Are our scientific models for everything absolute?

We know very well how reality functions on a macroscopic scale and we know very little on how it functions on the smallest of scales.

>>8936835
That's odd; you'd think so much uncertainty (pun not intended) on a quantum and below scale would make for very big discrepancies in macroscopic scale projections.

>>8936893
the classic analogy is like rolling a dice

roll 6*10^30 dices (die?) and you're going to get 10^30 1's, to many decimal places -- if this was something in the real world that you were measuring, it's going to be close enough to 10^30 that your sensors aren't going to be able to tell the difference.

Meanwhile, roll a dice once, and try predicting what you're going to get, or why you got it. Absurdly complicated.

All the "quantum fluctuations" effectively end up cancelling each other out on macro scales due to law of large numbers

>>8936910
Oh, that's pretty interesting.

>>8936832
You read wrong. String theory is a candidate for such a theory and it's been the top interest in theoretical physics for the past 30 years

>>8937182
It's been an interest but I didn't think it's been verified yet.

Also does it propose solutions to the list of (wikipedia provided anyway) unsolved problems in physics?

>>8937236
It predicts everything that can be predicted about (not only) our universe. It has been verified to the same extent QM and relativity has been verified. As for string-exclusive things like susy, there's not much of a chance these will be verified anytime soon- the phenomenology is severely lagging behind theory.

>>8937254
I unfortunately can't find anything via normiesearching that states it's been verified to the extent of relativity.

>>8937353
It agrees exactly with relativity. Thus it is verified to this extent. It agrees with QM, thus it is verified to this extent. It makes new predictions at near Planck scale, we'll have to wait for result of these, but the hopes are high :^)

>>8936832
We have gotten to the point where technology can now make new nature, knock on the universes boundaries and even tear it apart to see what lies beyond.

Welcome to 2017.

>>8937361
That's very interesting but I don't know enough to have a strong opinion on either.

>>8937367
That sounds like a lot of sensational posturing; the closest I can think of any of those being remotely true is "creating new nature" via particle accelerators and that's still more re configuring existing nature at an extreme energy cost. AFAIK we are nowhere near having to rewrite our laws of physics or seeing "what lies beyond" the universe.