The European Physical Journal H最新文献

Editor’s note: One of the most important developments in theoretical particle physics at the end of the 20th century and beginning of the twenty-first century has been the development of effective field theories (EFTs). Pursuing an effective field theory approach is a methodology for constructing theories, where a set of core principles is agreed upon, such as Lorentz symmetry and unitarity, and all possible interactions consistent with them are then compulsory in the theory. The utility of this approach to particle physics (and beyond) is wide ranging and undisputed, as evidenced by the recent formation of the international seminar series All Things EFT (Talks in the series can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1_KF6kdJFoDEcLgpcegwCQ (accessed 21 December 2020).) which brings together each week the worldwide community of EFT practitioners. The text below is a lightly edited version of the talk given by Prof. Weinberg on September 30, 2020, which inaugurated the series. The talk reviews some of the early history of EFTs from the perspective of its pioneer and concludes with a discussion of EFT implications for future discovery.

This is a tutorial for the many-worlds theory by Everett, which includes some of my personal views. It has two main parts. The first main part shows the emergence of many worlds in a universe consisting of only a Mach–Zehnder interferometer. The second main part is an abridgment of Everett’s long thesis, where his theory was originally elaborated in detail with clarity and rigor. Some minor comments are added in the abridgment in light of recent developments. Even if you do not agree to Everett’s view, you will still learn a great deal from his generalization of the uncertainty relation, his unique way of defining entanglement (or canonical correlation), his formulation of quantum measurement using Hamiltonian, and his relative state.

In the late 1970s, the embryonic UK research community in molecular simulation – physicists and physical chemists – organised itself around CCP5, one of a set of Collaborative Computational Projects in different fields. CCP5 acted to develop and use the software required by an evolving and expanding scientific agenda, to exploit quickly and efficiently the revolution in computing hardware and to educate and nurture the careers of future generations of researchers in the field. This collaboration formally began in 1980, and is still fully active now, 40 years later. Today, molecular simulation techniques, many of them pioneered by CCP5, are now used very widely, including in several other CCPs in the UK’s current family of Collaborative Computational Projects. This article tells the story of molecular simulation in the UK, with CCP5 itself at centre stage, using the written records in the CCP archives. The authors were, or are, all personally involved in this story.

The widespread positivist approach of physics research in Italy at the turn of the XIX and XX centuries did not provide a fertile ground for the scientific debate on the atomic structure of matter, which instead raged beyond the Alps in those same years and which gave birth, during the 1920s, to the quantum revolution. Experimental investigations in spectroscopy and radioactivity were carried out with discrete success in the 1910s and early 1920s by Italian physicists such as Antonino Lo Surdo and Rita Brunetti in Florence, stimulating an empirical knowledge of early quantum theory and the acquisition of the related laboratory skills. However, the theoretical framework necessary for the reception and development of the postulates and formalisms of quantum mechanics started to be cultivated in Italy with a delay of a few decades compared to Central European countries. The diffusion of quantum studies – with their unprecedented drive toward an integration of experiment and theory – took hold in Italy beginning from the establishment of the first theoretical physics chairs (1926) at the Universities of Rome, Florence and Milan, whose origins are here described in detail. Furthermore, the present paper presents a systematic analysis of the appearance of the quantum mechanical concepts in Italian university courses between 1927 and 1947.

In 1921, the experimental physicist Rudolf Ladenburg put forward the first quantum interpretation of optical dispersion. Theoretical physicists had tried to explain dispersion from the point of view of quantum theory ever since 1913, when Niels Bohr proposed his quantum model of atom. Yet, their theories proved unsuccessful. It was Ladenburg who gave a breakthrough step toward our quantum understanding of dispersion. In order to understand Ladenburg’s step, I analyze Ladenburg’s experimental work on dispersion prior to 1913, the reasons why the first theories of dispersion after 1913 were not satisfactory, and Ladenburg’s 1921 proposal. I argue that Ladenburg’s early experimental work on dispersion is indispensable to understand his 1921 paper. The specific kind of experiments he performed before 1913, the related interpretative problems, and the way he tried to solve them, led him reapproach the dispersion problem in 1921 in a way that was completely different from the way theoretical physicists had done it before.

The Japanese theoretical physicist Ryogo Kubo made remarkable contributions to statistical mechanics and condensed matter physics, amongst which his name is most widely associated with the linear response theory. Despite his importance in the history of modern physics, however, historians have paid him little attention. Using his unpublished manuscripts in a newly organized archive, this paper examines his studies and research up to the end of World War II. Influenced by his brother Masaji Kubo, a physical chemist, and the milieu at Tokyo Imperial University, he became interested in theoretical approaches to properties of matter and worked on dipolar gases and resistance in metals. After graduation, he studied three different phenomena—relaxation, melting, and rubber elasticity—by applying the method of eigenvalue problems. He was also involved in wartime research on noctovision and worked on photoemission in semiconductors. This paper also identifies two distinct focuses in his early research that persisted in his work after the war: solid-state physics and statistical mechanics in today’s terminology. Reconstructing Kubo’s formative years is instrumental for constructing a historiography of a key aspect of modern Japanese physics, namely, how the science of matter evolved before and during the war.

My discussions with John Bell about reality in quantum mechanics are recollected. I would like to introduce the reader to Bell’s vision of reality which was for him a natural position for a scientist. Bell had a strong aversion against “quantum jumps” and insisted to be clear in phrasing quantum mechanics, his “words to be forbidden” proclaimed with seriousness and wit – both typical Bell characteristics – became legendary. I will summarize the Bell-type experiments and what Nature responded, and discuss the implications for the physical quantities considered, the real entities and the nonlocality concept due to Bell’s work. Subsequently, I also explain a quite different view of the meaning of a quantum state, this is the information theoretic approach, focusing on the work of Brukner and Zeilinger. Finally, I would like to broaden and contrast the reality discussion with the concept of “virtuality,” with the meaning of virtual particle occurring in quantum field theory. With some of my own thoughts I will conclude the paper which is composed more as a historical article than as a philosophical one.

In the second half of the 19th century, a special practice of research and training in physics took shape in Pisa, characterized by a particular attention to theoretical studies and to combining experimental activity with a profound mastery of mathematical tools. This peculiar approach, started by Carlo Matteucci and Ottaviano Mossotti, continued and spread by Riccardo Felici, Enrico Betti, Adolfo Bartoli and Vito Volterra, was quite an exception in the framework generally marked by strict experimentalism and positivist empiricism of the Italian physics cabinets of the time. The present paper highlights a special path connecting this tradition of the Pisan school to the scientific environment that was formed in the early years of the 20th century at the Royal Physical Institute in Via Panisperna in Rome, through the interaction of Orso Mario Corbino with Volterra on one side, and the imprinting left on Corbino by Adolfo Bartoli and his student and collaborator Enrico Stracciati.

Interest in Brownian motion was shared by different communities: this phenomenon was first observed by the botanist Robert Brown in 1827, then theorised by physicists in the 1900s, and eventually modelled by mathematicians from the 1920s, while still evolving as a physical theory. Consequently, Brownian motion now refers to the natural phenomenon but also to the theories accounting for it. There is no published work telling its entire history from its discovery until today, but rather partial histories either from 1827 to Perrin’s experiments in the late 1900s, from a physicist’s point of view; or from the 1920s from a mathematician’s point of view. In this article, we tackle the period straddling the two ‘half-histories’ just mentioned, in order to highlight continuity, to investigate the domain-shift from physics to mathematics, and to survey the enhancements of later physical theories. We study the works of Einstein, Smoluchowski, Langevin, Wiener, Ornstein and Uhlenbeck from 1905 to 1934 as well as experimental results, using the concept of Brownian velocity as a leading thread. We show how Brownian motion became a research topic for the mathematician Wiener in the 1920s, why his model was an idealization of physical experiments, what Ornstein and Uhlenbeck added to Einstein’s results, and how Wiener, Ornstein and Uhlenbeck developed in parallel contradictory theories concerning Brownian velocity.

The quantum theory of dispersion was an important conceptual advancement which led out of the crisis of the old quantum theory in the early 1920s and aided in the formulation of matrix mechanics in 1925. The theory of Charles Galton Darwin, often cited only for its reliance on the statistical conservation of energy, was a wave-based attempt to explain dispersion phenomena at a time between the theories of Ladenburg and Kramers. It contributed to future successes in quantum theory, such as the virtual oscillator, while revealing through its own shortcomings the limitations of the wave theory of light in the interaction of light and matter. After its publication, Darwin’s theory was widely discussed amongst his colleagues as the competing interpretation to Compton’s in X-ray scattering experiments. It also had a pronounced influence on John C. Slater, whose ideas formed the basis of the BKS theory.