posted on Aug, 13 2020 @ 04:45 AM
Thanks for the OP. In my view it isn't that modeling has an inherent problem, but rather that we've been using the wrong model for quite a while. 1905
was a very bad year, but Poincare, Mach and Hume had a lot to do with it too.
QED has been loudly advertised as being the most accurate theory ever devised. But when I looked at it long ago it merely matched experiments by
setting free parameters to match its predictions. If you dug far enough you could always find where there was some mass or length or charge that was
being set so as to make the experiments perfectly consistent with the theory. The theory was being used to define to high accuracy what the elemental
charges and masses were, as well as how coupling constants "run". Basically there were always just as many settable parameters as there were results.
When a new test came up, there would always be a new constant that needed to be set, such as some nuclear property (mass, size, charge distribution)
that affected the atomic binding energy and hence the experimental result. I don't know whether the intervening decades have actually found anything
different from that conclusion or not. I asked here some years ago and no one offered any solid counter example.