Discovering Dr. Wu

*
Author(s)
Jada Yuan
Publication
Washington Post Style
Published
Dec 13, 2021
Publication Date
December 13, 2021
Publisher
Washington Post
Citation
Yuan, Jada. “Discovering Dr. Wu.” Washington Post, 13 Dec. 2021
Comment(s)

Article by Wu's granddaughter about her own journey of discovery about her famous relative.

Abstract

Someone pulled a cord and yellow fabric billowed down, revealing a three-story-tall statue of my grandmother.

It was May 2012, in a city just north of Shanghai. And there she loomed, a sculptor’s rendition of Chien-Shiung Wu, the pioneering, internationally renowned nuclear physicist, who left China in 1936 to pursue her education in the United States, and, in a lot of ways, resisted looking back. She disproved what was thought to be a fundamental law of nature and raised my dad in Manhattan and taught me how to use chopsticks as a kid.

In life, she stood maybe all of 5 feet, and shrinking with age. Now she was preserved as a young version of herself, seated atop an actual pedestal, draped in academic robes like the ones I’d only seen in photographs of her winning 16 honorary doctorates of science, including the first given to a woman at Princeton University. It took me a moment to comprehend that the statue was supposed to be her. So big, and so green — the same minty hue as the Statue of Liberty.

 

Excerpt(s)

Even now it’s difficult, because if I dig too hard, I have to confront the idea that, in the course of her many achievements, Chien-Shiung Wu didn’t balance her work and her family life, and those choices have trickled down, through my father and then to me, in ways that I’m only beginning to understand after years of therapy. This essay took months to write, during which I had surgery on my uterus and have been freezing my eggs — wondering if I, single at 43, will be the end of her family line.

Selected
Yes
Subject Physicist (ref vocab Physicists)
Story

Oral History: Murray Gell-Mann (b. 1929)

*
*
Author(s)
Interviewed by Sara Lippincott
Publication
Oral History Project
Publication Date
2013
Publisher
California Institute of Technology
Citation
Gell-Mann, Murray. Interview by Sara Lippincott. Santa Fe Institute, New Mexico, July 1997. Oral History Project, California Institute of Technology Archives.
Comment(s)

Gell-Mann discusses the role that challenges to the RR experiment played in the priority dispute over first publication of the universal V–A theory.

Abstract

An interview in two sessions, July 1997, with Murray Gell-Mann, Robert Andrews Millikan Professor of Theoretical Physics, emeritus. Dr. Gell-Mann was on the faculty of Caltech’s Division of Physics, Mathematics, and Astronomy from 1955 until 1993.

In this anecdotal interview tracing his career to 1960, he begins by recalling his Manhattan childhood during the Depression, family background, early education at Columbia Grammar School. Discusses his undergraduate years at Yale, graduate work at MIT with Victor Weisskopf, courses at Harvard with Norman Ramsey and Julian Schwinger—followed in 1951 by two terms at Institute for Advanced Study, working with Francis Low on a problem in quantum field theory. Summer 1951, University of Illinois, works on complex systems with Keith Brueckner; interaction with John von Neumann.

Joins University of Chicago’s Institute for Nuclear Studies, headed by Enrico Fermi; recalls such colleagues as M. L. Goldberger, Leo Szilard, Harold Urey, Gerald Wasserburg; works on dispersion relations and pseudoscalar meson theory with Goldberger. At University of Illinois, summer 1953, works with Low on elementary-particle field theory, invents the renormalization group; comments on later contributions of Petermann & Stueckelberg, his student Kenneth Wilson. His early work at Caltech on what was later called S-matrix theory; comments on contribution to superstring theory. Meets future wife, Margaret Dow; travels in
Scotland with her, 1954; their marriage. Recruited to Caltech by R. P. Feynman; life in Pasadena; visits Bohr Institute, Copenhagen, summer 1955; Spain, France, and the U.K. Back at Caltech fall 1956, teaches quantum mechanics course. Recollections of Robert and Kitty Oppenheimer, Stewart Harrison. Comments on undergraduate education at Caltech and vain efforts to promote behavioral and social sciences there.

Work at RAND, 1956; paper with Brueckner; objections by Brueckner and Tatsuro Sawada; contributions of Bill Karzas, Don DuBois, Jeffrey Goldstone. Annual Review of Nuclear Science article on “last stand of the universal Fermi Interaction” with Arthur Rosenfeld; related work by Marshak & Sudarshan; Feynman’s approach; their collaboration; later work by Yang & Lee. Comments on origins of the Eightfold Way. Preoccupation with symmetry, supermultiplets, weak and strong interactions, Yang-Mills theory. Collaboration with Maurice Lévy et al., in France, 1959, on the axial vector current in beta decay.

Excerpt(s)

GELL-MANN: Let me tell you what happened. I’ve written about it many times, and it works like this. In 1956 and ’57, when it was proposed and confirmed that parity was violated in weak interactions, an attractive theoretical model became available—which I had been toying with, actually, for a number of years. And that was a vector and axial vector picture of the weak interactions, where there was just a single current, with vector plus axial vector terms. The interaction would then be vector plus axial vector times vector plus axial vector. And the cross terms would violate parity, while the square terms would preserve parity. Since parity was known to be violated, this was an acceptable scheme. But experiments in nuclei on beta decay, sponsored by Mrs. [Chien-Shiung] Wu at Columbia and done by [Brice] Rustad and [Stanley] Ruby, and various other experiments, suggested that this vector/axial-vector interaction was wrong and that the actual interaction was scalar and tensor, which made it a much uglier theory. Well, in 1957, Art [Arthur H.] Rosenfeld and I were working at Caltech, writing a review article on the weak interaction for Annual Review of Nuclear Science. And I began to discuss with him how this was an attractive idea and maybe the experiments were wrong. It made for a universal Fermi interaction, and one that was perfectly compatible with an intermediate boson of spin one, which would carry the interaction. It was very appealing, but we were still worried about all these experiments that contradicted this hypothesis.

At that time, Robert Marshak and his student, George Sudarshan, came to visit. Art and I went to meet with them, and I think with Felix Boehm, at RAND, in Santa Monica. We had lunch together. And they told us about their work, in which they had figured out that these experiments could really be wrong—that they could be criticized and perhaps were actually wrong—lending a lot of strength to this very beautiful, fantastically simple theory of the weak interations. I liked that, and I liked the strengthening of confidence that this might work. Art and I had written a section in our Annual Review called “The Last Stand of the Universal Fermi Interaction,” in which we described how, if all these experiments really were wrong, we could have this beautiful theory. They asked whether we were going to publish any more on it. And I said, “Well, I don’t think so. I don’t suppose we will. This is what we’re going to say, and it says most of it.” We always took this very modest approach, and this delaying approach, to publication. I don’t know why. [Sighs] So they started writing something also. They started writing on their ideas, which went further, in the sense that they criticized some of these experiments and showed how they might be wrong.

Then I went away with Margaret on a vacation in Northern California. We were completely out of range of any communication, off in a tent somewhere in the Siskiyou Mountains. When I came back, Richard Feynman had returned from Brazil. And Felix Boehm had told him that I thought the interaction was vector and axial vector. Whereupon Richard said, “Oh, my God! If that’s true, then you can have this beautiful theory. I have just thought of this fantastically beautiful theory!” And then he wrote up this fantastically beautiful theory and gave some rather weird reason for it to be true—some kind of second-order equation, or I don’t know what it was, some strange point of view that he adopted. He always liked to adopt an eccentric point of view in everything, and here he had some weird reason why this theory was preferable. It actually didn’t mean much.

He wrote up an article and was about to send it off for publication when I came back from vacation. And I was horrified, because it seemed so absurd for him to assume that I had this idea of vector and axial vector and hadn’t realized the rest of it. He didn’t know about Marshak and Sudarshan. So I showed him the little paragraph that Art Rosenfeld and I had written, and of course it was in a totally different spirit from Feynman’s. What we had written was: “Look. If these experiments are really wrong, then this beautiful theory could be correct.

This is the last stand of the universal Fermi interaction. The numbers come out right, and everything is really beautiful.” Whereas his said, “I have discovered this fantastic theory! And this beautiful theory, which I have just discovered, says that such-and-such. And furthermore, it’s the only really good theory because of this . . .” and then he presented this rather weird justification.

So I said, “Well, God, if you’re doing that, I have to write up our work, because we had this idea before, and not from this point of view.” And then Bob Bacher said, “Well, I don’t think it’s such a great idea for both of you to write papers on the same thing from the same institution. Why don’t you collaborate on one paper?”

Well, this was very tricky, because Feynman’s rationale—which I found utterly unconvincing, and still do—was the central part of what he had written, and to undo it was very difficult. So it stayed in there, and I felt very unhappy about that. I still feel very unhappy about it.

So I contributed a lot of other ideas, about how to extend the theory to other parts of the world—strange particles and all sorts of other things. But this was done in haste, and I really would have liked more time to think about those things and get them right. Anyway, we published it together [“Theory of the Fermi Interaction” (with R. P. Feynman), Phys. Rev. 109:1, 193-8 (1958)], and it came out in a book in January ’58, or February.

Selected
No
Citation type
Author Tags (ref vocab Physicists)
Subject Tags (ref vocab Subject Tags)
Story

An Introduction to Mössbauer Spectroscopy

*
Author(s)
Leopold May and M. Blume
Publication
Physics Today
Publication Date
January 1973
Publisher
American Institute of Physics
Citation
Physics Today 26, 1, 79 (1973)
Abstract

The development of Mossbauer spectroscopy has proceeded rapidly since the discovery in 1957 of recoil-free gamma radiation. The history of the technique is not unlike that of other discoveries in physics, particularly that of nuclear magnetic resonance. The initial discovery was in nuclear physics, and it rested quietly for a time. There followed a swift, even hysterical surge of interest in and exploitation of the phenomenon until, by 1962, it had been utilized in many different areas of physics, and the groundwork for the elaboration of the technique had been laid. The history of this period along with the early experimental and theoretical developments was well summarized by Hans Frauenfelder in his lecture-note and preprint volume published at that time. Since then the development of the technique has proceeded at a calmer, but still vigorous, pace. One still finds an occasional conference given over in its entirety to Mossbauer spectroscopy and indeed there continue to be developments that warrant such conferences. On the whole, however, the results of experiments using the technique are more likely to be discussed at conferences on the subject under investigation than in special technique-centered sessions.

Selected
No
Citation type
Author Tags (ref vocab Physicists)
Subject Tags (ref vocab Subject Tags)
Story

New Research Facilities

*
Publication
Physics Today
Publication Date
December 1952
Publisher
American Institute of Physics
Citation
Physics Today 5, 12, 23 (1952)
Abstract

Walter Kidde Nuclear Laboratories The first privately-financed research organization devoted primarily to the development of atomic power for industrial purposes, the Walter Kidde Nuclear Laboratories, has begun research operations at its recently constructed laboratory near Garden City, on Long Island. The new laboratory, housed in a brick structure of modern design, with laboratory area for work in physics, chemistry, metallurgy, radiochemistry, and materials testing, is expected to be in full operation by the latter part of 1953, by which time it is expected that a minimum staff of one hundred will be employed. The stated objectives of the organization are (1) the development of commercial atomic power, with particular emphasis on original research and development in the field of low-cost nuclear reactors, (2) cooperation on a contract basis with government agencies and their contractors in the development and design of atomic facilities, and (3) collaboration with private industrial organizations, laboratories, and others interested in the application of the nuclear sciences to specific problems.

Selected
No
Citation type
Subject Tags (ref vocab Subject Tags)
Story

The Brookhaven nuclear reactor

*
Author(s)
Lyle B. Borst
Publication
Physics Today
Publisher
American Institute of Physics
Citation
Physics Today 4, 1, 6 (1951)
Abstract

On August 22, 1950 the Brookhaven reactor became critical. The work of scientists is notable for its lack of drama. It is usually difficult to say when a piece of apparatus starts to work, and it is even more difficult to decide when an experiment is complete. The uranium chain reaction is outstanding, therefore, since the change from an inert subcritical assembly of fissionable material to a supercritical chain reactor is sudden and, to all intents and purposes, discontinuous.

A small lump of uranium undergoes spontaneous fission of U 238 with a half-life at least a million times that for alpha decay. The rate is so slow as to render measurement difficult. By assembling quantities of uranium in a moderator such as heavy water or graphite, the rate of fission is found to vary with the amounts of material used. Upon adding additional materials, the neutron level at a given position and, of course, the fission rate (partly now in U235 ) increase rapidly at first, then slowly, approaching a new constant level. The steady level may be two, ten, or a million times that to be expected from the spontaneous fission rate.

Excerpt(s)

Brookhaven's reactor was designed to support a substantial and diversified research program. Ample facilities are provided for many simultaneous studies.

Most experiments will be conducted at a number of four-inch square experimental holes extending horizontally through the graphite structure and both shields. These are located at table height above the working balconies to permit convenient handling of research equipment. The neutron flux available at each hole will depend largely upon its position with respect to the center of the reactor. One row of these holes will extend through a region of graphite without uranium. The neutron flux in this internal thermal column will be particularly rich in thermal neutrons and relatively depleted of fast fission neutrons.

These experimental ports may be used for the insertion of equipment into the shield, or into the graphite structure. In these experiments fluxes up to 4 X 10 12 neutrons per cm 2 sec. can be obtained. Under normal circumstances the equipment would reach the ambient temperature of the graphite. For experiments requiring temperature control, heating or cooling can be introduced. The simplest coolingarrangement consists of a duct through the shield which will allow room air to leak around the apparatus and into the cooling air stream. Special cooling systems or thermostatic control can be provided if warranted.

Collimators can be inserted into the shield holes permitting a beam of reactor' radiation to emerge. If unfiltered, these beams contain fast, intermediate, and slow neutrons, and also gamma and beta rays. Filters can be devised to enrich the beam with regard to any of these constituents. Beams can be run to a distance of 40 feet within the building, and to much greater distances outside the building.

A single twelve-inch square hole will accommodate large size experimental equipment. Since this constitutes the largest aperture penetrating a high flux reactor, this facility is expected to be in heavy demand. Equipment must therefore be constructed for easy removal.

Selected
No
Citation type
Author Tags (ref vocab Physicists)
Subject Tags (ref vocab Subject Tags)
Story

The American Physical Society

*
Publication
Physics Today
Publication Date
October 1951
Publisher
American Institute of Physics
Citation
Physics Today 4, 10, 18 (1951)
Abstract

THE American Physical Society was founded on May 20, 1899 by a group of about forty physicists who met in a small lecture room in Columbia University's Fayerweather Hall in New York City. The first regular meeting of the Society was held five months later. Before that time, physicists had customarily joined in the annual meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, its Section B being concerned primarily with physics. The formation of an independent Society for the "advancement and diffusion of the knowledge of physics" was only one of a series of events marking the swift development of physics in the history of American science.

When the newly formed American Physical Society joined in the 49th meeting of the AAAS in New York in June, 1900, the Society and the Association's Section B met on alternate days. It was remarked in a contemporary report of the event that although the two programs were kept separate, there was little else to distinguish the groups. The difference, eloquently enough stated by the action of the charter members in forming the new Society, was their conviction that the time had come for a separate professional scientific organization devoted to the advancement of physics. A cooperative and close relationship has nevertheless been maintained between the two organizations, and the Physical Society for many years met frequently in joint session with Section B of the AAAS. At the end of its first year, the Physical Society had a total membership of only fifty-nine; the present membership is nearly ten thousand.

Excerpt(s)

SAMUEL A. GOUDSMIT, senior scientist at Brookhaven National Laboratory, is managing editor of The Physical Review, official journal of the Physical Society.

Selected
No
Subject Tags (ref vocab Subject Tags)
Subject Physicist (ref vocab Physicists)
Story

Physics at Oak Ridge

*
Author(s)
Alvin M. Weinberg
Publication
Physics Today
Publication Date
June 1950
Publisher
American Institute of Physics
Citation
Physics Today 3, 6, 8 (1950)
Abstract

The research effort here in Oak Ridge bears in some measure on almost every phase of the country's atomic energy program. For the laboratory hereunlike the national laboratories at Argonne, Brookhaven, Berkeley, Ames, and Los Alamos—has no single primary function but has many different areas in which it contributes, with about equal emphasis, to the development of atomic energy technology.

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory is large; since the recent merger of the research activities at the electromagnetic plant with those of the original Oak Ridge National Laboratory, nearly 2800 technical and nontechnical people are associated with it. Its activities include, on the applied side, radioactive chemical technology; Oak Ridge National Laboratory was the chemical pilot plant for the Hanford plutonium process. It includes reactor technology; the laboratory is engaged in three separate reactor projects, among which are the materials testing reactor to be built at Arco as a joint project of Argonne and Oak Ridge, and the nuclear powered aircraft in cooperation with NEPA and NACA. It includes electromagnetic isotope separation research and production of America's isotopes, both radioactive and stable.

Selected
No
Citation type
Subject Tags (ref vocab Subject Tags)
Story

The reality of neutrinos

*
Author(s)
George Gamow
Publication
Physics Today
Publication Date
July 1948
Publisher
American Institute of Physics
Citation
Physics Today 1, 3, 4 (1948);
Abstract

In the year 1914 a young (at that time) British physicist, James Chadwick, w h o was sent to Germany to study the phenomena of radioactive decay, came across a rather interesting but, as it looked then, not very important discovery. H e found that electrons emitted by radioactive substances in the process called beta transformation do not all possess the same velocity. In fact their velocities vary over a rather wide range.

This discovery did not at first attract much attention. It "was believed that the difference in velocity between one emitted electron and another occurs simply because the slower electron loses some energy in escaping from a deeper layer within the radioactive material. It was only thirteen years later that this seemingly natural assumption was questioned and disproved by two other British physicists, C. D. Ellis and W . A. Wooster. They took some radium E, a beta-active element, and arranged to measure the heat liberated by radioactive decay both inside and outside the parent body. They chose radium E because it has no appreciable gamma radiation, which would confuse the issue. They were also careful to subtract from the total heat measured the part supplied by alpha particles given off by the polonium into which radium E decays.

Selected
No
Citation type
Author Tags (ref vocab Physicists)
Subject Tags (ref vocab Subject Tags)
Story

The challenge of industrial physics

*
Author(s)
Howard A. Robinson
Publication
Physics Today
Publication Date
June 1948
Publisher
American Institute of Physics
Citation
Physics Today 1, 2, 4 (1948)
Abstract

In physics, as in every other branch of human endeavor, there comes a time when each individual must consider for himself the future of his personal relationship with the science he is attempting to master. At the present moment, with the war years over, large numbers of students propose to join the ranks of the 10,000 or 12,000 of us in this country who have been educated in physics. While it is true that the colleges of the country, because of their increased enrollments, will be in a position to absorb an increased number of these younger people, many more of them will go into the industrial and government laboratories of the country.

Selected
No
Citation type
Subject Tags (ref vocab Subject Tags)
Story

Elementary particles

*
Author(s)
T. D. Lee
Publication
Physics Today
Publication Date
October 1960
Publisher
American Institute of Physics
Citation
Physics Today 13, 10, 30 (1960)
Abstract

THE urge and the interest to find those ultimate elements in terms of which everything else is made of are almost as old as the human civilization. However, as our knowledge increases what were thought to be elementary may turn out to be composites. Consequently, the class of these supposedly fundamental elements changes with time. Such was, for example, the periodic table of atoms in the last century. Today we know that all different molecules, atoms, and nuclei are complexes resulting from the existence and the interactions of some thirty particles which are called "elementary particles".

Excerpt(s)

AS early as it as of was ft physicists decay, already suggested by several different groups of physicists that the different weak processes such as ß decay, μ decay, and  μ capture may be characterized by a single universal form of interaction. However, at that time because of the lack of detailed and accurate knowledge of these reactions it was difficult to subject this attractive idea to quantitative tests.

Since the establishment of nonconservation of parity, the discovery that in a decay process the neutrino carries away not only energy and momentum but also a definite (longitudinal) angular momentum gives a new possibility of investigating the dynamics of weak interactions by measuring angular momenta. These new measurements on angular momenta together with other already existing experiments lead now to a much simpler phenomenological description of the weak interactions. 41 Indeed, it was found 42 quantitatively that a certain coupling constant in the beta decay appears to be exactly the same as that which occurs in the ju, decay in spite of the difference that nucleons have strong interactions but juT and e ± have only electromagnetic and weak interactions. Such identity and other universal characters of these interactions may lead to a deeper and unifying principle underlying all different weak reactions.

It was realized in the 192O's that by analyzing the energy spectrum of the electron in beta decay there was an apparent nonconservation of energy. Pauli 10 resolved this difficulty by postulating the existence of a neutral particle with spin = \ h and zero (or very small) mass. Subsequently, Fermi l l developed the theory of beta decay. This neutral particle was called the neutrino v and its antiparticle the antineutrino.

Further experimental confirmations of this particle came later from the measurement of the recoil of the final nucleus, from the capture experiment of the antineutrinos and from the over-all verifications of Fermi's beta-decay theory.

Selected
No
Citation type
Author Tags (ref vocab Physicists)
Subject Tags (ref vocab Subject Tags)
Story