The behavior of light is known to parts per billion. Physicists have known for a century that the nature of light is not intuitive. The ability to compute the behavior at the atomic level comes from the models. In that case a "story" isn't involved and is unnecessary in light of the success of the models.
Still weaseling rather than simply admitting that science doesn't know...You said that we fully understood the NATURE of light...you can observe and note the behavior of a thing to a very high degree and not know the first thing about its fundamental nature. You said, and I quote "The nature of light is understood to an accuracy of parts per billion."
It is well known that we know next to nothing about the nature of light...photons remain theoretical particles and particle/wave remains just a place holder....a story about what might be till such time as we can actually know.
So don't tell me any more about how light behaves, or how predictable it is..that is nothing more than observation over and over...it doesn't tell you anything at all about its nature. Maybe you should grab a dictionary and look up the definitions of words like nature, behavior, fundamental, mechanism, etc.
You are always focusing on observations, and now you want a model?
Of course I don't want a model...I am pointing out that we don't know regardless of what you think. The only way to know whether a model is correct is to observe the reality that it is modeling...You speak of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models as if they were real, and I believe that you believe that they actually are real...You are clearly unable to differentiate reality from fiction.
Describing a mechanism in quantum mechanics cannot be done with English sentences.
Then it can not be done. Einstein said "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
Deferring to models, rather than simply describing how a thing happens is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to complexity. If you actually understand the fundamental mechanism of how a thing happens, and why it happens, then a model is not necessary...you can simply state what is happening and why.
You really do have a deficiency when it comes to separating reality from unreality.
If you insist on that you will always be in the dark ages of physics.
If I insist on reality rather than simply accept stories that are told in an attempt to explain things that we can't yet know? Accept the stories as true rather than wait for the truth to actually be known?
Did you ever hear the story about the emperor's new clothes...you are one of the dolts who was standing around admiring his beautiful ensemble'....I am the guy pointing out that he is parading his hairy pimply ass all about town. Given the choice, I would much rather know that he his naked than be a dupe who believes that we possess knowledge that we don't..and may never possess.
You have the meanings of words so twisted in your mind that it appears that you really are unable to know what we don't know and aren't even prepared to acknowledge that the universe of things that we don't know is orders and orders and orders of magnitude greater than what we have learned in our first scratchings of the surface of reality.
You are the sort who will accept a story as truth...and actually believe it in your mind...I am not. If you do a bit of research into the dark ages, you will learn that part of what made them dark was superstitious belief in stories told in an effort to come to terms with things they didn't understand...the enlightenment brought us out of the dark ages...it was a time when the stories were challenged and actual work was done to get to a level of truth.
When stories become accepted as truth, you are heading back towards an age of darkness. I expect the next real renaissance in science to be at least 100 years from now...maybe a bit longer. At that time, this period will be looked back on with a quaint sort of disgust.
