What an odd swipe at particle physics when it has nothing to do with the link. Your comment is a gross mischaracterization of particle physics and particle physicists. The vast majority of physicists in the field are clear-eyed about what is physics and what is beautiful (and ugly) math. In fact, the more one goes to "equations [that] describe nature accurately" the more complicated the equations are. No one is claiming that nature is described by beautiful equations by fiat.
Pure math fiction
[edit: I realise they are not specifically about _particle_ physics, but these are the two I could find back in 2 minutes. Also, my comment was meant to be tongue in cheek ]
What an odd swipe at particle physics when it has nothing to do with the link. Your comment is a gross mischaracterization of particle physics and particle physicists. The vast majority of physicists in the field are clear-eyed about what is physics and what is beautiful (and ugly) math. In fact, the more one goes to "equations [that] describe nature accurately" the more complicated the equations are. No one is claiming that nature is described by beautiful equations by fiat.
give 2 examples from 2025
There you go:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037026932...
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/2987/1/...
Pure math fiction [edit: I realise they are not specifically about _particle_ physics, but these are the two I could find back in 2 minutes. Also, my comment was meant to be tongue in cheek ]
Or economics papers for the kiddie version