What’s Actually Wrong With Theoretical Physics (no cap)
ok so at school we’ve been doing this unit on the “Scientific Revolution,” which sounds like it should go hard—like, Che Guevara with a telescope, very main character energy—but in reality it was mostly middle-aged men in wigs arguing about apples, which is somehow both less and more unhinged than expected.
I’ve been reading The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn, which Miss Dalton in the library said was too “unsettling” for someone my age, which is obviously exactly why i read it. Kuhn’s whole thing is that science doesn’t progress cleanly—it just lurches from one set of assumptions to the next. and honestly that’s lowkey comforting because it explains why modern physics still feels like a symphony being conducted with a top hat instead of a baton.
i think the lore really started going sideways when Descartes decided that mind and matter were two separate things, and then Newton gave matter all the best lines and mind had to sit in the corner. the whole seventeenth century was absolutely obsessed with machinery—clockwork universes, celestial gears, mathematical choreography, very “we figured it out” energy. my Pelican paperback of Butterfield’s The Origins of Modern Science confirms that everyone genuinely thought they’d found the recipe for truth: one experiment, stir in some numbers, bake for certainty. which would be cute, except it’s built on a kind of cosmic snobbery—this idea that the universe is just an obedient mechanism rather than, say, a chaotic family group chat of particles that nobody can moderate.
and then the bits of physics that don’t behave—quantum mechanics, entropy, relativity—they all look like the universe’s revenge for having been over-explained. Niels Bohr, whose Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge i skimmed between geography homework, said we can only talk about atoms in metaphors, which sounds more like poetry than engineering, and honestly respect. Einstein, my other bedtime companion—he once said “God does not play dice,” and then the universe immediately started shuffling the deck just to troll him, which is genuinely the most relatable thing the universe has ever done.
What’s actually wrong with theoretical physics, as far as i can tell, is not that it’s wrong in detail but that it refuses to admit the details are guesses dressed up in algebra. the best physicists know this—Heisenberg basically put it in neon with his Uncertainty Principle, very much said what he said—but the rest of the profession acts like equations are windows onto reality rather than mirrors reflecting their own assumptions back at them. if i write x² + y² = r², i haven’t explained anything. I’ve just gift-wrapped a surprise in elegant symbols and called it knowledge.
it seems to me that after the seventeenth century, men adopted mathematics the way women used to adopt corsets: for structure, support, and social respectability. anyone caught breathing too flexibly—like, say, bringing up consciousness or telepathy—got cancelled as “unscientific.” and even now, when neutron stars are wobbling and galaxies are spinning like absolute chaos, most physicists still act like the whole system is a tidy Newtonian billiard table. relativity and quantum theory were supposed to destroy certainty permanently, but physics just kept it on life support in calculus. That’s not science. That’s a parasocial relationship with Newton.
I’ve also been reading Jacob Bronowski’s The Common Sense of Science and Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy, which together confirm my suspicion that science is just a form of faith with cleaner fingernails. Russell says philosophy is the attempt to “unite the man of theory and the man of action,” which would be a valid take except the men of theory keep drowning the action in equations, and the rest of us are left wondering whether we’re watching knowledge happen or just very expensive choreography.
a friend lent me Freeman Dyson’s Disturbing the Universe, which is doing exactly what it says on the tin. Dyson says physics is “an exploration, not an explanation,” and if that’s true then physics needs explorers, not accountants. obviously this is when people go “you should do astronomy, you’ll love the stars” as if that’s a personality. but even the astronomers seem trapped behind metaphors of measurement. we map infinity, assign it grid references, write it down, and then act like we’ve tamed it. we have not tamed it. it is not tamed. it is not going to be tamed.
sometimes late at night i think about what it would mean to reset everything—to go back before Galileo pointed a telescope at the sky and remember that the sky was first an act of imagination. what if each new generation, instead of inheriting the framework of science like a second-hand corset, just started again? not denying what came before, just refusing to worship it. we might rediscover physics as something playful and provisional, more like drawing than deduction. physics as a vibe rather than a verdict.
obviously at some point i should probably think about my career. my teacher said “theoretical physics is an excellent path for an intelligent young woman” which gives the same energy as being told Antarctica is a lovely destination if you don’t mind frostbite. theoretical physics is full of famous men who proved things wrong in peacetime and right in retrospect, leaving nothing for anyone else except footnotes and cold offices. i can appreciate algebraic beauty, I’m not a monster, but i would rather not die calculating it.
so maybe I’ll be an astro-navigator. they sound like people who actually go somewhere, even if it’s only the moon. i imagine them charting trajectories instead of theories, reading stars instead of their own equations, maybe even admitting they’re guessing. that kind of science i could get behind.
anyway, to actually answer the question—which i suspect i was supposed to do several pages ago, sorry not sorry—what’s wrong with theoretical physics is that somewhere between 1642 and 1974 it mistook metaphor for machinery. science still acts like the universe was built to be convenient for it. i think the universe behaves like my cat: looks at you, blinks, and walks away exactly when you think you’ve understood it.
if that’s theoretical physics, maybe it’s correct after all. I’m just not joining it. I’d rather find out where it was going before it started explaining everything.
You are here: DUX