct.