Search

The latest in the Artefacts series, Behind the Exhibit examines scientific heritage and narratives behind public display of scientific artifacts in national and international exhibitions and science museums throughout the twentieth century. Developed from the Artefacts XX conference, convened 20–22 September 2015 at the Leonardo da Vinci National Museum of Science and Technology in Milan, during Expo Milan 2015, this volume brings together museum curators and historians of science and technology to present case studies from the United States, Europe, Russia, and Japan. What emerged is a study of the tension between basic science and technological applications, the multilayered role of history, the appearance and disappearance of artifacts, and the search for a balance between entertainment and education.

Klein’s agenda for an applied mathematics materialized at the beginning of the century in the Gottinger Vereinigung zur Forderung der angewandten Physik und Mathematik, a group of professors and industrialists that tried to promote applied sciences and which raised considerable financial means for this aim.

Scientific change is most often also a change of scientists, but does the inverse also make sense? Perhaps this may be the case if the changes are made intentionally. Thus the first field of research politics—which does not necessarily add up to a stringent policy—concerns the discussions about, and even fights for candidates and successors at the Gottingen faculty. In the following, I begin by describing the changes in personnel of the chairs of physics and neighboring fields. These are included to illustrate the rather exceptional changes in some fields like physics. The analysis of continuities and discontinuities is then employed to identify the driving forces behind the observed changes.

Traditional accounts of the history of quantum mechanics often relate events to a few leading figures and their schools, viz. the Sommerfeld school, the Born school and the Bohr school. As suggestive as this picture may be, it tends to oversimplify the more complex state of affairs, in particular when one claims that there was, more generally, a “Gottingen school” or a “Copenhagen school,” since the approach only places the case of Munich in the proper school framework. In Copenhagen, we find something more like a postgraduate institute, as the activities of Bohr’s institute depended heavily on constantly changing combinations of postdocs.

Gottingen is without doubt one of the central places where quantum physics developed. Here quantum mechanics was established for the first time in the collaboration of Max Born with Werner Heisenberg and Pascual Jordan, two of his former students who had grown up to become real partners in science. Collecting the specific contributions to quantum theory that came from Gottingen in the two decades before the quantum mechanical revolution, however, does not combine easily into a satisfactory narrative.

From a letter from David Hilbert, on vacation in Alassio, to Arnold Sommerfeld in Munich, 5 April 1912. (DMA, HS 1977–28/A, 141).

This paper examines the complex and evolving relationship between science and the military in the development of listening technologies by British, French and German combatants during the First World War to combat increasingly effective ballistics and artillery on the Western Front. Land-based combat changed from the visual to the aural with an increasing selection of audio-based surveillance technologies being made available, notably sound-ranging, in part to combat the physical limitations of the human ear in the battlefield space. The article concludes by analyzing how post-war physics responded to these developments in sound-based battlefield technologies.

This chapter traces the career of Philipp Lenard, a prominent scientific figure in Nazi Germany, as a way of understanding some of the specifically German conceptions of the ether in the twentieth century. Starting from the perspective of Anglo-Saxon observers, the chapter sketches the development of Lenard’s understanding of the ether through his experience with the ether, the experiments he envisaged to prove the ether, and his emotions concerning the ether, as these impacted his scientific, philosophical and political approaches. The chapter also discusses his major scientific and popular writings from between 1910 and 1943, highlighting the exchange of ideas about the ether, particularly between German and British scientists, and delineating Lenard’s aims in the natural sciences as well as in political matters related to ether, matter, life and spirit, which became a central part of his Deutsche Physik, an infamous physics textbook from 1936.

My paper considers the impact of the early Solvay meetings from a perspective of popularization, i.e. looking at audiences besides science. In asking “Who made quantum theory popular?” I investigate whether this unusual congress introduced a kind of mechanism — institutional, disciplinary, popularizing or other — that had been recognized and applied also elsewhere. My interpretation of the early Solvay conferences, on the one hand, dispenses with linear stories often found with older accounts, e.g. that the Solvay meetings Nos. 1, 2 and 5 supposedly laid the foundations of quantum theory altogether. On the other hand, I attempt at dispelling the “three miracles” Peter Galison (2007) has found in the history of the first Solvay meeting. He was right to stress that the meetings were not so much spectacular turning points in the history of physics but rather “served as sites for powerful reviews of the field” and were “catalysts for intellectual and social networks”. However, neither the “precise balance between two philantropic forces” in Ernest Solvay’s motivation, nor Lorentz’s brilliant guidance of the discourse, nor the “presence and prior contributions” of Einstein, I would like to be willing to qualify in any way as miracles. There were good reasons, I argue, to give Lorentz the role he filled, and to invite Einstein; also Nernst may have made it clear enough to Solvay, what role would give him the most appreciation. My thesis is that the success of the first Solvay meeting did not much rely on miracles, but was a successful unfolding of a meticulously devised model — call it the Solvay model, or probably more accurately, the Nernst model. This model can be characterized as an externally-funded, agenda-setting, high-profile and international meeting of scientists concerned with one novel scientific problem or field, where select pre-circulated papers of some participants were discussed with more invited discussants, and later its papers and discussions were published for reaching a broader scientific audience as well as informing a more general audience, and all this with the aim to have follow-up meetings as well as a grant giving institution promoting research in the chosen field. For such a model, it obviously needed a Nernst, a Solvay and an interested scientific community, or to put it more generally, an organizer driven by a scientific problem he had encountered and which he wanted to dominate, a Philantropy that can offer funds and institutional resources, and also some disciplinary space, within which a new scientific subfield can be established. I test this model with two cases, which may be called Solvay 1.5 and Solvay 16.5, relating to high-profile meetings at Gottingen in 1913 and San Francisco in 1977.

In a recent book on The Publics of Science; Experts and Laymen Through History, Agustí Nieto-Galan introduced his subject of a (mostly Western) history of public science, covering the times from the Scientific Revolution to the twenty-first century, with reference to Sigmund Freud. In one of his essays of cultural critique, Freud had, so to speak, put culture itself on his couch, and this session also featured talk about science and technological application. Civilization and Its Discontents identified a factor of disillusionment in the progress of science and technology, which gave rise to “The Uneasiness in Culture” (the literal translation of the title of Freud's German essay Das Unbehagen in der Kultur), and this uneasiness tainted a great deal of the happiness science and technology were intended to cultivate (Nieto-Galán 2011; Freud 1930). New technology and inventions like telephones, ocean liners, or drugs, Freud argued, were mostly remedies for negative developments technology had just created; for instance, without modern transportation people would stay close to each other and not need any telephone. (However, he did not address the issue of whether scientific knowledge itself may have provided some satisfaction.) The modern individual, as analyzed by Freud, was therefore constantly ill at ease with modern scientific and technological culture.

ArgumentGerman twentieth-century history is characterized by stark changes in the political system and the momentous consequences of World Wars I and II. However, instead of uncovering specific kinds or periods of “Kaiserreich science,” “Weimar science,” or “Nazi science” together with their public manifestations and in such a way observing a narrow link between popular science and political orders, this paper tries to exhibit some remarkable stability and continuity in popular science on a longer scale. Thanks to the rich German history of scientific leadership in many fields, broad initiatives for science popularization, and a population and economy open to scientific progress, the media offered particularly rich popular science content, which was diversified for various audiences and interests. Closer consideration of the format, genre, quality, and quantity of popular science, and of the uses and value audiences attributed to it, along with their respective evolution, reveals infrastructures underpinning science communication. Rather than dealing with specific discourses, the conditions of science communication are at the center of this article. Therefore I focus on the institutions, rules, laws, and economies related to popular science, as well as on the philosophical, moral, and national propositions related to it, and also on the interactions among this ensemble of rather heterogeneous elements. This approach allows a machinery of popular scientific knowledge to be identified, in Foucauldian terms adispositif, one which is of a particularly cultural nature.

Physikstudium am Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1939 Promotion an der Universitat Princeton; fuhrte zahlreiche neue Ansatze zur Berechnung und zum Verstandnis quantenphysikalischer Phanomene ein; Beteiligung am US-Atombombenprojekt, ab 1950 am California Institute of Technology; brillanter und offentlichkeitswirksamer Vertreter der theoretischen Physik; Nobelpreis 1965 mit Julian Schwinger und Shinichiro Tomonaga.

While science education and popularization by means of print media developed in quite similar forms in many nations, the advent of radio resulted in initiatives to bring science on the air that were rather heterogeneous from country to country. The German case stands out with respect to quantity, variety and ambition, and also for its special mechanism of planning and controlling educational programs on science and technology. Hence it is argued that a closer look at how the chances of the new medium were discussed and implemented in Weimar Germany can provide a scale of reference for the development of science communication on the radio in other countries. For this reason a brief summary of the the respective developments in the United States and Europe is presented, before discussing in some detail Germany’s particular institutional organization, program structures, combination of radio broadcasts and print material into a kind of multimedia, and various formats and genres.

This paper discusses the role of popular science communication for the 'cultural milieu' or more generally the 'environment' of scientists and science in Germany between c. 1900 and 1933 in the sense of Paul Forman. On the rich basis of diverse journals aiming at a differentiated public the discourse on atomic physics is sketched. Since the thesis of a general hostility towards atomic physics in particular and science in general cannot be accredited the question arises how widespread and in which sense a crisis of science was discussed in the Weimar years.

On the basis of an analysis of popular German journals and book series of science communication the question is posed whether the relation between science and public took on different forms in the 20th century compared to those that had been widely discussed for the 19th century under the term science "popularization." It is argued that marked changes in this relation occurred around 1900 and again in the passage from the 1950s to the 1960s. Instead of extending the concept of popularization to modern times or tracing back roots of the knowledge society substantially, it appears suitable to identify an era of science communication between c. 1900 and 1960. This periodization as well as a layered model of the exchanges between science and public is then applied to some general theses from the literature about the medialization of science and a fracture between science and public, respectively.

Physics and Politics in the Early Federal Republic of Germany. Max Born, Werner Heisenberg and Pascual Jordan between Scientific and Political Discourse. – Contrasting the historiography of two major developments in 20th century German history, the creation of quantum mechanics in 1925 and the dispute on the nuclear armament of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1957, the question is raised to which extent the scientific culture was able to bridge political disagreement within the German physicists' community. A twofold story of the private and public exchange between Max Born, Werner Heisenberg and Pascual Jordan among others on the scientists' position to nuclear armament on the one hand and the writing of the history of quantum mechanics on the other hand displays different types of relating scientific work and moral responsibility. Neither politics nor science went on unaltered after the disputes between physics and politics in the early Federal Republic of Germany.

David Hilbert (1862-1943) played an important role in establishing quantum physics in Gottingen. I analyze the ways in which his influence was decisive by comparison with Woldemar Voigt (1850-1919). Voigt was the leading Gottingen theoretical physicist before the arrival of Peter Debye (1884-1966), who was appointed to a new professorship in 1914 at Hilbert's instigation. I portray the Gottingen mathematicians, above all Hermann Minkowski (1864-1909) and David Hilbert, as planting the seeds for the blossoming of quantum physics under their student Max Born (1882-1970) in the 1920s.

The use of the concept of social history of science is sketched in the Anglo-American and the German discussions from the mid 1970s up to recent work. By presenting a 'social map' of a selected scientific community it is argued that between the categories of discipline and single scientist there exists a wide 'social space' of groups within which science is pursued. In adopting a milieu theoretic approach an ecology of science is proposed as a suitable extension of the social history of science..

Typically, scholars that do research on models and structures of science education understand their work as rather independent of issues like popularization and journalism. Further academic pursuits that ask about the history of popular science including its specific audiences and genres on the one hand and that try to explore the preferable ways for journalists to write about news from science and technology on the other hand may exist in their own right. Systematic science education, one may hold, in particular as it is related to institutions such as schools and universities must be confounded neither with popular readings that blend entertainment with telling stories about science nor with science news within the daily press. While the latter would be too unsystematic to count as education, the former may not really teach new skills but rather amount to second-order discussion on scientific developments. Education, popularization, and journalism may hence appear as distinguishable endeavors that all relate to science but do not necessary function in connection. The collection of five papers in this special issue intends to disproof this view—at least to some extent. The argument becomes particularly strong from a wider European perspective, and rather than concentrating on the ‘‘big’’ science nations like Britain, Germany and France one may consider the developments in the European periphery, where educational institutions (even in the twentieth century) still had to develop a wide availability and an independent standing (Daum 2009; Papanelopoulou et al. 2009). Within the process of creating a general scientific literacy the Greek, Portuguese, and Spanish cases show to what extent popularization and science news in the daily press have contributed to a complex educational project. Along the same lines it is often hard to distinguish popular books on science from early science textbooks, a distinction that is just so obvious for academic professionalism in the ‘‘big’’ science nations. For this reason it appears reasonable not to divide the various discourses on science too quickly into education, popularization, and science news and better to concentrate on the circulation of knowledge— or on ‘‘knowledge in transit’’ (Secord 2004)—in which all three fields may participate and interact. This view opens up a particular diverse field. Events like earth quakes or solar

The structure of the deformation U q (sl(2, C)) is discussed. The comultiplication, all commutation relations, and a conjugation follow in a clear way form the simple SL q (2) structure. ‘Fundamental’ and spin representation are given.

The lecture course on radiation theory discusses the theory of blackbody radiation in thermal equilibrium leading to Kirchhoff’s law and to Planck’s radiation law.

5. D. Bohm, R. Schiller, J. Tiomno: A Causal Interpretation of the Pauli Equation (A). Nuovo Cim. 1(supl.), 48–66 (1955) 6. C. Dewdney, P. R. Holland, A. Kyprianidis: A Causal Account of Non-local Einstein-PodolskyRosen Spin Correlations. J. Phys. A Math. Gen. 20, 4717–4732 (1987) 7. J. S. Bell: On the Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Theory. Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447–452 (1966) 8. J. S. Bell: On the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen Paradox. Physics 1, 195–200 (1964) 9. A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, G. Roger: Experimental Realization of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen– Bohm Gedankenexperiment: A New Violation of Bell’s Inequalities. Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 91–94 (1982) 10. P. H. Eberhard: Bell’s Theorem and the Different Concepts of Locality. Nuovo Cim. B 46, 392–419 (1978) 11. A. Shimony: Events and Processes in the Quantum World, in Quantum Concepts in Space and Time, ed. R. Penrose, C. Isham (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1986, pp. 182–203)

Meine Zeiten sind nicht da. Vielleicht kommen sie spater, wenn Wahrheit, Wirklichkeit und damit auch Naturforscher-Denken etwas gelten werden. Wahrheit wird zur Geltung kommen mussen unter den Menschen; denn sie ist das allein Geltende in der Natur, und die Menschen wurden sonst, trotz aller Technik, an Vertierung zu Grunde gehen, – was aber gegen die so offensichtliche Aufwartsentwicklung alles Lebenden ware, welche die Geologie in der Vorzeit an den Ausgrabungen in Geltung zeigt.

Multiparameter solutions of the Yang-Baxter equation associated with the groups of types A, B, C, D are given as generalizations of the well-known one-parameter solutions. The R-matrix approach to quantum groups is related to the algebraic one of Rheshitikhin (1990).

The Yang-Baxter equation is solved in two dimensions giving rise to a two-parameter deformation ofGL(2). The transformation properties of quantum planes are briefly discussed. Non-central determinant and inverse are constructed. A right-invariant differential calculus is presented and the role of the different deformation parameters investigated. While the corresponding Lie algebra relations are simply deformed, the comultiplication exhibits both quantization parameters.

An essential prerequisite for the study of q-deformed physics are particle states in position and momentum representation. In order to relate x- and p-space by Fourier transformations the appropriate q-exponential series related to orthogonal quantum symmetries is constructed. It turns out to be a new q-special function giving rise to q-plane wave solutions that transform with a noncommuting phase under translations., Comment: 21 pages, LBL-36151; UCB-PTH-94/24 (no changes, mailed differently, hopefully without mailer corruptions)

A simple modification of the Dirac algebra yields the q-deformed version corresponding to the framework of quantized Minkowski space. The method of deriving R-matrix relations for Minkowski coordinates, differentials, derivatives, and γ-matrices is explained. Taking a suitable conjugation structure on the derivatives and q-Dirac matrices allows for a q-analog of the Dirac equation that iterates to a Klein-Gordon equation. Its covariance is shown.

After a short reminder of quantum groups, some recent progress in understand­ing the q-deformation of the Lorentz symmetry from the research group of J. Wess is reported. A simple argument is given for extracting the six physical generators of the Lorentz algebra from an initial number of seven emerging from the deformation procedure.