What Is Wrong With Physics
Astronomy is facing a crisis in its explanation of the universe. The two space telescopes have made observations that challenge prevailing theory. First, the expansion of the universe is not slowing, but accelerating. Second we see large scale structures that have no explanation and ancient galaxies that shoud not have had time to form. Also, there is the problem that galxies should fly apart because they do not have sufficient matter to hold them together, but do not. Since astronomy is a daughter science to physics, it is unlikely that these problems will be solved without a change in our understanding of physics. But there has been little progress in physics over the past half century when compared to the first half century of the twentienth century. The question is, why?
I used to think the problem with physics was sociological. That is, the organizational structure of physical science made it resistant to new and revolutionary ideas. But recently I have changed my mind. I now believe the problem is that the foundational ideas of quantum mechanics are faulty and in need of revision.
To explain why, I will use an analogy to Ptolemaic astronomy. Ptolemy explained the motion of the planets using a series of epicycles, circles upon circles on which the planets moved. The theory was adequate for computing the position of the planets. But it was a dead end, because even though the theory predicted the motion of the planets, it could not explain it. Only when Copernicus and then Kepler pruced the heliocentric theory could astronomy advance, by providing the basis for Newton's theory of gravitation.
Quantum mechanics finds itself with two problems. First it has an ad hoc character when compared to the classical physics of Newton and Einstein. Second, it raises deep questions about the nature of matter and causation which it has not resolved. just like ptolemaic astronomy, it lacks explanatory force. It predicts subatomic behavior very well, but does not explain it. And physicists no longer consider this a problem. They are contant to use their equations to make predictions and don't worry about the meaning of quantum mechanics. Thisis in contrast with the first generation of physicists who developed quantum mechanics. They were more broadly educated and considered the philosphic issues of the meaning of quantum mechanics even if they were unable to resolve them. It's the unwillingness of the current generation to grapple with these problems that has cuased physics to stagnate. Copernicus did not develop the heliocentric theory because it offered better predictions, but because it offered a better explanation of astronomy. And without grappling with questions such as what is an observation quantum physics and astronomy will not advance.
To observe the problem is not to solve it. I am not pretending that I have a solution and do not expect a Nobel Prize. But I think the direction where physicists should be lookin is clear.