While asserting a philosophic dimension to physics enhances the realm of the former, this does nothing for the later, and worse.

The neutrino is a – historic – fudge to cover a book-keeping discrepancy. Energy-balance equations of our earliest reactors (and on) were noticed not-to-balance (still don’t).

Eggs and apples are quantized. If you don’t have access to the ‘thing’, Dozen and Neo’s shield become magic gods.
===

It’s an intellectual/cultural matter not intrinsic to the matter of physics, and the phenomena are not confined to physics.

It appears to emanate from mathematics, which is the Queen, but which neither spins nor toils, in & of itself. [Arabic authors, once Medieval Europe noticed they had preserved Classical books, engaged in advanced crypto-gab … and ‘making things hard’ for the reader has similarly arisen in numerous other cultures. What has happened in Western hard-sciences is neither unique nor new.]

Around 1980, my bother needed Top Gun math, as he prepared to abandon Archaeology and become an Air Force pilot. As I complained about the obtuseness of my math texts, he nodded & pronounced, “It’s the “I’ve got a secret” problem”.

I suspect that brother acquired this phrase from his professor(s). A person having a problem getting past the baffle-gab of math/physics texts can do themselves a huge favor, by excavating texts from up into the 1930s. The Gutenberg Books project is a handy source.

You can also see through the King’s Clothes, by coding ‘magic’ math – such as complex numbers or quantum book keeping – by programming little routines in BASIC etc. Trouble with the square root of negative one or atomic/molecular electron levels flees like the dew before the morning sun, with a few lines of distinctly sub-genius Code.

The Computer doesn’t speak baffle-gab … unless someone is putting words in its mouth.

Don’t ever ask a physicist why they can’t solve Newton’s Three Body problem. Their minds may just explode due to cognitive dissonance due to mathematical contradictions.

I suspect when that happens, as with most new paradigms, everyone will say, “why didn’t we see that before??”

No what they usually say is the same thing physicsg said to me: get an education so you can understand these things.

One cannot lead humanity on the vanguard of experimental data, by merely rehashing the theories of the previous generations but that is exactly what is indoctrinated and taught in Orthodox scientific consensus aka Education.

When general Education told Ohm to get an education because he didn’t understand what electricity was with his Ohm’s Law theories and math… this wasn’t because they peer reviewed his math and founding it lacking. The math checked out. If the math checks out and it is consistent with experimental data, then the theories of Educated Science would have to be wrong. Science is never wrong, even if you disbelieve it, so Ohm must be an ill educated crackpot, q e d.

Not something classical physicists like to talk about, as it disfavors their careers and favors the new quantum physicists. People have known about quantum physics contradictions with classical mechanics since Albert Einstein. It has taken this long for the Old Guard to die off in 3 generations.

What classical physicists don’t like about quantum phenomenon is that it assumes that human consciousness and perception affects matter and energy. This is Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle taken to the next level.

In other words, this would unify science with magic, spiritualism with matter, and be a whole lot of “crazy”.

I was interested in the statement above that GR and QM each explain a lot but can’t be reconciled with each other. When the genius comes along who can do it, in a few years after that another conundrum will appear which no one can explain.

That genius already came along. Nikola Tesla already demonstrated why General Relativity is wrong. GR doesn’t need to be reconciled, since when it is wrong, one can just throw it out.

There are hints of this in everyday life, especially in the form of concepts and math that describe our world, but which themselves have no mass. Nevertheless, those ideas may underlie and influence the existence of what they describe.

Moreover, an observer effect appears to influence matter at the quantum level without the use of a detectable force, similar to the lack of any detectable force in play for entangled particles (aka quantum entanglement).

Regarding your comment at 12:22, it seems we are making the same point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark

He’s a wild man! His theory, or one of them, is that the universe is nothing but mathematics. You and I are vast, complex mathematical objects existing within an even vaster mathematical object.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Mathematical_Universe

Mommy, I want to go home!

QM is expressed in mathematics. Hideki Yukawa predicted the existence of mesons based on the math in 1935. Twelve years later physicists caught physical evidence of mesons using super-long exposures on special photographic emulsions high up in mountains.

No one has caught strings in a physical experiment and they are not likely to in this century or maybe ever. Strings are the size of Planck’s constant and therefore absurdly tiny. As Brian Greene explains in this one-minute video, if you enlarged an atom to the size of the universe, that factor would only enlarge a string to the size of a tree:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwvOEAwxomY

Oh, frabjous day! when that happens!

Logic implies at some point it all HAS to be purely mathematics. Whether it’s the Planck’s constant, or some other barrier, there are physical limits. Beyond those it will have to be theories and the theory, or set of theories that explains all we observe, all the time, will, hopefully, also be a mathematical model that reflects what is really going on, as well as describing what is really going on.

http://humstatic.uchicago.edu/philosophy/elucidations/Salmieri_AynRandsMoralPhilosophy.mp3 )