What do you think?
Rate this book
Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics
"I want to get at the blown glass of the early cloud chambers and the oozing noodles of wet nuclear emulsion; to the resounding crack of a high-voltage spark arcing across a high-tension chamber and leaving the lab stinking of ozone; to the silent, darkened room, with row after row of scanners sliding trackballs across projected bubble-chamber images. Pictures and pulses—I want to know where they came from, how pictures and counts got to be the bottom-line data of physics." (from the preface)
Image and Logic is the most detailed engagement to date with the impact of modern technology on what it means to "do" physics and to be a physicist. At the beginning of this century, physics was usually done by a lone researcher who put together experimental apparatus on a benchtop. Now experiments frequently are larger than a city block, and experimental physicists live very different programming computers, working with industry, coordinating vast teams of scientists and engineers, and playing politics.
Peter L. Galison probes the material culture of experimental microphysics to reveal how the ever-increasing scale and complexity of apparatus have distanced physicists from the very science that drew them into experimenting, and have fragmented microphysics into different technical traditions much as apparatus have fragmented atoms to get at the fundamental building blocks of matter. At the same time, the necessity for teamwork in operating multimillion-dollar machines has created dynamic "trading zones," where instrument makers, theorists, and experimentalists meet, share knowledge, and coordinate the extraordinarily diverse pieces of the culture of modern work, machines, evidence, and argument.
Image and Logic is the most detailed engagement to date with the impact of modern technology on what it means to "do" physics and to be a physicist. At the beginning of this century, physics was usually done by a lone researcher who put together experimental apparatus on a benchtop. Now experiments frequently are larger than a city block, and experimental physicists live very different programming computers, working with industry, coordinating vast teams of scientists and engineers, and playing politics.
Peter L. Galison probes the material culture of experimental microphysics to reveal how the ever-increasing scale and complexity of apparatus have distanced physicists from the very science that drew them into experimenting, and have fragmented microphysics into different technical traditions much as apparatus have fragmented atoms to get at the fundamental building blocks of matter. At the same time, the necessity for teamwork in operating multimillion-dollar machines has created dynamic "trading zones," where instrument makers, theorists, and experimentalists meet, share knowledge, and coordinate the extraordinarily diverse pieces of the culture of modern work, machines, evidence, and argument.
982 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 1997
7 people are currently reading
306 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
Read
February 8, 2026One of the most extraordinary works of nonfiction I've ever read. Refutes Kuhn-style revolution in science.
My major takeaway: people are trained and disciplined into traditions that keep them bubbled into a particular way of seeing the world and a narrow set of disciplinary commitments. A field like physics is made up of many such traditions, each with their own lineage and language. These lineages & traditions have remarkable staying power across generations, and have massive explanatory power over a given physicist's priorities and goals.
I have a strained relationship to this idea of "discipline" or "tradition". I get that it's important for people to train in a method, and I get that these chains of trainees represent one of the great achievements of the institution of science: long unbroken lineages of method, passed down from one generation to the next. Pretty special stuff.
But boy does it cause problems! People by nature tend to "face inwards": once you are enmeshed in a given discipline, the goal becomes to impress your peers and do things that increase your social standing within that community. But this often comes at the expense of being able to communicate across boundary lines, or heck, even have the faintest awareness of what's going on elsewhere. You become so enmeshed in your particular community that major discoveries or even revolutions in another subdiscipline or community basically go unnoticed.
And on the rare occasions when these groups do try to talk to each other, they find it impossible. They use different terminology, yes, and have different goals, yes, but even more, they have completely different scientific worldviews. Different ontologies. It feels more like people from different religious traditions trying to figure out the essential nature of the universe than it does two people with slightly different measurements on a device.
With each passing year of my life, it seems that this problem—communication across tradition—is the bottleneck to everything in the world. The older I've gotten the more I've seen people turn increasingly inward, seeking the validation and support of their disciplinary community. This is a beautiful thing: engaging in a tradition is a big part of what it means to be human. Passing down procedural and tacit knowledge across generations is one of the most important capacities of our species. But it also means the creation of bubbles, where unique insights and problems and goals are only being shared within small communities. This is a problem I've already been thinking about for years in terms of, like, society writ large, but Image & Logic is the best book I've come across to explain how this process works specifically in the realm of science.
The book is a study of two traditions of discovery in subatomic physics: image (visualizing particles e.g. cloud chambers, bubble champers), and logic (counting particles, e.g. geiger counters, spark chambers). These traditions are pedagogically and intellectually disjoint. They train in different labs, operate according to different norms, speak different languages. Once a physicists ends up in one tradition, it's extremely unlikely they'll publish in the other.
These two experimental traditions are also part of a broader ecosystem, made up of theorists, experimentalists, engineers, and machinists, each with their own unique vantage upon the world of physics. Galison shows how, when these groups need to coordinate, say in specifying the needs of a new experimental apparatus, they have to invent a "creole language" to be able to actually communicate.
The kicker: These traditions proceed independently. There's no "paradigm shift" across all of physics—theory can change while experiments continue unabated; machines can get huge upgrades with no concomitant change in theory for several decades. This is a truly brutal rejection of Kuhn's "block periodization" of science, wherein new ways of doings things emerge, become incommensurate with previous ways of doing things, and thereby create whole new standards of knowledge & evidence (which Kuhn calls a "paradigm"). In Galison's framing, there can be no wholesale revolution, because that would require everyone in all of these disparate traditions to get on the same page, and that's simply not how a community as vast as physics works.
My major takeaway: people are trained and disciplined into traditions that keep them bubbled into a particular way of seeing the world and a narrow set of disciplinary commitments. A field like physics is made up of many such traditions, each with their own lineage and language. These lineages & traditions have remarkable staying power across generations, and have massive explanatory power over a given physicist's priorities and goals.
I have a strained relationship to this idea of "discipline" or "tradition". I get that it's important for people to train in a method, and I get that these chains of trainees represent one of the great achievements of the institution of science: long unbroken lineages of method, passed down from one generation to the next. Pretty special stuff.
But boy does it cause problems! People by nature tend to "face inwards": once you are enmeshed in a given discipline, the goal becomes to impress your peers and do things that increase your social standing within that community. But this often comes at the expense of being able to communicate across boundary lines, or heck, even have the faintest awareness of what's going on elsewhere. You become so enmeshed in your particular community that major discoveries or even revolutions in another subdiscipline or community basically go unnoticed.
And on the rare occasions when these groups do try to talk to each other, they find it impossible. They use different terminology, yes, and have different goals, yes, but even more, they have completely different scientific worldviews. Different ontologies. It feels more like people from different religious traditions trying to figure out the essential nature of the universe than it does two people with slightly different measurements on a device.
With each passing year of my life, it seems that this problem—communication across tradition—is the bottleneck to everything in the world. The older I've gotten the more I've seen people turn increasingly inward, seeking the validation and support of their disciplinary community. This is a beautiful thing: engaging in a tradition is a big part of what it means to be human. Passing down procedural and tacit knowledge across generations is one of the most important capacities of our species. But it also means the creation of bubbles, where unique insights and problems and goals are only being shared within small communities. This is a problem I've already been thinking about for years in terms of, like, society writ large, but Image & Logic is the best book I've come across to explain how this process works specifically in the realm of science.
The book is a study of two traditions of discovery in subatomic physics: image (visualizing particles e.g. cloud chambers, bubble champers), and logic (counting particles, e.g. geiger counters, spark chambers). These traditions are pedagogically and intellectually disjoint. They train in different labs, operate according to different norms, speak different languages. Once a physicists ends up in one tradition, it's extremely unlikely they'll publish in the other.
These two experimental traditions are also part of a broader ecosystem, made up of theorists, experimentalists, engineers, and machinists, each with their own unique vantage upon the world of physics. Galison shows how, when these groups need to coordinate, say in specifying the needs of a new experimental apparatus, they have to invent a "creole language" to be able to actually communicate.
The kicker: These traditions proceed independently. There's no "paradigm shift" across all of physics—theory can change while experiments continue unabated; machines can get huge upgrades with no concomitant change in theory for several decades. This is a truly brutal rejection of Kuhn's "block periodization" of science, wherein new ways of doings things emerge, become incommensurate with previous ways of doing things, and thereby create whole new standards of knowledge & evidence (which Kuhn calls a "paradigm"). In Galison's framing, there can be no wholesale revolution, because that would require everyone in all of these disparate traditions to get on the same page, and that's simply not how a community as vast as physics works.
April 16, 2017
Exploring 20th century physics of the microworld through the grubby lens of practice. The image and logic of the title refers to the dtectors that were developed over this period; the images from cloud and bubble chambers and the logic of counters and statistics - culminating the the combined image and logic detectors that now feature in current practice at facilities like CERN. Galison tells a compelling story of the intercalation of theory, experiment and instrument in physics. Most importantly presenting an image of science that gains its strength through this disorder of the scientific community. A monumental history and philosophy of science book, 4 stars as it not for a 'general' audience definitely one for the anyone interested or studying history and philosophy of science and for those science educated who want to think a little more deeply about science as it is. Galison writes well, researches deeply and thinks expansively - this book is well worth the effort to read.
February 19, 2016
Heavy and dense but really interesting. Curiously, Galison spends a lot of time with the Rad Lab at MIT but zero time with the High Voltage Lab.
August 3, 2021
O livro tem três componentes: História da Física de Partículas, um pouco da própria Física e ainda Filosofia da Ciência. O objectivo é a Filosofia, a qual é muito bem justificada com a História. Pareceu-me que a Física é como que o “bónus” que o autor não conseguiu conter no seu entusiasmo sobre os temas abordados. Digo isto, porque com a Física, o livro é algo pesado para a maioria dos leitores que não tenham formação na disciplina, o que implica que a mensagem filosófica possa não chegar a todos. Porém, para mim, tornou a leitura ainda mais agradável. Por outro lado, pode argumentar-se que para filosofar sobre ciência é inevitável o conhecimento sobre a mesma. Gostei muito de conhecer em detalhe a História da Física de Partículas do século XX. Também adquiri uma melhor compreensão sobre como o financiamento científico mudou ao longo do século, em grande parte impulsionado pela Segunda Guerra Mundial e pela Guerra Fria. Ao contrário de Kuhn e de Feyerabend, a posição filosófica de Peter Galison é bastante plausível, muito bem justificada e difícil de recusar (é também muito mais moderada e equilibrada). Gostei bastante deste livro.
October 29, 2023
为了自己的研究读了第四章关于战后物理学的改变，六个案例，印象最深刻的是普林斯顿和MIT。共通之处是战争极大程度改变了大学和国家的关系，以及科学家自己看待实验室研究的态度。「大科学」的生成伴随着科学文化和组织结构的变化。写得相当好。
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews