The story of superheavy elements - those at the very end of the periodic table - is not well known outside the community of heavy-ion physicists and nuclear chemists. But it is a most interesting story which deserves to be known also to historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science and indeed to the general public. This is what the present work aims at. It tells the story or rather parts of the story, of how physicists and chemists created elements heavier (...) than uranium or searched for them in nature. And it does so with an emphasis on the frequent discovery and naming disputes concerning the synthesis of very heavy elements. Moreover, it calls attention to the criteria which scientists have adopted for what it means to have discovered a new element. In this branch of modern science it may be more appropriate to speak of creation instead of discovery. The work will be of interest to scientists as well as to scholars studying modern science from a meta-perspective. (shrink)

Summary Cosmology has always been different from other areas of the natural sciences. Although an observationally supported standard model of the universe emerged in the 1960s, more speculative models and conceptions continued to attract attention. During the last decade, ideas of multiple universes (the ‘multiverse’) based on anthropic reasoning have become very popular among cosmologists and theoretical physicists. This had led to a major debate within the scientific community of the epistemic standards of modern cosmology. Is the multiverse a scientific (...) hypothesis, or is it rather a philosophical speculation disguised as science? This paper offers a review of the recent and still ongoing controversy concerning the multiverse, emphasizing its foundational nature and relation to philosophical issues. It also compares the multiverse controversy to some earlier episodes in the history of twentieth-century cosmology when particular theories and approaches came under attack for betraying the ideals of proper science. (shrink)

While Karl Popper’s philosophy of science has only few followers among modern philosophers, it is easily the view of science with the biggest impact on practicing scientists. According to Peter Medawar, Nobel laureate and eminent physiologist, Popper was the greatest authority ever on the scientific method. He praised the “great strength of Karl Popper’s conception of the scientific process,” a main reason for the praise being “that it is realistic—it gives a pretty fair picture of what goes on in real (...) life laboratories” (Medawar 1990, p. 100). Either explicitly or (more often) implicitly, many scientists subscribe to some version of simplified Popperianism, usually by adopting the demarcation criterion that a .. (shrink)

This book presents the history of how the universe at large became the object of scientific understanding. Starting with the ancient creation myths, it offers an integrated and comprehensive account of cosmology that covers all major events from Aristotle's Earth-centred cosmos to the recent discovery of the accelearting universe.

During the last decade new developments in theoretical and speculative cosmology have reopened the old discussion of cosmology's scientific status and the more general question of the demarcation between science and non-science. The multiverse hypothesis, in particular, is central to this discussion and controversial because it seems to disagree with methodological and epistemic standards traditionally accepted in the physical sciences. But what are these standards and how sacrosanct are they? Does anthropic multiverse cosmology rest on evaluation criteria that conflict with (...) and go beyond those ordinarily accepted, so that it constitutes an “epistemic shift” in fundamental physics? The paper offers a brief characterization of the modern multiverse and also refers to a few earlier attempts to introduce epistemic shifts in the science of the universe. It further discusses the several meanings of testability, addresses the question of falsifiability as a sine qua non for a theory being scientific, and briefly compares the situation in cosmology with the one in systematic biology. Multiverse theory is not generally falsifiable, which has led to proposals from some physicists to overrule not only Popperian standards but also other evaluation criteria of a philosophical nature. However, this is hardly possible and nor is it possible to get rid of explicit philosophical considerations in some other aspects of cosmological research, however advanced it becomes. (shrink)

During the last decade new developments in theoretical and speculative cosmology have reopened the old discussion of cosmology’s scientific status and the more general question of the demarcation between science and non-science. The multiverse hypothesis, in particular, is central to this discussion and controversial because it seems to disagree with methodological and epistemic standards traditionally accepted in the physical sciences. But what are these standards and how sacrosanct are they? Does anthropic multiverse cosmology rest on evaluation criteria that conflict with (...) and go beyond those ordinarily accepted, so that it constitutes an “epistemic shift” in fundamental physics? The paper offers a brief characterization of the modern multiverse and also refers to a few earlier attempts to introduce epistemic shifts in the science of the universe. It further discusses the several meanings of testability, addresses the question of falsifiability as a sine qua non for a theory being scientific, and briefly compares the situation in cosmology with the one in systematic biology. Multiverse theory is not generally falsifiable, which has led to proposals from some physicists to overrule not only Popperian standards but also other evaluation criteria of a philosophical nature. However, this is hardly possible and nor is it possible to get rid of explicit philosophical considerations in some other aspects of cosmological research, however advanced it becomes. (shrink)

Classical thermochemistry is inextricably bound up with the problem of chemical affinity. In 1851, when Julius Thomsen began his career in thermochemistry, the concept of chemical affinity had been in the centre of chemical enquiry for more than a century. In spite of many suggestions, preferably to explain affinity in terms of electrical or gravitational forces, almost nothing was known about the cause and nature of affinity. In this state of puzzling uncertainty some chemists felt it more advantageous to establish (...) an adequate experimental measure of affinity, whatever its nature was. One way of providing affinity with a quantitative description was by means of the heats evolved in chemical processes. (shrink)

SummaryIn the history of chemistry, the Danish chemist Julius Thomsen (1826–1909) is best known for his contributions to thermochemistry. Throughout his life, he was a pronounced atomist and a tireless advocate of neo-Proutian views as to the constitution of matter. On many occasions, especially in his later years, he engaged in speculations concerning the unity of matter and the complexity of atoms. In this engagement, Thomsen was alone in Danish chemistry, but his works were representative of a large number of (...) 19th-century chemists, particularly in England and Germany. Thomsen's ideas as to the constitution of matter, the periodic system and the noble gases, may be seen as typical of this vigorous trend in fin de siècle chemistry. (shrink)

Summary Apart from hydrogen, helium is the most abundant chemical element in the universe, and yet it was only discovered on the Earth in 1895. Its early history is unique because it encompasses astronomy as well as chemistry, two sciences which the spectroscope brought into contact during the second half of the nineteenth century. In the modest form of a yellow spectral line known as D3, ‘helium’ was sometimes supposed to exist in the Sun's atmosphere, an idea which is traditionally (...) ascribed to J. Norman Lockyer. Did Lockyer discover helium as a solar element? How was the suggestion received by chemists, physicists and astronomers in the period until the spring of 1895, when William Ramsay serendipitously found the gas in uranium minerals? The hypothetical element helium was fairly well known, yet Ramsay's discovery owed little or nothing to Lockyer's solar element. Indeed, for a brief while it was thought that the two elements might be different. The complex story of how helium became established as both a solar and terrestrial element involves precise observations as well as airy speculations. It is a story that is unique among the discovery histories of the chemical elements. (shrink)

No other scientist may have had a greater impact on modern cosmology than the Belgian physicist, astronomer and priest Georges Lemaître. In 1927 he predicted the expansion of the universe on the basis of the cosmological field equations; and four years later he proposed what he called the primeval-atom hypothesis, the first version of the later big bang universe. In all his work on cosmology the cosmological constant Λ played a significant role. A recognized expert in the theory of general (...) relativity, Lemaître also contributed significantly to the theoretical clarification of local and global singularity problems. Still, when he died in 1968, at a time when the standard big bang model celebrated its first victories, he was largely forgotten or recalled only as a somewhat shadowy figure of the past. This essay reviews in a historical context the scientific work of Lemaître with particular attention to his seminal contributions in the decade between 1925 and 1934. (shrink)

Problems of scientific cosmology only rarely occur in the works of Karl Popper. Nevertheless, it was a subject that interested him and which he occasionally commented on. What is more important, his general claim of falsifiability as a criterion that demarcates science from non-science has played a significant role in periods of the development of modern physical cosmology. The paper examines the historical contexts of the interaction between cosmology and Popperian philosophy of science. Apart from covering Popper’s inspiration from Einstein (...) and his views on questions of cosmology, it focuses on the impact of his thoughts in two periods of controversy of modern cosmology, the one related to the steady state theory and the other to the recent multiverse proposal. It turns out that the impact has been considerable, and continues to be so, but also that the versions of Popperian methodology discussed by cosmologists are sometimes far from what Popper actually thought and wrote. (shrink)

Attempts to explain the periodic system as a manifestation of regularities in the structure of the atoms of the elements are as old as the system itself. The paper analyses some of the most important of these attempts, in particular such works that are historically connected with the recognition of the electron as a fundamental building block of all matter. The history of the periodic system, the discovery of the electron, and ideas of early atomic structure are closely interwoven and (...) transcend the physics–chemistry boundary. It is pointed out that J. J. Thomson's discovery of the electron in 1897 included a first version of his electron atomic model and that it was used to suggest how the periodic system could be understood microphysically. Thomson's theory did not hold what it promised, but elements of it were included in Niels Bohr's first atomic model. In both cases, Thomson's and Bohr's, the periodic system played an important role, heuristically as well as justificatory. (shrink)

This article examines in detail a remarkable but short-lived cosmological theory of 1959. The theory depended crucially on a hypothesis that could be, and was, tested in the laboratory. I use the case to discuss the nature of testing in cosmology and to argue against ideas about astronomy suggested by Ian Hacking. The case of the electrical universe exemplifies how disagreements can be settled by good experiments and also how experiments of wide-ranging theoretical significance need not be biased by either (...) theory or the experimentalists’ predisposed ideas. I argue that the episode supports Allan Franklins “evidence model” and disputes accounts based on the sociology of scientific knowledge. (shrink)

Modern standard big bang cosmology was preceded by a 15-year controversy with the rival steady-state theory of the universe. At a time when cosmologically relevant observations were scarce and cosmology was widely regarded as an immature science, or not a science at all, much of the debate took place by means of arguments that were essentially philosophical. Remarkably, professional philosophers, including some of the key figures of Anglo-American philosophy of science, took an active part in the debate; no less remarkably, (...) the involved astronomers and physicists sometimes listened to them. This article reviews the controversy over the steady-state theory as seen from the perspective of contemporary philosophy of science and offers an appraisal of how and to what extent philosophers and scientists entered a dialogue. -/- . (shrink)

This paper examines the thoughts and early career of the astrophysicist and cosmologist E. A. Milne. Although Milne only turned to cosmology in 1932, many of the ideas that characterised his heterodox system of world physics can be traced back to his works from the 1920s. Contrary to what has been stated in the literature, we argue that Milne was familiar with and interested in cosmology even before 1932. The relationship between mathematics and physics, an important topic in Milne's cosmophysics, (...) was the subject of an unpublished paper he gave in 1922. We place the paper in its historical context and comment on its relevance for Milne's later work. An annotated transcript of the address is included as an accompanying paper under the title 'The Relations of Mathematics to Science'. (shrink)

SUMMARYFaced with various anomalies related to nuclear physics in particular, in 1929 Niels Bohr suggested that energy might not be conserved in the atomic nucleus and the processes involving it. By this radical proposal he hoped not only to get rid of the anomalies but also saw a possibility to explain a puzzle in astrophysics, namely the energy generated by stars. Bohr repeated his suggestion of stellar energy arising ex nihilo on several occasions but without ever going into detail. In (...) fact, it is not very clear what he meant or how seriously he took the stellar energy hypothesis. This paper relates Bohr's comments to the period's attempts to find a mechanism for stellar energy and also to the role played by astrophysics at the Copenhagen institute. Moreover, it looks at how Bohr's hypothesis was received not only by physicists but also by astronomers. In this regard the disciplinary status of astrophysics and its contemporary relation to the new quantum mechanics is of relevance. It turns out that, with very few exceptions, the hypothesis was met with silence by astronomers and astrophysicists concerned with the problem of stellar energy production. And yet, for a brief period of time it did have an impact on how physicists thought about the interior of the stars. (shrink)

The aim of this book, written by a researcher at the Tatarstan Academy of Sciences, is to examine how and why theories change in science. Nugayev’s analysis, and his many examples, are confined to mathematically formalized theories of physics. Nugayev’s ideas are inspired by, and relate to, Russian scholars. His approach is primarily philosophical and clearly in the analytical tradition of Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, Stegmuller and others. Although Nugayev’s book is primarily addressed to philosophers, it is also of interest (...) to the philosophically inclined historian of science. (shrink)

In the early phase of the new history of physics that emerged at about 1970 and was pioneered by John Heilbron, Thomas Kuhn, Paul Forman, and others, the quantum and atomic theories of the first three decades of the twentieth century played a central role. Since then, interest in the area has continued, but for the last few decades at a slower rate. While other areas of the new physics—such as the general theory of relativity—have attracted much attention, only relatively (...) little has been written about the quantum revolution. Given this situation, Suman Seth’s comprehensive and innovative Crafting the Quantum is a welcome publication that provides the field with fresh blood and new perspectives. The title derives from a letter to Einstein of January 1922, in which Arnold Sommerfeld wrote that “I can only advance the craft of the quantum, you have to make its philosophy.” In spite of its title, Seth’s book is neither restricted to the new quantum theory nor to Sommerfeld’s role in the tr. (shrink)

Relativistic models of an expanding universe followed by contraction, or a big bang followed by a big crunch, were first proposed by A. Friedmann in 1922 and nine years later by A. Einstein. In the period ca. 1922–1960, the more speculative idea of a large and possibly infinite number of cycles was discussed by R. Tolman in particular. To some cosmologists, the idea was philosophically appealing because it seemed to justify an eternal yet dynamic universe without an absolute beginning in (...) time. During the 1950s models of this kind, sometimes known as Phoenix models, were investigated by a few cosmologists of whom the most important were A. Dauvillier, W. Bonnor, and H. Zanstra. (shrink)