I don't think most Catholics would use the words physical change. I'd prefer to stick with "substance changes, accidents stay the same".
Physical, as I understand it, means matter. The matter of the sacrament is bread and wine. To say physical change or material change implies a change in accidents and substance. I think I'd prefer "substantial change" or "metaphysical change".
"Physical change" is not in Trent or St. Thomas Aquinas or the Catechism.
It does have its partisans though:
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/2002/feb02/regisscanlon.html
Understanding Fr. Scanlon's thrust, still I spot several errors in there. Foremost is this: "Thus, the physical bread is changed into Jesus Christ, including His physical Body" which implies a breach of the created-uncreated barrier. Also: "And this Physical Reality or Physical Thing outside the human mind which priest and people handle, break, eat, and drink is our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Christ is not broken in the Sacrament, but remains whole in each part.
I don't think I would use this expression either, which is very Cartesian: "these 'outward appearances of sensible things' could only be emanating from the human mind."
Note how strikingly different that is from what is noted in the Catholic Encyclopedia article Eucharist:
Since Descartes (d. 1650) places the essence of corporeal substance in its actual extension and recognizes only modal accidents metaphysically united to their substance, it is clear, according to his theory, that together with the conversion of the substance of bread and wine, the accidents must also be converted and thereby made to disappear. If the eye nevertheless seems to behold bread and wine, this is to be attributed to an optical illusion alone. But it is clear at first blush, that no doubt can be entertained as to the physical reality, or in fact, as to the identity of the accidents before and after Transubstantiation, This physical, and not merely optical, continuance of the Eucharistic accidents was repeatedly insisted upon by the Fathers, and with such excessive rigor that the notion of Transubstantiation seemed to be in danger. Especially against the Monophysites, who based on the Eucharistic conversion an a pari argument in behalf of the supposed conversion of the Humanity of Christ into His Divinity, did the Fathers retort by concluding from the continuance of the unconverted Eucharistic accidents to the unconverted Human Nature of Christ. Both philosophical and theological arguments were also advanced against the Cartesians, as, for instance, the infallible testimony of the senses, the necessity of the commune tertium to complete the idea of Transubstantiation [see above, (3)], the idea of the Sacrament of the Altar as the visible sign of Christ's invisible Body, the physical signification of Communion as a real partaking of food and drink the striking expression "breaking of bread" (fractio panis), which supposes the divisible reality of the accidents, etc. For all these reasons, theologians consider the physical reality of the accidents as an incontrovertible truth, which cannot without temerity be called in question.
Not.
It is light, a story, a travelogue even, and yet it perfectly conveys much of our viewpoint and mindset after some years within Orthodoxy.