I Is formal QM correct in its entirety?

[entropy1]

Can we tell, given the ample accuracy of formal quantum mechanics, that the (formal) theory is correct in its entirety?

 

[Morbert]

We are very highly confident that it is correct within its domain of application.

 

[physika]

Can we tell, given the ample accuracy of formal quantum mechanics, that the (formal) theory is correct in its entirety?

Which acception ?

1: conforming to an approved or conventional standard.
2: conforming to or agreeing with fact, logic, or known truth.
3: conforming to a set.
4: conforming to the strict requirements of a specific ideology or set of beliefs.

.

 

[PeterDonis]

Can we tell, given the ample accuracy of formal quantum mechanics, that the (formal) theory is correct in its entirety?

You can never tell that about any scientific theory. Scientific theories are always subject to revision as more evidence comes in.

 

[entropy1]

You can never tell that about any scientific theory. Scientific theories are always subject to revision as more evidence comes in.

But that would require different experimental outcomes than thusfar measured, right? Either different outcomes of the same experiments, or new outcomes made by experiments not yet done (but that is trivial). But new outcomes of experiments not yet done probably won't be in disagreement with experiments already done, right?

 

[PeterDonis]

that would require different experimental outcomes than thusfar measured, right?

Not necessarily. New evidence can be from experimental regimes that have not previously been tested, but which suggest the presence of new physical factors that are not included in current theories. That's how QM itself got started, after all--experiments probing new regimes in the late 19th and early 20th century uncovered physical factors that were not included in classical physics.

 

[entropy1]

Not necessarily. New evidence can be from experimental regimes that have not previously been tested, but which suggest the presence of new physical factors that are not included in current theories. That's how QM itself got started, after all--experiments probing new regimes in the late 19th and early 20th century uncovered physical factors that were not included in classical physics.

But that would require different experimental outcomes than thusfar measured, right? Either different outcomes of the same experiments, or new outcomes made by experiments not yet done (but that is trivial). But new outcomes of experiments not yet done probably won't be in disagreement with experiments already done, right?

 

[PeterDonis]

that would require different experimental outcomes than thusfar measured, right?

Not "different", just "new". If we do experiments in a regime where we've never done experiments before, then the results can't be "different" from anything because there's nothing to compare them to.

new outcomes of experiments not yet done probably won't be in disagreement with experiments already done, right?

New outcomes of experiments in a regime where we've never done experiments before can't either agree or disagree with experiments already done, because there's no way to compare them--they're in different experimental regimes.