Otto Hahn: Responsibility and Repression

The role that Otto Hahn (1879–1968) played in the discovery of nuclear fission and whether Lise Meitner (1878–1968) should have shared the Nobel Prize for that discovery have been subjects of earlier studies, but there is more to the story. I examine what Hahn and the scientists in his Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Chemistry in Berlin-Dahlem did during the Third Reich, in particular, the significant contributions they made to the German uranium project during the Second World War. I then use this as a basis for judging Hahn’s postwar apologia as the last president of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society and first president of its successor, the Max Planck Society.     

The Politics of Forgetting: Otto Hahn and the German Nuclear-Fission Project in World War II

As the co-discoverer of nuclear fission and director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Chemistry, Otto Hahn (1879–1968) took part in Germany‘s nuclear-fission project throughout the Second World War. I outline Hahn’s efforts to mobilize his institute for military-related research; his inclusion in high-level scientific structures of the military and the state; and his institute’s research programs in neutron physics, isotope separation, transuranium elements, and fission products, all of potential military importance for a bomb or a reactor and almost all of it secret. These activities are contrasted with Hahn’s deliberate misrepresentations after the war, when he claimed that his wartime work had been nothing but “purely scientific” fundamental research that was openly published and of no military relevance.     

The Physical Tourist¶Physics in Berlin: Walking tours in Charlottenburg and Dahlem and Excursions in the Vicinity of Berlin

A guided tour of significant sides pertaining to the history of physics is conducted around the area of the Technische Universit?t and the Physikalisch-Technische Reichsanstalt in Berlin-Charlottenburg, of the Institutes of the former Kaiser Wilhelm Society in Berlin-Dahlem, as well as to some points of interest in the area of Potsdam.     

A Conversation with Robert F. Christy – Part II

Robert F. Christy, Institute Professor of Theoretical Physics Emeritus at Caltech, recalls his wartime work at Los Alamos on the critical assembly for the plutonium bomb (“the Christy bomb”); the Alamogordo test, July 16, 1945; the postwar concerns of ALAS (Association of Los Alamos Scientists); his brief return to the University of Chicago and move to Caltech; friendship with and later alienation from Edward Teller; work with Charles and Tommy Lauritsen and William A. Fowler in Caltech’s Kellogg Radiation Laboratory; Freeman Dyson’s Orion Project; work on the meson and RR Lyrae stars; fellowship at Cambridge University; 1950s Vista Project at Caltech; his opposition to the Strategic Defense Initiative; and his post-retirement work for the National Research Council’s Committee on Dosimetry and on inertial-confinement fusion.     

An Inconvenient History: the Nuclear-Fission Display in the Deutsches Museum

One of the longstanding attractions of the Deutsches Museum in Munich, Germany, has been its display of the apparatus associated with the discovery of nuclear fission. Although the discovery involved three scientists, Otto Hahn, Lise Meitner, and Fritz Strassmann, the fission display was designated for over 30 years as the Arbeitstisch von Otto Hahn (Otto Hahn’s Worktable), with Strassmann mentioned peripherally and Meitner not at all, and it was not until the early 1990s that the display was revised to include all three codiscoverers more equitably. I examine the creation of the fission display in the context of the postwar German culture of silencing the National Socialist past, and trace the eventual transformation of the display into a contemporary exhibit that more accurately represents the scientific history of the fission discovery.     

Between Autonomy and Accommodation:The German Physical Society during the Third Reich

I first sketch the history of the German Physical Society (Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft,DPG) from its founding by six young Berlin scientists as the Physical Society of Berlin (Physikalische Gesellschaft zu Berlin) in 1845, through its renaming as the DPG in 1899 and its rise to prominence by the beginning of the 1930s. I then turn to the history of the DPG during the Third Reich, which can be divided into two periods, from the transfer of power in Germany to the Nazis in 1933 to 1940, and from 1941 to 1945. During the first period, Johannes Stark (1874–1957), one of the leaders of the “German Physics” (Deutsche Physik) movement, attempted to gain election as the Chairman of the DPG in September 1933 but was repulsed. A period of relative autonomy of the DPG from Nazi ideology and policies ensued, which gradually was transformed into one of accommodation, until at the end of the 1938, Peter Debye (1884–1966), then Chairman of the DPG, bowed to governmental demands and Nazi activists in the DPG, introduced Nazi principles, and strongly advised the Jewish members of the DPG to withdraw from it. Debye left Germany in early 1940, and after a transitional period in which Jonathan Zenneck (1871–1959) served as Acting Chairman, Carl Ramsauer (1879–1955) was elected Chairman of the DPG in December 1940, thus opening the second period, the Ramsauer era, which lasted from 1941 until the end of the war in 1945. Ramsauer oversaw the self-coordination (Selbstgleichschaltung) of the DPG to the Nazi regime, and as an industrial physicist he led the DPG to establish ever more alliances with powerful figures in the military-industrial complex of Nazi Germany, which worked to the advantage both of Ramsauer and the DPG and to that of the Nazi regime during the course of the war. Finally, as the military defeat of Germany loomed, Ramsauer took steps aimed at insuring the survival of German physics in the postwar period. After the war, he masked the wartime activities of himself and the DPG, thereby contributing to the postwar conspiracy of silence or minimization of the Nazi past in Germany. Dieter Hoffmann is a research scholar at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science and a professor at Humboldt University in Berlin.     

Poincaré’s Relativistic Physics: Its Origins and Nature

Henri Poincaré (1854–1912) developed a relativistic physics by elevating the empirical inability to detect absolute motion, or motion relative to the ether, to the principle of relativity, and its mathematics ensured that it would be compatible with that principle. Although Poincaré’s aim and theory were similar to those of Albert Einstein (1879–1955) in creating his special theory of relativity, Poincaré’s relativistic physics should not be seen as an attempt to achieve Einstein’s theory but as an independent endeavor. Poincaré was led to advance the principle of relativity as a consequence of his reflections on late nineteenth-century electrodynamics; of his conviction that physics should be formulated as a physics of principles; of his conventionalistic arguments on the nature of time and its measurement; and of his knowledge of the experimental failure to detect absolute motion. The nonrelativistic theory of electrodynamics of Hendrik A.Lorentz (1853–1928) of 1904 provided the means for Poincaré to elaborate a relativistic physics that embraced all known physical forces, including that of gravitation. Poincaré did not assume any dynamical explanation of the Lorentz transformation, which followed from the principle of relativity, and he did not seek to dismiss classical concepts, such as that of the ether, in his new relativistic physics. Shaul Katzir teaches in the Graduate Program in History and Philosophy of Science, Bar Ilan University.     

Enrico Fermi’s Discovery of Neutron-Induced Artificial Radioactivity:The Influence of His Theory of Beta Decay

We analyze the influence of Enrico Fermi’s theory of beta decay, which he formulated in December 1933, on his experimental discovery of neutron-induced artificial radioactivity four months later, in March 1934.We discuss Gian Carlo Wick’s application of Fermi’s theory in interpreting Frédéric Joliot and Irène Curie’s discovery of alpha-particle-induced artificial radioactivity, and how Fermi was then influenced by his theory in planning his neutron-bombardment experiments, in his decision to use a radon-beryllium (Rn-Be) neutron source, and in his choice of the elements he bombarded with Rn-Be neutrons. Our analysis is based crucially on Fermi’s first laboratory notebook, the Hirpine Notebook, which is preserved in the Oscar D’Agostino Archives in the Technical Institute “Oscar D’Agostino” in Avellino, Italy, and on the materials that are preserved in the Fermi Archives in the Domus Galilaeana in Pisa. These documents enable us to reconstruct Fermi’s discovery of neutron-induced artificial radioactivity and to assign an exact date to it of March 20, 1934.     

Enrico Fermi’s Discovery of Neutron-Induced Artificial Radioactivity: Neutrons and Neutron Sources

We reconstruct and analyze the path leading from James Chadwick’s discovery of the neutron in February 1932 through Frédéric Joliot and Irène Curie’s discovery of artificial radioactivity in January 1934 to Enrico Fermi’s discovery of neutron-induced artificial radioactivity in March 1934. We show, in particular, that Fermi’s innovative construction and use of radon-beryllium neutron sources permitted him to make his discovery.     

Paul Ehrenfest’s Rough Road to Leiden: A Physicist’s Search for a Position, 1904–1912

Paul Ehrenfest (1880–1933) received his Ph.D. degree at the University of Vienna in 1904 and moved with his wife and young daughter to St. Petersburg in 1907, where he remained until he succeeded Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1853–1928) in the chair of theoretical physics at the University of Leiden in 1912. Drawing upon Ehrenfest’s correspondence of the period, we first examine Ehrenfest’s difficult and insecure years in St. Petersburg and then discuss his unsuccessful attempts to obtain a position elsewhere before he was appointed as Lorentz’s successor in Leiden. Pim Huijnen is writing a doctoral dissertation in history; the present paper is based upon his Master’s Thesis, “‘Die Grenze des Pathologischen’: Het leven van fysicus Paul Ehrenfest, 1904–1912,” University of Groningen, 2003. A.J.Kox is Pieter Zeeman Professor of History of Physics at the University of Amsterdam.     

In Appreciation

Leslie Foldy’s diminutive stature and modest demeanor gave little clue to the powerful intellect responsible for several significant advances in theoretical physics.Two were particularly important. His 1945 theory of the multiple scattering of waves laid out the fundamentals that most modern theories have followed (and sometimes rediscovered), while his work with Siegfried Wouthuysen on the nonrelativistic limit of the Dirac equation opened the way to a wealth of valuable insights. In this article we recall some of the milestones along Foldy’s path through a life in physics. Some of the anecdotes we report here were related to one of the authors (PLT) just before an event in 2000 celebrating Foldy’s 80th birthday, while others were told to us over the course of the nearly forty years during which we were colleagues. Still others were uncovered during the course of WJF’s research for his book, Physics at a Research University: Case Western Reserve 1830–1990 (Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University, 2006). Other details were provided by Foldy’s widow, Roma. Philip L. Taylor is the Perkins Professor of Physics and Professor of Macromolecular Science and Engineering at Case Western Reserve University. William J. Fickinger is Professor Emeritus of Physics at Case Western Reserve University.     

Richard Gans: The First Quantum Physicist in Latin America

Richard Gans (1880–1954) was appointed Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Physics of the National University of La Plata,Argentina, in 1912 and published a series of papers on quantum physics between 1915 and 1918 that marked him as the first quantum physicist in Latin America. I set Gans’s work within the context of his education and career in Germany prior to 1912 and his life and work in Argentina until 1925, as well as the foundation of the Institute of Physics of the National University of La Plata in 1906–1909 and its subsequent development by Emil Bose (1874–1911). I conclude by commenting on Gans’s life after he returned to Germany in 1925 and then immigrated once again to Argentina in 1947.     

Paul Ehrenfest, Niels Bohr, and Albert Einstein: Colleagues and Friends

In May 1918 Paul Ehrenfest received a monograph from Niels Bohr in which Bohr had used Ehrenfest’s adiabatic principle as an essential assumption for understanding atomic structure. Ehrenfest responded by inviting Bohr, whom he had never met, to give a talk at a meeting in Leiden in late April 1919, which Bohr accepted; he lived with Ehrenfest, his mathematician wife Tatyana, and their young family for two weeks. Albert Einstein was unable to attend this meeting, but in October 1919 he visited his old friend Ehrenfest and his family in Leiden, where Ehrenfest told him how much he had enjoyed and profited from Bohr’s visit. Einstein first met Bohr when Bohr gave a lecture in Berlin at the end of April 1920, and the two immediately proclaimed unbounded admiration for each other as physicists and as human beings. Ehrenfest hoped that he and they would meet at the Third Solvay Conference in Brussels in early April 1921, but his hope was unfulfilled. Einstein, the only physicist from Germany who was invited to it in this bitter postwar atmosphere, decided instead to accompany Chaim Weizmann on a trip to the United States to help raise money for the new Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Bohr became so overworked with the planning and construction of his new Institute for Theoretical Physics in Copenhagen that he could only draft the first part of his Solvay report and ask Ehrenfest to present it, which Ehrenfest agreed to do following the presentation of his own report. After recovering his strength, Bohr invited Ehrenfest to give a lecture in Copenhagen that fall, and Ehrenfest, battling his deep-seated self-doubts, spent three weeks in Copenhagen in December 1921 accompanied by his daughter Tanya and her future husband, the two Ehrenfests staying with the Bohrs in their apartment in Bohr’s new Institute for Theoretical Physics. Immediately after leaving Copenhagen, Ehrenfest wrote to Einstein, telling him once again that Bohr was a prodigious physicist, and again expressing the hope that he soon would see both of them in Leiden.     

Ettore Majorana’s Forgotten Publication on the Thomas-Fermi Model

We analyze the forgotten communication of Ettore Majorana (1906–1938?) on the Thomas-Fermi statistical model of the atom, which he presented on December 29, 1928, during the XXII General Meeting of the Italian Physical Society in Rome, and which was published in Il Nuovo Cimento, the Society’s journal, in 1929. His communication was not mentioned subsequently in any of the numerous publications of Enrico Fermi (1901–1954) and his group in Rome, nor in any of the later accounts of Majorana’s life and work. We place Majorana’s contribution within the context of contemporary research on the subject, point out its influence on the final formulation of the Thomas-Fermi statistical model by Fermi and Edoardo Amaldi (1908–1989) in 1934, and discuss Majorana’s other scientific contributions before his mysterious disappearance in 1938. Francesco Guerra is Professor of Theoretical Physics in the Department of Physics at the University of Rome “La Sapienza.” His main fields of research are quantum-field theory, statistical mechanics of complex systems, and the history of nuclear physics. Nadia Robotti is Professor of History of Physics in the Department of Physics at the University of Genoa. Her main fields of research are the history of atomic physics, quantum mechanics, and nuclear physics.     

Closed Timelike Curves and Time Travel: Dispelling the Myth

G?del’s contention that closed timelike curves (CTC’s) are a necessary consequence of the Einstein equations for his metric is challenged. It is seen that the imposition of periodicity in a timelike coordinate is the actual source of CTC’s rather than the physics of general relativity. This conclusion is supported by the creation of G?del-like CTC’s in flat space by the correct choice of coordinate system and identifications. Thus, the indications are that the notion of a time machine remains exclusively an aspect of science fiction fantasy. The element of the identification of spacetime points is also seen to be the essential factor in the modern creation of CTC’s in the Gott model of moving cosmic strings.     

In Memoriam

In 1905 Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) was awarded the second John Fritz Medal for a lifetime of outstanding achievements in science and technology. I sketch Kelvin’s life, education, and work in thermodynamics, electrical technology, and instrumentation, and his role in the laying of the Atlantic cable. I then turn to Kelvin’s four visits to America, in 1876 on the centenary of the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America; in 1884 when he gave his famous Baltimore Lectures at The Johns Hopkins University; in 1897 when he visited Niagara Falls for the third time and advised George Westinghouse (1846–1914) on how to develop its enormous water power for the generation of electricity; and in 1902 when he advised George Eastman (1854–1932) on the development of the photographic industry. Written in connection with the Kelvin Centenary Year 2007; see “Celebrating the Life of Lord Kelvin,” University of Glasgow News Review No. 11 (2007), 4. Matthew Trainer: Matthew Trainer received his M.Phil. degree in physical sciences at the University of Edinburgh in 1980 and currently is a laboratory instructor at the University of Glasgow where his research focuses in part on the life and work of Lord Kelvin.     

Intersection Theory from Duality and Replica

Kontsevich’s work on Airy matrix integrals has led to explicit results for the intersection numbers of the moduli space of curves. In this article we show that a duality between k-point functions on N × N matrices and N-point functions of k × k matrices, plus the replica method, familiar in the theory of disordered systems, allows one to recover Kontsevich’s results on the intersection numbers, and to generalize them to other models. This provides an alternative and simple way to compute intersection numbers with one marked point, and leads also to some new results. Unité Mixte de Recherche 8549 du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique et de l’école Normale Supérieure     

Quirino Majorana’s Experiments on the Speed of Light and Gravitational Absorption

Quirino Majorana (1871–1957) was an outstanding Italian experimental physicist who investigated a wide range of phenomena during his long career in Rome,Turin, and Bologna. We focus on his experiments in Turin during 1916–1921 and in Bologna during 1921–1934 to test the validity of Albert Einstein’s postulate on the constancy of the speed of light and to detect gravitational absorption. These experiments required extraordinary skill, patience, and dedication, and all of them confirmed Einstein’s postulate and Isaac Newton’s law of universal gravitation to high precision. Had they not done so, Majorana’s fame among historians and physicists no doubt would be much greater than it is today. Giorgio Dragoni is Professor of History of Physics at the University of Bologna. Giulio Maltese is a Roman member of the Italian Society for the History of Physics and Astronomy. Luisa Atti is a Bolognese member of the Association for the Teaching of Physics.     

Regular Twists: Replicating Coulomb’s Wire-Torsion Experiments

I discuss our replication of the wire-torsion experiments that Charles Augustin Coulomb (1736–1806) reported in a session of the Paris Académie des Sciences in 1784. I first explain the nature and purpose of the replication method and then apply it to an analysis of Coulomb’s experiments. I conclude by placing Coulomb’s presentation of his memoir into its specific historical contest.     

Fritz Reiche and the Emergency Committee in Aid of Displaced Foreign Scholars

I discuss the family background and early life of the German theoretical physicist Fritz Reiche (1883–1969) in Berlin; his higher education at the University of Berlin under Max Planck (1858–1947); his subsequent work at the University of Breslau with Otto Lummer (1860–1925); his return to Berlin in 1911, where he completed his Habilitation thesis in 1913, married Bertha Ochs the following year, became a friend of Albert Einstein (1879–1955), and worked during and immediately after the Great War. In 1921 he was appointed as ordentlicher Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Breslau and worked there until he was dismissed in 1933. He spent the academic year 1934–1935 as a visiting professor at the German University in Prague and then returned to Berlin, where he remained until, with the crucial help of his friend Rudolf Ladenburg (1882–1952) and vital assistance of the Emergency Committee in Aid of Displaced Foreign Scholars, he, his wife Bertha, and their daughter Eve were able to emigrate to the United States in 1941 (their son Hans had already emigrated to England in 1939).From 1941–1946 he held appointments at the New School for Social Research in New York, the City College of New York, and Union College in Schenectady, New York, and then was appointed as an Adjunct Professor of Physics at New York University, where his contract was renewed year-by-year until his retirement in 1958.