Popper didn't explain "how to do physics", nor did he invalidate previous physics, nor did he "invent the scientific method". But would you not agree that he influenced how scientists interpreted the scientific method? This is the point I'm making.. please don't reduce it into a blanket idea such as "phsyics could not have been done before Popper" which isn't anywhere close to what I said.
I think it is close to what you said, though apparently not what you meant.
What this discussion is sorely lacking is actual examples, so let me offer one up: reproducibility has lately become an issue in several branches of science, and maybe it would not have done so without Popper's insights.
