Abstract
The main question addressed in this essay is whether quarks have been observed in any sense and, if so, what might be meant by this use of the term, ‘observation’. In the first (or introductory) section of the paper, I explain that well-known researchers are divided on the answers to these important questions. In the second section, I investigate microphysical observation in general. Here I argue that Wilson's analogy between observation by means of high-energy accelerators and observation by means of microscopes is misleading, for at least three reasons. Moreover, so long as high-energy “observation” is accomplished by means of spark or bubble chambers, then sentences about these observations do not meet Maxwell's criterion, that observation statements are quickly decidable. I argue, however, that this criterion is not a good norm for what is observable in high-energy physics, both because it would result in our describing a great many allegedly observed particle events as unobserved or theoretical, and because it fails to distinguish the reasons why some observation statements might not be quickly decidable. Most important, Maxwell's criterion fails because, contrary to Hanson's analysis, it presupposes that “seeing” does not involve both “seeing as” and “seeing that.”
With this background concerning what is meant by general microphysical observation, in the third section of the essay, I discuss what might be meant by a more particular type of observation, that of the quark via scattering events. I employ Feinberg's distinction concerning observation of manifest, versus existent, particles and claim that the alleged “indirect observation” of quarks as existent particles is really based on a retroductive inference. I explain which premise in the retroductive argument appears most open to the charge of being theoretical (in a damaging sense) and less substantiated by observation.
In the fourth section of the essay, I discuss two different types of observation of quarks: detection of overt and hidden quark charm. Although this is only one illustration of alleged quark observation, I argue that the difference between the two types of observation of charm provides insight into which observations are less theoretical in a damaging sense. I claim that this case reveals, paradoxically, that an observation may be both more theory laden, but less theoretical in a damaging sense; that there is no real opposition between theory and observation (which is nothing new); that it might be wrong to think of an observation-theory continuum; and that who discovered charmed quarks is a function of what is meant by “observation.”
Finally, in the fifth and concluding section of the paper, I suggest that theoretical terms are essentially dynamic and that observations never really verify a theory. I close by suggesting why microphysical observations are becoming more theoretical, but not necessarily in a damaging sense. Both cosmological and microphysical observation demand that what is observed be seen in a very abstract way.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abrams, G. S., et al., ‘Discovery of a Second Narrow Resonance in e+e− Annihilation,’ Physical Review Letters 33 (1974), 1453–1455.
Applequist, T., Barnett, R., and Lane, K., ‘Charm and Beyond,’ in [39], pp.
Arnowitt, R., and Nath, P. (eds.), Gauge Theories and Modern Field Theory, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1976.
Aubert, J. J., et al., ‘Experimental Observation of a Heavy Particle J,’ Physical Review Letters 33 (1974), 1404–1406.
Augustin, J. E., et al., ‘Discovery of a Narrow Resonance in e+e− Annihilation,’ Physical Review Letters 33 (1974), 1406–1408.
Barnett, R. M., and Martin, F., ‘Distinguishing Scaling Violations from New Currents,’ Physical Review D 16 (1977), 2765–2768.
Bouchiat, C. D., Iliopoulos, J., and Meyer, P., ‘An Anomaly-Free Version of Weinberg's Model,’ Physics Letters B 38 (1972), 519–523.
Butterfield, H., The Origins of Modern Science, Macmillan, New York, 1957.
Cahn, R. N., and Ellis, S. D., ‘Decays of the γ' and the Structure of the Resonance at 10 GeV,’ Physical Review D 17 (1978), 2338–2341.
Cazzoli, E. G., et al., ‘Evidence for ΔS = −ΔQ Currents or Charmed Baryon Production by Neutrinos,’ Physical Review Letters 34 (1975), 1125–1128.
Cence, R., Dobson, P., Pakvasa, S., and Tuan, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Hawaii Topical Conference in Particle Physics, University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu, 1978.
Close, F. E., ‘A New Interaction for Leptons?’ Nature 273 (1978), 706–708.
Cnops, Am. M., et al., ‘Observation of the Kaonic Decay of the A + c Charmed Baryon,’ Physical Review Letters 42 (1979), 197–200.
Colodny, R. G. (ed.), Paradigms and Paradoxes, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 1972.
Cushing, J. T., ‘Some Aspects of Current Methodologies in the Philosophy of Science as Reflected in Quantum field theory and S-Matrix Theory,’ Preliminary Draft, typescript, 107 pp., available from J. T. Cushing, Department of Physics, University of Notre Dame.
Davies, D., ‘Can High Energy Physics Be Too Easy?’ Nature 273 (1978), 479.
Davies, P. C., The Forces of Nature, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979.
Drell, S., ‘When is a Particle?’ Physics Today 31 (1978), 23–32.
Eichten, E., et al., ‘Charmonium: The Model,’ Physical Review D 17 (1978), 3090–3117.
Eichten, E., Gottfried, K., and Kinoschita, T., et al., Physical Review Letters 34 (1975), 369–372.
Feinberg, G., ‘Philosophical Implications of Contemporary Particle Physics,’ in [14], pp. 33–46.
Feinberg, G., What is the World Made Of?’ Doubleday, New York, 1977.
Feldman, G., Perl, M., ‘Recent Results in Electron-Positron Annihilation Above 2 GeV,’ Physics Reports 33C (1977), 285–365.
Feyerabend, P., ‘Against Method,’ in [59], pp. 17–130.
Gaillard, M. K., Lee, B. W., ‘Rare Decay Modes of the K Mesons in Gauge Theories,’ Physical Review D 10 (1974), 897–916.
Gaillard, M. K., Lee, B. W., and Rosner, J. L., ‘Search for Charm,’ Review of Modern Physics 47 (1975), 277–310.
Georgi, H., and Glashow, S., ‘Gauge Theories Without Anomalies,’ Physical Review D (1972), 429–431.
Glashow, S., ‘Charm: An Invention Awaits Discovery,’ in D.A. Garelick (ed.), Experimental Meson Spectroscopy — 1974, American Institute of Physics, New York, 1974, pp. 387–392.
Glashow, S., ‘Fundamental Theory: New Particles, New Ideas,’ in [3], pp. 222–227.
Glashow, S., ‘Quarks with Color and Flavor,’ Scientific American 233 (1975), 38–50.
Glashow, S., Iliopoulos, J., and Maiani, L., ‘Weak Interactions with Lepton-Hadron Symmetry,’ Physical Review D 2 (1970), 1285–1292.
Goldhaber, A., and Heckman, H., ‘High Energy Interactions of Nuclei,’ in [39], pp. 161–205.
Goldhaber, A., and Pierre, F. M., et al., ‘Observation in e+e− Annihilation of a Narrow State at 1865 MeV/c2 Decaying to K π and Kπππ,’ Physical Review Letters 37 (1976), 255–259.
Greenberg, O., ‘Quarks,’ in [39], pp. 327–386.
Heisenberg, W., ‘The Nature of Elementary Particles,’ Physics Today 29 (1976), 32–39.
Hanson, N. R., Patterns of Discovery, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1969.
Hanson, N. R., Perception and Discovery, ed. W. C. Humphreys, Freeman, Cooper and Company, San Francisco, 1969.
Humpert, B., and Scharbach, P., ‘Neutral Heavy Leptons and e+e− Colliding-Beam Experiments,’ Physical Review D 16 (1977), 377–402.
Jackson, J., Gove, H., and Schwitters, R. (eds.), Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, California, 1978.
Knapp, B., et al., ‘Observation of a Narrow Antibaryon State at 2.26 GeV/c2,’ Physical Review Letters 37 (1976), 882–885.
Krisch, A., ‘The Spin of the Proton,’ Scientific American 240 (1979), 68–98.
Landshoff, P., ‘Quarks in High Energy Interactions’, in [75], 1–47.
Lannutti, J., and Williams, P. (ed.), Current Trends in the Theory of Fields: AIP Conference Proceedings, American Institute of Physics, New York, 1978.
Lubkin, G., ‘Evidence Grows for Charged Heavy Lepton at 1.8–2.0 GeV,’ Physics Today 30 (November 1977), 17, 19–20.
Lubkin, G., ‘Upsilon Particles at 9.4 and 10 GeV Suggest New Quark,’ Physics Today 30 (October 1977), 17, 19, 20.
Maxwell, Grover, ‘The Ontological Status of Theoretical Entities,’ Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 3, Scientific Explanation, Space, and Time, ed. H. Feigl and G. Maxwell, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1962.
Miller, D., ‘UPSI — DESY,’ Nature 273 (1978), 705.
Nambu, Y., ‘The Confinement of Quarks,’ Scientific American 235 (1976), 48–60.
Ng, Y., and Tye, S., ‘Is the γ a Bound State of Exotic Quarks?’ Physical Review Letters 41 (1978), 6–9.
Panofsky, W., ‘Needs Versus Means in High-Energy Physics,’ Physics Today 33 (1980), 24–32.
Panvini, R., Particle Searches and Discoveries — 1976, American Institute of Physics, New York, 1976.
Pati, J., ‘The World of Basic Attributes: Valency and Color,’ in [3], pp. 27–78.
Peruzzi, I., et al., ‘Observation of a Narrow Charged State at 1876 MeV/c2 Decaying to an Exotic Combination of Kππ,’ Physical Review Letters 37 (1976), 569–571.
Polkinghorne, J., Models of High Energy Processes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980.
Pretzl, K., ‘Results from Doris at DESY,’ in [51], pp. 248–273.
Price, P., Shirk, E., Osborne, W., and Pinsky, L., ‘Evidence for the Detection of a Moving Magnetic Monopole,’ Physical Review Letters 35 (1975), 487–490.
Queen, N., and Violini, G., Dispersion Theory in High-Energy Physics, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1974.
Quigg, C., ‘Postlude,’ in [51],, New York, 1976. pp. 321–334.
Radner, M., Winokur, S., Analyses of Theories and Methods of Physics and Psychology, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 4, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1970.
Robinson, A., ‘A Nuclear Puzzle Emerges at Berkeley,’ Science 210 (1980), 174–175.
Robinson, A., ‘New Evidence for a Fifth Quark,’ Science 205 (1979), 777.
Rosner, J., ‘Resource Letter NP-1: New Particles,’ American Journal of Physics 48 (1980), 90–103.
Roseboom, W., ‘The Factual Content of Theoretical Concepts,’ Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 3, Scientific Explanation, Space and Time, ed. H. Feigl and G. Maxwell, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1962, pp. 273–357.
Schwinger, J., ‘Introduction to Source Theory with Application to High Energy Physics,’ in [11], 341–381.
Schwinger, J., ‘Magnetic Charge,’ in [3], pp. 237–367.
Schwinger, J., Particles, Sources, and Fields, Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1970.
Schwitters, R., ‘Fundamental Particles with Charm,’ Scientific American 237 (1977), 56–70.
Shrader-Frechette, K., ‘Atomism in Crisis: An Analysis of the Current High Energy Paradigm,’ Philosophy of Science 44, (1977), 409–440.
Shrader-Frechette, K., ‘High Energy Models and the Ontological Status of the Quark,’ Synthese 42 (1979), 173–189.
Shrader-Frechette, K., ‘Recent Changes in the Concept of Matter: How Does “Elementary Particle” Mean?’ in P. Asquith and R. Giere (eds.), PSA 1980, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, Michigan, 1980, pp. 302–316.
Shutt, R. (ed.), Bubble and Spark Chambers, Academic, New York, 1967.
't Hooft, G., ‘Gauge Theories of the Forces Between Elementary Particles,’ Scientific American 242 (1980), 104–138.
Weinberg, S., ‘The Future of Unified Gauge Theories,’ Physics Today 30 (1977), 42–50.
Wilczek, F., ‘Steps Toward the Heavy Quark Potential,’ in [43], pp. 30–37.
Wilkinson, D. (ed.), Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, Vol. 3, Pergamon, Oxford, 1980.
Witten, E., ‘Quarks, Atoms, and the 1/N Expansion,’ Physics Today 33 (1980), 38–43.
Wilson, R., ‘The Next Generation of Particle Accelerators,’ Scientific American 242 (1980), 42–57.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shrader-Frechette, K.S. Quark quantum numbers and the problem of microphysical observation. Synthese 50, 125–145 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00413726
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00413726