Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-05T15:05:35.125Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Models, High-Energy Theoretical Physics and Realism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

James T. Cushing
James T. Cushing*
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dane
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Let me say at the outset that the following exercise is an attempt to make some sense out of what I have seen my colleagues (and indeed at times myself) doing in science - more particularly in theoretical high-energy physics. I do not claim that my conclusions are final or permanent. In fact, it appears to me that Professor MacKinnon's new book, Scientific Explanation and Atomic Physics, may; present a suitable framework within which to discuss the issues raised here. In any event, since most of this paper consists of a story to be told, it may be of interest to philosophers of science.

Today I shall use developments In the field of theoretical high-energy physics to examine three issues of interest to the philosophy of science. First will be the use of highly abstract, formal models, in the generation and evolution of theories.

Type
Part I. High-Energy Physics
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1982 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1982 , 1982 , pp. 30 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

Edward MacKinnon, Andrew Pickering, Michael Redhead and Paul Teller provided very helpful comments on a preliminary draft of this paper.

References

Bantz, D.A. (1980). “The Structure of Discovery: Evolution of Structural Accounts of Chemical Bonding.” In Nickles, (1980). Pages 291-329.Google Scholar
Bethe, H.A. (1947). “The Electromagnetic Shift of Energy Levels.” Physical Review 72: 339-341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohm, D. and Aharonov, Y. (1959). “Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in Quantum Theory.” Physical Review 115: 485-491.Google Scholar
Brillouin, L. (1964). Scientific Uncertainty, and Information. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cabrera, B. (1982). “First Results from a Superconductive Detector for Moving Magnetic Monopoles.” Physical Review Letters 48: 1378-1381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chew, G.F. and Low, F.E. (1956a). “Effective-Range Approach to the Low-Energy p-Wave Pion-Nucleon Interaction.” Physical Review 101: 1570-1579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chew, G.F. (1956b). “Theory of Photomeson Production at Low Energies.” Physical Review 101: 1579-1587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chew, G.F. and Mandelstam, S. (1960). “Theory of the Low-Energy Pion-Pion Interaction-II.” II Nuovo Cimento 19: 752-776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chew, G.F. (1962). “S-Matrix Theory of Strong Interactions without Elementary Particles.” Reviews of Modern Physics 34: 394-401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chew, G.F. (1971). “Hadron Bootstrap Hypothesis.” Physical Review 40: 2330-2335.Google Scholar
Chew, G.F. (1979). “Bootstrap Theory of Quarks.” Nuclear Physics B151: 237-246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colodny, R. (ed.). (1970). The Nature and Function of Scientific Theories. (University of Pittsburgh Series in the Philosophy of Science. Volume 4.) Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Cushing, J.T. (1982). “Models and Methodologies in Current Theoretical High-Energy Physics.” Synthese 50: 5-101. (Also reprinted in Plendl (1982). Pages 5-101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushing, J.T. (1983). “The S-Matrix Program as an Example of Scientific Methodology.” In preparation.Google Scholar
Dirac, P.A.M. (1927). “The Quantum Theory of the Emission and Absorption of Radiation.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A114: 234-265.Google Scholar
Dirac, P.A.M. (1928). “The Quantum Theory of the Electron.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A117: 610-624.Google Scholar
Dirac, P.A.M. (1930). “A Theory of Electrons and Protons.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A126: 360-365.Google Scholar
Dirac, P.A.M. (1931). “Quantized Singularities in the Electromagnetic Field.” Proceedings of the Roval Society of London A133: 60-72.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. (1918). “Motiv des Forschens.” In Zu Max Plancks 60. Geburtstag: Ansprachen in der deutschen physikalischen Gesellschaft. Karlsruhe: Müller. Pages 29-32. (As reprinted as “Principles of Research.” In Ideas and Opinions. New York: Dell, 1954. Pages 219-222.Google Scholar
Fermi, E. (1929). “Sopra l'elettrodinamica quantistica.” Atti della Reale Academia Hazionale del Lincei 9: 881-887.Google Scholar
Fermi, E. (1933). “Tentativo di una Teoria dell’ Emissione dei Raggi. ‘Beta’.” Ricerca Scientifica 2: 491-495.Google Scholar
Fine, A. (1982). “Pluralism and Scientific Progress.” Paper delivered at Symposium on Scientific Realism, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, March 26-28, 1982.Google Scholar
Franklin, A. (1979). “The Discovery and Nondisoovery of Parity Nonconservation.” Studies In the History and Philosophy of Science 10: 201-257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaston, J. (ed.). (1978). Sociology of Science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Gell-Mann, M. 1956). “Dispersion Relations in Pion-Nucleon and Photon-Nucleon Scattering.” In Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Rochester Conference. High Energy Nuclear Physics. 1956. Edited by Ballam, J. et al. New York: Interscience. Pages 30-36.Google Scholar
Gell-Mann, M. (1962). “Symmetries of Baryons and Mesons.” Physical Review 125: 1067-1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gingerich, O. (ed.). (1975). The Nature of Scientific Discovery. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Glashow, S.L.; Illiopoulos, J.; and Maiani, L. (1970). “Weak Interactions with Lepton-Hadron Symmetry.” Physical Review D2: 1285-1292.Google Scholar
Goldstone, J. (1961). “Field Theories with ‘Superconductor’ Solutions.” II Nuovo Cimento 19: 154-164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstone, J.; Salam, A.; and Weinberg, S. (1962). “Broken Symmetries.” Physical Review 127: 965-970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, O.W. (1964). “Spin and Unitary-Spin Independence in a Paraquark Model of Baryons and Mesons.” Physical Review Letters 13: 598-602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heisenberg, W. (1943). “Die ‘beobachtbaren Grossen’ in der Theorie der Elementarteilchen.” Zeitschrift für Physik 130: 513-538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heisenberg, W. (1975). “Tradition in Science.” In Gingerich, (1975). Pages 219-296.Google Scholar
Hesse, M.B. (1966). Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Hesse, M.B. (1970). “Is There an Independent Observation Language?” In Colodny (1970). Pages 35-77. (Also reprinted as “Theory and Observation.” In Hesse (1980). Pages 63-110.Google Scholar
Hesse, M.B. (1974). The Structure of Scientific Inference. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesse, M.B. (1980). Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Higgs, P.W. (1964). “Broken Symmetries, Massless Particles and Gauge Fields.” Physics Letters 12: 132-133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Källén, G. (1953). “On the Magnitude of the Renormalization Constants in Quantum Electrodynamics.” Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. Matematisk-Fysiske Meddelelser 27(12): 3-18.Google Scholar
Keynes, J.M. (1951). Essays In Biography. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Kirchner, H. (1982). “Fashions in Physics.” Talk delivered at the Annual Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Sept. 6-10, 1982.Google Scholar
Kramers, H.A. (1950). “Non-relativistic Quantum Electrodynamics and Correspondence Principle.” In Proceedings of the Eighth Solvay Conference. 1948. Brussels: Stoops. Pages 241-268.Google Scholar
Lamb, W.E. and Retherford, R.C. (1947). “Fine Structure of the Hydrogen Atom by a Microwave Method.” Physical Review 72: 241-243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, L. (1960a). “On Analytical Properties of Vertex Parts in Quantum Field Theory.” In Proceedings of the Ninth International Annual Conference on High Energy Physics. Moscow: International Union of Pure and Applied Physics. Pages 95-101.Google Scholar
Landau, L. (1960b). “On Analytic Properties of Vertex Parts in Quantum Field Theory.” Nuclear Physics 13: 181-192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1981). “A Confutation of Convergent Realism.” Philosophy of Soience 48: 19-49.Google Scholar
Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, E. (1979). “Scientific Realism: The New Debates.” Philosophy of Science 46: 501-532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKinnon, E. (1980). “The Discovery of a New Quantum Theory.” In Nickles, (1980). Pages 261-272.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, E. (1982a). “The Truth of Scientific Claims.” Philosophy of Science 49: 439-462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKinnon, E. (1982b). Scientific Explanation and Atomic Physics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. and Salam, A. (1954). “Renormalization.” The Physical Review 94: 185-191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, James Clerk. (1890). The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell. Volume II. (ed.) Niven, W.D.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Medawar, P.B. (1967). The Art of the Soluble. New York: Barnes and Noble.Google Scholar
Medawar, P.B. (1979). Advice to a Young Scientist. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Nickles, T. (ed.). (1980). Scientific Discovery: Case Studies. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noether, E. (1918). “Invariante Variationsprobleme.” Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen Mathematisch-physikalische Klasse aus dem Jahre 1918: 235-257.Google Scholar
Oppenheimer, J.R. (1930). “Note on the Theory of the Interaction of Field and Matter.” Physical Review 35: 461-477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, A. (1981). Constructing Quarks. Preprint Science Studies Unit, University of Edinburgh. (To be published by Edinburgh, and Chicago University Presses, 1983.Google Scholar
Pickering, A. (1982). “Elementary Particles: Discovered or Constructed?” In Trower, and Bellini, (1982). Pages 439-447.Google Scholar
Pietschmann, H. (1976). “The Rules of Scientific Discovery Demonstrated from Examples of the Physics of Elementary Particles.” Inaugural Lecture as Honorary Member of the Hungarian Physical Society, preprint from Institut für Theoretische Physik der Universität Wien.Google Scholar
Plendl, H.S.(ed.). (1982). Philosophical Problems of Modern Physics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975). “What is Mathematical Truth?” In Mathematics, Matter and Method. (Philosophical Papers, Volume 1.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pages 60-78.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1976). “What is ‘Realism’?” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 76: 177-194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redhead, M.L.G. (1975). “Symmetry in Intertheory Relations.” Synthese 32: 77-112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redhead, M.L.G. (1980a). “Models in Physics.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 31: 145-163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redhead, M.L.G. (1980b). “Some Philosophical Aspects of Particle Physics.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 11: 279-304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salam, A. (1968). “Weak and Electromagnetic Interactions.” In Elementary Particle Theory: Relativistic Groups and Analyticity. (Proceedings of the Eighth Nobel Symposium.) Edited by Svartholm, N.. New York: Interscience. Pages 367-377.Google Scholar
't Hofft, G. (1971). “Renormalizable Lagrangians for Massive Yang-Mills Fields.” Nuclear Physics B35: 167-188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trover, W.P. and Bellini, G. (eds.). (1982). Physics in Collision. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B.C. (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waller, I. (1930). “Bemerkungen über die Rolle der Eigenenergie des Elektrons in der Quantentheorie der Strahlung.” Zeitschrift für Physik 62: 673-676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wartofsky, M.W. (1980). “Scientific Judgment: Creativity and Discovery in Scientific Thought.” In Nickles, (1980). Pages 1-16.Google Scholar
Weinberg, S. (1967). “A Model of Leptons.” Physical Review Letters 19: 1264-1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisskopf, V.F. (1981). “The Development of Field Theory in the Last 50 Years.” Physics Today 34(11): 69-85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weyl, H. (1931). Gruppentheorie und Quantenmechanik, 2 Aufl. Leipzig: S. Hirzel. (As reprinted as The Theory of Groups and Quantum Mechanics, (trans.) Robertston, H.P.. London: Methuen, 1931.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitrow, G.J. (1973). Einstein, the Man and His Achievement. NewYork: Dover.Google Scholar
Woolf, H. (ed.). (1980). Some Strangeness in the Proportion. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Yang, C.N. (1980). “Einstein and the Physics of the Future.” In Woolf, (1980). Pages 501-502.Google Scholar
Yang, C.N. and Mills, R.L. (1954). “Conservation of Isotopic Spin and Isotopic Gauge Invariance.” Physical Review 96: 191-195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahar, E.G. (1979). “The Mathematical Origins of General Relativity and of Unified Field Theories.” In Einstein Symposion. Berlin. (Lecture Notes in Physics. Volume 100.) Edited by Nelkowski, H. et al. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Pages 370-396.Google Scholar
Zahar, E.G. (1980). “Einstein, Meyerson and the Role of Mathematics in Physical Discovery.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 31: 1-43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziman, J. (1978). Reliable Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, H. (1978). “Theory Choice and Problem Choice in Science.” In Gaston, (1978). Pages 65-95.Google Scholar