>>73871643

> It's all just /theory/

What do you mean "just". You know that if someone is making an attempt at more formal science lingo it doesn't really get better than this, right?

Not that it's all in one grand theory yet, no.

> which is all based purely on math

No. A lot of it it's very strongly based on experiments and observation and so on.

It only gets more "purely theoretical based on solving maths" when you go further down the rabbit hole trying to go from where we are to a grand theory explaining everything. You get ideas like the extra dimensions in the string hypothesis. These are ideas for how the world could work, but yes, these don't have direct very telling observations yet and indeed are more in maths. Maybe these are wrong. But frankly, people in the field or interested hobbyists know this.