Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:54:23.172Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Strong and Weak Senses of Theory-Ladenness of Experimentation: Theory-Driven versus Exploratory Experiments in the History of High-Energy Particle Physics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2013

Koray Karaca
Koray Karaca*
Affiliation:
University of Wuppertal, Germany E-mail: karacak@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Argument

In the theory-dominated view of scientific experimentation, all relations of theory and experiment are taken on a par; namely, that experiments are performed solely to ascertain the conclusions of scientific theories. As a result, different aspects of experimentation and of the relations of theory to experiment remain undifferentiated. This in turn fosters a notion of theory-ladenness of experimentation (TLE) that is too coarse-grained to accurately describe the relations of theory and experiment in scientific practice. By contrast, in this article, I suggest that TLE should be understood as an umbrella concept that has different senses. To this end, I introduce a three-fold distinction among the theories of high-energy particle physics (HEP) as background theories, model theories, and phenomenological models. Drawing on this categorization, I contrast two types of experimentation, namely, “theory-driven” and “exploratory” experiments, and I distinguish between the “weak” and “strong” senses of TLE in the context of scattering experiments from the history of HEP. This distinction enables identifying the exploratory character of the deep-inelastic electron-proton scattering experiments – performed at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) between the years 1967 and 1973 – thereby shedding light on a crucial phase of the history of HEP, namely, the discovery of “scaling,” which was the decisive step towards the construction of quantum chromo-dynamics as a gauge theory of strong interactions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 93 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

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.)

References

Ackermann, Robert. 1989. “The New Experimentalism.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40:185–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, Stephen L. 1966. “Sum Rules Giving Tests of Local Current Commutation Relations in High-Energy Neutrino Reactions.” Physical Review 143:1144–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, David Z. 1994. Quantum Mechanics and Experience. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auyang, Sunny Y. 1995. How is Quantum Field Theory Possible. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barish, Barry C. 1998. Interview by Shirley K. Cohen. Pasadena, California, May-July 1998. Oral History Project, California Institute of Technology Archives. http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechOH:OH_Barish_B (last accessed November 12, 2012).Google Scholar
Binosi, Daniele, and Theussl, Lukas. 2004. “JaxoDraw: A Graphical User Interface for Drawing Feynman Diagrams.” Computer Physics Communications 161:76–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjorken, James D. 1966a. “Inequality for Electron and Muon Scattering from Nucleons.” Physical Review Letters 16:408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjorken, James D. 1966b. “Applications of the Chiral U(6) ⊗ U(6) Algebra of Current Densities.” Physical Review 148:1467–1478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjorken, James D. 1967a. “Inelastic Electron (and Muon) Scattering at High Energies and Forward Angles.” An incomplete, unpublished manuscript written in early 1967; a refined version published in Bjorken 2003, 27–39, under the title “Inelastic Lepton Scattering and Nucleon Structure.”CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjorken, James D. 1967b. “Current Algebra at Small Distances.” In Proceedings of International School of Physics, Enrico Fermi Course 41, Selected Topics in Particle Physics (Varenna, July 17–29, 1967), edited by Steinberger, Jack, 55–81. London and New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bjorken, James D. 1967c. “Theoretical Ideas on Inelastic Electron and Muon Scattering.” In Proceedings of the 1967 International Symposium on Electron and Photon Interactions at High Energies (Stanford University, September 5–9, 1967), edited by Berman, Samuel M., 109–127. Springfield: International Union of Pure and Applied Physics.Google Scholar
Bjorken, James D. 1967d. “Inequality for Backward Electron- and Muon-Nucleon Scattering at High Momentum Transfer.” Physical Review 163:1767–1769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjorken, James D. 1969. “Asymptotic Sum Rules at Infinite Momentum.” Physical Review 179:1547–1553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjorken, James D. 1997. “Deep-Inelastic Scattering: From Current Algebra to Partons.” In The Rise of the Standard Model: Particle Physics in the 1960s and 1970s, edited by Hoddeson, Lillian, Brown, Laurie M., Riordan, Michael, and Dresden, Max, 589–599. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjorken, James D. 2003. In Conclusion: A Collection of Summary Talks in High Energy Physics. Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjorken, James, and Paschos, Emmanual A.. 1969. “Inelastic Electron-Proton and γ-Proton Scattering and the Structure of the Nucleon.” Physical Review 185:1975–1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, Elliott D., et al. 1968. “Inelastic Scattering from Protons.” Not published but listed as paper 563 on page 456 in Proceedings of 14th International Conference on High Energy Physics (Vienna, August 28-September 5, 1968), edited by Jack Steinberger and Jacek Prentki. Geneva: European Organization for Nuclear Research.Google Scholar
Bloom, Elliott D., et al. 1969. “High-Energy Inelastic e-p Scattering at 6° and 10°.” Physical Review Letters 23:930–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, Elliott D., et al. 1970. “Recent Results in Inelastic Electron Scattering.” Unpublished report presented to the 15th International Conference on High Energy Physics, Kiev, U.S.S.R, August 26-September 4, 1970. SLAC-Pre-print: SLAC-PUB-796.Google Scholar
Breidenbach, Martin, et al. 1969. “Observed Behaviour of Highly Inelastic Electron-Proton Scattering.” Physical Review Letters 23:935–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Harvey R. and Rom, Harré, eds. 1988. Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Field Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Burian, Richard M. 1997. “Exploratory Experimentation and the Role of Histochemical Techniques in the Work of Jean Brachet, 1938–1952.” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 19:27–45.Google ScholarPubMed
Burian, Richard M. 2007. “On microRNA and the Need for Exploratory Experimentation in Post-Genomic Molecular Biology.” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 29 (3):285–311Google ScholarPubMed
Callan, Curtis G., and Gross, David J.. 1969. “High-Energy Electroproduction and the Constitution of Electric Current.” Physical Review Letters 22:156–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cao, Tian Y. 1991. “The Reggeization Program 1962-1982: Attempts at Reconciling Quantum Field Theory with S-matrix Theory.” Archive for History of Exact Sciences 41:239–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cao, Tian Y. 1997. Conceptual Developments of Twentieth Century Field Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cao, Tian Y., ed. 1999. Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Field Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cao, Tian Y. 2010. From Current Algebra to Quantum Chromodynamics: A Case for Structural Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrier, Martin. 1998. “New Experimentalism and Changing Significance of Experiments: On the Shortcomings of an Equipment-Centered Guide to History.” In Experimental Essays-Versuche zum Experiment, edited by Heidelberger, Michael and Steinle, Friedrich, 175–191. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. 1983. How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy, Shomar, Towfic, and Suarez, Mauricio. 1995. “The Tool Box of Science: Tools for the Building of Models with a Superconductivity Example.” In Theories and Models in Scientific Process (Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of Science and the Humanities 44), edited by Herfel, William, Krajewski, Wladiyslaw, Niiniluoto, Ilkka and Wojcicki, Ryszard, 137–149. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, Alan. 2003. “The Theory-Dependence of the Use of Instruments in Science.” Philosophy of Science 70:493–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chew, Geoffrey F. 1961. S-Matrix Theory of Strong Interactions. New York: Benjamin.Google Scholar
Chew, Geoffrey F. 1962. “S-matrix Theory of Strong Interactions without Elementary Particles.” Review of Modern Physics 34:394–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chew, Geoffrey F. 1963. “Strong Interaction S-Matrix Theory Without Elementary Particles.” In 1962 Cargese Lectures in Theoretical Physics, edited by Levy, Maurice, Lecture 11, 1–37. New York: Benjamin.Google Scholar
Chew, Geoffrey F. 1964. “Nuclear Democracy and Bootstrap Dynamics.” In Strong-Interaction Physics: A Lecture Note Volume, edited by Jacob, Maurice and Chew, Geoffrey F., 103–152. New York: W. A. Benjamin.Google Scholar
Chew, Geoffrey F. 1968. “‘Bootstrap’: A Scientific Idea?” Science 161:762–765.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chew, Geoffrey F. 1970. “Hadron Bootstrap: Triumph or Frustration?” Physics Today 23:23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chew, Geoffrey F. 1989. “Particles as S-matrix Poles: Hadron Democracy.” In Pions to Quarks: Particle Physics in the 1950s, edited by Brown, Laurie M., Dresden, Max, and Hoddeson, Lillian, 600–608. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chew, Geoffrey F., and Frautschi, Steven C.. 1961a. “Principle of Equivalence for All Strongly Interacting Particles within the S-matrix Framework.” Physical Review Letters 7:394–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chew, Geoffrey F., and Frautschi, Steven C.. 1961b. “Dynamical Theory for Strong Interactions at Low Momentum Transfers But Arbitrary Energies.” Physical Review 123:1478–1486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chew, Geoffrey F., Frautschi, Steven C., and Mandelstam, Stanley. 1962. “Regge Poles in π-π Scattering.” Physical Review 126:1202–1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chew, Geoffrey F., Gell-Mann, Murray, and Rosenfeld, Arthur H.. 1964. “Strongly Interacting Particles.” Scientific American 210:74–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifton, Robert K., ed. 1996. Perspectives on Quantum Reality: Non-relativistic, Relativistic, and Field-theoretic. Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer Academic PublishersCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, Aaron D. 2009. “Michael Faraday's ‘Historical Sketch of Electro-Magnetism’ and the Theory-Dependence of Experimentation.” Philosophy of Science 76:624–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Peter D. B. 1977: An Introduction to Regge Theory and High-Energy Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coward, David H., et al. 1968. “Electron-Proton Elastic Scattering at High Momentum Transfers.” Physical Review Letters 20:292–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushing, James T. 1985. “Is There Just One Possible World? Contingency vs the Bootstrap.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 16:31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushing, James T. 1990. Theory Construction and Selection in Modern Physics: The S-matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diddens, Albert N.et al. 1962. “High Energy Proton-Proton Scattering.” Physical Review Letters 9:111–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drell, Sidney D., and Walecka, John D.. 1964. “Electrodynamics Processes with Nuclear Targets.” Annals of Physics 28:18–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duhem, Pierre M. M. 1991. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Translated from the French edition, La théorie physique son objet et sa structure, 2nd ed., 1914. Paris: Chevalier & Rivière [1954] by Philip P. Wiener. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Elliott, Kevin C. 2007. “Varieties of Exploratory Experimentation in Nanotoxicology.” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 29:311–334.Google ScholarPubMed
Falkenburg, Brigitte. 2007. Particle Metaphysics: A Critical Account of Subatomic Reality. Berlin and New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul. 1981. Realism, Rationalism, and Scientific Method, Philosophical Papers, vol. I. Cambridge and New York:: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feynman, Richard P. 1969a. “Very High-Energy Collisions of Hadrons.” Physical Review Letters 23:1415–1417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feynman, Richard P. 1969b. “The Behavior of Hadron Collisions at Extreme Energies.” In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on High Energy Collisions, edited by Yang, Chen N.et al., 237–258. New York: Gordon and Breach.Google Scholar
Feynman, Richard P. 1972. Photon-Hadron Interactions. Reading MA: W. A. Benjamin.Google Scholar
Foley, Kenneth J.et al. 1963. “7- to 20-BeV/c π −+ p and p + p Elastic Scattering and Regge Pole Predictions.” Physical Review Letters 10:376–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, Allan. 1986. The Neglect of Experiment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, Allan. 1990. Experiment, Right or Wrong. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, Allan. 1997. “Millikan's Oil-drop Experiments.” Chemical Educator 2:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, Laura R. 2005. “Exploratory Experiments.” Philosophy of Science (Proceedings) 72:888–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freundlich, Yehudah. 1980. “Theory Evaluation and the Bootstrap Hypothesis.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 11:267–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frautschi, Steven C., Gell-Mann, Murray, and Zachariasen, Fredrik. 1962. “Experimental Consequences of the Hypothesis of Regge Poles.” Physical Review 126:2204–2218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Jerome I. 1991. “Deep-inelastic Scattering: Comparisons with the Quark Model.” Nobel Prize Lecture delivered 8 December 1990, Review of Modern Physics 63:615–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Jerome I. 2012. “Peering Inside the Proton.” European Physical Journal 36:469–485.Google Scholar
Friedman, Jerome I., and Kendall, Henry W.. 1972. “Deep Inelastic Electron Scattering.” Annual Review of Nuclear Science 22:203–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujii, Tadao, et al. 1962. “Elastic Proton-Proton Scattering at 1.35, 2.1, and 2.9 BeV.” Physical Review 128:1836–1841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gale, George, 1974. “Chew's Monadology.” Journal of the History of Ideas 35:339–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galison, Peter. 1987. How Experiments End. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Galison, Peter. 1997. Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gell-Mann, Murray. 1962. “Symmetries of Baryons and Mesons.” Physical Review 125:1067–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gell-Mann, Murray. 1964. “A Schematic Model of Baryons and Mesons.” Physics Letters 8:214–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, Ronald. 1988. Explaining Science:A Cognitive Approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gooding, David. 1990. Experiment and the Making of Meaning: Human Agency in Scientific Observation and Experiment. Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Dan. 2000. The Physics of Particle Detectors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Griffiths, David J. 2008. Introduction to Elementary Particles, 2nd rev. edition. New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
Gross, David J., and Wilczek, Franz. 1973. “Ultraviolet Behavior of Non-Abelian Gauge Theories.” Physical Review Letters 30:1343–1346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, David J. 2004. “Asymptotic Freedom and QCD – A Historical Perspective.” Nuclear Physics B (Proceedings Supplements) 135:193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1983. Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1992. “The Self-Vindication of the Laboratory Sciences.” In Science as Practice and Culture, edited by Pickering, Andrew, 29–64. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hanson, Norwood R. 1958. Patterns of Discovery. An Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Stephan. 1998. “Idealization in Quantum Field Theory.” In Idealization in Contemporary Physics (Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of Science and the Humanities 63), edited by Shanks, Niall, 99–122. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Stephan. 1999. “Models and Stories in Hadron Physics.” In Models as Mediators: Perspectives on Natural and Social Science, edited by Morgan, Mary and Morrison, Margaret, 326–346. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healey, Richard. 1989. The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: An Interactive Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidelberger, Michael. 2003. “Theory-Ladenness and Scientific Instruments in Experimentation.” In The Philosophy of Scientific Experimentation, edited by Radder, Hans, 138–151. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heisenberg, Werner. 1943a. “Die ‘Beobachtbaren Grössen’ in der Theorie der Elementarteilchen.” Zeitschrift für Physics 120:513–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heisenberg, Werner. 1943b. “Die ‘Beobachtbaren Grössen’ in der Theorie der Elementarteilchen. II.” Zeitschrift für Physics 120:673–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstadter, Robert. 1956. “Electron Scattering and Nuclear Structure.” Review of Modern Physics 28:214–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstadter, Robert, and McAllister, Robert W.. 1955. “Electron Scattering from the Proton.” Physical Review 98:217–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hon, Giora. 2003. “The Idols of Experiment: Transcending the ‘Etc. List’.” In The Philosophy of Scientific Experimentation, edited by Radder, Hans, 174–197. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, R. I. G. 1989. The Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Lawrence W. 1977. “A Review of Quark Search Experiments.” Review of Modern Physics 49:717–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, David. 2002. “Nuclear Democracy: Political Engagement, Pedagogical Reform, and Particle Physics in Postwar America.” Isis 93:229–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaiser, David. 2005. Drawing Theories Apart: The Dispersion of Feynman Diagrams in Postwar Physics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karaca, Koray. Forthcoming. “The Construction of the Higgs Mechanism and the Emergence of the Electro-weak Theory.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics.Google Scholar
Kendall, Henry W. 1991. “Deep-inelastic Scattering: Experiments on the Proton and the Observation of Scaling.” Nobel Prize Lecture delivered 8 December 1990, Review of Modern Physics 63:597–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd enlarged ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mandula, Jeffrey.1973. “Scaling Limit of Longitudinal Virtual Compton Cross Sections.” Physical Review D 8:328–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcum, James A. 2007. “Experimental Series and the Justification of Temin's DNA Provirus Hypothesis.” Synthese 154:259–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Gerald, et al. 1972. “Inelastic Electron-Proton Scattering at Large Momentum Transfers and the Inelastic Structure Functions of the Proton.” Physical Review D 5:528–544.Google Scholar
Morgan, Mary S., and Morrison, Margaret. 1999. “Models as Mediating Instruments.” In Models as Mediators: Perspectives on Natural and Social Science, edited Morgan, Mary S. and Morrison, Margaret, 10–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, Margaret. 1999. “Models as Autonomous Agents.” In Models as Mediators: Perspectives on Natural and Social Science, edited by Morgan, Mary S. and Morrison, Margaret, 38–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neal, Richard B. 1967. “Completion of Construction and Initial Operation of the SLAC Accelerator.” IEEE Transactions of Nuclear Science 14: 705–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Malley, Maureen. 2007. “Exploratory Experimentation and Scientific Practice: Metagenomics and the Proteorhodopsin Case.” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 29: 337–360.Google ScholarPubMed
Panofsky, Wolfgang K. H. 1968. “Electromagnetic Interactions: Low q 2 Electrodynamics: Elastic and Inelastic Electron (and Muon) Scattering.” In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on High Energy Physics (Vienna, August 28-September 5), edited by Prentki, Jacek and Steinberger, Jack, 23–39. Geneva: CERN.Google Scholar
Panofsky, Wolfgang K. H. 1997. Interview by Harvey Lynch on April 11 and May 2, 1997, Niels Bohr Library & Archives, American Institute of Physics, College Park MD, http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/5906.html (last accessed November 12, 2012).Google Scholar
Pickering, Andrew. 1984. Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Politzer, David. 1973. “Reliable Perturbative Results for Strong Interactions.” Physical Review Letters 30:1346–1349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Radder, Hans. 2003. “Technology and Theory in Experimental Science.” In The Philosophy of Scientific Experimentation, edited by Radder, Hans, 152–173. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radder, Hans. 2006. The World Observed, the World Conceived. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rechenberg, Helmut. 1989. “The Early S-matrix Theory and its Propagation.” In Pions to Quarks: Particle Physics in The 1950s, edited by Brown, Laurie M., Dresden, Max, and Hoddeson, Lillian, 551–578. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redhead, Michael. 1980a. “Models in Physics.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 31:145–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redhead, Michael. 1980b. “Some Philosophical Aspects of Particle Physics.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 11:279–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redhead, Michael. 1982. “Quantum Field Theory for Philosophers.” Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 2:57–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redhead, Michael. 2005. “Broken Bootstraps – The Rise and Fall of a Research Programme.”Foundations of Physics 35:561–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regge, Tullio. 1959. “Introduction to Complex Orbital Momenta.” Il Nuovo Cimento 14:951–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regge, Tullio. 1960. “Bound States, Shadow States and Mandelstam Representation.” Il Nuovo Cimento 18:947–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riordan, Michaelet al. 1974. “Extraction of R = σL/σT Deep Inelastic e-p and e-d Cross Sections.” Physical Review Letters 33:561–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riordan, Michael. 1987. The Hunting of the Quark: A True History of Modern Physics. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Ruetsche, Laura. 2011. Interpreting Quantum Theories: The Art of the Possible. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sargent, Rose-Mary. 1995. “Exploratory Experiments: Scientists at Play.” Unpublished manuscript delivered at History of Science Society Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, October 27–29, 1995.Google Scholar
Schweber, Silvan S. 1994. QED and the Men Who Made It: Dyson, Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinle, Friedrich. 1997. “Entering New Fields: Exploratory Uses of Experimentation.” Philosophy of Science 64 (Supplement):S65-S74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinle, Friedrich. 2002. “Experiments in History and Philosophy of Science.” Perspectives on Science 10:408–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Richard E. 1969. “Inelastic Electron-Proton Scattering in the Deep Continuum Region.” In Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Electron and Photon Interactions at High Energies (Liverpool, September 14–20), 251–260. SLAC-Pre-print: SLAC-PUB-677.Google Scholar
Taylor, Richard E. 2001. “The Discovery of the Point-like Structure of Matter.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A 359:225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teller, Paul. 1995. An Interpretive Introduction to Quantum Field Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Waters, Kenneth. 2007. “The Nature and Context of Exploratory Experimentation: An Introduction to Three Case Studies of Exploratory Research.” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 29:275–284.Google ScholarPubMed
Wheeler, John A. 1937. “On the Mathematical Description of Light Nuclei by the Method of Resonating Group Structure.” Physical Review 52:1107–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiedemann, Helmut. 2007. Particle Accelerator Physics, 3rd ed. Berlin and Heidelberger. Springer.Google Scholar
Zweig, George. 1964a. “An SU3 Model for Strong Interaction Symmetry and Its Breaking.” CERN Report TH-401 (January 17, 1964).Google Scholar
Zweig, George. 1964b. “An SU3 Model for Strong Interaction Symmetry and its Breaking II.” CERN Report TH-412 (February 21, 1964). Reprinted in Developments in the Quark Theory of Hadrons, A Reprint Collection, vol I:1964–1978, edited Lichtenberg, Don B. and Rosen, Peter S., 22–101. Nonamtum MA: Hadronic Press.Google Scholar