Solid Foundations: Structuring American Solid State Physics, 1939–1993 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Joseph Daniel Martin IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Michel Janssen, Co-Advisor Sally Gregory Kohlstedt, Co-Advisor May 2013 © Joseph Daniel Martin 2013 Acknowledgements A dissertation is ostensibly an exercise in independent research. I nevertheless struggle to imagine completing one without incurring a litany of debts—intellectual, professional, and personal—similar to those described below. This might be a single-author project, but authorship is just one of many elements that brought it into being. Regrettably, this space is too small to convey full appreciation for all of them, but I offer my best attempt. I am foremost indebted to my advisors, Michel Janssen and Sally Gregory Kohlstedt, for consistent encouragement and keen commentary. Michel is one of the most incisive critics it has been my pleasure to know. If the arguments herein exhibit any subtlety, clarity, or grace it is in no small part because they steeped in Michel’s witty and weighty marginalia. I am grateful to Sally for the priceless gift of perspective. She has never let my highs carry me too high, or my lows lay me too low, and her selfless largess, bestowed in time and wisdom, has challenged me to become a humbler learner and a more conscientious colleague. My committee has enriched my scholarly life in ways that will shape my thinking for the rest of my career. Bill Wimsatt, a true intellectual force multiplier, lent me his peerless ability to distill insight from scholarship in any field. Bill seeks the value in others’ work before ferreting out the flaws and his capacity to see potential in my halting early efforts gave me the energy and resolve to make this project better. To Ken Waters and Alan Love I own an enduring appreciation for interdisciplinary discourse. Their interest in my work has prompted me to explore novel and fruitful connections, and I hope I have imbibed some of their spirit of liberal engagement that makes the Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science (MCPS) an invigorating place to work. Bob Seidel has introduced me to a wider scholarly community and his unflagging good humor has buoyed my spirits time and time again. I must also recognize the influence of my undergraduate mentor Jon Roberts, whose inspiring teaching provided my first glimpses of the possibilities history of science offers. Catherine Westfall has been my most ardent advocate beyond the University of Minnesota (UMN). Her guidance has given my research purpose and focus by challenging me to articulate it broadly. I must also express my gratitude to Bob Crease, Greg Good, Don Howard, and Peter Pesic for opportunities to become active within the history of physical sciences community. I can strive for no better than to reward their confidence. In the enterprises Greg in particular made possible, it has been a distinct joy to collaborate with Amy Fisher, whose clear vision and scrupulous diligence I aspire to emulate. This project reflects the generosity of several funders. A grant from the UMN Program in the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine (HSTM) gave it its start. A Grant-in-Aid from the Friends of the Center for History of Physics, sn American Institute of Physics, an American Philosophical Society Library Resident Research Fellowship, a Chemical Heritage Foundation Research Travel Grant, and a UMN Thesis Research Grant gave it i depth. I benefited from a Dissertation Writing Fellowship at the Philadelphia Area Center for History of Science, where the bulk of this work was drafted, and an Interdisciplinary Doctoral Fellowship at the MCPS, which afforded the time and resources to make it whole. Financial assistance means little without the people who back it up. Exemplary archivists and library staff too numerous to name smoothed my journey trued its course. That she might represent them all, I would like to salute Lois Hendrickson, who orientated me to archival research. I am proud to join a long and ever-growing list of researchers in debt to Lois’s exemplary skill, patience, and breadth of knowledge. This project has also profited from the thoughtful comments of Babak Ashrafi, Will Bausman, Joan Bromberg, Clayton Gearhart, Lillian Hoddeson, Maggie Hofius, Christian Joas, Leo Kadanoff, Bill Leslie, Charles Midwinter, Michael Riordan, Ann Robinson, and Aimee Slaughter, and from input by members of PIG at UMN and CALCIUM at the Chemical Heritage Foundation. Several energizing communities have enlivened my graduate experience. The HSTM faculty and graduate students renew my enthusiasm for the history of science daily. The program would not be the same without Barbara Eastwold, who regularly transcends the call of duty to make our lives easier, or Mary Thomas, who, along with Susie Steinbach of Hamline University, most influenced my teaching. Barbara Louis has been a steadfast confidant, wherever either of us might be in the world. Victor Boantza, while we briefly overlapped, gave his time and council generously. In the Department of Philosophy and at the MCPS I grew immeasurably through conversations with students and faculty, and by presenting my work at the always-lively lunch seminars. In Philadelphia I had the serendipity to fall in with the Itinerants’ Junto. I am beholden to Augustin Cerveaux, Ben Gross, Catherine Jackson, Kurt MacMillan, Lisa Messeri, and Jessica Mozersky for the laughs, the libations, and for prompting me to explore unfamiliar corners of the scholarly world; what I learned from our all too fleeting congress continues to make itself useful in unexpected ways. I am, of course, sorely in hock to my family and friends. My mother, Betta LoSardo, gave me the most enduring lesson of my intellectual life when I was a callow, inquisitive three- year-old. Whenever I would blurt out “why?” she would say, “Joe, before you ask ‘why?,’ think of what the answer might be.” I hope my why questions are more sophisticated these days, but I still draw on that simple directive. The international outlook and sensitivity to new viewpoints I gained from my father, Kevin, continues to ground me as a scholar and citizen. My brother Anthony reminds me to take a breath, look out the window, and keep the perspective requisite for a balanced life. Anthony joins the rest of Maxwell’s Demons— Tom Denault, Kory DeKoevend, and Coleman Donaldson, Aaron Forburger, and Ryan Vlcko—who traveled to Minnesota to brave, at one time or another, -30° mornings, gale- force winds, and three inches of standing water on Lake Nokomis to skate with me in the US Pond Hockey Championships. This ritual was the best catharsis I could wish for, and I owe you. My final and deepest note of thanks is reserved for my wife, Margaret Charleroy, whose love, support, and sense of humor have sustained me throughout this enterprise. ii Dedication To Annette LoSardo, and to the memories of Joseph P. LoSardo, Daniel E. Martin, and Marianne Martin iii Abstract When solid state physics formed in 1940s America, it was unusual. It violated the longstanding convention that physics should only be subdivided according to natural classes of research problems or consistent sets of techniques. Instead, solid state incorporated a wide range of concepts and methodological approaches that had only the most superficial similarities. The unifying force behind the field was the explicit professional goal of bringing academic and industrial researchers into closer dialogue. The non-traditional manner in which solid state formed was symptomatic of a sea change in the American physics community as some physicists in the 1940s began thinking about professional and institutional structures as tools with which they could actively define and maintain the scope and mission of physics. This shift had consequences both for solid state, and for American physics as a whole. Solid state was initially defined in terms of 1940s professional challenges, and so was forced to continually reimagine itself as the context changed around it. Eventually, it fractured into subgroups with divergent perspectives about the field’s goals and how best to address them. One of these, condensed matter physics, has typically been understood as a simple renaming of solid state physics. A close examination of the process by which condensed matter emerged, however, indicates that it represented an intentional return to defining a sub-disciplinary on the basis of natural phenomena and investigatory techniques. Condensed matter physics grew from pointed reactions against the segment of solid state that was closely aligned with industry. It crafted an identity that emphasized the intellectual puzzles physical studies of complex systems could address. As broadly conceived fields like solid state physics established themselves and grew, both in population and in influence, physics as a whole became a broader enterprise. Research areas that might otherwise have branched off into engineering or become independent specialties were offered a place in sub-disciplines like solid state physics. Additionally, other elements of the physics community adopted solid state’s mode of discipline formation, making the definition of “physics” more fluid and responsive to contemporary professional pressures. The evolution of solid state physics was guided throughout by a philosophical debate over the nature of fundamental knowledge. The disagreement persisted mostly between solid state physicists, who advocated the stance that fundamental knowledge could be found at any level of complexity, and high energy physicists, who restricted fundamental knowledge to the theories and concepts that governed the smallest constituents of matter and energy. The progress of this debate was driven by professional concerns about funding and intellectual prestige, and the philosophical positions physicists developed helped, in turn, to shape the field’s professional infrastructure.