"Equations that can be evaluated numerically that shows the behavior of the EM field..." it's called the Standard Model. You seem far too hung up on the defici

"Equations that can be evaluated numerically that shows the behavior of the EM field..." it's called the Standard Model. You seem far too hung up on the deficiencies of QM, which have been well known for over half a century, so I'm not really sure the point you're trying to make. Every physicist knows that QM is incomplete so whether or not their forced conceptualization of that model agree or not is not really that interesting of a phenomenon. Also, your comparison to chemistry and biology seem misguided. Chemistry, and the periodic table, are built on our understanding of physics and the constituent particles in each atom. Furthermore, comparing the difference in conceptual descriptions of QM to "but every chemist uses the periodic table" is ridiculous. Every physicist agrees on the accepted values for known physical constants, they all agree what the known fundamental particles are, they all agree what the known fundamental forces are... etc. It seems like you're bothered by the lack of conceptual guidance from physics but that isn't the point of the field. The point is to develop models that make highly accurate predictions about the physical world, from the unimaginably small to the unimaginably large (and they're the most accurate scientific models known to man!).