That's the beauty of real research. There's no guarantees it'll pan out. But it's generally worth doing and spending (sometimes decades of) time exploring. Too many people have become infatuated with instant gratification. It's pervasive even in young, scientific minds. The real gratification is failing that same test 100 times until you finally land on a variation that might work. And then figuring out why it worked.
Edit: And if that success never comes, the gratification is graduating and moving on to more solvable problems, but bringing with you the scientific methods you learned along the way. Scientists might spend their whole lives working on something that won't work and that's okay. If that isn't for you, go into product dev.
How does our biology affect the limits of what we can comprehend?
But here I am in this body, and not that one, so I'm content to accept an axiom or two.
I'm not proposing that gravity is underpinned by something complex, just that if its mechanism is out of our reach then so to are any conclusions about that mechanism's complexity.
2D superconductors don't make much sense because, as the article says, theory is behind experimentation here. That's also why there is both incredible excitement, but also a worry that none of this is going to stack up to anything more than a bubble. My old Uni (Manchester) doubled down hard on the work of Geim and Novoselov by building a dedicated "Graphene Institute", after they got the Nobel Prize, but even 15 years after that award most people are still trying to figure out what does it all actually mean really? Not just in terms of the theory of physics, but how useful is this stuff, in real world usage?
It'll settle down in due course. The model will become apparent, we'll be able to explain it through a series of bouncing back between theory and experiment, as ever, and then it won't seem so strange any more.
I'm not sure that'll ever be true of quantum computing for me, but then I am getting a bit older now...