Remember, as "proof" for the Theory of Relativity? They said that Newton's formulas didn't explain (give a mathematical formula for) Mercury's orbit. They said that Einstein's theories explained it better. (that was to 96% accuracy)

So, up to the point of this female astronomer came up with her explanations/formulas working equal areas in equal times, in 3 dimensions, we haven't had a mathematical formula for the orbit of Mercury. Her formulas are 99.9999% accurate.

Then you go deeper and you find that we don't have formulas at all for any of the planet's orbits.
What we have is tables, based on positions calculated on repeating cycles.

What we do not have is a all encompassing formulaic explanation of where the planets are.

Right now we can't get comet returns very accurately. You would think we would, but what we have gives a 10 year window. And sometimes it doesn't show up again.

Now, what quantum physics has found is that the observer affects the observed.

So, the entire basis of the scientific method is wrong. It relies on a assumption that the observations can be made without knowing anything about the observer. And this is false.

Thus, we will have to come up with new scientific methods where we include the factors of the observer observing.

Like, the double slit experiment. When the electron is unobserved, it goes through BOTH slits (at the same time) and interferes with itself. But, when it is watched, it goes only through one slit.

And it may be that atoms do not exist, unless you are looking for atoms.