DOCSLIB.ORG

Albert Einstein and the Nature of Science"

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Course summary for "Albert Einstein and the Nature of Science" Meetings 1-3: Introduction to the Nobel Prize and to the nature of science The course opened with a discussion of the questions: what is science in your opinion? What are scientific theories and how do they differ from other non-science theories? What are experiments? What is their role? Does science even need experiments? Can theories be created with the absence of empirical data? Students were asked to provide examples to their answers and to comment on their colleagues' views as well. The lecturer then went on to ask questions regarding other NOS characteristics, such as: Do you think scientific theories change? That current theories might change in the future? Do you think that science is influenced by culture and society? How? Do you think scientists are creative people? Do you think that science demands creativity? Why? How is scientists' creativity expressed in their work? For each answer, the lecturer asked the students to provide some examples and to comment on other students' answers. In the first part of this lesson, no answers were provided by the lecturer. Having introduced these questions, the lecturer explained that the aim of the course is to answer them, and that we will try to do so by means of Nobel Prize stories. This was followed by another series of questions, this time concerning the Nobel Prize. What does the Nobel stand for? Who was Nobel? Why did he want to establish a fund for scientists? What are the criteria for the prize? Who can win the prize? Who decides to give the prize? What is the procedure of the prize? In what fields is the prize given? Why? Does the prize contribute to science? How? Or does it maybe discourage those scientists who do not succeeded in winning it? Exposing students to so many questions without providing them with answers from the lecturer is not a conventional way of teaching in Taiwan. But it seems, from their discussion with the lecturer after the class, that the students enjoyed being heard and expressing their views. After the discussions described above, the lecturer introduced the different characteristics of NOS. He explained each characteristic, first providing an example himself and then asking for other examples from the students. The students were also asked to read Irzik and Nola's [3] paper, which criticizes the consensus approach to the teaching of NOS. We discussed this paper in class at the next meeting. The lecturer also formally introduced the Nobel Prize in a PowerPoint presentation that covered Alfred Nobel's personal life, his discovery of dynamite, his will and his reasons for establishing the fund for the prize, and the procedure for selecting laureates. The students, who were all equipped with laptops, were asked to read more about the prize on the Nobel Prize website, to get a list of the first 10 physicists who won it and to summarize the achievements for which the these first ten had won. Meetings 4-7: Albert Einstein's Nobel Prize story To open this section, the lecturer asked the students what the photoelectric effect is (a question to which all knew the answer). Then the lecturer challenged the students to explain why the prize was given to Einstein for the so simple a linear equation? What was all the fuss about? To further demonstrate how important Albert Einstein's explanation was, he asked the students to try and explain the photoelectric effect by using the wave theory, and to identify what the problem with the wave theory was. For this purpose the students could use textbooks on the wave theory. The students started to work in pairs on the question. After about an hour it seemed that it was quite a challenge for them to apply what they knew on the wave theory of light to the photoelectric effect. The lecturer then briefly described the wave theory and explained how the wave theory dealt with the photoelectric effect, what it explains, what it leaves unexplained, and what contradicts the wave theory completely. Then Albert Einstein's idea, which was familiar to the students, was presented again. We went on to discuss whether or not Albert Einstein's idea was a "big idea". The lecturer presented the students with the views of leading scientists of the day who had opposed Einstein's novel idea. Then, Millikan's experiment was described and a discussion concerning the relationship between theory and evidence took place. The students were very surprised by the fact that Millikan's experiment came so many years after Einstein proposed his theory. They also found it hard to believe that Millikan also opposed Einstein's idea of light quanta. This section included an introduction to Albert Einstein the person. Who was he? Where did he live? How many children did he have? Who he was married to? What did he do, as a Jewish scientist, during World War II, his pacifism etc. Finally, the lecturer returned to the NOS characteristics that the students had learned about earlier in the course and asked the students to express their views concerning how these characteristics are manifested in Einstein's story. Meeting 8: Would Aristotle or Galileo receive a Nobel Prize? This meeting included two films from a series on History of Science called "Final for Now" (http://www.23tv.co.il/1607-he/sofi.aspx).The films are in Hebrew, and were translated for the students by the lecturer. The first film describes the development of the concept of heat. The lecturer asked the students what heat is. A discussion followed. Then the movie was shown, in which two actors playing Empidoculus and Aristotle discuss the meaning of heat. While Empidoculus holds the view that heat is movement, Aristotle claims that it is matter. Each of the figures provides explanations and examples for their own views. The lecturer then asked the students, "What kind of support has each of the scientists provided?", which led to a discussion of the Greek scientists' method, which was based on the logos rather than on myths and ghosts, which were accepted ways to explain scientific phenomena before the Greeks. The film then presents the views of more modern scientists concerning heat. They supported their explanations with experiments, which led to a discussion of the role of the experiment in our time and how this differs from the days of the Greek scientist. The second film was about the idea of the existence of vacuum, and in this context we conducted a similar discussion of the logos method and the role of experiments. To further discuss the role of the experiment, the following two different views were presented to the students, that of Bacon and that of Popper. According to Bacon scientific theories are developed from the observation and manipulation of nature, while according to Popper scientific theories are developed first in the head of the scientist. Popper claims that scientific theories, unlike non-scientific theories, can be tested by experiment. The discussion led the students to realize that in fact, the development of science in reality is somewhere in between these two views, that of Bacon and that of Popper. Sometimes it progresses in a path similar to that described by Bacon and sometimes it progress in a path similar to what Popper describes. It seems that there is a negotiation between theories and experiments, with neither one coming before the other. Meetings 9-12: Participants' presentations and course summary The students were asked to choose and present Nobel laureate stories of their own. They chose: 1) Marie Curie (1903 in physics and 1911 in chemistry), 2) Philipp Eduard Anton von Lenard (1905 in physics), 3) Joseph John Thomson (1906 in physics), 4) Ernest Rutherford (1908, in chemistry), 5) Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck (1918 in physics), 6) Niels Henrik David Bohr (1922 in physics), 7) Robert Andrews Millikan (1923 in physics), 8) Arthur Holly Compton (1927 in physics), 9) Prince Louis-Victor Pierre Raymond de Broglie (1929 in physics), and 10) In addition, one student presented Newton's story and addressed the question of whether Newton would have won a Nobel Prize. The students were instructed to include the same elements in their presentations as those presented by the lecturer in the case of Albert Einstein, namely: a) The Nobel laureate's personal details: where they were born, where they were raised, information about their family, spouse and children, etc. b) The relevant physics concerning the Nobel Prize presentation. c) Why they received the Nobel Prize. d) What the accepted knowledge in their field was prior to their contribution. e) How, if at all, the different characteristics presented in the first meetings of the course emerged/manifested in the story. The students were asked to conduct discussions with the class rather than give a lecture, but - though there were some attempts to conduct discussions, the main form of student presentations were a lecture-like style, where the students strictly followed their PowerPoint presentations. It is important to note that before presenting their lectures the students had to send the PowerPoint presentation to the lecturer for discussion, i.e. to receive guidance as to what should remain in it and what could be deleted, etc. As the different stories were presented, the lecturer tried to conduct discussions that compared how the different characteristics of NOS were manifested in the different Nobel laureate stories. For instance, what is the difference in how the characteristic "empirically-based" was manifested in the story of De-Broglie and the story of Rutherford.
Recommended publications

  • Honolulu Star-Advertiser

    B CITY EDITOR: David Butts / [email protected] / 529-4310 WEDNESDAY 10/7/20 VANDALS AT WORK A $20,000 digital sign is damaged at Makapu‘u Lighthouse Trail over the weekend >> B2 ——— BIG Q >> B2 COMICS & PUZZLES >> B7-9 KOKUA LINE CHRISTINE DONNELLY Must apply for extended jobless benefits uestion: Are the extended benefits Q automatic once I run out of unemploy- ment? It’s getting close. What do I do? Answer: No, Pan- demic Emergency Unem- ployment Compensation is not automatic. You have to apply for this pro- gram, which adds 13 weeks of benefits for eligi- UCLA VIA AP / 2015 ble claimants, and you must have a zero balance Andrea Ghez, professor of physics and astronomy at UCLA, was one of three scientists who was awarded this year’s Nobel Prize in in your Unemployment In- physics for advancing the understanding of black holes. Ghez was photographed on the university’s campus. surance account before you do so, according to the state Department of Labor and Industrial Rela- Nobel winner is Keck Observatory user tions. You would apply through your online UI ac- Astronomer Andrea Ghez has been studying the ry’s telescopes, Lewis said count and answer a series Ghez probably uses them of questions to determine Galactic Center from Hawaii island since 1995 more often than anyone whether you are eligible. else — about a dozen nights For instructions on how Star-Advertiser staff covering a supermassive per year. to apply, see labor.hawaii. and news services black hole at the center of The observatory’s twin gov/ui/.
  • Hendrik Antoon Lorentz's Struggle with Quantum Theory A. J

    Hendrik Antoon Lorentz's Struggle with Quantum Theory A. J

    Hendrik Antoon Lorentz’s struggle with quantum theory A. J. Kox Archive for History of Exact Sciences ISSN 0003-9519 Volume 67 Number 2 Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. (2013) 67:149-170 DOI 10.1007/s00407-012-0107-8 1 23 Your article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution license which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works, as long as the author of the original work is cited. You may self- archive this article on your own website, an institutional repository or funder’s repository and make it publicly available immediately. 1 23 Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. (2013) 67:149–170 DOI 10.1007/s00407-012-0107-8 Hendrik Antoon Lorentz’s struggle with quantum theory A. J. Kox Received: 15 June 2012 / Published online: 24 July 2012 © The Author(s) 2012. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract A historical overview is given of the contributions of Hendrik Antoon Lorentz in quantum theory. Although especially his early work is valuable, the main importance of Lorentz’s work lies in the conceptual clarifications he provided and in his critique of the foundations of quantum theory. 1 Introduction The Dutch physicist Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1853–1928) is generally viewed as an icon of classical, nineteenth-century physics—indeed, as one of the last masters of that era. Thus, it may come as a bit of a surprise that he also made important contribu- tions to quantum theory, the quintessential non-classical twentieth-century develop- ment in physics. The importance of Lorentz’s work lies not so much in his concrete contributions to the actual physics—although some of his early work was ground- breaking—but rather in the conceptual clarifications he provided and his critique of the foundations and interpretations of the new ideas.
  • James Clerk Maxwell

    James Clerk Maxwell

    James Clerk Maxwell JAMES CLERK MAXWELL Perspectives on his Life and Work Edited by raymond flood mark mccartney and andrew whitaker 3 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries c Oxford University Press 2014 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted First Edition published in 2014 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2013942195 ISBN 978–0–19–966437–5 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only.
  • Harry Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Apocalyptic Narrative

    Harry Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Apocalyptic Narrative

    Volume 5 | Issue 7 | Article ID 2479 | Jul 12, 2007 The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus The Decision to Risk the Future: Harry Truman, the Atomic Bomb and the Apocalyptic Narrative Peter J. Kuznick The Decision to Risk the Future: Harry stressed that the future of mankind would be Truman, the Atomic Bomb and theshaped by how such bombs were used and Apocalyptic Narrative subsequently controlled or shared.[3] Truman recalled Stimson “gravely” expressing his Peter J. Kuznick uncertainty about whether the U.S. should ever use the bomb, “because he was afraid it was so I powerful that it could end up destroying the whole world.” Truman admitted that, listening In his personal narrative Atomic Quest, Nobel to Stimson and Groves and reading Groves’s Prize-winning physicist Arthur Holly Compton, accompanying memo, he “felt the same who directed atomic research at the University fear.”[4] of Chicago’s Metallurgical Laboratory during the Second World War, tells of receiving an urgent visit from J. Robert Oppenheimer while vacationing in Michigan during the summer of 1942. Oppenheimer and the brain trust he assembled had just calculated the possibility that an atomic explosion could ignite all the hydrogen in the oceans or the nitrogen in the atmosphere. If such a possibility existed, Compton concluded, “these bombs must never be made.” As Compton said, “Better to accept the slavery of the Nazis than to run a chance of drawing the final curtain on mankind.”[1] Certainly, any reasonable human being could be expected to respond similarly. Three years later, with Hitler dead and the Nazis defeated, President Harry Truman faced Truman and Byrnes en route to Potsdam, July a comparably weighty decision.
  • The Nobel Laureate CV Raman and His Contacts with the European Men of Science in Political Context

    The Nobel Laureate CV Raman and His Contacts with the European Men of Science in Political Context

    The Global and the Local: The History of Science and the Cultural Integration of Europe. nd Proceedings of the 2 ICESHS (Cracow, Poland, September 6-9, 2006) / Ed. by M. Kokowski. Rajinder Singh * The Nobel Laureate CV Raman and his contacts with the European men of science in political context (1) Introduction In 1928 C.V. Raman1 (1888–1970) [see Figure 1 and Box 1] and K.S. Krishnan (1898–1961) observed that if monochromatic light is passed through a transparent medium, thereafter the scattering light is accompanied by other colours. This phenomenon was later named as Raman effect.2 The effect helps to find out the molecular structure of substances. In 1930 Raman was award the Physics Nobel prize ―for his work on light scattering and the discovery of the effect named after him.‖ He was the first Asian to receive this honour. This made him extremely popular. C.V. Raman interacted with the wide scientific community for about half a century and visited many countries. Some of the important physicists who corresponded with Raman were Wladyslaw Natanson,3 Niels Bohr, Max Born, Erwin Schrödinger, Arnold Sommerfeld and Ernest Rutherford. * University of Oldenburg, Faculty V, Institute of Physics – EHF, Research Group: Physics Education, History / Philosophy of Science, Oldenburg, Germany; email: [email protected] . 1 For biographical details, see: C.V. Raman: A Short Biographical Sketch (1938); J. Mehra, Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman, (in: Dictionary of Scientific Biography, C.C. Gillispie, ed.), Vol. XI (1975), pp. 264–267; G.H. Keswani, Raman and His Effect (1980); P.R.
  • Einstein's Mistakes

    Einstein's Mistakes

    Einstein’s Mistakes Einstein was the greatest genius of the Twentieth Century, but his discoveries were blighted with mistakes. The Human Failing of Genius. 1 PART 1 An evaluation of the man Here, Einstein grows up, his thinking evolves, and many quotations from him are listed. Albert Einstein (1879-1955) Einstein at 14 Einstein at 26 Einstein at 42 3 Albert Einstein (1879-1955) Einstein at age 61 (1940) 4 Albert Einstein (1879-1955) Born in Ulm, Swabian region of Southern Germany. From a Jewish merchant family. Had a sister Maja. Family rejected Jewish customs. Did not inherit any mathematical talent. Inherited stubbornness, Inherited a roguish sense of humor, An inclination to mysticism, And a habit of grüblen or protracted, agonizing “brooding” over whatever was on its mind. Leading to the thought experiment. 5 Portrait in 1947 – age 68, and his habit of agonizing brooding over whatever was on its mind. He was in Princeton, NJ, USA. 6 Einstein the mystic •“Everyone who is seriously involved in pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man..” •“When I assess a theory, I ask myself, if I was God, would I have arranged the universe that way?” •His roguish sense of humor was always there. •When asked what will be his reactions to observational evidence against the bending of light predicted by his general theory of relativity, he said: •”Then I would feel sorry for the Good Lord. The theory is correct anyway.” 7 Einstein: Mathematics •More quotations from Einstein: •“How it is possible that mathematics, a product of human thought that is independent of experience, fits so excellently the objects of physical reality?” •Questions asked by many people and Einstein: •“Is God a mathematician?” •His conclusion: •“ The Lord is cunning, but not malicious.” 8 Einstein the Stubborn Mystic “What interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world” Some broadcasters expunged the comment from the soundtrack because they thought it was blasphemous.
  • Atomic Physics & Quantum Effects

    Atomic Physics & Quantum Effects

    KEY CONCEPTS ATOMIC PHYSICS & QUANTUM EFFECTS 1. PHOTONS & THE PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT Max Planck explained blackbody radiation with his quantum hypothesis, which states that the energy of a thermal oscillator, Eosc, is not continuous, but instead is a discrete quantity given by the equation: Eosc = nhf n = 1, 2, 3,... where f is the frequency and h is a constant now known as Planck’s constant. Albert Einstein extended the idea by adding that all emitted radiation is quantized. He suggested that light is composed of discrete quanta, rather than of waves. According to his theory, each particle of light, known as a photon, has an energy E given by: E = hf Einstein’s theory helped him explain a phenomenon known as the photoelectric effect, in which a photon of light strikes a photosensitive material and causes an electron to be ejected from the material. A photocell constructed from photosensitive material can produce an electrical current when light shines on it. The kinetic energy, K, of a photoelectron displaced by a photon of energy, hf, is given by: K = hf - φ where the work function, φ, is the minimum energy needed to free the electron from the photosensitive material. No photoemission occurs if the frequency of the incident light falls below a certain cutoff frequency – or threshold frequency – given by: φ f0 = h Einstein's theory explained several aspects of the photoelectric effect that could not be explained by classical theory: • The kinetic energy of photoelectrons is dependent on the light’s frequency. • No photoemission occurs for light below a certain threshold frequency.
  • The Nobel Peace Prize

    The Nobel Peace Prize

    TITLE: Learning From Peace Makers OVERVIEW: Students examine The Dalai Lama as a Nobel Laureate and compare / contrast his contributions to the world with the contributions of other Nobel Laureates. SUBJECT AREA / GRADE LEVEL: Civics and Government 7 / 12 STATE CONTENT STANDARDS / BENCHMARKS: -Identify, research, and clarify an event, issue, problem or phenomenon of significance to society. -Gather, use, and evaluate researched information to support analysis and conclusions. OBJECTIVES: The student will demonstrate the ability to... -know and understand The Dalai Lama as an advocate for peace. -research and report the contributions of others who are recognized as advocates for peace, such as those attending the Peace Conference in Portland: Aldolfo Perez Esquivel, Robert Musil, William Schulz, Betty Williams, and Helen Caldicott. -compare and contrast the contributions of several Nobel Laureates with The Dalai Lama. MATERIALS: -Copies of biographical statements of The Dalai Lama. -List of Nobel Peace Prize winners. -Copy of The Dalai Lama's acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize. -Bulletin board for display. PRESENTATION STEPS: 1) Students read one of the brief biographies of The Dalai Lama, including his Five Point Plan for Peace in Tibet, and his acceptance speech for receiving the Nobel Prize for Peace. 2) Follow with a class discussion regarding the biography and / or the text of the acceptance speech. 3) Distribute and examine the list of Nobel Peace Prize winners. 4) Individually, or in cooperative groups, select one of the Nobel Laureates (give special consideration to those coming to the Portland Peace Conference). Research and prepare to report to the class who the person was and why he / she / they won the Nobel Prize.
  • Ripples in Spacetime

    Ripples in Spacetime

    editorial Ripples in spacetime The 2017 Nobel prize in Physics has been awarded to Rainer Weiss, Barry C. Barish and Kip S. Thorne “for decisive contributions to the LIGO detector and the observation of gravitational waves”. It is, frankly, difficult to find something original to say about the detection of gravitational waves that hasn’t been said already. The technological feat of measuring fluctuations in the fabric of spacetime less than one-thousandth the width of an atomic nucleus is quite simply astonishing. The scientific achievement represented by the confirmation of a century-old prediction by Albert Einstein is unique. And the collaborative effort that made the discovery possible — the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) — is inspiring. Adapted from Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), under Creative Commons Licence. Rainer Weiss and Kip Thorne were, along with the late Ronald Drever, founders of the project that eventually became known Barry Barish, who was the director Last month we received a spectacular as LIGO. In the 1960s, Thorne, a black hole of LIGO from 1997 to 2005, is widely demonstration that talk of a new era expert, had come to believe that his objects of credited with transforming it into a ‘big of gravitational astronomy was no interest should be detectable as gravitational physics’ collaboration, and providing the exaggeration. Cued by detections at LIGO waves. Separately, and inspired by previous organizational structure required to ensure and Virgo, an interferometer based in Pisa, proposals, Weiss came up with the first it worked. Of course, the passion, skill and Italy, more than 70 teams of researchers calculations detailing how an interferometer dedication of the thousand or so scientists working at different telescopes around could be used to detect them in 1972.
  • How Science Works

    How Science Works

    PB 1 How science works The Scientific Method is traditionally presented in the first chapter of science text- books as a simple recipe for performing scientific investigations. Though many use- ful points are embodied in this method, it can easily be misinterpreted as linear and “cookbook”: pull a problem off the shelf, throw in an observation, mix in a few ques- tions, sprinkle on a hypothesis, put the whole mixture into a 350° experiment—and voila, 50 minutes later you’ll be pulling a conclusion out of the oven! That might work if science were like Hamburger Helper®, but science is complex and cannot be re- duced to a single, prepackaged recipe. The linear, stepwise representation of the process of science is simplified, but it does get at least one thing right. It captures the core logic of science: testing ideas with evidence. However, this version of the scientific method is so simplified and rigid that it fails to accurately portray how real science works. It more accurately describes how science is summarized after the fact—in textbooks and journal articles—than how sci- ence is actually done. The simplified, linear scientific method implies that scientific studies follow an unvarying, linear recipe. But in reality, in their work, scientists engage in many different activities in many different sequences. Scientific investigations often involve repeating the same steps many times to account for new information and ideas. The simplified, linear scientific method implies that science is done by individual scientists working through these steps in isolation. But in reality, science depends on interactions within the scientific community.
  • I. I. Rabi Papers [Finding Aid]. Library of Congress. [PDF Rendered Tue Apr

    I. I. Rabi Papers [Finding Aid]. Library of Congress. [PDF Rendered Tue Apr

    I. I. Rabi Papers A Finding Aid to the Collection in the Library of Congress Manuscript Division, Library of Congress Washington, D.C. 1992 Revised 2010 March Contact information: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/mss.contact Additional search options available at: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/eadmss.ms998009 LC Online Catalog record: http://lccn.loc.gov/mm89076467 Prepared by Joseph Sullivan with the assistance of Kathleen A. Kelly and John R. Monagle Collection Summary Title: I. I. Rabi Papers Span Dates: 1899-1989 Bulk Dates: (bulk 1945-1968) ID No.: MSS76467 Creator: Rabi, I. I. (Isador Isaac), 1898- Extent: 41,500 items ; 105 cartons plus 1 oversize plus 4 classified ; 42 linear feet Language: Collection material in English Location: Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Summary: Physicist and educator. The collection documents Rabi's research in physics, particularly in the fields of radar and nuclear energy, leading to the development of lasers, atomic clocks, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to his 1944 Nobel Prize in physics; his work as a consultant to the atomic bomb project at Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and as an advisor on science policy to the United States government, the United Nations, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization during and after World War II; and his studies, research, and professorships in physics chiefly at Columbia University and also at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Selected Search Terms The following terms have been used to index the description of this collection in the Library's online catalog. They are grouped by name of person or organization, by subject or location, and by occupation and listed alphabetically therein.
  • Pauling-Linus.Pdf

    Pauling-Linus.Pdf

    NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES L I N U S C A R L P A U L I N G 1901—1994 A Biographical Memoir by J A C K D. D UNITZ Any opinions expressed in this memoir are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences. Biographical Memoir COPYRIGHT 1997 NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS WASHINGTON D.C. LINUS CARL PAULING February 28, 1901–August 19, 1994 BY JACK D. DUNITZ INUS CARL PAULING was born in Portland, Oregon, on LFebruary 28, 1901, and died at his ranch at Big Sur, California, on August 19, 1994. In 1922 he married Ava Helen Miller (died 1981), who bore him four children: Linus Carl, Peter Jeffress, Linda Helen (Kamb), and Edward Crellin. Pauling is widely considered the greatest chemist of this century. Most scientists create a niche for themselves, an area where they feel secure, but Pauling had an enormously wide range of scientific interests: quantum mechanics, crys- tallography, mineralogy, structural chemistry, anesthesia, immunology, medicine, evolution. In all these fields and especially in the border regions between them, he saw where the problems lay, and, backed by his speedy assimilation of the essential facts and by his prodigious memory, he made distinctive and decisive contributions. He is best known, perhaps, for his insights into chemical bonding, for the discovery of the principal elements of protein secondary structure, the alpha-helix and the beta-sheet, and for the first identification of a molecular disease (sickle-cell ane- mia), but there are a multitude of other important contri- This biographical memoir was prepared for publication by both The Royal Society of London and the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.