The crux is that a physics of philosophy, heavy on theory, was largely replaced by a physics of "engineers in reserve" to be pumped out by universities as a necessary weapon in order to win the Cold War. Of course the weapon was fairly successful, as we saw physics pave the way for new applied engineering, computer development, and chemistry. But it's also true that the basic tenet of early-20th century theoretical physics---that of questioning the established narrative---largely disappeared in this era.
Now things are changing again, there are enough educated individuals to study every conceivable angle; there are mainstream stories in the press about special relatively potentially facing caveats like never before, etc. All in all it's an exciting time and healthy that debate is more full again.
The long established narrative in (especially American) academic physics that there is no questioning of quantum mechanics, and no use hoping for a deeper theory, is a great example of group think. Sure maybe we'll never have a deeper theory, but we should always try to find one!
Really? The narrative I've heard is that we know Relativity and QM don't go together very well and it's clear that we need something beyond the both of them to figure out how the universe works at all scales. And physicists in general seem pretty excited about any tidbit of data that might contradict one or the other, because they desperately need clues about what the non-QM/non-Relativity answer looks like. Who is out there saying that we must not look for anything beyond QM?
But things have moved on with foundations and if you read about what is called the neo-copenhagen interpretation you will find a lot of the hoopla and confusion of quantum mechanics goes away and the door is opened to even more astounding interpretational consequences.
Anyways the paper now mathematically refutes this viewpoint. It still leaves untouched another probabilistic view point that the state represents no underlying reality and that quantum mechanics is an extension of bayesian probability theory to a complex space (this is the view I think makes the most sense).
In essence the paper simply solidly codifies what most of the physicists already accepted. So not much changed.
