The book-in-progress (which is coming along, albeit slowly, thanks for asking) is built around making analogies between scientific discoveries and ordinary activities. This necessarily means telling a lot of historical stories, which is both good and bad. The bad part is that actual history is way messier than the streamlined version you get to use if you’re primarily trying to explain the science, and I feel some obligation to do this right as much as possible, thus making work for myself. The good part is I’m reading a lot of narrative history of science stuff, which is kind of fun. In particular, I’ve been reading a lot about the development of quantum electrodynamics (QED).

One of the things that struck me about this was how collegial the whole enterprise seems to have been. A lot of versions of the story cast it as a titanic conflict between Feynman and Schwinger, but they don’t seem to have had an intense personal rivalry. In one of the books I’ve read recently, Feynman even recalls talking to Schwinger as the only redeeming element of his disastrous presentation at the Pocono Manor conference. There’s a notable absence of back-stabbing and protracted priority disputes– everybody talked to everybody else, and there’s much more a sense of a shared enterprise of discovery than a competition for scientific supremacy. (I was particularly struck by this when somebody re-tweeted a link to this post calling for an academic science tv drama– the culture described doesn’t quite fit with what I’ve been reading.) Max Born sort of sulks for a long time over his relative lack of recognition, but he’s about the only one who seems to have this as a major concern. And when Tomonaga writes to Oppenheimer with his own QED calculation of the Lamb shift, Oppenheimer is quick to publicize it and see that Tomonaga gets recognition as a co-creator of the theory, and everybody happily goes along.

The other striking thing is how interconnected the whole business is. The community of people working on quantum mechanics and QED isn’t all that large, and they all appear to have been in nearly constant communication. Everybody writes letters to everybody else, sharing preliminary results, speculating about next steps, and commenting on the ideas of others. Some of the commentary is a little sharp– Wolfgang Pauli had an acid tongue– but again, it comes off very much as a community endeavor, rather than a distributed competition. (Pauli also seems to have produced an exceptionally voluminous correspondence, or perhaps was just better at keeping track of his letters than the others, because every story seems to come back to a letter Pauli wrote to somebody, or vice versa.)

I’ve wondered half-seriously in the past how it is that the arxiv came out of physics, given the reputation physicists have for arrogance. My recent reading makes me think that this was actually a very natural outcome. As you know even if your name’s not Bob, the arxiv grew out of a preprint-sharing network among high-energy theorists in the 1980′s, but that seems to be a natural continuation of the letter-writing networks of the 1920′s and 1930′s.

Of course, having also read some history about biology and chemistry in the latter half of the 1800′s, it’s also clear that this is kind of anomalous– there are nasty and protracted arguments and underhanded tactics in those fields going back just as far as the data-sharing in physics. Which comes back to the arxiv being kind of exceptional, as I’ve written before. In terms of getting open-access policies and so on adopted, I really do think the important question is not why fields other than physics haven’t adopted preprint-sharing, but what it was about physics that created the proto-arxiv in the first place.

(Niels Bohr was arguably more central to the communications network of the quantum enterprise than Pauli, I think, and in that sense might belong in the post title instead. Having met Paul Ginsparg a few times, though, I think his general attitude is probably closer to Pauli’s. At least, the comparison amused me, which is good enough for a blog post title…)

Comments

  1. #1 agm
    May 10, 2013

    Do you have a particular recommendation for a quasi-pop sci treatment of QED then?

  2. #2 Chad Orzel
    May 10, 2013

    I’m rather fond of Robert Oerter’s The Theory of Nearly Everything, which covers the whole Standard Model, and thus includes a decent discussion of QED. It’s one of the few pop treatments to try to explain the difference between what Schwinger did and what Feynman did– most just go with Feynman diagrams.

    Frank Close’s The Infinity Puzzle is also very good, though it does the early development of QED very quickly, spending much more time on electroweak unification and QCD. It’s got a good description of the central problems, though is pretty sketchy about what Schwinger did.

    Going back a ways, The Second Creation by Crease and Mann is one of my recent reads, and is based largely on interviews of the surviving participants circa 1984. It’s very good and readable.

    I’m currently reading Schweber’s QED and the Men Who Made It, which is a scientific history in the Pais mode, including lots and lots of equations. This is not a pop treatment, but heavy scholarship, though it’s fairly readable if you skip lightly over the math.

  3. #3 G.
    California USA
    May 11, 2013

    Chad, I think the reason there’s a lot of “titanic conflict” stories out there is that most humans think in terms of “drama” therefore “conflict.” Underlying that is the nearly-universal human drive to experience strong emotions, bounded by a certain lack of appreciation for the fact that the subtler emotions (such as curiosity, sense of discovery, collegiality, etc.) can be more profound and ultimately lead to more satisfying outcomes.

    There’s something else I’d like to put on your radar.

    You’ve probably heard of Jacob Barnett, 14-year-old Ph.D. student presently working on PT-symmetric lattices, and considered by many university physicists to be thinking at the Einstein level or above. He’s become something of a young celebrity, and with that comes a major risk that I think needs to be addressed by people in the science community:

    There are many creepy grownups out there with ideological agendas, very often political or religious, who would just love to gain influence with this kid for their own purposes. It would be tragic in many ways if any of them was to succeed and end up digressing Jacob’s path in some way or luring him into some kind of wacko extremism.

    For example Glenn Beck charmed the Barnett family, and it appears they don’t know that he’s also the guy whose hate-rants on TV provoked one of his followers to shoot five Pittsburgh PA police officers (killing three, wounding two), and another of his followers to attempt a multiple murder spree at the Tides Foundation in San Francisco, but was stopped en-route by the police (where he shot & wounded two officers).

    When I saw Jacob’s mom’s comment that Beck treated them well, my red alert went off: if there’s been one such instance already, there are probably many more waiting to happen (yes, over-generalization from a single datapoint, but none the less, better safe than sorry in this case). Many more “charming” grownups with agendas who would seek to manipulate Jacob and his family.

    So I’m asking you (and will ask others around here) for something like a favor: Round up a bunch of working scientists to get in touch with Jacob and let him know that he needs to be really careful about not getting taken advantage of by creepy grownups with agendas, whether on the right or the left, whether religious or atheistic, whatever. He has Asperger’s, which means he’s more likely to err on the side of trusting people. So do what you can to equip him with the tools to spot the creeps, fakes, manipulators, and other bad-actors, and recognize the people who he can trust to have his interests in mind rather than their own.

    This kid has the potential to make some truly major contributions in physics & astrophysics. Ideally he should surround himself with scientists and professors who can be trusted to treat him with respect as a peer, and to relate to him on the altruistic basis of what’s good for him rather than what’s good for someone else’s agenda. In general he should surround himself with people he can trust to treat him as (to use Kantian terms for this) “an end-in-himself” rather than as “a means to other ends.”

    Maybe that’s already happening and I’m raising a needless alarm, but I’d sooner look like an idiot, than not ask people if they also smell smoke, if there’s risk of a fire breaking out.

    What do you think?

  4. #4 CCPhysicist
    May 17, 2013

    The best thing about the Crease and Mann book is that it does not pretend that all of the discoveries in particle physics started with theoretical work.

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!