To understand it better, I put two very easy definitions.

"Real physics is the one that the Cosmos builds structures and manages.
For that the Cosmos uses its basic elements (space, time, energy, etc.) join and directed by its multiple basics physics laws.
That is, all is natural and existent, and not dependent of us the humans."

"Virtual physics is eminently human, created and designed by humans without being subject to any of the physical laws of the Cosmos.
That is to say, when we act with elements and laws that do not exist in the Cosmos".
So, virtual physics exists in our minds, but not in the real world.

Real physics

To study the real physics we must to use the observation mainly, in such a way that what is not observed nor proven is not given as secure, neither as true science.
This type of physics is hard to discovery due to it is necessary many observations, proofs, etc.

Virtual physics

The virtual physics seems to be an "appetizing fruit" because in this field we not need of the necessary rigor and here we can invent any type of structuring because we choice the physical elements that we want, and later we also put the structural laws that we also invent.
The unique difficult here is that we need apply these laws very far from us where people can't reach personally, because in this case people would see clearly that all this is false.

That is, we can make virtual physics at the speed of light, in the microcosm, in the large macrocosm etc., but not in our level of dimension, of space, time.

For example, Einstein said that space and time change at the speed of light, when any analysis seems to tell us otherwise.
Say, space and time are real physical elements, while speed of light is a ratio between them.
This case, we shouldn't say that if we divide candies among children, the ratio can change candies or children, in such a way that when the ratio increases then children and candies go being each time smaller.
But when we can't travel at speed of light, this theory can be accepted. Of course, as virtual theory.

The same occur with virtual particles that can be in two places at the same time.
If this were certain then each particle will have mass, matter, charge, momentum, etc., that is, really they should be two particles, but not one.

In the same way, the laws of the quantum mechanics that we say they govern the microcosm are composed of multiples laws, elements, parameters, etc., all they invented by us, to explain the mysteries that the microcosm has.

Other example of virtual physics can be the Schrodinger cat, which tries to make us believe that the cat can be alive and dead at the same time; question that can be solved if we put a transparent box.
However, with the transparent box (or the double-slit experiment) we come to a rather surprising and inadmissible conclusion: our observation is what makes physics real and consistent.
But the QM is so ingrained and embedded in our minds that, although surprised and confused, at the end we accept that it must be true because of the quantum mechanics says this way.

Certainly we must to recognize that the quantum mechanics is authentically seductive and satisfying for any scientist because the QM gives solution to anything, although this solution would be virtual or imaginary and not real nor correct.
The reason is simple; when we invent all the laws and elements we can invent and emit any new element or law that explains mentally the needed explanation.
For example,
If we treat the Potential barriers, and the pass of particles appear through this barrier, then we invent quantum tunnel, the potential wells, etc., those which allows the pass of particles.
If we see that particles have different behaviors, then we invent the spins, the azimuthal quantum number, the magnetic quantum number, etc.
If it is necessary we explain this event saying that a particle passes the barrier is due to the collapse of waves, etc.
So, with our laws, elements and concepts we can explain anything: For a new question we invent a new element, concept or law; inclusive a new formula to feel us more satisfy and secure.

If any person doesn't understand these laws, concepts, etc., then the response is also very intelligent: "The QM is so magnificent and wonderful that exceeds and goes beyond the human intelligence".

The unique problem here is that it is necessary of eliminating all the knowledge till now obtained, expressing the hard and incontestable phrase of: "No, at atomic level the classical physics doesn't work, but the laws of Quantum Mechanics". That is, our human laws.
Perhaps after all it could be wonderful dominate the world of the physics with our mind, even if we fool ourselves.

So the solution is to abandon quantum mechanics?
No, of course, quantum mechanics is interesting because on the good side we try to explain many observations.
But only a good result will be achieved when the quantum laws are unified with the classical laws at all the Cosmos levels.
By then probably many quantum defects will have been discarded.

Now, at first sight, it may seem very difficult for us to observe, study and understand physical behavior at the atomic or microcosm level, but this is not really this way.
The question is very simple, when acting the Cosmos with equal elements and laws to any level, already being at atomic or stellar level, we can study these levels observing the microcosm or atoms from the exterior, and observing the macrocosm or stars from its interior.

- Exterior observation of atoms:
With it, we see the atomic properties of atoms as the magnetic fields, electric charges, structuring of molecules like diatomic molecules, three-atomic molecules, etc. that could be also applied to stars, discovering this way many properties in stars that now we can't observe from the interior.

- Interior observation of stars:
With it, we see the interior properties and elements of stars, as can be planets (electron, muon, tau, in atoms); satellites of planets or moons (neutrinos in atoms); meteorites (multitude of particles in atoms); gravity fields (also existent in atoms), etc.
More extensively, we can unify galaxies with cosmic rays of high energy and photos, etc.)

Joining both points of view and observations, we can mount an unified physics theory that explain very well the cosmic structuring, in such a way that, what can't be observed in atoms, can be observed in stars, and vice versa; what can't be observed in stars, it can be observed in atoms.

Of course and logically, I recommend my atomic and stellar model that goes on that way.