DOCSLIB.ORG

The Lecturer, the Researcher and the Winner

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Lecturer, the Researcher and the Winner Gautam Ramasubramanian MHC 20301 - Science and Technology at NYC Professor Lampousis 5 December 2014 Schwinger - The Lecturer, The Researcher and The Winner Julian Schwinger had a particular perspective on lecture-giving. When he taught physics at Harvard, he often spent hours the night before preparing his lectures, down to the wording and movement, and considered the lecture as a self-contained piece of art. Rather than merely conveying material, Schwinger viewed the lecture as a presentation of a story, a self-contained cohesive experience that shone like artwork. One advantage of this is was the artistry in and of itself - students and faculty from neighboring colleges such as MIT would clamor into Harvard to sit through Schwinger’s lectures. The second advantage is that Schwinger would rephrase the same concept in multiple ways, allowing students to better retain the information. Yet, this approach had its problems. Questions from the audience were never welcomed, and his answers to them were rather terse and unsatisfactory. According to Mehra and Milton, “[If] a questioner grew more and more persistent, [it] ...drew no response from Schwinger except for him ‘getting quieter and quieter and looking down at his feet,’ until the questioner gave up in embarrassment.” Some students complained of Schwinger making very big logical jumps in the spirit of his flow, logical conclusions that were difficult for students to follow. Yet, the students who were able to follow praised his lecture style for its rigor and artistic flow. Schwinger was a theoretical physicist, one whose focus was on the field of quantum electrodynamics, the unification of the fields of special relativity and quantum theory. He won the Nobel Prize on his work on quantum electrodynamics in 1965 along with physicists Shin- Itiro Tomonaga and Richard Feynman (NobelPrize). Schwinger became interested in science when he was 10; at that time he wanted to become an engineer. It wasn’t too long before he realized that his true passion was physics. In high school, he wrote his first paper on quantum electrodynamics, in which he interpreted and tried to extend physicist Paul Dirac’s work on the subject. When he came to City College, news of his genius spread to the graduate students and then to Columbia University, where it caught the attention of Professor Isidor I. Rabi. Rabi, as an experimental physicist in Columbia, praised Julian’s ability to produce predicted measurements in his papers so that experimental physicists could verify (Milton, 2006). He was very impressed with Julian’s work, so much so that he got Schwinger transferred to Columbia. At Columbia, Julian was able to progress very fast. Within two years, he had published 8 papers, completed both undergraduate and graduate degrees and almost finished his doctoral thesis. He got his doctoral degree in 1939, and went to work under Robert Oppenheimer in UCLA Berkeley, where he worked on a number of specific research projects with visiting faculty. Examples include the Rarita-Schwinger Equations and the effects of tensor forces on nucleon magnetic and quadrupole moments (Martin & Glashow). When World War 2 came about, he was offered to work on the Manhattan Project by Robert Oppenheimer, a offer he decline in favor for working in the Radiation Lab at MIT to develop the microwave radar. He had several reasons for his choice (Milton, 2008). Firstly, he had less scruples on his conscience working on radar than working on the atomic bomb. Secondly, the theoretical foundations of microwave radiation was more interesting to him than nuclear fission. Finally, he was allowed to work independently at MIT, and he preferred that to constant collaboration. By choosing to work at MIT, he developed an affinity to relatively new mathematical objects that would serve him well in the future, such as Green’s functions and the application of Maxwell’s equations to waveguides. After the war, he received offers to teach at many top universities, and he elected to go to Harvard. It was in Harvard where he delved into the subject he only touched in that past, Quantum Electrodynamics and did groundbreaking work that would lead to the Nobel Prize. Quantum Electrodynamics is a field of physics which unified the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, the two major fields that opened up during the early 20th century. Relativity described the properties of very fast objects, say objects moving close to the speed of light, or light itself. Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, described the strange behavior of small particles, small as an electron. These theories were developed separately, but had a lot of common ground, and it was no strange matter that physicists tried to unify them. Quantum Electrodynamics was born from that unification process. Q.E.D. deals with the interaction between the photon (packets of light) and the electron. The first postulate of Q.E.D. states that electrons and photons are particles. Yet, if this particle were to go from point A to point B, the exact path the particle takes cannot be determined exactly. Thus, physicists have to compute probabilities of an electron taking each and every possible path from A to B and sum all those probabilities together to get weighted average, the path the particle is most likely to go (Feynman). Thus, when electrons are continuously shot at a wall with two openings, those that went through would form an wave-like interference pattern, a pattern that would be impossible if every electron had a definite path that went through either one of those two openings. The second postulate of Q.E.D. states that every physical system or interaction could be broken down to the three basic actions (Feynman). Firstly, an electron can move from point A to point B. (How it does that is computed by summing probabilities). Secondly, a photon moves from point A to point B (The path is computed also by summing probabilities). Finally, an electron can emit and/or absorb a photon, which causing a change in the electron’s direction in space and time. Q.E.D. has its foundations in these postulates, but its body is heavily reliant on mathematical theory, which Julian Schwinger played a large part in formulating. The development of Q.E.D. preceded Schwinger, but it was Schwinger who revised the mathematics behind the theory to make it compatible with physical experiments. When a new physical model is introduced to explain physical phenomena, that model is critiqued by haw well it could predict the results of experiments. Before Schwinger, Q.E.D. was very attractive from a theoretical standpoint, but failed to produce accurate predictions for experiments. In fact, the predictions would often turn out to be infinity. Since nothing in the physical world is infinite, the presence of these infinities in the mathematical body of Q.E.D. caused the subject to not be taken seriously by the physics community. Julian Schwinger, during his time at Harvard, worked with Richard Feynman on revising the mathematics behind Q.E.D. so that it would better predict phenomena in the real world. In this way, Schwinger discovered the process of renormalization. Renormalization referred to the mathematical manipulations required to remove many of the infinites which lurk within the math. Schwinger and Feynman removed many of the infinities within the body of Q.E.D., and the resulting theory was very accurate in providing accurate predictions for experiments, something experimental physicists can verify. Julian Schwinger and Richard Feynman both came up with the renormalized Q.E.D. in partnership. In Japan, a physicist named Shin-Itiro Tomonaga developed his own renormalization of Q.E.D. independently. Eventually, Schwinger and Tomonaga shared their ideas and worked together, and eventually all three of them received a Nobel prize for this achievement. Although it would seem that Julian Schwinger lived only for physics, his interests were actually very diverse. These interests got to express themselves more prominently when he married Clarisse Carroll, a marriage that held until his death 47 years later. It is interesting to note that during his bachelor days, he would have a fascination for chocolate ice cream and steak, and before his marriage and even for a while afterward, he would literally eat nothing else. However, Julian would travel a lot with his wife, and during his travels, he learned to be more flexible with his food habits. Julian was a cat lover, and during his time at Harvard, he and his wife owned a cat named Galileo, whom they had for 14 years. Julian was slightly overweight, but soon learned to exercise regularly and develop a liking for tennis and swimming. He was an ardent Mozart fan and his favorite piece was the “Marriage of Figaro” (Mehra & Milton). Julian continued teaching at Harvard for almost 40 years, until disagreements with colleges plus health issues caused him to move to California and teach at UCLA, Los Angeles (Milton, 2006), where he continued to teach and conduct research until the end of his life in 1995. His legacy is still carried on by his PhD students (Julian had numerous), some of whom went on to win Nobel prizes themselves, while others still work to this day on projects initiated by Schwinger. His own contribution to physics ranks him among the top physicists of all time, as it is almost certain modern physics would not have come this far without this man’s work. Works Cited Feynman, Richard P. (1985). QED. The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Martin, P. C., & Glashow, S. L. (2008). Julian Schwinger 1918-1994. National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/ memoir-pdfs/schwinger-julian.pdf Mehra, J.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Physical Tourist Physics and New York City
    Phys. perspect. 5 (2003) 87–121 © Birkha¨user Verlag, Basel, 2003 1422–6944/05/010087–35 The Physical Tourist Physics and New York City Benjamin Bederson* I discuss the contributions of physicists who have lived and worked in New York City within the context of the high schools, colleges, universities, and other institutions with which they were and are associated. I close with a walking tour of major sites of interest in Manhattan. Key words: Thomas A. Edison; Nikola Tesla; Michael I. Pupin; Hall of Fame for GreatAmericans;AlbertEinstein;OttoStern;HenryGoldman;J.RobertOppenheimer; Richard P. Feynman; Julian Schwinger; Isidor I. Rabi; Bronx High School of Science; StuyvesantHighSchool;TownsendHarrisHighSchool;NewYorkAcademyofSciences; Andrei Sakharov; Fordham University; Victor F. Hess; Cooper Union; Peter Cooper; City University of New York; City College; Brooklyn College; Melba Phillips; Hunter College; Rosalyn Yalow; Queens College; Lehman College; New York University; Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences; Samuel F.B. Morse; John W. Draper; Columbia University; Polytechnic University; Manhattan Project; American Museum of Natural History; Rockefeller University; New York Public Library. Introduction When I was approached by the editors of Physics in Perspecti6e to prepare an article on New York City for The Physical Tourist section, I was happy to do so. I have been a New Yorker all my life, except for short-term stays elsewhere on sabbatical leaves and other visits. My professional life developed in New York, and I married and raised my family in New York and its environs. Accordingly, writing such an article seemed a natural thing to do. About halfway through its preparation, however, the attack on the World Trade Center took place.
    [Show full text]
  • SHELDON LEE GLASHOW Lyman Laboratory of Physics Harvard University Cambridge, Mass., USA
    TOWARDS A UNIFIED THEORY - THREADS IN A TAPESTRY Nobel Lecture, 8 December, 1979 by SHELDON LEE GLASHOW Lyman Laboratory of Physics Harvard University Cambridge, Mass., USA INTRODUCTION In 1956, when I began doing theoretical physics, the study of elementary particles was like a patchwork quilt. Electrodynamics, weak interactions, and strong interactions were clearly separate disciplines, separately taught and separately studied. There was no coherent theory that described them all. Developments such as the observation of parity violation, the successes of quantum electrodynamics, the discovery of hadron resonances and the appearance of strangeness were well-defined parts of the picture, but they could not be easily fitted together. Things have changed. Today we have what has been called a “standard theory” of elementary particle physics in which strong, weak, and electro- magnetic interactions all arise from a local symmetry principle. It is, in a sense, a complete and apparently correct theory, offering a qualitative description of all particle phenomena and precise quantitative predictions in many instances. There is no experimental data that contradicts the theory. In principle, if not yet in practice, all experimental data can be expressed in terms of a small number of “fundamental” masses and cou- pling constants. The theory we now have is an integral work of art: the patchwork quilt has become a tapestry. Tapestries are made by many artisans working together. The contribu- tions of separate workers cannot be discerned in the completed work, and the loose and false threads have been covered over. So it is in our picture of particle physics. Part of the picture is the unification of weak and electromagnetic interactions and the prediction of neutral currents, now being celebrated by the award of the Nobel Prize.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific and Related Works of Chen Ning Yang
    Scientific and Related Works of Chen Ning Yang [42a] C. N. Yang. Group Theory and the Vibration of Polyatomic Molecules. B.Sc. thesis, National Southwest Associated University (1942). [44a] C. N. Yang. On the Uniqueness of Young's Differentials. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 50, 373 (1944). [44b] C. N. Yang. Variation of Interaction Energy with Change of Lattice Constants and Change of Degree of Order. Chinese J. of Phys. 5, 138 (1944). [44c] C. N. Yang. Investigations in the Statistical Theory of Superlattices. M.Sc. thesis, National Tsing Hua University (1944). [45a] C. N. Yang. A Generalization of the Quasi-Chemical Method in the Statistical Theory of Superlattices. J. Chem. Phys. 13, 66 (1945). [45b] C. N. Yang. The Critical Temperature and Discontinuity of Specific Heat of a Superlattice. Chinese J. Phys. 6, 59 (1945). [46a] James Alexander, Geoffrey Chew, Walter Salove, Chen Yang. Translation of the 1933 Pauli article in Handbuch der Physik, volume 14, Part II; Chapter 2, Section B. [47a] C. N. Yang. On Quantized Space-Time. Phys. Rev. 72, 874 (1947). [47b] C. N. Yang and Y. Y. Li. General Theory of the Quasi-Chemical Method in the Statistical Theory of Superlattices. Chinese J. Phys. 7, 59 (1947). [48a] C. N. Yang. On the Angular Distribution in Nuclear Reactions and Coincidence Measurements. Phys. Rev. 74, 764 (1948). 2 [48b] S. K. Allison, H. V. Argo, W. R. Arnold, L. del Rosario, H. A. Wilcox and C. N. Yang. Measurement of Short Range Nuclear Recoils from Disintegrations of the Light Elements. Phys. Rev. 74, 1233 (1948). [48c] C.
    [Show full text]
  • Julian Seymour Schwinger Papers, 1920-1994
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf5870062x No online items Finding Aid for the Julian Seymour Schwinger Papers, 1920-1994 Processed by Russell Johnson and Charlotte B. Brown; machine-readable finding aid created by Caroline Cubé UCLA Library, Department of Special Collections Manuscripts Division Room A1713, Charles E. Young Research Library Box 951575 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1575 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/special/scweb/ © 1999 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Finding Aid for the Julian 371 1 Seymour Schwinger Papers, 1920-1994 Finding Aid for the Julian Seymour Schwinger Papers, 1920-1994 Collection number: 371 UCLA Library, Department of Special Collections Manuscripts Division Los Angeles, CA Contact Information Manuscripts Division UCLA Library, Department of Special Collections Room A1713, Charles E. Young Research Library Box 951575 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1575 Telephone: 310/825-4988 (10:00 a.m. - 4:45 p.m., Pacific Time) Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/special/scweb/ Processed by: Charlotte B. Brown, 13 October 1995 and Russell A. Johnson, 12 February 1997 Encoded by: Caroline Cubé Online finding aid edited by: Josh Fiala, November 2002 © 1999 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Descriptive Summary Title: Julian Seymour Schwinger Papers, Date (inclusive): 1920-1994 Collection number: 371 Creator: Schwinger, Julian Seymour, 1918- Extent: 28 cartons (28 linear ft.) 1 oversize box Repository: University of California, Los Angeles. Library. Department of Special Collections. Los Angeles, California 90095-1575 Abstract: Julian Seymour Schwinger (1918-1994) worked with J.
    [Show full text]
  • Joaquin M. Luttinger 1923–1997
    Joaquin M. Luttinger 1923–1997 A Biographical Memoir by Walter Kohn ©2014 National Academy of Sciences. Any opinions expressed in this memoir are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences. JOAQUIN MAZDAK LUTTINGER December 2, 1923–April 6, 1997 Elected to the NAS, 1976 The brilliant mathematical and theoretical physicist Joaquin M. Luttinger died at the age of 73 years in the city of his birth, New York, which he deeply loved throughout his life. He had been in good spirits a few days earlier when he said to Walter Kohn (WK), his longtime collaborator and friend, that he was dying a happy man thanks to the loving care during his last illness by his former wife, Abigail Thomas, and by his stepdaughter, Jennifer Waddell. Luttinger’s work was marked by his exceptional ability to illuminate physical properties and phenomena through Visual Archives. Emilio Segrè Photograph courtesy the use of appropriate and beautiful mathematics. His writings and lectures were widely appreciated for their clarity and fine literary quality. With Luttinger’s death, an By Walter Kohn influential voice that helped shape the scientific discourse of his time, especially in condensed-matter physics, was stilled, but many of his ideas live on. For example, his famous 1963 paper on condensed one-dimensional fermion systems, now known as Tomonaga-Luttinger liquids,1, 2 or simply Luttinger liquids, continues to have a strong influence on research on 1-D electronic dynamics. In the 1950s and ’60s, Luttinger also was one of the great figures who helped construct the present canon of classic many-body theory while at the same time laying founda- tions for present-day revisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Julian Schwinger (1918-1994)
    Julian Schwinger (1918-1994) K. A. Milton Homer L. Dodge Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019 June 15, 2006 Julian Schwinger’s influence on Twentieth Century science is profound and pervasive. Of course, he is most famous for his renormalization theory of quantum electrodynamics, for which he shared the Nobel Prize with Richard Feynman and Sin-itiro Tomonaga. But although this triumph was undoubt- edly his most heroic accomplishment, his legacy lives on chiefly through sub- tle and elegant work in classical electrodynamics, quantum variational princi- ples, proper-time methods, quantum anomalies, dynamical mass generation, partial symmetry, and more. Starting as just a boy, he rapidly became the pre-eminent nuclear physicist in the late 1930s, led the theoretical develop- ment of radar technology at MIT during World War II, and then, soon after the war, conquered quantum electrodynamics, and became the leading quan- tum field theorist for two decades, before taking a more iconoclastic route during his last quarter century. Given his commanding stature in theoretical physics for decades it may seem puzzling why he is relatively unknown now to the educated public, even to many younger physicists, while Feynman is a cult figure with his photograph needing no more introduction than Einstein’s. This relative ob- scurity is even more remarkable, in view of the enormous number of eminent physicists, as well as other leaders in science and industry, who received their Ph.D.’s under Schwinger’s direction, while Feynman had but few. In part, the answer lies in Schwinger’s retiring nature and reserved demeanor.
    [Show full text]
  • Memories of Julian Schwinger
    Memories of Julian Schwinger Edward Gerjuoy* ABSTRACT The career and accomplishments of Julian Schwinger, who shared the Nobel Prize for physics in 1965, have been reviewed in numerous books and articles. For this reason these Memories, which seek to convey a sense of Schwinger’s remarkable talents as a physicist, concentrate primarily (though not entirely) on heretofore unpuBlished pertinent recollections of the youthful Schwinger by this writer, who first encountered Schwinger in 1934 when they both were undergraduates at the City College of New York. *University of Pittsburgh Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Pittsburgh, PA 15260. 1 Memories of Julian Schwinger Julian Seymour Schwinger, who shared the 1965 Nobel prize in physics with Richard Feynman and Sin-itiro Tomonaga, died in Los Angeles on July 16, 1994 at the age of 76. He was a remarkably talented theoretical physicist, who—through his own publications and through the students he trained—had an enormous influence on the evolution of physics after World War II. Accordingly, his life and work have been reviewed in a number of publications [1-3, inter alia]. There also have been numerous published obituaries, of course [4-5, e.g.] These Memories largely are the text of the Schwinger portion of a colloquium talk, “Recollections of Oppenheimer and Schwinger”, which the writer has given at a number of universities, and which can be found on the web [6]. The portion of the talk devoted to J. Robert Oppenheimer—who is enduringly famous as director of the Los Alamos laboratory during World War II—has been published [7], but the portion devoted to Julian is essentially unpublished; references 7-9 describe the basically trivial exceptions to this last assertion.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sources of Schwinger's Green's Functions
    PNAS CLASSIC PAPER: PERSPECTIVE The sources of Schwinger’s Green’s functions Silvan S. Schweber* Dibner Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139; and Department of Physics, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02454-9110 Julian Schwinger’s development of his Green’s functions methods in quantum field theory is placed in historical context. The relation of Schwinger’s quantum action principle to Richard Feynman’s path-integral formulation of quantum mechanics is reviewed. The nonperturbative character of Schwinger’s approach is stressed as well as the ease with which it can be extended to finite tempera- ture situations. n his introduction to the volume containing the addresses essentially infinite. Electrons, protons, and nuclei could be speci- that were made at the three memorial symposia held after fied by their mass, spin, number, and electromagnetic properties Julian Schwinger’s death in 1994 (1), Ng observed that few such as charge and magnetic moment. In addition, the formalism physicists have matched Schwinger’s contribution to, and could readily incorporate the consequence of the strict identity Iinfluence on, the development of physics in the 20th century. As and indistinguishabilty of these ‘‘elementary’’ entities. Their in- Paul C. Martin and Sheldon L. Glashow, two of Schwinger’s distinguishability implied that an assembly of them obeyed char- most outstanding students, noted: ‘‘[Schwinger] set standards acteristic statistics depending on whether their spin is an integer and priorities single-handedly...Hisideas, discoveries, and tech- or half odd integer multiple of Planck’s constant, h. niques pervade all areas of theoretical physics’’ (1). Indeed in In 1927 Dirac extended the formalism to include the interac- the post-World War II period Schwinger set the standards and tions of charged particles with the electromagnetic field by de- priorities of theoretical physics.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Visualize Fetal Abnormalities [1]
    Published on The Embryo Project Encyclopedia (https://embryo.asu.edu) Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Visualize Fetal Abnormalities [1] By: Garcia, Dasia Keywords: MRI [2] Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging [3] (MRI) is a technique to create a three-dimensional image of a fetus [4]. Doctors often use MRIs to image a fetuses after an ultrasound [5] has detected an, or has been inconclusive about an, abnormality. In 1983 researchers in Scotland first used MRI to visualize a fetus [4]. MRIs showed a greater level of fetal detail than ultrasound [5] images, and researchers recognized the relevance of this technique as a means to gather information about fetal development and growth. Researchers later used the technology to take measurements of the uterus [6], placenta [7], amniotic fluid, and fetus [4] during the first trimester [8] of pregnancy [9]. MRI provided doctors with a non-invasive method to diagnose and treat fetal abnormalities and maternal conditions such as pre-eclampsia. Magnetic resonance imaging uses a magnetic field and pulses of radio waves to visualize the inside of a human body. Magnetism causes water molecules in the body to spin in specific directions, which causes the emission of radio waves. In an MRI machine, an antenna detects the radio waves that spinning water molecules release. A computer then picks up the data from the antenna, and computer software creates images from the radio sequences of the human body using the signals that bounce back and create an image. The image is a representation of all of the water molecules that the antenna detected.
    [Show full text]
  • Report from the Chair by Robert H
    HistoryN E W S L E T T E R of Physics A F O R U M O F T H E A M E R I C A N P H Y S I C A L S O C I E T Y • V O L U M E I X N O . 5 • F A L L 2 0 0 5 Report From The Chair by Robert H. Romer, Amherst College, Forum Chair 2005, the World Year of Physics, has been a good one for the The Forum sponsored several sessions of invited lectures at History Forum. I want to take advantage of this opportunity to the March meeting (in Los Angeles) and the April meeting (in describe some of FHP’s activities during recent months and to Tampa), which are more fully described elsewhere in this Newslet- look forward to the coming year. ter. At Los Angeles we had two invited sessions under the general The single most important forum event of 2005 was the pre- rubric of “Einstein and Friends.” At Tampa, we had a third such sentation of the fi rst Pais Prize in the History of Physics to Martin Einstein session, as well as a good session on “Quantum Optics Klein of Yale University. It was only shortly before the award Through the Lens of History” and then a fi nal series of talks on ceremony, at the Tampa meeting in April, that funding reached “The Rise of Megascience.” A new feature of our invited sessions the level at which this honor could be promoted from “Award” to this year is the “named lecture.” The purpose of naming a lecture “Prize.” We are all indebted to the many generous donors and to is to pay tribute to a distinguished physicist while simultaneously the members of the Pais Award Committee and the Pais Selection encouraging donations to support the travel expenses of speak- Committee for their hard work over the last several years that ers.
    [Show full text]
  • Hans A. Bethe (1906-2005)
    HANS A. BETHE (1906-2005) INTERVIEWED BY JUDITH R. GOODSTEIN February 17, 1982, January 28, 1993 ARCHIVES CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Pasadena, California Subject area Physics Abstract Two interviews conducted at Caltech in 1982 and 1993 with theoretical physicist Hans Bethe. The recipient of the Nobel Prize in physics in 1967 for his work on nuclear reactions in stars, Bethe was born in Strasbourg and educated at the University of Frankfurt and at the University of Munich, where he earned a PhD in 1928 under A. Sommerfeld at the Institute for Theoretical Physics. From 1928 to 1933, Bethe held a variety of teaching positions in Germany, also visiting the Physics Institute of the University of Rome in Via Panisperna 89A in 1931 and 1932. Hitler’s rise to power forced Bethe from the University of Tübingen in 1933. Two years later he became an assistant professor at Cornell University, garnering a full professorship there in 1937. In the 1982 interview Bethe speaks principally about his contacts at Caltech, including L. Pauling, R. Millikan, T. von Kármán, F. Zwicky, C. C. Lauritsen, W. A. Fowler, R. Feynman and R. F. Bacher. He discusses his relations with other prominent physicists, including E. Teller, N. Bohr and J. R. Oppenheimer. He also describes his first impressions of nuclear physics, the political climate in Italy in the 1930s, and the Rome school of physics, including E. Fermi, F. Rasetti, and E. Segrè. The 1993 interview http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechOH:OH_Bethe_H concerns R. Bacher at Cornell and at work on the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos during World War II.
    [Show full text]
  • Steven Weinberg in Memoriam Sheldon Lee Glashow
    INFERENCE / Vol. 6, No. 2 Steven Weinberg In Memoriam Sheldon Lee Glashow teven weinberg and I knew each other for seven- was convinced that the weak interactions and electromag- ty-four of our eighty-eight years. He was my friend netism begged to be mediated by a triplet of Yang–Mills and classmate throughout high school and college. gauge bosons. “Go forth, young man, and unify!” he SWe met at the Bronx High School of Science, where, seemed to say. I could not meet Schwinger’s challenge; but together with Gerald Feinberg, Morton Sternheim, and I did complete my thesis and passed my oral examination Menasha Tausner, we decided to become theoretical phys- in the summer of 1958. As a National Science Foundation icists—as we all became. postdoc, I set out for a two-year stint in Copenhagen at Steve and I and a few friends created the first high- what would become known as the Niels Bohr Institute for school science-fiction fanzine, Etaoin Shrdlu, writing and Theoretical Physics. There, in the spring of 1960, I met my illustrating it ourselves; but we did manage to secure a master’s challenge by identifying the algebraic structure of contribution from Alfred Bester, who was already admired the electroweak synthesis and predicting the existence of as a writer of science fiction. Feinberg was our science novel neutral currents. The model needed four interme- editor. Our zine did not outlive our tenure at Bronx Sci- diaries, not just the three that Schwinger had envisaged. ence. To satisfy our fearsome senior class public-speaking My model was in no way complete.
    [Show full text]