Actually that's not true. The world doesn't care whether your equations are correct or not. It is what it is. However if your equations are not correct, sooner or later you'll find a situation where your predictions do not agree with the theory. Then you might be in line for a Nobel prize, if you can come up with a theory that does predict the observed results, while still predicting earlier results that did not conflict with the "old" theory.
In the case of the quantum weirdness experiments they are doing with spin, it does. What they do is they isolate a particular spin probability that they are interested in measuring. They calculate what that probability ought to be based on quantum mechanics. Then they calculate what it ought to be based on Einstein's conjetures (and by the way, they never asked Einstein what he thought it ought to be because he had been dead for decades!).
Then they do their experiment to determine what the actual statistical probability is. The problem is that they can't measure the actual statistical probability even with their ingenius experiments because of the uncertainty principle. They can only make their own conjecture of what it is by measuring certain other statistics with different particles, and then backing into the result by applying the quantum equations to calculate what the probability must be, based upon those quantum mechanical equations. But if their theory is wrong to begin with, then what right do they have to do that?