No abstract

pages. Why does one theory "succeed" while another, possibly clearer interpretation, fails? By exploring two observationally equivalent yet conceptually incompatible views of quantum mechanics, James T. Cushing shows how historical contingency can be crucial to determining a theory's construction and its position among competing views.Since the late 1920s, the theory formulated by Niels Bohr and his colleagues at Copenhagen has been the dominant interpretation of quantum mechanics. Yet an alternative interpretation, rooted in the work of Louis de Broglie in the early 1920s and reformulated and extended by David Bohm in the 1950s, equally well explains the observational data. Through a detailed historical and sociological study of the physicists who developed different theories of quantum mechanics, the debates within and between opposing camps, and the receptions given to each theory, Cushing shows that despite the preeminence of the Copenhagen view, the Bohm interpretation cannot be ignored. Cushing contends that the Copenhagen interpretation became widely accepted not because it is a better explanation of subatomic phenomena than is Bohm's, but because it happened to appear first.Focusing on the philosophical, social, and cultural forces that shaped one of the most important developments in modern physics, this provocative book examines the role that timing can play in the establishment of theory and explanation..

No abstract

No abstract

This paper presents the theoretical background for and the detailed analysis of Kaufmann’s 1901–1905 experiments to determine the e/m ratio for fast electrons. Far from providing the first experimental confirmation of Einstein’s special theory of relativity, as is often claimed in physics textbooks today, these data were initially interpreted as confirming Abraham’s classical model of a rigid spherical electron and as providing evidence against special relativity. Only in 1906–1907, upon Planck’s subsequent reanalysis of Kaufmann’s 1905 data, did these experiments become evidence marginally in favor of relativity over classical models of the electron. This particular issue, of the superiority of special realtivity over classical theory in providing a fit to e/m determinations, was not definitely settled until 1914 with new extensive and accurate data obtained by Neumann. The entire episode provides another example that science does not proceed by a strict falsificationist methodology. It shows rather that a great scientist such as Einstein at times gives more weight to a theory that has a certain beauty and produces equations simple in form than he does to experimental results that apparently conflict with such a theory.