Scribd
Upload
417 views

Falsifiability in Particle Physics

Particle physics, also known as high energy physics, contains many examples of the problems with the so-called doctrine of falsifiability, usually attributed to philosopher of science Karl Popper.

Uploaded by

John McGowan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
417 views

Falsifiability in Particle Physics

Particle physics, also known as high energy physics, contains many examples of the problems with the so-called doctrine of falsifiability, usually attributed to philosopher of science Karl Popper.

Uploaded by

John McGowan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

Falsifiability in Particle Physics

By John F. McGowan

Version: 1.1
Start Date: March 3, 2009
Last Updated: March 3, 2009
Home URL: http://www.jmcgowan.com/false.pdf

Particle physics, also known as high energy physics, contains


many examples of the problems with the so-called doctrine of
falsifiability, usually attributed to philosopher of science Karl
Popper.

Introduction

In The Road to Reality mathematical physicist Roger Penrose writes:

One might have thought that there is no real danger here, because if
the direction is wrong then the experiment would disprove it, so that
some new direction would be forced upon us. This is the traditional
picture of how science progresses. Indeed, the well-known
philosopher of science Karl Popper provided a reasonable-looking
criterion for the scientific admissibility of a proposed theory, namely
that it be observationally refutable. But I fear that this is too stringent
a criterion, and definitely too idealistic a view of science in this modern
world of “big science”1.

Penrose cites the example of supersymmetry. The theory of


supersymmetry predicts the existence of supersymmetric partners, so-
called “superpartners”, to known particles such as the electron, the
muon, and so forth. These are predicted to have a higher mass than
the known particles, determined by the supersymmetry breaking
energy scale, essentially a free parameter of the theory. What this
means is that if the superpartners are found at a new higher energy
particle accelerator such as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN
or the Tevatron at Fermilab, this confirms the theory. If the
superpartners are not found, this simply means the super symmetry
breaking energy scale must be higher and the mass of the

John F. McGowan Page 1 March 3, 2009


Falsifiability in Particle Physics

superpartners must be higher. The theory cannot be observationally


refuted or falsified. Indeed, this property of the theory of
supersymmetry means that it can provide a never-ending justification
for building bigger accelerators to reach ever higher energy scales
(Penrose does not mention this).

Penrose goes on to say:

We see that it is not so easy to dislodge a popular theoretical idea


through the traditional scientific method of crucial experimentation,
even if that idea happened to actually be wrong. The huge expense of
high-energy experiments, also, makes it considerably harder to test a
theory than it might have been otherwise. There are many other
theoretical proposals, in particle physics, where predicted particles
have mass-energies that are far too high for any serious possibility of
refutation. Various specific versions of GUT [Grand Unified Theory]
or string theory make many such “predictions” that are quite safe from
refutation for this kind of reason.

Penrose goes on to discuss similar problems in cosmology for several


pages. Cosmology has close ties to particle physics. Cosmology has
become increasing littered with mysterious hypothetical entities such
as “dark matter” and “dark energy” in recent years.

Popper’s doctrine, often known as “falsifiability”, is a common element


of popular science. It occurs most frequently in discussions of the
theory of evolution and alternative, often religious, theories of the
origin and evolution of life such as creationism, creation science, and
intelligent design. Typically, it is argued that creationism is “not
science” because it is not “falsifiable”. In contrast, the theory of
evolution is implied to be “falsifiable”, although pro-evolution popular
science writers usually avoid stating specific experiments or
observations that could falsify evolution. Curiously, this argument
coexists with claims that evolution is a “fact” analogous to the
sphericity of the Earth and thus beyond any doubt. Falsifiability pops
up in other scientific controversies as well. It is actually quite rare to
see the doctrine of falsifiability discussed or used in any substantive
way in actual research papers in journals or conference proceedings.

In fact, it is almost always possible to devise a technically


sophisticated and plausible explanation for even grossly contradictory
evidence or, in some cases, the absence of evidence that one might
logically expect. As Penrose indicates, particle physics contains several
examples of this, not just supersymmetry. When particle physicists

John F. McGowan Page 2 March 3, 2009


Falsifiability in Particle Physics

were unable to find free quarks, the putative building blocks of protons
and neutrons, in experiments in the 1970s and 1980s, they discovered
that Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), the leading candidate for the
theory of the force between quarks, predicted that the force between
quarks rose with distance, making free quarks impossible. A Nobel
Prize was recently awarded for this theory, a theory arguably
confirmed by a lack of evidence! The neutrino was postulated to
explain otherwise grossly contradictory evidence in radioactive decays;
there is strong positive evidence that the neutrino exists.

It is not always possible to devise a technically sophisticated and


plausible explanation for contradictory evidence. In recent centuries,
we have accumulated truly overwhelming evidence that the Earth is
not flat and is roughly a sphere about 8000 miles in diameter. Many
people have now circumnavigated the Earth in many directions in
planes and ships. It is probably fair to say that the ancient theory that
the Earth is a sphere – found in Aristotle’s On the Heavens, Plato’s
Timaeus, Claudius Ptolemy’s Almagest, and other ancient sources –
has become a proven fact. This level of certainty, however, is very
unusual in science.

Mainstream scientific fields have frequently devised technically


sophisticated and plausible explanations for even grossly contradictory
evidence or, in some cases, the absence of expected evidence. This is
not unusual. Modern mainstream scientific fields are often very
heavily funded. The US Department of Energy spends several hundred
million dollars per year on particle physics. Mainstream fields have the
resources and manpower to develop extremely sophisticated polished
explanations for contradictory evidence and to promote these
explanations heavily. In this respect, mainstream science usually has
a great advantage over alternative or fringe science which usually has
very limited funds either to critique the established view or to develop
its own arguments to a high technical level.

A skilled attorney can argue any side of an issue or court case


convincingly. The same can be said of opportunistic politicians and
public relations experts. Science is closer to law, politics, and public
relations than generally recognized.

Most probably, technically sophisticated and plausible explanations for


otherwise grossly contradictory evidence or, in some cases, the
absence of evidence should be viewed as a warning sign, a yellow flag,
whether they are encountered in mainstream or alternative science.
Such arguments can be correct. There is good evidence for the

John F. McGowan Page 3 March 3, 2009


Falsifiability in Particle Physics

neutrino, for example. These explanations can also be very wrong and
this has often been the case in history. By this criterion, particle
physics and many other mainstream scientific fields today contain
many warning signs of problems.

About the Author

John F. McGowan, Ph.D. is a software developer, research scientist,


and consultant. He works primarily in the area of complex algorithms
that embody advanced mathematical and logical concepts, including
speech recognition and video compression technologies. He has many
years of experience developing software in Visual Basic, C++, and
many other programming languages and environments. He has a Ph.D.
in Physics from the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign and a
B.S. in Physics from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech).
He can be reached at [email protected].
© 2009 John F. McGowan

John F. McGowan Page 4 March 3, 2009


1 Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the
Universe, Chapter 34.4 Can a wrong theory be experimentally refuted?, Alfred
Knopf, New York, 2006, p. 1020

You might also like