Also by Lillian Hoddeson: Crystal Fire: The Invention of the Transistor and the Birth of the Information Age (with Michael Riordan) Lillian Hoddeson Vicki Daitch Joseph Henry Press Washington, D.C. Joseph Henry Press • 500 Fifth Street, N.W. • Washington, D.C. 20001 The Joseph Henry Press, an imprint of the National Academies Press, was created with the goal of making books on science, technology, and health more widely available to professionals and the public. Joseph Henry was one of the founders of the National Academy of Sciences and a leader in early American science. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this volume are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences or its affiliated institutions. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hoddeson, Lillian. True genius : the life and science of John Bardeen / Lillian Hoddeson and Vicki Daitch. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-309-08408-3 (hardcover) 1. Bardeen, John. 2. Physicists—United States—Biography. 3. Superconductivity. I. Daitch, Vicki. II. Title. QC16.B27 H63 2002 530'.092—dc21 2002007967 Copyright 2002 by Lillian Hoddeson and Vicki Daitch. All rights re- served. Printed in the United States of America In memory of Jane Bardeen and Betsy Gretak Bardeen Contents Preface ix 1 The Question of Genius 1 2 Roots 8 3 To Be an Engineer 28 4 A Graduate Student’s Paradise 45 5 Many-Body Beginnings 66 6 Academic Life 83 7 Engineering for National Defense 99 8 The Transistor 115 9 The Break from Bell 142 10 Homecoming 165 vii viii CONTENTS 11 Cracking the Riddle of Superconductivity 190 12 Two Nobels Are Better Than One Hole in One 219 13 A Hand in Industry 241 14 Citizen of Science 254 15 Pins and Needles and Waves 284 16 Last Journey 301 17 Epilogue: True Genius and How to Cultivate It 314 Bibliography 331 Acknowledgments 359 Notes 363 Index 445 Preface he idea of writing a biography of John Bardeen emerged at the TUniversity of Illinois in the weeks after Bardeen’s sudden death in January 1991. Physicists there were seeking ways to pre- serve the legacy of their most famous and well-loved colleague. One of us, Lillian, an historian of physics, was encouraged to con- duct oral history interviews and write a biography of Bardeen. It was an honor that turned into a labor of love. Within a few months, Vicki joined Lillian in the effort. She was the first of about a dozen history graduate students who would help with the research. She however stayed with the project throughout its duration, even after completing her doctorate in 2000. As the chapters slowly came into existence and passed re- peatedly between us, the individual marks of authorship faded and the work became a true collaboration. Our coauthorship developed in ways we could not have anticipated in 1991. The original plan called for a scholarly biography focused on scientific contributions. Given the intricacy of Bardeen’s physics, we often questioned whether we were the right historians for this formidable task. Seven years into the writing we received a surpris- ing confirmation. Vicki came upon a letter in the Bardeen papers from a Mr. Jefferson Bushman. Writing in May 1989, Bushman asked Bardeen to cooperate with him in writing Bardeen’s biogra- phy. Bardeen declined, politely: “While there are no present plans ix x PREFACE for writing a biography, I expect that when I have time to do some work on it, it will be done by Lillian Hoddeson.” We burst into laughter. Characteristically, Bardeen told no one of his plan. We were gratified but also saddened by the loss of a great op- portunity. Our work would have benefitted immensely had we had more of Bardeen’s own reflections on his life and science. He would probably have guided us through his massive body of contributions to physics. In the end we could treat only a small part of his phys- ics, leaving the rest for future historians to address. We are pain- fully aware that this book merely scratches the surface of its subject. We would like to have known what role Bardeen wanted his biography to play. We are quite sure he would have wished it would contribute to the history of physics, an area in which he had a strong interest in his later years. We believe that he would have enjoyed reaching a popular audience, including nonscientists, for he cared about society and education, especially education of the young. He is likely to have winced, at least initially, at this biography’s secondary goal, to shed light on the meaning of true scientific ge- nius. This particular objective emerged late in our work. In draft- ing the introduction, we found ourselves grappling with a question raised some years earlier in the popular press by the writer Iris Chang: Why is the first person ever to win two Nobel prizes in the same field a “John Who?” to the general public? We concluded that he is unknown largely because he did not fit the popular image of a great scientist. We present our views on this issue in the first and last chapters. Our efforts to understand the myth of genius and to character- ize Bardeen’s very different profile opened a Pandora’s box of litera- ture on genius and creativity dating back hundreds of years. It was unnerving to survey the as yet unwritten history of genius and dis- cover the roots of the popular myth of genius, perhaps most effec- tively expressed by the nineteenth-century Romantic writer Mary Shelley in her classic novel Frankenstein. The charismatic Dr. Frankenstein, the unbalanced scientist whose talents are innate and who works in isolation on otherworldly problems, is the prototype of a figure who remains vital even today, and against whom Bardeen appears rather bland. It was no surprise to learn that Chang’s ear- lier suggestion of writing a biography of Bardeen had encountered Preface xi the reaction that he was too ordinary to interest a wide body of readers. We disagree. Bardeen’s life offers insights for everyone. We also believe it is important to inform the widest possible audience about the distinction between true genius and its popular myth. Confusing the two notions can damage the motivation of young people whose creativity holds the promise of great future achievement. Those young people, and all those who mentor and support them, need to understand what really fuels creative work. Bardeen’s story can help make this clear. Because Bardeen related easily and genuinely to children on their own terms, we suspect that he would have come to endorse our secondary goal. Lillian Hoddeson Urbana, Illinois Vicki Daitch Canterbury, New Hampshire 1 The Question of Genius ohn Bardeen walked slowly down the corridor of the physics building, his arms swinging oddly, as though he were paddling J the air. He appeared lost in thought. It was the first of Novem- ber 1956. He had been a professor of physics at the University of Illinois for five years now. Everything about him projected modesty. He was of moderate height and solid build. His dark hair was thinning slightly. He wore thick glasses with plain, beige-colored rims. His bland, kind features matched his inexpensive blue suit, plain white shirt, and conservative tie, which he wore neatly tucked into his belt. He was still struggling to absorb the morning’s news: that he and two colleagues, William Shockley and Walter Brattain, had won the Nobel Prize for Physics. When he heard the announcement he dropped the frying pan with which he was cooking eggs for break- fast, scattering its contents across the kitchen floor. The prize was for the invention of the transistor, the tiny semi- conductor device that would lead the way to what is now called the Information Age. The invention, in December of 1947, was the result of teamwork at Bell Telephone Laboratories, the research and development arm of the American Telephone and Telegraph Corporation. The company had wanted to replace vacuum tube amplifiers and relays in telephone circuits with a cheaper and more reliable technology. 1 2 TRUE GENIUS Bardeen was deeply pleased by the recognition, but he harbored reservations about it. Close friends and colleagues gradually learned about them over the years. One reservation concerned Shockley, the leader of the semi- conductor group who had been absent from the invention itself. In late 1945, not long after Bardeen arrived at Bell Laboratories, Shockley had asked Bardeen to investigate why a particular design for a silicon amplifier did not work. Shockley had sketched the design some months earlier in his laboratory notebook. He had applied the best-available quantum mechanical theories; according to them his device should have amplified signals, but it didn’t. The explanation that Bardeen developed—that electrons on the surface can be trapped in surface states—led the team into a productive two-year period of intensive research into surface states that cul- minated in Bardeen and Brattain’s invention, subsequently named the transistor. After the invention, Shockley had pushed Bardeen and Brattain rudely aside, so that he could design the second-generation transis- tor without them. Shockley had also revised the story of the inven- tion to highlight his own contributions and downplay those of Bardeen and Brattain. It upset Bardeen that Bell Labs had, at least initially, supported Shockley. And it was Shockley, rather than Bardeen and Brattain, who received wide recognition for the dis- covery. Even today, popular magazines sometimes credit Shockley alone with the invention.