Is contemporary physics interpreted in an instrumentalist way? I'm a master student in theoretical physics and the reason why I choose this career is far more related to the "philosophical beauty" of physics, than to my personal ability or skills.
This, in some way, can justify my question... that I hope won't be too much off-topic.
According to what I heard from my professors and to what I read (a little), after the “assumption” of the Copenhagen interpretation, the common point of view of physicists went mainly toward the instrumentalism side, well summarized in the Bohr's quote:
"There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature..."
Anyway, many physicists seemed to be undecided between instrumentalism and realism (e.g. Einstein had a much more realist conception of the world).
Now, as a student in physics (and not in philosophy), when I'm studying physics I almost never think about whether I'm using a realist or an instrumentalist interpretation; nevertheless, when I’m trying to understand or explain, is much more effective to think about "real" electrons, protons, fields, etc.
The problem in modern physics is that we are dealing with things that are not directly related  to our senses, and I think that in the connection between an experiment and the tangible result something about the interpretation can maybe be lost.
My question is, since I don't know anything about the contemporary debate in epistemology (and even if I would, the official philosophical position is not the effective thought of the physicists), which are the actual feelings of physicists/professors/researchers (or whatever you are) about this?
Is it just mathematical models or there is something that we can call real?
I don't know if this issue will appear a bit obsolete and my question too unclear, anyway, please, enlighten me.
 A: 
"There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature..."

It is good to focus on what you can say, and to be able to tell the difference between what you say about information you gain as compared to a story about things that happen when you aren't looking.

Now, as a student in physics (and not in philosophy), when I'm studying physics I almost never think about whether I'm using a realist or an instrumentalist interpretation;

Yes you do. The fact that getting the z component of spin first, then the x component second, and then finally getting a z component again can yield different values for the two z component when it can't if you first get the z component of spin, then the z component again and then finally get the x component. This means that getting the x component literally changed the state from one that always gives a certain particular z component into a new state, in particular, changes it into a state that doesn't always give that same particular z component.  The fact that you keep in mind that order matters means you know these interactions create states rather than revealing preexisting properties.
And if you are ignoring that, you are going to get wrong results.

nevertheless, when I’m trying to understand or explain, is much more effective to think about "real" electrons, protons, fields, etc.

You can think about wavefunctions pretty well, since they are designed to be mathematical analogs of your knowledge of the system.

The problem in modern physics is that we are dealing with things that are not directly related  to our senses, 

That's not true. You can make macroscopically large quantum systems, the fact is that we started to use the word measurement for things that don't commute so you have only two options. Option one is to go all instrumentalist and positivist to avoid assigning any reality to pretty much anything. The other option is to stop using the word measurement and just be honest about the fact that these are interactions that change things.
And most people do a little of both rather than going completely with one option or the other.

and I think that in the connection between an experiment and the tangible result something about the interpretation can maybe be lost.

I don't know anyone that would agree with you. An interpretation is ultimately about the tangible results. And how that is or isn't connected to some formalism.

Is it just mathematical models or there is something that we can call real?

There is more than math, there is a world. But most scientists aren't concerned whether something gets the label real or not, as long as your real predictions agree with your real observations that's where the word real matters.
