sign in sign up
<<
Home , David Bohm, George Uhlenbeck, Heike Kamerlingh Onnes, Herman Feshbach, Lorentz Medal, Willis Lamb

HistoryNEWSLETTER A FORUM OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICALof SOCIETY • VOLUME XI • NO. 4 • SPRING 2011 2011 Pais Prize Lecture: Shelter Island Revisited

By Silvan S. Schweber

he Shelter Island Conference on Quantum was a landmark. It was the first of three small post- World War II conferences on spon- Tsored by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The first took place June 2–4, 1947, at the Ram’s Head Inn on Shelter Island at the tip of Long Island. The second, the Pocono Conference, was held from March 30 to April 2, 1948, and the third, Oldstone, occurred April 11–14, 1949. The initial impetus for the Shelter Island Conference came from Duncan MacInnes, a distinguished physical chemist at the Rockefeller Institute, who had suggested to Frank Jewett, then president of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), that it sponsor a series of small conferences. The participants (see Fig. 1) were primarily theoretical , most of whom had been leaders at the highly successful wartime laboratories: the MIT Radiation Laboratory, Chicago , Johns Hopkins Applied Phys- ics Laboratory, and Los Alamos. Also in attendance were several experimental physicists including and Fig. 1. Assembled attendees of the June 1947 Shelter Island Conference Isidor Rabi, who reported on experiments on the spectrum on . Left to right: Isidor Rabi, Linus Pauling, of hydrogen that had been recently performed at Columbia John Van Vleck, Willis Lamb, Gregory Breit, Duncan MacInnes, University, and who reported on the results of Karl Darrow, , , , researches carried out in Rome on the atmospheric absorp- Bruno Rossi, Arnold Nordsieck, , John Wheeler, tion of cosmic rays. , , , , Robert The significance of the conference was soon as evident Oppenheimer, David Bohm, , , to the participants as it is now in retrospect. Six months . Not included here is Hendrik Kramers. Photograph later, in January of 1948, APS secretary Darrow wrote his courtesy of AIP Emilio Segrè Visual Archives, Marshak Collection. fellow organizer Duncan MacInnes a brief postcard stating, “I must quote [you] . . . the words of warm commendation used yesterday by I. I. Rabi about your Shelter Island meet- ing—he said that it has proved much more important than it In This Issue seemed even at the time, and would be remembered as the 1911 Solvay Congress is remembered, for having been the Shelter Island Revisited 1 starting‑point of remarkable new developments.” Similarly, Richard Feynman many years later recalled, “There have been many conferences in the world since, but I’ve never felt Editor’s Corner 2 any to be as important as this.” The meeting turned out to be the most seminal confer- History of 4 ence held right after the end of World War II; its impact was indeed comparable to that of the Solvay Congress of 1911. Just as that meeting set the stage for all the subse- John Van Vleck 6 quent developments in quantum theory, similarly Shelter Island provided the initial stimulus for the post-World New Books of Note 12 Continues on page 8 Editors’ Corner

Having your house suddenly annihi- lated by a tornado imposes a Janus-like predicament, where you find yourself looking backwards and forward simultane- ously. New beginnings can be good. Rhonda always wanted to design her own house, and now she can do so. But looking back forms an indelible part of the experience. Although a tornado makes history, history lost must be counted among its casualties. Before going there, let me return to the tor- nado itself. The May 24 tornado that honored us with its impersonal visit cut a 65-mile swath across central Oklahoma (the English units stick in the mind from local weather reports). Its rain-wrapped, half-mile-diameter main vortex evidently carried within it at least four tighter vortices. We have reason to think that one of them passed through our Fig. 1. My house (transformed into a high-entropy state) on May 24, 2011. I needed to clean out den and dining room. That part of the house that garage anyway. (Photo by Mark Winslow, of the SNU Physics Department) was cleaned off down to the slab; the rest of the structure collapsed into a pile of twisted he Spring 2011 issue of the FHP rubble. Our roof, doors, appliances, sofas, Newsletter was unfortunately and dining room table were nowhere to be delayed due to inclement weather. found, not even as fragments. Tornadoes TOn May 24, in a spectacularly violent dis- famously produce bizarre effects—your The Forum on History of Physics of play of non-equilibrium thermodynamics refrigerator vanishes but you find the tiny the American Physical Society pub- in a nonlinear system, an EF5 tornado col- wheel of a toy car. We have done the experi- lishes this Newsletter biannually at lided with our house, and the houses of our ment, and can affirm that, for objects having http://www.aps.org/units/fhp/newslet- neighbors (see Fig. 1). large surfaces, the integral of PdA trumps mg ters/index.cfm. If you wish to receive My priorities suddenly changed. Thank- when the wind slams into your house at 300 a printed version of the Newsletter, fully, former Editor Michael Riordan, and mph. I wish that high-speed cameras, like please contact the editor. Each 3-year the recently appointed next Editor Robert those used in the nuclear weapons tests of volume consists of six issues. Crease, approached me through an email the 1950s, had been mounted throughout message aptly entitled “Your Plight,” and the house. It would have been interesting The articles in this issue represent the offered to steer the Spring 2011 issue to to see how our Silverado ended up on top views of their authors and are not completion. Their thoughtful initiative of the Highlander. Most of the vehicles on necessarily those of the Forum or APS. solved a pressing logistical dilemma for me, our street landed in a wheat field half a mile Editor and foreshadowed a flood of thoughtfulness from where they had been parked, folded Dwight E. Neuenschwander to come. into a right angle or rolled into a ball with Department of Physics I am not writing this to elicit sympathy wheels sticking out. When the tornado Southern Nazarene University —we are going to be fine—but to express hit, we were on our way home but were Bethany, OK 73008 gratitude. Within hours of this event and turned back twice by the police. Had we [email protected] ever since, my wife Rhonda and I have been at home we would not have survived. (405) 491-6361 received e-mails, telephone calls, and letters Our new house will have an underground from friends and colleagues. I wish to take shelter. Assuming that one can dash into a this opportunity to express our gratitude neighbor’s shelter now seems too uncertain Associate Editor and appreciation to the Forum on History a strategy. We are thankful to still be among Don Lemons of Physics members who sent messages the living. We can still look forward to seeing Department of Physics of concern, and offered various means of our grandchildren grow up. Bethel College helping us through this challenging time. Not everyone was so fortunate. North Newton, KS 67117 Throughout this experience we found a Although no person on our street perished, [email protected] force stronger than a mere EF5 tornado: the this particular twister killed ten people in Book Review Editor care and concern of so many kind and gener- Oklahoma that day. On our street eight Michael Riordan ous people. We have so much for which to horses lost their lives, including our own [email protected] be grateful. dear Annie, my wife’s equine companion

2 Volume XI, No. 4 • Spring 2011 • History of Physics Newsletter that, hanging in my shop, it was more than a rickety old chair: it was a tribute to Great- Grandpa Ed’s rascally sense of humor. That wobbly green wooden chair is now gone. Telling my grandchildren about their col- orful, ornery, fun-loving great-great-great grandpa became more difficult after May 24. When an artifact has vanished, the tell- ing of the story is diminished. One cannot save everything, but one must save some things, for history. Seeing with you own eyes Galileo’s telescope or ’s letters, ’s pipe or one of ’s notebooks, brings the story (and the phys- Fig. 2. Your outgoing editor hard at work a few days after May 24. (Photo by Daryl Cox of the ics) to life. The real thing has no substitute. SNU Chemistry Department) It came up with us. The stories of the people and places for eleven years. Our two weenie dogs, sewing clothes. She also knows the story of behind the physics are more complicat- Heidi and Maggie, amazingly survived how in 1956 her mother made her wedding ed than the body of physics knowledge unscathed. Their steel wire kennel was dress, with her mother’s help, on this very itself, forming incredibly complex webs of found wedged between two heavy pieces machine. The of Grandma Coatney relationships that stretch across time and of furniture buried beneath rubble at the far and those events are held within its cabinet. cultures. But without its stories, physics end of the house. They were probably the A creation myth of the pueblo-dwelling becomes homeless, and loses its identity. only witnesses above ground who emerged Native Americans tells how the People The Forum on History of Physics carries an unhurt. I wish they could tell us what they came up from the mysterious nether regions awesome responsibility as a keeper of stories saw and heard as the roof lifted off, and the below. The sanctity of a timeless cultural for the physics community. walls crashed around them in a turbulent custom was explained by saying “it came This is the last time I have the privilege blizzard of sheetrock fragments, 2x4s, and up with us.”[1] In our salvage efforts, arti- of writing an “Editor’s Corner” for this muddy insulation. facts that were found too seriously dam- splendid newsletter that others started, and A house is a state of matter that exists aged to keep were set aside with surprising with whose care I have been entrusted for in the transition between the Home Depot reluctance. They came through the tornado a season. This is not the way I wanted my and landfill phases. The morning after the with us. scheduled term as editor to end (Fig. 2). tornado my son Charlie said to me, “Dad, A few days after the tornado, Rhonda But I am grateful to Bob and Michael you and Mom don’t have a house right sadly reflected that “Although our old for voluntarily offering to finish what I was now. But you are not homeless.” That was house had many flaws, I am going to miss unable to finish myself. I will remain an a perceptive distinction. Garrison Keillor it because Charlie and Steven [our sons] enthusiastic member of the FHP, and hope to once said that “Home is where they know will not be able to show Teegon and Sophie be an occasional contributor to these pages. your story.” History is the knowing of the [our grandchildren, too young to remember So many of you have looked after my story. Without our story, we do not know these events] the house in which they were wife and me with caring concern during who we are. raised.” Of course, we will make new mem- these recent events. I knew you as colleagues Once all lives were accounted for, an ories in the new house. But my wife is right: in APS meetings, sometimes sitting with early priority included salvaging whatever a part of personal history was a casualty of you at committee tables. When you heard could be found that was worth saving. In the May 24 tornado. Grief and gratitude that the world line of the May 24 tornado looking backwards this way, we were not wash over us together, in abundance. had abruptly intersected ours, you went trying to salvage things; we were trying to Before the tornado, hanging in my shop beyond roles and duties. You did what the salvage stories; we were trying to preserve was the very chair that my great-grandfa- Russell-Einstein Manifesto of 1955 exhorted our history. Some items have value for what ther Ed “borrowed” from a hotel front porch us to do in another context: “remember your they are, and can be replaced with mere in Junction City, Kansas, sometime in the humanity.” For your kind gestures, for your money. But other artifacts hold deeper 1890s. He and my great-grandma Grace, as friendship, and for all that I have learned value; they are irreplaceable because of what young people not yet married, were on a from you, I will always be grateful. Thank they mean. The wedding photos, the baby hayride with their friends. All the hay bales you. ■ pictures, images of family vacations, arti- were occupied, so as they rode by a hotel facts handed down from one’s ancestors… Ed hopped off the wagon and grabbed the — Dwight E. Neuenschwander When my wife looks at her grandma’s chair so Grace would not have to sit on the pedal-operated sewing machine (which wagon floor. My father remembers that [1] Paul Horgan, The Heroic Triad: A survived with repairable damage), she chair from the summer of 1940 he spent Portrait of Three Southwestern Cultures sees more than an obsolete technology for with his grandparents. Seventy years after (Holt, Reinhart, & Winston, 1970).

Volume XI, No. 4 • Spring 2011 • History of Physics Newsletter 3 History of Superconductivity Sessions By George Zimmerman

his year was the 100th anniversary superconductivity was first of the discovery of superconduc- to be a short circuit in the apparatus, tivity, and the APS March meet- the lab notes of Heike Kamerlingh Ting in Dallas featured over a dozen ses- Onnes reveal his awareness that he sions devoted to the phenomenon. The had discovered a new phenomenon. one sponsored by the Forum on the His- The results were announced in October tory of Physics took place at mid-morn- of that year, both at and at the ing on Monday, March 21, 2011. The First held in Brus- five speakers at the session, chaired by sels at the Metropole Hotel. The latter Martin Blume (Fig. 1), dispelled some brought together such luminaries from of the commonly held stories about the the world of physics as A. Einstein, who discovery of superconductivity, point- was the second youngest member at ing to the intense interest of the physics the conference, M. Curie, M. Brillouin, community in that discovery. Some of H. Poincaré, and others. Another point the most famous names in physics at highlighted by van Delft was that many the time tried to find a theoretical expla- of the experimental discoveries attrib- nation of the phenomenon, with little uted to Kamerlingh Onnes, a theoretical success. The speakers also highlighted , would not have been possible Fig. 2. Brian Schwartz of CUNY. some of the important discoveries about without the expert technicians he had the nature of superconductivity that in his employ. While he acknowledged Kamerlingh Onnes and the interest it led to a theoretical understanding and these technicians, they were not made evoked in the world of physics at that reformulation, culminating in the Bard- co-authors on the publications. time. It then went on to an enumeration een-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) theory [1]. The second speaker was Brian of some of the unsuccessful attempts at The session concluded with a review of Schwartz (Fig. 2), currently at the Grad- theories trying to explain the phenom- the present applications of supercon- uate Center at CUNY and previously enon. Those attempting explanations ductivity and their future promise. associate Director of the Francis Bitter included Einstein, Feinman, Froelich, National Magnet Laboratory. Schwartz and even Bardeen [11], the “B” in BCS. outlined the discoveries and phenom- Cooper then detailed the intense activi- enological or other theories which ties and calculations undertaken by to the eventual formulation of the BCS him, Schrieffer and Bardeen, who wrote theory [1]. These included the Meissner an article on superconductivity in the effect, by Meissner and Ochsenfeld in Encyclopedia der Physik only a few years 1933 [4], the isotope effect discovered before the BCS theory was published. independently by E. Maxwell and B The talk concluded with a review of Serin et al. in 1950 [5, 6], and the energy the technological promises of super- gap (See reference 30 in [1]) in 1953- conductivity and a call in support of 4 which became evident from many pure research, since the outcome of such experimental results. Schwartz also investigations might not be utilized for reviewed some of the phenomenologi- years or decades. A link to this talk is cal formulations, among which were the available on the web at: two fluid theory developed by Casimir https://dropbox.brown.edu/download. and Gorter in 1934 [7] and also L. Tisza, php?hash=679d1d78. the Heintz and Fritz formula- tion of Maxwell’s equations for super- John M. Rowell, the fourth speaker, Fig. 1. Session Chair Martin Blume conductivity [8], the Pippard non-local who is now at the State Uni- theory [9], and the Ginzburg-Landau versity and was at The Bell Labs from The first speaker of the session was equations [10]. 1961 to 1983, described developments Dirk van Delft, Director of Museum Because the third speaker, Leon after the BCS theory from 1957 to 1967, Boerhaave at Leiden, who published Cooper—the “C” in the BCS theory which enabled superconductivity to an article in the September 2011 issue [1]—was unable to attend the March be applied to the production of high of Physics Today on the same subject meeting, a video was shown of him magnetic fields for particle accelera- and one in the March 2008 issue on speaking before an audience at Brown tors and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. the liquefaction of [2, 3]. The University on December 10th, 2010 His talk entitled “Giaever, Nb3Sn, and discovery of superconductivity can be entitled “The Road to and from BCS.” Josephson” described the experiments, pinpointed to 8 April 1911. Unlike the His lecture briefly described the dis- which led to the measurement of the popular story that the observation of covery of superconductivity by energy gap and the discovery of the 4 Volume XI, No. 4 • Spring 2011 • History of Physics Newsletter Superconductivity Sessions

Continued from previous page

“Hard or Type II” superconductors, in the “Woodstock of Physics” at the the understanding of the superconduc- which enabled the manufacture of 1987 March meeting in , tivity phenomenon. wires which were superconducting in and a demonstration before President David Larbalestier, of the National high magnetic fields although partially Ronald Reagan – the pinnacle of the High Magnetic Field Laboratory and penetrated by them. The understand- national interest in super- Department of Physics, Florida State ing of the Abrikosov vortex structure conductivity. Although the number of University, provided an overview of contributed greatly to that advance. He publications dealing with high tempera- the practical applications of super- then went on to the prediction of the ture superconductivity has declined, conductivity. He pointed out that it Josephson effect and its applications in research is ongoing and applications took much preparation and careful extremely sensitive measuring devices. are coming on line. The talk concluded planning to liquefy helium in order to with a vision of the great promise in carry out the discovery. After being the application of high temperature hired by Leyden in 1882, Kamerlingh superconductivity to the storage and Onnes did not publish any articles for transmission of “green” electrical power ten years. However, from the time of in the near future. the discovery of superconductivity, he All of these talks will be posted on was pursuing practical applications. the FHP website in the near future. According to Larbalestier’s abstract, “In fact Onnes came to Chicago in 1913, Another session on superconductiv- just two years after discovering super- ity was sponsored by the FHP at the conductivity, with a detailed plan to April Meeting in Anaheim . make a 10 T !” That session took place on May 1 and The unexpectedly low critical current featured three speakers, with Martin of mercury made that project unfea- Blume presiding. The first speaker, sible; but 48 years later, the discovery Peter Pesic of St. John’s College, pro- of type II superconductors made high vided a historical timeline that began field magnets possible. Larbalestier in 1832 when Michael Faraday lique- then went into the details of supercon- fied chlorine, and included Van der ducting wire and magnet design and Fig. 3. Paul Chu of the University of Houston. Waals’ formulation of the gas equations their applications in MRI and particle in 1873, William Ramsey’s discovery accelerators. The discovery of high The final speaker was Paul Chu (Fig. of helium on earth in 1895, William transition temperature superconductors 3), of the Texas Center for Superconduc- Dewar’s 1898 liquefaction of hydrogen, (HTTS), which took place 25 years ago, tivity, University of Houston, who with and —who is only now leading to improvements in scientists at Bell Labs is widely credited was one of Van der Waals’ students— the superconductor tape-wire current- in the creation of materials raising the liquefying helium in 1908. Three years carrying properties over those of the transition point of high temperature later superconductivity was discovered type II superconductor technology. He superconductors above the boiling in mercury. This, Pesic pointed out, went on to describe the problems that point of liquid nitrogen, thus making was only one of the achievement of had to be overcome to manufacture them usable with much less mainte- the “Golden Age” of Dutch science. HTTS wires of which brittleness and nance than required by the previously An adjunct to the Kamerlingh Onnes grain boundaries of the materials were used cryogen, helium. Chu begun by laboratory in Leyden was a school prominent. He then reviewed methods pointing out the excitement with which for skilled technicians, and the use by means of which one could overcome discoveries are made, especially in of that facility and personnel was a those difficulties. He concluded with superconductivity, and reviewed the significant factor in the discovery of the statement that “Today Nb-Ti (Tc = history of experiments aimed at the superconductivity. Giles Holst, one 9 K, Hc2(4K) = 10 T) is the conductor of discovery of materials with ever higher of Kamerlingh Onnes’ assistants, was choice. YBCO (Tc = 92 K) is a potential superconducting transition tempera- actually the one who first observed the challenger. The search is on for much tures. These included the efforts of B. phenomenon. At that time, the Leyden higher Tc – but that is another story…” Matthias, who managed to raise the team also observed the 2.2K superfluid The third speaker, A. Zee of the Uni- transition temperature of alloys above transition of but was not versity of California, Santa Barbara con- 20K. Chu then discussed the discovery aware of what it was. In 1914 the team cluded the session with observations on of high temperature superconductiv- demonstrated a conducting ball float- how superconductivity theory, espe- ity in 1986 by J.G. Bednorz and K. A. ing above a superconducting ring. A cially the Ginsburg-Landau formulation Miller, and the quest to synthesize sketch of this experiment by Gerrit [10], extends far beyond superconduc- materials with higher temperature Flim, an assistant to Kamerlingh Onnes, tors and influenced transition points. That brought renewed was made in preparation for the actual to the subject, culminating experimental performance indicating Continues on page 7 Volume XI, No. 4 • Spring 2011 • History of Physics Newsletter 5 John Van Vleck: Quantum Theory and Magnetism By David L. Huber

t the APS March Meeting the temperature-independent on Tuesday, March 22, term, often referred to as Van 2011, the FHP honored Vleck , made Athe contributions of John Has- a significant contribution to brouck Van Vleck to quantum the susceptibility of Sm3+. The theory and magnetism. The calculations of Van Vleck and session was chaired by Chun Frank were done for isolated Lin, from the University of Wis- atoms and ions. In 1932 Van consin-Madison and its invited Vleck and his post-doctoral stu- speakers were Michel Janssen, dents Bill Penney and Robert University of Minnesota; David Schlap published a series of Huber, University of Wisconsin; three papers on the influence of , Uni- the electrostatic fields coming versity of Arizona; Charles P. from neighboring ions on the Slichter, University of Illinois, magnetic susceptibilities of rare Urbana-Champaign; and Horst earth and transition metal ions. Meyer, Duke University. Among Utilizing a theoretical approach the attendees were Dr. and Mrs. Van Vleck lecturing at the University of Wisconsin in late 1920s developed by Hans Bethe (1929), John P. Comstock. Dr. Comstock, or early 1930s. (Courtesy of David L. Huber) they were able to account for the son of Abigail Van Vleck’s hitherto unexplained differ- sister, inherited a collection of Van the , which Van ences between the susceptibilities of Vleck memorabilia from his aunt and Vleck had applied to the interpreta- the free ions and the susceptibilities of has recently donated it to the University tion of optical spectra, did not give the corresponding ions in crystalline of Wisconsin. results for electric and magnetic sus- environments. The session began with Chun Lin ceptibilities that were compatible with The year 1932 also marked the pub- presenting a brief outline of Van Vleck’s confirmed results obtained with the lication by Oxford University Press of life and career. He was born in Middle- classical theory – a situation referred to Van Vleck’s classic monograph, The town, Connecticut in 1899 and grew in the history and philosophy of science Theory of Electric and Magnetic Suscep- up in Madison, Wisconsin where his literature as “Kuhn Losses”. While at tibilities, which had a major impact on father, Edward B. Van Vleck, was a the University of Minnesota, Van Vleck the investigation and understanding professor of mathematics at the Uni- pointed out that this situation was rem- of the properties of magnetic materials. versity of Wisconsin. John Van Vleck edied when the susceptibilities were At the time of his death, Van Vleck left received his bachelor’s degree in phys- calculated in the new quantum theory an incomplete set of notes for a second ics from the university in 1920. He then using . At Minnesota, edition of his book which were given went to graduate school at Harvard he also developed a general theory for to Chun Lin by his widow Abigail Van University, where he received his PhD the magnetic susceptibilities of atoms Vleck. Although the notes are largely in 1922. After finishing his degree, he and ions that showed that in addition fragmentary, there is an entirely new accepted a faculty position in physics to the standard Curie term, there was a chapter on the local field that would at the University of Minnesota, where temperature-independent term arising have replaced the chapter contrasting he remained until 1928 when he took from matrix elements of the Zeeman the susceptibilities in the old and new a similar position at the University of interaction between the ground mani- quantum mechanics. A PDF of the new Wisconsin. Van Vleck was at Wiscon- fold and excited manifolds. chapter is available on the University sin from 1928 until 1934. In 1934, he David Huber’s talk focused on Van of Wisconsin Physics Department web left to become a professor at Harvard Vleck’s investigation of magnetic sus- page, University and was a member of the ceptibilities while he was at Wisconsin. http://www.physics.wisc.edu/vanvleck/. Harvard faculty from 1934 to 1969. He The talk began with a discussion of the was President of the American Physical work of Van Vleck and his graduate Nicolaas Bloembergen, who for Society in 1952, received the National student Amelia Frank, who applied the many years was Van Vleck’s colleague Medal of Science in 1966, and in 1977 general theory of magnetic susceptibili- at Harvard, spoke about Van Vleck’s shared the in Physics with ties developed at Minnesota to trivalent role in the development of the theory of his former student Philip Anderson and rare earth ions. He and Frank showed magnetic resonance line widths in sol- Sir Nevill Mott. that the temperature-independent ids when there are significant exchange The first invited talk was Michel term was the dominant term at low interactions between the resonating Janssen’s lecture on “Van Vleck from temperatures for Eu3+ where the total spins. Van Vleck showed that the pres- Spectroscopy to Susceptibilities: Kuhn of the ground man- ence of the exchange interactions led Losses Regained.” He pointed out that ifold was zero. They also showed that to a decrease in the dipolar line width 6 Volume XI, No. 4 • Spring 2011 • History of Physics Newsletter John Van Vleck

Continued from previous page

relative to the value it would have in University. In 1906, Van Hise appoint- as O2 in clathrate cages, they were able the absence of such interactions – a ed Slichter to head the mathematics to extend measurements of the suscepti- phenomenon known as “exchange department. Slichter’s first action as bility temperatures below 1 K. The data narrowing”. This result was obtained department head was to recruit Edward from these measurements were the first by an analysis of the second and fourth B. Van Vleck to bring strength in pure test of earlier theoretical predictions moments of the line shape function. Van mathematics. and John of Van Vleck on the low temperature Vleck found that the exchange interac- Van Vleck did their undergraduate behavior of the susceptibilities of free tion did not contribute to the second work at Wisconsin, finishing in 1920 molecules. Not surprisingly, it was moment, only to the fourth. Bloember- and 1926, respectively. After Bardeen found that there was a discrepancy gen also spoke of the important role finished his Master’s in engineering, between experiment and theory. This that Van Vleck played in his own career Van Vleck provided guidance and help, discrepancy stimulated collaboration at Harvard and his interactions with recommending him to College, between Van Vleck and Mary O’Brien Dutch physicists such as C. J. Gorter Cambridge University for a fellowship from Oxford who was on sabbatical at and H. A. Kramers. John Van Vleck and later to Harvard University for Harvard at that time. O’Brien and Van was awarded the by the appointment as a Junior Fellow. Charles Vleck showed that the discrepancy was Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts Slichter, who did his undergraduate due to the free molecule approximation and Sciences in 1974. work at Harvard, had Van Vleck as an and disappeared when a ‘hindering The title of Charles Slichter’s lec- advisor. Van Vleck recommended he potential’ was taken into effect. Later ture was “Remembering Van: Three remain at the university for his Ph. D. measurements by Meyer and colleagues Madison Families and other Tales.” In and later suggested that he do his doc- involving resonance and it, he spoke about the influential roles toral research on magnetic resonance infrared absorption confirmed the played at the University of Wisconsin with Edward Purcell. magnitude of the hindering potential by his grandfather, Charles S. Slichter, Horst Meyer spoke about Van inferred by Van Vleck and O’Brien in and the fathers of John Bardeen and Vleck’s work on the magnetic suscep- O2 and NO. In later years, Van Vleck John Van Vleck. The tale begins in 1903 tibility of the clathrate compounds and became interested in the properties when Charles Van Hise, a distinguished how it was stimulated by the measure- of rare-earth iron garnets and worked geologist, was named President of the ments carried out at the Clarendon with Meyer on the interpretation of his University of Wisconsin. In 1904, Van Laboratories, Oxford University by A. calorimetric and NMR experiments. ■ Hise recruited Charles Bardeen, John’s H. Cooke, W. P. Wolf and himself. By father, to found a medical school at the trapping paramagnetic molecules such

Superconductivity Sessions

Continued from page 5

[4] W. Meissner, and R. Ochsenfeld, Naturwissen- presented a “modern perspective on schaften 21, (44), 787 (1933). some classic applications of the ideas of [5] E. Maxwell, Phys. Rev. 78, 477 (1950). superconductivity theory to fundamen- tal particle physics: spontaneous chiral [6] C.A. Reynolds, B. Serin, W.H. Wright, and L. B. symmetry breaking in vacuum QCD, Nesbitt, Phys. Rev. 78, 487 (1950). the in electroweak [7] C.J. Gorter and H.B.G. Casimir, Z. Physik 35, theory, and color superconductivity 963 (1934). in dense hadronic matter; and also the [8] H. London and F. London, Proc. Roy. Soc. (Lon- confinement problem.” That session don) A149, 71 (1935). was a Kavli Foundation Special Sym- [9] A.B. Pippard, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) A216, posium: Nobelist Perspectives on 100 547 (1953). Years of Superconductivity, sponsored [10] V.L. Ginzburg and L.D. Landau, Zh. Eksp. Teor. by the DMP and DCMP. ■ Fiz. 20, 1064 (1950). [11] J. Bardeen, Encyclopedia of Physics (Berlin: References: Springer Verlag, 1956), Vol. 15, p.274. Also refer- ences in [1] Fig. 4. David Larbalestier [1] J. Bardeen, L.N. Cooper, J.R. Schriefer, Phys. Rev. 108, 1175 (1957). (All photographs in this article by George Zimmerman) theory and . Those [2] Dirk von Delft and Peter Kes, Physics Today, 63 views paralleled those given at a talk at (September 2010), p. 38. the March Meeting session J3, on March [3] Dirk von Delft, Physics Today, 61 (March 2008), 22, 2011, given by , who p. 36. Volume XI, No. 4 • Spring 2011 • History of Physics Newsletter 7 Shelter Island Revisited

Continued from page 1

War II developments in quantum field of Sciences. For several years before area that intrigued MacInnes, who at theory: effective, relativistically invari- becoming its president in 1944, he the time was studying wave mechanics. ant, computational methods; Feynman had helped arrange a series of small K. K. Darrow—the urbane, and by diagrams; and theory. conferences sponsored by that orga- then perennial, secretary of the Ameri- The conference also witnessed the elu- nization, “designed to promote active can Physical Society, a theoretical physi- cidation of the structure of the mesonic discussion of different scientific top- cist who had been at Bell Telephone component of cosmic rays. ics.” For the conferences to achieve Laboratories since 1925 and who was a The Shelter Island, Pocono and Old- their aim, MacInnes felt it was essential popularizer of science of some stature— stone conferences were small, closed, that the topics “be in areas in which offered MacInnes his help in organizing and elitist in spirit. In a sense they mark actual work was in progress and that the conference on quantum mechanics. the postponed end of an era, that of participation be restricted to currently The two of them held extensive discus- the 1930s, and its characteristic style of active investigators in the designated sions with Leon Brillouin and Wolfgang doing physics: small groups and small fields.” Although an early conference Pauli. However, MacInnes did not like budgets. None cost more than $1,500. sponsored by the New York Acad- Pauli’s suggestions because “Pauli The ravages of inflation are illustrated emy had achieved this objective, he was planning for too many of the older by the fact that the average expenditure believed that the effectiveness of the men, and [MacInnes thought] that the to accommodate all the 25 attendees for later ones had been impaired “by their best results would be to get out the one night at the elegant inns where the success in attracting too large a crowd.” coming generation.” Thus, at Darrow’s conferences took place was $200. MacInnes felt very strongly that atten- suggestion, the topics to be discussed Coming after World War II, these dance should be limited. In October of and the responsibility for drawing up conferences reasserted the values of 1944 he declined to run again as New a list of participants was given over to pure research and helped to purify and York Academy president when a deci- John Wheeler, who had also attended revitalize the theoretical physics com- sion on this matter by its council went the meetings with Pauli. Wheeler was munity. They also made evident the against him, and in January 1945 he indeed representative of the “younger new social reality implied by the newly resigned from the Academy over this men.”[1] During the war he had dis- acquired power of the theoreticians, issue. tinguished himself at the Chicago and helped integrate the most outstand- In the fall of 1945, MacInnes sent Metallurgical Laboratory and borne ing of the younger theoreticians into the Jewett a proposal for the NAS to spon- major responsibility for the design and elite: Richard Feynman, Julian Schwing- sor occasional meetings “of the rela- construction of the Hanford reactors. er, Robert Marshak, David Bohm, and tively few men doing active research Wheeler’s stature in the theoretical Abraham Pais at Shelter Island, plus work in each field.” These conferences physics community was clearly recog- at Oldstone. would address a topic on which active nized. In the fall of 1945, he was chosen The Shelter Island, Pocono, and Old- research was occurring; have a small to present a paper on the “Problems stone conferences were the precursors number of papers presented that would and Prospects in Elementary Particle of the Rochester Conferences on High be distributed before the conference; Research” at the Symposium on Atomic Energy Physics. But they differed from have much more time for discussion Energy and Its Implications, the high these later conferences in important than for presentation of papers; and be point of the first postwar meeting of the ways. While the Shelter Island, Pocono, limited to at most 25 or 30 participants. NAS, which it sponsored jointly with and Oldstone conferences reflected the The papers, revised in the of the the American Philosophical Society. At style of an earlier era, the Rochester discussion that took place, would be that symposium Wheeler shared the Conferences were more professional published as a NAS monograph. limelight with , J. Robert and democratic in outlook and had Jewett liked the idea and felt con- Oppenheimer, , Arthur the imprint of the new era: the large fident that the NAS would be willing H. Compton, , and Irving group efforts and the large budgets to sponsor the undertaking. He sug- Langmuir. His impressive address involved in machine physics. And gested that MacInnes pick out one or gave proof that indeed a new genera- whereas Shelter Island and Pocono two problems that seemed promising tion of American physicists was taking looked upon quantum electrodynam- and use these as “pilot plants.” Given over the intellectual leadership in the ics as a self‑contained discipline, the this encouragement, MacInnes, after emerging field of “elementary particle” Rochester Conferences saw “particle discussion with colleagues, suggested physics. physics” come into its own, with QED two conferences, one on “The Nature Under the guidance of Jewett, as one of its subfields—albeit one with a of Biopotentials” and the other on “The MacInnes, and Darrow, the Shelter privileged, paradigmatic position. Postulates of Quantum Mechanics.” Island Conference would reinforce that The small, elitist character of the Biopotentials were the focus of the message. Darrow in his letter invit- Shelter Island, Pocono and Oldstone research of his colleague and friend W. ing Wheeler to oversee the agenda of conferences embodied the ideal of J. V. Osterhout and were of consider- the conference made explicit what MacInnes, a NAS member and a past able importance in his own work. The had been implicit with MacInnes and president of the New York Academy topic of the second conference was an Jewett: the conference was to be an 8 Volume XI, No. 4 • Spring 2011 • History of Physics Newsletter Shelter Island Revisited

Continued from previous page

American one, designed to “bring out” By the end of May, the preliminary was immediately evident that Oppen- the young American theoretical physi- results of Lamb and Robert Rether- heimer was the moving spirit of the cists who had played such a large role ford—that contrary to what the Dirac affair.” Darrow in his diary gave a in the successful war effort. The three equation said about the energy levels of revealing account: s organizers wanted the conference to an electron in a Coulomb field, the 2 1/2 As the conference went on the demonstrate that theoretical physics in level of hydrogen lies 1,000 megacycles ascendency of Oppenheimer p the United States had come into its own above the 2 1/2 level—had been widely became more evident—the with the younger men who had been circulated. Schwinger and Weisskopf analysis (often caustic) of nearly born and trained here. The conference discussed the theoretical implication of every argument, that magnificent was to prove the strength of American the experiment on their train ride from English never marred by hesita- theoretical physics not only in wartime Boston to New York to attend the con- tion or groping for words (I never activities but also in “pure” physics. ference and agreed that the effect was heard “catharsis” used in a dis- These conferences gave further proof very likely quantum electrodynamic in course on [physics], or the clever of the remarkable intellectual powers of origin. Schwinger later recalled their word “mesoniferous” which is the leading theoreticians. The final list also coming to the conclusion that since probably O’s invention), the dry of participants corroborates this intent. the electron self‑energy was logarith- humor, the perpetually‑recurring The conference was eventually set mically divergent in hole theory, the comment that one idea or another to occur on Monday, Tuesday, and energy difference between these levels (incl. some of his own) was cer- Wednesday, June 2–4, 1947, with Dar- would be finite when calculated with tainly wrong, and the respect row serving as its convener and chair- that theory. with which he was heard. man. Its timing was determined to In fact, the matter had probably accommodate the presence of Oppen- been discussed even earlier over the Next most impressive was heimer, who was also to write a 500- lunches Schwinger and Weisskopf Bethe, who on two or three occa- word paper outlining subjects for dis- periodically shared, since this hydrogen sions bore out his reputation for cussion. The other two physicists asked level shift was one of Weisskopf’s cur- hard & thorough work, as in ana- to prepare papers for the conference rent research interests. In the fall of 1946 lyzing data on cosmic rays vari- were Victor Weisskopf and Hendrik he gave the problem of a hole‑theoretic ously obtained. Kramers—a long-time friend of Wheel- computation of the 2s–2p level shift On the first day of the conference, er—who at the time was visiting the in hydrogen to Bruce French, who Lamb presented the most recent data Institute for Advanced Study after hav- had been working on it since then. from his experiment with Retherford. ing chaired the UN scientific and tech- Weisskopf would very likely have told In the following discussion, Oppen- nological committee on nuclear energy Schwinger of this research, elicited his heimer pointed out that if one calcu- and taught at Columbia. reaction, and sought his advice on effec- lated the difference in the 2p and 2s Weisskopf’s paper outlined the tive computational approaches. energy levels using hole theory, a finite problems faced in elementary particle The conferees gathered in New answer might be obtained, given that physics in broad and general terms, York on Sunday June 1, 1947, at the AIP the divergences encountered in both and urged that the conference include a headquarters on East 55th Street. From were logarithmic (see Fig. 2). discussion of fundamental experiments there they were taken “on an old and Lamb was followed by Rabi, who to be done with the almost-completed shaky” bus to Greenport at the western presented the data that J. E. Nafe, E. “very powerful accelerators in the ener- end of Long Island. On the final phase B. Nelson and he had obtained on the gy region of 200–300 MeV.” Oppen- of the trip, they were accompanied by a hyperfine structure of H and D. That heimer’s outline was more narrowly police motorcycle escort, and their bus afternoon Rossi reported on the experi- focused and concentrated on cosmic-ray didn’t stop at any traffic . As they ment that had been carried out in Rome phenomena. passed each county line a new police by M. Conversi, E. Pancini and O. Pic- Kramers, for his part, chose to escort would meet them. In Greenport cioni on the absorption of mesons in the review the difficulties encountered in the conferees were wined and dined as atmosphere. The next morning Kramers QED since its inception in 1927 and guests of the Chamber of Commerce, presented his version of the Lorentz theory to indicate one way out of these prob- paid for by John C. White, its president. of an extended charge in which structural lems. He pointed to his own work of In an after-dinner speech, he said that effects had been encapsulated in the 1938–1940, and that of his students, he had been a Marine in the Pacific dur- experimental mass of the particle. He Serpe and Opechowski, which had been ing the war and that he—and many like concentrated on the classical version of carried out in 1940, presenting a theory him—would not be alive were it not for his non-relativistic theory, although in which all structure effects had been the atomic bomb. Bethe’s notes make clear that in the last eliminated and describing “how an Darrow chaired the conference, part of his talk he indicated what quan- electron with experimental mass behaves but Oppenheimer was the dominant tizing the theory would do (see Fig. 3). in its interaction with the electromag- personality and “in absolute charge.” netic field.”[2] MacInnes recorded in his diary that “it Continues on page 10 Volume XI, No. 4 • Spring 2011 • History of Physics Newsletter 9 Shelter Island Revisited

Continued from page 9

theory involve the sum of the electro- magnetic and mechanical masses, which in combination is the experimental mass of a free electron. In contrast to Kramers’ approach, Bethe’s was a model-indepen- dent formulation of mass renormalization that did not assume an extended charge distribution of the electron. And in con- trast to Schwinger and Weisskopf’s initial insight, that a hole-theoretic calculation of the difference between the energies of two levels would be finite, Bethe’s approach allowed computing the energy of each level and gave an unambiguous formulation of mass renormalization in the non-relativistic case. Moreover, he knew what was required to formulate an analogous relativistic prescription. Weisskopf and Schwinger, although emphasizing Kramers’ insight, could not do so at Shelter Island. Fig. 2. Bethe’s handwritten notes of Oppenheimer’s talk. (Courtesy of Rose Bethe) In his 1983 talk commemorating Shel- ter Island I, Lamb made the remarks [4]: Kramers’ talk was clearly influen- circulated to conference participants.[3] tial. His use of the Hertz potential and Bethe did not acknowledge Kramers’ Kramers was there that year. his derivation of the potential that the talk in his paper even though this pre- When I heard Kramers talk at dressed electron with experimental mass sentation had been crucial in stressing Shelter Island I it seemed to experiences became Schwinger’s point the importance of expressing observables me that he mainly said that we of departure in his quantum electrody- in terms of the experimental mass of the should be applying the methods namic calculation of the and electron. used by Lorentz for the classical of the magnetic moment of the electron. This omission probably happened [electron]. I could not see that he In the afternoon of the second day, because Bethe thought that he had a indicated how such a program Weisskopf reviewed the divergence dif- much simpler way than Kramers to could be carried out, and hence ficulties in the hole-theory calculations incorporate this insight. Bethe had noted did not derive great inspiration of the self-energy of an electron. In a that the quantum electrodynamically from his talk…* Unlike Weisskopf, paper that he had written in 1939, he calculated self-energy of a free non-rel- who was working on these prob- had indicated that in hole theory the ativistic electron could be ascribed to an lems actively before this wonder- divergence would be logarithmic to all electromagnetic mass of the electron and ful time, Kroll and I were only orders of perturbation theory. According —though divergent—had to be added inspired when we found out to Breit’s notes of the conference, Weiss- to the mechanical mass of the electron. how Bethe had subtracted the self kopf agreed with Oppenheimer’s hunch The only meaningful statements of the energy of a free electron. that a hole-theoretic calculation of the difference in the 2p and 2s energy levels would not diverge. During the ensuing discussion, Weisskopf and Schwinger indicated how a hole-theoretic calcula- tion of the level shift might be attempted and suggested further reasons why a finite result might result from applica- tions of Kramers’ ideas. After the conference was over, Bethe performed his famous non‑relativistic calculation on the train ride from New York to Schenectady. The paper in which he proved that the level shift would be accounted for quantum electrody- namically was completed by June 9 and Fig. 3. Bethe’s notes of Kramers’ Shelter Island talk. (Courtesy of Rose Bethe) 10 Volume XI, No. 4 • Spring 2011 • History of Physics Newsletter Shelter Island Revisited

Continued from previous page

In his 1947 paper Bethe did in his Habilitationschrift in 1929! acknowledge the comments by Schwinger at the time made Weisskopf and Schwinger that another crucial—and perhaps a hole-theoretic calculation of more important—calculation, of differences would the quantum electrodynamic con- be finite and in a footnote tribution to the magnetic moment stated: “It was first suggested of the Dirac electron. His calculation by Schwinger and Weisskopf was crucial because it was it was that hole theory must be used the first field-theoretic calculation of to obtain convergence in this quantum electrodynamic radiative problem.” Their insight justi- corrections. Up to this point, all fied the high-energy cut-off he such calculations had been based introduced in his calculation. on hole theory. Schwinger’s cal- Dresden, in his 1988 biog- culation asserted that a quantum raphy of Kramers, suggested field-theoretic description of both that he did not receive ade- and radiation is the gen- quate credit for his Shelter erative and effective way to describe Island contributions. Bethe’s atomic and subatomic processes. notes indicate that Dresden The Shelter Island Conference was correct. To Bethe, the prag- Fig. 4. Excerpt from Bethe, “The Electromagnetic Shift of marked a major transition in the matist for whom numbers were Energy Levels” [5]. history of theoretical physics. It always the criterion of good placed experiments on the spec- physics, and who had just been I am all the more pleased about trum of hydrogen that indicated so deeply and successfully involved in the result since I tried myself deviations from the predictions of the the war effort calculating numbers that unsuccessfully to estimate the at the center of theoreti- translated into physical effects and mea- order of magnitude of our expres- cal interest. By obtaining reliable and surable empirical data, the challenge sion. I was unable to do this but precise values for these discrepancies, was to get the numbers out and account I got more and more convinced Lamb and Rabi posed a challenge to for the magnitude of the 2s–2p shift in that the method was sound…I the theoretical physics community. hydrogen and for the new values of the would like to talk it over with Renormalization theory, the principal hyperfine splitting in H and D that Nafe, you especially the `korrespondenz outgrowth of the discussions at Shelter Nelson and Rabi had just measured. Deutung’ of the effect.[6] Island, allowed the difficulties that had Accounting for empirical data would be plagued explaining the data. Kramers’ approach Bethe’s calculation was a “crucial to be circumvented. The subsequent was too model-dependent, too theoreti- calculation”—a notion I owe to my computational techniques devised cal, and too far removed from calculat- Brandeis colleague and friend Howard by Schwinger, Feynman and Dyson ing numbers. For Bethe, the value of a Schnitzer. By introducing in a simple allowed the calculation of the electro- novel idea was gauged by whether it manner the concept of mass renor- magnetic properties of simple atomic could help you calculate numbers that malization and its associated meaning systems to previously unheard-of accu- could be compared with empirical data. and consequences, Bethe’s calculation racy. These developments dispelled The importance of Bethe’s calcula- offered a new perspective on how to whatever doubts remained about the tion is apparent from Weisskopf’s reac- address quantum electrodynamical adequacy of QED and renewed hope tion to it. He received Bethe’s manu- calculations and to obtain numbers that field-theoretic explanations of the script on June 11 and after studying it that could be compared with experi- nuclear forces would eventually be wrote Bethe that he was… mental data. It was crucial because he found. ■ could convincingly justify the cut-offs …quite enthusiastic about the he had to introduce in his non-relativ- result. It is a very nice way to Footnotes and References istic calculation and obtain a logarith- estimate the effect and it is most [1] Wheeler, a brilliant young theoretical physicist, mic expression that agreed with the encouraging that it comes out had been educated at Johns Hopkins University. observed level shift (see Fig. 4). As a National Research Council Fellow, he worked just right. I am very pleased to Only Bethe could have evaluated in 1933–34 with Gregory Breit at NYU on prob- see that Schwinger’s and my the logarithmic contribution as quickly lems in quantum electrodynamics and spent the approach seems to be the right 1934–35 academic year at Niels Bohr’s Institute in as he did. He had encountered similar one after all. Your way of cal- . He made important contributions to logarithmic expressions when calculating culating is just an unrelativistic nuclear physics, especially in a paper on the scat- quantum mechanically the energy loss of tering matrix and his researches with Bohr on the estimate of our effect, as far as I fast charged particles traversing matter can see. Continues on page 14 Volume XI, No. 4 • Spring 2011 • History of Physics Newsletter 11 New Books of Note The 4% Universe Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality By Richard Panek, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2011, illustrated, 297 pp., $26.00 The Dark Matter Problem A Historical Perspective By Robert H. Sanders, Cambridge University Press, 2010, illustrated, 206 pp., $60.00

Reviewed by Robert P. Crease

ertain scientific discoveries develop in a way similar to cit- ies. Scattered research programs —settlements,C in this loose analogy— spring up without much interaction at first. They begin to discover linkages with related programs, and interactions as well with clusters of others nearby. These interactions grow more extensive and diverse. Eventually a large research enterprise results, in which the work of any one part is related, directly or indirectly, with those of others. Then, in a visionary and crystallizing moment, a coherent structure emerges unexpect- edly from the whole, rejuvenating it in a way that explains many puzzles, reor- ganizes and unites apparently unrelated research, and points the way to further basic information about such things as Today. These publications discuss the efforts. sanitation, police, and navigating City ins and outs of models, methods, and The twin discoveries of dark mat- Hall. You can write for tourists, who measurements—on the information, ter and dark energy—sure to rank as have no interest in these functional instruments, and techniques that future among the most revolutionary devel- questions, but want to see the famous practitioners will need to know. opments ever in the history of astro- buildings, noteworthy museums, and Two other books—The 4% Universe, physics, are classic examples. They urban movers and shakers. Finally, by Richard Panek, and The Dark Mat- became firmly established in the past you can write for historians, who are ter Problem, by Robert H. Sanders—are decade thanks to a complex synthesis primarily interested in what light this aimed less at practitioners and more of evidence amassed by interdisciplin- city’s story sheds on those of other cities at outsiders interested in what’s been ary teams of researchers studying such and on municipal life more generally. happening in these research areas. diverse phenomena as supernovae, gal- A spate of new books about dark They differ dramatically in style and axy rotations and spatial distributions, matter and dark energy—by the time substance, and what they capture (or light-element abundances, variations this review appears there will no doubt fail to capture) helps reveal the special in the cosmic microwave background be more—indeed reveals this range of achievement a truly historical perspec- radiation, gravitational lensing, and approaches. Several scientific review tive might be. models of cosmological behavior. articles have already been published on Panek’s is a fabulous popular sci- Equally engrossing as the discover- dark energy and dark matter; these are ence book written in the form of an ies themselves is the problem of how to like handbooks for active practitioners. evolving drama whose driver is the write about such wide-ranging, interdis- Two textbooks have recently been pub- actions of a small number of individu- ciplinary events. It is indeed much like lished: Dark Energy: Theory and Obser- als. He characterizes their personali- writing about a city: how you go about vations, by Luca Amendola and Shinji ties carefully and finely. One protago- it depends on your audience and goals. Tsujikawa (Cambridge University Press, nist is Princeton theorist , You can write for city dwellers who 2010); and Dark Energy, by Yun Wang who is restless and even a daredevil, want to improve some municipal fea- (Wiley-VCH, 2010); they were reviewed both physically and intellectually. “He ture, or for new inhabitants who need together in the June 2011 issue of Physics loved identifying the next big problem,

12 Volume XI, No. 4 • Spring 2011 • History of Physics Newsletter New Books of Note Continued from previous page solving it, seeing where it led, identify- getting a messy story into popular form. nor participants; its aim would be to ing that big problem, solving it, seeing explore what this particular story of where it led: a bend-in-the-knees, wind- Sanders’ book is quite different. The science says about other stories of sci- in-the-face rush into the future” (p. 23). subtitle contains the word “historical,” ence and about science itself. It would Another protagonist is Carnegie Institu- the introduction refers to the book as take more of a mid-range perspective, tion astronomer Vera Rubin, through “narrative and personal,” but perhaps examining the interaction between whose eyes we learn what it’s like to the best term he uses is “overview,” as scientists and the expanding research have alcoholic mentors and cope with the book is described in the front mat- frontier. Historical research might colleagues who think that having a ter. While written from the perspective explore, for instance, how the principal child disables one professionally. Panek of a participant in this research, this discoveries happened, what constitutes builds his narrative around the feverish book outlines the emerging threads that an announcement and a priority claim, competition between the two teams coalesced into the idea of dark matter. If and the course of competition and coop- hunting distant “Type 1a” supernovae, Panek’s narrative camera rests on the eration among the groups involved. It the Supernova Cosmology Project (SCP) shoulders of a few well-chosen protago- would examine how scientists inherit centered at Berkeley, and the High-Z nists, Sanders’ is pulled back to such a certain assumptions and behavior pat- team centered at Harvard. Covering distance that human beings are all but terns, apply them to problems, and in so such intense scientific competition is a invisible. The first time Peebles appears, doing transform their discipline. sure-fire way to grip your readers and for instance, it is as Jeremiah Ostriker’s At the end of 2009, for example, the hold their interest. The twists and turns collaborator in determining how a rigid Cryogenic Dark Matter Search collabo- of the story, indeed, provide material spheroidal halo insures the stability of ration circulated a paper announcing that is the envy of any novelist. galactic discs. The first time Rubin is the first direct evidence for dark matter. Panek keeps the number of players mentioned is as a collaborator in the On the day the paper was submitted, small and selects the most interesting study of spectroscopic observations the collaboration held two seminars, ones. He also ruthlessly pares away all of rotation curves of spiral galaxies after signaling the press in a way that information from this extraordinarily using emission lines of hydrogen and generated much publicity and excite- complex and messy tale except for nitrogen molecules. Whenever Rubin ment. But the evidence turned out to be what readers must know to appreciate is mentioned thereafter, it is usually in substantially weaker than adumbrated the denouement: the dark energy dis- the form of “Rubin and collaborators” —in fact, it was hardly evidence at all. covery itself. He says little, for instance, or “Rubin et al.” You never learn that Panek took the initial announcement at about the 1984 discovery of cold dark she’s also a mother, or even a woman. face value, and used it to build excite- matter, about the 1990s studies of the Sanders does, however, provide a ment for his story, but made nothing of spatial distribution of galaxies, and comprehensive map of the background the subsequent disappointment. Sand- indeed about the activities of research pieces to the discovery of dark matter ers did not mention these events at all; programs not directly involved in this and how they emerged, the sort of thing they were irrelevant to his account. discovery. On the last page he quotes almost entirely missing from Panek’s It is understandable why Panek and SCP leader as follows: book. Six full chapters describe how Sanders made little or nothing of this I have the impression that most the reigning theory of cold dark matter episode. Yet it is loaded with meanings people don’t realize that what got arose, another few detail its difficulties, for the history of astrophysics and cos- physicists into physics usually is and one chapter is devoted to an alter- mology, revealing much about the value not the desire to understand what native: modified Newtonian dynamics. of sufficient statistics, announcements we already know but the desire An appendix takes interested readers and discovery claims, publicity, and to catch the universe in the act of through the details of such issues as the effect of competition. A full-scale doing really bizarre things. We establishing distance in astronomy, history of dark matter and dark energy, weighing galaxies and clusters, and the yet to be written, would explore such love the fact that our ordinary ■ intuitions about the world can growth of cosmological structures. meanings in far more detail. be fooled, and that the world can Thus Panek’s book covers its subject just act strangely, and you can just from the close-in perspectives of a few Robert P. Crease is Chair of the go out and make it good over and individual observers, while Sanders Philosophy Department at Stony Brook over again (p. 243). describes events from a perspective so University. He is author of World in distant that, while the full extent of the the Balance: The Historic Quest For an Panek cannot fully relate just how enterprise becomes visible, the indi- Absolute System of Measurement (Norton, bizarre physicists find dark energy, but vidual participants are all but invisible. 2011), and The Great Equations: Break- his carefully told tale succeeds in con- Neither book provides what purists throughs in Science from Pythagoras to veying something of their astonishment. would deem a true history of its subject. Heisenberg (Norton, 2008) His omissions are however the collat- The audience for such a thorough eral damage necessary for his success in historical account is neither tourists

Volume XI, No. 4 • Spring 2011 • History of Physics Newsletter 13 Shelter Island Revisited

Continued from page 11

fission processes. In 1938, at the age of 26, he joined [3] Bethe’s accompanying letter to Oppenheimer 2S1/2–P1/2 split has something to do with radia- the Princeton Physics Department as an assistant was brief and to the point: tion theory and hole theory was proposed by professor. Schwinger and myself for quite some time. We Enclosed I am sending you a preliminary draft did not do too much about it until shortly before [2] After receiving Oppenheimer’s, Weisskopf’s, of a paper on the line shift. You see it does work the conference. We then proposed to split an and Kramers’ papers, Bethe wrote Weisskopf in out. Also, the second term already gives a finite infinite mass term from other terms and get mid-May: result and is not zero as we thought during the a finite term shift, just as I demonstrated it at conference. In fact, its logarithmic divergence I read your outline and got the impression that the conference. Isn’t that exactly what you are makes the order of magnitude correct. It also we should be careful not to try and do too much. doing? Your great and everlasting deed is your seems that Vicki and Schwinger are correct that I should like especially to hear from Kramers in bright idea to treat this at first unrelativistically. the hole theory is probably [handwritten inser- great detail about his new theory. Generally, I “Es mochte doch schon sein” if this were indicated tion] important in order to obtain convergence. think we should try to hear from people who in some footnote or otherwise. Finally, I think it shows that Kramers cannot get have actually got some results and avoid as the right result by his method. Bethe had put such a footnote into his paper and much as possible discussions in the vacuum. For answered Weisskopf a few days after receiving his this reason I am not much in favor of extending [4] Shelter Island II: Proceedings of the 1983 Shelter letter. Weisskopf soon acknowledged that Bethe’s discussions of experiments to be done in future Island Conference on Quantum Field Theory and the “abstract” was “harmloser” (much more harmless) accelerating equipment. If our discussion of Fundamental Problems of Physics. Edited by Roman than he initially thought and agreed, “Let’s forget concrete theoretical problems to desirable Jackiw, Nicola Khuri, , and Edward about patent claims.” experiments, this is very good; but I believe we Witten (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985). At *, the should not continue the war spirit of planned editors note, Bethe interjected, “He did inspire me!” Supplementary Reading research too much. [5] Bethe, H.A., “The Electromagnetic Shift of Silvan S. Schweber, QED and the Men Who Made It: Would it be possible to set one day aside for Energy Levels,” Physical Review 72 (1947) 339–41, Dyson, Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga (Princeton Kramers and have a really good discussion on footnote 6. University Press, 1994). Chapter 4 discusses in that, then perhaps have half a day or one day for some detail the Shelter Island, Pocono, and Old- meson production starting with Oppy’s theory, [6] Weisskopf added: stone conferences. and then have another day devoted to the Pic- I do not quite agree with your treatment of the cioni experiment and its interpretation? history of the problem in your note. That the Freeman J. Dyson, Disturbing the Universe (Harper & Row, 1979)

Forum on History of Physics | American Physical Society, One Physics Ellipse, College Park, MD 20740

OFFICERS & COMMITTEES 2011–2012

Forum Officers Chair: Martin Blume Program Committee Editorial Board/Publications Committee Chair-Elect: Peter Pesic Chair: Peter Pesic Chair: Michael Riordan Vice Chair: Don A. Howard Vice Chair: Don A. Howard Editor: Dwight E. Neuenschwander Past Chair: William Blanpied, Paul Cadden- Associate Editor: Don Lemons Secretary-Treasurer: Thomas M. Miller Zimansky, Guy Emery, Charles Holbrow, Book Review Editor: Michael Riordan Don Howard, Daniel Kennefick, Daniel Ben Bederson, William E. Evenson Forum Councilor Kleppner (ex officio), Martin Blume (ex Michael Riordan officio) Pais Prize Selection Committee Chair: Elizabeth Garber Other Executive Committee Members Nominating Committee Vice Chair: Michael Riordan Paul Cadden-Zimansky, Cathryn L. Chair: Daniel Kleppner Robert Arns, Gregory Good, Carson, Robert P. Crease, Elizabeth Cathryn L. Carson, Allan Franklin, Silvan Schweber Garber, Clayton A. Gearhart, Catherine Clayton A. Gearhart, Daniel M. Siegel Westfall, Gregory Good (non-voting), Forum Webmaster Dwight E. Neuenschwander (non- Fellowship Committee George O. Zimmerman voting) Chair: Don A. Howard Robert Arns, Cathryn L. Carson, Elizabeth Garber, Catherine Westfall