Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Popper's tetradic schema, progressive research programs, and the case of parity violation in elementary particle physics 1953–1958

  • Aufsätze
  • Published:
Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die Frage der Erhaltung der Parität bei der Wechselwirkung von Elementarteilchen, der Vorschlag ihrer Verletzung, die experimentelle Bestätigung dieses Vorschlags und die daraus sich ergebenden Folgerungen, die zur Formulierung der mathematischen Struktur der schwachen Wechselwirkungen führten, sind die wichtigsten Entwicklungen in der Elementarteilchenphysik während der Periode von 1953 bis 1958.

Vorliegender Aufsatz versucht die rationale Rekonstruktion dieser Periode und des Forschungsprogrammes, welches als eines der progressivsten Programme der modernen Physik angesehen wird. Hierzu benutzen wir eine modifizierte Fassung von Poppers tetradischem Schema als auch die Bemerkungen von Lakatos über gewisse Aspekte der Methodologie von Forschungsprogrammen. Es wird unterstrichen, daß die Dynamik der positiven Heuristik derart war, daß die theoretische Forschung fortgeführt werden konnte, trotz experimenteller Resultate, die nur als Gegenbeweise gegen die vorgeschlagene Struktur der schwachen Wechselwirkungen angesehen werden konnten.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  1. Extensive work on these subjects can be found in K. Gavroglu “Research Guiding Principles in Modern Physics” Zs. für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie VII, 223, (1976). (To be referred as ref. I). A Baltas, K. Gavroglu, “A Modification of Popper's Tetradic Schema and the Special Relativity Theory” ibid. XI, 213, (1980). (To be referred as ref. II).

  2. I. Lakatos “Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes” p. 172 inCriticism and the Growth of Knowledge ed. by I. Lakatos, A. Musgrave (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1970).

  3. See footnote 2.

  4. K. R. Popper “Objective Knowledge, an Evolutionary Approach”. And also inThe Philosophy of K. R. Popper ed. A. Schilpp (Open Court, Illinois, 1976) especially section 38 of Autobiography, the article by J. C. Eccles “The World of Objective Knowledge” p. 349 and Popper's replies at the end of the volume.

  5. P. Feyerabend,Against Method (Verso, London, 1978) p. 274.

  6. Popper's concept of the “third world” is indeed much larger than this. It also includes “the objective conlents of thought, especially of scientific and politic thoughts and of works of art” (Objective Knowledge op. cit. p. 106). One could perhaps go as far as to say that it includes all objectified and objectifiable results of human practice which are not objects.

  7. A. Lalande,Vocabulaire Technique et Critique de Philosophie (PUF, Paris, 1972) p. 1031.

  8. K. R. Popper,Objective Knowledge op. cit. p. 115.

  9. This “definition” of a physical theory constitutes a stronger statement than the just heuristic role in ferthering physical discovery attributed by Zahar to the relation of Mathematics to Physics. Our “definition” does not imply, of course, that all mathematical quantities and operations should be given a physical interpretation but one way or another, we feel that as it stands, this “definition” is not sufficiently corroborated. A comprehensive definition should, at least, consider the relation of the particular physical theory with other theories that may serve as auxiliary premisses for the conduction of the relevant experiments (see P. Feyerabend, op. cit. p. 66 et seq.) and/or for the elucidation of the status of the eventually relevant parameters that are not accounted for by the initial theory. E. Zahar “Why did Einstein's Program supersede Lorentz's?” (I). The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science” 24, 109, (1973).

  10. F. Lurcat, “Theory of Strong Interactions. I. Kinematics” Annals of Physics,106, (2), p. 342, 1977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. See, for example, the discussion of Bohr's research program and the successive steps for the construction of his model for the atom in I. Lakatos op. cit. p. 140 et seq.

  12. For a thorough and systematic “blowing up” of Popper's tetradic schema see the excellent article by G. Radnitzky “Popperian Philosophy of Science as an Antidote against Relativism “in R. S. Cohen et al. (eds.)Essays in Memory of Imre Lakatos (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1976). See especially p. 526.

  13. For the use of this concept, introduced by Lenin, in epistemology see P. Feyerabend, op. cit, p. 145 et seq.

  14. The internal dynamics of Mathematics is magnificently depicted in I. LakatosProofs and Refutations, the Logic of Mathematical Discovery edited by J. Worrall and E. Zahar (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1976).

  15. I. Lakatos, “Methodology ...” op. cit. p. 137 and Part IV ofProofs and Refutations.

  16. An analytic treatment of the process of contextual reinterpretation can be found in footnote 2 above, ref. I. While building up a model in elementary particle physics one distinguishes discrete stages characterized by phenomenological re-interpretation, substantialistic re-interpretation, correlative re-interpretation, and essentialistic re-interpretation. See also P. Heelan “Heisenberg and Radical Theoretical Change” Zeit fur Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie VI, 113, (1975).

  17. I. Lakatos “Methodology ...” The case studies are the Michelson-Morley experiment, the Lummer-Pringsheim experiments, and the Beta-decay of the neutron. There is also an excellent presentation of Prout's and Bohr's programs in quantum mechanics.

  18. I. Lakatos “Methodology ...” p. 168. The beta decay of the neutron refers to the only decay mode of the neutron. The free neutrons decay through weak interactions in about fifteen minutes into a proton, electron and an (anti-) neutrino. Historically, it is the first studied decay of an elementary particle.

  19. W. Pauli first expressed his idea about a massless particle carrying energy and having spin 1/2 which could account for the missing energy of the neutron decay in 1931. The first public and thorough presentation of his — slightly modified — ideas about the neutrino occurred at the Seventh Solvay Conference, held in Brussells in October 1933. See “Structure and Proprietees des Noyaux Atomiques” Rapport et Discussions du Septiemme Conseil de Physique tenu a Bruxelles du 25 an 29 Octobre 1933 (Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1934). For a detailed discussion of the modifications undergone by Pauli's ideas in their successive presentations see L. Brown “The idea of the neutrino” Physics Today September 1978 p. 23. There have also been other suggestions about the neutrino, notably by D. Iwanenko “The neutron hypothesis” Nature129, 798, (1932) and in a series of papers by W. Heisenberg in Zeit f. Physik 1932–1933, with the general title “Uber den Ban der Atomkerne”.

  20. I. Lakatos “Methodology ...” op. cit. p. 170.

  21. E. Fermi “Tentativo di una teoria dei raggi β” Nuovo Cimento11, 1 (1934) “Versuch einer Theorie der β-Strahlen I” Zeit f. Physik88, 161, (1934). For an english translation of these papers see P. K. KabirThe Development of Weak Interaction Theory p. 1 (Gordon and Breach, New York 1964). See also E. FermiCollected Papers (Academia Nazionale dei Lincei and the University of Chicago Press, Rome, 1962–1965), especially the historical introduction by E. Rasetti. Finally, there is a really outstanding analysis of Fermi's papers in “Beta Decay Opens the Way to Weak Interactions” by E. Amaldi inProceedings of the International Colloquium on the History of Particle Physics, Paris, July 21–23, 1982.

  22. See the account given by Pauli in the last chapter of W. W. Pauli “Ausatze und Vortrage uber Physik und Erkenntnistheorie (1933–1958)”. This chapter, is reproduced inCollected Scientific Papers of W. Pauli ed. by R. Kronig, U. F. Weisskopf (Interscience, New York, 1964) p. 1313.

  23. For the extension of electrodynamics to the weak interaction theory see G. Bernardini “Weak Interactions” and C. S. Wu “Beta Decay” inWeak Interactions and High Energy Neutrino Physics, Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi” course 32 (Academic Press, New York, 1966).

  24. I. Lakatos “Methodology ...” p. 172 footnote 2. One should note that every progressive program in elementary particle physics modified desicively our understanding of the neutrino.

  25. SeeProceedings of the International Colloquium on the History of Particle Physics Paris July 21–23, 1982. I thank Dr. T. Christidis for providing me with the tapes of the discussions in the Colloquium.

  26. SeeAdventures in Experimental Physics ed. B. Maglich, vol. gamma (World Science Education, Princeton 1973).

  27. A compehensive account of parity conservation can also be found in C. N. Yang's Nobel Lecture, Science127, 565, (1958). Also J. J. SakuraiInvariance Principles and Elementary Particles (Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1964). See also C. N. YangElementary Particles: A Short History of Some Discoveries in Atomic Physics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1961). C. N. Yang, “Lectures on Frontiers in Physics” B. W. Lee Memorial lectures in physics (Korean Physical Society and Engineering Foundation 1980). T. D. Lee “Weak Interactions and Non-conservation of Parity” Science 127, 569, (1958). P. Morrison “The Overthrow of Parity” Scientific American196, 45, (1957). T. D. Lee, C. S. Wu “Weak Interactions” Annual Review of Nuclear Science in vols. 15 and 16, (1965 and 1966). H. LipkinBeta Decay for Pedestrians (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1962). Also see A. Franklin “The Discovery and Nondiscovery of Parity Nonconservetion” Stud. Hist. Phil. Science10, 201, (1979).

  28. O. Laporte, Z. Physik23, 135, (1924).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. The interpretation of Laporte's rule in terms of the quantum-mechanical operation of inversion, see F. WignerGruppentheorie und ihre Anwendung auf die Quantenmechanik der Atmosphektren (F. Vieweg und Sohn, Braunschweig, 1931).

  30. From the Introduction ofGroup Theory by E. Wigner (Academic Press, New York, 1959).

  31. I. Lakatos “Methodology ...” p. 159 footnote 1. “... a “puzzle” in a programme is a problem which we regard as a challenge to that particular programme”.

  32. There was, before the Rochester Conference, serious work that culminated to the proof that the two particles could not be the same. R. H. Dalitz, Phil. Mag.44, 1068, (1953); Phys. Rev.94, 1046, (1954). See also E. Fabri Nuovo Cimento11, 479, (1954).

  33. C. N.Yang in Proceeding of the 6th Annual Rochester Conference April 3–7, 1956. Introductory talk at the session titledTheoretical Interpretation of New Particles.

  34. C. N. Yang's talk at the 1982 Paris Colloquium. See footnote above 28.

  35. Discussion after Yang's talk at the 6th Rochester Conference. Footnote above 36.

  36. C. N. Yang at the 6th Rochester Conference. Yang in his Nobel lecture remarks that he and Lee reached the conclusion about the possibility of parity violation during May, 1956, that is right after the Rochester Conference. Their paper is received by Physical Review on June 22, 1956 and the first reliable experimental results are out by Christmas of 1956. The boldness of Yang's remark can be further appreciated if we note that the reports about the identification of free neutrinos were published in July, 1956. C. L. Cowan, F. Reines, F. B. Harrison, H. W. Kruse, A. D. McGuire “Detection of Free Neutrino: A Confirmation” Science124, 103 (1956).

  37. Remarkable similarities can be found in the development of Compton's program. R. H. Stuewer “On Compton's Research Program” inEssays in Memory of I. Lakatos ed. R. S. Cohen, R. K. Feyerabend, M. W. Wartofsky (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1976). Compton started his program after establishing a puzzle, he went on to modify Thompson's assumption and was not perturbed by the fact that the dimensions of the electron were of the same order as the dimension of the hydrogen atom. Finally, he was able to find a fundamentally different interpretation of a “crucial test” of his.

  38. T. D. Lee, C. N. Yang “Question of Parity Conservation in Weak Interactions” Phys. Rev.104, 254, (1956) p. 254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. “People not only took it for granted that parity was conserved in all interactions, but this untested notion was also used to discourage others from doing any experiments to test, much less challenge, the validity of this concept. I was told by Dr. M. Marita who joined our group in October, 1956, that this actually happened at International Conference in Japan in 1955”. From Wu's account inAdventures in Experimental Physics (see footnote above 29) p. 102. Prof. Ypsilantis recalled similar experiences (Summer School on High Energy Physics, Corfu, September 12–30, 1982).

  40. V. L. Telegdi, Paris Colloquium.

  41. C. N. Yang, Paris Colloquium.

  42. Ibid.

  43. C. S. Wu, E. Amber, R. W. Hayward, D. D. Hoppes, R. P. Hudson “Experimental test of Parity Conservation in Beta Decay” Phys. Rev.105, 1413, (1957).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. R. L. Garwin, L. Lederman, M. Weinrich “Observation of the Failure of Conservation of Parity and Charge Conjugation in Meson Decay: The Magnetic Moment of the Free Muon” Phys. Rev.105, 1415, (1957). J. I. Friedman, V. L. Telegdi “Nuclear Emulsion Evidence for Parity Non-Conservation in the Decay π+ → μ+ → e+” Phys. Rev.105, 1681, (1957). The papers by Wu et al. and Garwin et al. were published in the same issue of the Physical Review, and there was a disagreement on the part of the editors about the statistical sample of the third experiment, which was published at the nex issue. See also footnote above, 29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. The strict inference of Lee and Yang was that only reactions involving neutrinos violate parity. The extension to θ-τ was a conjecture (which however, turned out to be true) which was based on the assumption that the θ and τ are not the same particle. Thus there appeared a “definite experimental evidence against the idea that the K meson exists in a parity doublet, and, in fact, there is no theoretical necessity for such a proposal”. From T. D. Lee's talk at the 7th Rochester Conference.Proceedings of the 7th Annual Rochester Conference, April 15–19, 1957.

  46. Letter of W. Pauli to V. F. Weisskopf January 17, 1957, quoted in J. BernsteinA Comprehensive World: On Modern Science and its Origins (Random House, New York, 1961) p. 59.

  47. Letter of W. Pauli to C. S. Wu January 19, 1957 inAdventures in Experimental Physics (footnote above 29) p. 122.

  48. Letter of W. Pauli to V. F. Weisskopf January 27, 1957. Documents of the Paris Colloquium. Footnote above 28.

  49. L. Landau “On the Conservation laws for Weak Interactions” Nuclear Physics3, 127, (1957). A Salam “On Parity Conservation and Neutrino Mass” Nuovo Cimento5, 299 (1957).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. This treatment of the neutrino automatically explains the zero (physical) rest mass of the neutrino, builds in non-conservation of parity and charge (while maintaiving CP invariance), and requires the spin of the neutrino be always exactly parallel or antiparellel to its momentum. See also footnote 77.

  51. See footnotes below 85 and 86.

  52. T. D. Lee and C. N. Yang “Parity Non-Conservation and a Two-Component Theory of the Neutrino” Phys. Rev.105, 1671, (1957).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. C. S. Wu inAdventures in Experimental Physics op. cit. p. 117.

  54. C. N. Yang “Some Concepts in Current Elementary Particle Physics” inThe Physicist's Conception of Nature ed. by J. Mehra (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1973) p. 447.

  55. I. Lakatos “Methodology ...” p. 175.

  56. T. D. Lee, R. Oehme, C. N. Yang “Remarks on Possible Noninvariance Under Time Reversal and Change Conjugation” Phys. Rev.106, 340 (1957). See also E. R. Wigner “Relativistic Invariance and Quantum Phenomena” Rev. Mod. Phys.29, 255, (1957).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. From T. D. Lee's talk in the 7th Rochester Conference (see footnote above 49).

  58. See, for example, P. K. KabirThe CP Puzzle, Strange Decays of the Neutral Kaon (Academic Press, London, 1968).

  59. R. Oppenheimer,Proceedings of the 7th Annual Rochester Conference April 15–19, 1957 Session on Weak Interactions.

  60. E. G. C. Sudarshan, R. E. Marshak “The Nature of the Four Fermion Interaction” p. V-14–22,Proceedings Padua-Venice Conference on Mesons and Recently Discovered Particles September 22–27, 1957, and “Chirality Invariance and the Universal Fermi Interactions” Phys. Rev.109, 1860, (1958). R. P. Feynmann, M. Gell-Mann “Theory of Fermi Interaction” Phys. Rev. 109, 193, (1958). J. J. Sakurai “Mass Reversal and Weak Interactions” Nuovo Cimento7, 649, (1958). Also B. Touschek “The Mass of the Neutrino and the Non-Conservation of Parity “Nuovo Cimento5, 1281, (1957). In this work the author shows that the conservation of leptonic number in the presence of parity violation is compatible only with the V-A theory, but this derivation is much less general and is based on a rather limited set of experimental data. An interesting question which can be raised in this context has to do with the conditions that make two seemingly different particle theories physically equivalent. M. A. Melvin poses the same question in a different context in rev. Mod. Phys.32, 477, (1960).

  61. See, for example, J. Tiomno and J. A. Wheeler “Charge Exchange Reaction of the Mu Meson with the Nucleus” Rev. Nod. Phys.21, 144, (1949).

    Google Scholar 

  62. J. J. SakuraiInvariance Principles op. cit. p. 159.

  63. E. G. C. Sudarshan, R. E. Marshak op. cit. p. V-14–30.

  64. R. P. Feyn ferences in Popper's work about parity non-conservation. The relatively important references are in K. R. PopperConjectures and Refutations (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1963) pp. 220, 239 and 242–243. K. R. Popper, “Science: Problems, Aims, Responsibilities” Federation Proceedings22, 961, (1963).

  65. K. R. Popper,Conjectures and Refutations op. cit. p. 220.

  66. See, for example, I. Lakatos “History of Science and its Rational Reconstructions” in Philosophical Papers of I. Lakatos edited by J. Worrall, and G. Currie, vol. 1 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1978) p. 128 footnote 1. The situation concerning the weak interactions was very crucial in addition to the above (see footnotes 68 and 69). The scarcity of electrons in pion decay threw doubt on the whole central idea of a universal interaction.

  67. R. T. Cox, C. G. Ilwraith, B. Kurrelmayer “Apparent Evidence of Polarization in a Beam of β-Rays” Proceedings National Academy of Science, U.S.A.14, 544, (1928). See also Cox's account inAdventures in Experimental Physics footnote above 29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. R. T. Cox et al. ibid p. 546.

  69. L. Grodzins,Adventures in Experimental Physics (see footnote above 29) “A comment on the History of Double Scattering of Beta Decays” p. 154.

  70. E. Wigner mentioned this incident at theParis Colloquium (see footnote above 28). One wonders, however, why Cox himself does not mention anything concerning this incident, in his otherwise thorough presentation of his experiment together with his reminiscences of that period inAdventures in Experimental Physics (see footnote above 29) p. 145–149.

  71. H. Weyl “Electron and Gravitation I” Zeits. f. Physik56, 330, (1929).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. W. Pauli,Handbuch der Physik, Vol. 24, p. 226–227, (Springer, Berlin, 1933) Let us note, however, a remark of Weyl's to F. J. Dyson “My work always tried to unite the true with the beautiful, but when I had to choose one or the other I usually chose the beautiful”. Weyl's death occurred on December 9, 1955 a little before the revival of his ideas. See J. Bernstein op. cit. p. 66.

  73. P. A. M. Dirac, Rev. Mod. Physics21, 392, 1949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. In “Crucial Experiments on Discrete Symmetries” by V. L. Telegdi inThe Physicist's Conception of Nature, op. cit. p. 459.

  75. E. M. Purcell, N. F. Ramsey “On the possibility of Electric Dipole Moments for Elementary Particles and Nuclei” Phys. Rev.78 807, (1950). Despite their lack of prejudice their results were accurate enough to test parity conservation in the strong and electromagnetic interactions but not in the weak interactions.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Article by P.A.M. Dirac “Development of the Physicist's Conception of Nature” inPhysicist's Conception of Nature op. cit. p. 1.

  77. Ibid. p. 15.

  78. Article by I. B. Novik “Visualizability and Models in the Theory of Elementary Particles” inPhilosophical Problems of Elementary Particle Physics ed. K. Kuznetsov (Daniel Davy Co., New York, 1965), p. 232.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Article by I. S. Shapiro “Spacetime Quantization in Elementary Particle Theory” inPhilosophical Problems in Elementary Particle Physics op. cit. p. 118.

  80. Ibid. p. 249.

  81. A thorough and comprehensive treatment of the weak interactions is R. E. Marshak, Riazzudin, C. P. RyanTheory of Weak Interactions in Particle Physics (Wiley, New York, 1969).

  82. I. Lakatos “Methodology ...” op, cit. p. 135 footnote 1.

  83. C. N. Yang, see footnote above 58 p. 447.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Physics, National Technical University, Zografu Campus, Athens 624, Greece

    Kostas Gavroglu

Authors
  1. Kostas Gavroglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Throughout the preperation of this work I have greatly benefited from discussions with my collegue Dr. A. Baltas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gavroglu, K. Popper's tetradic schema, progressive research programs, and the case of parity violation in elementary particle physics 1953–1958. Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 16, 261–286 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01803675

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01803675

Keywords

Search

Navigation