The math and the physics frequently follow behind unusual experimental results. If there is anything to bubble/cold fusion or sonoluminescence the physicists and mathmaticians will get around to explaining it if they ever are able to obtain consistent lab results.
Yes. We are in complete agreement in that regard. (Given the "if".)
As an aside, having obtained my physics degree long ago (early 70's), I'm quite used to the idea of new models coming along, old models being thrown out, assumptions being revised, all that. The 30 years since I was in school have turned a number of things I learned as "the best we know" into so much mush.
I don't expect our models of the universe to stabilize in my lifetime, and that's okay.
We each reach our "understanding" of the universe in our own way, and even then have only a fraction of a sliver of an inkling of a clue of how the universe actually works, but it's enough to appreciate the magnificence of Creation.
If these folks' work contributes meaningfully to our collective understanding, then regardless of whether they've got a perpetual motion machine or just a nice toy, it will have been worth it.