That sounds interesting. It may not actually be physics, but it is physics related, so could you give us some idea of what you do?
I am not sure it's that exciting .... :-)
String theory analysis for example is almost entirely a mathematically excercise. I have still yet to see M-string theory incorporated properly it is just so dam complex.
Some of the more basic ones like MOND (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics) are much easier to model but I really can't see where this goes with Quantum Mechanics it's sort of still there like the ugly duckling it is with GR.
In my area there is much more work around trying to model conditions in and around the big bang or inflationary period depending on your view of which theory.
The reason is simple much bigger discoveries to be made ... Nobel prizes await.
My world of modelling is much more mundane we are looking closely at the operation of the theory at the plank distance because thats the key distance things get interesting. No nobel prizes given for proving or disproving someone elses theory usually :-)
Much more interesting boundaries for theories exist such as black holes and the boundary of the universe but they are even more inaccessible to us.
At the end of the day I am however a computer programmer with a physics background not a physicist who does programming so some of the stuff gets way beyond my ability at physics.
Mine physics knowledge is made usually from trying to help physicists feed model simulations into the computers and I usually end up asking a lot of questions.
There are a rare few who are great physics theorists and very good on computer programming.
My real work usually looks like trying to decipher weird drawings and scribbles on rather tattered and torn paper, drinking lots of coffee and pulling lots of hair out as either the simulation wont run or the phycisist doesn't liek the result :-)
