Supplementvolum-E18 Nu-Mber-41989 .__L,___Society
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Igor Tamm 1895 - 1971 Awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1958
Igor Tamm 1895 - 1971 Awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1958 The famous Russian physicist Igor Evgenievich Tamm is best known for his theoretical explanation of the origin of the Cherenkov radiation. But really his works covered various fields of physics: nuclear physics, elementary particles, solid-state physics and so on. In about 1935, he and his colleague, Ilya Frank, concluded that although objects can’t travel faster than light in a vacuum, they can do so in other media. Cherenkov radiation is emitted if charged particles pass the media faster than the speed of light ! For this research Tamm together with his Russian colleagues was awarded the 1958 Nobel Prize in Physics. Igor Tamm was born in 1895 in Vladivostok when Russia was still ruled by the Tsar. His father was a civil engineer who worked on the electricity and sewage systems. When Tamm was six years old his family moved to Elizavetgrad, in the Ukraine. Tamm led an expedition to He graduated from the local Gymnasium in 1913. Young Tamm dreamed of becoming a revolutionary, but his father disapproved . However only his mother was able to convince him to search for treasure in the Pamirs change his plans. She told him that his father’s weak heart could not take it if something happened to him. In 1923 Tamm was offered a teaching post at the Second Moscow University and later he was And so, in 1913, Tamm decided to leave Russia for a year and continue his studies in Edinburgh. awarded a professorship at Moscow State University. -
Boris Hessen: Physics and Philosophy in the Soviet Union, 1927–1931 Neglected Debates on Emergence and Reduction Series: History of Physics
springer.com Chris Talbot, Olga Pattison (Eds.) Boris Hessen: Physics and Philosophy in the Soviet Union, 1927–1931 Neglected Debates on Emergence and Reduction Series: History of Physics Presents key works by the outstanding Soviet philosopher of science Boris Hessen, available in English for the first time Revives important ideas that were lost after the author's execution by Stalin in 1936 Adds essential new perspectives to current debates on emergence This book presents key works of Boris Hessen, outstanding Soviet philosopher of science, 1st ed. 2021, IX, 169 p. 7 illus., 1 illus. in available here in English for the first time. Quality translations are accompanied by an editors' color. introduction and annotations. Boris Hessen is known in history of science circles for his “Social and Economic Roots of Newton’s Principia” presented in London (1931), which inspired new Printed book approaches in the West. As a philosopher and a physicist, he was tasked with developing a Hardcover Marxist approach to science in the 1920s. He studied the history of physics to clarify issues 119,99 € | £109.99 | $149.99 such as reductionism and causality as they applied to new developments. With the [1] 128,39 € (D) | 131,99 € (A) | CHF philosophers called the “Dialecticians”, his debates with the opposing “Mechanists” on the issue 141,50 of emergence are still worth studying and largely ignored in the many recent works on this eBook subject. Taken as a whole, the book is a goldmine of insights into both the foundations of 96,29 € | £87.50 | $109.00 physics and Soviet history. -
Hungarian Refugee Scientists in Defense of the Autonomy
THE INTERCONNECTEDNESS OF THE SOCIAL AND NATURAL SCIENCES: HUNGARIAN REFUGEE SCIENTISTS IN DEFENSE OF THE AUTONOMY OF SCIENCE By Csaba Olasz Submitted to Central European University Department of History In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts CEU eTD Collection Supervisor: Professor Karl Hall Second reader: Professor Emese Lafferton Copyright in the text of this thesis rests with the Author. Copies by any process, either in full or part, maybe made only in accordance with the instructions given by the Author and lodged in the Central European Library. Details may be obtained from the librarian. This page must form a part of any such copies made. Further copies made in accordance with such instructions may not be made without the written permission of the Author. CEU eTD Collection i ABSTRACT The contribution of foreign born scientists to the building of the first Atomic bomb is well-known. That a number of theoretical physicist involved in the Manhattan Project continued taking an active part in the politicization of nuclear physics of post war America were also refugees is, perhaps, less so. This essay considers the public engagement of Hungarian born scientists in a broader historical context that has shaped their professional trajectories. Discussing themes as family backgrounds, (forced?) migration, totalitarian systems, personal ambitions, technical brilliance, socio-economic relations of science and government as well as nuclear defense politics, I point out that my protagonists have become agencies in and of the transformation that science politics had been undergoing at the time. The shared experience as Atomic scientists of Eugene Wigner and Leo Szilard is the departure point from which an analysis of personal and socio-political factors is used to interpret any discrepancies in the rationale behind, and the nature of, their public engagement. -
Soviet States and Beyond: Political Epistemologies Of/And Marxism 1917-1945-1968
Soviet States and Beyond: Political Epistemologies of/and Marxism 1917-1945-1968 21-22 June 2018, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Myasnickaya 20, Moscow Самойлов Д.,Ефимович Б., Дворец техники. 1933 Organized by FRIEDRICH CAIN Max Weber Centre for Advanced Cultural and Social Studies, University of Erfurt ALEXANDER DMITRIEV Poletayev Institute for Theoretical and Historical Studies in the Humanities National Research University Higher School of Economics (IGITI HSE), Moscow DIETLIND HÜCHTKER Leibniz Institute for the History and Culture of Eastern Europe (GWZO), Leipzig JAN SURMAN IGITI HSE Thurdsay, 21 June 2018, Myasnickaya 20, aud. 311 10:00-10:30 Opening 10:30-12:00 Soviet Science Studies and Their Politics (Chair Dietlind Hüchtker) ALEXANDER DMITRIEV, IGITI HSE: Beyond Boris Hessen: New History and Philosophy of Science in Early Soviet Union IGOR KAUFMANN, ST. PETERSBURG STATE UNIVERSITY: Epistemic Programme(s) of the Soviet Science Studies: something old, something new, something bizarre 12:00-13:00 Lunch Break 13:00-14:30 Entanglements & Receptions I: Before WWII (Chair Friedrich Cain) DARIA DROZDOVA, SCHOOL OF PHILOSOPHY, HSE: Historicizing Science: Soviet and Italian Interwar Projects in Comparison KARL HALL, CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY, BUDAPEST: Sarton’s Rivals: Disciplinary Dilemmas of History of Science circa 1931 14:30-15:00 Coffee Break 15:00-16:30 Soviet Science (Studies) in Comparison (Chair Daria Petushkova) GEERT SOMSEN, MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY: The Epistemology of Popularization: British ‘Scientific -
The Social and Economic Roots of the Scientific Revolution
THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ROOTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION Texts by Boris Hessen and Henryk Grossmann edited by GIDEON FREUDENTHAL PETER MCLAUGHLIN 13 Editors Preface Gideon Freudenthal Peter McLaughlin Tel Aviv University University of Heidelberg The Cohn Institute for the History Philosophy Department and Philosophy of Science and Ideas Schulgasse 6 Ramat Aviv 69117 Heidelberg 69 978 Tel Aviv Germany Israel The texts of Boris Hessen and Henryk Grossmann assembled in this volume are important contributions to the historiography of the Scientific Revolution and to the methodology of the historiography of science. They are of course also historical documents, not only testifying to Marxist discourse of the time but also illustrating typical European fates in the first half of the twentieth century. Hessen was born a Jewish subject of the Russian Czar in the Ukraine, participated in the October Revolution and was executed in the Soviet Union at the beginning of the purges. Grossmann was born a Jewish subject of the Austro-Hungarian Kaiser in Poland and served as an Austrian officer in the First World War; afterwards he was forced to return to Poland and then because of his revolutionary political activities to emigrate to Germany; with the rise to power of the Nazis he had to flee to France and then America while his family, which remained in Europe, perished in Nazi concentration camps. Our own acquaintance with the work of these two authors is also indebted to historical context (under incomparably more fortunate circumstances): the revival of Marxist scholarship in Europe in the wake of the student movement and the pro- fessionalization of history of science on the Continent. -
The Discovery of Cherenkov Radiation Roger Huang the Discovery of Cherenkov Radiation
The Discovery of Cherenkov Radiation Roger Huang The Discovery of Cherenkov Radiation Roger Huang April 22, 2020 1/18 Cherenkov's Scientific Beginnings The Discovery of Cherenkov Pavel Alekseevich Cherenkov began postgraduate studies Radiation at the Institute for Physics and Mathematics in Leningrad Roger Huang in 1930, and began working under direct supervision of Sergei Ivanovich Vavilov in 1932 This institute was transformed into the Lebedev Institute in Moscow in 1934, with Vavilov as director Cherenkov chose to study the luminescence of uranyl salt solutions under the gamma-ray radiation of radium 2/18 Investigating Luminescence The Discovery of Cherenkov Radiation Roger Huang Lumniscence is a weak glow caused when molecules are excited by some external source and then release light when decaying back to their ground state after some finite time This glow is weak, close to the human visibility threshold, and photomultipliers had not yet been developed Vavilov and Brumberg had developed the optical wedge method to quantify this glow, featuring the human eye has the measuring instrument 3/18 The Experimental Setup The Discovery of Cherenkov Radiation Vessel 1 contains the salt Roger Huang solutions under study, with slots for radium samples to be inserted below and to the side A Glan prism at 6 is used to measure polarization An optical wedge (opaque on one side and transparent on the other) is inserted into 4, moving perpendicular to this figure’s plane, to absorb some portion of the light 4/18 The Experimental Procedure The Discovery -
Jewish Nobel Prize Laureates
Jewish Nobel Prize Laureates In December 1902, the first Nobel Prize was awarded in Stockholm to Wilhelm Roentgen, the discoverer of X-rays. Alfred Nobel (1833-96), a Swedish industrialist and inventor of dynamite, had bequeathed a $9 million endowment to fund significant cash prizes ($40,000 in 1901, about $1 million today) to those individuals who had made the most important contributions in five domains (Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and Peace); the sixth, in "Economic Sciences," was added in 1969. Nobel could hardly have imagined the almost mythic status that would accrue to the laureates. From the start "The Prize" became one of the most sought-after awards in the world, and eventually the yardstick against which other prizes and recognition were to be measured. Certainly the roster of Nobel laureates includes many of the most famous names of the 20th century: Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, Mother Teresa, Winston Churchill, Albert Camus, Boris Pasternak, Albert Schweitzer, the Dalai Lama and many others. Nobel Prizes have been awarded to approximately 850 laureates of whom at least 177 of them are/were Jewish although Jews comprise less than 0.2% of the world's population. In the 20th century, Jews, more than any other minority, ethnic or cultural, have been recipients of the Nobel Prize. How to account for Jewish proficiency at winning Nobel’s? It's certainly not because Jews do the judging. All but one of the Nobel’s are awarded by Swedish institutions (the Peace Prize by Norway). The standard answer is that the premium placed on study and scholarship in Jewish culture inclines Jews toward more education, which in turn makes a higher proportion of them "Nobel-eligible" than in the larger population. -
RUSSIAN SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY STRUCTURE There Are Around 4000 Organizations in Russia Involved in Research and Development with Almost One Million Personnel
RUSSIAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STRUCTURE There are around 4000 organizations in Russia involved in research and development with almost one million personnel. Half of those people are doing scientific research. It is coordinated by Ministry of industry, science and technologies, where strategy and basic priorities of research and development are being formulated. Fundamental scientific research is concentrated in Russian Academy of Sciences, which now includes hundreds of institutes specializing in all major scientific disciplines such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, Earth sciences etc. The applied science and technology is mainly done in Institutions and Design Bureaus belonging to different Russian Ministers. They are involved in research and development in nuclear energy (Ministry of atomic energy), space exploration (Russian aviation and space agency), defense (Ministry of defense), telecommunications (Ministry of communications) and so on. Russian Academy of Sciences Russian Academy of Sciences is the community of the top-ranking Russian scientists and principal coordinating body for basic research in natural and social sciences, technology and production in Russia. It is composed of more than 350 research institutions. Outstanding Russian scientists are elected to the Academy, where membership is of three types - academicians, corresponding members and foreign members. The Academy is also involved in post graduate training of students and in publicizing scientific achievements and knowledge. It maintains -
Quantum Gravity: a Primer for Philosophers∗
Quantum Gravity: A Primer for Philosophers∗ Dean Rickles ‘Quantum Gravity’ does not denote any existing theory: the field of quantum gravity is very much a ‘work in progress’. As you will see in this chapter, there are multiple lines of attack each with the same core goal: to find a theory that unifies, in some sense, general relativity (Einstein’s classical field theory of gravitation) and quantum field theory (the theoretical framework through which we understand the behaviour of particles in non-gravitational fields). Quantum field theory and general relativity seem to be like oil and water, they don’t like to mix—it is fair to say that combining them to produce a theory of quantum gravity constitutes the greatest unresolved puzzle in physics. Our goal in this chapter is to give the reader an impression of what the problem of quantum gravity is; why it is an important problem; the ways that have been suggested to resolve it; and what philosophical issues these approaches, and the problem itself, generate. This review is extremely selective, as it has to be to remain a manageable size: generally, rather than going into great detail in some area, we highlight the key features and the options, in the hope that readers may take up the problem for themselves—however, some of the basic formalism will be introduced so that the reader is able to enter the physics and (what little there is of) the philosophy of physics literature prepared.1 I have also supplied references for those cases where I have omitted some important facts. -
Universities and Empire
Universities and Empire MONEY AND POLITICS IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES DURING THE COLD WAR Edited and Introduced by Christopher Simpson THE NEW PRESS * NEW YORK 1998 (Slava Gerovitch) Writing History in the Present Tense: Cold War-era Discursive Strategies of Soviet Historians of Science and Technology The study of Soviet discourse is a fascinating journey through multiple layers of meaning, exquisite rhetorical feats, and intentional paradoxes. Soviet leaders fairly early arrived at the idea of supplementing direct political censorship with more subtle ideological controls over disciplinary discourses. However, their attempts to supervise and homogenize public discourse simply did not reach its goals. The fragmented and unstable real ity of Soviet discourse was a far cry from the (purported) perfect orderliness of totalitarian discourse, so vividly imagined in George Orwell’s 1984 and in various Orwell-inspired studies.1 Only recently have scholars begun to explore the tensions, in consistencies, and uncertainties of Soviet discursive practices. Studies of political discourse provided a few illustrative examples of the complexities involved. Michael Gorham, for instance, has pointed to an essential conflict in Soviet political discourse: The more colloquial a tone Soviet propaganda assumed, the less it was capable of conveying abstract ideas and political symbols of the central state. When sophisticated political language was em ployed, it often caused frustration, distrust, and alienation on the part of peasants and workers.2 In another study, Rachel Walker 189 SLAVA GEROVITCH identified a “linguistic paradox” in Soviet political discourse, which stemmed from the necessity for Soviet leaders to maintain the appearance of continuity with the teachings of Marx and Le nin, and at the same time “creatively develop” Marxist-Leninist doctrine.3 An even more complex picture emerges when we turn from political texts to various disciplinary discourses characteristic of the Soviet academic community. -
The Phenomenon of Soviet Science
The Phenomenon of Soviet Science By Alexei Kojevnikov* ABSTRACT The grand “Soviet experiment” constituted an attempt to greatly accelerate and even shortcut the gradual course of historical development on the assumption of presumed knowledge of the general laws of history. This paper discusses the parts of that experiment that directly concerned scientifi c research and, in fact, anticipated or helped defi ne important global changes in the functioning of science as a profes- sion and an institution during the twentieth century. The phenomenon of Soviet, or socialist, science is analyzed here from the comparative international perspective, with attention to similarities and reciprocal infl uences, rather than to the contrasts and dichotomies that have traditionally interested cold war–type historiography. The problem is considered at several levels: philosophical (Soviet thought on the relationship between science and society and the social construction of scientifi c knowledge); institutional (the state recognition of research as a separate profession, the rise of big science and scientifi c research institutes); demographic (science be- coming a mass profession, with ethnic and gender diversity among scientists); and political (Soviet- inspired infl uences on the practice of science in Europe and the United States through the social relations of science movement of the 1930s and the Sputnik shock of the 1950s). SCIENCE AND SOVIET VALUES The fact that the Soviet Communist regime placed extraordinarily high value and ex- pectations upon science is, of course, rather well known. So much so, perhaps, that it has usually not been seen as a historical problem but has been taken for granted as something natural that does not ask for further discussion or inquiry. -
James W. Rohlf Boston University
Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, 3 December 2003 20 The Quest for 10− Meters James W. Rohlf Boston University Rohlf/ITEP – p.1/76 ITEP Forces and Distance Rohlf/ITEP – p.2/76 ITEP Discovery of the electron 1897 J. J. Thompson ...birth of the spectrometer! Note: The charge to mass depends on the speed, which is hard to measure! The ingenuity of the experiment was to add a magnetic field to cancel the electric deflection. Rohlf/ITEP – p.3/76 ITEP Electron e/m J.J. Thomson The electron gets acceleration 2 vy vyvx vx tan θ a = t = L = L with B field on and no deflection, E vx = B e a Etanθ m = E = LB2 E is field that produces deflection θ B is field that produces no deflection. Rohlf/ITEP – p.4/76 ITEP Classical electron radius Big trouble at a distance where electrostatic potential energy exceeds electron mass energy: ke2 2 r > mc This occurs when ke2 1:44 eV nm 15 r < = · 3 10− m mc2 0:511 MeV ' × Rohlf/ITEP – p.5/76 ITEP Rutherford scattering 1909 The detector consisted of a fluorescent screen and Hans Geiger looking through a microscope for light flashes. This experience is, no doubt, what motivated him to invent the Geiger counter! Rohlf/ITEP – p.6/76 ITEP Cross section definition transition rate σ = incident flux effective area of target Examples: 28 2 nuclear barn (b) = 10− m ∼ pp (high energy) 50 mb ∼ W/Z0 discovery at SPS nb ∼ rare processes at LHC fb ∼ Rohlf/ITEP – p.7/76 ITEP Rutherford scattering dσ 2 ~c 2 1 d cos θ α (E ) (1 cos θ)2 ∼ k − (∆p)2 = 2(mv)2(1 cos θ) − dσ = 2πbdb Can only happen if: force is 1/r2 • nucleus is pointlike • J=1, m=0 photon • Rohlf/ITEP – p.8/76 ITEP Davisson-Germer discovering electron waves “We have become accustomed to think of the atom as rather like a solar system..