Friedrich B.,Fritz Haber Institute |
Hoffmann D.,Max Planck Institute For Wissenschaftsgeschichte |
James J.,Fritz Haber Institute
Angewandte Chemie - International Edition | Year: 2011
We outline the institutional history and highlight aspects of the scientific history of the Fritz Haber Institute (FHI) of the Max Planck Society, successor to the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physical Chemistry and Electrochemistry, from its founding in 1911 until about the turn of the 21st century. Established as one of the first two Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes, the Institute began as a much-awaited remedy for what prominent German chemists warned was the waning of Germany's scientific and technological superiority relative to the United States and to other European nations. The history of the Institute has largely paralleled that of 20th century Germany. It spearheaded the research and development of chemical weapons during World War I, then experienced a "golden era" during the 1920s and early 1930s, in spite of financial hardships. Under the National Socialists it suffered a purge of its scientific staff and a diversion of its research into the service of the new regime, accompanied by a breakdown in its international relations. In the immediate aftermath of World War II it suffered crippling material losses, from which it recovered slowly in the postwar era. In 1952, the Institute took the name of its founding director and the following year joined the fledgling Max Planck Society, successor to the Kaiser Wilhelm Society. During the 1950s and 1960s, the Institute supported diverse research into the structure of matter and electron microscopy in its geographically isolated and politically precarious location in West Berlin. In subsequent decades, as Berlin benefited from the policies of détente and later glasnost and the Max Planck Society continued to reassess its preferred model of a research institute, the FHI reorganized around a board of coequal scientific directors and renewed its focus on the investigation of elementary processes on surfaces and interfaces, topics of research that had been central to the work of Fritz Haber and the first "golden era" of the Institute. Throughout its one-hundred-year history, the Institute's pace-setting research has been shaped by dozens of distinguished scientists, among them seven Nobel laureates. Here we highlight the contributions made at the Institute to the fields of gas-phase kinetics and dynamics, early quantum physics, colloid chemistry, electron microscopy, and surface chemistry, and we give an account of the key role the Institute played in implementing the Berlin Electron Synchrotron (BESSY I and II). Current research at the Institute in surface science and catalysis as well as molecular physics and spectroscopy is exemplified in this issue [Angew. Chem. 2011, 123, 10242; Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2011, 50, 10064]. A retrospect: The institute that was later renamed the Fritz Haber Institute began as a much-awaited remedy for the feared waning of Germany's scientific and technological superiority. The history of the Institutea-from its "golden era" in the 1920s and early 1930s, through war-related research during both World Wars, crippling losses following World War II, and impressive growth since the 1950sa-has largely paralleled that of 20th century Germany. © 2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim.
Pons J.M.,University of Barcelona |
Salisbury D.C.,Austin College |
Sundermeyer K.A.,Max Planck Institute For Wissenschaftsgeschichte |
Sundermeyer K.A.,Free University of Berlin
Journal of Physics: Conference Series | Year: 2010
We give an overview of some conceptual difficulties, sometimes called paradoxes, that have puzzled for years the physical interpetation of classical canonical gravity and, by extension, the canonical formulation of generally covariant theories. We identify these difficulties as stemming form some terminological misunderstandings as to what is meant by "gauge invariance", or what is understood classically by a "physical state". We make a thorough analysis of the issue and show that all purported paradoxes disappear when the right terminology is in place. Since this issue is connected with the search of observables - gauge invariant quantities - for these theories, we formally show that time evolving observables can be constructed for every observer. This construction relies on the fixation of the gauge freedom of diffeomorphism invariance by means of a scalar coordinatization. We stress the condition that the coordinatization must be made with scalars. As an example of our method for obtaining observables we discuss the case of the massive particle in AdS spacetime. © 2010 IOP Publishing Ltd.
Salisbury D.C.,Austin College |
Salisbury D.C.,Max Planck Institute For Wissenschaftsgeschichte
Journal of Physics: Conference Series | Year: 2010
In an article published in 1930 Léon Rosenfeld invented a general Hamiltonian formalism that purported to realize general coordinate, local Lorentz, and U(1) symmetries as canonical phase space transformations. He applied the formalism to a q-number version of tetrad gravity in interaction with both the electromagnetic field and a spinorial Dirac electron matter field. His procedure predated by almost two decades the algorithms of Dirac and Bergmann, and with regard to internal (non-spacetime) symmetries is fully equivalent to them. Dirac was in fact already in 1932 familiar with Rosenfelds work, although as far as I can tell he never acknowledged in print his perhaps unconscious debt to Rosenfeld. I will review the general formalism, comparing and contrasting with the work of Dirac, Bergmann and his associates. Although Rosenfeld formulated a correct prescription for constructing the vanishing Hamiltonian generator of time evolution, he evidently did not succeed in carrying out the construction. Nor did he have the correct phase space generators of diffeomorphism-induced symmetry variations. He did not take into account that some of the Lagrangian symmetries are not projectable under the Legendre transformation to phase space. © 2010 IOP Publishing Ltd.
Becchi A.,Max Planck Institute For Wissenschaftsgeschichte
Construction History | Year: 2013
What is architectura ? What is construction ? The architect described by Vitruvius in De architectura must know geometry, optics, gnomonic, etc. but, in order to transform ideas into buildings, he also must be able to guide and judge craftsmen, technicians and scientists, who know more than he does in their own fields of knowledge. This is the one and only way that an idea can become idea materialis and, in the end, a built idea. The paper gives some glimpses of the disquisitions on fabrica and ratiocinatio, up to the analytical turn of mechanics during the course of the 18th century.
Creager A.N.H.,Princeton University |
Creager A.N.H.,Max Planck Institute For Wissenschaftsgeschichte
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C :Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences | Year: 2014
This essay discusses three common issues arising from the special collection "100 Years of Cancer and Viruses." The first is the tension between small-scale and big-scale approaches to cancer research; the second is the difference between how physicians and biologists regarded cancer, and how they assessed the value of investigating viruses as a causative agent; and the third is how the pace and temporality ofscience have varied over the century of research on cancer viruses. An unpublished piece written by C.H. Andrewes in 1935, "A Christmas Fairy-Story for Oncologists," provides the touchstone for the commentary. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd.
Blum A.,Max Planck Institute For Wissenschaftsgeschichte
European Physical Journal H | Year: 2014
The spin-statistics theorem, which relates the intrinsic angular momentum of a singleparticle to the type of quantum statistics obeyed by a system of many such particles, isone of the central theorems in quantum field theory and the physics of elementaryparticles. It was first formulated in 1939/40 by Wolfgang Pauli and his assistant MarkusFierz. This paper discusses the developments that led up to this first formulation,starting from early attempts in the late 1920s to explain why charged matter particlesobey Fermi-Dirac statistics, while photons obey Bose-Einstein statistics. It isdemonstrated how several important developments paved the way from such generalphilosophical musings to a general (and provable) theorem, most notably the use of quantumfield theory, the discovery of new elementary particles, and the generalization of thenotion of spin. It is also discussed how the attempts to prove a spin-statisticsconnection were driven by Pauli from formal to more physical arguments, culminating inPauli’s 1940 proof. This proof was a major success for the beleaguered theory of quantumfield theory and the methods Pauli employed proved essential for the renaissance ofquantum field theory and the development of renormalization techniques in the late1940s. © 2014, EDP Sciences and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Jahnert M.,Max Planck Institute For Wissenschaftsgeschichte
Annalen der Physik | Year: 2013
Bohr's 1913 trilogy marked a turning point in the history of quantum physics for its introduction of the planetary model of the atom and its derivation of the Balmer formula for the hydrogen spectrum. Bohr's 1913 trilogy made a third crucial major assumption, which entailed key elements of the correspondence principle formulated IN 1918. This assumption postulated a relation between the mechanical frequency of a stationary state and the radiation frequency in analogy with classical radiation theory. This assumption allowed Bohr to quantize the energy of the stationary states through a relation between the radiation and the motion of the electron: using the Planck relation in terms of a quantum number. The relation between radiation and motion played a major role in the initial work establishing the Bohr model and its extension to the Stark and Zeeman effect.
Badino M.,Max Planck Institute For Wissenschaftsgeschichte |
Badino M.,Fritz Haber Institute
European Physical Journal H | Year: 2011
An intricate, long, and occasionally heated debate surrounds Boltzmann's H-theorem (1872) and his combinatorial interpretation of the second law (1877). After almost a century of devoted and knowledgeable scholarship, there is still no agreement as to whether Boltzmann changed his view of the second law after Loschmidt's 1876 reversibility argument or whether he had already been holding a probabilistic conception for some years at that point. In this paper, I argue that there was no abrupt statistical turn. In the first part, I discuss the development of Boltzmann's research from 1868 to the formulation of the H-theorem. This reconstruction shows that Boltzmann adopted a pluralistic strategy based on the interplay between a kinetic and a combinatorial approach. Moreover, it shows that the extensive use of asymptotic conditions allowed Boltzmann to bracket the problem of exceptions. In the second part I suggest that both Loschmidt's challenge and Boltzmann's response to it did not concern the H-theorem. The close relation between the theorem and the reversibility argument is a consequence of later investigations on the subject. © EDP Sciences, Springer-Verlag 2011.
Ren X.,Fritz Haber Institute |
Rinke P.,Fritz Haber Institute |
Joas C.,Fritz Haber Institute |
Joas C.,Max Planck Institute For Wissenschaftsgeschichte |
Scheffler M.,Fritz Haber Institute
Journal of Materials Science | Year: 2012
The random-phase approximation (RPA) as an approach for computing the electronic correlation energy is reviewed. After a brief account of its basic concept and historical development, the paper is devoted to the theoretical formulations of RPA, and its applications to realistic systems. With several illustrating applications, we discuss the implications of RPA for computational chemistry and materials science. The computational cost of RPA is also addressed which is critical for its widespread use in future applications. In addition, current correction schemes going beyond RPA and directions of further development will be discussed. © 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
Bernd G.,Max Planck Institute For Wissenschaftsgeschichte
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences | Year: 2015
This article discusses the development of the statistical methods employed by psychiatrists to study heredity as a causative factor of mental diseases. It argues that psychiatric asylums and clinics were the first institutions in which human heredity became the object of systematic research. It also highlights the different concepts of heredity prevalent in the psychiatric community. The first of four parts traces how heredity became a central category of asylum statistics in the first half of the nineteenth century. The second part deals with attempts to introduce new methods of surveying in order to generate more precise data about psychopathological inheritance in the 1860s and 1870s. The third part discusses how, by the end of the nineteenth century, a widespread discontent with the results of asylum statistics led to an increasing interest in the use of family studies. Finally, the fourth part examines the impact of Mendelian theory on psychiatric statistics in the early twentieth century. © Springer International Publishing AG 2014.