Quantum Theory was not a Paradigm Shift

A philosopher of science says:

I mean in Kuhn's terms of course quantum 48:20 theory is a paradigm shift. i mean no one would dispute that but A paradigm shift 48:25 from what? ...

quantum mechanics is certainly a paradigm shift from Newton from 49:17 classical mechanics and and from classical electromagnetic theory, Maxwell 49:22 for sure, nobody's going to dispute that.

Yes, I dispute that. Prof. Paradigm Shift himself wrote a book on the history of quantum mechanics, and the book did not call it a paradigm shift.

In the 1960s Kuhn’s historical work turned toward the early history of quantum theory, culminating in his book Black-Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity. ... Many readers were surprised not to find mention of paradigms or incommensurability.

A paradigm shift is when an old theory turns into a new theory with a new point of view, even though the new theory is not better in any measurable way. This notion of incommensurability is central to Kuhn's whole philosophy. His main example was the 1543 Copernicus book about the revolution of the Earth around the Sun. The ideas eventually became accepted, in spite of the lack of measurable advantages.

Scientists like brag about a paradigm shift when they have no measurable results to brag about.

If this sounds kooky, it is, but it is the most widely praised philosophy of science in the last century.

So I try to use the term accurately. A paradigm shift is not a scientific advance. Kuhn called that normal science. A paradigm shift has no measurable or objective advantages.

That is why the philosophy became popular. Some people, such as leftist soft scientists, like to deny objective knowledge, so they loved Kuhn's philosophy.

One could say that special relativity was a paradigm shift from Maxwell electrodynamics. Relativity was a reinterpretation of Maxwell as a relativistic theory, making all the same predictions for electromagnetic phenomena. There are Tests of special relativity, but they all require some interpretation, just like tests of the Earth's motion. The Michelson-Morley experiment tested both the Earth's motion and special relativity, but nothing happened, so it took a lot of interpretation to see what theories it supported.

This raises a paradox that I have not seen addressed. Maxwell's equations are covariant under Lorentz transformations, so the theory is fully relativistic. There are only four fundamental forces, and most ordinary phenomena are purely electromagnetic. That means that they are explainable with the Maxwell theory without relativity. So how would any experiment test and confirm special relativity?

Special relativity is considered to be experimentally confirmed, so this is a paradox.

Michelson-Morley can be explained with just the Maxwell theory. Other experiments involving time and mass are trickier. Relativity redefines how clocks are synchronized, so time is measured differently under relativity. Experiments with timings require relativity to get the times right.

There must be physics literature detailing this issue, but I do not know it.