Physics in Perspective最新文献

I describe aspects of my life in physics: the name I publish under, great physicists I have known, how I got into quantum foundations, what role I’ve played in it. My form is autobiographical, but my personal experience may illustrate what it was like being a physicist over the past sixty years. I offer some offbeat ways of thinking about some orthodox physics.

This paper reconstructs the process of identification and understanding of an ensemble of historic physics instruments carried out between 2021 and 2022 at the Department of Physics and Astronomy “Augusto Righi” of the University of Bologna. The ensemble of 244 instruments is part of the Collection of Physics of the University and corresponds to the main core of the nineteenth-century Cabinet of Physics of the University of Bologna. After a brief recollection of the complex history of the cabinet the paper brings into light the different aspects involved in the identification and understanding of a scientific instrument. The various challenges concern the use of the resources available, the role of the experts, the study in situ and the use of original archive sources. In addition, a contextualization of the present study in the current literature on material culture studies and history of scientific instruments will bring to light the importance of the analysis of historical and trade catalogues, both for retracing the trajectories of a specific artefact and for the study of its relationships with users, donors, collectors, previous owners, and other objects.

Research articles in all branches of modern science are crowded with the abbreviated technical terms known as acronyms, a phenomenon that was essentially unknown before World War II. Apart from an introduction to the notion of acronyms and its short history, the paper discusses from a historical perspective the connections between acronyms and eponyms in science. Moreover, it charts how acronyms and abbreviations became so common in physics and astronomy that the excessive use of them came to be considered a symptom of a contagious disease. While many science acronyms are exotic and little used, and some downright bizarre, others have become household words that in some cases are not even recognized to be acronymic constructions. The paper briefly examines the naming histories of some of these successful acronyms in physics and astronomy, among them radar, sonar, maser, laser, and pulsar.

This article seeks to explore the relation between nuclear physics and secrecy in early Cold War Europe. After World War II, nuclear physics re-emerged from the Manhattan Project as a largely classified field. Over time, the boundary between secret and unclassified information set by the United States moved due to both political and scientific developments. This shifting boundary of secrecy is taken as a place to investigate power relations in the context of Cold War Science. The Netherlands and Norway are two countries with early nuclear programs that tried to move this boundary, in part by building a joint reactor in 1951. Whereas they requested classified information from the US in 1946, their programs developed to a point where the US made requests to classify nuclear information in Europe by 1960. Between 1954 and 1960, the joint reactor program became the site of a multilateral intelligence operation. Secrecy was used as an intelligence tool to spread nuclear disinformation to the Soviet Union. This history shows how (de)classification opened and closed windows of opportunity and sheds light on the effectiveness of classification.

This article examines the contestation that in the summer of 1972 disrupted workshops in Western Europe featuring renowned physicists affiliated to the top-secret JASON advisory group. Set up by the US Department of Defense research division, JASON was responsible for outlining new bombing strategies in the context of the Vietnam War. Some of the physicists involved in the protest had contributed instead to the International War Crimes (Russell) Tribunal, gathering evidence in Indochina on the allegedly genocidal character of the US bombing. In reconstructing the history of the contestation, this article contends that the conflict was an opportunity for advertising diverging political stances in the rebellious atmosphere of early 1970s, as much as to convey competing views about the physicists’ influence on global affairs. In particular, while JASON members boasted that their advisory roles stifled bellicose approaches, the protesters recalled the merits of independent inquiry and advocacy “from below” the elitist sphere of government advice, describing these as a better way to advance principles of global social justice.

After the resurgence of Jesuit astronomy in 1669, the Flemish Jesuit missionary Ferdinand Verbiest (1623–1688) became the de facto head of the Astronomical Bureau in Qing China. Following the actions of the Italian priest Matteo Ricci (1552–1610) and of the German astronomer Johann Adam Schall von Bell (1591–1666), Verbiest mainly focused on weather forecasting to substitute Chinese traditional astrology with European natural astrology (how planetary motions affected the weather, disease, and agriculture), thereby disseminating his religious beliefs via Western mathematical science. Meanwhile, a series of strategies were mobilized to boost the credibility of this craft, including claiming its technical superiority based on actual celestial positions and calculations, masking the uncertainties with “approximate agreement” (the widening of the acceptable range), and dedicating mathematical instruments for a deep understanding. However, due to sudden political changes and Emperor Kangxi’s (1654–1722) criticism, Verbiest was forced to compromise on the public astrological discourse. Eventually, as the very speculative nature of his craft became apparent, the authorities declared the end of natural astrology and the full restoration of Chinese astrology. Verbiest’s story broadens the current picture of the calendrical and astrological reforms led by Jesuit scientists in China and provides a wider framework to analyze the global spread of Jesuit science and belief.