A man of Germany : acceptable uncertainties in a time of war by John Bernard Gallagher II A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Art's in History Montana State University © Copyright by John Bernard Gallagher II (2004) Abstract: During the week of September 15, 1941, Niels Bohr and Wemer Heisenberg met secretly in Copenhagen, Denmark. These Nobel physicists worked together in the 1920s to construct a new quantum physics. The Copenhagen Interpretation consisted of statistical quantum mechanics, the Uncertainty Principle, and Complimentarity, which revolutionized perceptions of atomic phenomena and challenged the scientific community with their conceptions of classical Newtonian causality. At the time of the meeting, Germany occupied Denmark and Heisenberg led the German effort to develop practical applications of nuclear fission. Bohr’s and Heisenberg’s meeting ended with anger and frustration leading to the separation, personally and professionally, of these two men. Owing to a lack of documentation and the varying opinions over the events of 1941, I propose to use the scientific principle of uncertainty, developed by Heisenberg in 1927, as a metaphor to broaden our understanding of the meeting between these men. Instead of using the two pairs of conjugate variables, as defined by the Uncertainty Principle, I will use four-square variables that allows for an alternate interpretation of the 1941 Bohr-Heisenberg meeting. The four-square variables involve aspects of Werner Heisenberg’s life. These are the development of his scientific work, the formation of the scientific community through collaboration, the social, cultural, and political context of Germany, and the personal and professional relationship between other physicists and between Bohr and Heisenberg themselves. My thesis seeks to determine what was said between these men that led to the disruption to their relationship. My conclusions limit the indeterminacy of the event and brings a level of acceptable uncertainties that illustrate above all that Heisenberg was a man of Germany A MAN OF GERMANY: ACCEPTABLE UNCERTAINTIES IN A TIME OF WAR by John Bernard Gallagher n A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Bozeman, Montana April 2004 ©Copyright by John Bernard Gallagher II 2004 All Rights Reserved Nnf S 13 53 APPROVAL of a thesis submitted by John Bernard Gallagher II This thesis has been read by each member of the thesis committee and has been found to be satisfactory regarding content, English usage, format, citations, bibliographic style, and consistency, and is ready for submission to the College of Graduate Studies. Dr. Michael Sean Reidy (Signature) (Date) Approved for the Department of HJst Dr. Robert W. Rydell '(Signature Approved for the College of Graduate Studies Dr. Bruce R. McLeod (Signature) (Date) iii STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE Ei presenting this thesis in partial Eilfillment of the requirements for a master’s degree at Montana State University, I agree that the Library shall make it available to borrowers under the rules of the Library. If I have indicated my intention to copyright this thesis by including a copyright notice page, copying is allowable only for scholarly purposes, consistent with “fair use” as prescribed in the U.S. Copyright Law. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this thesis in whole or in part may be granted only by the copyright holder. Signature Date V-/5-OW iv DEDICATION For my Wife, Carol Rae, There are strengths and weakness associated with my intense study of Wemer Heisenberg, the community of quantum scientists, and the troubled Weimar and Third Reich years. Due to my desire to acquire a degree in education, my “school years” have stretched further than either you or I first anticipated. I am sure that when I left Triad you were happy that we both would work in the teaching field together. You have supported, helped, and encouraged me throughout both graduate programs. Your patience with my extremely long sentences, numerous prepositions, too many books and journals spread all over our house, and a few, not many, cancelled or shortened trips have been monumental. I appreciate you as my friend and love you as my wife. Affectionately yours, John For my parents, My gratitude and debt to you reaches far beyond any words I can bring forth. Your love and support encouraged me to accomplishment anything I have desired. Throughout my journey you have constantly shown your love and direction for me. I am truly privileged to have such wonderful parents as you. That someday I am able to repay all that you have given to me, and that you, Rosemary and Jack Gallagher, may feel proud of the following work, is the affectionate wish of your youngest and only son, John ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Without the support, both emotionally and professionally, of my advisor, graduate Committee, colleagues at Bridger Alternative High School, friends, and family, this thesis would not have been possible. Monetary support in the form of research and travel grants from the History & Philosophy department at Montana State University and the Louis DS and Norma Smith Graduate Fellowship allowed me to visit the Archives for History of Quantum Physics at University of California - Berkeley. Special thanks to Cathryn Carson Director at the Office for History of Science and Technology (OHST) that houses the AQHP for her help and guidance during my stay. Everyone in the OHST treated me with respect and interest. My stay energized me for the coming year. The History departments Masters program enhanced my journey through Montana State University. Many people encouraged, helped, and guided me. However, I cannot fail to mention the incredible faculty and staff, especially Alec Dawson, Billy Smith, and Diane Cattrell. All of you greatly contributed and I am truly grateful. The staff and students of the Bridger Program at Bozeman High School have always made me feel welcomed and important. Their support has enabled me to pursue my academic objectives while at the same time provide quality instruction to the “at risk” student population. Thank you, Dave, Lisa, and Susan for editing effort! And finally, to my committee chairman, Michael Reidy, who worked with and beside me over the last two years. We have shared many experiences, some great and some sorrowful, but all have created a friendship. He has guided and helped me research, publish, and express myself as a scholar. Thank you Michael, I wish you all the best. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. COPENAHEGN, 1941........................................................................................... 1 Introduction............................................................................................................. I Historiographical Analysis................................................................................... 4 The Uncertainty Principle as a Historic Tool....................................................... 13 Chapter Outline..................................................................................................... 15 2. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF QUATUM THEORY............................ 18 Introduction........................................................................................................... 18 Saving the Phenomena..........................................................................................20 Discovering Lights Quanta................................................................................ 23 Perplexing Atomic Spectra................................................................................ 26 Change in Focus and Method............................................................................... 28 Gdttingen-Copenhagen Connection.................................................................... .32 Constructing a New Theory.................................................................................. 35 The Matrix Calculus.......................................................................................... 35 The Mystifying Properties of Matrices......................... 36 The Birth of Quantum Mechanics.............................. 39 A Rival Theory: Wave Mechanics..................................................................... 40 Inconsistencies and Contradictions in the New Quantum Theory........................ 42 The Copenhagen Interpretation............................................................................. 45 The Final Critique................................................................................................. 51 Conclusion............................................................................................................ 52 3. HEISENBERG AND THE TURMOIL OF THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC........... 54 Introduction........................................................................................................... 54 Societal and Political Disintegration.................................................................. 56 Weimar Society..................................................................................................... 58 Effects of WWI and the Weimar Republic........................................................ 58 The Weimar Cultural Explosion and German Idealism..................................... 60 Heisenberg’s Involvement in the German Youth Movement............................ 62 Science, as Apolitical,