《Stephen G. Brush》.pdfVIP

Theory and Experiment in the Quantum-Relativity Revolution expanded version of lecture presented at American Physical Society meeting, 2/14/10 Abraham Pais History of Physics Prize for 2009 by Stephen G. Brush* Abstract Does new scientific knowledge come from theory whose predictions are confirmed by experiment or from experiment whose results are explained by theory Either can happen, depending on whether theory is ahead of experiment or experiment is ahead of theory at a particular time. In the first case, new theoretical hypotheses are made and their predictions are tested by experiments. But even when the predictions are successful, we can’t be sure that some other hypothesis might not have produced the same prediction. In the second case, as in a detective story, there are already enough facts, but several theories have failed to explain them. When a new hypothesis plausibly explains all of the facts, it may be quickly accepted before any further experiments are done. In the quantum-relativity revolution there are examples of both situations. Because of the two-stage development of both relativity “special,” then “general” and quantum theory “old,” then “quantum mechanics” in the period 1905-1930, we can make a double comparison of acceptance by prediction and by explanation. A curious anti- symmetry is revealed and discussed. _____________ *Distinguished University Professor Emeritus of the History of Science, University of Maryland. Home address: 108 Meadowlark Terrace, Glen Mills, PA 19342. Comments welcome. 1 “Science walks forward on two feet, namely theory and experiment. ... Sometimes it is only one foot which is put forward first, sometimes the other, but continuous progress is only made by the use of both – by theorizing and then testing, or by finding new relations in the process of experimenting and then bringing the theoretical foot up and pushing it on beyond, and so on in unending alterations.” Robert A. Mil