How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival

by Kaiser, David

  RWJ. Roman W. Jackiw papers. Cambridge, Massachusetts, in Professor Jackiw’s possession.

  SPS. Saul-Paul Sirag papers. Eugene, Oregon, in Mr. Sirag’s possession.

  TSK. Thomas S. Kuhn papers. Collection MC 240, Institute Archives and Special Collections, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

  VFW. Victor F. Weisskopf papers. Collection MC 572, Institute Archives and Special Collections, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

  WHZ. Wojciech H. Zurek papers. Los Alamos, New Mexico, in Dr. Zurek’s possession.

  Introduction

  1 “World premiere: Bank transfer via quantum cryptography based on entangled photons,” press release from the Institut für Experimentalphysik, University of Vienna, April 21, 2004; available at http://www.secoqc.net/html/press (accessed September 18, 2008). See also the research paper by physicist Anton Zeilinger’s team, reporting on the Viennese bank transfer: Poppe et al. (2004).

  2 “Geneva is counting on quantum cryptography as it counts its votes,” press release from the Geneva State Chancellery, October 11, 2007; available at http://www.idquantique.com/news (accessed September 18, 2008).

  3 On publishing trends in the field, see Bettencourt, Kaiser, Kaur, Castillo-Chavez, and Wojick (2008). Accessible introductions to the field include Monroe and Wineland (2008); and the special issues of Scientific American (January 5, 2005) and Physics World (March 2007). See also Lloyd (2006) and Orzel (2009).

  4 Wayner (1999), Naik (2009), McKay (1999), and Hesseldahl (2006).

  5 Central Intelligence Agency, unclassified “memorandum for the record,” December 4, 1979, copy in JAW, Sarfatti folders; Wilson (1979). Scientific American also ran a feature article on the topic that same year: d’Espagnat (1979). As we will see in chapter 5, the Scientific American article’s author crossed paths with the physicists I focus on here. On Oui magazine, see Anon. (1981).

  6 See esp. Holton (1988), Feuer (1974), Beller (1999), and Gilder (2008).

  7 Kevles (1995), Forman (1987), Schweber (1994), and Galison (1997).

  8 Holton (1998), Pais (1991), Cassidy (1992), and Moore (1989).

  9 Kaiser (2004, 2007a).

  10 Kaiser (2002). See also Kevles (1995), chap. 25; Leslie (1993), chap. 9; and Moore (2008).

  11 Gustaitus (1975). On changes at the magazine, see also Anon. (1975).

  12 Sirag (1977a, b) and Sarfatti (1977a). On Leary’s acceptance of Sirag’s and Sarfatti’s essays for Spit in the Ocean, see Sirag (2002), 111. On Leary’s and Kesey’s counterculture exploits, see Wolfe (1968), Lee and Shlain (1992), and Lattin (2010).

  13 Gold (1993), 15–17, 38, 115.

  14 Anon. (1974a), Woodward and Lubenow (1979), Garfinkel (1982), Anon. (1977a), Carroll (1981), and Roosevelt (1980). On the 1977 humanistic psychology conference, see also Jerry Diamond to Sarfatti, n.d. (ca. January 1977), copy in JAW, Sarfatti folders.

  15 Heirich (1976), 697. Heirich referred to work by Jack Sarfatti, Fred Alan Wolf, Henry Stapp, and Evan Harris Walker, among others.

  16 See esp. Pamplin and Collins (1975); Pinch (1979); Collins and Pinch (1979, 1982); and Collins (1992), chap. 5.

  17 Popper (1963). See also Popper (1976), esp. chap. 8.

  18 See esp. Collins (1992), Gieryn (1999), and Laudan (1983). See also Ross (1991), 23–30.

  19 Reagan quoted in Braunstein and Doyle (2002), 6.

  20 Rorabaugh (1989), chap. 4; Doyle (2001); Braunstein and Doyle (2002); Rossinow (2002); and Gosse (2005).

  21 Lee and Shlain (1992), 119; and Nick Herbert, “Doctor Quantum drops acid,” available at http://members.cruzio.com/~quanta/doctorquantum.html (accessed October 2, 2007). See also Novak (1997) and Wasserman (2000).

  22 Rorabaugh (1989), 134, 135, 137; Lee and Shlain (1992), 154; and Braunstein (2002).

  23 Novak (1997), 100.

  24 Melton (1992), 20; and Kyle (1995), 157.

  25 Lee and Shlain (1992), 148.

  26 Lewis and Melton (1992); Kyle (1995), 13, 14, 65; and Schulman (2001), 96.

  27 Roszak (1969), 48.

  28 On similar intermingling of quintessential military-industrial sponsors with New Age and paranormal research, see also Burnett (2009, 2010), and Ronson (2004).

  29 Cf. Peck (1985).

  30 Nick Herbert as quoted in Physics/Consciousness Research Group, “A modest proposal to the Foundation for the Realization of Man,” February 11, 1976, on p. 15; copy in SPS.

  31 Cf. Forman (1971).

  32 Lo, Popescu, and Spiller (1998), 15–17, 24, 77–88; Nielsen and Chuang (2000), 3, 24, 25, 528–531; and Jaeger (2007), 83, 147, 156, 157.

  33 Cahill (1995).

  34 Brisick (1995), Bernstein (1995), and Finn (1995).

  Chapter 1: “Shut Up and Calculate”

  1 Marin (1975), Heck and Thompson (1976), and Litwack (1976).

  2 Erhard interview (2010).

  3 Fred Alan Wolf, email to the author, November 12, 2007; Jack Sarfatti, email to the author, November 27, 2007 (“I think you’re an asshole”); Wolf interview (2009); and Sarfatti interview (2009). Several sources documented the prevalence of the phrase “You’re an asshole” in est trainings at the time: Heck and Thompson (1976), 20; Litwack (1976), 48, 50, 54; Fenwick (1976), 33, 34, 51, 96, 101, 165; and Hubner (1990a), 19.

  4 Cf. Beller (1998).

  5 The literature on the creation of quantum mechanics is vast. For an introduction, see esp. Jammer (1966); Darrigol (1992); Beller (1999); and Galison, Gordin, and Kaiser (2001).

  6 Heisenberg (1971), 73–76.

  7 Physicist N. David Mermin provides a fascinating and amusing genealogy of the phrase “shut up and calculate”: Mermin (2004); see also Mermin (1989). I owe these references to Orzel (2009), 79, 80.

  8 Bohr (1985), vol. 6; Bohr (1949), 215–20; and Heisenberg (1930). By no means did they always agree on what the double-slit experiment implied. See Beller (1999), chap. 11.

  9 Moore (1989) , 299.

  10 Crease (2002), 19. For a classic presentation of the double-slit experiment, see Feynman with Leighton and Sands (1965), vol. 3, chap. 1.

  11 Bohr (1949).

  12 Albert Einstein to Erwin Schrödinger, June 17, 1935, as quoted in Fine (1986), 68 (“young whore”). On Einstein’s use of the double-slit experiment for his criticisms of quantum theory, see Einstein to Schrödinger, April 26, 1926, in Przibram (1967), 28; and Jammer (1966), 360.

  13 Wheaton (1983); Rodgers (2002), 15; and letters to the editor, Physics World 16 (May 2003): 20. For more recent experimental demonstrations, see Scully and Drühl (1981); Arndt et al. (1999); and Hillmer and Kwiat (2007).

  14 Notes between Albert Einstein and Paul Ehrenfest, October 25, 1927, in AE, item 10-168. My translation; emphasis in original. See also Jammer (1966), 360. On Einstein’s long-standing critique of quantum theory, see also Pais (1982), Fine (1986), Kaiser (1994), and Beller (1999).

  15 Max Born introduced and refined his now-famous probability interpretation of the wavefunction in a series of short articles published in 1926. See, in particular, Jammer (1966), 283–290; and Beller (1990).

  16 Albert Einstein to Erwin Schrödinger, May 31, 1928, in Przibram (1967), 31.

  17 The same holds for the amount of energy exchanged in a given interaction and the time interval over which the interaction takes place. See Jammer (1966), chap. 7; Cassidy (1992), chap. 12; and Beller (1999), chaps. 4 and 5.

  18 Heisenberg (1930), 76–79; see also Feynman with Leighton and Sands (1965), vol. 3, chap. 1, 6–9.

  19 Einstein to Schrödinger, June 19, 1935 (“ridiculous little Talmudic philosopher,” my translation of “talmudistische Philosoph”), in AE, item 22-047. On Bohr’s complementarity, see esp. Holton (1988), 99–146; Folse (1985); Murdoch (1987); Kaiser (1992); and Beller (1999), chap. 6.

  20 Albert Einstein to Max Born, undated, ca. January 1927, in Born (2005), 93; and Einstein (1934), 168, 169 (“transitory significance,” “still believe”).

  21 Eins
tein to Born, December 4, 1926, in Born (2005), 88 (“Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing”). See also Einstein to L. Cooper, October 31, 1949, in AE, item 411; Fine (1986); and Kaiser (1994).

  22 Erwin Schrödinger (1935b), 812, as translated in Fine (1986), 65. On the correspondence between Einstein and Schrödinger that led to Schrödinger’s article, see Fine (1986), chap. 5.

  23 Wolfgang Pauli to Niels Bohr, February 11, 1924, in Pauli (1979), 143 (“very unphilosophical”). On Bohr’s approach, see Kaiser (1992) and Faye (1991). On Heisenberg’s philosophical pretensions, see also Carson (2010).

  24 Bohr (1934, 1958); Born (1956), 107; and Pauli (1994). See also Beller (1998).

  25 Albert Einstein to Erwin Schrödinger, June 17, 1935, as quoted in Fine (1986), 68 (“epistemology-soaked orgy”); Albert Einstein to Paul Bonofield, September 18, 1939, in AE, item 6-118-1 (“My own opinion”). See also Einstein to Maurice Solovine, April 10, 1938, in Einstein (1987), 85; Einstein (1949), esp. 671, 672.

  26 Max Born to Albert Einstein, July 15, 1925, in Born (2005), 82; Erwin Schrödinger to Albert Einstein, May 30, 1928, in Przibram (1967), 30. See also Kragh (1999), 168–73.

  27 Kuhn et al. (1967).

  28 Haas (1928), chaps. 11 and 16; Heisenberg (1930), 65; Weyl (1931), 76; Born (1936), 82–85; and Sommerfeld (1930), 37, 257.

  29 On American physicists’ philosophical and pedagogical approaches to quantum mechanics in the 1930s, see Kaiser (2007a) and (forthcoming), chap. 4.

  30 Einstein to Maurice Solovine, February 12, 1951, in Einstein (1987), 123.

  31 Michael Cohen, entry of May 14, 1953, in Caltech “bone books,” box 1, vol. 7 (“invested in analysis”), available in the Archives of the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California; Frederick Zachariasen, entry of May 27, 1953, ibid. (“usual spiel”); Romain (1960), 62 (“avoids philosophical discussion”); Falkoff (1952), 460, 461 (“philosophically tainted questions”); and Feshbach (1962), 514 (“musty atavistic to-do”). See also Kaiser (2007a).

  32 Weiner (1969) and Rider (1984).

  33 Edward Teller (with Robert F. Christy and Emil J. Konopinski), “Lecture notes on quantum mechanics,” autumn 1945, on 79. A copy of these notes is available as part of “Notes on physics courses given at Los Alamos, 1943–1946,” in NBL, call number AR31029. On effects of physicists’ wartime projects, see esp. Forman (1987); Schweber (1994), chap. 3; and Galison (1997), chap. 4.

  34 Smyth (1951); and Bureau of Labor Statistics report as quoted in Barton (1953), 6 (“If the research in physics”).

  35 Kaiser (2006a); cf. Forman (1987) and Leslie (1993).

  36 Kaiser (2002).

  37 Raymond T. Birge to E. W. Strong, August 30, 1950, in Raymond Thayer Birge correspondence and papers, call number 73/79c, Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley.

  38 “Opinions of returning graduate students in physics,” 86-pp report, 1948, call number UAV 691.448, in Harvard University Archives, Pusey Library, Cambridge, Massachusetts (“The classes are so large”). See also Kaiser (2004).

  39 Gerjuoy (1956), 118 (“With these subjects”); and Uhlenbeck (1963), 886 (“easy to teach”).

  40 Eyvind Wichmann, “Comments on Quantum Mechanics, by L. I. Schiff (Second Edition),” n.d., ca. January 1965, in Leonard I. Schiff papers, call number SC220, Stanford University Archives, box 9, folder “Schiff: Quantum mechanics” (“The book kept me sufficiently busy”).

  41 Kaiser (2007a).

  42 Hans Freistadt, who convened the group, thanked its members in Freistadt (1957), 65.

  43 Schrecker (1986), 289, 290; and Wang (1999), chap. 7.

  44 U.S. House, Committee on Un-American Activities (1953a), 190–212 and (1953b) 1795–99; Cattell (1960), s.v. “Darling, Byron T.”; and Schrecker (1986), 207–9.

  45 Freistadt (1953), 221, 229, 237 and (1957). Freistadt’s review article received roughly one citation every other year over the next two decades, several of them in philosophy journals rather than physics ones: Science Citation Index (1961–). On political leanings of other group members, see Newman (2002); David Bohm to Melba Phillips, n.d., ca. June 1952, in David Bohm Archives, Birkbeck College, London, folder C46, and related correspondence in folders C3, C46, and C48; and John Stachel, email to the author, October 23, 2007.

  46 Kevles (1995), chap. 25; Schweber (1988); Leslie (1993), chap. 9; and Moore (2008).

  47 Kaiser (2002), 149–53.

  Chapter 2: “Spooky Actions at a Distance”

  1 Bernstein (1991a), 50, 51; Whittaker (2002), 14–17; and Gilder (2008), chaps. 27 and 28.

  2 Bernstein (1991a), 53, 64, 65; Whittaker (2002), 17; cf. Born (1949). Von Neumann’s proof appeared in von Neumann (1932), later translated as von Neumann (1955), on 305–24. On von Neumann’s proof and the drawn-out debate it inspired, see Jammer (1966), 367–70; Pinch (1977); Bell (1982); and Jackiw and Shimony (2002), 84–87. Most of Bell’s papers on the foundations of quantum mechanics were republished in Bell (2004b).

  3 Scholars still debate the extent to which Bohm’s political views shaped his own approach to physics, or the reception it received from others. See, e.g., Cross (1991); Olwell (1999); Mullet (1999, 2008); Kojevnikov (2002); and Freire (2005).

  4 Bell (1982), 990 (“saw the impossible done”); and Bohm (1952a, b). See also Albert (1992), chap. 7; Cushing (1994); and Buchanan (2008). As is now well known, Bohm’s 1952 papers bore strong similarity to a 1927 proposal by Louis de Broglie, which de Broglie had quickly abandoned in the face of criticism from Wolfgang Pauli. See, e.g., Jammer (1966), 291–93; and Cushing (1994), chaps. 7 and 8.

  5 Bell (2002), 3–5; and Burke and Percival (1999), 9, 10. On the Bells’ decision to leave Harwell, see Bernstein (1991a), 18–20.

  6 Bell (1966), 452 (“first ideas”); Bernstein (1991a), 67, 68; cf. Jauch and Piron (1963). On Bell’s significant contributions to “mainstream” nuclear and particle theory, see Burke and Percival (1999), 4–9; and Jackiw and Shimony (2002), 100–112.

  7 Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (1935).

  8 Bohr (1935). On the conditions surrounding Bohr’s response, see Rosenfeld (1967). The literature on the Einstein-Bohr debate, and on the EPR thought experiment in particular, is enormous. See esp. Fine (1986), esp. chap. 3; Kaiser (1994); and Beller (1999), chap. 7.

  9 Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (1935), 779 (“since at the time”); Albert Einstein to Max Born, March 18, 1948 (“bristles”), reprinted in Born (2005), 162; Einstein to Born, March 3, 1947, in Born (2005), 154, 155 (“spooky actions at a distance”). See also Howard (1985).

  10 Bohm (1951), 614–22.

  11 On the discovery of quantum-mechanical spin and its significant conceptual break from ordinary angular momentum, see, e.g., Jammer (1966), 133–56; and Tomonaga (1997).

  12 The device pictured in figure 2.1 is a simplified version of a Stern-Gerlach apparatus, first conceived by Otto Stern in 1921 and put to use by Stern with Walther Gerlach a few months later. See Friedrich and Herschbach (2003).

  13 Bell (1964). Erwin Schrödinger introduced the term “entanglement” in Schrödinger (1935a), 555.

  14 Several other physicists derived this particular expression for S, building on Bell’s work. It is often referred to as the CHSH inequality based on the authors’ initials: Clauser, Horne, Shimony, and Holt (1969).

  15 Bell (1964), 199; and Bernstein (1991a), 84, 85. On the quantum-mechanical calculation, see, e.g ., Sakurai (1985), 223–232. Several authors have since simplified Bell’s original proof, and popular treatments abound. Among the best are those by N. David Mermin, several of which are republished in Mermin (1990b), esp. chaps. 10–12. Philosopher Tim Maudlin’s treatment is also particularly clear: Maudlin (1994), chap. 1.

  16 D’Espagnat (2003), 112–14 (“divisibility by thought”).

  17 Mermin (1981, 1985, 1990a, 1994); Bell (2004a); Jacobs and Wiseman (2005); and Kwiat and Hardy (2000).

  18 Lloyd (2006), 120, 121 (“beer or whiskey?”).

  19 Nielsen
and Chuang (2000), 117 (“iron”), emphasis in original. Citation data from Science Citation Index (1961–). On the rarity of accumulating so many citations, compare with data on top-cited publications within high-energy physics available at http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires (accessed January 15, 2008) and the data in Redner (2005). For recent assessments of the significance of Bell’s theorem, see Jackiw and Shimony (2002) and Bertlmann and Zeilinger (2002) .

  20 Bell (1966); Bernstein (1991a), 67, 68; and Jackiw and Shimony (2002), 87.

  21 Anderson and Matthias (1964); Bernstein (1991a), 74, 75; Wick (1995), 89, 90. On physicists’ postwar anxieties about information overload and its effects on their research journals, see Kaiser (forthcoming), chap. 3. On page fees at the Physical Review, see Scheiding (2009).