theory less and less so. This is the way science progresses; not by abrupt changes in world view but by a gradual process, much like a group of observers agreeing on the nature of a distant object that is gradually coming into view. At first, several possibilities are tenable, but as the object approaches, one becomes more and more likely while others are gradually ruled out. Crucially, experimentalists must consider of the models whilst this process is ongoing, letting the data speak for itself. all Indeed, long after a particular view has become dominant, it is standard practice to consider new data in the context of all the main theories, not just the current favourite. For the experimentalist, the case is never truly closed, an approach that is in contrast with Thomas Kuhn’s view of how paradigm shifts occur in science12 (see chapter 1). It should be noted that Kuhn was an eminent historian and philosopher but he was not a noted physicist, and his views are more popular in the social sciences than amongst practising scientists. Debates such as the big bang versus the steady-state model also act as a spur for new discoveries. For example, Hoyle’s brilliant analysis of stellar nucleosynthesis was spurred by his dislike of the Gamow model, while Ryle’s pioneering work on the cataloguing of the radio sources was motivated by a desire to prove Hoyle wrong13! Of particular interest is the fact that, while his steady-state model was duly ruled out, Hoyle’s work on stellar nucleosynthesis has stood the test of time. Indeed, he also provided a vital step in fully explaining the synthesis of helium in a big bang universe14 . However, as the years went on, Hoyle could not accept that the big bang model was a much better fit to the data than his own, a rather unusual attitude for a theorist15. This situation was exacerbated when he resigned his academic position at Cambridge over an administrative row, and he became very isolated in later years16.
theory less and less so. This is the way science progresses; not by abrupt changes in world view but by a gradual process, much like a group of observers agreeing on the nature of a distant object that is gradually coming into view. At first, several possibilities are tenable, but as the object approaches, one becomes more and more likely while others are gradually ruled out. Crucially, experimentalists must consider all of the models whilst this process is ongoing, letting the data speak for itself. Indeed, long after a particular view has become dominant, it is standard practice to consider new data in the context of all the main theories, not just the current favourite. For the experimentalist, the case is never truly closed, an approach that is in contrast with Thomas Kuhn’s view of how paradigm shifts occur in science12 (see chapter 1). It should be noted that Kuhn was an eminent historian and philosopher but he was not a noted physicist, and his views are more popular in the social sciences than amongst practising scientists. Debates such as the big bang versus the steady-state model also act as a spur for new discoveries. For example, Hoyle’s brilliant analysis of stellar nucleosynthesis was spurred by his dislike of the Gamow model, while Ryle’s pioneering work on the cataloguing of the radio sources was motivated by a desire to prove Hoyle wrong13! Of particular interest is the fact that, while his steady-state model was duly ruled out, Hoyle’s work on stellar nucleosynthesis has stood the test of time. Indeed, he also provided a vital step in fully explaining the synthesis of helium in a big bang universe14 . However, as the years went on, Hoyle could not accept that the big bang model was a much better fit to the data than his own, a rather unusual attitude for a theorist15. This situation was exacerbated when he resigned his academic position at Cambridge over an administrative row, and he became very isolated in later years16.
chapter-4ss.docx