Ber. Wissenschaftsgesch.42(2019): 375–399www.bwg.wiley-vch.de DOI: 10.1002/bewi.201900009 Convergence in Cold WarPhysics:Coinventing theMaser in thePostwar Soviet Union* ClimØrioPaulo da Silva Neto andAlexei Kojevnikov Summary: At theheightofthe Cold War, in the1950s,the processofparal- lel inventionofmasersand laserstookplaceonthe opposing sidesofthe Iron Curtain.While theAmerican part of thestory hasbeeninvestigatedby historians in much penetratingdetail, comparable Soviet developments weredescribed more superficially.Thisstudy aimsat, to some extent, re- pairingthisdiscrepancy by analyzingthe Soviet path towardsthe maser from acomparative angle. It identifies,onthe onehand, significantdiffer- encesbetween thetwo projectsregardingtheir heuristics, therelationship between theory andexperiment, groundingindifferentacademic cultures, andthe resultingconceptualizationofthe maserprinciple. At thesame time,the casealsoillustrates more fundamentaltransformationsinthe practicesofpostwar research that can be characterizedasaconvergence between theSoviet andthe American scienceofthe period. Keywords: maser, quantumelectronics, Cold Warphysics,Soviet science, militarizationofphysics, comparativestudies,AlexanderProkhorov,Nikolai Basov, CharlesTownes By themid-1950s, afterseveral yearsofrestrictionsoncontactswithWestern sci- entists, Sovietphysicistsgradually resumedtheir participationininternational conferences andbegan to restorecommunicationswithforeign colleagues.1 Alexander MikhailovichProkhorov (1916–2002)travelled to hisfirst conference outsidethe communistpartofthe world in thespringof1955,tothe meetingof 1 Ivanov 2002. C. P. da SilvaNeto, Assistant Professor, MultidisciplinaryCenterofBarra,Federal Universityof WesternBahia,Av. 23 de Agosto,S/N,Barra, BA,Brazil, 47100-000, E-Mail:[email protected] A. Kojevnikov,Associate Professor, Department of History, University of BritishColumbia, 1873 East Mall,Vancouver,BC, Canada,V6T 1Z1, E-Mail:[email protected] *Earlier versions of this paperwerepresented at theSecondBiennial Early-CareerConferencefor Historians of thePhysicalSciences,the American InstituteofPhysics,College Park,MD, andat theSymposium “QuantumCultures: Historical Perspectives on thePractices of QuantumPhysi- cists” at the25thInternational Congress of History of Scienceand Te chnology.The authorsare thankful to AlexandreBagdonas, Joan Bromberg,OlivalFreireJr. ,JosephMartin, IndianaraSilva, andtwo anonymousreviewers fordiscussions andcommentsonthe manuscript,and to Iuri Popov, KirilA.Prokhorov,and AlexanderK.Prokhorov forsharing theirstories andinformation.One of theauthors,Silva Neto,would like to thankhis doctoral supervisor, Olival Freire Jr., formuchhelp- fuladvice, andhis continuedsupportand encouragement. 2019 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH &Co. KGaA, Weinheim 375 ClimØrioPaulo da SilvaNetoand Alexei Kojevnikov theFaraday SocietyinEngland wherehegaveapresentationonthe “Theoryof theMolecularGenerator.” Prokhorov’sproposalofafundamentallynew kind of electronic device came as abig surprise to anotherparticipant at theconference, theAmericanphysicist CharlesH.Townes (1915–2015),who hadbeeninde- pendently workingonthe same kind of generatorsince 1951. Townes andcollab- oratorscalledtheir apparatusthe MASER(abbreviatedfromMicrowaveAmplifi- cation by Stimulated Emission of Radiation). Townes laterdescribed theepisode as a“revealing,” “eye-opener” encounter, forhehad notknown aboutthe rival Sovietproject.Theoretically, Townes hadmuchtolearn from Prokhorov’sap- proach,but on theexperimentalside, theAmericanteamwas definitely ahead. “After thepresentation,”Townesrecalled, “I gotupand said,Well, that is very in- teresting, andwehaveone of these[generators already]working.”2 Thefactthatessentially thesamedevicewas beinginventedinparallelonboth sidesofthe Iron Curtainatthe height of theCold War, despitehighbarriersfor personal communications andscientificexchanges,could surprise notonlypartic- ipants at the1955conference, butalsomanylater Scienceand Technology Stud- iesscholars whoimbibed Harry Collins’famousmantrathat“no scientistsuc- ceeded in building alaser by usingonlyinformation foundinpublished or other writtensources.”3 TheTownes-Prokhorovepisode,however,was notcompletely exceptionalorunprecedented,but quitesymptomatic of ageneral trend. Physics in theUnitedStatesand in theSovietUnion oftenevolved alongsimilar lines during that period,afact acknowledged by theNobel Committee’sdecisionto award its1964 prizeinphysics jointly to Townes,Prokhorov,and Nikolai Genna- dievichBasov (1922–2001) “for fundamentalworkinthe field of quantumelec- tronics, whichhas ledtothe construction of oscillatorsand amplifiers basedon themaser-laser principle.”Inthispaper,wewillanalyze theSovietphysicists’ path towardsthe co-invention of themaser andargue that,despite politicaldivisions andculturaldifferences,inthisearly period of theColdWar,the practiceofphys- icsinthe Soviet Unionand inNorth Americaunderwent importantrestructuring that made them more similarratherthandistinct. Thelogic of theCold Warconflictand Cold Warhistoriographyhas typically directed scholars to focusprimarily on differences in ordertoemphasize opposi- tionsand contrastsbetween thetwo greatpowersand ideologies. Much less atten- tion hasbeenpaidtothe othersideofthe story: that intensecompetition also en- couraged mutual observation andmanyimportant if unadvertisedimitations, adaptations, andborrowingsoneitherside. Thosewho wroteabout this trend, from JanTinbergentoJohnKenneth Galbraith, to Andrei Sakharov,usually char- acterizedthe resultingstructuralsimilaritiesas“convergence” betweenthe twosys- tems of modern industrial society. 4 Forthe purposes of this study, it is important to emphasizethatthe convergencetheorywas,first of all, adescription of the then existing trends whichbecameparticularlypowerfulduringthe 1960s,and 2 Townes 1999, on 76 –78. 3 Collins1992, on 55. 4 Tinbergen1961. Alreadythe firstbroad sociological studiesonSovietsociety promoted by Ameri- canmilitaryagenciesconcluded that “the Soviet Unionwas astableindustrialsociety,inimportant ways notsodifferentfromthe United States.” See: Engerman 2010, on 399. 376 Ber. Wissenschaftsgesch. 42 (2019):375 –399 Convergence in ColdWar Physics only secondarilyattempted to extrapolate theongoing momentum into long- term predictionsfor thefuture. Thoseconvergingtrendsembraced, besideseco- nomics,manyother aspectsofsocialand politicallife. Forexample,Sovietvalues andinfluencesaffectedsuchimportant developments in theWestasplanningand theregulationofcapitalistmarkets,support forwomen’s equality andlegalization of abortion, acceptance of decolonization andracialequality, multiculturalism andaffirmative action,and greatlyexpandedaccesstohighereducation anduni- versal healthcare. ColdWar sciencewas notexempt; on thecontrary, theprocess of convergence wasmucheasierfor it,because both theAmericanand Sovietsystems,despite theirideologicaloppositions on otherfronts, shared asimilar embraceofscientis- ticand technocratic values.Bothofthemduringthatperiodgranted scienceand technologyunprecedented prestige andgovernmentsupport,especially duetothe 1957launchofSputnik andthe resultingspace race.5 As we will see, converging trends in Soviet andAmericanscience at theheightofthe Cold Warincludednot only intellectualand technological developments,but alsoinstitutional andstruc- turalsimilarities. Thegrowthofinstitutional infrastructure forresearchand developmentrepre- sented onesuchcommontrend beneath theguise of ideologically opposite labels. ThecharacteristicallySovietmodel of sciencebecameestablished in themid- 1930s. Sergei Vavilov, thePresident of theUSSRAcademy of Sciences from 1945 to 1951,described itskey features, including generous governmentfunding,em- phasis on practically useful research,and astructuralorganizationinwhich privi- legedresearchinstituteswithlarge,multidisciplinary teamsofscientists,engineers andtechnicians worked together on thepursuit of goal-oriented research,com- bining basic sciencewithtechnologicalinventions.6 Initially,the Sovietresearch modelcameabout throughacompromise between theBolshevik government andnon-party scientists on thebasis of asharedunderstanding that scienceand technologywerethe key tools necessarytotransform theSovietUnion into amodernstate.7 In theUnitedStates, federalfunding forresearchand develop- ment also graduallybecameanacceptablepracticeduringthe NewDeal. World WarIIand theCold Warfurther transformedAmericanscience in thedirection of what,fromVavilov’sperspective,resembled thesocialist modelofscience,but what in theUnitedStatesbecameknown underamore neutralterm, “big sci- ence.” NotunlikeSovietscientists, many American researchersalsobecameaccus- tomedtostate-sponsored andgoal-oriented projects, thesymbiosis between sci- ence andengineering, collectiveand multidisciplinarywork, andcomplex hierar- chiesinside huge federal, military-funded laboratories, with excessivebureaucratic controls andsecrecy.8 Theatomicbomband theCold Warbrought aboutthe deep militarization of scienceinbothcountries,which reachedits apogee after1950. American and Sovietphysicistswererecruited,orenlistedthemselves, intomassive effortsto 5 Kojevnikov 2008;Wolfe 2012. 6 Vavilov 1948. 7 Kojevnikov 2013. 8 Wolfe2012; Kevles 1990. Ber. Wissenschaftsgesch. 42 (2019):375 –399 377 ClimØrioPaulo da SilvaNetoand Alexei Kojevnikov strengthen themilitarycapabilitiesoftheir conflictingstates. Theconsequencesof this symbiosisbetween research andmilitaryestablishmentshas attractedmuch analysis anddebatewithinthe historyofscience