Motivation

I have always been meaning to post something coherent and meaningful on one of the most beautiful and enigmatic theories of physics viz. Quantum Physics (as opposed to Quantum Mechanics since the present theory covers electrodynamic properties of matter too). I was first introduced to this topic via the Feynman Lectures, I was hooked, no doubt. Then, at some point, someone mentioned Dirac's book. I read the first two chapters and I understood, partly, the meaning of the following paraphrased words of Neils Bohr, "Anyone who is not baffled by quantum mechanics has not fully understood it!". I was completely lost, one of the main reasons being that there was no quantum analogue of a "Picture" that I could use to aid my understanding of the theory. Here was a physical theory, that explained concrete (tangible) things in real life using mathematics that was very "pure" or abstract. After reading quite a few books that popularize physics (i.e. suck out all the mathematics rendering physics incomprehensible) and those that give the reader a good training on the subject, I have come to a conclusion that classical analogues like gloves in a box, cats in boxes etc., though suitable for expositions of the superposition of quantum states, are inaccurate in describing quantum phenomena since there exist classical probabilistic theories. In other words, there might not be any need for quantum mechanics to explain classical probability. So, how far can we take such analogues?