[vincnetas]

"Physicists are “stuck” with existing theories not because they like them, but because they work so well it’s hard to invent something that even works equally well"

Yes, but hundred years ago we were "stuck" with another worldview that was explaining everything fine, and i assume ther was a big resistance from estabilishment to addopt new ideas. But then old scientist died, and resistance got weaker. So we might look back at today after 100 yaers and see similar situation. No one says that ideas of 100 yaers ago were all wrong, just not so true as current.

[radioactivist]

One hundred years ago there were many things that did not have any real explanation -- classical physics was not "stuck" and was not "explaining everything fine". Our understanding of something as common as metals and insulators depends heavily on quantum mechanics. That's not even counting things like spectral lines, the stability of atoms, etc, etc that were unexplained in 19th century physics, and explicitly known at the time to be at odds with classical physics.

While worldviews can be overturned and paradigms can be shifted, it is (significantly) harder than it was before. We simply know more now, and have a better understanding of our limits. So whatever new framework that has to supercede our current framework has more ground to cover than it did even in the recent past. This is exacerbated by the fact that in physics in that most everything outside the early universe and black holes (which aren't easily accessible experimentally) seems to conform to our current framework -- there is both more to fit in and less data to work with.

[laumars]

No, a touch over 100 years ago Einstein came up with a new set of equations that more precisely describes the movement of objects. Newtonian physics is still valid and still taught at schools since it adequately explains the movement of objects at an approximate level that is good enough for most people most of the time. But when dealing with equations at an astronomical scale, Newtonian physics start to break down.

Likewise quantum mechanics doesn’t replace General Relativity. It compliments it.

[scandox]

Complements it

[js8]

I think you misunderstand. The work that Einstein did on quantum mechanics was indeed "complimentary", i.e. provided for free as a courtesy. (Although it could be argued he actually got paid for it later with Nobel prize.)

[chrisweekly]

IMHO that interpretation is implausible. "... [theory] doesn't replace, rather [[its creator] provided it for free]"? makes no sense.

It doesn't replace, rather complements it.

Occam's razor AND semantics.

Edit: maybe you were joking? in which case sorry (it missed the mark)

[cecilpl2]

Pretty sure it was a joke.

[hoseja]

Very affective explanation.

[marcosdumay]

> But then old scientist died, and resistance got weaker.

Hum... The old scientists that (very vocally on that case) resisted change were the same that uncovered the problems with the old models and laid out the first theories on how to fix those problems. Those things are way more complex than simple quotes and labels can communicate.

New models got adopted when after a lot of work people created some that worked better. Not a moment before. Those better models didn't get resistance from the established physicists.