<<

A FORUM OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY • VOLUME XII • NO. 3 •FALL 2013 News of the Forum: David C. Cassidy Wins 2014 Abraham Pais Prize By Gloria B. Lubkin, Chair, 2014 Selection Committee

he 2014 Abraham Pais Prize is awarded to David C. Cassidy “for his foundational studies on the history Tof and his nuanced examinations of in Germany and the United States with special attention to the scientific work, personalities, and dilemmas of Heisenberg and Oppenheimer.” David Cassidy, a professor at Hofstra University in Hemp- stead, NY, has written two scientific biographies of . The first, more scholarly volume, Uncertainty: The Life and of Werner Heisenberg (W. H. Freeman, New York, 1993), grew out of his doctoral dissertation and subse- quent years of research in Germany and other countries. That highly celebrated volume won both the 1993 Pfizer Award of the History of Science Society and the AIP Science Writ- ing Prize. The second volume, Beyond Uncertainty: Heisenberg, Quantum Physics, and the Bomb (Bellevue Literary Press, New York, 2009) was written for a broader audience, and includes fewer details of the development of quantum mechanics. However, the newer book includes information from the “Farm Hall” transcripts, which were only released in 1993. Cassidy also maintains a website on Heisenberg, http://www. aip.org/history/heisenberg/p01.htm. David C. Cassidy, 2014 Pais Prize recipient. Cassidy’s biography of Oppenheimer, J. Robert Oppen- heimer and the American Century (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2009) provides a rich sense of the cultural and historical contexts in which Oppenheimer lived. Cassidy In This Issue also wrote A Short History of Physics in the American Century 2014 Pais Prize Winner 1 (Harvard University Press, , 2011). With Gerald Holton and James Rutherford, Cassidy also wrote the under- graduate textbook Understanding Physics (Springer, 2002). Events at 2014 APS Meetings 3 Cassidy’s play, Farm Hall, based on the transcripts made of the captured German nuclear scientists in 1945, received a staged reading at the March 2013 APS meeting. Events at History of Science Society 4 Cassidy received BA and MS degrees from Rutgers and a PhD in physics from Purdue in 1976 in conjunction with the Crowdfunding Effort 4 Department of History of Science at the University of Wiscon- sin in Madison. He did a postdoc with John L. Heilbron at the , Berkeley and then was a Humboldt 5 Fellow with Armin Hermann at the University of Stuttgart. He then became an assistant professor in history of science Pais Prize Lecture 6 at the University of Regensburg. Cassidy was Associate Edi- tor of The Collected Papers of , Volume I (“The Early Years”) and Volume II (“The Swiss Years: Writings”). He Daniel Kleppner Awarded Medal 12 has been at Hofstra University since 1990, where he is now professor of natural sciences. He has served FHP as secretary- treasurer (1995) and as chair (2008). New Books of Note 13 From the April 2013 APS Meeting

FHP Chair Don Howard, Past Chair Peter Pesic, and APS Executive FHP Chair-Elect Brian Schwartz introducing staged reading of Officer President Kate Kirby at the FHP Executive Board meeting. “And the Sun Stood Still,” by Dava Sobel, a play about Nicholaus Copernicus.

Forum on History of Physics

The Forum on History of Physics OFFICERS & COMMITTEES 2013–2014 of the American Physical Society Forum Officers Program Committee publishes this Newsletter biannually at http://www.aps.org/units/fhp/newsletters/ Chair: Don Howard Chair: Brian Schwartz, Chair Chair-Elect: Brian Schwartz Co-Chair: Catherine Westfall index.cfm. If you wish to receive a Vice Chair: Catherine Westfall printed version of the Newsletter, Appointed: Past Chair: Peter Pesic please contact the editor. Each 3-year Fabio Bevilacqua Secretary-Treasurer: Cameron Reed volume consists of six issues. Clayton Gearheart Denis Weaire Forum Councilor The articles in this issue represent the Adrienne Kolb Michael Riordan views of their authors and are not necessarily those of the Forum or APS. Ex-officio: At Large Gregory Good on behalf of AIP Robert Crease Diana Kormos Buchwald on behalf of EPP Editor Danian Hu Peter Pesic on behalf of PIP Robert P. Crease Joseph Martin Catherine Westfall both co-chair and ex Department of Philosophy Paul Halpern officio on behalf of HSS FPS Stony Brook University Diana K. Buchwald Richard Staley Stony Brook, NY 11794 Fellowship Committee: [email protected] Director-CHP Chair: Catherine Westfall (631) 632-7570 Gregory Good Fred Goldhaber Michel Janssen David Kaiser Book Review Editor Newsletter Editor Allen Needell Michael Riordan Robert Crease [email protected]

American Physical Society, One Physics Ellipse, College Park, MD 20740

2 Volume XII, No. 3 • Fall 2013 • History of Physics Newsletter Upcoming Events at the 2014 APS March and April Meetings APS Meeting, March 3-5, Denver, Colorado:

Women and the Co-sponsored by FHP and CSWP Monday, March 3, 2014 11:15 AM

Session Chair: Margaret Murnane, University of Colorado, Bolder and JILA

“The Girls of Atomic City: The Untold Story of the Women Who Helped Win World War II,” Denise Kiernan, Author, Touchstone/Simon & Schuster

“Women and the ,” Michele Gerber, Gerber Group Consulting Women at Oak Ridge plant

“After the War: What Happened to the “The Role of Living History in the “Some problems in the competition of Women Scientists of the Manhattan Communication of Science to the high-temperature superconductivity Project,” Ruth Howes, Professor Emer- Public,” Susan Marie Frontczak, research during the late 1980s,” Bing ita of Physics and Astronomy, Ball State Storysmith® Liu, Tsinghua University University “The Historical Role of the New York “A brief history of the Institute of Theo- “Preserving the Manhattan Project: Times in the Communication of Science retical Physics in the Chinese Academy Women at Work,” Cindy Kelly, Direc- to the Public,” Dennis Overbye, The of Sciences since 1978,” Jinyan Liu, Chi- tor, Atomic Heritage Foundation New York Times nese Academy of Sciences “On the Ordinary Genius of Laura Fer- Twentieth-Century Chinese Physi- APS Meeting, April 5-8, mi,” Olivia Fermi, On the Trail cists and Physics Co-sponsored by FHP and FIP Savannah, Georgia: The History of the Communication of Thursday, March 6, 2014 Science to the Public 2:30 PM Co-sponsored by FHP and FOEP The Many Worlds of Wednesday, March 5, 2014 Session Chair: Danian Hu, The City Co-sponsored by FHP and FPS 8:00 AM College of New York, CUNY “The Many Worlds of Leo Szilard,” Session Chair: Brian Schwartz, Brook- “Chien-Shiung Wu: An Icon of Physi- William Lanouette, author of Genius in lyn College and The Graduate Center, cist and Woman Scientist in China,” the Shadows: A Biography of Leo Szilard, CUNY Yuelin Zhu, Harvard University the Man Behind the Bomb

“The Establishment of Science Com- “Chinese educated in the “Leo Szilard in Physics and Informa- munication for the Public at the Royal Great Britain during the first half of the tion,” Richard Garwin, IBM Institution” Frank Burnet, Emeritus 20th century,” Xiaodong Yin, Capital Professor of Science Communication, Normal University “Leo Szilard: Biologist and Peace-Mak- University of West of er,” Matthew S. Meselson, Harvard “Mao and physics research in China “Displaying Science: The Exhibits Rev- in the 1950s-1960s: the H-bomb project olution in Science and Natural History and the Straton model,” Tian Yu Cao, Museums, 1900-1990,Karen Rader, Vir- Boston University Continues on page 11 ginia Commonwealth University

Volume XII, No. 3 • Fall 2013 • History of Physics Newsletter 3 Upcoming Events at the 2013 Crowdfunding History of Science Society Effort for a biography FRIDAY NOVEMBER 22 3:45–5:45 p.m. of Richard Garwin Session F37: Paleontology as an Inter- national Endeavour in the Nineteenth By Tony Fainberg, and Twentieth Centuries Institute for Defense Analyses

Session F40: Natural History and Natu- ral Philosophy in the Eighteenth Cen- tury: Two Arts or One?

FRIDAY NOVEMBER 22 8:45–10:00 p.m

Workshop F4: The Past, Present, and THURSDAY, Future of the Physical Sciences NOVEMBER 21, 2013 3:00–5:00 p.m. SATURDAY NOVEMBER 23 9:00–11: 45 a.m. Session T2: The Materiality of Words in Chemistry and Pharmacy Session Sa43: Chemists and Chemistry in the Nineteenth Century: A Session in FRIDAY NOVEMBER 22, 2013 Honor of Alan J. Rocke 7:30–8:45 a.m. he last newsletter announced the Session Sa46: Interrogating the Cosmos preparation of a crowdfunding Physical Science Forum Business with Mathematical Imaginings and Teffort to be launched soon: the Meeting Physical Intuitions, 1880-1965: Bridg- goal is to support a completed, pub- ing Disciplinary and Cultural Practices lished biography of Dr. Richard Gar- FRIDAY NOVEMBER 22, 2013 win, designer of the first thermonucle- 9:00–11: 45 a.m. SATURDAY NOVEMBER 23 ar device and arms control advocate for (includes break from 10:00 to 10:15) 1:30–3:30 p.m. over half a century. Preparations to this end have been made on the indiegogo. Session F6: Rethinking the Cold War Session Sa61: Foundations at the Philo- com site: a 60-day campaign to raise Scientist: Advisers, Activists, and sophical Turning-Points: Chronicling funds to support this project is planned Archetypes from Sputnik to Star Wars Conceptual Turns in Theories of Mod- to “go live” on November 1. Members ern Physics of the Forum on the History of Phys- Session F13: Fields, Waves, and Parti- ics (along with others, of course) are cles: Debates in Session Sa67: Chymistry and Life in encouraged to visit the indiegogo site Early Modern Europe after November 1, to search for the FRIDAY NOVEMBER 22 campaign titled “Richard Garwin Biog- 12:00–1:15 p.m. SATURDAY NOVEMBER 23 raphy” and to contribute to this wor- 3:45–5:45 p.m thy effort, following instructions on the Physical Science Forum Distinguished site. More information on the campaign Lecture: Peter Galison (Harvard Session Sa83: Epistemic Strategies in is available there. Any questions or dif- University) 20th Century Physics and Cosmol- ficulties encountered should be com- ogy: Reshaping Spaces, Structures, and municated to Tony Fainberg at fain- FRIDAY NOVEMBER 22 Styles [email protected]. Thanks to all. 1:30–3:30 p.m. SUNDAY NOVEMBER 24 Session F17: The Fifty-Year Anniversa- 10:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. ry of the Limited Test Ban Treaty: Ori- gins and Legacies Session Su5: The Order of the Inter- disciplinary: How the Materiality of Session F28: Exploring Space: Politics, Sociopolitics Shapes Interpretations Institutions, and Collaborations and Representations in Physics n

4 Volume XII, No. 3 • Fall 2013 • History of Physics Newsletter Maria Goeppert Mayer: The 50th Anniversary of Her By Paul Halpern

n April 13, 2013, at the APS understanding of Fermi’s Pittsburgh, who spoke about “Remem- April Meeting, an invited ses- model. Moszkowski brought the dis- brances of Maria Goeppert Mayer and Osion was held to mark the 50th cussion up-to-date by commenting on the .” Baranger is anniversary of Maria Goeppert May- recent experiments looking for double the daughter of the late Nobel laureate er’s , an honor beta decay without emission— in chemistry who knew the she shared with J. Hans D. Jensen and a process that would violate lepton Mayers well. She spoke fondly about . (Half of the prize mon- number conservation. getting to know and being inspired ey in 1963 went to Wigner; the other The second speaker was Prof. Kar- by Maria Mayer when the Ureys and half was divided between Jensen and en E. Johnson of St. Lawrence Univer- the Mayers lived in the same neigh- Mayer.) Remarkably, Mayer was only sity, who spoke about “Maria Goeppert borhood in New Jersey, and then later the second women to receive the Nobel Mayer and the Nobel Prize.” Johnson when both families moved to Chicago. Prize in Physics. It had been a full 60 pointed out that while Marie , the Baranger pointed out how because of years since had been first woman to win the Nobel Prize in “nepotism rules,” Maria Mayer was not awarded the prize. The session was physics is well-known, Maria Goep- appointed as a paid professor until later well-attended and stimulated consid- pert Mayer, the second woman, who in life. For much of her seminal work, erable discussion. won the prize in 1963, is much lesser she was listed as “vol.” or a “volunteer.” The first speaker at the session was known. She speculated about reasons Baranger also discussed Mayer’s early Prof. Steven Moszkowski of UCLA who for this, including that the ceremony life in Göttingen, where, because of her spoke about “Maria Goeppert Mayer’s for Mayer took place shortly after Ken- father being a professor, she led a life work on beta-decay and pairing, and its nedy’s assassination, which dominated of privilege. Mayer worked with Max relevance today.” Moszkowski pointed the news. She also pointed to a bias in Born, who had a great influence on her. out the importance of Mayer’s lesser news stories reporting the three winners Following the third talk, there was known work in the theory of double that year. Johnson showed how Mayer’s a lively discussion about the “nepotism beta-decay, in addition to her Nobel father, and later her husband, Ameri- rule” that many universities cited when Prize winning work on the nuclear shell can chemist Joseph Mayer, were very barring couples from taking paid posi- model and magic numbers. He showed supportive of her work. Joseph Mayer tions at the same university. All in all, how her theory of double beta-decay respected and collaborated with her. it was an enlightened session about a derived from her PhD work in dou- The third speaker was Prof. Eliza- pivotal . n ble photon emission, along with her beth Baranger of the University of

Volume XII, No. 3 • Fall 2013 • History of Physics Newsletter 5 2013 Pais Prize Lecture: “The Joy of History”

By Roger H. Stuewer, University of Minnesota

Introduction -quantum (or photon) hypothesis at the Cavendish and found that scat- Physicists or cite his famous 1905 paper, or even tered γ rays became “softer” or of lon- and historians mention Einstein’s name. I thus asked ger wavelength than the primary γ of physics share myself: Was it possible that Compton rays, which he eventually explained by a common goal, discovered the Compton effect essen- assuming that the incident γ rays were the quest for tially independently of Einstein’s striking tiny electron-oscillators in the understand- hypothesis? As we will see, I eventually scatterer and propelling them forward ing, but their was able to answer this historical ques- while they emitted a new type of Dop- objects are dif- tion by analyzing Compton’s laboratory pler-shifted fluorescent γ radiation of lon- ferent: Physi- notebooks.4 ger wavelength. Later, in the summer cists attempt to Compton’s Ph.D. research at Princ- of 1920, when Compton left the Caven- understand , while historians eton and his subsequent research at dish to go to Washington University in attempt to understand the past, and Minnesota during the academic year St. Louis, he took a Bragg spectrometer as the novelist L.P. Hartley (1895-1972) 1916-1917 focused on the scattering of along with him, used it to produce a famously remarked, “The past is a for- X rays from crystals, but he could not monochromatic beam of X rays, and by eign country: they do things differently pursue it at Westinghouse in Pittsburgh April 1921 found that when scattered there.”1 In 1891 the German polymath because it had nothing to do with the they also excited a similar type of Dop- Hermann von Helmholtz reflected on production of better light bulbs. None- pler-shifted fluorescent X rays of longer his own researches, saying that: theless, he kept abreast of the literature, wavelength.8 I must compare myself to a moun- and in 1917 came across a paper by C.G. That fall Compton then used his tain climber, who without knowing the Barkla,5 in which he reported that X rays Bragg spectrometer to compare the way climbs up slowly and laboriously, passing through aluminum had a - primary spectrum of MoK X rays of α must often turn around because he scattering coefficient smaller than the wavelength λ = 0.708 Ångstrom to can go no farther, discovers new trails classical Thomson mass-scattering coef- their secondary spectrum when scat- sometimes through reflection, some- ficient. To explain this, Compton even- tered through an angle of about 90˚ by times through accident, which again tually concluded that Barkla’s X rays pyrex and graphite. And this is pre- lead him forward a little, and finally, if were being diffracted by ring electrons in cisely where my analysis of Compton’s he reaches his goal, finds to his shame the aluminum , which meant that laboratory notebooks was crucial to a Royal Road on which he could have the diameter of the ring electron, the understanding the further development traveled up, if he would have been diffracting obstacle, had to be compara- of Compton’s thought. Thus, Compton clever enough to find the right starting ble to the wavelength of the incident X reported that the wavelength of the point.2 rays, perhaps about 0.1 Ångstrom. That scattered X rays was about 35 percent This Royal Road, this linear, logi- was a very large electron, but Compton greater than the wavelength of the pri- cal route to the summit, is eschewed showed that X rays incident on it would mary X rays. I could not understand that by historians, who find both the chal- have a mass-scattering coefficient small- claim—until I plotted Compton’s data lenge and joy of history in exploring the er than the classical Thomson value. directly from his laboratory notebooks. byways, uncovering the contingencies When Compton left Westinghouse My plots for a pyrex scatterer showed of historical events and shaping them to go to the in that the prominent line in the secondary into a coherent narrative. To illustrate 1919, however, he soon discovered that spectrum is shifted to a slightly higher this, I will draw on my own researches, its new Director, the blunt Ernest Ruth- wavelength than that line in the pri- showing how my analyses were based erford, would have nothing whatsoever mary spectrum. In other words, I knew crucially on three different types of to do with this idea. Thus, Compton what I was looking for, but Compton documentary evidence, private labora- recalled that Rutherford once intro- did not, so when he reported a huge tory notebooks, unpublished personal duced him with the words: “This is Dr. 35-percent increase in wavelength it correspondence, and the published Compton, who is with us from the Unit- was clear to me that he had taken the literature. ed States to discuss his work on ‘The primary spectrum to be the prominent Size of the Electron.’ I hope you will high-intensity lines—which he took to The Discovery of the Compton Effect listen to him attentively. But you don’t be a single line at 0.708 Å—and the sec- When I began thinking about the have to believe him!”6 Rutherford’s first ondary spectrum to be the low-intensi- discovery of the Compton effect, the biographer also recalled that Rutherford ty lines—which he took to be a single first thing I did was read Arthur Holly once burst out saying, “I will not have line at 0.95 Å, and which we recognize Compton’s classic 1923 paper,3 and I an electron as big as a balloon in my today as the secondary MoK spectrum. α soon realized that something impor- Laboratory!”7 To Compton, however, the ratio of the tant was missing. Nowhere in his Compton also rethought his ideas primary to secondary wavelengths was paper did Compton mention Einstein’s after he carried out γ-ray experiments λ/λʹ = 0.708 Å/0.95 Å = 0.75.

6 Volume XII, No. 3 • Fall 2013 • History of Physics Newsletter 2013 Pais Prize Lecture

But how did Compton explain this Å, which he compared to his experi- he published in 1950 at the age of 82, huge shift in wavelength? It seemed mental value of 0.022 Å. This, however, he included a chapter entitled “The clear to me that he must have invoked was precisely the same experimental data Experimental Proof of the Existence of his Doppler-shifted fluorescent-radi- that he had reported one month earlier, in the Photon,” in which he wrote that at ation hypothesis, so I carried out the October 1922—he merely changed his the April 1915 meeting of the American simple calculation that Compton had formulas by substituting his new theo- Physical Society in Washington, D.C., omitted: As seen at 90˚, the ratio of the retical expression for his old one. Every his experiments on the photoelectric primary to the secondary wavelengths physicist knows that good experimental effect constituted a “complete verifica- is λ/λʹ = 1 - v/c, where v is the veloc- data lasts forever, while theories come tion of the validity of Einstein’s equa- ity of the electron-oscillators that were and go. tion,” adding that: emitting his new fluorescent X rays. But In sum, Compton followed no Royal This seemed to me, as it did to many what was the velocity v? By “conserva- Road to his discovery of the Compton others, a matter of very great importance, tion of energy,” that is, by setting ½mv2 = effect. His thought evolved—over a for it ... proved simply and irrefutably I hν, we have that λ/λʹ = 1 - v/c = 1 - (2hν/ period of six years—only as fast as thought, that the emitted electron that escapes mc2)½ = 1 - [2(.017 MeV)/(.51 MeV)]½ = his own experimental and theoretical with the energy hν gets that energy by the direct 1 - 0.26 = 0.74. Who could ask for better researches progressed. His motivation transfer of hν units of energy from the light to agreement between theory and experi- never was to carry out an experiment the electron [Millikan’s italics] and hence ment? I have called this the first phase to test or confirm Einstein’s light-quan- scarcely permits of any other interpretation of Compton’s classical-quantum compro- tum (or photon) hypothesis, so we now than that which Einstein had originally sug- mise, which to me it is a splendid his- can understand why Compton never gested, namely that of the semi-corpuscular torical example of a false theory being cited Einstein’s 1905 paper or even or photon theory of light itself.10 confirmed by spurious experimental data. mentioned Einstein’s name in his 1923 In other words, he, not Compton, One year later, by October 1922, paper. had first established the validity of Compton realized that he had misread In complete contrast, Peter Debye Einstein’s light-quantum (or photon) his experimental data, and that the shift at the Federal Institute of Technology hypothesis. It seems, however, that in wavelength between the primary and (Eidgenössische Technische Hochscule, Millikan never dreamed that someday secondary X-ray spectra was only a few ETH) in Zurich, Switzerland, did fol- some historian might actually read his per cent. He now reported that the ratio low a Royal Road by directly adopting 1915 paper. Thus, in 1915, at age 47, he of the primary to the secondary wave- Einstein’s light-quantum hypothesis had indeed established the validity of length was λ/λʹ = 0.708 Å/0.730 Å = and discovering the same effect, seem- Einstein’s equation,11 which achieve- 0.969. But how did he now explain this ingly virtually simultaneously. That, ment, however, he clarified in his 1917 new experimental result? Again by his however, illustrates the contingency of book, The Electron, writing that: Doppler-shifted fluorescent-radiation the publication process. Compton sub- Despite...the apparently complete suc- hypothesis. Thus, at a scattering angle mitted his paper to The cess of the Einstein equation, the physical of 90˚ we again have that λ/λʹ = 1 - v/c, on December 13, 1922, where it was theory of which it was designed to be the but how did Compton now determine published in May 1923, while Debye symbolic expression is found so untenable the velocity v of the electron-oscillators? submitted his paper to the Physikalische that ... we are in the position of having built a By “conservation of momentum,” that Zeitschrift on March 14, 1923, where it very perfect structure and then knocked out is, he set mv = h/λ to yield λ/λʹ = 1 - v/c was published on April 15, 1923, that is, entirely the underpinning without causing = 1 - h/mcλ = 1 - 0.034 = 0.966. Again, one month before Compton’s paper was the building to fall. It [Einstein’s equation] who could ask for better agreement published in The Physical Review. Fortu- stands complete and apparently well tested, between theory and experiment? I have nately for Compton, Arnold Sommer- but without any visible means of support.... called this the second phase of Compton’s feld was just then a visiting professor at Experiment has outrun theory, or better, classical-quantum compromise, which to the University of Wisconsin, and when guided by erroneous theory [my italics], it has me it is a splendid historical example he returned home to Munich he spread discovered relationships which seem to be of a false theory being confirmed by good the word that Compton had priority of the greatest interest and importance, but experimental data. in both theory and experiment. Debye the reasons for them are as yet not at all Within a month, Compton put himself later insisted that it should be understood.12 everything together.9 He set up the cor- called the Compton effect, and not the Millikan’s quest for priority thus rect vector diagram for conservation of Compton-Debye effect, because, he led him to completely revise history. By momentum, invoked both conservation said, the person who did most of the then, however, he already had had some of energy and conservation of momen- work should get the name. experience with that. Thus, in 1899 J.J. tum, used the correct relativistic expres- Thomson was photographed sitting in sion for the mass of the electron, and Millikan and the Photoelectric-Effect his study in Cambridge, England, in a derived a formula equivalent to his No physicist to my knowledge was chair that once had belonged to James famous expression for the change in more concerned with trying to estab- Clerk Maxwell.13 Seven years later, in wavelength, which at a scattering angle lish his priority than Robert A. Mil- of 90˚ reduces toΔλ = λʹ - λ = h/mc = 0.024 likan. Thus, in his Autobiography, which Continues on page 8

Volume XII, No. 3 • Fall 2013 • History of Physics Newsletter 7 2013 Pais Prize Lecture Continued from page 7

1906, Millikan and Henry G. Gale pub- Rutherford’s interpretation of the dis- is probably the cause of their going wrong.... lished their textbook, A First Course in integration process. Rutherford and [Such] a discrimination by eye is terribly Physics, in which Millikan reproduced Chadwick, however, were undeterred. dangerous.20 this picture of J.J. Thomson, but with In 1924 they published a bar graph In other words, a low-energy scat- a noticeable difference: He etched out showing that could be expelled tered could produce a the cigarette in J.J.’s left hand.14 He evi- from many light elements, but not from scintillation just as bright as a high- dently wanted his students to admire carbon or oxygen, contrary to what Pet- energy disintegration . J.J. as a great experimentalist, but not tersson and Kirsch had claimed. Only one avenue remained open to mimic his bad habit. I confess that By July 1924, Rutherford, who was to resolve the controversy, namely, an I found some satisfaction, even a little not famous for his patience, let off some exchange of visits between the two joy, in catching Millikan out here. In steam to his friend , writing, laboratories. Pettersson visited the Cav- any case, these two episodes beautifully in the first of many letters I found in endish first, in May 1927, each evening illustrate what I like to call Millikan’s the Cambridge University Library, that: reporting his experiences to Meyer in philosophy of history: If the facts don’t He [Pettersson] seems a clever and inge- long letters I found in the Institute for fit your theory, change the facts. nious fellow, but with a terrible capacity for Research. He told Meyer that getting hold of the wrong end of the stick. Rutherford and Chadwick was treating The Cambridge-Vienna Controversy From our experiments, Chadwick and I are him well, but nothing convinced him on Artificial Nuclear Disintegration convinced that nearly all his work published that their observations were correct. In the late 1970s, I turned to the his- hitherto is either demonstrably wrong or Then the time came for the return tory of , building on wrongly interpreted.... It is a very great pity visit. Rutherford was far too busy to my graduate research in nuclear phys- that he and his collaborators are making make the trip, so he dispatched Chad- ics and on the proceedings of a sym- such a mess of things, for it is only making wick to Vienna, where he and his wife posium I organized on the history of confusion in the subject.18 arrived on Wednesday, December 7, nuclear physics in the 1930s.15 In one Here was Rutherford, by far the 1927, and stayed in the comfortable of my studies, I focused on a long con- most revered experimental physicist of Hotel Regina, about a ten-minute walk troversy between the period, placing Pettersson, a novice, from the Institute for Radium Research. and at the Cavendish on notice, as well as Pettersson’s boss Chadwick told Rutherford in his first Laboratory in Cambridge and Hans and Rutherford’s friend, , letter from Vienna that after unpacking Pettersson and Gerhard Kirsch at the Director of the Institute for Radium he went to the institute and talked with Institute for Radium Research (Institut Research. Meyer and “Pettersson’s people.”21 He für Radiumforschung) in Vienna.16 As The battle lines therefore were made no progress in resolving the con- we will see, its resolution would have drawn. By the summer of 1925 the tone troversy, however, nor did he on Thurs- remained unknown if I had not uncov- of the controversy can be judged from day, because it “was a holy day and no ered crucial correspondence between a letter that Chadwick wrote to Ruth- work could be done without danger to the protagonists. erford while he and his wife were on our future in the world to come.” Friday, A few months before moving from an extended trip home to New Zealand December 9, however, was very differ- to Cambridge in the mid- and Australia: ent. Chadwick told Rutherford that he dle of 1919, Rutherford discovered that Our friend Kirsch has now let himself and Pettersson “ended up with a fierce 214 RaC (83Bi ) alpha particles could dis- loose in the Physikalische Zeitschrift. His and very loud discussion.” Nor would integrate a nucleus, expelling tone is really impudent to put it very mild- Pettersson agree to allow Chadwick protons that produced scintillations— ly.... Kirsch & Pettersson seem to be rather to test whether carbon could be disin- tiny flashes of light—on a “scintillation above themselves. A good kick from behind tegrated, which “precipitated a most screen.” Rutherford knew from long would do them a lot of good. The name on fiery outburst....” Chadwick wrote that experience that the observation of such the paper is that of Kirsch but the voice is Meyer and others “with no direct inter- scintillations was difficult and tedious, the familiar bleat of Pettersson. I don’t know est in the question [were] exceedingly and also depended on the observer’s which is the boss but as Mr. Johnson said pleasant and friendly but the younger optical system, training, experience, there is no settling a point of precedence ones [stood] around stifflegged and physical health, and psychological between a louse and a flea.19 with bristling hair.” state.17 The controversy was clearly heat- The atmosphere thus was extremely Rutherford and his right-hand man ing up. In February 1926 Rutherford tense. As Elisabeth Rona, one of Petters- Chadwick found by 1921 that RaC alpha proposed an explanation of his and son’s assistants, recalled: particles could disintegrate the nuclei Chadwick’s observational differences The impression made on us by Chad- of various light elements. In 1923, how- with the Vienna team in another letter wick...was not favorable. He seemed to us to ever, Pettersson and Kirsch in Vienna to Bohr, writing that: be cold, unfriendly, and completely lacking reported that RaC alpha particles The idea that you can discriminate in a sense of humor. Probably he was just could expel protons from many more between slow α particles and H particles as uncomfortable in the role of judge as we nuclei. Moreover, they also challenged [protons] by the intensity of the scintillation

8 Volume XII, No. 3 • Fall 2013 • History of Physics Newsletter 2013 Pais Prize Lecture Continued from page 8

were in that of the judged.22 that he respected his women scintilla- circle permitted to know about it. Elisa- Rona added that she later under- tion counters, and they him, and that beth Rona, for example, later wrote stood that Chadwick’s “ordeal” when they in fact were remarkably talented that, “As far as I know, the discrepan- he was incarcerated in Berlin during scientists with outstanding careers cies between the two laboratories were the Great War “had much to do with ahead of them.* never resolved.”29 his behavior” now that he again was in Chadwick emphasized that the a German-speaking city. Vienna scintillation counters were not The Meitner-Frisch Interpretation of On Monday, December 12, every- being dishonest; he suspected no cheat- thing changed. Rona recalled that: ing. Rather, they were deluding them- My final story began when I asked All of us sat in a dark room [in the labo- selves. They knew that their bosses, myself, How did it happen that Lise ratory] for half an hour to adapt to the dark- Pettersson and Kirsch, believed that Meitner and her nephew, Otto Robert ness. There was no conversation; the only scattered alpha particles could be dis- Frisch, were able to propose their novel noise was the rattling of Chadwick’s keys. tinguished from disintegration protons and correct interpretation of nuclear fis- There was nothing in the situation to quiet by the brightness of their scintilla- sion when they met in Kungälv, Swe- our nerves or make us comfortable.23 tions, while Rutherford and Chadwick den, near Göteborg, over the Christmas Chadwick reported to Rutherford, knew that was impossible. Moreover, holidays of 1938?30 The answer, I found, that: the Vienna scintillation counters were emerged from a careful analysis of the I arranged that the girls should count informed of the nature of the experi- published literature and supports, I and that I should determine the order of ments, and they knew that Pettersson believe, Arthur Koestler’s analysis of the counts. I made no change whatever in and Kirsch believed that carbon could the act of creation, namely that: the apparatus, but I ran them up and down be disintegrated. They therefore saw the more original a discovery the more the scale like a cat on a piano—but no more what they were expected to see. They obvious it seems afterwards. The creative act drastically than I would in our own experi- had fallen prey to a psychological effect, is not an act of creation in the sense of the ments if I suspected any bias.24 much as in the famous earlier case of Old Testament. It does not create something The result was that the counters René Blondlot and his N Rays. out of nothing; it uncovers, selects, re-shuf- found “no evidence” of disintegration When Chadwick confronted Pet- fles, combines, synthesizes already existing protons from carbon. Chadwick added tersson with these troubling results facts, ideas, faculties, skills.31 that he could see “no reason why the he become “very angry indeed,”28 and To Koestler the creative act thus con- counters should be off colour.”25 when they met in Meyer’s office on stitutes the synthesis of what he called The Vienna scintillation counters, in Wednesday morning, December 14, two previously unrelated “matrices of fact, came as a great surprise to Chad- Meyer became “very upset indeed” thought.”32 wick. In Cambridge he and Rutherford and offered to do anything necessary I knew that to understand Meit- regularly participated in the scintilla- to set the record straight, such as make ner and Frisch’s creative act I had to tion counting, but in Vienna, Chadwick a public retraction. Chadwick refused understand the origin of the liquid-drop told Rutherford, this suggestion, however, because he model of the nucleus, which, contrary to Not one of the men does any counting. knew that Rutherford was adamantly what many physicists seem to believe, It is all done by 3 young women. Petters- opposed to public controversy, and also was not invented by Niels Bohr in 1936 son says the men get too bored with routine that Rutherford would not wish to do but was invented by George Gamow work and finally cannot see anything, while anything that might cause his friend eight years earlier, at the end of 1928, women can go on forever.26 Meyer pain, which a public retraction while he was at Bohr’s institute in Chadwick also later recalled in certainly would. Chadwick therefore . an interview that Pettersson said he told Meyer that the Vienna experiments Gamow imagined that the nucleus believed that women were more reli- should simply be dropped, and nothing consists of a collection of alpha parti- able than men as scintillation counters further should be said about them. cles with short-range attractive forces because they would not be thinking In sum, the progress and resolu- between them that balance their Cou- while observing, and that Pettersson tion of the Cambridge-Vienna contro- lomb repulsion, and that they exert an preferred women of “Slavic descent” as versy would never have been known outward pressure owing to their kinetic counters because he believed that Slavs if the above correspondence had not and potential energy but are held inside had superior eyesight.27 We do not know been preserved. In fact, its resolution the nucleus by its “surface tension.” He in what tone of voice Pettersson made was kept so secret that not even those these remarks. We do know, however, close to it but outside of the innermost Continues on page 10

* Elisabeth Rona (1890-1981) was born in , immigrated to America in 1941, worked first at Argonne National Laboratory after the war, and became a Senior Scientist at Oak Ridge Associated Universities in 1950. (1894-1970) was born in Vienna, invented the emulsion technique for detecting charged particles in Vienna in 1925, immigrated first to Mexico in 1939 and then to America in 1944 where she worked at Columbia University, Brookhaven National Labo- ratory, and the before returning to Vienna in 1960. Elizabeth Kara-Michailova (1897-1968) was born in Vienna, moved with her family to Sophia, Bulgaria, in 1909, returned to Vienna from 1922-1935, and returned to Bulgaria in 1939 where she became the first woman to be elected to the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Berta Karlik (1904-1990) was born in Vienna, became the first woman to be appointed as full professor at the University of Vienna in 1956 and the first woman to be elected to the Austrian Academy of Sciences in 1973. Volume XII, No. 3 • Fall 2013 • History of Physics Newsletter 9 2013 Pais Prize Lecture Continued from page 9 calculated the total “drop energy” of the and Kalckar, who calculated nuclear calculated that two nuclei in the middle nucleus in terms of the number of alpha excitations by focusing on dynamic fea- of the periodic table, if initially in con- particles in it, and found that a plot of tures of the model. I showed that the tact, would fly apart under their mutual the resulting mass-defect curve has a first stage persisted in Berlin into 1938, Coulomb repulsion with an energy of distinct minimum in it. Five years later, and that the second stage persisted in about 200 MeV—in agreement with in 1933, after Chadwick’s discovery of Copenhagen, also into 1938. And just Meitner’s figure. As Frisch said, “We the neutron, Werner Heisenberg recal- at that time, in the middle of 1938, Lise put our different kinds of knowledge culated the total energy in terms of the Meitner, who had been thoroughly together.” I think Koestler would have number of and protons in the embedded in the Berlin tradition, was said that a synthesis of their two differ- nucleus and again found that the mass- spirited out of Berlin and eventually ent “matrices of thought” occurred. defect curve has a distinct minimum made her way , while her When Frisch returned to Copenha- in it. Then, in 1935, Heisenberg’s stu- nephew, , had been gen and told Bohr about his and Meit- dent, C.F. von Weizsäcker, extended his thoroughly embedded in the Copenha- ner’s interpretation, Bohr burst out, mentor’s work, introducing his famous gen tradition since 1934 while working saying,”Oh, what fools we have been! semi-empirical mass formula, and again in Bohr’s institute. We ought to have seen that before.” finding the same distinct minimum in Based on Frisch’s published recol- Bohr now immediately saw that he had the mass-defect curve. His result thus lections, I concluded that the Berlin and missed this Royal Road to the summit, constituted the culmination of the line Copenhagen traditions merged in his while by exploring its byways I saw that of development that Gamow had inau- and Meitner’s minds during their mem- he had been missed it, at least in part, by gurated in 1928. orable walk in the snow in Kungälv, proposing a very different picture, that A second phase in the history of Sweden, over the Christmas holidays a neutron of increasing energy incident liquid-drop model began in Febru- of 1938. I reconstructed their conversa- on a heavy nucleus would eventually ary 1936 when Niels Bohr published tion as follows: First, Meitner rejected cause it to explode. Meitner and Frisch, his theory of the compound nucleus. the idea that had made a by contrast, had climbed to the sum- He argued that a neutron incident on mistake when he and mit by following two different routes a heavy nucleus interacts with many reported finding , an element that were contingent on their differ- neutrons and protons in it, producing of intermediate atomic weight, when ent personal trajectories and scientific an excited, long-lived compound nucle- neutrons bombarded . Both knowledge. us, which then decays by the emission Meitner and Frisch then sensed that this of a proton, neutron, , or by could not be explained by a chipping off The Human Factor any process consistent with conserva- or cracking up of the uranium nucleus. In closing, I note that besides shar- tion of energy. Bohr went on to claim Meitner, it seems, then thought of the ing the common goal of understanding, that if the energy of the incident neutron liquid-drop model of the nucleus in this both physics and history of physics are were increased more and more, even connection, while Frisch probably sug- human endeavors, and nothing has up to 1000 MeV, then many charged or gested the possibility that an incident given me more joy over the years than uncharged particles would be expelled neutron would induce oscillations in it, working with many physicists, histori- and the entire nucleus would eventu- since he had sketched just such a pic- ans, and others in a variety of activities, ally explode. Otto Robert Frisch drew ture for Bohr. Meitner then drew a large for example, in founding and direct- a picture for Bohr that illustrated the circle with a smaller circle inside it, ing Minnesota’s Program in History of early stage of this process, showing an which Frisch immediately interpreted Science and Technology, in organizing incident neutron transferring energy to as an end-on view of a dumbbell—as an the 1977 Minnesota symposium on the the target nucleus, causing the excited elongated liquid drop with a constric- history of nuclear physics in the 1930s compound nucleus to first heat up, and tion between its two halves. Meitner, and the annual Seven Pines Symposia, then to cool down by the evaporation of whom Frisch recalled “had the mass- in editing the Resource Letters of the a single particle from its surface. Bohr defect curve pretty well in her head,” American Journal of Physics and co-edit- and his assistant, Fritz Kalckar, devel- then estimated from it that about 200 ing Physics in Perspective, and in contrib- oped this idea further in 1937. MeV—an enormous amount of ener- uting to the professional activities of the We therefore see that the liquid- gy—would be released if the heavy History of Science Society, American drop model of the nucleus developed uranium nucleus were split up into Physical Society, American Institute of in two stages, first from 1928-1935 with two nuclei at the middle of the periodic Physics, and American Association of the work of Gamow, Heisenberg, and table. Meanwhile, Frisch had realized Physics Teachers. I am deeply grateful von Weizsäcker, who calculated the that the repulsive surface charge of a to my many students, colleagues, and nuclear mass-defect curve by focusing on heavy nucleus like the uranium nucleus friends who have joined and supported static features of the model, and second, of about 100 would off- me in these richly rewarding endeavors. from 1936-1937 with the work of Bohr set its attractive surface tension. He also

Continues on page 11

10 Volume XII, No. 3 • Fall 2013 • History of Physics Newsletter April Sessions cont’d Continued from page 3

History of G-2: Experiment and Theory Co-sponsored by FHP and DPF

Session Organizer and Chair: Robert P. Crease, Stony Brook University

“Study of Lepton G-2 from 1947 to Present,” Toichiro Kinoshita, Cornell

“The First CERN Muon G-2 Experi- ment by G. Charpak, F. J. M. Farley, R. L. Garwin, T. Mueller, J. C. Sens, and A. Zichichi,” Richard Garwin, IBM

“The BNL Muon G-2 Experiment and Beyond,” Yannis Semertzidis, BNL

Gaining Inspiration From Galileo, Einstein and Szilard Einstein, and Oppenheimer Pais Prize cont’d Session Organizer and Chair: Catherine Westfall, Michigan State Continued from page 10 University 9. Compton, “Quantum Theory” (ref. 3). End Notes 10. Robert A. Millikan, The Autobiography of “Galileo As An Intellectual Heretic 1. L.P. Hartley, The Go-Between (London: Robert A. Millikan (New York: Prentice-Hall, And Why That Is Important,“ Paolo Hamish Hamilton, 1953), p. 9. 1950), pp. 101-107, on pp.101-102. Palmieri, University of Pittsburgh 2. Hermann von Helmholtz, Ansprachen und 11. Stuewer, Compton Effect (ref. 4), pp. 72-75. Reden gehalten bei der am 2. November 1891 zu 12. , The Electron: Its Ehren von Hermann von Helmholtz veranstalt- “Walking in the Footsteps of Einstein: Isolation and Measurement and the Determina- eten Feier (Berlin: Hirschwald’sche Buchhan- Why History of Physics Aids Physics tion of Some of its Properties (Chicago: The dlung, 1892), p. 54 (my translation). Education,” Gerd Kortemeyer, Michi- University of Chicago Press, 1917), p. 230. 3. Arthur H. Compton, “A Quantum Theory of 13. , J.J. Thomson and gan State University the Scattering of X-Rays by Light Elements,” the Cavendish Laboratory in his Day, Nelson Physical Review 24 (1923) 483-502; reprinted (London: Nelson, 1964), facing p. 53. “Using the History of Physics to Enrich in Robert S. Shankland, ed., Scientific Papers of Arthur Holly Compton: X-Ray and Other 14. Robert Andrews Millikan and Henry Gor- Your Teaching,” B. Cameron Reed, don Gale, A First Course in Physics (Boston, Alma College Studies (Chicago and London: The Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 1973), pp. 382-401. New York, Chicago, London: Ginn and Company, 1906), facing p. 482. 4. For a full account, see Roger H. Stuewer, The Journeys in the History of Physics: Compton Effect: Turning Point in Physics (New 15. Roger H. Stuewer, ed., Nuclear Physics in Pais Prize Session in Honor of David York: Science History Publications, 1975), Retrospect: Proceedings of a Symposium on the Cassidy Chapters 3-6, pp. 91-285. 1930s (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1979). 5. C.G. Barkla and M.P. White, “Notes on the Session Organizer and Chair: Absorption and Scattering of X-rays and the 16. For a full account, see Roger H. Stuewer, “Artificial Disintegration and the Cam- Catherine Westfall, Michigan State Characteristic Radiation of J-series,” Philo- sophical Magazine 34 (1917), 270-285. bridge-Vienna Controversy,” in Peter Achin- University stein and Owen Hannaway, ed., Observation, 6. Quoted in Arthur Holly Compton, “Personal Experiment, and Hypothesis in Modern Physical Reminiscences,” in Marjorie Johnston, ed., Science (Cambridge, Mass. and London: The “Physics History, and Biography,” The Cosmos of Arthur Holly Compton (New MIT Press, 1985), pp. 239-307. David Cassidy, Hofstra University York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967), p. 29. 17. E. Rutherford, “Collision of α Particles with 7. Quoted in A.S. Eve, Rutherford: Being the Light . I. Hydrogen,” Phil. Mag., 37 Life and Letters of the Rt Hon. Lord Rutherford, “Towards A Rethinking Of The Relativ- (1919), 537-561; reprinted in James Chad- O.M. (New York: The Macmillan Company ity Revolution,” Daniel M. Siegel, Uni- wick, ed., The Collected Papers of Lord Ruther- and Cambridge: At the University Press, versity of Wisconsin, Madison ford of Nelson, O.M., F.R.S, Vol. Two. Manches- 1939), p. 285. ter (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1963), 8. Arthur H. Compton, “Secondary High pp. 547-567, on pp. 550-551. “How a Research Physicist Got Frequency Radiation,” Phys. Rev. 18 (1921), Involved With History of Science,” Bri- 96-98; reprinted in Scientific Papers (ref. 3), an Schwartz, Brooklyn College and The pp. 305-307. Continues on page 12 Graduate Center, CUNY n

Volume XII, No. 3 • Fall 2013 • History of Physics Newsletter 11 Daniel Kleppner Awarded Prestigious Pais Prize cont’d Benjamin of the Continued from page 12 18. Rutherford to Bohr, July 18, 1924, Rutherford Correspondence, Cambridge University Franklin Institute Library; hereafter RC. 19. Chadwick to Rutherford, undated but July- By Thomas M. Miller August 1925, RC. 20. Rutherford to Bohr, February 8, 1926, RC. 21. Chadwick to Rutherford, December 9, [1927], RC. 22. , How It Came About: Radio- activity, Nuclear Physics, Atomic Energy (Oak Ridge, Tenn.: Oak Ridge Associated Univer- sities, undated, ca. 1976), p. 20. 23. Ibid. 24. Chadwick to Rutherford, December 12, [1927], RC. 25. Ibid. 26. Ibid. 27. Interview of James Chadwick by Charles Weiner on April 17, 1969, Session III, Niels Bohr Library and Archives, American Institute of Phyiscs, College Park, MD USA, p. 10 of 37. 28. Ibid. 29. Rona, How It Came About (ref. 22), p. 20. 30. For a full account, see Roger H. Stuewer, “The Origin of the Liquid-Drop Model and the Interpretation of Nuclear Fission,” Per- L-R: S. Cramton, N. Ramsey, D. Kleppner. spectives on Science 2 (1994), 39-92. The H-maser at Harvard University. 31. Arthur Koestler, The Act of Creation (New Credit: AIP Emilio Segrè Visual Archives, York: Macmillan. 1964), p. 120. FHP Past Chair, Daniel Kleppner Ramsey Collection. 32. Ibid., p. 207. n

recent Chair of FHP, Daniel by Kleppner. He laid the groundwork Kleppner, has been awarded for research with trapped cold atoms, A the prestigious Benjamin Frank- leading to the experimental attainment lin Medal of the Franklin Institute. of Bose-Einstein condensation in 1995. Kleppner is Lester Wolfe Professor of Kleppner was a PhD student of Nor- Physics, Emeritus, at MIT and co-direc- man Ramsey at Harvard in the 1950s, tor of the NSF MIT-Harvard Center and Kleppner remained at Harvard for Ultracold Atoms. The citation for into the 1960s before moving to MIT. the medal reads, “The 2014 Benjamin His research at Harvard is noted for the Franklin Medal in Physics is awarded invention with Ramsey of the hydrogen to Daniel Kleppner for many pioneer- maser, which was the basis for early ing contributions to discoveries of nov- generations of atomic clocks. el quantum phenomena involving the Kleppner is a member of the Nation- interaction of atoms with electromag- al Academy of Sciences and has served netic fields and the behavior of atoms both NAS and APS for decades on at ultra-low temperatures.” various committees. He was Chair of Earlier in 2013, Kleppner had been DAMOP in 1983/84 and Chair of FHP honored at an international symposium in 2010/11. During the controversy over in Brazil on the occasion of being named the proper wording of an APS state- Emeritus Professor of the Institute of ment on climate change, Kleppner was Physics of São Carlos of the University chosen to come up with a correct ver- of São Paulo. Upon the many accolades, sion. Among Kleppner’s honors are the Kleppner reported that “I felt that I had Frederic Ives Medal (2007), the National been canonized.” The term is appropri- Medal of Science (2006), the Wolf Prize ate because many of the present mira- in Physics (2005), the Lilienfeld and cles in atomic, molecular, and optical Davisson-Germer Prizes of the APS physics are based on work carried out (1990 and 1985).

12 Volume XII, No. 3 • Fall 2013 • History of Physics Newsletter Pais Prize cont’d New Books of Note String Theory and the Scientific Method

By Richard Dawid | Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, 210 pp., $95 (hardback)

Reviewed by Robert P. Crease physics for a half-century; namely, steadily rising collision energies in tring theory is not only provoca- experimentation and the increasing role tive within physics, argues Rich- of gauge symmetries in theory-building. Sard Dawid, a physicist and phi- He calls the outcome the “marginaliza- losopher of science at the University of tion of the phenomena.” He also argues Vienna in this noteworthy new book, that string theory is a candidate for a it also poses an important challenge to truly final theory, for it implies, by its philosophy. structure, a limit to new physics. In what Dawid calls the “classical In making the extended argument paradigm of theory assessment” of tra- that the “canonical reconstruction of sci- ditional Anglo-American philosophy entific theory assessment in physics is of science, the scientific process can be inadequately narrow,” Dawid keeps his neatly parsed into a core body of con- feet firmly planted within the narrow firmed knowledge, speculations, and confines of the Anglo-American philo- testing of such speculations. String the- sophical tradition, which is focused on ory, however, is notoriously empirically developing a logic of science. He does untestable at present, and almost cer- not, for instance, draw from Science, tainly will continue to be so for decades. Technology, and Society (STS) studies, According to classical philosophy of whose starting point is the actual prac- science, therefore, it should have negli- tice of science. Nor does Dawid con- gible scientific status. For precisely that sider Continental approaches (such as reason, critics such as Lee Smolin and Husserl’s) that do not begin by attempt- Peter Woit have condemned its influ- ing to tell scientists how they work, ence. Yet as Dawid writes, other theo- underdetermination,” or the fact that logically speaking, but by examining rists regard string theory as “well-estab- when one promising theory points to a meaning-formation in scientific expe- lished and authoritative.” Theoretical certain empirical outcome, a host of oth- rience. Dawid’s “brief excursion” into physicists seem schizophrenic on the er less promising ones will do likewise, palaeontology would have been more subject; while many find string theory meaning that other factors must be in profitable had it recognized that paleon- “too good to be false,” others see it as play to account for the theory’s desir- tologists make progress less by specu- evidence of groupthink. Dawid’s book ability. The scientific underdetermina- lating about and confirming underde- addresses precisely this discrepancy: tion, Dawid concludes, is “limited.” termined theories than by understand- “the serious mismatch between the sta- Dawid proposes three such limitations ing the worlds inhabited by dinosaurs, tus one would have to attribute to string to account for the promise of string the- a much different process. theory based on the canonical paradigm ory: the “No Alternatives Argument” String Theory and the Scientific of theory assessment and the status the (NAA), or the fact that string theory Method is clearly written and well theory actually enjoys.” The classical is the only available option for con- argued, one of the clearest expositions paradigm is wrong, Dawid concludes, structing a unified theory of quantum of string theory accessible to a non- and he seeks to correct it by arguing for interactions and gravity; the Unexpect- physicist that I have read. Though nar- the relevance of “non-empirical theory ed Explanatory coherence Argument rowly conceived, and yearning to be assessment.” (UEA), or the fact that string theory has informed by a broader philosophical Thomas Kuhn effectively invoked provided unexpected deeper explana- perspective, it is an important contribu- non-empirical theory assessment in tions of seemingly disparate concepts; tion to traditional Anglo-American phi- his Structure of Scientific Revolutions and the Meta-Inductive Argument losophy of science insofar as its initial (1962), but confined it to the choice (MIA), based on an analogy between inspiration is not the urge to develop between paradigms in revolutionary string theory and the earlier research the logic of science for its own sake, but science. In Progress and its Problems program that led to the . the mismatch between the inherited pic- (1977), Larry Lauden saw a role for non- Dawid concludes that the “precari- ture of that logic and the actual experi- empirical theory assessment in more ous empirical status” of contemporary ence of scientists.n everyday scientific practice. Dawid physics stems in large part from “the begins his argument with “scientific general mechanism” that has driven

Volume XII, No. 3 • Fall 2013 • History of Physics Newsletter 13