Paul.
I think I understand what you're saying, and I'd agree with most of that. The maths becomes deviant when the physics becomes deviant, i.e. when new physics is encountered, mathematical descriptions are introduced. An example of that would be Faraday's experiments > Maxwell's equations > Einstein's equations. Those new equations enter into physics from time to time and although, as non-mathematicians, we may not understand the whys and wherefores, we can witness their predictive power. It doesn't follow that the maths is necessarily 100% correct description of reality, Newton's being a case in point. The essential thing is that if the theory is consistently supported by observation then it has validity, even though it may later turn out to be less than 100% correct. If it disagrees with observation then it's wrong. The fact that the average Joe (you or me) has only the sketchiest knowledge of modern physics, and doesn't have a clue how to read the maths, is always going to leave us making probability judgements based on such information as we have. Such is life
