The fundamental theories are good enough in that we can't find a counterexample, but they're only useful up to a certain scale before the computational power needed is infeasible. We're still hoping to find higher-level emergent theories to describe larger systems. By analogy, in principle you could use Newton's laws of motion (1685) to predict what a gas in a room is going to do, or how fluid will flow in a pipe, but in practice it's intractable and we prefer to use the higher-level language of fluid mechanics: the ideal gas law, the navier-stokes equations, etc.

Yes, for all practical purposes. This is the position of physicist Sean Carroll and probably others. We may not know what is happening in the middle of a black hole, or very close to the big bang, but here on Earth we do.

"in the specific regime covering the particles and forces that make up human beings and their environments, we have good reason to think that all of the ingredients and their dynamics are understood to extremely high precision"[0]

0: https://philpapers.org/archive/CARCAT-33

Typically whenever you look closely at an object with complex behavior, there is a system inside made of smaller, simpler objects interacting to produce the complexity.

You'd expect that at the bottom, the smallest objects would be extremely simple and would follow some single physical law.

But the smallest objects we know of still have pretty complex behavior! So there's probably another layer underneath that we don't know about yet, maybe more than one.

The point is not to make better predictions of the things we already know how to predict. The point is to determine what abstractions link the things we don't presently understand--because these abstraction tend to open many new doors in other directions. This has been the story of physics over and over: relativity, quantum theory, etc, not only answered the questions they were designed to answer but opened thousands of new doors in other directions.

The existing theories are extremely far from being good enough for practical purposes.

There exists a huge number of fundamental quantities that should be calculated from the parameters of the "standard model", but we cannot compute them, we can only measure them experimentally.

For instance, the masses and magnetic moments of the proton, of the neutron and of all other hadrons, the masses and magnetic moments of the nuclei, the energy spectra of nuclei, of atoms, of ions, of molecules, and so on.

The "standard model" can compute only things of negligible practical importance, like the statistical properties of the particle collisions that are performed at LHC.

It cannot compute anything of value for practical engineering. All semiconductor devices, lasers and any other devices where quantum physics matters are not designed using any consistent theory of quantum physics, but they are designed using models based on a great number of empirical parameters determined by measurement, for which quantum physics is only an inspiration for how the model should look like and not a base from which the model can be derived rigorously.

Maybe? We seem to be able to characterize all the stuff we have access to. That doesn't mean we couldn't say produce new and interesting materials with new knowledge. Before we knew about nuclear fission we didn't realize that we couldn't predict that anything would happen from a big chunk of uranium or the useful applications of that. New physics might be quite subtle or specific but still useful.

The theories don't answer all the questions we can ask, namely questions about how gravity behaves at the quantum scale. (These questions pop up when exploring extremely dense regions of space - the very early universe and black holes).

Classical physics was indeed "good enough for all practical purposes" as well at the time... but those didn't include electronics, nuclear power, most all basic understanding of materials, chemistry, and just a tremendous amount of things.

The point being it's not at all clear what we might be missing without these impractical little mysteries that so far are very distant from every day life.

If I have to make a guess, we are at the level of pre-copernicus in particle physics.

We are finding local maximums(induction) but the establishment cannot handle deduction.

Everything is an overly complex bandaid. At some point someone will find something elegant that can predict 70% as good, and at some point we will realize: 'Oh that's great, the sun is actually at the center of the solar system, Copernicious was slightly wrong thinking planets make circular rotations. We just needed to use ellipses!'

But with particles.

There's still huge gaps in our understanding: quantum gravity, dark matter, what happens before planck time, thermodynamics of life and many others.

Part of the problem is that building bigger colliders, telescopes, and gravitational wave detectors requires huge resources and very powerful computers to store and crunch all the data.

We're cutting research instead of funding it right now and sending our brightest researchers to Europe and China...

I think the problem is that GR and QFT are at odds with each other? (I am not quite versed in the subject and this is my high-level understanding of the “problem”)

Absolutely not. Newtonian physics was 'good enough' until we disproved it. Imagine where we would be if all we had was Newtonian physics.