That it's not being taught systematically everywhere and people don't get the opportunity to learn it.

So before making pronouncements about it, it would be a good idea to study it. There are many lecture notes available online.

There's no such thing as ``Modern Physics'', however, just ``Physics''. That's different from the ``History of Physics''. The problem is that students that do not study for a degree in physics only learn a small fraction of physics, but think that's all. They're wrong.

So it would be useful to learn beyond introductory physics. For instance,

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/8-325-relativistic-quantum-field-theory-iii-spring-2003/pages/lecture-notes/ and the previous installments.

Nicolis,

I mostly agree with what you say.

What I meant with the Weaknesses is the that the inherentbvagueness in physics (see for example Khiari, '12) are also manifest or reproduced in phycisists perception of physics goals and inner awareness of what they are actually doing and why at a deeper level... Sounds harsh but if you think Feynman said Nobody understand quantum mechanics meaning they know how to do it or that it works but nothing more beyond that it is reason able to interpilate that it is legit for 4ge whole or any branch of physics as well, at no so much lesser degree than people believe...

thinking processes

But i do not rule out that the physics community, as another key player involved in the issue, might take a legitimate blame (big or small) - and its an honorable blame to take.

There's no vagueness in physics. There is vagueness in what physicists say, when they are not making technical talks; but then they are not talking as physicists, that's all.

Incidentally, that statement by Feynman is one such example. Because quantum mechanics is perfectly well understood-especially by Feynman himself, but, also, by practically every student that has learned physics since 1927.

Stam Nicolis,

Ok. Conceptual clarity is not one of the strength of physics either, for example a force does not exist in the absense of imaginng a block being moved.

What I said is that a parallel effect of this is that physicists project as valid thinking, as a Distortions that is, that conceptual clariry about the rigorous awareness of how, why and what in physics or a stricter adherence to a focused set of aims of physics is also ok to be loose.

Mr Nicolis,

I never spoke of "vaque physics" as a science which is the opposite i. E most concrete, more presice etc but on some of its aspects, like Vaque Discipline objectives

This

“…Conclusion weaknesses in modern physics are

Among the sugested primary its lack of clear objectives and a unified sense of purpose.

Key concepts such as mass and energy are often purported as abstract and definition-dependent, leading to confusion. Additionally, the discipline may suffer from disorganization, with diverse research efforts lacking a robust, interconnected vision.…”

- is, of course, quite correct; and all this has quite scientifically correct explanation:

– this quite objectively is because of that now official physics attempts to solve really fundamental problems in what really exists and happens in Matter?, which were posed in physics yet in first decades of 20 century; when physicists developed a few basic theories only in accordance with one criterion – fitting with, in those time really fundamental, experimental results, without any explanations – why that i.e. both - experiments and the theories - are as they are. Nonetheless that was really outstanding breakthroughs of a rather small group of fathers of what now is called special relativity theory, classical electrodynamics, and quantum mechanics.

The theories were/are well applicable on macro and QM scales, however for their real development it was/is necessary to understand– why and how the theories, first of all their purely empirical – so really transcendent - postulates, are as they are? – and further why and how it is possible at least scientifically rationally really to go outside the empirics?

That principally cannot be, and so isn’t, answered in the mainstream till now, since in the official physics the fundamental phenomenon/notion “Matter” - and all other fundamental phenomena notions, first of all “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, are completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational - while really they all can be scientifically defined only together,

So logically inevitably in this physics everything in Matter, i.e. “space”, “time” ,“particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc., really are completely transcendent things, and so really - despite that now experimental data are dramatically more than in the first decades above, and now much more numerous physicists exist - the official physics-2025 really is practically the same as physis-1980, and on 90% is the same as physics-1930, differing from the last only in that recent QFTs are based on ore again quite transcendent ad hoc postulates and well more parameters that fit the theories with experiments;

- where transcendent particles are some transcendent “excitations” of some transcendent “fields, these excitations interacts by some “fundmental Forces/” fields evidently transcendent “virtual” mediators, which carry/transmit energy, what evidently violates the energy conservation law [though that is in classical field theories as well], etc. – the number of the transcendences is rather large.

The above only explains why and how the official physics is as it is, however the post is rather long already, so the explanation why and how the problems above can/should be solved/ clarified let hope will be in the next post.

Cheers

Philippos Afxentiou,

Blaming physics for being weak reflects your mental weakness to grab it.