DOCSLIB.ORG

BULLETIN of the ATOMIC SCIENTISTS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

0 • ( • '.,us . ( • BULLETIN of the ATOMIC SCIENTISTS 11~6 EA::>'I' .i.<'u'TY- IN'l'H tl·rRF..l!:'l' UHWAGO 37, ILLINOIS JIO.llW OJ!' SPONSORS .) . HOBEHT QPPl:,'HEDtET< Institute for Advanced Study Chairman HAROLD C. UREY September 8, 1950 University of Chicago Vice~Chairmsn To the Secretary of State II. A. BETHE Cornell University Washington, D.C. 1'. W. HRIDGMA:s" Harvard University JJF.TLEV W. BRONK Sir: Johns Hopkins University .\. II. Co~£PTO.­ Washington University I have the honor of transmitting to you a coP,Y of a letter !':. U. CoNDo.· National Bureau of Standards which will be sent to seventeen American scientists whose names I·' \RRlNGTON D.\NIELS University of Wisconsin are listed in the enclosure. Lt· r,; A. DUBRIDGE California Institute of Technology ,\!,BERT ErN::;TEI.· Hans J. Morgenthau, of the Department of Political Science Institute for Advanced Study ,] A~!ES FRANCK at ~he University of Chicago, has expressed what I believe ma~ University of Chicago ~A~WEL .A.. GounsMIT Brookhaven National Laboratory scientists feel when he wrote i n the May issue of the Bulletin THOR} !:SO R. ROGNESS University of Chicago of the Atomic Scientists as follows: 11 ••• I do not know whether 1•'. WHEELER LOOMTS University of Illinois a negotiated settlement vQth the Soviet Union is possible. I l'lULT,[P M. MORSE Massachusetts Institute of Technology do know, however, II. ,J. :MULLER that no such attempt at a negotiated settle- University of Indiana LINUS PAULJ.'G ment has been made; instead we have wasted our time with polemics California Institute of Technology U. B. PEGRAM Columbia University over isolated secondary issues which must remain insoluble as I. I. RABI Columbia University long as t he basic issues remain unsettled. I also know that, .] I I.IA.- SCHWINGE!t Harvard University in view of the present and foreseeable distribution of power ~ 'YR!L s. SMITH University of Chicago between the Unit ed States and the Soviet Union, the choice Lr,o SziLABD University of Chicago ED\\-AilD TELLER before the world is between negotiated settlement and war, that University of Chtcago Y. 1•'. WEISSKOPF is, universal destruction. I finally know that no nation can Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1-'EIVaLL WHIGHT University of Chicago survive the ordeal of a third world war, if it can survive it at .ThltROJ,D ZACHAHIA::; Massachusetts lnst1tutc of Technology aJ..l, withOUt being COnVinced in its COllectiVe COnscience that Professional aililiations for uicnti!Jcation purposes only it has done everything humanly possible to preserve peace. It is for these reasons that I deem it worth .while and even imper- ative to consider seriously the possibility of a negotiated l'ubltslttrl by Bnuc.\TIO. ,\L Ful. DATION .1-0lt. TL<LB.\H ~en:. t•J:., l~c. 2. settlement with the Soviet Union." Vfuat is the proper time to start negotiations with Russia aimed at a comprehensive settlement? Wilkie was of the opinion that the proper time for negotiating a settlement vvi th Russia was during the war, before Russia and America lost their common enemy. Many believe that he was right and that if reaching an agreement with Russia is at all possible, it becomes more difficult with eve~ year that is allowed to pass. I do not mean to s~ that the government of the United States ought to enter into negotiations with Russia at this time. It is doubtful whether such negotiations could produce aqy useful result at this time or any other time if they were entered into without a clear concept of just what would constitute a satisfactory settlement. There is no evidence to show that the State Department has a clear concept of this and in aqy case the absence of an adequate public discussion of the real issues would make the task of the State Department very difficult at this time. To outline a satisfactory settlement that might be acceptable both to Russia and America as well as to all other nations involved, is clearly a difficult task. For a settlement to be satisfactory it would have to create conditions which would induce both America and Russia to maintain the agree­ ment in operation over a long period of time. Such an agreement would have to include measures of general disarmament, far-reaching in scope, and provide adequate safeguards against violations. While Russia and America might retain the right legally to abrogate the disannament clauses of the agreement, such a right could obviously not be given to all nations, and therefore, the creation of some machinery of enforcement would probably be deemed to be necessary. Perhaps a group of outstanding American citizens, free from any govern­ mental responsibility and devoting their full time, from three to six months, ... 3. to this task could think through the problems involved and might emerge with a plan which in their opinion ought to be acceptable both to Russia and America as well as to the other nations involved. It is, however, difficult for Americans to take into account all the points of view which might legitimately enter into the considerations, of the Russian government. The danger of overlooking important points would be greatly diminished if the group engaged in such study were to include Russians as well as Americans, without in a~ way committing either of the two govern­ ments. And because a fruitful exchange of views in this difficult field is possible only between men who have mutual respect for each other's intellectual integrity, scientists--Americans, Russians, a nd others--might be able to render a unique public service at this time. The chances that the plan outlined in the enclosed letter can, in fact, be realized are slim; but so are the chances of every other effort that provides a real possibilit,y of making progress toward peace. The text of the enclosed letter will be published in the October issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and will be communicated to the addressees two weeks later. It is row intention to keep you informed of their response as well as a~ further steps that might be taken. Very truly yours, Leo Szilard wv . ... ' •.J ] ' .. Septer:i)er 6, 19!)0 'i'o the Soc.•· •t. ·~J or ~)ta ashin_,ton, !J.r.., Sir: I have tho horu • of tl--· • lltting to you a cow oi' a letter no.~ l'1i.ll be oent. to s ventecn Aroorican acientist.s mooe Ml:¥38 at'O listed in the oncloDUro. Hans J. Mot·~onthau, of t..~c ep :-tment of Political So.i.OI co at the Universit-y o£ Chic· o1 has expreaso6 1at I boliove ociont:l.ot9 f'ecl OD he \"ll''te i the a:J iS'lUC o£ the Dull.etin of the Atomic ('!eicntiots ao follows a " ••.• I o not, know thor a nozoti tod sottl0ment th tho Sovlct Union is poosiblo. ! do l'no , ho rove..~, that no ouch otto t at nt has been made J inste ;ro have -; sted our time with lom:lea avu isolated ocoond~J issuo!J Whic~h must ror · n innolubla as lo as t 'o bas' c issues r .........·,,..,u unsettloo. I also know that1 in lT:\. 0 t )0 )4'00Cnt ' r ~'orescoablo cistrlb.uti n o£ ml" n tho Uni Pt tos rxl tho Soviot Unio , tho choic before ""~ e , ~ld lo bot c n oeotioter oottl<JfolOnt on1 we.r1 that is, univorsal doat."Uction. I i'1Mlzy kno ., that oo nation can survive the o cal o a t.hir ,;u:;:•ld ar1 ii' it c. n :7<.U"V''.ve it at all, \,1 t11 ut oin convinc · n its colloct.:vo conocionca that it . s d n ev ythin humanl;t- posoible to p. servo· peac • It is for thoGO re ~ na ti at I de . .1 t rrurth hilo a:ld cvon impel'- . ative t cono~aor ncrio zy" the peu ·ibility o a nocot' tod .• settlement 1ith the Soviet ·Union. " i'.hat is the o r time to start negotiations trlth Russia aimed at e. ccmprohensivc oottlocont? ·. ~ ~do \7tlS of tlu~ opinion that the p~opcr t for nogot:i.atin a sottlmnont lith Russia :ras durinG the war, before Russia and Aneric lost t"lo · r comr:t>n onen:rr. ony believe thnt he woo ri,.ht and that if roaching a"1 ,roc..~nt ·with Russia is at alJ. p::>ss~bl.e, it becpmes ooro dif~cult · ith every yo· that is a.ll.owed to puss. I do not meon to sey that the t,ovcrntJCnt of the United States ou:jlt t..o enter into necotiations with ru.osia at this two. It is doubtful tber ch ne otiationo could produce anv useful result at this time or aqy other time if t110'J nero entcrod into 't7ithout a. cleor concept of just uhat \"11Uld consti tuto a s rtisfactocy sottlc.".lOnt. Thoro is no oviucnco to sho 7 that the State Dcpart-:tent has a clear concept of t is and in a case the absence of an adc4uato public discuosion of the re31 issues would make the task of \V the State partrnent vcr:~ difficult at this tine ~ , To ouUine a satisfactory settle nt tlnt might bo accopta! le both to Russi~ and ric as roll as to all o "'ber nations invol ved, is cl oarl\v a difficult tasl<: . For a settlomnt to be satisfactocy it would have to create conditiono 1ich t10uld irrluce both America an:l Russia to maint in the .aeroo­ .nt in operation ovur a long period of tine.
Recommended publications
  • Copyright by Paul Harold Rubinson 2008

    Copyright by Paul Harold Rubinson 2008

    Copyright by Paul Harold Rubinson 2008 The Dissertation Committee for Paul Harold Rubinson certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Containing Science: The U.S. National Security State and Scientists’ Challenge to Nuclear Weapons during the Cold War Committee: —————————————————— Mark A. Lawrence, Supervisor —————————————————— Francis J. Gavin —————————————————— Bruce J. Hunt —————————————————— David M. Oshinsky —————————————————— Michael B. Stoff Containing Science: The U.S. National Security State and Scientists’ Challenge to Nuclear Weapons during the Cold War by Paul Harold Rubinson, B.A.; M.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin August 2008 Acknowledgements Thanks first and foremost to Mark Lawrence for his guidance, support, and enthusiasm throughout this project. It would be impossible to overstate how essential his insight and mentoring have been to this dissertation and my career in general. Just as important has been his camaraderie, which made the researching and writing of this dissertation infinitely more rewarding. Thanks as well to Bruce Hunt for his support. Especially helpful was his incisive feedback, which both encouraged me to think through my ideas more thoroughly, and reined me in when my writing overshot my argument. I offer my sincerest gratitude to the Smith Richardson Foundation and Yale University International Security Studies for the Predoctoral Fellowship that allowed me to do the bulk of the writing of this dissertation. Thanks also to the Brady-Johnson Program in Grand Strategy at Yale University, and John Gaddis and the incomparable Ann Carter-Drier at ISS.
  • RF Annual Report

    RF Annual Report

    PRESIDENT'S TEN-YEAR REVIEW ANNUAL REPORT1971 THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION THE ROCKEFELLER mr"nMnftTinN JAN 26 2001 LIBRARY 2003 The Rockefeller Foundation The pages of this report are printed on paper made from recycled fibers THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION 111 WEST 50TH STREET, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10020 PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2003 The Rockefeller Foundation CONTENTS President's Ten-year Review 1 1971 Grants and Programs 105 Study Awards 143 Organizational Information 151 Financial Statements 161 1971 Appropriations and Payments 173 2003 The Rockefeller Foundation TRUSTEES AND TRUSTEE COMMITTEES April 1971—April 1972 DOUGLAS DILLON* Chairman JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER 3RD1 Honorary Chairman BOARD OF TRUSTEES BARRY BINGHAMS VERNON E. JORDAN, JR. FREDERICK SEITZ W. MICHAEL BLUMENTHALS CLARK KERB FRANK STANTON JOHN S. DICKEY MATHILDE KRIM MAURICE F. STRONG* DOUGLAS DILLON ALBERTO LLERAS CAMARGO CYRUS R. VANCE ROBERT H. EBERT BILL MOYEHS THOMAS J. WATSON, JR.4 ROBERT F. GOHEEN JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER 3RD2 CLIFTON R. WHARTON, JR. J. GEORGE HARRAR JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV W. BARRY WOOD, JR.5 THEODORE M. HESBURGH ROBERT V. ROOSA WHITNEY M. YOUNG, JR.6 ARTHUR A. HOUGHTON, JR. NEVIN S. SCRIMSHAW* EXECVTIVE COMMITTEE THE PRESIDENT Chairman ROBERT V. ROOSA THEODORE M. HESBURGH* _ _ _ _ alternate member DOUGLAS DILLON FREDERICK SEITZ ,, „ , PC VERNON E. JORDAN, JR. MATHILDE KRIM* FRANK STANTON alternate member BILL MoYEHS8 CYRUS R. VANCE* NEVJN S- SCRIMSHAW* JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER 3nn2 ROBERT F. GOHEEN alternate member alternate member FINANCE COMMITTEE Through June 30 Beginning July 1 DOUGLAS DILLON Chairman ROBERT V. ROOSA Chairman ROBERT V. ROOSA DOUGLAS DILLON* THOMAS J.
  • *Revelle, Roger Baltimore 18, Maryland

    *Revelle, Roger Baltimore 18, Maryland

    NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES July 1, 1962 OFFICERS Term expires President-Frederick Seitz June 30, 1966 Vice President-J. A. Stratton June 30, 1965 Home Secretary-Hugh L. Dryden June 30, 1963 Foreign Secretary-Harrison Brown June 30, 1966 Treasurer-L. V. Berkner June 30, 1964 Executive Officer Business Manager S. D. Cornell G. D. Meid COUNCIL *Berkner L. V. (1964) *Revelle, Roger (1965) *Brown, Harrison (1966) *Seitz, Frederick (1966) *Dryden, Hugh L. (1963) *Stratton, J. A. (1965) Hutchinson, G. Evelyn (1963) Williams, Robley C. (1963) *Kistiakowsky, G. B. (1964) Wood, W. Barry, Jr. (1965) Raper, Kenneth B. (1964) MEMBERS The number in parentheses, following year of election, indicates the Section to which the member belongs, as follows: (1) Mathematics (8) Zoology and Anatomy (2) Astronomy (9) Physiology (3) Physics (10) Pathology and Microbiology (4) Engineering (11) Anthropology (5) Chemistry (12) Psychology (6) Geology (13) Geophysics (7) Botany (14) Biochemistry Abbot, Charles Greeley, 1915 (2), Smithsonian Institution, Washington 25, D. C. Abelson, Philip Hauge, 1959 (6), Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 2801 Upton Street, N. W., Washington 8, D. C. Adams, Leason Heberling, 1943 (13), Institute of Geophysics, University of Cali- fornia, Los Angeles 24, California Adams, Roger, 1929 (5), Department of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois Ahlfors, Lars Valerian, 1953 (1), Department of Mathematics, Harvard University, 2 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge 38, Massachusetts Albert, Abraham Adrian, 1943 (1), 111 Eckhart Hall, University of Chicago, 1118 East 58th Street, Chicago 37, Illinois Albright, William Foxwell, 1955 (11), Oriental Seminary, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore 18, Maryland * Members of the Executive Committee of the Council of the Academy.
  • UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations

    UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations

    UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title The new prophet : Harold C. Urey, scientist, atheist, and defender of religion Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3j80v92j Author Shindell, Matthew Benjamin Publication Date 2011 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO The New Prophet: Harold C. Urey, Scientist, Atheist, and Defender of Religion A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in History (Science Studies) by Matthew Benjamin Shindell Committee in charge: Professor Naomi Oreskes, Chair Professor Robert Edelman Professor Martha Lampland Professor Charles Thorpe Professor Robert Westman 2011 Copyright Matthew Benjamin Shindell, 2011 All rights reserved. The Dissertation of Matthew Benjamin Shindell is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ Chair University of California, San Diego 2011 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page……………………………………………………………………...... iii Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………. iv Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………….
  • LA JOLLA MAIL PO Box 2085 La Jolla, CA 92038 HISTORICAL SOCIETY OFFICE & RESEARCH 7846 Eads Ave .• EXHIBIT GALLERIES 780 Prospect St

    LA JOLLA MAIL PO Box 2085 La Jolla, CA 92038 HISTORICAL SOCIETY OFFICE & RESEARCH 7846 Eads Ave .• EXHIBIT GALLERIES 780 Prospect St

    w LA JOLLA MAIL PO Box 2085 La Jolla, CA 92038 HISTORICAL SOCIETY OFFICE & RESEARCH 7846 Eads Ave .• EXHIBIT GALLERIES 780 Prospect St. T 858.459.5335 • lajollahistory.org July 5, 2016 Suzanne Segur San Diego Planning Department 1010 Second A venue, Suite 1200 San Diego, CA 92101 RE: Historical Report for 2345 Via Sienna, La Jolla Dear Ms. Segur: The La Jolla Historical Society recommends that 2345 Via Sienna be considered for designation as a historically significant under HRB Criterion B for its association with Dr. Maria Goeppert-Mayer, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics while living in the property. Maria Goeppert-Mayer is one of only two females awarded the Nobel Prize for physics since its inception in 1901. (The other was Mme. Curie, who was awarded the prize in 1903.) In fact, only 49 women have EVER won the Nobel Prize in ANYTHING, as opposed to 822 men. Ms. Goeppert-Mayer's biographies provide evidence regarding the difficulty she had in being taken seriously as a scientist because of her gender. It was with her hiring at UC San Diego that she became a full-time faculty professor, earning the respect her training and achievements deserved. We believe Dr. Goeppert-Mayer's home is eligible for designation under Criterion B as defined in the Department of Interior Standards. Although the residence may read today as an interpretation of the mid-century era's California ranch style, it is not atypical of the kind of housing many UCSD professors and members of La Jolla's new scientific community resided in at the time - modest dwellings in tune with economic situations and their new lives as Californians enjoying the amenable climate of the West Coast.
  • EUGENE PAUL WIGNER November 17, 1902–January 1, 1995

    EUGENE PAUL WIGNER November 17, 1902–January 1, 1995

    NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES E U G ENE PAUL WI G NER 1902—1995 A Biographical Memoir by FR E D E R I C K S E I T Z , E RICH V OG T , A N D AL V I N M. W E I NBER G 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 1998 NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS WASHINGTON D.C. Courtesy of Atoms for Peace Awards, Inc. EUGENE PAUL WIGNER November 17, 1902–January 1, 1995 BY FREDERICK SEITZ, ERICH VOGT, AND ALVIN M. WEINBERG UGENE WIGNER WAS A towering leader of modern physics Efor more than half of the twentieth century. While his greatest renown was associated with the introduction of sym- metry theory to quantum physics and chemistry, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for 1963, his scientific work encompassed an astonishing breadth of sci- ence, perhaps unparalleled during his time. In preparing this memoir, we have the impression we are attempting to record the monumental achievements of half a dozen scientists. There is the Wigner who demonstrated that symmetry principles are of great importance in quan- tum mechanics; who pioneered the application of quantum mechanics in the fields of chemical kinetics and the theory of solids; who was the first nuclear engineer; who formu- lated many of the most basic ideas in nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry; who was the prophet of quantum chaos; who served as a mathematician and philosopher of science; and the Wigner who was the supervisor and mentor of more than forty Ph.D.
  • A Cultural Analysis of a Physicist ''Trio'' Supporting the Backlash Against

    A Cultural Analysis of a Physicist ''Trio'' Supporting the Backlash Against

    ARTICLE IN PRESS Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 204–219 www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha Experiences of modernity in the greenhouse: A cultural analysis of a physicist ‘‘trio’’ supporting the backlash against global warming Myanna Lahsenà Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado and Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Epaciais (INPE), Av. dos Astronautas, 1758, Sa˜o Jose´ dos Campos, SP 12227-010 Brazil Received 18 March 2007; received in revised form 5 October 2007; accepted 29 October 2007 Abstract This paper identifies cultural and historical dimensions that structure US climate science politics. It explores why a key subset of scientists—the physicist founders and leaders of the influential George C. Marshall Institute—chose to lend their scientific authority to this movement which continues to powerfully shape US climate policy. The paper suggests that these physicists joined the environmental backlash to stem changing tides in science and society, and to defend their preferred understandings of science, modernity, and of themselves as a physicist elite—understandings challenged by on-going transformations encapsulated by the widespread concern about human-induced climate change. r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Anti-environmental movement; Human dimensions research; Climate change; Controversy; United States; George C. Marshall Institute 1. Introduction change itself, what he termed a ‘‘strong theory of culture.’’ Arguing that the essential role of science in our present age Human Dimensions Research in the area of global only can be fully understood through examination of environmental change tends to integrate a limited con- individuals’ relationships with each other and with ‘‘mean- ceptualization of culture.
  • Eugene Wigner and Translational Symmetries

    Eugene Wigner and Translational Symmetries

    Eugene Wigner and Translational Symmetries Y.S.Kim1 Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, U.S.A. Abstract As Einstein’s E = mc2 unifies the energy-momentum relation for massive and massless particles, Wigner’s little group unifies their internal space-time symmetries. It is pointed out that translational symmetries play essential roles both in formulating the problem, and in deriving the conclusions. The input translational symmetry is the space-time translation, and the output translational symmetry is built in the E(2)-like little group for massless particles. The translational degrees of freedom in this little group are gauge degrees of freedom. It should be noted that a number of condensed matter physicists played important supporting and supplementary roles in Wigner’s unification of internal space-time symmetries of massive and massless particles. 1 Introduction Eugene Wigner wrote many fundamental papers. However, if I am forced to name the most important paper he wrote, I have to mention his 1939 paper on representations of the inhomogeneous Lorentz group which is often called the Poincar´e group [1]. In this paper, he introduces the “little group” which governs the internal space-time symmetry of relativistic particles. The physical implication of the little groups was not fully recognized when Wigner received the 1963 Nobel Prize in Physics. The best way to see the scientific value of Wigner’s little group is to compare it with Einstein’s work using the following arXiv:cond-mat/9612057v1 5 Dec 1996 table. Massive, Slow COVARIANCE Massless, Fast E = p2/2m Einstein’s E = √m2 + p2 E = cp S3 S3 Wigner’s Little Group S1,S2 Gauge Trans.
  • Character List

    Character List

    Character List - Bomb ​ Use this chart to help you keep track of the hundreds of names of physicists, freedom fighters, government officials, and others involved in the making of the atomic bomb. Scientists Political/Military Leaders Spies Robert Oppenheimer - Winston Churchill -- Prime Klaus Fuchs - physicist in ​ ​ ​ designed atomic bomb. He was Minister of England Manhattan Project who gave accused of spying. secrets to Russia Franklin D. Roosevelt -- ​ Albert Einstein - convinced President of the United States Harry Gold - spy and Courier ​ ​ U.S. government that they for Russia KGB. Narrator of the needed to research fission. Harry Truman -- President of story ​ the United States Enrico Fermi - created first Ruth Werner - Russian spy ​ ​ chain reaction Joseph Stalin -- dictator of the ​ Tell Hall -- physicist in Soviet Union ​ Igor Korchatov -- Russian Manhattan Project who gave ​ physicist in charge of designing Adolf Hitler -- dictator of secrets to Russia ​ bomb Germany Haakon Chevalier - friend who ​ Werner Reisenberg -- Leslie Groves -- Military approached Oppenheimer about ​ ​ German physicist in charge of leader of the Manhattan Project spying for Russia. He was designing bomb watched by the FBI, but he was not charged. Otto Hahn -- German physicist ​ who discovered fission Other scientists involved in the Manhattan Project: ​ Aage Niels Bohr George Kistiakowsky Joseph W. Kennedy Richard Feynman Arthur C. Wahl Frank Oppenheimer Joseph Rotblat Robert Bacher Arthur H. Compton Hans Bethe Karl T. Compton Robert Serber Charles Critchfield Harold Agnew Kenneth Bainbridge Robert Wilson Charles Thomas Harold Urey Leo James Rainwater Rudolf Pelerls Crawford Greenewalt Harold DeWolf Smyth Leo Szilard Samuel K. Allison Cyril S. Smith Herbert L. Anderson Luis Alvarez Samuel Goudsmit Edward Norris Isidor I.
  • Guide to the James Franck Papers 1882-1966

    Guide to the James Franck Papers 1882-1966

    University of Chicago Library Guide to the James Franck Papers 1882-1966 © 2006 University of Chicago Library Table of Contents Acknowledgments 3 Descriptive Summary 3 Information on Use 3 Access 3 Citation 3 Biographical Note 4 Scope Note 15 Related Resources 21 Subject Headings 21 INVENTORY 22 Series I: Correspondence 22 Series II: Manuscripts 51 Subseries 1: Physics - work in Germany and Denmark, 1905-1934 51 Subseries 2: Physics - work in United States, 1935-1958 53 Subseries 3: Biophysics - work on Photosynthesis at Johns Hopkins, 1935-193855 Subseries 4: Biophysics - work on Photosynthesis at the University of Chicago,55 1938-48 Subseries 5: Biophysics - work on Photosynthesis after 1948 55 Subseries 6: General Articles and Talks on Science 71 Subseries 7: Papers by other scientists 72 Subseries 8: Notes, memoranda and fragments 76 Subseries 9: Atomic Scientists' Movement, 1944-1953 76 Subseries 10: Franck Memorial Symposium, May 12-13, 1966 79 Series III: Tape Recordings and Photographs 80 Subseries 1: Tape recordings 80 Subseries 2: Hertha Sponer's photograph album, Göttingen, 1920-1933 80 Series IV: Personal Documents and Memorabilia 90 Subseries 1: Documents 90 Subseries 2: Clippings 93 Subseries 3: Biographies and Obituaries 94 Subseries 4: Memorabilia; Scrolls, Certificates, Medals, Mementos 96 Series V: Robert Platzman's Editorial Papers for the "Selected Works of James98 Franck" Series VI: Addenda 103 Subseries 1: Correspondence between James Franck and his nephew and Dr. Heinz104 Kallman Subseries 2: Oversize 105 Descriptive Summary Identifier ICU.SPCL.FRANCK Title Franck, James. Papers Date 1882-1966 Size 20.5 linear feet (29 boxes) Repository Special Collections Research Center University of Chicago Library 1100 East 57th Street Chicago, Illinois 60637 U.S.A.
  • Making the Bomb by John Lamperti

    Making the Bomb by John Lamperti

    November, 2012 Thoughts on Making the Bomb by John Lamperti I recently finished reading Martin Sherwin and Kai Bird’s monumental American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer.1 It's an admirable book, although I think the title might better have been American Faust. (No less than Freeman Dyson said Oppenheimer made a "Faustian bargain."2) There have been many books about Oppenheimer and the atomic bomb project in general; I've read some but not all of them. This one seems to be definitive. Everything we need to know is there – and it's a fascinating read. Two things struck me especially, and neither was directly about Oppenheimer. One was the ideological rigidity, and the blindness, of the crowd of Army and FBI "security" operatives who dogged Oppenheimer and the whole Manhattan Project from the beginning. To a man (no women are mentioned) they were obsessed with the pre-war leftist politics of many of the scientists, which they found highly suspicious and probably indicative of disloyalty. But while these agents were hounding leftists and "premature anti-fascists" (as supporters of the Spanish Republic were called) at Los Alamos and elsewhere and finding little or nothing, real spies were sending real scientific information to the USSR under their noses, apparently unsuspected. If the "security" people, especially Lt. Col. Boris Pash of Army Counter– Intelligence, had been given free rein, Oppenheimer and many others (but not the actual spies!) would have been banished from the Project and the "Trinity" test, as well as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, might never have happened.
  • Center for History of Physics Newsletter, Spring 2008

    Center for History of Physics Newsletter, Spring 2008

    One Physics Ellipse, College Park, MD 20740-3843, CENTER FOR HISTORY OF PHYSICS NIELS BOHR LIBRARY & ARCHIVES Tel. 301-209-3165 Vol. XL, Number 1 Spring 2008 AAS Working Group Acts to Preserve Astronomical Heritage By Stephen McCluskey mong the physical sciences, astronomy has a long tradition A of constructing centers of teaching and research–in a word, observatories. The heritage of these centers survives in their physical structures and instruments; in the scientific data recorded in their observing logs, photographic plates, and instrumental records of various kinds; and more commonly in the published and unpublished records of astronomers and of the observatories at which they worked. These records have continuing value for both historical and scientific research. In January 2007 the American Astronomical Society (AAS) formed a working group to develop and disseminate procedures, criteria, and priorities for identifying, designating, and preserving structures, instruments, and records so that they will continue to be available for astronomical and historical research, for the teaching of astronomy, and for outreach to the general public. The scope of this charge is quite broad, encompassing astronomical structures ranging from archaeoastronomical sites to modern observatories; papers of individual astronomers, observatories and professional journals; observing records; and astronomical instruments themselves. Reflecting this wide scope, the members of the working group include historians of astronomy, practicing astronomers and observatory directors, and specialists Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Santa encounters tight security during in astronomical instruments, archives, and archaeology. a wartime visit to Oak Ridge. Many more images recently donated by the Digital Photo Archive, Department of Energy appear on page 13 and The first item on the working group’s agenda was to determine through out this newsletter.