Advertisement

Experiment, Theory Choice, and the Duhem-Quine Problem

  • Allan Franklin
Chapter
  • 107 Downloads
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 195)

Abstract

The fallibility and corrigibility of experimental results is well established. One need only look at a survey of the measurements of fundamental physical constants1 or at the “Review of Particle Properties,”2 a standard reference for high-energy physicists, to see that the measured values of not only particular quantities, but also of the world average of such quantities, change by far more than their cited experimental uncertainties would suggest is plausible or probable.3 A case in point is the history of measurements of η+-, the CP violating parameter in K° decay (see Figure 1). Prior to 1973, η+- had been measured six times. The results were in good statistical agreement and had a mean of (1.95 ± 0.03)× 10-3. The four succeeding measurements agreed with each other, and had a mean of (2.27 ± 0.022)×10-3. These means differ by eight standard deviations, an unlikely change if these are two sets of correct measurements of the same quantity. (The probability is 1.24×10-15). Unless one is willing to consider the possibility that η+- changed in 1973, we must conclude that at least one of these sets of measurements is incorrect.

Keywords

Physical Review Theory Choice Rational Belief Fermi Theory Dirac Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    E.R. Cohen and J.W. DuMond, “Our Knowledge of the Fundamental Constants of Physics and Chemistry in 1965,” Reviews of Modern Physics, 37 (1965), 537–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Particle Data Group, “Review of Particle Properties,” Reviews of Modern Physics, 48 (1976), S1–S245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 4.
    E. Fermi, “Attempt at a Theory of ß-Rays,” Nuovo Cimento, 11 (1934), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 6.
    B.W. Sargent, “The Maximum Energy of the ß-Rays from Uranium X and other Bodies,” Proceedings of the Royal Society (London), A139 (1933), 659–73.Google Scholar
  5. 7.
    E. Konopinski and G.E. Uhlenbeck, “On the Fermi Theory of Radioactivity,” Physical Review ,48 (1935), 7–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 8.
    CD. Ellis and W.J. Henderson, “Artificial Radioactivity,” Proceedings of the Royal Society (London), A146 (1934), 206–16.Google Scholar
  7. 9.
    B.W. Sargent, “Energy distribution curves of the disintegration electrons,” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 24 (1932), 538–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 10.
    H.A. Bethe and R.F. Bacher, “Nuclear Physics,” Reviews of Modern Physics, 8 (1936), 82–229. Quotation on p. 192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 11.
    E.J. Konopinski and G.E. Uhlenbeck, “On the Fermi Theory of ß-Radioactivity,” Physical Review ,60 (1941), 308–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 12.
    J.L. Lawson, “The Beta-Ray Spectrum of Phosphorus, Sodium, and Cobalt,” Physical Review, 56 (1939), 131–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 13.
    E. Konopinski, “Beta Decay,” Reviews of Modern Physics, 15 (1943), 209–45. Quotation on p. 218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 14.
    A. Franklin, The Neglect of Experiment (Cambridge University Press, 1986), Chapter 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 15.
    I. Hacking, Representing and Intervening (Cambridge University Press, 1983).Google Scholar
  14. 16.
    A. Franklin and C. Howson, “Why Do Scientists Prefer to Vary Their Experiments,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 15 (1984), 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 17.
    This might be referred to as the Sherlock Holmes strategy. As Holmes remarked to Watson, “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable ,must be the truth.” [A. Conan Doyle, The Sign of Four , in The Annotated Sherlock Holmes ,W.S. Baring-Gould, (ed.), (New York: Clarkson N. Potter, 1967), p. 638].Google Scholar
  16. 20.
    See S. Harding (ed.), Can Theories be Refuted? (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1976).Google Scholar
  17. 22.
    C.S. Wu et al., “Experimental Test of Parity Nonconservation in Beta Decay,” Physical Review, 105 (1957), 1413–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 23.
    A. Franklin, “The Discovery and Acceptance of CP Violation,” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 13(2) (1983), 207–38.Google Scholar
  19. 24.
    J. Christenson et al., “Evidence for the 2π Decay of the K2 Meson,” Physical Review Letters, 13 (1964), 138–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 25.
    J. Prentki, “CP Violation,” Oxford International Conference on Elementary Particles, 1965, Proceedings (Oxford, 1966), 47–58.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allan Franklin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUniversity of ColoradoUSA

Personalised recommendations