Thanks for taking the time to explain.

I think I understand the difference between predictive accuracy (theorists) and measurement (experimenters). Interesting what you say about the way that theorists shoehorn the theory into the measurement.

I merely mentioned that “QM is the most accurate theory …”. This is not me making the claim, it has been stated many times. When challenged I merely posted a link. There are many links to physicists explaining in what sense QED can be claimed to be the most accurate theory. They seem satisfied, personally I wouldn’t know.

For me science is a wonder and an entertainment as I skim over the surface – in fact like most lay people.

As I said in both posts previously, I do not pretend to understand the maths, as a tax payer I have trained physicists to do that for me.

The problem, as you point out, is how much can we trust something if we do not have understanding? When I read the popular science books it is stated that the underlying theoretical explanation is mathematical and can only be approximated crudely in words.

But then we have string theory which could turn out to be a generational, mathematical wild goose chase.