Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Schweber 2014
Schweber 2014
16 (2014) 179–217
2014 Springer Basel
1422-6944/14/020179-39
DOI 10.1007/s00016-014-0136-6 Physics in Perspective
Some facets of the life of Hans Bethe after World War II are presented to illustrate how
Paul Forman’s works, and in particular his various theses—on mathematics and physics in
Wilhelmine and Weimar Germany, on physics in the immediate post-World War II period,
and on postmodernity—have influenced my biography of Bethe. Some aspects of the history
of post-World War II quantum field theory, of solid state/condensed matter physics, and of
the development of neoliberalism—the commitment to the belief that the market knows
best, to free trade, to enhanced privatization, and to a drastic reduction of the government’s
role in regulating the economy—are reviewed in order to make some observations regarding
certain ‘‘top-down’’ views in solid state physics in postmodernity, the economic and cultural
condition of many Western societies since the 1980s, the decade in which many historians
assume modernity to have ended.
Key words: Hans Bethe; Paul Forman; Weimar; Forman theses; postmodernity;
neoliberalism; effective field theory; nuclear theory; mathematical physics; physics
summer schools; Lamb shift; Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD); Nuclear
Utilization Target Selection (NUTS).
Introduction
In 1971, Paul Forman, then an assistant professor of history at the University of
Rochester, published a long article on the relation between Weimar culture and
acausality in quantum theory.2 In it, he argued that a sense of crisis had permeated
all aspects of life—including science—in the economically impoverished, socially
fickle, and politically riven Germany after its defeat in World War I. Widely read
ideological treatises such as Oswald Spengler’s Decline of the West made it
acceptable to reject former commitments to rationality, to progress, and to
modernist values. In this context, determinism and causality came under attack
and intuition and irrationalism gained standing. Forman claimed that to accom-
modate themselves to this hostile environment a number of prominent
* Silvan S. Schweber is the Koret Professor of the History of Ideas and Professor of Physics,
emeritus, at Brandeis University. Since the early 1980s, he has been an associate in the
department of the history of science at Harvard University. He is at work completing the
second volume of a biography of Hans Bethe.
179
180 S. S. Schweber Phys. Perspect.
Fig. 1. Paul Forman at the Smithsonian Institution, 2003. Courtesy of Paul Forman.
Nuclear Forces, the part of my biography of Bethe that covers his life until 1940,
was published in June 2012.8 By virtue of the radically changed and changing
context from 1940 on, the dramatic increase in the number and variety of activities
Bethe became involved in, the range of issues that have to be addressed, my
limited competence and my limited time, the second volume—qua contextual
history—will be different from the first in content, in connections, and in scope.
Nonetheless, I still want it to be an overview of the history of theoretical physics
from the mid 1940s till the late 1970s—in part because Bethe’s metaphysics, as
expressed in his contributions to the explanation of the Lamb shift, became the
dominant outlook of the theoretical physics community at the end of the twentieth
century. Thus, instead of dealing with the ‘‘pre-established harmony between
physics and mathematics,’’ as had been the case in the first volume, the second will
address the issue of quantum field theory becoming the language of theoretical
physics. Similarly, where the first volume made observations about underlying
local Jewish affinities, the second will be concerned with scientific universalism.
Before 1940, Bethe was interacting scientifically only with other physicists and
shunned politics, but after 1945 was a sought-after consultant to several industries
and was deeply engaged politically both at the local and national levels. Therefore,
the narration of the entanglement of all these activities—not to mention what was
happening in his personal life—will have to be addressed differently than in the
previous volume by virtue of scope and magnitude.9
To indicate the approach I have taken, I have chosen some episodes from
Bethe’s life that resonate with aspects of Paul Forman’s three theses. I believe that
investigating resonances between a given cultural, political, and social settings and
182 S. S. Schweber Phys. Perspect.
could the Soviets—hence deterrence was the proper policy. Upon his return to
Cornell, he had an office in one of the Federal buildings on the campus, where he
and Frederic de Hoffmann devoted a good deal of their time to highly secret and
classified fusion work. He later also became a consultant to the AVCO (AViation
COrporation) research laboratory in Everett, Massachusetts, whose director was
Arthur Kantrowitz, a former colleague at Cornell, and there helped solve the
ablation problem connected with the reentry of ballistic missile payloads into the
atmosphere.28
In addition to all these involvements, Bethe was also an active member of the
American Physical Society and served as its president in 1954 during the critical
period that witnessed the revocation of Oppenheimer’s security clearance. This
action eliminated Oppenheimer as an advisor to the AEC and other governmental
agencies. The ruin of Oppenheimer29 sent a clear message to American physicists
about the limits of the roles they could play in shaping nuclear policy. Thereafter,
in the hope of being able to keep in check the more extreme elements making
recommendations or policy concerning nuclear weapons, Bethe became ever more
occupied with national security issues as a member of some of the highest echelon
governmental advisory committees by virtue of his expertise, his integrity, and the
respect he commanded. In the early 1960s as a member of the President’s Science
Advisory Committee (PSAC), Bethe played a crucial role in the negotiations with
the Soviet Union that led to the treaty of 1963 that banned tests of nuclear
weapons in the atmosphere, outer space, and underwater and underground tests
above a certain limit.30 As a member of PSAC, he also was instrumental in
bringing about the large governmental support given to high energy physics and in
making NASA a civilian agency.31
Richard Nixon’s election in 1968 marked a turning point in Bethe’s life. Bethe
was a Democrat and this political identification meant that his advice and expertise
were no longer sought by the government. This, however, freed him to start an
extremely productive career as an astrophysicist32 and make major contributions
to the elucidation of the structure of neutron stars, of supernovae and of binary
star systems, and to the unraveling of the solar neutrino problem.33
Remarkably, in addition to these fruitful but demanding scientific activities,
Bethe became deeply involved with energy policies after the energy crisis of
1973.34 He widely and forcefully argued for the reconsideration of nuclear power
in the aftermath of the oil embargo the Arab states had imposed following the
Yom Kippur war in 1973. And during that same period, as a consultant at AVCO,
he was investigating the possibility of separating the uranium isotopes using lasers
and designing high power ‘‘chirping’’ lasers for that purpose. Similarly, in 1983 and
thereafter he collaborated with Richard Garwin, Kurt Gottfried, Henry Kendall,
and other Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) members to challenge the claims
President Reagan and Edward Teller were making for their Strategic Defense
Initiative (SDI) scenario.
188 S. S. Schweber Phys. Perspect.
difference between the energies of two levels would be finite, Bethe formulated an
unambiguous prescription of mass renormalization in the non-relativistic case that
allowed computing the energy of each level.
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 electrodynamically
was completed three days after the conference ended and thereafter circulated to
the participants of the Shelter Island conference.
World War II ended, the Michigan Summer Symposium resumed the important
role it had played during the late 1920s and the 1930s when the most prominent
physicists lectured on the latest advances in theoretical and experimental physics
to graduate students from all over the US. In 1948, 1949, and 1950, Schwinger,
Feynman, and Dyson, respectively, lectured there on their researches in quantum
electrodynamics (QED). Mimeographed copies of their lectures became imme-
diately and widely available. The French summer school Les Houches, located
near Chamonix in the Alps, opened its doors in 1950. The Cargèse Summer
School, in Corsica, began its operation in 1951. In Italy, the International School of
Physics ‘‘Enrico Fermi’’ started holding annual summer schools in Varenna in
1953. In 1957, Brandeis University and the University of Colorado in Boulder
started their summer school in theoretical physics.57 The proceedings of all these
summer schools were published promptly and constituted comprehensive, valu-
able introductions to the advances in these fields. Their quick availability—in
mimeographed form until 1960—shaped the teaching of graduate courses in
theoretical physics all over the world.58
The French and Italian summer schools of the late 1950s and early 1960s played
another important role: they brought outstanding Soviet theorists to lecture and
thus informed their audiences of the important Soviet contributions to condensed
matter physics and introduced the Soviet physicists to their counterparts in the
West. Thus, the 1958 Les Houches Summer School devoted to the ‘‘Many Body
Problem’’ included as one of the lecturers the Soviet theorist Spartak Belyaev—an
important contributor to the introduction of the Feynman diagrammatic and the
Schwinger field-theoretic methods to solid state and nuclear physics.59
3) When in the fall of 1946 Robert Oppenheimer became the director of the
Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton (IAS) and a professor of physics
there, he used the institution to implement his universalist vision of science.60
In 1948, he began inviting a host of foreigners to the Institute. Until 1952,
these included: Faqir Auluck, Aage Bohr, Freeman Dyson, Léon van Hove,
Res Jost, Nicolaas van Kampen, Toichiro Kinoshita, Maurice Lévy, Cécile
Morette, Yoichiro Nambu, Abraham Pais, Giulio Racah, Abdus Salam, Sin-
Itiro Tomonaga, Hideki Yukawa, John Ward, and Chen Ning Yang.61 The
appointment of Cécile Morette in 1948 and that of Maurice Lévy in 1950 were
particularly consequential. The success of the postwar Michigan summer
school led Cécile Morette to have a similar school established in France. In
1950 she founded the Summer School of Theoretical Physics in Les
Houches62; Maurice Lévy organized the school in Cargèse in 1951. These
two summer schools were responsible for teaching the postwar generation of
French physicists modern quantum theory63 and quantum field theory.
Bohr’s institute in Copenhagen was another institution that hosted and brought
together theorists from various nations, including the Soviet Union. These efforts
Vol. 16 (2014) Writing the Biography of Hans Bethe 193
were greatly amplified by the European decision to built CERN and the basing of
Nordita, its theoretical division, at the Bohr Institute until CERN began operating
in Geneva in 1957.64
* The sociologist Robert K. Merton observed that if two scientists arrive at similar con-
clusions, the more eminent or famous scientist will often receive more credit. Merton coined
the term ‘‘Matthew Effect’’ to describe the phenomenon, from Jesus’ parable of the talents
as told in Matthew 25:29: ‘‘For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have
abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken even that which he hath.’’
Vol. 16 (2014) Writing the Biography of Hans Bethe 197
convincing—work in the nuclear many-body problem had then just been initiated
by Keith Brueckner.91 Given the richness of the available post-war experimental
data on nuclei and their structure, Bethe decided to concentrate his research
efforts in nuclear physics. From the mid ‘50s until the early ‘70s, the nuclear many-
body problem was the main focus of Bethe’s researches and that of his students.
In his 1937 Reviews of Modern Physics articles on nuclear structure,92 Bethe
had attempted to understand why some properties of nuclei showed discontinuities
when their protons or their neutrons numbered 2, 8, 50, and 82, just as was the case
with the binding energies of the noble gases in atomic physics.93 These proton and
neutron numbers were called ‘‘magic numbers.’’ In 1947, Maria Goeppert-Mayer,
Otto Haxel, Hans Jensen, and Hans Suess had given a phenomenological
explanation for the shell structure of nuclei, more specifically for the appearance
of these magic numbers, on the basis of an independent particle model.94 To
establish the shell model, one needed to understand why it is possible to consider
the nucleons moving in independent, single-particle orbitals and how such a
viewpoint could be reconciled with the compound nucleus model of Bohr. In 1954,
Keith Brueckner took the main step in this direction by applying techniques that
Kenneth Watson had developed in scattering theory. Brueckner and his
collaborators elaborated the Watson multiple-scattering formalism into a powerful
‘‘self-consistent’’ approach to handle many-body problems. They had difficulties,
however, giving adequate proofs for the validity of the results they had obtained.
As Bethe told Charles Weiner in his interview with him on May 8, 1972: ‘‘It
seemed to work all right. It seemed to be plausible, but it had certain very definite
flaws.’’95 Although Bethe was not part of the mathematical physics community,
Sommerfeld had impressed on him high standards of rigor and of mathematical
consistency. Removing the flaws in Brueckner’s theory became the first problem
he tackled. Bethe carefully went over all of Brueckner’s papers, and gave a more
transparent, lengthy exposition of Brueckner’s approach, but one that still did not
fully justify the method. He spent a sabbatical academic year 1955–6 in Cambridge
concentrating on the justification of Brueckner’s theory. He was given two
outstanding students to work with him: Jeffrey Goldstone and David Thouless. In
the first of his lectures on Brueckner theory, Goldstone asked some pertinent
questions that Bethe could not answer. Bethe put him to work on the theory and
the result was that, shortly thereafter, Goldstone and Bethe solved the problem on
how to handle the incorporation into the formalism of the effects of the hard-core
repulsion between nucleons at very short distances, which was part of the assumed
interaction potential.96 Thouless went back with Bethe to Cornell and obtained his
PhD there in 1958, writing an important thesis that described how to calculate two-
body correlations self-consistently.97
Goldstone was one the first theorists to introduce diagrams into many-body
theory with his 1957 paper.98 1957 was a banner year for many-body theory, with
the Bardeen, Cooper, Schrieffer (BCS) explanation of superconductivity in lead
198 S. S. Schweber Phys. Perspect.
the outstanding advance 99 1957 also witnessed the experimental confirmation that
parity was not conserved in the weak interaction, as had been intimated by Lee
and Yang.100 By virtue of the conference that Louis Michel organized in Lille on
Les problèmes mathématiques de la théorie quantique des champs, 1957 could also
be considered the year that the mathematical physics discipline was founded.101
October 1957 marked the launching of Sputnik, which had wide repercussions in
the United States. It was responsible for the creation of PSAC and for sizable
increases in the government’s budgets underwriting research and development in
the sciences and in technology, as well as the funding of science education.102
BCS became the point of departure for a reconceptualization of quantum field
theory. It indicated that in systems with an infinite number of degrees of freedom,
the state of lowest energy—the ground state—need not possess the (continuous)
symmetry exhibited by the Hamiltonian that determines the dynamics of the
system. This is what is meant by a ‘‘spontaneously broken symmetry.’’ The role
that symmetry plays in quantum field theory was enlarged and greatly extended by
BCS’s theory. This was the point of departure for establishing quantum field
theories as the appropriate formalism for the representation of all the foundational
theories as ‘‘effective field theories’’ describing the microscopic world down to
distances of the order of 10-17 cm.103
What this implies is that a form of finalization has been given to the foundational
theory that describes atoms, molecules, and solids which then allows various highly
accurate models to be given for such entities as metals, insulators, superconductors,
superfluids, ferromagnets, liquid crystals, two-dimensional graphite systems, optical
lattices,…. People working in condensed matter physics, in photonics, in nanotech-
nology, on quantum computers,… are principally concerned with the creation of
novelty—of entities or effects that did not previously exist in the world—or concerned
with understanding the complexity and diversity that can emerge from composition and
are no longer concerned with establishing the foundational theory that governs the
interactions and determines the evolution of the structures that populate that domain.
Thus, except for a very small component of the practitioners in these fields, the agenda
is set by external factors, by the demands of specific novelty and complexity, by use-
fulness or efficiency, or by expectations—as is seen in nanotechnology, photonics, and
quantum computation. It has become difficult to differentiate these activities from
applied science, and in many cases from research and development in technology. In
the physical sciences, the robustness and the precision of the foundational theories at
the micro- and sub-microlevels are surely part of the reasons that the Bayh-Dole
legislation has had such consequential impact on the restructuring of universities since
the 1980s.111 Just as physics has been transformed, so has chemistry. Undoubtedly the
biological and medical sciences have been most deeply affected by the technical
advances in them: Crick and Watson, genetic codes, recombinant technologies, DNA-
sequencing, genome projects, bioinformatics,… And it is in the biological sciences that
the entrepreneurial aspects of the university are most visible.112
Forman has repeatedly emphasized that how the sciences evolved and
expressed themselves was deeply conditioned by their cultural and social context.
Although the evolution of science cannot be inferred by extrapolating current
scientific concepts, Forman believes that it can be predicted ‘‘to some extent by
considering the general social and cultural conditions under which scientific
knowledge is being produced at present and is likely to be produced in the
future.’’113 Given the robustness of foundational theories and of the institutional
frameworks in which they are created, Forman’s assertion seems to be valid at
present. It seems likely that neoliberalism will continue to help shape the policies
that govern the support of Western science and that corporate and private support
will deeply affect the agenda of the science created there.
Like all his other historical works, Forman’s recent articles on the deep structural
change we are witnessing are important, arresting pieces.114 These writings constitute a
new Forman thesis that makes a case for the primacy of science in modernity and of
technology in postmodernity, arguing that modernity entailed disciplinarity, postmo-
dernity antidisciplinarity. This new thesis is global in scope. Like his long articles on
acausality and Weimar Culture and those on the intellectual agenda of science in the
US during the Cold War, these essays are generative, influential, and controversial.
As Forman has himself emphasized, his approach is exclusively cultural. Thus
he demarcated postmodernity from modernity by ‘‘the abrupt reversal of culturally
Vol. 16 (2014) Writing the Biography of Hans Bethe 201
The End
Bethe’s life ended on a somber note. Throughout his life, he had felt a heavy
responsibility for his contributions to the creation of nuclear weapons; he invested
huge efforts to constrain their developments and make nuclear energy have
peaceful applications. He found justification and consolation for his participation
in the development of fission and fusion bombs in the fact that the Soviet Union
and the United States did not come to blows in the face of many provocations after
the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. MADness had worked.
Ronald Reagan changed that. In March 1982, when asked during a news con-
ference whether a nuclear war was winnable, Reagan replied that there could not
be any winners in such a war: ‘‘everybody would be a loser.’’ Yet, acting at Rea-
gan’s request, Caspar W. Weinberger, his Secretary of Defense, and the Pentagon
were at that very moment drawing up plans for the possibility of waging a pro-
tracted nuclear war. On May 20, 1982, Reagan signed the National Security
Decision Directive (NSDD) 32 stating that ‘‘the United States will enhance its
strategic nuclear deterrent by developing a capability to sustain protracted nuclear
conflict,’’ and that ‘‘the modernization of our strategic nuclear forces … shall
receive first priority.’’ Further, on January 17, 1983, he signed NSDD-75, which,
while stressing deterrence, promoted a massive nuclear build-up so that the out-
come of a nuclear war with the USSR would be so devastating to it ‘‘that there
would be no incentive for Soviet leaders to initiate an attack.’’119 These directives
Vol. 16 (2014) Writing the Biography of Hans Bethe 203
two among the many papers he wrote and the many discussions in which he
participated regarding nuclear weapons and their containment, along with the
prevention of nuclear war.125 Bethe’s anxieties concerning nuclear weapons cul-
minated in 1995 on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the leveling of
Hiroshima with an appeal to scientists to take a Hippocratic oath not to work on
weapons of mass destruction:
As the Director of the Theoretical Division of Los Alamos, I participated at the
most senior level in the World War II Manhattan Project that produced the first
atomic weapons.
Now, at age 88, I am one of the few remaining such senior persons alive.
Looking back at the half century since that time, I feel the most intense relief
that these weapons have not been used since World War II, mixed with the
horror that tens of thousands of such weapons have been built since that time—
one hundred times more than any of us at Los Alamos could ever have
imagined.
Today we are rightly in an era of disarmament and dismantlement of nuclear
weapons. But in some countries nuclear weapons development still continues.
Whether and when the various Nations of the World can agree to stop this is
uncertain. But individual scientists can still influence this process by with-
holding their skills.
Accordingly, I call on all scientists in all countries to cease and desist from
work creating, developing, improving and manufacturing further nuclear
weapons—and, for that matter, other weapons of potential mass destruction
such as chemical and biological weapons.126
After George W. Bush became president in 2001, Bethe became additionally
concerned that independent scientific and technological advice was playing an
ever-smaller role in governmental policies. More specifically, he became very
disturbed by the actions of the Bush administration in disbanding many govern-
mental scientific advisory bodies and replacing a large fraction of the members of
the still-existing ones with people who were either drawn from the industrial
scientific community, whom he thought were less independent than scientists in
the academy or whom he believed were ideologically committed to the Bush
policies regardless of the scientific facts. With profound anguish, he observed the
paths taken by the Bush administration when addressing issues relating to nuclear
weaponry, test-ban treaties, the environment, and the dramatic increase in the
information it stamped secret. Secrecy prevented people from knowing. Only if
they had knowledge could they act rationally—and rationality was essential to
Bethe. He decried the Bush administration’s involvement in Iraq and the secrecy
involved in the justification for the military actions taken. And he lamented the
fact that the Bush administration was giving political and military considerations
priority over all other factors, including scientific realities, at a time when science
and technology were of paramount importance in making possible the US’s
Vol. 16 (2014) Writing the Biography of Hans Bethe 205
economic and social well-being. He came to regret the role he had played earlier in
making some of this possible. His despair stemmed from the fact that he had a
drastically different vision of the aims and responsibilities of the United States in
the world and of the role that science would play in its growth and evolution than
the one projected by the George W. Bush administration. Perhaps most painful
was that his faith in reason and rationality—which had given him hope, resilience,
and buoyancy all his life—had been deeply shaken and undermined.127
Acknowledgments
I am indebted to Jeffrey Goldstone, Kurt Gottfried, and Snait Gissis for very
valuable and useful discussions; to Paul Forman for extended talks regarding the
content of this article and for his critical reading of it and suggestions. The helpful
recommendations by Peter Pesic and Robert Crease, the editors of Physics in
Perspective, are likewise gratefully acknowledged.
References
1
This paper is based on an invited lecture delivered in November 2011 at the annual meeting of
the History of Science Society and in December 2011 on the occasion of Paul Forman’s retirement
at the Smithsonian Institution. It was a privilege to have been asked to deliver the lecture hon-
oring Forman. We have been close friends for the past thirty years. We both come out of physics
and have a special relationship to physics and physicists. I admire Paul Forman and his works
greatly, and he has influenced me deeply. His integrity, his comportment, and his writings made,
and continue to make, clear to me the responsibilities we have as historians. This paper is dedi-
cated to him as a token of my admiration, affection and respect.
When considering what Paul Forman has accomplished as a historian of science and as a curator,
and keeps on accomplishing as a historian, many commendations can be made. John Heilbron,
who has known Forman since his student’s days at Berkeley did so when commenting on Forman’s
oeuvre as a historian at a conference in Vancouver in 2005 honoring Forman: John L. Heilbron,
‘‘Cold War Culture, History of Science and Postmodernity: Engagement of an Intellectual in a
Hostile Academic Environment.’’ in Cathryn Carson, Alexei Kojevnikov, and Helmuth Trischler,
eds., Weimar Culture and Quantum Mechanics (Singapore: World Scientific, 2011), 2–20. The
editors’ introduction to the proceedings of the conference and Heilbron’s article therein detail the
magnitude of Forman’s accomplishments as a historian of science and the respect he is held in as
an outstanding scholar.
2
He had joined the department in the spring semester 1967 and completed his PhD dissertation
that summer in the history department of the University of California at Berkeley; Hunter Dupree
had been his thesis adviser. Paul Forman, ‘‘Weimar Culture, Causality, and Quantum Theory,
1918–1927: Adaptation by German Physicists and Mathematicians to a Hostile Intellectual
Environment,’’ Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 3 (1971), 1–115; ‘‘The Reception of an
Acausal Quantum Mechanics in Germany and Britain,’’ in Seymor Mauskopf, ed., The Reception
of Unconventional Science, Seymor Mauskopf, ed., [AAAS] Selected Symposium 25 ([Boulder
Colo]: Westview Press, 1979), 11–50; ‘‘Kausalität, Anschaulichkeit, and Individualität; or how
Cultural Values Prescribed the Character and the Lessons Ascribed to Quantum Mechanics,’’ in
Nico Stehr and Volker Meja, eds., Society and Knowledge: Contemporary Perspectives in the
Sociology of Knowledge & Science, ([New Brunswick NJ]: Transaction Books, 1984), 333–48;
reprinted, 2nd revised edition (Transaction Books: New Brunswick NJ, 2005), 357–371.
206 S. S. Schweber Phys. Perspect.
3
For the argument that Darwin had been influenced by the intellectual and political views and
cultural values of powerful circles in England and Scotland, see Robert M. Young, ‘‘Malthus and
the Evolutionists: The Common Context of Biological and Social Theory,’’ Past and Present 43
(1969), 109–45; ‘‘The Historiographic and Ideological Contexts of the Nineteenth-Century Debate
on Man’s Place in Nature,’’ in M. Teich and R.M. Young, eds., Changing Perspectives in the
History of Science (London: Heinemann, 1973), 344–438; Darwin’s Metaphor: Nature’s Place in
Victorian Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985). See also A. La Vergata,
‘‘Images of Darwin: A Historiographic Overview,’’ in D. Kohn, ed., The Darwinian Heritage
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985), 901–929, and Ingemar Bohlin, ‘‘Robert M.
Young and Darwin Historiography,’’ Social Studies of Science 21 (1991), 597–648.
4
Forman, ‘‘Behind Quantum Electronics: National Security as Basis for Physical Research in the
United States, 1940–1960,’’ Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 18 (1987), 149–229.
5
Heilbron, ‘‘Cold War Culture’’ (ref. 1), 17.
6
Forman, ‘‘Recent Science: Late Modern and Post-Modern,’’ in Philip Mirowski and Esther-
Mirjam Sent, eds., Science Bought and Sold: Rethinking the Economics of Science (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2002), 109–48; ‘‘The Primacy of Science in Modernity, of Technology
in Postmodernity and of Ideology in the History of Technology,’’ History & Technology 23 (2007),
1–152; ‘‘(Re)cognizing Postmodernity: Helps for Historians—of Science Especially,’’ Berichte zur
Wissenschaftsgeschichte 3 (2010), 157–75; and especially ‘‘On the Historical Forms of Knowledge
Productions and Curation: Modernity Entailed Disciplinarity, Postmodernity Entails Antidiscip-
linarity,’’ Osiris 27 (2012), 56–100.
7
This is abstracted from Mirowski’s ‘‘Postface’’ in Philip Mirowski and Dieter Plehwe, eds., The
Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making of the Neoliberal Thought Collective (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 2009). Mirowski also states that ‘‘Neoliberals see pronounced inequality
of economic resources and political rights not as an unfortunate by-product of capitalism, but as a
necessary functional characteristic of their ideal market system. Inequality is not only the natural
state of market economies, but it is actually one of its strongest motor forces for progress. Hence
the rich are not parasites, but (conveniently) a boon to humankind.’’ (438) See also Philip Mi-
rowski, Science-mart: Privatizing American Science. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
2011).
8
Silvan S. Schweber, Nuclear Forces: The Making of the Physicist Hans Bethe (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 2012).
9
I am aware that at most I can write succinct, contextually sensitive, narrations selected from
some of the important components of his life from 1940 to his death: Los Alamos; the Shelter
Island conference; his consulting for the General Electric Knolls Laboratory, Detroit Edison, and
later AVCO; his involvement with H-bombs; his sabbatical in Cambridge/England during the
academic year 1955–6; his shift from high energy to nuclear physics; nuclear matter; his serving on
PSAC; the Nobel prize in 1967; his involvement in the Cornell student rebellion 1968–71; his
becoming an astrophysicist; neutrinos and supernovae; star wars.
10
Forman, ‘‘‘Swords into Ploughshares’: Breaking new Ground with Radar Hardware and
Technique in Physical Research after World War II,’’ Reviews of Modern Physics 67 (1995),
397–455.
11
Hans A. Bethe, ‘‘My Life in Astrophysics,’’ Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 41
(2003), 1–14.
12
For an early example of this see Bethe, ‘‘Über die nichtstationäre Behandlung des Photo-
effekts,’’ Annalen der Physik 4 (1930), 443–449.
13
Bethe’s first exposure to the practice of science was in his father’s laboratory. There he became
aware of the amazing diversity of animal life and learned that individual behavior can never be
Vol. 16 (2014) Writing the Biography of Hans Bethe 207
considered by itself but must always be seen through interactions with the environment and all the
entities that make up that environment. He also first experienced science as a social activity in
which his father, his father’s Assistenten, Doktoranten, and laboratory assistants were in constant
interaction in a shared physical and intellectual environment. The view of science Bethe obtained
in his father’s laboratory was as a practice in which knowledge is created by experiments using
instruments that measure with limited accuracy, produce data that have to be analyzed statistically
and interpreted with mathematical models that idealize the context in which the interactions take
place. The aim of the knowledge produced in his father’s laboratory was how to understand the
complexity and diversity of the biological world. There was no attempt to find an ultimate theory
that would explain all biological phenomena. The mature Bethe was always skeptical of the
possibility of finding final theories in physics.
14
Szasz and Siegel (who both had studied in Göttingen) reflected Hilbert’s ‘‘modernist’’ views of
making mathematics an autonomous discipline as well as his idealistic views of mathematics. See
Jeremy Gray, ‘‘Modernism in Mathematics,’’ in Eleanor Robson and Jacqueline Stedall, eds., The
Oxford Handbook of the History of Mathematics, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009),
663–683.
15
See Forman and Armin Hermann’s entry on Sommerfeld in the Dictionary of Scientific Biog-
raphy, Charles C. Gillispie, ed. (New York: Scribner’s, 1975), 12:525–532.
16
Timothy Lenoir, ‘‘Practical Reason and the Construction of Knowledge,’’ in Ernan McMullin,
ed., The Social Dimensions of Science (Note Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame 1992), 158–197.
17
See Hans-Jürgen Borchers, ‘‘Einstein’s Principle of Maximal Speed in Classical and Quantum
Physics,’’ in Rathindra Nath Sen and Alexander Gersten, eds., Mathematical Physics Towards the
21st Century (Beer-Sheva: Ben Gurion University of the Negev Press, 1994).
18
See in particular Karl von Meyenn, ‘‘Pauli’s Belief in Exact Symmetries,’’ in Manuel Garcia
Doncel, Armin Hermann, Louis Michel, and Abraham Pais, eds., Symmetries in Physics (1600–
1980) (Bellaterra [Barcelona]: Semineri d’Historia de les Ciènces, Universitat Autònoma de
Barcelona, 1987), 329–360. Von Meyenn quotes a letter of Pauli to Schrödinger written on January
27, 1955: ‘‘When I consider the matter where a theory is in need of improvement, I never start
from considerations about measurability but from such conclusions of the theory where the
mathematics is not correct.’’ Von Meyenn goes on: ‘‘Behind these words is [Pauli’s] deep con-
viction that the mathematical structure of physical theories possesses a greater content of reality
than the common intuition and direct experience.’’ (332)
19
Bethe, ‘‘Quantenmechanik der Ein und Zwei-Elektronenprobleme,’’ in Hans Geiger and Karl
Scheel, Handbuch der Physik, XXIV, Part I, Adolf Smekal, ed., Quantentheorie (Berlin: Julius
Springer Verlag, 1933), 273–560; Bethe and Sommerfeld, ‘‘Elektronentheorie der Metalle,’’ in
Geiger and Scheel, Handbuch der Physik XXIV, Part II (Berlin: Julius Springer Verlag, 1933),
333–622.
20
Bethe, Robert F. Bacher, and Milton S. Livingston, Basic Bethe: Seminal Articles on Nuclear
Physics (New York: American Institute of Physics and Tomash Publishers, 1986).
21
Hans A. Bethe, ‘‘Theoretical Division: The Beginning,’’ in Theory in Action: Highlights in the
Theoretical Division at Los Alamos 1943–2003. Volume I. Compiled by Francis H. Harlow and H.
Jody Shepard. LA–14000–H. History Report. Unclassified. (Los Alamos National Laboratory:
Theoretical Division, 2004), 1–5. For a more detailed account of T-Division’s involvement with
computers see Bethe, ‘‘Introduction,’’ in Sidney Fernbach and Abraham H. Taub, eds., Computers
and their Role in the Physical Sciences (New York: Gordon and Breach Science, 1970), 1–10. For
the continuation of that story see William Aspray, John von Neumann and the Origins of Modern
Computing (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990). It is also interesting to note that Bethe never
programmed a computer to solve the complex problems he was considering.
208 S. S. Schweber Phys. Perspect.
22
However, the Cold War context was such that Robert R. Wilson (who had severed all his ties
with making atomic weapons after he left Los Alamos, where he had been the head of the Nuclear
Physics Division), in 1950, when he was the director of the Newman Lab, designed a mobile
electron beam gun to destroy atomic bombs after he had learned of strong focusing. See Silvan S.
Schweber, ‘‘Defending against Nuclear Weapons: A 1950 Proposal,’’ Physics Today 60, no. 4
(2007), 36–41.
23
See Forman, ‘‘On the Historical Forms of Knowledge Production’’ (ref. 6).
24
See Paul Hartman, The Cornell Physics Department: Recollections and a History of Sorts
(Ithaca, NY: n. p., 1984).
25
Norris Bradbury, then director of Los Alamos, in 1950 asserted this when interviewed by the
FBI in connection with the renewal of Bethe’s Q clearance. I am indebted for this information to
Alex Wellerstein, who has studied Bethe’s FBI record.
26
See for example Silvan S. Schweber, In the Shadow of the Bomb: Bethe, Oppenheimer, and the
Moral Responsibility of the Scientist. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000) for the
details of the plans.
27
Michael Gordin, Red Cloud at Dawn: Truman, Stalin, and the End of the Atomic Monopoly.
(New York: Farrar, Straus, 2009).
28
Bethe, A Theory for the Ablation of Glassy Materials, Issue 38 of Research report. Avco
Manufacturing Corporation, Avco Everett Research Laboratory, 1958–30 pages; H.A. Bethe and
M.D. Adams, ‘‘A Theory of the Ablation of Glassy Materials,’’ International Journal of Aero-
nautical and Space Sciences 26 (1959), 321–328.
29
See Priscilla J. McMillan, The Ruin of J. Robert Oppenheimer, and the Birth of the Modern
Arms Race (New York: Viking, 2005).
30
See Schweber, In the Shadow of the Bomb (ref. 26).
31
Zuoyue Wang, In Sputnik’s Shadow: The President’s Science Advisory Committee and Cold War
America (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2008).
32
Bethe, ‘‘My Life in Astrophysics,’’ in Gerald E. Brown and Chang-Hwan Lee, eds., Hans Bethe
and His Physics (Singapore: World Scientific 2006), 27–44.
33
The neutrino problem was concerned with the fact that there were far fewer neutrinos being
emitted by the sun than solar models had predicted. See the articles on neutrinos in Brown and
Lee, Hans Bethe and His Physics (ref. 32).
34
See Jeremy Bernstein, Hans Bethe, Prophet of Energy (New York: Basic Books, 1980); Boris
Ioffe, ‘‘Hans Bethe and the Global Energy Problems,’’ in Brown and Lee, Hans Bethe and His
Physics (ref. 32), 263–272.
35
Karin Knorr-Cetina, Epistemic Cultures: The Sciences Make Knowledge (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1999), 1.
36
See, e. g., David Edgerton, ‘‘Science in the United Kingdom: A Study in the Nationalization of
Science,’’ in John Krige and Dominique Pestre, eds., Science in the Twentieth Century (Amster-
dam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1997), 759–776.
37
See, e. g., Enrico Fermi, ‘‘Quantum Theory of Radiation,’’ Reviews of Modern Physics 4 (1932),
87–132.
38
Laurie M. Brown and Helmut Rechenberg, The Origin of the Concept of Nuclear Forces
(Philadelphia: Institute of Physics Pub., 1996).
39
As a result of his researches and calculations in atomic and solid state physics, Bethe early on
had recognized implicitly what Dirac would state explicitly in the first edition of his The Principles
of Quantum Mechanics, namely that our representation of the physical world can be hierarchically
Vol. 16 (2014) Writing the Biography of Hans Bethe 209
ordered by virtue of Planck’s constant, h. Macroscopic systems, whose characteristic time T, mass
M, and length L, are such that ML2/T h are described by classical mechanics; those for which
ML2/T & h are described by quantum mechanics. See the remarkable text on quantum
mechanics, Eyvind H. Wichmann, Quantum Physics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971).
40
These hierarchies are not independent: accurate measurements of atomic energy levels will
reveal nuclear and subnuclear properties. Similarly, the recent startling discovery of the presence
of cold dark matter—consisting of as yet undiscovered subnuclear entities—to make sense of new
cosmological observational data is proof of the linkage between the various levels. But it must also
be noted that these observations have not destabilized our amazingly accurate representations of
the atomic world. Needless to say, the linkage of the levels is made explicit as soon as one tries to
answer evolutionary questions.
41
And more recently in terms of the standard model.
42
See Brown and Rechenberg, The Origin of the Concept of Nuclear Forces (ref. 38).
43
See in this connection Michelangelo De Maria, Mario Grilli, Fabio Sebastiani, eds.,The
Restructuring of the Physical Sciences in Europe and the United States,1945–60: Proceedings of the
International Conference Held in Rome, Università ‘‘La Sapienza’’, 19–23 September 1988’’ (Sin-
gapore: World Scientific,1989); and therein, Forman, ‘‘Social Niche and Self-Image of the
American Physicist’’ pp. 96–104.
44
Forman, ‘‘‘Swords into Ploughshares’: Breaking New Ground with Radar Hardware and
Technique in Physical Research after World War II,’’ Reviews of Modern Physics 67 (1995),
397–455. See also Forman, ‘‘Into Quantum Electronics: the Maser as ‘Gadget’ of Cold-War
America,’’ in Paul Forman and José Sánchez-Ron, eds., National Military Establishments and the
Advancement of Science and Technology: Studies in Twentieth Century History (Dordrecht: Klu-
wer Academic,.1996), 261–326.
45
Louis N. Ridenour, Radar System Engineering (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947).
46
See Forman, ‘‘‘Atom Smashers: Fifty Years’—Preview of an Exhibit on the History of High
Energy Accelerators,’’ IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science NS–24 (1977): 1896–99.
47
J.S. Hey, The Evolution of Radio Astronomy (New York: Science History Publications, 1973).
48
The conference began on June 3 and ended on the 6th. See Schweber, QED and the Men who
Made It (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994); Willis E. Lamb, and Robert C.
Retherford, ‘‘Experiment to Determine the Fine Structure of the Hydrogen Atom’’ (Columbia
University Radiation Laboratory Report, 1946), 18–26; Lamb and Retherford, ‘‘Fine Structure of
the Hydrogen Atom by Microwave Method,’’ Physical Review 72 (1947), 241–243; John E. Nafe,
Edward B. Nelson, and Isidor I. Rabi, ‘‘Hyperfine Structure of Atomic Hydrogen and Deuterium,’’
Physical Review 71 (1947), 914–15.
49
I owe the notion of a ‘‘crucial calculation’’ to Howard Schnitzer. See Schweber, QED (ref. 48),
where the idea is applied to Bethe’s calculation of the Lamb shift in hydrogen and Schwinger’s
calculation of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron using renormalization concepts.
Other examples come readily to mind: Einstein’s calculation of the advance of the perihelion of
Mercury using his formulation of general relativity; Pauli’s calculation of the spectrum of
hydrogen using Born, Jordan, and Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics; and many other instances in
modern particle and condensed matter physics.
50
Steven Weinberg, ‘‘The Search for Unity: Notes for a History of Quantum Field Theory,’’
Daedalus 106, no. 4 (1977), 17–35.
51
See Schweber, ‘‘Shelter Island Revisited,’’ History of Physics Newsletter 11, no. 33 (2011), 1, 8,
10–13.
210 S. S. Schweber Phys. Perspect.
52
Max Dresden, H.A. Kramers: Between Tradition and Revolution (New York: Springer-Verlag,
1987).
53
Bethe’s Shelter Island notes were found in 2011 in his mother’s trunk that had been stored in
the basement of Bethe’s house on White Park Road in Cayuga Heights, NY. The notes can now be
found in Bethe’s papers in the Rare Manuscript Division of the Cornell Library.
54
Since libraries only maintain copies of bound books, copies of lecture notes are only to be found
in the library of the institution where they were delivered or in the Nachlass of the lecturer.
Dyson’s lectures were recently reissued: Freeman J. Dyson, Advanced Quantum Mechanics.
Translated and transcribed by David Derbes. 2nd ed. (Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific, 2011). A
first edition had been issued in 2007.
55
Thus, the proceedings of the Pocono and Oldstone conferences, the follow-ups of the June 1947
Shelter Island conference, became available as dittoed notes within two months of when they were
held in the spring of 1948 and 1949. They disseminated the lectures that Schwinger, Feynman, and
Dyson had presented at them.
56
In the United States after the war, the GI Bill allowed large numbers of young men who had
served in the Armed Forces to be trained as physicists and transformed the demography of
physics: there were many more physicists and they were younger.
57
At that same time, NATO began supporting summer schools on various subjects at different
places in Europe.
58
For the diffusion of Feynman’s approach to quantum electrodynamics and of his diagrams, see
David Kaiser, Drawing Theories Apart: The Dispersion of Feynman Diagrams in Postwar Physics
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005). The role of lecture notes and summer school notes
supplement the views expressed therein regarding textbooks in graduate education. See also
Kaiser, ed., Pedagogy and the Practice of Science: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005).
59
The history of advances in theoretical physics during the twentieth century has often been
written so that developments in ‘‘fundamental’’ theories are seen as being the most important.
They thus have received a disproportionate emphasis. In addition, the Cold War—at least in the
West—has had as one of its consequences that the history of physics during the second half of the
century has often filtered out the Soviet and Russian contributions. The history of the solution of
the phase transition problem in the late 1960s makes it clear that: a) while quantum field theory
was in decline and viewed as being marginal among high energy physicists from the late 1950s to
the mid-1960s, the use of field-theoretic methods was a thriving enterprise in solid state and
condensed matter physics and the source of deep insights that would later be transferred to
relativistic quantum field theory; and b) besides Lev Landau, Soviet theoretical physicists had
made important, foundational contributions to condensed matter physics and to the unraveling of
the phase transition problem.
60
A vision now tainted for having tasted sin in building atomic weapons. That vision was spelled
out in his 1953 Reith lectures, in which he quoted Bishop Sprat’s 1667 history of the Royal Society.
I can readily transcribe Sprat’s statement so that it becomes Oppenheimer’s manifesto for the IAS,
and for physics at the IAS: ‘‘It is to be noted that [the members of the IAS] are to freely admit
Men of different religions, Countries, and Professions of Life. This they are obliged to do, or else
they would come far short of the Largeness of their own Declarations. For they openly profess, not
to lay the foundations of an American, British, German or Japanese mathematics or science; but a
mathematics and science of Mankind.’’
61
Incidentally, in recognition of all that Bethe had accomplished in applying quantum mechanics
and quantum electrodynamics to explain atomic and nuclear phenomena after the war, in the early
1950s Oppenheimer invited Bethe to join the Institute as a professor of physics. Bethe declined,
Vol. 16 (2014) Writing the Biography of Hans Bethe 211
feeling that his place was at Cornell. The IAS had become a finishing school for the brightest
young theorists and Bethe felt that with all his other commitments he could no longer chart new
directions in research for these young people to explore.
62
Les Houches has become a year-round school, whose lectures and publications continue to
influence the development of physics profoundly.
63
Quantum mechanics had acquired a new robustness during World War II. It had explained
quantitatively the properties of germanium used in radar receivers, the properties of matter at 50
million K, and could predict with fair accuracy the results of critical nuclear reactions. The
teaching of quantum mechanics thus gained new importance as a result of the wartime advances.
No one was able to highlight and demonstrate the new powers of quantum mechanics better than
the twenty-eight-year-old Julian Schwinger, who had become a professor of physics at Harvard in
the fall of 1946. His 1947 and 1948 courses on nuclear physics and quantum mechanics became
legendary. Attended not only by the graduate students at Harvard, but by a large fraction of the
physics community in the greater Boston area, two sets of notes of these lectures were written one
by John Blatt, the other by Morton Hamermesh, and both were widely disseminated and repro-
duced elsewhere. They became the basis of quantum mechanics courses all over the United States.
These notes are difficult to find since they were not printed, nor bound, and thus most libraries did
not preserve them.
64
See John Krige and Dominique Pestre in Peter Galison and Bruce Hevly, eds., Big Science: The
Growth of Large-Scale Research (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992); Armin Hermann
et al., eds., History of CERN (Amsterdam: North-Holland Physics Publications, 1987–1996).
65
Forman, ‘‘On the Historical Forms of Knowledge Production’’ (ref. 6), 63. The valuation of
disciplinarity in modernity and interdisciplinarity in postmodernity is a central concern of that
article. See also the discussion of the historical development of disciplinarity and interdiciplinarity
within American universities in Louis Menand, The Marketplace of Ideas (New York: W.W.
Norton, 2010).
66
See David E. Rowe, ‘‘Klein, Hilbert and the Göttingen Mathematical Tradition,’’ Osiris 5
(1989), 186–213; ‘‘Making Mathematics in an Oral Culture: Göttingen in the Era of Klein and
Hilbert,’’ Science in Context 17 (2004), 85–129. Besides all the researches on infinite dimensional
vector spaces carried out in Göttingen (stemming from the concerns of Hilbert and Minkowski
with Boltzmann’s gas theory, lattice vibrations, and black-body radiation), after Einstein became
involved with his theory of general relativity, Hilbert and Klein became deeply entangled in these
activities and generated important mathematical advances, e.g. the researches of Emmy Noether.
Some of the researches of Veblen and of Élie Cartan could similarly be characterized as math-
ematical physics.
67
In fact, until World War II the graduate courses in classical mechanics were often offered by
departments of mathematics.
68
Think of Poincaré, Borel, Kolmogorov, Sinai, …
69
It would be interesting to compare in detail the factors that operated in the various national
settings (US, France, Soviet Union, Germany, Switzerland,…) that made possible the emergence
the discipline of mathematical physics; to compare the different kinds of problems addressed in
the various settings and what these reflected; to compare the status of the discipline in the differing
settings; to see whether the practitioners became members of physics or mathematics departments.
In addition, one can ask what made it possible for Wightman, Jost, Haag, Kastler to create their
schools and for the students they trained to form a new discipline with all the accoutrements that
go with it, such as professional journals and prizes. Surely in the United States the restructuring of
the universities into research and teaching universities after World War II was an important factor.
There was a greater emphasis on research, with lavish government support as part of its pursuance
of the Cold War, and the accompanying overhead payments allowing universities to support
212 S. S. Schweber Phys. Perspect.
activities and functions not directly supported by the government, such as scholarship in the arts
and the humanities. Undoubtedly, during the Cold War era, national prestige and similar factors
were at play in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. See, e.g., Clark Kerr, The Great Transformation in
Higher Education, 1960–1980: The Uses of the University (Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press, 1991); Stuart W. Leslie, The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial-
Academic Complex at MIT and Stanford (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993).
70
That mathematicians held important and influential positions in both the Soviet Academy of
Sciences as well as in the Soviet Atomic Energy establishment was another important determinant
of the focus of the Soviet research in this area.
71
For valuable insights into the evolution of Russian and Soviet mathematics, see the very
interesting volume A. A. Bolibruch, Yu. S. Osipov, and Ya. G. Sinai, eds., Mathematical Events of
the Twentieth Century (Berlin: Springer, 2000), in particular the articles by V. I. Arnold, L.
D. Faddeev, and V. S Vladimirov.
72
Bogoliubov seems to be the exception in the Soviet Union.
73
Wightman’s ties were with von Neumann and Wigner; von Neumann had a close working
association with Hilbert during his stay in Gottingen from 1927 until 1929 as a Privatdozent there.
See Steve J. Heims, John von Neumann and Norbert Wiener: From Mathematics to the Technol-
ogies of Life and Death (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1980); William Aspray, John von Neumann
and the Origins of Modern Computing (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990). Wigner and von
Neumann were close friends since their teens, becoming close colleagues in Princeton in the early
1930s. Recall that the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS) was located on the campus of Princeton
University from 1933, the date of its opening, until 1939, when Fuld Hall was completed. The IAS
mathematicians had offices in Fine Hall, where the Princeton mathematics department was
located. Fine Hall is the building adjacent to the Palmer Laboratory, the home of the Physics
department, with open corridors to it. Jost was a student of Wentzel and Pauli and was Pauli’s
successor as professor of theoretical Physics at the ETH. Both Pauli and Wentzel were students of
Sommerfeld. Haag was a student of Fritz Bopp, who was a student of Heisenberg, who in turn was
a student of Sommerfeld. All three at some stage gave axiomatic formulations of what they
thought were the foundations of quantum field theory. Van Hove was closely associated with
Weyl, von Neumann, Wigner, Bargmann, and Wightman during his stay at the IAS from 1949 to
1954. Hendrik B. G. Casimir, ‘‘Léon Charles Prudent van Hove (10 February 1924–2 September
1991),’’ Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 136, no. 4 (1992), 602–606.
74
From the early 1930s on, Wigner was a member of both the physics and the mathematics
departments at Princeton.
75
See Arthur Wightman, ‘‘The Theory of Quantized Fields in the 50s,’’ in Laurie Brown, Max
Dresden, and Lillian Hoddeson, eds., Pions to Quarks: Particle Physics in the 50s (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press 1989); ‘‘The Usefulness of a General Theory of Quantized Fields,’’ in
Yian Yu Cao, ed., Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Field Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1999) for a history of the developments in axiomatic and constructive field
theory. See also Rudolf Haag, ‘‘Local Algebras: A Look Back at the Early Years and at Some
Achievements and Missed Opportunities,’’ The European Physical Journal H 35 (2010), 255–261.
76
Raymond F. Streater and Arthur S. Wightman, PCT, Spin and Statistics, and All That (New
York: W. A. Benjamin, 1964); Res Jost, The General Theory of Quantized Fields ([Providence,
R.I.], American Mathematical Society, 1965). David Ruelle’s book, Statistical Mechanics: Rigor-
ous Results (New York: A.W. Benjamin, 1969), which became known as ‘‘The Book,’’ gives a
thorough overview of the ways rigorous mathematical analyses had secured some of the foun-
dations of statistical mechanics and had established what kinds of systems could be describe.
77
Freeman J. Dyson and A. Lenard, ‘‘The Stability of Matter,’’ Journal of Mathematical Physics 8
(1967), 423–433. See also Freeman J. Dyson, ‘‘The Stability of Matter,’’ in M. Chrétien, E.P. Gross
Vol. 16 (2014) Writing the Biography of Hans Bethe 213
and S. Deser, eds., Statistical Physics, Phase Transitions, and Superfluidity (New York: Gordon and
Breach, 1968), 1:179–239. See also the informative and insightful article by Larry Spruch, ‘‘Ped-
agogic Notes on Thomas-Fermi Theory (and on Some Improvements): Atoms, Stars, and the
Stability of Bulk Matter,’’ Reviews of Modern Physics 63 (1991), 151–209 and the references
therein to the papers of Eliot Lieb and by Walter Thirring. Also Eliot Lieb, ‘‘Thomas-Fermi and
Related Theories of Atoms and Molecules,’’ in G. Velo and A. S. Wightman, Rigorous Atomic and
Molecular Physics (New York: Plenum Press 1981), 213–301; and Walter Thirring, ‘‘The Stability
of Matter,’’ in ibid., 309–326.
78
See, e. g., Pierre Deligne et al., eds., Quantum Fields and Strings: A Course for Mathematicians
(Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 1999), in particular Edward Witten’s lectures
on ‘‘The Dynamics of Quantum Field Theory’’ (2:1119–1158).
79
See for example Subir Sachdev, ‘‘What can Gauge-Gravity Duality Teach Us about Condensed
Matter Physics?’’ Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 3 (2012): 9–33; ‘‘Strange and
Stringy,’’ Scientific American 308, no. 12 (2013), 44–51; ‘‘The Quantum Phases of Matter,’’ (2011)
http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4565, last accessed April 22, 2014.
80
Battelle Seattle Rencontres (1971). Statistical Mechanics and Mathematical Problems, ed.
A. Lenard (Berlin, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1973).
81
See Forman, ‘‘Social Niche and Self-Image of the American Physicist,’’ in Michelangelo De
Maria et al., eds., Proceedings of the International Conference ‘‘The Restructuring of the Physical
Sciences in Europe and the United States, 1945–60’’ (World Scientific: Singapore, 1989), 96–104.
82
Thus, until the 1960s the general examinations for the PhD at American universities included
questions on all parts of physics and students were expected to have a good grounding in all of
them.
83
Robert K. Merton, ‘‘The Matthew Effect in Science,’’ Science 159, no. 3810 (1968), 56–63; ‘‘The
Matthew Effect in Science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property,’’
Isis 79 (1988), 606–623.
84
The wartime laboratories, the IAS, together with other postwar developments, such as the GI
bill, the ONR’s and the AEC’s support of research in physics at universities, and the contract
system associated with this support, were responsible for the creation in the US of a new gen-
eration of outstanding young theorists: Phillip Anderson, Geoffrey Chew, Leon Cooper, Sidney
Drell, Freeman Dyson, Murray Gell-Mann, Roy Glauber, Marvin Goldberger, Walther Kohn,
Norman Kroll, Francis Low, Quinn Luttinger, Marshall Rosenbluth, Arthur Wightman, …
85
Bethe, High Energy Phenomena. A course of lectures given at Los Alamos in the spring and
summer of 1952, concerning phenomena involving particles with energy in the range of hundreds
of Mev. Main emphasis is placed on the properties of [pi]-mesons and on a relativistic treatment of
the nucleon–nucleon interaction. (Los Alamos, 1953).
86
Freeman Dyson, Marc Ross, Edwin E. Salpeter, Silvan S. Schweber, M. K. Sudarshan, William
M. Vissher and Hans A. Bethe, ‘‘Meson-Nucleon Scattering in Tamm-Dancoff Approximation,’’
Physical Review 95 (1954), 1644–58.
87
Geoffrey F. Chew and Francis Low, ‘‘Effective-range Approach to the Low-energy p-wave
Pion-Nucleon Interaction,’’ Physical Review 101 (1956), 1570–9; ‘‘Theory of Photomeson Pro-
duction at Low Energies,’’ Physical Review 101 (1956), 1579–87. Perhaps one the reasons that the
success of Chew and Low’s approach may have affected Bethe so deeply is that he had formalized
the ‘‘effective-range’’ approach to low energy nucleon–nucleon scattering and was committed to
what later would be called an ‘‘effective field theory’’: Bethe, ‘‘Theory of the Effective Range in
Nuclear Scattering,’’ Physical Review 76 (1949), 38–50. See also Tran N. Truong, ‘‘Bethe-Schw-
inger Effective Range Theory and Lehmann and Weinberg Chiral Perturbation Theories,’’ paper
presented at ICFP 09, September 24–30, 2009, Hanoi, Vietnam.
214 S. S. Schweber Phys. Perspect.
88
One of the first people I heard make this distinction was Alexi Assmuth in a talk at Harvard in
the late 1980s on Philip Anderson and the SSC. Assmuth had characterized high energy theories
as ‘‘foundational.’’ The language of ‘‘foundations’’ had entered historical narratives through the
work of Clifford Geertz, particularly, his essays in The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic
Books, 1973) and the history of science was undergoing its own cultural turn in the late 1980s.
89
I am calling them ‘‘difficult’’ to contrast them with Bethe’s appellation of the dismal 1930s as the
‘‘happy thirties.’’
90
See Schweber, In the Shadow of the Bomb (ref. 26) for Bethe’s involvement in overcoming the
difficulties that his colleague Philip Morrison was experiencing because of his liberal political
views.
91
For an overview of Brueckner’s work, see his lectures in the 1958 Les Houches summer school:
Keith Brueckner, ‘‘Theory of Nuclear Structure and of Many Body Systems’’ in The Many Body
Problem: Le Problème à n corps. Cours donnés à l’École d’Été de physique théorique (Les
Houches 1958), 47–242.
92
H.A. Bethe and R. Bacher, ‘‘Nuclear Physics. A: Stationary States of Nuclei,’’ Reviews of
Modern Physics 8 (1936), 82–229; Bethe, ‘‘Nuclear Physics. B: Nuclear Dynamics, Theoretical,’’
Reviews of Modern Physics 9 (1937), 69–244.
93
The binding energy of an additional proton beyond the number of protons in a closed shell was
less than that that of the protons in the closed shell; likewise for neutrons.
94
See Maria Goeppert Mayer, Elementary Theory of Nuclear Shell Structure (New York: Wiley,
1955).
95
Oral History Transcript of interview with Hans A. Bethe by Charles Weiner at Cornell Uni-
versity May 8, 1972. Niels Bohr Library, Center of the History of Physics; American Institute of
Physics, College Park, MD.
96
Goldstone, using a diagrammatic representation of the perturbative scheme, proved that the
contributions of all unlinked diagrams—the contributions of which had given Brueckner diffi-
culties in his non-diagrammatic, algebraic approach—added up to zero. Goldstone also proved
that each order of perturbation theory gives a contribution proportional to the total number of
particles, this to all orders of perturbation theory.
97
David James Thouless, ‘‘The Application of Perturbation Methods to the Theory of Nuclear
Matter.’’ PhD diss., Cornell University (1958).
98
Jeffrey Goldstone, ‘‘Derivation of the Brueckner Many-Body Theory,’’ Proceedings of the Royal
Society London A 239 (1957), 267–279.
99
John Bardeen, Leon Neil Cooper, and John Robert Schrieffer, ‘‘Theory of Superconductivity,’’
Physical Review 108 (1957), 1175–1204.
100
Chien Shiung Wu et al.,’’Experimental Test of Parity Conservation in Beta Decay,’’ Physical
Review 105 (1957), 1413–5; Tsung-Dao Lee and Chen Ning Yang, ‘‘Question of Parity Conser-
vation in Weak Interactions,’’ Physical Review 104 (1956), 254–8.
101
Les problèmes mathématiques de la théorie quantique des champs, (Lille: Colloques Interna-
tionaux du Centre Nationale de la Rechèrche Scientifique, 3–8 Juin 1957).
102
See Wang, In Sputnik’s Shadow (ref. 31).
103
My paper ‘‘Hacking the Quantum Revolution’’ substantiating this claim is being submitted to
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern
Physics.
104
Tom Banks, Modern Quantum Field Theory: A Concise Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2008), 137. Conversely, the success of the approach of describing physical
Vol. 16 (2014) Writing the Biography of Hans Bethe 215
phenomena in terms effective field theories is a reflection of the fact that appropriately isolated
physical phenomena in a certain energy regime, probed and analyzed by instruments able to
resolve effects only within a certain range of length scales, can be described most simply by a set of
effective degrees of freedom appropriate to that scale.
105
See G. Peter Lepage, ‘‘What is Renormalization?’’ ArXiv:hep-ph/0506330. Talk given at the
Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics (TASI). University of Col-
orado, Boulder, Colorado, in 1989; ‘‘How to Renormalize the Schrödinger Equation’’,
ArxXiv:nucl-th/9706029, 1997 Lectures given at the VIII Jorge Andre Swieca Summer School
(Brazil, 1997).
106
Philip W. Anderson, ‘‘More is Different,’’ Science 177 (1972), 393–6.
107
Ten or so component atoms are the current limit for accurate ab initio computations of
molecular structure.
108
There is a vast literature on the subject with which I am only superficially acquainted. Daniel T.
Rodgers, Age of Fracture (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011) is a most valuable
overview within the American context. In addition to Forman’s writings, I have found the fol-
lowing articles and books useful entries: Mirowski and Sent, Science Bought and Sold (ref. 6);
David Tyfield, The Economics of Science: a Critical Realist Overview (New York: Routledge,
2012); Alfred Nordmann, Hans Radder, and Gregor Schiemann, eds., Science Transformed?:
Debating Claims of an Epochal Break (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2011); Hans
Radder, ed., The Commodification of Academic Research: Science and the Modern University
(Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2010); Philipp Mirowski, Science-Mart (ref. 7); Helga
Novotny et al, eds., The Public Nature of Science under Assault (Berlin: Springer 2005); Domi-
nique Pestre, ‘‘The Technosciences between Market, Social Worries, and the Political: How to
Imagine a Better Future,’’, in ibid., 29–52; Pestre, ‘‘The Historical Heritage of the 19th and 20th
Centuries: Techno-science, Markets, and Regulations in a Long-term Perspective,’’ History and
Technology 23, no. 4 (2007), 407–420. For an overview of current forms of government(ality) and
their interaction with science and technology, see Sheila Jasanoff, Designs on Nature: Science and
Democracy in Europe and the United States. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005);
Pestre, ‘‘Challenges for the Democratic Management of Technoscience: Governance, Participa-
tion and the Political Today’’, Science as Culture 17(2) (2008), 101–19; Pestre, ‘‘Understanding the
Forms of Government in Today’s Liberal Societies: An Introduction,’’ Minerva 47, no. 3 (2009),
243–60.
109
See Forman, ‘‘From the Social to the Moral to the Spiritual: The Postmodern Exaltation of the
History of Science,’’ in Jürgen Renn and Kostas Gavroglu, eds., Positioning the History of Science
(Berlin: Springer Verlag, 2007), 49–55; Forman, ‘‘The Primacy of Science in Modernity’’ (ref. 6),
‘‘On the Historical Forms of Knowledge Production’’ (ref. 6).
110
See Chapter 2 of Rodgers’ Fracture (ref. 108) for a history of the changes of perspectives and
assumptions in the disciple of economics, including neoliberalism.
111
The Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act—now known as the Bayh-Dole Act —was
enacted by the US Congress in December 1980. The legislation gave American universities, small
businesses, and non-profit organizations exclusive patenting rights of inventions and control and
property rights over intellectual materials that resulted from governmental funding. The legisla-
tion had been sponsored by Senators Birch Bayh of Indiana and Bob Dole of Kansas.
112
For an account of the transformation of American universities, in particular of the bio-medical
sciences, see Mirowski, Science-Mart (ref. 7).
113
‘‘What the Past Tells us about the Future of Science,’’ in José Manuel Sánchez Ron, ed., La
Ciencia y la Tecnologia ante el Tercer Milenio (Madrid: Sociedad Estatal España Nuevo Milenio,
2002), 27–37, on 27.
216 S. S. Schweber Phys. Perspect.
114
The scholarship that went into ‘‘The Primacy of Science in Modernity, of Technology in
Postmodernity, and of Ideology in the History of Technology’’ and his Osiris 2012 article ‘‘On the
Historical Forms of Knowledge Production and Curation: Modernity Entailed Disciplinarity,
Postmodernity Entails Antidisciplinarity,’’ is most impressive. The Primacy article is 72 pages
long; its 424 endnotes are set in small type and take up 56 pages and its bibliography, 24. The
Osiris paper is only 45 pages long. However, one third of most the pages are taken up by lengthy
footnotes listing an enormous number of articles and books referring to the subject matter being
discussed, and many of them are commented on, at times very critically.
115
Forman, ‘‘On the Historical Forms of Knowledge Production’’ (ref. 6), 58n7.
116
Forman, ‘‘The Primacy of Science in Modernity, of Technology in Postmodernity and of
Ideology in the History of Technology’’ (ref. 6).
117
The following are the introductory remarks in the web page of the MIT department of bio-
engineering: ‘‘The Department of Biological Engineering was founded in 1998 as a new MIT
academic unit, with the mission of defining and establishing a new discipline fusing molecular life
sciences with engineering. The goal of this biological engineering discipline is to advance fun-
damental understanding of how biological systems operate and to develop effective biology-based
technologies for applications across a wide spectrum of societal needs including breakthroughs in
diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease, in design of novel materials, devices, and pro-
cesses, and in enhancing environmental health. ’’ http://web.mit.edu/be/index.shtm, last accessed
April 22, 2014. The Stanford University web page reads:’’ The mission of [the] Department of
Bioengineering is to create a fusion of engineering and the life sciences that promotes scientific
discovery and the development of new biomedical technologies and therapies through research
and education. http://bioengineering.stanford.edu/, last accessed April 22, 2014.
118
In ‘‘Hacking the Quantum Revolution’’ (ref. 103), I take issue with Laughlin and Pines’s
formulation of the foundational theory that is the point of departure for Laughlin’s assertions in A
Different Universe. Robert B. Laughlin and David Pines, ‘‘The Theory of Everything,’’ Proceed-
ings of the National Academy of Sciences 97, no. 1 (2000), 28–31.
119
See Richard Holloran, ‘‘Protracted Nuclear War,’’ Air Force Magazine 91, no. 3 (2008). The
substance of NSDD 32 and NSDD 75 was divulged in the New York Times on May 30, 1983 in an
op-ed column by Holloran.
120
See Sonja Michelle Amadae, Rationalizing Capitalist Democracy: The Cold War Origins of
Rational Choice Liberalism (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2003) and particularly
S.M. Amadae, ‘‘Cold War, Security Dilemma, and Prisoner’s Dilemma: Does Insecurity Ratio-
nalize Hegemony?’’ (unpublished manuscript).
121
The rhetoric of ‘‘nuclear tipped’’—rather than for example ‘‘having nuclear capabilities’’—was
a deliberate attempt to minimize the devastation and chaos that would be wreaked by a protracted
nuclear war.
122
William Broad, Teller’s War: The Top-Secret Story Behind the Star Wars Deception (New York:
Simon & Schuster, 1992).
123
Space-Based Missile Defense: A Report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (Cambridge,
MA:,Union of Concerned Scientists. March 1984).
124
Kurt Gottfried and Bruce Blair, Crisis Stability and Nuclear War (New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1988).
125
See Bethe’s list of publications in Hans A. Bethe, Selected Works with Commentary (Singa-
pore: World Scientific, 1997).
126
Hans A. Bethe, [Untitled Statement], Federation of American Scientists Public Interest Report
48, no. 5 (September-October 1995), 8.
Vol. 16 (2014) Writing the Biography of Hans Bethe 217
127
It should be noted that Forman’s view of the postmodern world is every bit as bleak as was
Bethe’s. See Forman, ‘‘The Primacy of Science in Modernity’’ (ref. 6), n420. There Forman states:
‘‘If postmodernity, such as it is, continues its advance—and I can see nothing short of a cata-
strophic alteration of the life conditions on this planet as capable of altering the ever wider spread
and deeper seating of this radically self-regarding individualism—then the consequent transfor-
mations of personality, culture and society will render the constructive endeavors of the past three
centuries increasingly irrelevant and unintelligible. Among those endeavors, science is especially
vulnerable. For if science is not regarded as separate and distinguishable from technology in some
culturally highly valued ways, and if the fact of scientific laws is not regarded as a greater miracle
than the fact that the machine works, then it is ‘curtains’ for the scientific enterprise.’’
Brandeis University
Waltham, USA
e-mail: schweber@brandeis.edu