More precisely, the core of our current best available (but still known to be flawed) physics are QM and GR and we do not even have a consistent model fully incorporating both.
Furthermore, we can’t model anything more complicated then a hydrogen atom with QM without resorting to approximations, and by the time you get to something as complicated as bulk matter or atomic nuclei of heavy elements, we can’t even verify that the predictions of QM are what we in fact observe.
We have some plans (including a few radically different from everything we are used to—which is good) how to build a model. I wouldn’t call these plans models of anything yet, because QM and GR can help us predict the behaviour of precise tools we use, and these plans are not yet concrete enough to allow useful modelling.
More precisely, the core of our current best available (but still known to be flawed) physics are QM and GR and we do not even have a consistent model fully incorporating both.
Furthermore, we can’t model anything more complicated then a hydrogen atom with QM without resorting to approximations, and by the time you get to something as complicated as bulk matter or atomic nuclei of heavy elements, we can’t even verify that the predictions of QM are what we in fact observe.
Very true, but we can test at least some multiple-particle predictions by attempting to build a small quantum computer
From what I understand, we have more than one. We just don’t know which, if any, is correct.
We have some plans (including a few radically different from everything we are used to—which is good) how to build a model. I wouldn’t call these plans models of anything yet, because QM and GR can help us predict the behaviour of precise tools we use, and these plans are not yet concrete enough to allow useful modelling.
And some of them have so damn many free parameters that it would be hard to rule them out but they have hardly any predictive power.