The experiment confirms the specific prediction made by the equation for this particular set of circumstances. That's good, that's useful, but it doesn't prove

The experiment confirms the specific prediction made by the equation for this particular set of circumstances. That's good, that's useful, but it doesn't prove that the predictions made by the equations under other circumstances will be confirmed, nor does it prove the equations that made the prediction, nor does it prove the model that generated the equations. Those are generalizations that require additional assumptions not tested by the experiment. That's just a limitation of empirical methods. People (including myself) get in a bugabear about the use of the word "prove" because it implies a finality of knowledge which is not true of the experiment, and in fact counter to the spirit of the scientific method. The equations are supported by the experiment, but that support still admits the possibility of better equations later ("better" having many possibilities). The ideas confirmed by this experiment as still subject to revision and review and modification and improvement, hence the disagreement with calling them "proven."