I am a physicist.I have a bachelors degree. I'm taking a few years off before grad school to earn some money. I am first author on a quantum theory paper, and I've taken several courses on quantum mechanics. While I wouldn't be comfortable calling myself an expert, I do know a bit more about quantum mechanics than your average physics graduate, and certainly more than a layperson. Now, this is the internet, so you can choose not to believe me, but that's my physics background.
Now, as for quantum mechanics: perhaps the term "mathematical formulation" is not one that you are familiar with, but whether there are 9 or 12 or however many, those are all mathematical tools that describe the same reality. This is actually really cool if you do the math out to prove that they all work. They are all pretty much outlined here if you want to learn about them. The linked paper stresses that all of the produce the exact same experimental results. As far as I know, no one is really working on the problem of which one is "real" or not, because since they all produce the same results there is no way to design an experiment to test one over the other.
If that isn't satisfying to you, and you think that there are "different realities" because people can describe reality is different ways, you should know that the idea of a "true" theory is passe in physics. Outside quantum mechanics, the common theories often do not even completely describe the behavior of systems, so much as they provide good approximations:for example, the BCS theory of superconductivity seems very intuitive but doesn't predict any of the high temperature superconductors produced in the last thirty years. General models of liquids and solids can accurately predict behaviors like thermal conductivity or heat capacity, but often only to within one order of magnitude. Mean field theories work pretty well, but aren't shy about being approximations, as are Ising models. We're in the business of modeling reality and making testable predictions, not really pursuing "what is the fundamental nature of the universe" anymore. Even Stephen Hawking talks about "model-dependent" reality, not a theory of everything.
About cold fusion, you should probably give up hope. Again, I'm not sure how you got it into your head that cold fusion was somehow suppressed, Fleischmann and Pons had anomalous results, Toyota gave them an initial $40 million, and they couldn't even replicate the results that they got in a controlled setting. The reason "hot" fusion has had so much more money contributed to it is because it actually works. We've had working hot fusion reactors for decades, you can even build one in your garage for about $2000, but we just haven't made them self-sustaining (energy-positive) yet. But we have gotten a lot closer to energy positive. On the other hand, Fleischmann and Pons failed to produce any sort of reactor at all. As for the wired article, calling low energy neutron reactions "cold fusion" is misleading or inaccurate, and though the article is three years old, the claimed device hasn't panned out. Also, the supposed inventor (Rossi) is a convicted conman, so I wouldn't really place any bets on him.
Argument from authority is probably one of the most frequently misapplied and misunderstood logical fallacies. All it actually says is that you can't say something is definitely true just because of who said it. It's more of a reminder that something still might be false, even if it came from a "reliable" source, and that legitimate objections to an argument should not be disregarded based on . You have over-extended it if you think that this means that we should not preferentially trust reputable sources.