The Tragedy of Modern Physics 1

Modern physics is in a state of crisis with its two basic novelties vs classical physics, General Relativity GR (1915) as macro-physics and Quantum Mechanics (1925) as micro-physics, impossible to reconcile into one unified theory, despite major efforts by all leading physicists over now more than 100 years. The Standard Model of QM does not include gravitation as the essence of GR. No way out of the crisis is visible. It is a veritable tragedy compared to the tremendous success of classical Newtonian Mechanics NM as description of all of macro-physics.  

The logical conclusion is that at least one of the theories will have to be given up in order to find a way out of the crisis. GR or QM? 

GR has to compete with NM as concerns macro-physics including astronomy and cosmology, while QM has no classical physics to compete with. We are thus led to focus on GR and ask what would be the price of giving up GR as failed project and so go forward with a unified theory of NM + QM? 

Yes, NM+QM fits very well together and so let us consider why modern physicists are taught to view GR as a necessary replacement of NM. 

The basic mathematical model of GR is Einstein's Equations EE and that of NM is Newton's Equations NE. A modern physicist or text-book of today will tell you:

1. EE is a more fundamental model of gravitation than NE. 
2. In all cases except some very extreme cases including things like black holes, NE is the model used in practice since NE is readily computable in any thinkable geometric complexity, while GE is impossible to compute except in very simple geometry allowing analytic solutions.
3. EE have a very complicated mathematical form understood be few, while the structure of NE is clear and simple understandable by everybody. 
4. NE requires instant-action-at-distance, which cannot happen and is not part of EE. Therefore NE has to be replaced by EE.

Here 4. is the key argument to give up NE as fundamental model and replace it by EE. In many posts on New View on Gravitation, I show that it is possible to get around the apparent requirement of instant-action-at-distance in NE. This is to view the connection between mass density $\rho$ and gravitational potential $\phi$ captured in the Poisson Equation PE $\Delta\phi =\rho$ in a new way, not the old way with mass density primordial and gravitational potential formed by apparent instant-action-at-distance, but viewing instead $\phi$ as primordial from which $\rho$ is formed by the action of the differential operator $\Delta$ which acts locally and so can be instant. 

With this change of view the trouble with instant-action-at-distance does not appear and NE can be kept as the greatest success of all of physics to do all its wonders, and there would be no reason to replace it with anything, and in particular not by EE. 

The supremacy of EE over NE was not adopted as a fundamental principle of modern physics until the 1960s because the mathematics was difficult and the physics was strange. Few physicists claim to understand EE in any detail, and even fewer to be able to compute solutions to EE.  

Here are the alternatives at hand:

1. Keep EE and live with the facts that GR and QM are incompatible, and that EE is uncomputable and so use NE for all practical purposes. Claim that EE does not require instant-action-at-distance.
2. Keep NE and welcome that NM and QM offers a unified theory. View gravitational potential in PE as primordial before mas density and so circumvent formal requirement of instant-action-at-distance. Use EE for some very extreme cases which are beyond experimental verification 

The slow acceptance of GR signifies that it came with many doubts and questions, which however over time have faded away and so have allowed to make GR into a dogma of modern physics to be accepted even if impossible to make sense of for a fresh young rational mind. Since GR is replaced by NM in all cases of practical significance, genuine GR results are lacking which makes it impossible to show that they are incorrect. 

Which of the above alternatives 1 or 2 would you choose, if you had a free choice as a rational being? Which price, 1 or 2, would you prefer to pay?