> just don't know what to replace them with. Which is fine, but every physicist seems to just assume that it must be a "force", a "particle", or a "field". It

> just don't know what to replace them with. Which is fine, but every physicist seems to just assume that it must be a "force", a "particle", or a "field". It can be other things, including errors in the math, errors in the models, errors in the observations, invalid assumptions, etc, etc... It's rather irritating to see the n-th experiment "searching" for some previously unseen particle while literally only one team thought of revisiting the maths to see if something was missed.