Einstein's theory of relativity is false, and all the physicists know it. It is false because it does not describe every feature of physical reality. To describe the world of the very small you need quantum mechanics. But relativity and quantum mechanics are ultimately incompatible theories. They can't both be true. Quantum mechanics is also false, because it cannot describe all the phenomena that relativity can.
The two most successful, best tested, most accurate physical theories we have are, in different ways, insufficient, and mutually contradictory. They are, therefore, both false.
They are not false in all the predictions that they make. In their own domains they predict many true results. As models of reality they are very good, but being models they fail when applied to features of reality not captured by the model. We must remember that the models are not the reality modeled.
Now, to say they are ultimately false is farther than a physicist will want to go. But the physicist is excited by the prospect of finding a Theory of Everything, a grand unified theory that describes all of physical reality consistently. That grand theory is expected by physicists to be a revolutionary re-thinking of the fundamental constituents of reality, in the same way that relativity and quantum mechanics upset all expectations about reality. String theory is such a contender for the ToE, and it imagines such fancies as filaments of vibrating energy, 10 spatial dimensions instead of our humdrum 3, higher dimensional membranes thwacking into each other to produce universes on their three dimensional surfaces. The excitement for and expectation of an impending revolution in our conception of reality belies what the physicist ought to acknowledge to the public: physical theories as they exist today are true in so far as they produce accurate predictions of the behavior of certain physical entities, and as descriptions of what reality actually is in itself they are false.
No one at this stage knows what a complete and consistent model of physical reality will look like. They don't even have the basic equations of string theory, the most promising avenue of inquiry, worked out, much less any idea about how to test that theory. Because of this uncertainty, the physicist cannot tell us what features of the current models will be overturned. Will we retain the 4 dimensional space-time geometry of relativity? Will quantum indeterminacy and spooky action-at-a-distance finally be explained by some heretofore unconceived mechanism? Will our conception of atoms as built of more fundamental particles that also behave like waves survive? They do not know. They cannot know.
So, then, why do physicists and intellectuals insist on telling us that we must draw metaphysical conclusions from those very same physical models which they know to be, in the final analysis, false? Why do they tell us that the model is not the same as the thing modeled and then turn around and tell us we have to abandon our common-sensical notions of time, change, the principal of sufficient reason, or causality itself because their cooky, counter-intuitive interpretation of a physical model of reality that is demonstrably false and incomplete demands it?
I don't know. But it has become clear to me that although metaphysicians should hear what physicists have to say about the way the world behaves, since this may impact the range of metaphysical theories that are acceptable and fit the data, there is no good reason to defer to the physicists' incomplete, incompatible, and demonstrably false mathematical models when formulating conclusions about the fundamental nature of reality.