Indeed, and the Schrodinger equation is well behind Quantum Field Theory (the most modern quantum theory).
In QFT, particles can be interpreted to not exist, only fields -- particles are just a fuzzy (imperfect) abstraction of "field excitations". Particles may exist in the path-integral formulation of QM however. But it known among physicists that particles or fields don't define what is real -- what it matters is that the models predict observations. It is irrelevant which model is 'true' -- if they give equivalent results, both can be said to be [indistinguishably] correct (in their relevant domain). The examples go back a long way too, e.g. with the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulations of classical mechanics (wildly different but compatible mathematical formulations) -- so the 'model paradigm' has been known to physicists for a while.
I think in physics 'truth' is understood to be a (possibly non-unique) model that in principle would provide an exact prediction under ideal conditions, for a limited experiment. In our reality the ideal conditions are never going to be met. For example, we cannot ensure that a system has every atom in a certain position before performing an experiment (in fact the known quantum principles of physics themselves would contradict this); we might in theory know of a generalized state of a system (quantum superposition), but even then there are too many other assumptions (about experimental devices, about the individuals reading the experiments, about science as a whole) that go into the experimental paradigm.
I still find truth (as given) a useful concept, as a metaphysical principle that reality exists and has some working real mechanism (defined as being mathematically describable) -- we may never we able to write it down or discover it entirely, but it exists. Try to imagine an universe that is indescribable in principle (yields contradiction). There must be a rule.
It also sets the standard for our models.
https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.ht...