Quantum physics PhD here. It's because, we don't know. We don't have an ontology for quantum mechanics. We don't know what any of the mathematical model "actually is"
It's the same for basically all modern physics. We lack an ontology for it, so no we can't tell you "what it really is". Literally no one knows
But yes, the mathematical model is: a unit of excitation of the quantum field. What that actually is, is totally unknown
I think such attempts are not widely disseminated / taught to young physicists because older / more experienced ones believe that quantum gravity will re-write the situation anyway. { QG itself seems necessary since in General Relativity you "solve for the metric aka solve for time" and that very same "time" is the background for QFT. So, we don't really understand this model element we call "time" - so elemental to all our ideas of dynamics - without QG. Of course, the most direct quantum gravitational phenomena are at, at present, a subtle experimental scales due to the size of 'G'. This need not remain the case -- once we know what to look for - e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_lines were beginning to reveal atomic quantum physics a full century+ before Planck and barely after Benjamin Franklin-ian electrostatics and long before Maxwellian electrodynamics. }
I'm mostly just trying to strike a less hopeless note for jiggawatts and provide some reading material which might be accessible (if, as noted, probably necessarily preliminary).
The two theorems apply to logical systems which prove facts about the natural numbers. While this is an incredibly broad class of things, it doesn't include physical theories like quantum mechanics.
This is a completely unjustified insinuation against physics and physicists. While there may be a few exceptions in the form of certain individuals, in general, nothing is being held back, and if the answers are not satisfactory, it is because no satisfactory answer has yet been found. I have found physicists usually eager to a fault to talk about physics.
To make sense of it requires some work on your part, of course, but it would be utterly unreasonable to fault physicists for being unable to put everything they collectively know in terms that are immediately clear to everyone whose education on the topic ended at high school.
You're being somewhat unfairly downvoted because "now draw the rest of the fucking owl" is a huge problem in modern physics. All too often it turns out that the person teaching owl drawing has never seen an owl, has no idea how to draw any animal, but can explain at length the differences between the various pencil types.
For example, I've never seen a satisfactory definition of what a particle is as defined by modern field theory.
Either you get a hand-wavey "it's an excitement of the field" with zero elaboration, or they talk only about the secondary properties of the particles such as their symmetries.
Imagine explaining cars in one of only two ways, and flat refusing to ever describe them in any other terms:
1. Cars are personal automobiles with three or more wheels.
2. Cars are largely left-right symmetric objects that can fit into a tunnel but not through a sieve. When set into motion they have a decreased longitudinal resistance compared to lateral. If two cars are smashed together a loud siren noise can often be briefly heard after a delay of a few minutes.
Now you know what a car is!