Physics is ultimately a physical science, and the goal is to describe and understand the physical world. Concerns about excessive abstraction are not new in physics and have been criticized and debated for decades.
I strongly emphasize that physics should be rooted in physical, intuitive concepts rather than highly abstract mathematics. I am therefore concerned with the shift from physical reality to abstract mathematics in fundamental physics, and I present my view that this shift is significant.
Relative time dilation is an example of this concern. It is a "real" or "natural" time that deviates from the concept of abstract time. I have a preprint research paper that addresses the time dilation problem and debunks it.
I strongly take the view that abstract concepts, such as virtual particles, interaction exchange theory, probability waves, curvature of spacetime, black holes, big bang, etc., are mistakenly accepted as physical reality. This concern is shared by a minority of physicists who argue for a more conservative approach to theoretical concepts, demanding a closer connection to empirical data and physical intuition.
The claim is highly plausible that physicists may be driven to adopt highly abstract and sensational models in order to gain public acceptance, leading to the introduction of absurd concepts into fundamental physics. It is true that concepts like black holes and the Big Bang have captured the public imagination and can influence the direction of research.
The tension between mathematical abstraction and physical intuition is a long-standing challenge in physics. Although mathematics is a powerful tool for modeling and understanding the physical world, it is essential for physicists to ensure that their mathematical models are based on experimental evidence and not divorced from reality.
The adoption of abstract concepts in physics often follows from their ability to explain and predict physical phenomena. Although caution is required, some abstract concepts have proven highly successful in doing so, such as the mathematical framework of quantum mechanics.
Public perception and recognition can influence the direction of research, but this is not unique to physics. Many scientific fields experience this phenomenon. The challenge is to balance communicating exciting ideas with maintaining rigorous scientific standards.
Open-mindedness is critical to collaboration and paradigm shifts within subfields. However, specialization is a natural consequence of the increasing complexity of physics, making collaboration and communication even more important.
The idea of an expert panel to evaluate research is attractive but may face challenges related to bias and the potential to slow down the publication process. It is important to ensure that such panels maintain objectivity and transparency.
The discussion raises valid concerns about the state of fundamental physics research. However, it is important to note that the scientific community constantly evaluates and evolves its theories and models. Physics remains a dynamic field, and ongoing dialogue and peer review are essential to its progress.
