Thursday, September 17, 2020

On Kamefuchi's Essay about Heisenberg and Yukawa (3)

References [9, 10, 11] of this article

2 Heisenberg's tragedy (continued)

2.5 Reasons for Pauli's Rebellion

Kamefuchi writes, "Pauli was a close friend of Heisenberg's since student days and coworker of this problem until three months ago. Why did he go on such outrage in a place where prominent researchers in particle physics lined up?"

Here are the words "three months ago." These probably come from the fact that Pauli had been to the United States for three months before this international conference. However, Pauli departed for the United States, according to Heisenberg's autobiography [8], a week plus a few weeks after Christmas 1957, namely around late January 1958. Thus, the duration from this time of departure to the international conference should be about five months.

Kamefuchi then provides an answer to the above question of his own by quoting the explanation (the part in the quotation marks below) given to him later by Professor K. Broiler (at the University of Bonn) and attaching a little suspicious comment.
"In the United States, Pauli perhaps proudly spoke about their research but got strong objections from young American geniuses to come to think that it was a difficult job. Thus, he would have wanted openly to express to the excellent people at the conference that he no longer believed in their own theory." This seems to mean that Pauli sacrificed his friend's honor for his own ...
Broiler's explanation is a presumption, but there is a document [9] (this reference is academic, unlike Polkinghorne's book, and the following quote is in a footnote) that assertively states a similar thing as follows.
Although Pauli drafted the first preprint, entitled 'On the Isospin Group in the Theory of the Elementary Particles,' he withdrew from further collaboration in January 1958, after he encountered severe criticism and opposition to the theory from the U.S. physicists at the American Physical society meeting in New York; thus Heisenberg was left to work out the details of the theory with younger collaborators (Dürr et al., 1959). ([9] p. 1120)
The reference "Dürr et al., 1959" at the end of the above quote looks like the source of this entire description but is not such. It is the paper (also mentioned in the previous part of the present series as Ref. [8]) of the result of Heisenberg's continued research with young collaborators. Thus, the quote does not specify the source that Pauli received severe criticism from the U.S. physicists. However, it hints that the time of Pauli's decision to withdraw from the joint research with Heisenberg was early in the period of his visit to the United States."

By the way, there was an important person who severely criticized Pauli's lecture in the United States besides American physicists. In a collection of essays [10] by Freeman Dyson, an American theoretical physicist and mathematician born in England, we find this description:
Pauli happened to be passing through New York, and was prevailed upon to give a lecture explaining the new idea [of Heisenberg and Pauli] to an audience that included Niels Bohr, who had been mentor to both Heisenberg and Pauli [...]. Pauli spoke for an hour, and then there was a general discussion during which he was criticized sharply by the younger generation. Finally, Bohr was called on to make a speech summing up the argument. "We are all agreed," he said, "that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough." ([10] pp. 105-106)
The statement here that Pauli "was criticized sharply by the younger generation" underscores Broiler's presumption as well as the description in Ref. [9]. Moreover, Pauli's teacher, Niels Bohr, criticized Pauli. It is a little difficult to understand that Bohr's words, "Not crazy enough," are a harsh criticism. Dyson adds the following explanation in his next paragraph (I tried to shorten it, only finding that Dyson's text was like a polished jewel and that it was impossible to do so).
When the great innovation appears, it will almost certainly be in a muddled, incomplete, and confusing form. To the discoverer himself it will be only half-understood. To every body else it will be a mystery. For any speculation that does not at first glance look crazy, there is no hope. ([10] p. 106)
Concerning Pauli's withdrawal from the joint research with Heisenberg, the former wrote to the latter during the former's stay in the United States. This is described in Heisenberg's autobiography [11] as follows (Wolfgang in the quotation refers to Pauli):
Then we were divided by the Atlantic, and Wolfgang's letters came at greater and greater intervals. [...] Then, quite suddenly, he wrote me a somewhat brusque letter in which he informed me of his decision to withdraw from both the work and the publication [of our common project]. ([11] p. 235)
This story is in a chapter "The Unified Field Theory" of the autobiography, concluding by the following sentence:
Toward the end of 1958 I received the sad news that he [Wolfgang] had died after a sudden operation. I cannot doubt but that the beginning of his illness coincided with those unhappy days in which he lost hope in the speedy completion of our theory of elementary particles. I do not, of course, resume to judge which was the cause and which the effect. ([11] p. 236)
If you read the above statement only, you would feel sad. However, as Kamefuchi mentioned referring to the Japanese translation of Heisenberg's autobiography, there was the following facts. "A few weeks after the meeting, both of them were invited guests at a summer school in Varenna on Lake Como, Italy. Pauli was friendly to Heisenberg at that time." Also there, Pauli said to Heisenberg, "I think you are doing right to continue working on these problems. As for me, I have to drop out. ..." These give us a feeling of relief.

How important was Heisenberg's research at that time in the subsequent progress of theoretical physics? I would like to start the next part with such a story.

References
  1. H. P. Dürr, W. Heisenberg, H. Mitter, S. Schlieder, and K. Yamazaki, "Zur Theorie der Elementarteilchen," Z. Naturf. 14a, 441 (1959).
  2. J. Mehra and H. Rechenberg, The Historical Development of Quantum Theory, Volume 6, Part 2 (Springer, New York, 2001). [Note: I happened to have this book because I was attending the "Hideki Yukawa Study Group," once held at the Osaka Science Museum, and thought that it might be useful for discussions there.]
  3. F. Dyson, From Eros to Gaia (Penguin, London, 1993; first published by Pantheon, New York, 1992). [Note: When I was still working, I recommended this book to my colleague Naoki Toyoda (currently Professor Emeritus of Tohoku University). This time I emailed him about the topics related to the present article. Then, he taught me back the presence in this book of the part quoted in the text.]
  4. W. Heisenberg, Physics and Beyond: Encounters and Conversations, translated from German by A. J. Pomerans (Harper & Row, New York, 1972); original German edition, Der Teil und das Ganze: Gespräche im Umkreis der Atomphysik (R. Piper, Munich, 1969); Japanese version, Bubun to Zentai, translated by K. Yamazaki (Misuzu-Shobo, Tokyo, 1974; new edition 1999).
(To be continued)
Search word: Kamefuchi-2020

Sunday, September 06, 2020

On Kamefuchi's Essay about Heisenberg and Yukawa (2)

D. C. Cassidy's Uncertainty: The Life and Science of Werner Heisenberg.

2 Heisenberg's tragedy (continued)

2.3 Heisenberg's research at that time

Kamefuchi calls Heisenberg's research at that time "monistic field theory of elementary particles" and explains it as a big idea to derive all elementary particles starting from a single field (or equation). Then, Kamefuchi stated as follows: "I first learned of this in a newspaper, so he probably made a press conference and announced it. At that time, he might have used the adjective 'universal' for the basic equation, and it was erroneously freported as "the equation of the cosmos" in Japan."

I also saw the newspaper article about this research of Heisenberg and wrote it down in the diary at that time. It was just before my graduation from university. The diary reads:
February 27, 1958
I have found the following article in the Asahi Shimbun:
[Göttingen (West Germany) 25th UP=Kyodo] At the University of Göttingen on the 25th, Professor Heisenberg, Nobel Prize winner in physics of West Germany, gave a lecture entitled "Advancement of Elementary-Particle Theory." He announced that the research group led by him made research on "unified field theory" and found a basic equation that could explain all laws of physics without exception. The theory was the one that Dr. Einstein also thought about. ...

March 13, 1958
[Here is the clipping of the Asahi Shimbun article entitled "This is the equation of the cosmos." It showed the basic formula of elementary particles found by Heisenberg and his coauthors.]
I posted the copy of the diary on a page [5] of my website and destroyed the original diary. So, I do not have the clipping of "This is the equation of the cosmos" but will show the formula copied from another source later. According to the first newspaper article, Heisenberg did not hold a press conference as Kamefuchi supposed, but newspaper reporters listened to his lecture at the University of Göttingen and wrote about it. This is also clear from the following description in the biography of Heisenberg written by Cassidy [6]:
The distribution [of the preprint on work made by Heisenberg and Pauli] was set for February 27, 1958. [...]

Three days before the preprint was to be distributed, Heisenberg announced the new formula in a lecture at the University of Göttingen physics institute. ([6] p. 542)
According to the above description, the day of the lecture was 24th local time, which is different from the date of 25th in the Asahi Shimbun. Is this difference because Asahi Shimbun did not correct the time difference for the news distributed by "UP = Kyodo"?

2.4 "The equation of the cosmos" was not a mistranslation

The description in Cassidy's book continues as follows:
An eager reporter in the audience relayed word of a sensational new "world formula" around the world. One enthused press agent proclaimed, "Professor Heisenberg and his assistant, W. Pauli, have discovered the basic equation of the cosmos!" ([6] p. 542)
This reveals that overseas newspapers also used the term "basic equation of the cosmos," and the expression in the Asahi Shimbun was not a mistranslation.

The Asahi Shimbun separately reported the equation later than the news of the lecture at Göttingen University. Sentences that follow in Cassidy's book explain this to some extent:
Two months later, more than 1800 listeners turned out to hear Heisenberg reveal the secret of the cosmos in the same auditorium on the occasion of Max Planck's one-hundredth birthday. During his highly technical talk, Heisenberg carefully wrote his new equation on the overhead projector in the darkened room:
([6] p. 542)
Heisenberg did not reveal the formula in his lecture at the University of Göttingen in February but only its name. He wrote the equation in another occasion mentioned in the above quote. However, the fact that the second lecture was two months later than the first is not consistent with the time when the Asahi Shimbun reported the equation. The second lecture was to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Planck's birth. So, I looked up his birthday and found that it was April 23. [7] This is consistent with the words, "Two months later," in the above quote. However, it is impossible for the Asahi Shimbun dated March 13 to report the lecture contents of April 23. The lecture celebrating 100 years of Planck's birth might have been made about 40 days earlier than his birthday. Despite this, Cassidy might have imagined that the second lecture celebrating Planck's birth should have been around his birthday.

The basic equation of the cosmos quoted here is the same as that in Cassidy's book but copied from a paper co-authored by Heisenberg and young researchers [7]. I will describe later how I learned of this paper.

Polkinghorne describes Heisenberg's speech at the conference in a little more specialized style than Kamefuchi as follows:
[Heisenberg] had conjectured a 'non-linear spinor equation', whose solutions he thought would correspond to the structure of matter as it was then known. Not only was his equation hard to work with, but in the course of the attempt use was made of the dangerous concept of an infinite metric, something which could result in the appearance of unphysical ghosts. ([4] p. 77)
Heisenberg's equation still had problems though he confidently showed it at the University of Göttingen.

Pauli was a collaborator in Heisenberg's research at that time, as mentioned in the first two quotes from Cassidy's book. Why did he take a rebellious attitude at the international conference? I would like to see this point next.

References
  1. J. C. Polkinghorne, Rochester Roundabout: The Story of High Energy Physics, (W. H. Freeman, New York, 1989) p. 77.
  2. T. Tabata "From Youth Diaries: University Days (5)" (2003), in the Web site IDEA and ISAAC.
  3. D. C. Cassidy, Uncertainty: The Life and Science of Werner Heisenberg (W. H. Freeman, New York, 1991).
  4. Max Planck: Biographical in The Nobel Prize, the Web site of the Nobel Foundation.
  5. H. P. Dürr, W. Heisenberg, H. Mitter, S. Schlieder, and K. Yamazaki, "Zur Theorie der Elementarteilchen," Z. Naturf. 14a, 441 (1959).
(To be continued)
Search word: Kamefuchi-2020