As the father of a particle physicist whose research area is neutrinos, I cannot emphasize enough how completely erroneous your characterizations of the field are.
One does not earn a PhD in Physics by ‘making up the math’. Yes, they necessarily postulate theories and conduct experiments that may not ultimately succeed, but that is inherent in the process of discovering and/or quantifying the heretofore unknown.
The fact is that even when leading edge physics is not “successful”, the process, understanding and math invested in same often leads to great benefits in more “practical” areas of our lives. In fact, from medical imaging to modern video games, the groundwork was developed by physicists as they sought to understand and define the unknown.
For that matter, the field of construction is also built upon the principles and advancements made in the discipline of physics.
No, that happens later.
Once you have your Ph.D.
To earn it you need to learn the made up math that other people created.
For that matter, the field of construction is also built upon the principles and advancements made in the discipline of physics.
You have that backwards.
You don’t need to emphasize it, you just need to make a scientific case based on provable and verifiable facts.
The fact that you can’t and need to resort to non-argument arguments “as the father of a particle physicist” “one does not earn a PhD in Physics”, bringing in unrelated successes to try to bolster the weak argument etc. should demonstrate to you just how weak the assertion is.
If the existence of those particles were verifiable in fact, all you’d need to do is show that. But instead you HAVE to go off in a totally different, fallacy-driven direction, because that argument DOES NOT EXIST.
Now bring this physicist son of yours into the conversation so I can have this discussion with him, instead of you trying to speak on his behalf. (Spoiler alert: he will do no better - I have done all the research and have not come to this conclusion lightly at all.)