History of Acceptance

Thermodynamics that is used in the applied sciences to describe complex systems is undervalued in modern physics. This has historical reasons. One of the main reasons is that Ludwig Boltzmann failed at the end of the 19^th century within the framework of the kinetic theory of gases to objectively substantiate the 2^nd law of thermodynamics. As a result, thermodynamics was interpreted as non-fundamental and methodologically completed.

Since the acceptance of the theories of relativity of 1905 and 1915 and the Copenhagen interpretations of quantum mechanics of 1927, an undervaluation of ontological concepts is combined with an overvaluation of mathematics. The main focus of theoretical physics today is on the confirmation and further development of existing theories like the approaches of quantum gravity and supersymmetry (SUSY). Sophisticated mathematical solutions are being searched and experiments are refined, while the conceptual foundations of special and general relativity such as E = mc², time dilation or spacetime are defended. Mathematical elegance, conservation principles and symmetry dominate. Tempting idealisations of mechanics and a belief in authority remain dominant, although more and more experimental facts limit the validity of the standard models.

Criticisms of Albert Einstein's Theories of Special and General Relativity (SR and GR) have been devalued for more than 70 years and are mostly ignored today [1–8]. Usually, two arguments are used:  1. The critics have not understood the two theories of relativity.  2. The theories of relativity have been experimentally proven.

In doing so, modern theoretical physics, which applies SR and GR as the basis of its standard models, ignores at least two facts:   1. The logical arguments of critics such as Herbert Dingle, Louis Essen or Nicolai Hartmann [1–3] against the concepts of SR and GR have never been refuted [4].  2. Experiments can be interpreted in different ways. Measurement arrangements and the way in which data is interpreted can reflect pragmatism and biased beliefs, especially when there appears to be no alternative.

1. H. Dingle: Science at the Crossroads, Martin Brian & O’Keeffe, London, 1972.
2. L. Essen: Relativity – joke or swindel?, Electronics & Wireless World 94 (1988) 126–127.
3. N. Hartmann: Philosophie der Natur, Walther de Gruyter, Berlin, 1950.
4. M. Sachs: On Dingle’s Controversy about the Clock Paradox and the Evolution of Ideas in Science, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 10 (1974) 321–331.
5. G. Kalies: Die Energiebegriffe Wilhelm Ostwalds und der modernen Physik, Mitt. Wilhelm-Ostwald-Ges. 25 (2020) 22–29.
6. G. Kalies: Wie und ob sich Zeit physikalisch verstehen lässt. Streifzug quer durch die Physik, Konsens (2020) 57–58.
7. G. Kalies: Raumzeit, Roman/Essay, Mitteldeutscher Verlag, Halle, 2019.
8. G. Kalies: Vom Energieinhalt ruhender Körper, De Gruyter, Berlin, 2019.