Asking what it “is made of” seems like a somewhat ambiguous question to me. Still, the answer would not be “mathematical abstractions that fit the data”, but “these mathematical abstractions”. (And, there is a lot of meaning behind these “abstractions”. For example, there is a close correspondence between the Higgs mechanism for mass and superconductivity.)
Really, what possible answer could you ask for that wouldn’t be of this form?
When you describe an idea sufficiently precisely, you do mathematics; that’s almost what mathematics is.
It feels to me like complaints like yours tend to derive from an unwillingness to believe that things aren’t at their core made of solid objects or fluids or other stuff which behaves like macroscopic objects we have everyday experience with.
Can you describe an explanation that wouldn’t be like that but which (if it were true) you would find satisfying?
If you can’t describe how an explanation could (if it were true) satisfy you without being like that, then, if the universe isn’t like that, you have to be disappointed. And, in that case, again, I have to say, take it up with God.
On the other hand, if you can describe how an explanation (if it were true) could possibly satisfy you without saying “at its core, the universe works based on [behavior that you have plenty of physical intuition for based on your everyday interactions with macroscopic stuff]”, I would very much like to hear it.
I think probably in the past what one might have expected to find is akin to something like a magical material that couldn't be further probed. That would have been satisfying in a sense because it brings a wonder back into it while connecting you to the fundamental "thing".
What we have now is not that, it's still very much a mechanistic explanation where the "magic" is hidden within abstractions that make no sense to anyone, i.e abstract fields with properties but no material realty, instantaneous wave function "collapse", wave-particle duality, virtual particles etc. The reality of these things is glossed over.
But my point is that if that's what we've been driven to, why are we still engaged in this enterprise? We're just receding further into these abstractions. What are we going to find next year or next decade? A better mathematical model to fit the data? The mission has gone from finding out what the universe is made of to finding a better abstract model. Particles aren't real, they're excitations in a field, etc. It's an engineering enterprise now. So we're not going get a satisfying answer, were just going to get better lasers or whatever the next tech is.
That makes little sense to me. “Can’t be further probed”?
A thing behaves in some way. If you do things, things happen.
One can do certain measurements about how things behave, and then record these measurements.
What would it even mean for a material everything is based in to be magical? If there was some exceptional material that is unlike other things, following different rules, I can understand calling that “magical”. But, the only meaning I can think of for a material underlying everything to be “magical” is that either everyone just, declines to study it, or its behaviors like, depend on the intent of those studying it or something like that.
I also don’t get your statement that “brings a wonder back into it”. Like, do you not experience wonder when contemplating the nature of fundamental fields?
Like, if we set aside the “magical” part, it kinda sounds like your objection is that fields aren’t a substance/material. But, if you just generalize your notion of “material” a bit, why don’t quantum fields satisfy all your requirements?
And, if they do, don’t you want to understand how this “magical material” behaves??
You decry these things as “abstractions”, and say that they “make no sense to anyone”. They can certainly be confusing, but they aren’t beyond comprehension, and I don’t see them as any less “material reality”? Macroscopic things just behave differently.
I don’t think I agree with “particles aren’t real” either. Electrons being excitations in the electron field, doesn’t make them “not real” any more than an apple being made of atoms makes it not real, or sound being vibrations in a medium makes sound not real.
Like, buckyballs are clearly “real” (they can act like little cages with something else contained inside), but they also clearly are “particles” like protons are (you can do a double slit experiment with them and get an interference pattern).
Also, I don’t think I’d say the enterprise was ever “What is the universe made of?” so much as “How does the universe work?” ? It is a drive to understand! It is asking “How do initial conditions relate to final conditions?”. The tech is ancillary to this!
