Dear Heinrich,
It often happens that in my research I decide to go back to some milestones in physics and deconstruct and reconstruct them partially, because the historical context shapes the way we make new theories. The inspirational flow of a new idea solidifies too rapidly, so it leaves little time for the fruit to ripe. Then the inflation of incremental research and of applications of new ideas makes them being captured in amber and new geological strata cover the old ones. The theories die before reaching maturity, and then they become venerated as relics. So I am pleasantly surprised by your criticism, perhaps too harsh, perhaps polemically unfair sometimes, but nevertheless necessary and useful.
People tend to absolutize their views, perhaps because they identify themselves with them, and an instinct of conservation takes over. Physicists are humans too, and physicalism is (some) physicists' way of being fundamentalists. This sort of ego is easily fueled by the experimental confirmations of theories we don't understand enough, and of technological applications. This is part of being human, and it is far from the perfection we would like to think characterizes us. I don't think I should be apologetic about this, I really think many physicists are doing great job, even if physics is plagued by historical context, prejudice, and an exacerbated feeling of being closer to the roots of things. I just try to be realist and to avoid some common traps.
So here are some parts of your essay which I liked very much. You are right to ask "as regards Newton's mathematical innovation, how can a theory become false that first opened up the scientific domain of motion not only of bodies, but also of heat, waves and gases?" There is a tendency of humans to put in opposition the new with the ideas of previous thinkers, and you gave very good examples like Newton and Kant. I don't think they become obsolete, because the new ideas are not as radically new, and they couldn't be without the previous ones, and most likely they will not be the last word.
You said about theories that "they have in common that, in order to make precise predictions, the state of nothing less than the universe would need be known." Well, this is true, so "precise predictions" will always be a fantasy. Maybe we can hope at least for precise within a certain tolerance? About reaching the end, you said "as if Hume hadn't made clear enough that rules drawn from observations remain contingent forever", which is in agreement with Popper too, and I think most honest physicists would agree.
I understand your nostalgia over Newton's and Kant's space and time, but I think your criticism of special relativity is unfair. I find your criticism of quantum mechanics unfair too, but I agree with your rejection of the "shut up and calculate", and I must say that many physicists agree too. There are many attempts to go beyond this limitation, which I think is unjustified and a historical accident. The problem is that it turned out to be difficult to find a good description which is also consistent with the experiments. I think that special relativity and quantum mechanics are not mere sociological constructs, and if you said that they have no connection with reality I disagree. The historical context is relevant, but I doubt that things being different it could be possible to save Newton's and Kant's space and time, or that it will ever be possible. I will not engage in a debate about this. I am surprised though that, given that at this contest there are some essays which are doing quite well by trying to "fix" SR and QM, yours got so little visibility. Probably it is because despite the 4 page length, your style may seem too sophisticated. Too bad for them, because even if I disagree with some of your criticism and I have reservations for the polemic style, I think your style is brilliant and entertaining, and the essay is full of content.
Best wishes,
Cristi Stoica
