Institute for Technology and - DTICLise Meitner with Otto Frisch--both Austrian physicists in...

1(N

AD-A249 905

9 SLEW:

Institute for Technology andStrategic Research

THE FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE

FIRST PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT

OF THE

SUCCESSFUL TEST OF FISSION

PROCEEDINGS

January 17, 1989

The School of Engineering and Applied Science

92-07383

nmgtonUnvert 92 3 23 128WASHINGTON 0c

|C

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE1&. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 1b. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS

N00014-89-J-10722&. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF REPORT

2b. OECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE

4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) 5. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

6&. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6b. OFFICE SYMBOL 7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION(If applicable)

The George Washington Univ.

6c. ADDRESS (City, State and ZIP Code) 7b. ADDRESS (City, State and ZIP Code)

Sponsored Research2121 "1" St., N.W. Suite 601Washington, D.C. 20052

Sa. NAME OF FUNDING/SPONSORING Sb. OFFICE SYMBOL 9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBERORGANIZATION (If applicable)

ONR/DOD

8c. ADDRESS (City. State and ZIP Code) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NOS.Department of the Navy PROGRAM PROJECT TASK WORK UNIT

e aval Research, Code 1512A:GMF ELEMENT NO. NO. NO. NO.%y ns ui ncy r er inaton Va. 2 21 -5000

11. TITLE Ilnclude Security Clauficatlon)

Professor of Engineering Administration

12. PERSONAL. AUTHOR(S)

Sam Rothman13. TYPE OF REPORT 13b. TIME COVERED 14. DATE OF REPORT (Yr., Mo.. Day) 15. PAGE COUNT

Final FROM 12/I/88 TO3/31/89' January 17, 1989 8916. SUPP LEMENTARt NOTATIONProceedings of "The Fiftieth Anniversary of the First Public Announcement of theSuccessful Test of Fission."

17. COSATI CODES 18. SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)

FIELD GROUP SUB. GR.

19. ABSTRACT lConlinue on reverse if necesary and identify by block number

On January 26, 1939 Niels Bohr of Copenhagen read a fateful telegram he had justreceived from Otto Hahn in Berlin to the assembled Fifth Washington Conference on Theore-tical Physics at The George Washington University. The telegram announced " the successfuldisintegration of uranium into barium with the attendant release of approximately twohundred million electron volts of energy per disintegration."

To commemorate the 50th anniversary of this event, the original sponsors, The GeorgeWashington University and The Carnegie Institution, will hold a one-day conference onJanuary 17th at The George Washington University.

The surviving members of the original attendees will be invited as special guests toThe conference. In addition, it is planned to host 300-400 members of the scientific,engineering, and political communities.

20. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 21 ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

UNCLASSIFIEO/UNLIMITEO 13 SAME AS RPT. 71 OTIC USERS F1

22s. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE IN IVIDUAL 22b TELEPHONE NUMBER 22c. OFFICE SYMBOLR.E. MacLean // I/ incl.ide A. ra CLde,

Assistant Director of SEAS (202) 994-6430DD FORM 1473, 83 APR EDITION OF 1 JAN,7n IS OBSOLETE

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

PROCEEDINGS

CONVOCAT ION

TO

COMMEMORATE

THE FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THEFIRST PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT

OF THESUCCESSFUL TEST OF FISSION

Co-sponsored by

Institute jr Technology and Strategic ResearchSchool of Engineering and Applied Science

The George Washington University

and

The Carnegie Institution of Washington

Tuesday, January 17, 1989

8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.

The Cloyd Heck Marvin CenterThe George Washington University800 Twenty-first Street, N.W. _-.

Washington, D. C.

IT?

Statement A per telecon TAaiU nn,-/orDr. Ronald Kostoff ONR/Code 1OP4Arlington, VA 22217-5000

NNW 5/6/92

IUII

These proceedings are the result of a convocation to commemorate the historic occasion of theannouncement of atomic fission. The first public announcement was made by Neils Bohr toattendees at the fifth Washington Conference on Theoretical Physics that was help on the campusof The George Washington University by the Physical Society on January 26, 1939. This meetingis unique because it announced the unlocking of energy of the atom which had been speculatedabout since the origins of scientific investigations and is now seen to be the dawn of the nuclear

age.

The convocation was sponsored jointly by the Institute for Technology and Strategic Research ofThe George Washington University and the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and was madepossible by financial support from the U.S. Department of Energy, Kaman Sciences Corporation,the National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval Research--Contract #N00014-89-J-1072.

An exhibit was set up by the Smithsonian Institution of some of the objects in their physicscollection relating to the discovery of fission. The exhibit contained artifacts such as a head ofEnrico Fermi, replica of Aston's mass spectrometer, replica of Chadwick's neutron chamber

Geiger counter tubes from CP-I, cube of fuel from CP-I, embedded in transparent model ofreactor, neutron source used by Fermi in the 1930's; copy of a Strip-chart record of neutronactivity of CP-I; sample of enriched uranium -235 produced at NRL; first sample of plutonium-239; and Nier's mass spectrometer. I

es ofthe Proc gs are available

Institu for Tec ology and S egic ResearchSuite 48600New psire Av ,N.W.Washington, . 2003I(202) 965-0211

Video tape - HS--(two v mes) can beobtain ron the Institute a costof $ , inc ding postage. ests1h d be sen to address above.

II

II

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

Dr. Barry BermanPhysics Department


Dr. Louis BrownCarnegie Institution of WashingtonDepartment of Terrestrial Magnetism

Ms. Jan ForsytheInstitute for Technology and Strategic Research


Dr. Eamon P. HarperPhysics Department


Dr. Clarence LarsonEnergy Consultant

Dr. Theodore P. Perros, ChairmanChemistry Department

The George Washingtbn University

Dr. Sam RothmanProfessor and Director of Engineering and Technology

Institute for Technology and Strategic ResearchThe George Washington University

Dr. David RowleyChemistry Department


iv

PARTICIPANTS OF THE FIFTH WASHINGTON CONFERENCEON THEORETICAL PHYSICS WHO ATTENDED THE

FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY CONVOCATION

CHARLES LOUIS CRITCHFIELD

LAWRENCE R. HAFSTAD

HAROLD JAMES HOGE

FREDERICK SEITZ

EDWARD TELLER

V

These were the participants in the fifth Washington Conference on Theoretical Physics, throwninto a turmoil when Niels Bohr (first row, fourth from left) interrupted the proceedings toannounce that a month earlier, in Germany, the chemists Hahn and Strassman had split a uraniumnucleus. The world was never the same again.

I tern. Carnegie Tech. Pittsburgh -1t' -. Roberts. Carnegie Instituttiton it Washington1 Fermi. Rotme. Columbia 2" Critchfield. George Washingtoin

i Flemingi, iCarnegie Instituition ot Washington 2st Bariti. I, Patent office*Bithr. Copenhagen. Princettin 29 Biohr. Jr. Cotpenhagen

i London. Duke, Paris As Mleyer, Carnegie lnsiituiin it Washingtono ten. Columbia il Herzield. Catholic Iniverstir- B rtckwedile. National Bureau 'it stndards -) Lord. Jiihns Hopkinsit Breit. Wisconsin. Carnegie I nstitutiion A Inglis. Johns Hitpkins

" tlsbte. Naiton.A Bureau 1)1 standards 14 Wulf. VI Department iii Agriculture10l gabi. Cilumbia i; Wang, Peking, Carnecgte Institutiion it WAshingtonIIIt rittteck. Columbiga io Jiihnsiin, tCarnegge Inst itutiion )I Washituti ,n12 - Gamow. George Washington t Mohler, National Bureau it standard,IAi Teller. tetirue Washingtin As St it Natitnal Bureau of standards

14 Mrs Miater. Jiohns Hopkins "t %Ve stine. Carnegie Itistiutin it WashingtionIAi Bitter. Massachusetts Institute it Tecchntihig 41) Rotsenteld. l ige. lopennagen, PrinicetonIt Berhe. C.ornell 4t scit r. Perinstvvnii-I rausin- smith. Torontot DIctc john, Hoipk ins

IS Van Vleck. Harvard iA Mater. tohus HopkinsI9 J acoits Massachusetts institute of Tei.hntitv .y Mhrn (1ibe iarnrit Instnttn ,I Wash iniin2'o tarr. Massachusetts Insto-tc it Technitlig ig i Tuve t arneieit Inst tin t ni ahitiitn21 Atehbb Duke it, 0i tin. i corueiown22 squire. Peninsn v ania i- Hilsiad. arneiei Int ti it in itl Washings itI hsper. I S Public Arlalt service iM t oten i. hitt2 Maihan. i je inrt twn ", lhit u Natitnat llnrean tl Stindard,

29 Mice, Mart land iio sklar. iat hoitt I ut tersti;I Riini. Nat ioi Btiurcanito Ntandaids

CONTENTS

Program .............................................. viii

Introduction .......................................... 1

Welcome ............................................... 3

Remarks and Introduction of Maxine F. Singer,President, Carnegie Institution of Washington ....... 4

President's Message, Maxine F. Singer ................... 7

Introduction of Stephen Joel Trachtenberg, President,The George Washington University ...................... 12

President's Message, Stephen Joel Trachtenberg ........ 14

Introduction of Frederick Seitz, President Emeritus,The Rockefeller University ........... : .............. 16

Lecture: "Nuclear Science: Promises and Perceptions,"Frederick Seitz ..................................... 19

Introduction of K. Alex Miller, Nobel Laureate, IBMZurich Research Laboratory ............................. 31

Lecture: "High Temperature Ferroelectricity andSuperconductivity," K. Alex MUller ................... 34

Introduction of Edward Teller, Honorary Director,Institute for Technology and Strategic Research ..... 80

Lecture: "Toward a More Secure World,"Edward Teller ....................................... 83

Appendix:

Attendees

.7ii

FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE

FIRST PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTOF THE

SUCCESSFUL TEST OF FISSION

P R 0 G R A M

8:30 a.m. Registration and Continental BreakfastContinental Room - Third Floor

Dorothy Betts Marvin Theatre - First Floor

9:45 a.m. Welcome Sam Rothman, Professor andDirector, Engineering andTechnology, Institute forTechnology and Strategic ResearchThe George Washington University

10:00 a.m. Introductions Harold Liebowitz, Director,Institute for Technology andStrategic Research; and Dean,School of Engineering and AppliedScience, The George WashingtonUniversity

10:15 a.m. Presidents' Messages Stephen Joel Trachtenberg,President, The George WashingtonUniversity

Maxine F. Singer, President,Carnegie Institution of Washington

10:30 a.m. Introduction of William Graham, Science Advisor toLecturer the President

Lecturer Frederick Seitz, PresidentEmeritus, The RockefellerUniversity"Nuclear Science: Promises and

Perceptions"

11:45 a.m. Introduction of Donald Gubser, Naval ResearchLecturer Laboratory

Lecturer K. Alex Muller, Nobel LaureateIBM Zurich Research Laboratory"High Temperature Ferroelectri:ity

and SuperconductLvity"

Continental Room - Third Floor

1:00 p.m. Luncheon

Introduction of VADM John T. Parker, Director,

Lecturer Defense Nuclear Agency

Lecturer Edward Teller, Honorary Director

Institute for Technology and

:t rategic Research"Toward a More .pctire Wor]d4"

"11 I1

INTRODUCTION

The time is January 1939. We are at a Conferenceon Theoretical Physics being held in Washington, D.C., andsponsored jointly by the George Washington University andthe Carnegie Institution of Washington.

No jet aircraft fly noisily overhead to disturbthe speakers at this conference. And no speaker herementions the application of physics to space exploration.Space exploration is yet but a wild dream of some of thescience fiction writers of the time. A time, that is,when the Periodic Table consisted of 92 elements. Thetransuranium elements, important man-made elements beyonduranium (e.g. neptunium [93], plutonium [94], americium[95], curium [96], berkelium [97], californium [98],einsteinium [99], etc.) were undiscovered in 1939.

Yet, the pivotal events that took place duringthe 1939 conference and subsequent to it have foreverchanged our ideas about the world we all live in.

Of course, the physicists of the 1939 world werewell aware of the investigations carried out by LordRutherford, Neils Bohr, Irene Joliot-Curie, Pavle Savic,Frederick Soddy, Enrico Fermi, Leo Szilard and others.A-1 these people had attempted to unravel the mystery ofnuclear structure and the origin of the nuclear species.

However, few scientists in January 1939 reallybelieved that, in spite of the notable work of a few oftheir above-mentioned peers, the great amounts of energystored in the atom could ever be harnessed and put to anypractical use. Consequently, the attendees at the 1939conference were amazed by the announcement made there byNiels Bohr. Bohr revealed that Otto Hahn, and FritzStrassman of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Germany, andLise Meitner with Otto Frisch--both Austrian physicists inex'ile, Meitner in Sweden and Frisch in Denmark--had beensuccessful in splitting the atom. He added that thisdiscovery of a new kind of nuclear reaction, the fissionreaction, had been confirmed both experimentally andtheoretically.

U

Bohr's announcement immediately stimulated workon fission in many laboratories in the United States,where the discovery was further confirmed by February1939. And, by March the pioneering research of Hahn,Strassman, Frisch and Meitner was publicized widely inscientific journals. This triggered the publication of anumber of monographs on fission. In these papers thepossibility of a nuclear chain reaction was discussed andit was theorized that the fission-produced energy could beused to cause additional fission.

These background papers set the stage for thediscovery of the first transuranium element with theactual discovery resulting, in turn, from experimentsaimed at understanding the fission process. Suffice tosay here that over 200 of these transuranium elements,each of which has a known number of isotopes, allradioactive, have been discovered since 1939. Of course,plutonium--a transuranium element--found its first use inthe manufacture of nuclear weapons. However, the morepotentially beneficial practical use of plutonium-239 isas a nuclear fuel to generate heat which is converted toelectrical energy. Other transuranium elements havedemonstrated a wide range of practical applications for Ispace exploration, medical research and the non-destructive testing and evaluation of materials, amongother practical uses.

The rest of this story is history, but what ahistory! It deals with the fifty year period of time 1939through 1989, which is but a mere moment on the time scaleof man's quest for a rational understanding of his world.In such a historic "moment" we have witnessed a tremendousnumber of changes in the way we live due to the scientific Uand technological discoveries that have taken place duringthe past fifty years. Thus, we owe a debt to the 1939conference that in no small way was directly responsible Ifor such changes. It is in this spirit that this sameconference is honored and celebrated by the 1989 symposiumthe proceedings of which are documented herein. IDon GrovesResearch Fellow 3Institute for Technology andStrategic Research

IUI

I

WELCOME

Dr. Sam Rothman

Good morning. I am with the Institute forTechnology and Strategic Research, and I would like tcwelcome you to this Commemoration of the fiftiethanniversary of the first public announcement of thesuccessful test of fission.

We at The George Washington University are veryproud to host this affair. As you know, the announcementoccurred on January 26, 1939, fifty years later the worldhas changed appreciably, and we can see the impact uponinternational politics, diplomacy, science and otherfactors as a result of that particular test back in 1939.

We wish to extend a particular welcome to thosepeople considered "founding fathers,", who were here at theparticular meeting in January 1939. Several of them arewith us here today and, hopefully, you will have anopportunity to speak with them during the break, at lunch,or even perhaps after lunch. They will be with us formost of the day.

I now wish to present the Director of theInstitute and Dean of the School of Engineering andApplied Science, Dr. Harold Liebowitz.

DR. LIEBOWITZ.

3

Iii

REMARKS AND INTRODUCTION OFDR. MAXINE F. SINGER

PRESIDENT OF CARAEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON

Dr. Harold Liebowitz

Thank you, Professor Rothman for starting themeeting and, also, being on the Organizing Committee forthis eventful conference day. On behalf of the Institutefor Technology and Strategic Research, I would like to Igreet you all on this eventful occasion.

The Institute was founded two and one half years Iago by Professor Teller and myself. We were attending theeightieth birthday of another Hungarian, and we had begunto speak about how such an institute should take form.This Institute was formed to ensure that the Universityhas strong inputs to our strategic research 3

We believe that this Institute is unique, in thatit has a very strong engineering and scientific input, aswell as the softer sciences. Consequently, it has been Iorganized with the cooperation of the other schools andcolleges of the University, including the Elliott Schoolof International Affairs, the Graduate School of Arts and ISciences, Columbian College, and the National Law Center.Certainly, when areas come up which are of interest toother schools, such as the School of Government andBusiness Administration and the School of Education andHuman Development, the faculty and students of thesedivision of the University also are available toparticipate in this Institute.

We are proud of the Institute because manyacademic institutions tnday are shying away from militaryresearch and nuclear work. We think it is only fittingfor a university to offer the pros and cons, and to offerthe platform that is necessary for unbiased evaluation andprograms. And so, we have organized this Institute insuch a way that we can undertake such subjects as nuclearenergy: unpopular in the United States and the United IKingdom and a few other places but, on the other hand,

4I

II

I going ahead in places like Japan and France. TheInstitute recently had a meeting on ultra-safe nuclearreactors, and results should be forthcoming soon. One ofthe conclusions reached at this meeting was that we shouldbe looking to smaller nuclear reactors. I think that wecan overcome many of the problems which exist today--costoverruns, and many engineering problems--which have turnedpeople and including corporations away from investing innuclear energy.

I am pleased that The George WashingtonUniversity was the place where Niels Bohr made theannouncement of his first successful test on fission.Professor Teller tells me that on that evening, it wasannounced that the Carnegie Institution was where thatevening they carried out tests to confirm Niels Bohr'sclaims. Professor Teller says that George Gamow had somedoubts about it, but was able to be convinced. You willhear much more about all of that from the "foundingfathers"--or, as Professor Teller says, what he likes tothink of it as "the survivors."

Those who are here today, and those who could notmake it but who were here fifty years ago, truly arefounding fathers: people like Fred Seitz, and ProfessorsTeller and Gamow, and Herzfeld from Catholic University.If you have not seen the photographs of the people whowere present at that time, there are 51 in the pictures.

I I think it is important at an event like this tolook back and think of these outstanding announcements,and how the world has come to look. That is why I madeI the few comments before about nuclear energy. I thinkthat we have to put things in proper perspective, and Iwould say that we are glad that the scientific discoverydid take place--it has changed the world, and the peoplewho have been associated with that meeting have dedicatedthemselves to peace in this world. If I can get agreementfrom all of you that you will be around at the ne.-tmeeting at the 100th anniversary, we will hold thatmeeting here also.

I I would like to take this opportunity to thankProfessor Milller, who has come from Zurich, and for beinqa part of the program. When I visited him and told hirliabout this, he graciously consented to be part of thiscelebration, and I would like to publicly thank him.

I5

I

It is a pleasure for me to introduce the iPresident of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, Dr.Maxine Frank Singer. She has been a "doer." She hasreceived high honors throughout her career: graduating IPhi Beta Kappa from Swarthmore in 1952, and receiving herdoctorate from Yale University in 1957. She was for anumber of years at the National Institutes of Health,National Cancer Institute, and participated in a programhere to present some of the latest updates in science tocongressmen, and the implications that they should beaware of in carrying out their duties and responsibilities Iin the Corigress. She became President of the CarnegieInstitution of Washington in 1988, and also is presentlyscientist emeritus in the laboratory of biochemistry atthe National Cancer Division of the National Institutes ofHealth.I

She has been active on editorial advisory boards,and has received honorary degrees from a number ofuniversities. She has been recognized by the Associationfor Women in Science with its award for contributions toscience, and received the Director's Award of the NationalInstitutes of Health. She has been elected to theAmerican Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Institute ofMedicine, the National Academy of Sciences, and receivedthe Distinguished Service Award from the Department ofHealth and Human Services. Also, I -notice that shereceived the Katharine D. McCormick Distinguished Awardfrom Stanford University in 1983, and the DistinguishedPresidential Rank Award in 1988.

These are only typical of the kinds ofrecognition that Dr. Singer has received. It is with igreat pleasure that I call upon her to address the group.

IIiI

I

PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE

DR. MAXINE F. SINGER, PRESIDENTCARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON

Professor Liebowitz and honored guests, it is anhonor and a privilege to welcome everyone here today inthe name of the Carnegie Institution of Washington. Wehave come together to commemorate one of the greatscientific events of a century that has been marked byprofound discoveries about the nature of the universe andits components.

This event, the demonstration and confirmationof nuclear fission, was especially remarkable because ofits significance for all aspects of life on our planet.It was also notable for the context in which it occurred.In January 1939, some of the world's nations had alreadyfelt the bitterness of war; and the rest were on the edgeof a conflagration that would consume the whole planet.The fundamentally evil nature of the aggressor had alreadydenied--and would continue to deny--universal tenetsconcerning the dignity and value of human life. Displacedpeople from all societal niches had already begun towander the world in search of freedom and opportunity.Among these were many gifted physicists who found thatfreedom and opportunity in the United States. In spite ofthe circumstances, they, along with American colleaguesand others from the then-seething European continent, cametogether here in Washington. They came not expectingdrama, but to engage in that most essential of scientificactivities, communication.

Thus, besides all the more obvious reasons wehave to commemorate the 1939 Conference on TheoreticalPhysics, our celebration should underscore theessentiality to science of open, international scientificdiscourse.

Today, the scientific work of the CarnegieInstitution and of its Department of Terrestrial

7

IMagnetism--DTM, as it is known to all--some five milesnorth of us in the District of Columbia, is far removedfrom the nuclear physics that Merle Tuve and hiscolleagues concentrated on in the 1930s. But we remaindeeply aware of this marvelous chapter in our history,. achapter which exemplifies in many respects the nature ofthe Carnegie Institution.

In founding the Institution in 1902, AndrewCarnegie had the then visionary goal of an Institution fordiscovery. His idea was that the Institution should seek Iout the exceptional individual and provide that person themeans for engaging in unfettered research "for theimprovement of mankind." Since that time, successive IBoards of Trustees have been faithful to Carnegie's idea,and thus the focus of research in our departments haschanged or remained the same, depending on the interests •of the scientists.

For example, bold and ambitious programs indevelopmental and plant biology, in astronomy and earthsciences, continue; while the genetics laboratory at ColdSpring Harbor and the archeological excavations at ChichenItza on the Yucatan Peninsula were turned over to others.

DTM was established in 1904, soon after theInstitution itself. Its earliest program was to measure Iand study the earth's magnetism. Land surveys were

conducted, as were ocean surveys; the latter by theCarnegie, a nonmagnetic sailing vessel whose global Ivoyages ended in 1929 when the vessel accidentally burnedin the South Pacific. By then, DTM's interests hadalready broadened. Gregory Breit, working with the youngMerle Tuve, had demonstrated the ionosphere in 1925 usingradiowave echoes. Tuve was the driving force behind theDepartment's growing interest in subatomic particles. Heand the group he assembled built and enhanced a successionof instruments for accelerating particles, including a Vande Graaff generator in 1932 and an improved 5-million voltVan de Graaff machine in 1938.

As is still the case, funds for suchundertakings were appropriated from the Institution's iresources. Tuve had to convince the then President, JohnMerriam, of the soundness and potential of the newlyproposed instrument. But the bias of the Institution was,and remains today, sensitive to the importance of

8

instrument development to scientific progress. Forexample, one of our primary current concerns is planningthe construction of a new optical telescope with an8-meter mirror for our Las Campanas Observatory innorthern Chile.

Its ability to bombard materials with high-energy beams of electrons and protons put the group at DTMat the forefront of atomic nuclear physics in the UnitedStates in the 1930s. Two reports published in 1935 standfirm today. They demonstrated that the nuclear forceacting between two protons is identical to that between aneutron and a proton. Tuve, with colleagues LawrenceHafstad and Norman Heydenburg, described the difficult butsuperbly executed experiment. Breit, who by then had leftDTM, described the theoretical analysis with coauthorsCondon and Present. These reports were the culmination ofthe goal set by Tuve and Breit a decade earlier: toobserve the scattering of protons by protons in order todisclose the nuclear component of the force between thetwo particles. I am told by physicists that the twopapers exemplify the extraordinary aesthetic beauty thatcan characterize great scientific achievement. And thescientific leadership inherent in these accomplishmentsmade DTM and the Carnegie Institution the proper co-sponsors, with The George Washington University, of theannual Theoretical Physics Conference here in Washington.

The events leading up to the exciting days ofthe Fifth Annual 1939 Conference are well known, and areperhaps most wonderfully told in Richard Rhodes's book,The Making of the Atomic Bomb. Two observations about thestory occur to me, a biologist. One is what little timeelapsed between Hahn and Strassman's demonstration thatbarium isotopes are produced upon neutron bombardment ofuranium, Meitner and Frisch's working out of the theory,and the demonstrations in Copenhagen, at DTM, at JohnsHopkins, and at Columbia of the co-production of nuclei ofthe expected energies. The pace of international communi-catiun and experimentation, both of which were needed forthese events to take place within a few short months, hasonly more recently become familiar to biologists. Ourprejudices would have suggested that such rapidcommunication depends on contemporary aids, like fa::machines and BITNET.

9

n

The second observation is to note that the name I"fission" was directly derived from the biological term

used to describe the division of a bacterial cell into twocells. It was suggested to Otto Frisch by an American ibiologist working in Copenhagen, William A. Arnold.

For DTM, the ability to demonstrate the fission-associated energy release depended on Tuve's foresight inbuilding the large Van de Graaff generator; on Merriam'ssupport; and on the skill, energies, and enthusiasm ofRichard Roberts, Lawrence Hafstad, and Robert Meyer.

But of course, such intersections are notaccidental. They are rooted in the recognition thatscience is unpredictable and one must, thus, be prepared;and in the precept that guides the Carnegie Institution:to "encourage in the broadest and most liberal manner, Iinvestigation, research, and discovery, and the appli-cation of knowledge to the improvement of mankind." Theyare rooted in a commitment to the individual scientist andhis or her imagination, taste, and capacity fororiginality.

It is in this framework that we can measure the Icontinuing contributions of DTM and the CarnegieInstitution. Roberts and Meyer were quick to demonstratethe emission of delayed neutrons from fission, suggestingthe possibility of a chain reaction. Later, Merle Tuvewould use his vast energy and talent and DTM's resourcesto initiate development of the proximity fuse that played Isuch a critical role in the Allied countries' war efforts.And Vannevar Bush, who became the Institution's Presidentin 1939, was responsible for convincing President IRoosevelt of the importance of science to the nation'seffective participation in the war. Bush organized theNational Defense Research Committee, and recruited and 3coordinated the nation's leading scientists in the wareffort. In so doing, he laid the groundwork for what hasbecome a truism: that the scientific community must bringits expertise to national policy debates and decisions in Ipeace and war alike.

After the war, the DTM staff shifted focus, Irealizing that original work in nuclear physics wouldrequire large groups, costly accelerators, and work Dnsecret projects. They chose instead to engage in research Imore consistent with the Carnegie spirit. One group, led

10I

II

by Phil Abelson and Richard Roberts,. made extraordinarycontributions in biology. Among other things, they laidthe groundwork for techniques that are the basis for muchof contemporary biology. Under Merle Tuve, Carnegie staffdeveloped the image intensifier tubes for use with opticaltelescopes, and pioneered new approaches to seismology, aneffort that continues to this day.

These and current activities at DTM are part ofour Institution's heritage, a heritage that is enriched byour participation in the great events of January 1939. Atthe same time, they continue to move us forward, as is inthe nature of science. The atmosphere in the Departmentcontinues to be free-wheeling and iconoclastic, epitomizedin its famous 40-year Institution, the daily lunch club,where staff members alternate in preparing food for thestomach and food for thought for their colleagues.

The usual peace of the DTM hilltop is about tobe disrupted for a while. We break ground within weeksfor a new, modern building. Although the 80-year oldoriginal building is solid and useful, the expansion willpermit the staff of the Geophysical Laboratory, now a fewmiles south, to join the DTM staff at Broad Branch Road.In this way the trustees hope to encourage the richscientific rewards that can come from closer collaborationand communication.

I hope that I have convinced you of thecontinuing dedication of the Carnegie Institution toscience--and to the way of doing science--that permittedthe Institution to contribute so much to the events fiftyyears ago that we are here to celebrate. It is in thenature of science to look back, even while moving ahead.I am very grateful for the opportunity to look back withyou as we begin this fine day.

Thank you.

11

III

INTRODUCTION OFSTEPHEN JOEL TRACHTENBERG, PRESIDENT

THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

Dr. Harold Liebowitz 3Thank you very much, Dr. Singer, for a very

scholarly introduction to this meeting. Not only do wewish to look back fifty years, but we certainly want to Ilook ahead: not only at The George Washington Universitybut, also, on a much more broad scale and in a globalpicture. The University has recently appointed Stephen iJoel Tractenberg the 15th President of the University, andhe started here August 1, 1988. The Board of Trustees hasbeen very concerned with how the University will grow instrength and in a global role, given its Washington ilocation.

The new President comes to George Washington iUniversity at a time when two tough problems faceinstitutions of higher learning:, tuition costs andminority access to post-secondary education. We are not monly experiencing a decline in the numbers of studentsinterested in science and engineering but, also,demographic changes as well. Whereas we used to draw iprimarily upon the pool of prospective students from theNortheast U.S., we will be drawing upon more Blacks andHispanics in the future; and more heavily from otherregions of the country. There is certainly great concernfor ensuring a proper education for all, and I am surethat President Tractenberg will have a few comments onthat.

Stephen Joel Trachtenberg has attended three IvyLeague schools: Columbia University; Yale University, Uwhere he received his law degree in 1962 and then his

Master's degree of Public Administration in 1966; andHarvard University. He is no stranger to the atomic Ienergy picture, as from 1962 to 1965, he was an attorneywith the New York Office of the Atomic Energy Commission.He has expressed a longstanding interest in the affairs ofthe Institute and in the subject of our meeting today.

II

He was a legislative assistant on the Hill, andhe was also a tutor in law and a teaching fellow atHarvard University. From 1966 to 1968, he was SpecialAssistant to the United States Education Commissioner inthe U. S. Office of Education in Washington.

He has received many awards and has been veryactive. We expect to see many changes here.

It is a great pleasure to call upon PresidentTrachtenberg to address you.

13

IUI

PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE

Stephen Joel Trachtenberg, President IThe George Washington University

Thank you very much, Dean Liebowitz. First of 3all, my remarks are brief and mostly in the nature of anextension of hospitality, and to say how delighted I am tohave you all here on the campus at The George WashingtonUniversity for this very exciting occasion. I do want toassociate myself with Dr. Singer's remarks, which Ithought were thoughtful and absolutely right for theoccasion.

As she was speaking, a thought flitted throughmy mind; actually a fugitive reflection from my youth. My ifather was born in the Ukraine and grew up in a smalltown, and when I was a boy he used to amuse me by tellingme stories about growing up in "the old country." One Istory that I found particularly interesting had to do withhim and his best friend, Sasha, who heard that in aneighboring village there was something called anautomobile, and the two of them proceeded to walk the 10miles between where he lived and the next community to seethis modern miracle. Years later, my father, sitting infront of a television set in Brooklyn, New York, watching Ia man walk on the moon, expressed great skepticism aboutthe event and said, "You know, they can show you anythingthey want on television. It is probably not really Ihappening."

I persuaded him that in fact, there was a goodlikelihood that it was happening because, I said, "Listen,if you can believe in television, you ought to be able tobelieve in space travel." He ultimately made the leap of 3faith. At the time, I was working fr the Atomic EnergyCommission, and because of the fact that the work we weredoing was classified, I wasn't able to tell him that wewere working on atomic powered space travel. Indeed, itstrikes me as having come full circle to note that in myrole here this morning I am serving, in a manner ofspeaking, as an agent of Glenn Seaborg who was the

145

Il

Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission at the time. Ialso find it fascinating that this is the 50th anniversaryof nuclear fission. I myself just celebrated my 50thbirthday. I draw no cause and effect from these twoanniversaries, but I do have a sense of the remarkable andextraordinary things that can happen in one person'slifetime--and I like to think I have got a little room yetto go.

I hope that The George Washington Universitywill continue to play a significant, indeed, seminal rolein the initiatives that you will be devoting yourselves totoday and further.

Additionally, I want to pick up on somethingthat Dean Liebowitz talked about: namely, the socialagenda to which The George Washington University iscommitted. Those of you who saw this morning's WashingtonPost may have read an article that reported on a talk Igave last night as part of the Martin Luther King Dayceremonies. Yesterday I announced that The GeorgeWashington University will be devoting approximately 7million dollars to a new scholarship program, ascholarship program that ornaments our current commitmentto minority youngsters from the District of Columbia. Weanticipate that with this new initiative, which we arecalling the "Twenty-first Century Scholars Program," wewill draw the most outstanding youngsters from theDistrict of Columbia's public schools to The GeorgeWashington University each year for the next decade, rightup to the next millennium. I hope that a significantnumber of those young people will consider careers in thesciences, in physics, in chemistry, and in engineering,because I think it is imperative that we have newleadership in these disciplines that comes from all theracial and gender groups of which our society is composed.The George Washington University hopes to be a leader inthat manner, as well as in research and in teaching.

I am pleased, on behalf of the institution tosee you all here today, and I look forward to working withyou all in the future.

Dr. Singer and Dean Liebowitz thank you verymuch for your remarks.

15

UII

INTRODUCTION OF DR. FREDERICK SEITZPRESIDENT EMERITUS, ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY 3

Dr. William R. Graham

Most of us, at least of my generation, came to Iknow Fred Seitz not through that conference, but throughhis looks. Certainly, the Modern Theory of Solids, whichhe first published in 1940, the Physics of Metals, Ipublished in 1943, and Solid State Physics, released in1955, were in fact the path to a whole area of sciencewhich has revolutionized the world itself. Few scientistsor others are involved in even one revolution. Fred Seitzhas been involved in several.

In more recent times he has received theNational Medal of Science, the Vannevar Bush Award of theNational Science Board, and many other national andinternational scientific awards. In the interveningyears, he Was the Executive President of the NationalAcademy of Sciences from 1962 for the next 7 years;President of Rockefeller University for over a decade; and ma member of many advisory and leading boards andcommittees in this country, which have helped shape thecourse of our freedom and our democracy.

Physics is not the course of logical deductionand consistent experiment that one might suspect if one iread only the carefully crafted and logically deduced

expositions that we present to the students of thesubject. It is presented that way to help them understandit, not to trace the course of the history of physics. Infact, physics has reaily been a struggle between theconventional wisdom of the field on the one hand, andunique views which at first, at least, have tended to be Ilargely rejected by conventional wisdom and the bearers ofthe conventional wisdom. 3

Galileo, for example, conducted what seems to ustoday to be a simple experiment, determining theacceleration of different weights in the same Igravitational field. But he challenged over 1,000 yea.rs

16I

I

I

of conventional wisdom when he did that. That makes youwonder sometimes what people were doing in thatintervening 1,000 years, until Galileo came to challengethe conventional wisdom of the age.

The history of physics is legion with people whohave challenged that wisdom: Copernicus, Einstein, Bohr,Schrbdinger, and on and on. Sometimes even they had

trouble assimilating what it was they had discovered.

The same can be said of the applications ofscience and physics, and this is a field in which Dr.Seitz also has been deeply involved. It will be regarded,I think, as one of the great mysteries of this era byhistorians to come after us that today we depend for ournational security and our own safety solely upon theability to destroy others; and not only is that anexpediency that we have had to put in place up to now, butthis has been taken by many as the conventional wisdom ofthe subject--the right and proper approach to our nationalsecurity.

Therefore, the dialogue in some quarters hascome to being that the cause of peace is served only byour ability to destroy others; and our ability to protectourselves against such destruction is viewed by some as ahostile act. Nothing could be further from the truth, andno one has served more strongly to rectify thismisconception than Dr. Seitz.

Dr. Seitz was the President of the AmericanPhysical Society in 1960. In 1987, when that sameSociety, under new leadership, released a report ondevices, largely beam devices to protect us from ballisticmissile attack, Dr. Seitz challenged it. The report was,in my view, full of technical errors and, in fact, eveninternal inconsistencies. There was a debate on thesubject. Unfortunately, as is the characteristic of someof the worst traditions of physics, the rebuttal to thepaper itself was rejected for publication by the samejournal--it happened to be a journal of the physicssociety which published the challenge to these beamdevices. Dr. Seitz took ireat e:,ception to that. Andthen when the Board of the Physical Society put out a muchmore sweeping condemnation of the usefulness and technicalfeasibility of our defense of ourselves, Dr. Seitz tokgreat e;:ception to it and publicly and before onress

17

Ichallenged it in very strong terms and, in my view, very 3correctly and with great effect.

Today Dr. Seitz is Chairman of the Board of theGeorge C. Marshall Institute. He is carrying on in thetradition of the leaders in science of the past, and whatwill certainly be the tradition of leaders in the future.He is exceptional as a man of ability, of vision,integrity and that rarest property of all, courage.

It is a pleasure to introduce Dr. Frederick 3Seitz. I

I

IIiIIIII

I

LECTURE

NUCLEAR SCIENCE: PROMISES AND PERCEPTIONS

Dr. Frederick Seitz

The discovery of radioactivity at the turn ofthe last century and the discovery of fission at the endof the 1930s was accompanied in both cases by theemergence of socio-political activism on the part of anumber of prescient individuals.

Some of the response was positive as well asprescient in the sense that individuals saw on the horizonthe potential for an unlimited source of energy for theextension of industrial civilization on a world-widebasis. Others were concerned mainly with negativeaspects. Indeed, some individuals have, for their ownreasons, sought to generate public fear without offeringany compensating form of balance or enlightenment. Thisbifurcation of outlook is not new in human history. Theage of steam, the rise of chemical technology, the dawn ofthe air and space ages and the great discoveries in thefield of molecular biology have generated similarlydivided emotions and activities. Every emergingtechnology generates a mixture of hope and fear, toparaphrase the title of Alice K. Smith's remarkable bookon the history of activism within the scientific communityin the period immediately following the events of 1945.

Much of the history of this development iscontained in Spencer Weart's book Nuclear Fear, but Ishall add some personal touches. In particular, I wouldlike to examine aspects of this activism by focusing onthe roles played by two excellent scientists who wereprescient and motivated primarily on the basis ofhumanitarian concerns.

The first is Frederick Soddy, whose lifeextended from 1877 to 1956. He is scarcely remembered atthe present time although he was clearly the first personto appreciate the long-range potentialities associated

19

U

with the discovery of transmutation of the elements. The 3second is Leo Szilard, the brilliant Hungarian-bornphysicist, who appeared in the world in 1898 and died in1964. He was, of course, well-known to many in this room. UBefore discussing the work of the two, however, let medigress for a moment.

Carl Jung, the Swiss psychiatrist, was an early iassociate of Sigmund Freud but eventually broke with himand established his own school and pattern of work. Whenstudying the behavioral patterns of children and older Ipeople who were well along in their careers, Jungdiscovered that the psychic tensions which could be tracedto their subconscious did not conform in most cases to Umatters related to sexual activities so stronglyemphasized by Freud. Instead, they required much moregeneral analysis and, when needed, therapy. Among other Uthings, Jung found when studying the drawings of youngchildren that there are inborn symbols, concepts, anddesigns which must be of genetic origin and which go backto experiences in the early history of our species.Perhaps the most celebrated of these is the concept of themandala, the design consisting of a circle which may haveseveral forms of subsidiary decoration, and which childrenoften draw spontaneously without appreciating the sourceof their inspiration. It is prominent in many forms ofreligious art.

To come nearer to home in the areas of thephysical science, we can apparently recognize two concepts ithat seem to be embedded in the human subconscious andwhich surface in one form or another in each generationamong individuals who are appropriately stimulated. Oneis the concept of the frequent visitation of beings from adifferent world, terrestrial or otherwise, who permitthemselves to be seen only occasionally. Beings such asleprechauns and trolls held the field in the past. In ourown time this phenomenon appears in the form ofobservations of unidentified foreign objects, or UFOs.There was a rash of claims of such visitations in the I1950s and 1960s and a new one has just emerged. The otherconcept is related to the possibility of the developmentof an agent or instrument that can threaten the survival iof a large part or all of humanity and can lead either toour destruction or our salvation. This concept appears invarious forms throughout recorded history. In the lastcentury it emerged in the literature in the form of

203~i

I

weapons made possible by discoveries which take place atthe -frontiers of science. It is, for example, a themefound in several forms in the clairvoyant books of JulesVerne--an author with whom Soddy was quite familiar.

I first encountered this form of psychicrevelation at a relatively primitive level when I wasserving in a technical intelligence office in General

Eisenhower's headquarters in Europe near the end of WorldWar II. The office was headed by H. P. Robertson, theexpert on relativity theory who had been at PrincetonUniversity in the 1930s. A German private soldier whoobviously suffered from a severe psychic disturbance cameto the attention of our military staff. He wasinterviewed and a detailed report was sent to our office.He believed that he had witnessed, under unlikelycircumstances, the test of a bomb by his own generals andscientists that was many orders of magnitude larger thananything then available anywhere, and which destroyed anarea of many square kilometers. He described the incidentin great detail. This was well before the July 16 test atAlmagordo.

Let me pass to my main subject. In 1896, HenriBecquerel discovered by accident that a specimen 'ofuranium-containing mineral in his laboratory emitted apenetrating radiation which could expose photographicplates in sealed packages. This was followed soon afterby the isolation of radium--a minor constituent inpitchblende ore--which on a weight basis was an even moreintense emitter of similar radiation. The nature andultimate origin of the radiations was completely unknown,and became the object of a great deal of speculation.Coming as they did at the same time as the experimentalisolation of the electron as a constituent of the atom andthe discovery of x-rays, the new disclosures addedimmensely to the excitement current in the field ofphysics as it entered into a turbulent, revolutionaryperiod.

By the summer of 1903, Ernest Rutherford andFrederick Soddy, working in close collaboration at McGillUniversity in Montreal, had succeeded in demonstratingbeyond serious doubt that the phenomenon of radioactivity--the term used to designate the effects found in uraniumradium and a few other heavy elements, including thorium--was intrinsic to the atoms of the species which e:zhibited

21

m

it. Soon thereafter, in 1905, Egon von Schweidler, a

colleague of Ludwig Boltzmann, introduced the present-dayconcept of the statistical nature of the disintegrationprocess.

Incidentally, the somewhat accidental

partnership of Rutherford and Soddy was a most remarkablehappenstance. Rutherford, a few years older than Soddy,was a reasonably well-established experimental physicist,and Soddy was a newly graduated physical chemist with astrong interest in the history of chemistry. Theexperience of both was essential to the discovery thatradioactivity arose from atomic disintegration.

There are two important social issues associatedwith these developments which I would like to mention.The first is related to professional attitudes. One might Ihave supposed that the older, well-established chemistswould have been especially intrigued by the discovery ofradioactivity and plunged into the field. The oppositeseems to have been the case. It is almost as if theyhoped that the observations would go away. One suspectsthe issue was partly psychological in the sense that theywere involved in other successful work; and partly relatedto the fact that, as well-established chemists, they saw athreat to the hard-won concepts of the immutability ofmatter. Fortunately, the field did prove creatively iexciting to some of the younger chemists. Two youngchemists deserve special mention. p

First there is Frederick Soddy, whom I mentionedabove. He arrived at McGill University from England in1900 at the age of 23 as a very junior faculty member. Hebecame fascinated with Rutherford's primitive attempts tounravel the fundamentals of radioactivity and joined himas a fully dedicated partner. Rutherford, then 29, hadarrived at McGill two years earlier and had begun focusingon the observations related to the radioactivity ofthorium. Incidentally, Rutherford openly stated in lateryears that the cooperation of Soddy was essential to the Isuccess of the early work. Soddy did not share inRutherford's Nobel prize, but was rewarded later for hiscontribution to the discovery of isotopes, chemically Iidentical atoms with different mass.

The other notable young chemist who decided todevote his career to the field of radioactivity was Otto

223

UU

Hahn who, after completing his doctoral work in Munich in1901 at the age of 22, first joined William Ramsey, thediscoverer of helium, in London and then joined Rutherfordat McGill to become one of the world's foremostradiochemists. His first important work carried out inRutherford's laboratory was to refine in an essential waythe analysis of the thorium chain of reactivity made bySoddy. His great contribution to the field, withStrassmann nearly forty years later, was, of course, tomake sense ou* of Fermi's very rudimentary and onlypartially correct analysis of the effects of irradiatinguranium with neutrons. Fermi correctly predicted theproduction of transuranic elements, but missed the fissionprocess and several other consequences of the irradiation.Hahn reported by letter to Lise Meitner the phenomenon hetermed the "bursting" of uranium. She discussed it withOtto Frisch, who then reported it to Niels Bohr, who inturn brought the news here in 1939 and stirred thecommunity of nuclear physicists--not least those in theUnited States, as never before. Doubtless his early workon the natural radioactive elements stimulated him tofocus on the confusing results that emerged out of Fermi'slaboratory from their quick run through the periodictable. He also states in his biography that Aristide vonGrosse had urged him to explore the matter further.

The second important social consequence of theearly years of radioactivity relates to the effect thathis work with Rutherford had upon the ultimate career ofFrederick Soddy, for it led him into messianic pathwaysand a search for a peaceful world through scientificapproaches to economics and sociology. In great contrast,of course, Ernest Rutherford regarded radioactivity asprimarily a laboratory phenomenon, having few auxiliaryapplications. As late as the 1930s, he made publicstatements to the effect that any talk of producingsignificantly useful energy from the nucleus on the basisof what was known then as "moonshine."

In his book Nuclear Fears, Spencer Weartexpresses the belief that well before his associationwith Rutherford, Soddy developed strongly the view thatchemistry would not only make enormous advances in thefuture, but would have the effect of liberating humanityfrom drudgery and provide it with unlimited capabilities,including access to essentially free power to drive themachines of the world. With this background, it was easy

23

ifor him, once atomic disintegration--with its relativelyenormous release of energy on the atomic scale--had beenrevealed, to assume that in some way, through theadvancement of science, mankind would learn to gain accessto such energy. He in effect became the first scientist iapostle of the nuclear age. He turned his attention towhat he regarded as scientific approaches to economics andsociology and became a wide-ranging public lecturer, who Iattracted large and often very distinguished audiences.No doubt his earlier association with Rutherford, whosefame was growing continuously, played an important role in ithe reception he received. One of the individuals whotook his predictions very seriously was H. G. Wells who,as early as 1913, before World War I, foresaw the Ipotential dangers associated with the development of whatwe now term nuclear weapons; and wrote a book with thetitle The World Set Free, in which among other moredesirable things such weapons are used and cause greatdestruction.

It is noteworthy that Wells' book appeared Ibefore the start of World War I and at a time when theproducts of advances in science and technology weregenerally regarded to be overwhelmingly beneficial to Imankind. Soddy seems to have retained this optimism untilthe horrors of that war descended upon Europe. He wasparticularly shaken by the death at Gallopoli of the ibrilliant young physicist Moseley, who had demonstratedthe relation between the frequencies associated with x-rayspectra and atomic number. After that he became apessimist concerning the effects of the release of nuclear Ienergy on a practical scale, which he continued to believewas imminent.

Interestingly enough, his biographer, MurielHoworth, makes no mention whatever of his reaction to thenews of the discovery of fission or to the successful Idevelopment of the nuclear bombs during World War II andin the postwar period. Soddy was in his sixties at thattime and still very active. One can only presume that he ihad become mentally adjusted to these developments lonqbefore they occurred.

It is clear that the well-established scientistsin Soddy's generation felt that he had wandered far afieldand lost touch with his own community. One item in abiography extols his early contribution to the unraveling

24 fII

of the mysteries of radioactivity, but states that he losthis genius in later years.

The next major scientific figure to give warningthat the nuclear age was imminent, for better or worse,was Leo Szilard; who became interested in the scientific,technological, and social aspects of the subject in themid-1930s and never left it until his death in 1964. Heundoubtedly was influenced in part by Chadwick's discoveryof the neutron in 1932 and by his friend Eugene Wigner'searly involvement in the theory of nuclear structures, buthis mind soon soared far above all of this. We apparentlyknow of no direct connection between him and Soddy; buthaving moved to Oxford in 1934 when Soddy was still in hisprime, he could not help but know of Soddy's predictionsand anxieties. We also know that he was strongly affectedby H. G. Wells' book,. The World Set Free, which he firstread in German translation.

In any event, Szilard became concerned with thepossibility of a neutron-induced chain reaction using oneneutron-rich nucleus or another some five years beforefission was actually discovered. I first met him throughEugene Wigner in 1935 or 1936, during'one of his visits tothe United States. His conversation focused almostentirely on two themes: the dangers Hitler posed to thefree world, and the imminent feasibility of releasingnuclear energy if the right steps were taken. A year orso later, when I was working at the General ElectricResearch Laboratory in Schenectady, he was doing his bestto convince the head of the laboratory, Dr. WilliamCoolidge, to undertake experiments under Szilard'sdirection. As far as I can recall, he focused at thattime on using the neutron rich nuclei of the alkali metalsin a highly compressed state as the source of energy to bederived from a neutron-induced chain reaction. Inretrospect this was a very dubious proposal for anearthbound experiment, although his enthusiasm wasunquestioned. As might be e;:pected, he focused on thepositive aspects of achieving access to nuclear energy.He eventually became discouraged with this approach butwas immediately on hand as a leader when fission wasdiscovered a short time later.

There is, of course, no doubt that Szilardplayed a major catalytic role both in England and the

25

iUnited States in pressing for work on a chain reaction-This became an all-consuming activity, as we all know.

It was my privilege to spend two years at theUniversity of Chicago with Szilard during World War II.My wife was serving as a substitute college faculty memberin Pittsburgh at the time, so I was virtually a bachelorin Chicago and spent many evenings with Szilard at theQuadrangle Club. At that time, his mind reverberatedcontinuously between the potential benefits and hazards ofthe nuclear age, tempered always by a day-to-day interest Iin the course of the war and speculations on the progressbeing made by a hypothetical German version of theManhattan Project.

Once it became clear in the summer of 1945 thatfunctioning bombs existed and that the United States alonepossessed them, Szilard essentially lost interest inpeaceful uses of atomic energy except in a very peripheralway, and focused all his attention on the matter ofcontrol. Apparently, he had first accepted the thesisthat our country was controlled by a few wealthy familiesand business people, for the most part located in New YorkCity; a theme which President Roosevelt used in the 1930s mduring some of his campaign speeches. On reading items inthe press regarding Beardsley Ruml, a prominent financieron Wall Street, he went to New York, introduced himself to IRuml and arranged a meeting with a number of New Yorkbusinessmen and investors; urging them to take steps tomake certain that future control of nuclear bombs andtheir development be kept in safe, civilian hands. Hislisteners heard him out with rapt attention, since many ofthe things which he said were new and of great interest tothem. When he concluded his presentation, however, theystressed the fact that the country was run from Washingtonand not from New York, and offered to introduce him toinfluential senators and congressmen. He essentially took Ithe next train to Washington and quickly gathered togethera very effective lobbying group consisting of scientistsand others sympathetic to his mission.

His great success was, of course, the defeat ofthe May-Johnson Bill concerning the control of nuclearenergy, which he presumed would in one way or anothere;:tend the authority of the Manhattan Project in militaryhands. He and his colleagues played a major role in thelegislation which led to the creation of the Atomic Energy

26

Commission, but it is noteworthy that many of the mostprominent positions were soon given to individuals who hadendorsed the May-Johnson Bill.

There is no evidence to indicate that Szilardwas ever consulted by Bernard Baruch when the latter dealtwith the United Nations in connection with the LillienthalAcheson report. Instead, Baruch selected as his advisorsindividuals who came out of a more conventional stream.Nevertheless, we can assume that Szilard kept close trackof the developments through the various organizations ofscientists, and that he placed great hopes upon thesuccess of some form of agreement toward internationalcontrol that would override narrow national interests ashe saw them.

When it became clear that the Soviet Union wouldnot accept the Baruch plan, Szilard took the initiative inhis own way in an attempt to gain some form ofinternational agreement. As one of the instruments toachieve this purpose, he- formed the so-called EinsteinCommittee, on which I served for a number of years afterreturning in 1947 from a year at Oak Ridge as a colleagueof Eugene Wigner, and where I was Director of the firsttraining program on nuclear reactors. This committee wasbased on the ashes of an earlier committee, the EmergencyCommittee of Atomic Scientists, which had burned itselfout. While Albert Einstein was its honorary chairman,most of the planning and action was carried out by Szilardand by Harrison Brown, a geochemist who had worked withthe Manhattan Project and was then at the University ofChicago. One of Szilard's greatest hopes in the periodbetween 1946 and 1949 was to attempt to arrange a meetingof scientists from the United States, the United Kingdom,and the Soviet Union at a neutral place--preferably aCaribbean island such as Jamaica or Trinidad, in order todiscuss means of establishing international control overnuclear energy in general--and nuclear weapons inparticular. Several meetings were arranged betweenHarrison Brown and Foreign Secretary Andrei Gromyko todiscuss this proposal, but at the end, Gromyko wascompelled to say that his country opposed such a meeting.What we did not know then and which came to light in 1949was that the Soviet Union had obtained sufficientinformation through Klaus Fuchs to get on with its ownprogram for a fission bomb much more rapidly than most ofthe e;,perts in our government had believed possible. The

27

I

genie was out of the bottle. Szilard's dream of suchgatherings of scientists took a full decade to be irealized, and is now reflected in the somewhat humdrummeetings associated with the name, "Pugwash."

I am inclined to believe that this failure atthat time in the cycle of events accompanied by the Sovietrejection of the Baruch proposal had a very profoundeffect on Szilard, and that henceforth he believed that avery destructive world war was inevitable. Nationalideology had gained the upper hand. i

By the time the Pugwash movement had come intobeing, Szilard was no longer at center stage. In fact, Ihe was devoting much of his time to biological research,at which he was highly innovative, and to writingintriguing science fiction. I noted that in one of thehistories of the Pugwash movement, published in England,an English group is mistakenly given almost completecredit for its conception and realization. Szilard becamemuch more the interested observer, offering a combinationof imaginative and unconventional proposals, whereasHarrison Brown became the organizer.

If one looks back on the various organizationsof scientists' which were generated between the period of1945 and 1948 in response to the work of the Manhattan IProject as, for example, is related in the comprehensivework by Alice Smith, A Peril and A Hope, one realizes thatat that time Szilard was in one way or another deeplyinvolved in the creation and guidance of most of them. Hecovered essentially all activities, such as theorganization and development of the Federation of AtomicScientists, the Federation of American Scientists, thevarious movements at the national laboratories anduniversities, the action in Washington, and the creationof the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. In addition, heaided in the collection of philanthropic funds and theirdistribution to the various operating groups.

There is little doubt that his basic motiveswere humanitarian, and that his ultimate goal was to helpin the formation of a universal government which wouldassure world peace. Some of us who worked with him,however, were sometimes put off by the fact that he wasinitially at least inclined to see no really fundamental

difference between our own form of government and that of

283

II

the Soviet Union. In fact, I believe that it is safe tosay that in spite of the freedoms which he enjoyed in ademocratic society, he distrusted the idea that thegeneral public should have a strong voice in determiningthe course of events. On this score I might quote EugeneWigner, one of Szilard's oldest friends, who stated in hismemorial to Szilard: "It was a favorite saying of Szilardthat one stupid person may be right as often as a brightone, but two stupid people will be wrong much more oftenthan two bright ones. They should not have as much to sayabout national politics as the latter. However, his goodwill toward all including the stupid ones was alwayswholehearted and no one could accuse him of malice."

Unfortunately, many of the organizations whichSzilard helped to create have fallen into the hands ofindividuals who have more than humanitarian goals.

There are, of course, two great weaknesses toSzilard's approach to societal matters. First, it is veryhard to get a representative group of even the mostintelligent individuals to agree on relatively simpleissues, let alone upon matters as complex as worldgovernment. Something in the nature of coercion by aselected few would be needed, and we know where that canlead if appropriate good will and safeguards areinadequate. Moreover, the various meanderings of th,United Nations Organization over the past decades do notgive us confidence in the wisdom or steadfastness of anysuch international organization. Second, variousgroupings of people on our planet are highly diversifiedin essential ways, and for one reason or another, end upwith different forms of government. I do not believe thatit is reasonable at present to equate the open democraticcountries with dictatorial ones in the way in whichSzilard might have preferred. The former are worthy ofbeing defended in their own right until such time as weare all prepared to form an appropriately effective worldgovernment.

In the meantime, we must continue to carry on inwhat some may regard as a schizophrenic way by developingnuclear energy as a boon to mankind, in order to provideessentially unlimited amounts of clean energy for theenrichment of our lives. At the same time we must do Durbest to keep the destructive genie tightly sealed in thebottle, while maintaining our own defenses at a realistic

29

ilevel. I know of no other rational approach to theI

complex situation which we face in the world in which weI

live today.i

IiiiIiiii

I

i30l

INTRODUCTION OF

DR. K. ALEX MOLLER, NOBEL LAUREATEIBM ZURICH RESEARCH LABORATORY

Dr. Donald Gubser

A little over two years ago, I participated inorganizing a meeting which also was a commemorativemeeting honoring the 75th anniversary of the discovery ofsuperconductivity. The Chairman of that conference, EdEdelsack, is here in the meeting today; as well as TedBerlincourt, who organized a special symposium featuringhistorical reviews in the field of superconductivity.The meeting took place at the end of September 1986. Atthat time, I think many of the people felt that the fieldof superconductivity was relatively mature, and theredidn't seem to be much exciting new physics in super-conductivity. Many of the applications which people hadproposed for superconductivity were slow in coming torealization, although there was a commercial market forsuperconductivity: in magnets for magnetic resonanceimaging and certain military applications.

We did not know as we were celebrating this 75-year anniversary that the speaker whom I am about tointroduce had just published one of the most excitingdiscoveries ever to occur in the field of supercon-ductivity: one which turned the field around almostovernight. It was one of the most exciting discoveriesin the last few decades, and perhaps there will be a 50thanniversary celebrated for this discovery.

As you know, the President of the United Statesrealized the importance of this discovery and he held aspecial conference on superconductivity. It is reallyex:citing for me, having been in this field all my career,to participate in the e:.citement. It is very difficult,however, to stay up with the field. Many reprints appeardaily which must be at least perused to find out what ishappening. The national vigor, the national visibility,is certainly difficult to handle; but new science is

31

ithere, as is new technology. It is really wonderful to 3know that the age of discovery is not over.

Professor Mller received his Ph.D. from theSwiss Federal Institute in 1958. After five yearsworking at the Battelle Institute, he went to IBM inZurich in 1963. Professor Miller also is a professor atthe University of Zurich. Throughout his career, he hasbeen working in the field of ferroelectricity andsuperconductivity.

Professor MUller has done truly pioneeringresearch throughout his career, looking for new conceptsand new opportunities, rather than just exploring and Ifilling-in details of other work. He is certainly notusing conventional wisdom in his approaches to materials,as the discovery of high-temperature superconductivitywould indicate. Very few people were looking atceramics, low-carrier concentration materials, for super-conductivity. Conventional wisdom says that metals andinter-metallic compounds with large number of electronsare the place to find superconductors. It was this non-conventional area of research that led Professor MUllerto the discovery of high-temperature superconductivity.

Professor MUller has over 200 technicalpublications in the field of superconductivity, and he is Istill very prolific. I met Professor MUller at another

conference about a year and a half ago. After speakingwith him for some time, I retired for the evening around 39 o'clock. Today, I found out that he stayed up tomidnight, talking with others and doing homework foranother publication in superconductivity. So, he isstill very active in the field.

In 1973, Professor Miller was manager of thePhysics Department at IBM, and in 1982 he became an IBM Ifellow. Since 1985, he and his group have been doing

research in superconductivity and ferroelectrics.

Professor Mille: has many awards. I read hisresume and really could go through them all. As we allknow, Professor MUller won the Nobel Prize for his

discovery of high-temperature superconductivity in 1987.After searching around a little bit, I finally foundwhere he mentioned his Nobel Prize award, just one ofseveral awards! The modest m ion of his Nobel Prize in

I

his resume is indicative of his character. Some of themore prestigious awards received by Professor Miller arethe Fritz London Award and the American Physical SocietyInternational Award for New Materials.

He also has received many honorary degrees fromthe University of Geneva, the University of Munich,Boston University, and Tel Aviv.

I would like at this stage to turn the platformover to Professor MUller. The title of his presentationis "High Temperature Ferroelectricity and Superconduc-tivity." I believe he will tell us most about supercon-ductivity, and perhaps we will hear a new discovery--andwill have to have a 50th anniversary, 50 years fromtoday.

33

III

LECTURE

HIGH TEMPERATURE FERROELECTRICITY iAND SUPERCONDUCTIVITY

Dr. K. Alex MUller

First, I would like to thank Dr. Gubser for hisvery kind introduction and, also, for the invitation to 3come here and meet a number of you I have known before,especially Professor Liebowitz, and to meet people I knowonly by name but not personally. As Dr. Gubser said, inconsideration of the audience, I restrict myself to thesuperconductivity area because including the ferroelectricpart may actually narrow the scope of this talk ratherthan broaden it--for reasons I don't want to discuss here.

Now, for the high temperature superconductivity Iplan to give you a summary of how we arrived at these Ioxides and, if I have the time which I don't know yet,also tell a bit more for those of you who are specialistsin the field.

Superconductivity, as probably most of you know,was discovered in Leyden by Kamerlingh Onnes. You seehere a picture of him. Maybe I should mention that he gotthe Nobel prize for liquefying helium, and thatsuperconductivity was part of his research. He couldliquify helium at the beginning of the century, and hence Ikind of monopolized research in low temperature physicsbecause his competitors were not able to do that. He hadliquid helium in his laboratory for about 12 years, and Iamong other things he wanted to know what the metallicconduction would be at low temperature. At Leyden theyquickly realized that the resistivity of the metals would ibecome independent of the temperature, that on cooling, itwould settle on the so-called "residual resistance" due toimpurities, and therefore they decided to take a metal 3which was very pure. Mercury is such a metal, because youcan distill mercury and therefore make it purer and purer.

34I I

So they took a mercury rod and measured theresistance. What they found is shown in this figure. (FiJ. 1)

Here is the resistance and here the temperature scale.This is about the boiling point of liquid helium, 4.2degrees Kelvin, from which you have to subtract 273 if youwant to have centigrades. The resistance came downlinearly on cooling and suddenly disappeared. Actually itwas a student who measured that, and came to Onnes andsaid, "Well, the resistance disappears." Onnes suspectedthat some current lead had been detached and said, "Goback and measure again," and the student went back andmeasured. He came back again and said, "The resistancedisappeared." So, Kamerlingh Onnes said, "Now, I am goingto measure myself," and he found, indeed, the resistancewas disappearing. Then he did a number of very niceexperiments to prove that the resistance really droppedbeyond any detectable value. At that time, this was donewith galvanometers and so on.

The transition temperature of mercury was, as Isaid before, at 4.2 Kelvin or about the boiling point ofhelium. Slowly over the decades, the transitiontemperatures increased, until at the beginning of theseventies 23 Kelvin had been reached for Nb3Ge, which wasthe highest one. It was at least above the boiling pointof liquid hydrogen, whereas before, in all the othercompounds liquid helium with its low boiling point had to (Fiq. 2)be used for superconductivity to occur. One thing you seeis that most of these compounds are cubic and containniobium.

One important property of such superconductors isof course that superconductivity withstands a magneticfield. There is the so-called "Meissner" effect, and thisis the crucial test whether you have a superconductor ornot. If you set the temperature above the criticaltemperature and then apply a magnetic field, it penetratesthe superconductor. If you cool a Type 1 superconductor Uii. 3)

below the critical temperature, the magnetic field iscompletely expelled. This magnetic test is also veryimportant with high T, superconductors because in the pasttwo years you often got news that a superconductor atnearly room temperature had been found, but all thesecompounds have not passed the Meissner test.

Actually in Type 2 superconductors the magneticfield can partially penetrate but you still get a higher

35

I

diamagnetic contribution which has to be looked for. Theobserved superconductivity was found in metals, and I have ishown you the progression of the transition temperature (Fiq. 4)

where the resistivity disappears in the metals. I am nowgoing to talk about the oxides, but since 1980, you alsohave superconductivity in the organic conductors, which Ithink are quite promising because if you plot thetransition temperature versus time, you find that the Islope of T, versus time in these organic superconductorsis even steeper than in the oxides. Earlier these organicconductors were more like one-dimensional strands, but now Ithey are also becoming two dimensional. I may come backto that if I have time.

Now, to the history of superconductivity in the (Fig. 5)

oxides. The first two oxides to become superconductingwere reduced strontium titanate. Strontium titanatenormally is an insulator, but if you reduce it, it becomesa conducting metallic compound. The National Bureau ofStandards group, it was Frederickse's group, found atransition temperature of 0.3 Kelvin here. This was not ahigh temperature. In the same year, the group of BerndMatthias, in San Diego, found in the tungsten bronze a T_of 0.6 Kelvin. Having found that, it was okay. So, one Iknew that also in oxides you can have superconductivity,but it was regarded partially as exotic because the.transition temperatures were very low. The lattice of (Fiq. 6) Iboth of these compounds was of perovskite structure. Hereis the structure of strontium titanate. What you have isa symmetry which is the highest you can get, namely O'h.

At the center of the octahedron, there is a transitionmetal ion, at the corners there is an oxygen, and in thiscenter--for charge compensating reason--a large ion.

At that point and having heard the address byProfessor Seitz, let me digress a bit. I had not plannedthis, but now will do it. Let me try to shed some light Ion the more transcendent aspects of this research.Professor Seitz has alluded at the beginning of his talkto the work of Segre and especially to certain images Iwhich are called mandalas. He mentioned that spheres orcircles are images of these, and if you read, forinstance, an essay by Wolfgang Pauli, he shows, I think ittranslates as--it is in German--"On the archetypicalpre-existence of scientific discoveries." Well he showsthere that Kepler strongly believed in the sphericalaspect of God and therefore was looking for projections of

I

that on a plane which would be circles. This is why hewas so strongly convinced that he would find orbits in theshape of circles; finally he found ellipses. But there isanother aspect of these mandalas, namely, that often youhave, in addition to circles, squares. For me, and I canonly talk for me, this perovskite structure here has hadthis aspect because I have been doing research on theperovskites for over 30 years, on many properties such asstructural phase transformations. For instance, theseoctahedra have a common corner. Thus they can rotate, sayaround such a tetrahedral axis and also around anotheraxis, thus breaking the symmetry. This has led to thediscovery of critical phenomena in structural phasetransitions. It has also led to the discovery of theso-called "Potts transition." We were, I think, the firstto prove the existence in nature of a Potts transition byapplying stress along the diagonal axis. Further, wefound photochromic effects and so on. It is based onthese successes that I felt that maybe looking at thepossibility to further enhance superconductivity in thesecrystals could be worthwhile--and it worked out.

Of course, in order to achieve something, youhave to know a bit more. Thus, let us go back for amoment to the history. Johnson,- a student of Matthias,found in 1973 that in the lithium-titanium spinel you geta T, of 13 Kelvin. This was already something which wasworth thinking about. Of course, then one could not makesingle crystals of this material. So, one did not do much (Fio. 7)work on this system. Then Slight at Dupont found, againin the perovskite lattice, a T. of 30 Kelvin in thebarium-lead-bismuth oxide, and recently by replacingbarium by potassium, 30 Kelvin were reached in a realperovskite material at AT&T. What was remarkable at thetime was that the concentration of carriers as measured bythe Hall effect was very low, namely, only some 4 x 1O '.If you look at the well-known BCS formula for weakcoupling, the T_ has exponential dependence on the carrierdensity at the Fermi energy, not the same as this densityn given here. N(E) is measured per unit cell times theelectron-electron attraction mediated by electron phonons.You can see that if this quantity N(E), which is relatedto this n here, is low, you have to have a largeelectron-phonon interaction, and so, from this knowledge,one wanted to go further. From this thinking, we derivedthe concept for our search for the high-temperaturesuperconductivity, namely, to search in metallic D::ides

37

i

and turn away from the intermetallic compounds; also,because reading reports on intermetallic compounds, Ibecame aware that practically no more progress had beenmade in those areas for over a decade.

Now, perhaps just to give you an image of wherewe were working, Georg Bednorz and myself, this is the IBMResearch Laboratory near Zurich. It is atypically smallfor IBM. It now employs perhaps 200 people, but at the (Fig. 8)

time there were only 150. This is the materials anddevice area here. This is the communications area. Here Iis the adminstrative building. I should rather start uphere. This is the Lake of Zurich, and here is theAutobahn, where if you drive for an hour and a quarter youare in the skiing resorts. The cafeteria is an importantmeeting place, and until recently because of the size ofthe laboratory everybody knew everybody else, which Ithink is an advantage in certain aspects in research.

Of course, you often need to have very iargefacilities like the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center. IThere you have silicon lines and other research areaswhich will require quite a bit of personnel and also, alaboratory of size. The work which we started was withGeorg Bednorz. He is on -the left. The picture is from (Fia. 9)the Nebelspalter, a Swiss satirical publication, and maybeit illustrates that you should take things seriously but Iperhaps not too seriously. This is why I like to showthis transparency. 3

Of course, we needed to have a new, an additionalconcept. You cannot just work in oxides. You will workfor decades without finding much, but as I said before,what you want to have is a strong interaction between theelectrons and the lattice. This is what we had in mindand having worked earlier on the Jahn-Teller effect, welooked for such possibilities.

We therefore decided to restrict ourselves toworking only in metallic oxides containing nickel and Icopper. Why? Because they have partially filled dorbitals which point toward the oxygen ligands, andtherefore we expected them to have a large interaction. IIt is shown in a simplified form here. You can put, say,a Ni'* ion at the center of this octahedron, and the Ni" Ihas one of the e, orbitals occupied. There are two iindependent e, orbitals. You can have this configuration

38I

II

or that one. They are degenerate, and from my electronspin resonance work I knew that the Jahn-Tellerstabilization energy, the way the energy is lowered bydistorting this octahedron, is largest in copper ornickel. The Ni3 and also the Cu2* show this effect.

Now, how did we visualize what is happening?Well, I became aware of a theory by the authors shownhere, namely Hock, Nickisch and Thomas, in which theytried to explain some resistivity anomaly in metallicLaves phases (these are not oxides) by way of so-called (Fig. 11)

"Jahn-Teller" polarons. In my graph you have the Cu2*,which has three of these e. orbitals, and thereforeelongates. You have essentially two electrons in thisblue orbit and one in the green elongated orbit. If youhave a Cu3*, you have one electron in one orbit and one inthe other, and the octahedron is not distorted.

Since these objects can travel along onedirection, this would be a Jahn-Teller polaron. I shouldperhaps mention that nowadays one partially comes back tothese views. There are so-called "string" theories, onobjects which travel along a string. A further aspect ofthis concept was that it should have a mixed valence.This is important. So, you have Cu3 and Cu2 .

Georg Bednorz and myself first worked for abouttwo years on the nickel compound, and we did not make anyprogress toward superconductivity, rather towardlocalization. We knew that the perovskite La Cu O, is ametal. It has a Pauli susceptibility. This was known,but for this valence, you have no orbital degeneracy. Atthat moment, Georg Bednorz while searching the literaturefound a paper by Michel and Raveau from France, who had ( 1ii. 12)

produced this mixed perovskite. Namely, they had replacedpart of the lanthanum by barium and therefore had a mixedvalence on the copper. Why did these people look intothese compounds? The reason was catalysis. The firstworks on mixed perovskites were done by Paul Hagemller'sgroup in Bordeaux-Tolance about 1973, then they gave up.From about 1978 until 1979, a Russian group continued.Finally, Michel and Raveau, a chemical group, worked onit. Why are these compounds good catalysts? Because theyeasily lose oxygen, and therefore are oxidation catalysts.This however is derogative for the high T_ materialsbecause you want that the oxygen is stable; otherwise you

39

I

change the stoichiometry, and the T. changes. This is a Idifficulty.

Now, in RUschlikon we prepared the compound in a 3different way than Michel and Raveau did. They just tookthe oxides and fired them together, whereas having donequite a bit of work in ferroelectricity and especially in 3quantum ferroelectriity, we wanted to have a microscopicmixture of the compounds. Georg Bednorz had developed amethod of co-precipitation from aqueous solution ofoxalates which were then reacted by heating. WhereasMichel and Raveau had heated their substance to 1100degrees centigrade, he heated our compound to 950. Thiswas a stroke of luck because by heating the compound inthis way, he found that the resistance was disappearing.However, the compound was now a derived perovskite. It (Fig. 13)

was the one you see here on the left, which is by now Iwell-known. You again have octahedra, with copper ions atthe center surrounded by oxygens. Furthermore, there isa sodium chloride layer; here in red is the lanthanum, andhere an oxygen; then again a sodium chloride layer,followed by another layer of perovskites and so on. Thiscompound has a transition temperature of 35 Kelvin.

Now, going a bit further in the work, I come tothe compound here on the left, which was found by Paul Chuand Dr. -Wu. We shared the American Physical SocietyMaterials prize. At first, the compound looks a bitcomplicated, but what you recognize is that you do nothave any octahedral layers but that now you have pyramids Ihere. You have five oxygens and the copper in between.They are again linked together at their corners and mirror (?ic. 13)symmetry exists about this plane. Here you have again thepyramids facing upwards. In the middle you have anyttrium layer. So, you see, there is a progression. Atthe beginning, we first looked at compounds with aperovskite lattice, but we found superconductivity in thelayered perovskite. A higher T, is now in a compoundwhich has these pyramids where more or less the octahedraare split. You can go further with these structures found Iin 1987. Some of the results of 1988 are shown here. (i'. 14)These are now compounds which contain either thallium orbismuth instead of rare-earth ions. I do not show you the Iformulae, I hope you see the progression: Namely, on theleft, you have a compound which transforms at 60 Kelvinwith two layers of o:tygen of either bismuth or thallium, I

40

i

and then you have again here the copper octahedra linkedtogether.

The next compound, called n = 2, has pyramidswhich we have already seen in the Houston-Alabamacompound. Then you can go to n - 3 with an even higherTo, where you have pyramids and also squares. Thesecompounds show a still higher T., both for the bismuth andthe thallium compound. The thallium compound now holdsthe confirmed world record of 125 Kelvin. So, you maythink, aha, you go still higher with n = 4, and you willget an even higher transition temperature. This is notthe case, because it is not always true that the sky isthe limit. If you make the compound n - 4 for thallium,then the T. is lower. Professor Raveau in Caen has donethis experiment.

Now, what do we learn from this? The compounds.are all layered copper oxides, and they form a new classof superconductors. I may now, in the remaining time, say (Fig. 15)

a few words about their properties. First of all, youwant to know whether the mechanism is more or less the onewe know from normal superconductivity or not. Onecharacteristic of the classical superconductor is thatthey contain Cooper pairs, namely that you have twoelectrons with one spin down and one up. They also have (Fig. 16)opposite momentum, indicated here by the arrows k- and k'.The electrons are "on speaking terms" over a certaincoherence length. In normal superconducting metals, theintrinsic coherence length is very large. It is about 1000lattice distances. We will see what implication thecoherence length has for the new oxides.

First of all, you want to know whether we havesuch Cooper pairs, and I think one of the nicestexperiments in this area was by Gough's group in England. (Fig. 17)There they measured the magnetic flux through such a core.From the work of London, one knows that this flu:: isquantized. The flux is n times a certain fluxon :,, whichis given by h, the Planck constant, times the velocity oflight c divided by the charge q. In normal superconduc-tors it was shown that this charge is 2e because you havetwo electrons. The same was shown by Gough to be the casefor the oxide superconductors. What they did is theymeasured the flux as a function of time by a magnetic

method. This flux was found to be quantized with a charqe

41

U

q of 2e. Therefore the existence of Cooper pairs was 3confirmed.

The Cooper pair and especially its coherencelength are very crucial for the properties of the new Icompounds. Why? If you put a superconductor into amagnetic field, you can increase the magnetic field untilsuperconductivity breaks down. This is called thecritical field, and it is very large in these oxides, ofthe order of a megagauss. It can even be 2 megagauss. Ithas not been measured, only extrapolated. One megagauss Imeans 100 Tesla, and this of course immediately starts youthinking that one may apply them to generate extremelyhigh magnetic fields. i

The critical magnetic field is given by a verysimple formula, namely, it is equal to the flux quantum (Fig. 18) 3divided by the area of a circle with the radius of thecoherence length. Because H.. is so big, if you put inthe numbers, you will find that the coherence length ofthe superconductors is very small. The most recentexperiments yielded that in one direction is only 2 to 4Angstroms. This is lower than the unit cell distance. Inthe planes, C is of the order of 20 Angstroms. Because of Uthat, you observe phenomena which you did not see before.Before I go to that, let me say why the coherence lengthis so small--in words so that I need not bore you with Iformulae. It is basically due to the Heisenberguncertainty principle. In a normal metal, these electronshave huge velocities and therefore they have to keepapart. This is like the electron which does not fall intothe nucleus in an atom, because there is the uncertaintyprinciple which keeps the electron out due to its largevelocity.

In these new compounds, the velocities areconsiderably smaller because of two effects. First ofall, the effective mass, that is the mass of the carrier,is of the order of 4 electron masses, and relativelylarge. Furthermore, the density of states is quite small, Iit is of the order of 10' per cubic centimeter, twoorders of magnitude smaller. Therefore Fermi velocities,if they exist, are quite small.

There is now a big debate among the theoreticiansand maybe I should say something about it, but only in iwords. Do new experiments prove the existernce of a Fermi

423

IU

liquid surface in these oxides or not? If not, then thetheories which are based on magnetic interaction, theresonance valence bond state or fractional quantum stateshave an edge. If there is a Fermi liquid surface, youcan, to a certain extent, deal with the BCS approach,whereas of course the electron-electron coupling may notbe phononic but can be excitonic. This is one aspectwhich I think has some future. There are now more andmore experiments which indicate that a Fermi surfaceexists. Those I believe the most are nuclear magneticresonance experiments. In nuclear magnetic resonance, onecan measure the relaxation time and if you do that, youfind that for the oxygens where the carrier--I come tothat in a moment--follows essentially the temperaturedependence which Hebbel and Slichter had found in Urbanafor the aluminum metal superconductor. This is a quitestrong indication that the new superconductors behave likea Fermi liquid. There are other experiments. Now, I saidto you just a moment ago, what are the carriers? Thecarriers are not electrons in these compounds. Thesematerials are hole superconductors. By doping the (Fig. 19)material, for instance in our compound by replacing thelanthanum with strontium, one creates holes. These arelocated on oxygen orbitals. This is generally acceptednow, and they are essential for the formation of Cooperpairs. At the beginning, we were thinking--and I showedyou a picture--that you would have the hole on the coppersite. Instead of having Cu2 , one would have Cu3' adjacentto an O2.

More recent experiments, and I show you just oneexperiment, indicate that a large fraction of the holesare on the oxygen p orbital. Here is the relation. Thenotation is more or less this one. The configuration here )i.would be 3d' and a hole in the p shell. Here on the left,you have the hole in the 3d configuration. You have oneelectron fewer, and you have no holes in the p shell.This evidence, which is important, is related toferroelectricity. Why? The oxygen in vacuum is stable at0, not (0-. What stabilizes the oxygen as 2- in theoxides is the Madelung energy. This is true in athree-dimensional lattice. If you have two dimensions,the potential is such that the holes go onto the oxygen.In a similar way in ferroelectrics, the 0 -- in theperovskite barium titanate tries to put its last electronas far away from itself as possible. So it puts it into

43

U

the titanium orbitals. Thus, there is a relation to the Iferroelectricity of these superconductivity compounds.

Now you will ask me, "How do you know that we 3have the oxygens 0- partially?" There is a specificexperiment, an electron loss experiment. What you do isyou take a layer of the material, and you shoot an Ielectron through. So, you get rid of some surfaceeffects. You really know what is happening inside thesuperconductor, and if there is an 0-, there will be acharacteristic transition, namely from the Is to the 2pstate. If the 2p state has six electrons, i.e., it isfull, there is no absorption. If there is one electronmissing as in 0-, you get an absorption which occurs at528 electron volts.

Such an experiment was done by the Karlsruhe (Fig. 20) 3group of Ntcker and coworkers using the core levelexcitation. First look at the experiment with theoriginal compound, the LaCuO,. You replace the Ithree-valent lanthanum by the two-valent scrontium, andthereby create holes. If you have no strontium, x = 0,you look at the absorption, and you find that at 528 eV--nothing. Now, you dope it with 15 percent strontium, andhere is the peak. You have holes on the oxygens. Now,let us look at the compound from Houston: the same effect.Here the hole concentration is fixed by the stoichiometryof the oxygen. For 07 you have maximum hole concentra-tion. If the oxygen stoichiometry is 6, you have aninsulator. So, if y is 0.8, you have a stochiometry of I6.2, essentially an insulator, and there is no absorption.If you have 0.5, you get absorption. If you used y = 0.2,which means 6.8 here, it is a good superconductor and here Iis the peak. So, this proves to you that the holes are onthe oxygens.

Of course now you want to know where exactly arethese holes, since there are different p orbits. Thisproblem has been tackled this year by measuring theanisotropy of the electron losses, and one found that the Iholes are in the planes of the oxygens. So, you have a p.,and a p, orbital in the plane, and the hole should bethere. Whether it is in the X or the Y orbital, we do nor -know. Therefore we do not yet know whether you have sigmaor pi bonding. 3

44U

II

Let us look at the behavior of the superconduct-ing transition temperature as a function of the holeconcentration. This is work from several groups. Youbegin doping. No superconductivity. Therefore there (Fig. 21)clearly is a threshold for the Tc. From here, the T,increases, and then decreases again. From tlare on youhave a normal metal, and any theory of superconductivityhas to show quantitatively why you get a normal metal onthe right side at high hole concentrations. What happenson the left side? The material is an antiferromagnet. Ishow you here a diagram from a Japanese group, but othergroups have also obtained this diagram. So, here you have (Fig. 22)

the doping of the holes, and here T, or the N4eltemperature T,, and what you find is that doping szrongly,dramatically reduces the antiferrcmagnetism.

Here is a so-called "spin glass phase" whichactually extends into the superconductor, and here youhave superconductivity. Another notation is used in thisgraph: here 2-1/2 means 5 in my previous graph. Withthat, the belief that magnetic interaction may beimportant was quite prevalent a year ago, andquantitatively the change of the antiferromagnetic phasewas elucidated by the fact that if you have holes, theholes couple ferromagnetically into the antiferromagneticlattice, a-nd therefore, you get a frustrated situation.The antiferromagnetism is destroyed, and you obtain a spinglass phase.

If this were the case and if magnetism wereimportant, then one should seriously consider magnetictheories like resonance valence bond theory and others.However, the resonance valence bond theory tells you thatthe gap disappears in one wave vector direction, and youshould get a specific heat effect, which is linear withtemperature, which was not found by the Berkeley group.This here is for the bismuth compound. In this graph T-is plotted against the heat capacity divided by (F. 23)temperature, and you see that all these lines beautifullygo to zero at these green points; this means that you haveno linear term. Given these measurements it is verydifficult to think that the resonance valence bond isprevailing.

Now, you would like to know what is thesuperconducting gap in the material, and whether you cando magnetic relaxation experiments. I have just mentioned

45

I

.the classical work in aluminum by Hebbel and Slichter. UYou can perform the same measurements in these newcompounds, and you will find a gap that is considerablylarger than what BCS predicts. This is a graph of the (Fig. 24)relaxation rate as a function of inverse temperature, andyou find here a straight line from which you obtain theforbidden gap of the superconductor. You find the ratio Iis 7.1 which indicates that you have strong coupling.There are a number of other experiments in the othercompounds which also point in this direction. So, youhave not a weak-coupling, but a strong-couplingsuperconductor.

I think I should come slowly to an end, but I Iwould like to point out one important point with respectto applications, namely, the very short coherence lengths.I mentioned this property of the Cooper pairs at thebeginning. Because this length is very short, thebehavior at the surface of the superconductor is stronglymodified. If you have a superconductor adjacent to an (Fig. 25) Uinsulator, then the superconducting gap, which is theorder parameter of the superconductor, drops quite a bitnear the surface even at very low temperature. If youapply the theory of de Gennes, the gap is about one-halfof what it is inside at the material. This is quitedifferent from normal superconductors with their longcoherence lengths, and where the gap really stayspractically the same at the surface and within thecompound. 3

If you now enhance the temperature to near T-,the gap drops dramatically, which has a variety ofconsequences, both scientifically and for applications. IWhy scientifically? If you have domain boundaries inside v>il. 2(-,)the crystal, or twins, each twin gives a discontinuity inthe superconducting wave function. This is one of the Ureasons that the superconducting state is glass-like,especially in ceramics. There are other aspects, but thisis one of them. So, crudely speaking, if you have twodomains in a crystal, you have the twin. Then on that Iside there is a superconducting phase, and on the otherside another phase. This forms a superconducting glassstate which has been shown in our laboratory: a memory meffect like in a spin glass. You can cool the substancedown in zero magnetic field, then apply a magnetic field,and measure the magnetization. Then you change the Imagnetization after an hour, and again measure the

46U

II

magnetization. After another hour, the slope ofmagnetization changes. You can wait six hours beforechanging the magnetization. After six hours the systemshows its memory. You wait 24 hours. After 24 hours, thesystem shows its memory, similar as in a spin glass stateor, also, in the models of neurons in the biologicalsystems for your brain. Another aspect of the shortcoherence length across a boundary is shown in my lasttransparency--Don't get too impatient--It is a measurementfrom our research center at Yorktown Heights. This is the (Fig- 27)critical current across such a boundary, and it followsthat curve. They interpreted it in terms of so-called"Ambegokar-Baratoff formula," but a better fit has beenobtained now by Deutscher using the scheme I have justshown you. So, the current as a function of temperaturedecreases quite a bit across such a barrier. Now, if youwant to use high T: cables or so, you have to watch out.Say these are normalized units. In these oxides, thecritical current j, has been measured at Stanford. It isnear what one calls the depairing current. The depairingcurrent is reached if its own magnetic field is so strongthat the Cooper pairs get broken, this is of the order of108 gauss, i.e., 100 megagauss. This is a huge amount;however, you see that the j, drops quickly. What you seeis that if you take that particular compound, and you wantto work at 77 K, there is not much current left. So farfor possible applications--and I think I should now cometo the end of my talk and just summarize a little bit what (Fig. 28)I have been trying to tell you here. After its discoverythe field has essentially split into three branches,namely, the search for new compounds, which is stillcontinuing, and I should draw your attention to the factthat internationally this research has been extremelysuccessful. Especially if you consider that ferro-electricity was discovered in 1922 in the seignette salt;the next compound was potassium dihydrogen phosphate inZurich by Bush and Scherrer 14 years later, and 8 yearslater, at the end of the war, barium titanate wasdiscovered in Russia, in the United States and inSwitzerland. So, after 22 years there were threeferroelectric compounds. We already have well over adozen of the superconductors in only three years. You mayknow that now there are about 300 ferroelectric compoundswhich you can use depending on what you want, and there-fore I would expect that also in the superconducting fieldwe will see considerable progress. Regarding experimentalanalysis I have given you a little bit of a taste. I have

47

U

not been, I hope, too specific. Then of course you havethe theoretical models. An essential thing is that in Ithese compounds there are Cooper pairs. As to the modelsthere are the polaronic ones, the magnetics I have dis-cussed a bit, and also the excitonic models. In thelatter, it was Bardeen and also Ginsburg, who in theseventies suggested layered compounds. Here also the workof Little may be of intarest. It seems that right now, mwith some modifications these models may be important inunderstanding what the mechanism of superconductivity isin the oxides.

Of course, many electronic properties have beenmeasured. I could not describe all of them to you. I do Inot want to show you the entire list. However, there is a

gap, and the short coherence lengths are quite crucial--and with that I thank you for your attention. 5

: We have time for a question or two. Wouldanyone like to raise one? 3

Has one detected the jump at T, in thespecific heat of the metallic component of the compound? 3

PROF. MULLER: I am not so sure whether theypicked that up. You have seen the data. There is nolinear term, and what you see is a jump in the specific Iheat more or less what BCS would predict, but you have toshow some goodwill because it is not as nice adiscontinuity as you are used to, but rather two slopesof the specific heat which cross over.

These twins you were mentioning, are theyprevalent in all the high T, materials, thallium and Ibismuth or --

No, they are not. You have twins in the iyttrium compound, which has been much investigated. Now,you have proof from microwave absorption experiments inour laboratory from Keith Blazey, and at Berkeley from IC.D. Jeffries that flu:: lines penetrate first along thesetwins, and afterwards they move into the bulk.

One more?

I

II

Would you please say a few more words aboutthe status and potential you see for organicsuperconductors?

PROF. MOLLER: Okay, yes, thank you for thisquestion. Yes, in giving my talks I have always tried toencourage the people who are interested in organicsuperconductors. I think they really have a future.

: What is the highest temperature?

PROF. MOLLER: The highest temperature alreadyis 13 degrees Kelvin, and the first organic superconductorwas found in 1980. So, in eight years one went from 0 to13 K. Very interesting are actually the structures,because at first they were laminar in character. Theyhad strands, which were weakly coupled. Then PhilAnderson felt that one could not go much further becauseif you have strands, then you can get a charge densitywave type phase transition to an insulating state. Thenyou are sunk. However, the high temperature compoundwhich I just mentioned (from Japan) also has layers. So,the compound is two dimensional as in the oxides. But itis more difficult to make it. In contrast, an oxidecompound you can make in three days. So, you have apractical advantage. You go and you mix it and fire it,if you have an idea; whereas if you talk to the organicchemist, they tell you that it takes three to four monthsto synthesize a new compound according to your idea.

Now, maybe I should mention another thing aboutthese organics, namely, that in the oxides we have thecopper and the oxygen, and it seems that in the organicsit is more the manganese and the sulfur which areimportant.

: Manganese and sulfur?

PROF. MULLER: Yes, and nobody has checked thatyet, but it may be that the reason is similar, namely thatthe charge transfer energies of the manganese to sulfurmay be similar to those of the copper to the oxygen--

: The carbon?

PROF. MOLLER: The carbon apparently doesn't playa role. I don't know.

49

(Inaudible) without carbon? 3PROF. MOLLER: You are right, but, I don't know. i

The carbon is there structurally.

PROF. MOLLER: What you have in both cases are 3charge transfer mechanisms. You have very small chargetransfer energies, say here between the oxygen and thecopper which is now estimated to be of the order of 0.1eV. For instance, in Los Alamos, their clustercalculation depended on what they started from, once theygot the holes in the copper and once in the oxygen becausethe energies are very closely the same, and it may be thesame thing with the organics. I don't know.

III£iI

III

I

I

High-Temperature

Superconductivity

I51

;-a~

IDI

sumsiso-d

52I

03)ai T

CL DCC%)

V ~0

(L I WW

flZ 00)Zcf)

Im-

z 0)

-j _ 00

o~ a)

QjQ

LA 1

U

The Meissner Effect I

....... - I

,.. ~-. -- ~-~ > I- -t

I U-S. . I

- - C Ur

II1 7.

II' II I

* Compensation Current 3I

* Perfect Diamagnetism 3I

FIGURE 3 3U

54

II

Observed Superconductivity

in: Metals

Oxides

Organic conductors

FIGURE 4

55

Filrst O0uoes SV10winc3

Supercond ci~c1v-

I9~~SvrT 1O3: rCelACe#Aj eoal'c

j~L~Nct.WO 3 bron i

5avi Die 5o

FIGURE 51

56

I PEROV$KIT& -STRUCTURESeT; 03

L o(C. 03

Sr i

FIGURE 6

57

,)"Perconot (Adj g G'Ge S

19 73 3A n son ch o,. It -- 'o Sy sf'em

Spin4 L * ,0a 3-

P~eo sk; 'e Ba Pb 5fi 0T = 4.3 K,

24

BCS:~ 'IN(eF)V*I

v aI rqchiye e.2- ne v~lo 4

v~tfiejvict ee-p~ifo"1v1

Cav~rGe.? r W49kTc S(Apeircond.tt~%

i% sa c i - eIQ1LLc O x oices

x trm axwa'j FYOWI .

T(-uRE, 7

wo

4t p

Ct. %

4 AL

fir all

T

I

IX:

4k

14

-it

INK

j

-or

II

aI3IIIIIIIIII

9 IIU

U /1ekoAcOkcydes contoaW~f"C

/4or Cu.,

iI~rpcavfia fL occup'eci 4-ovdcQk

1'oif o *Ircl s Pe O~kjgen V~all4

0I +

eey~ -1%

zL

* +I

00

624

Peovs kte 2~' ji vi

Lot L Ci M e~d ILCL)ZQ5%1

4 A dOS S~'V

FICURE 12

63

0

033

464oo u

64I

o TI/

eCu

Iv

I~ = =TIi 62K8K15cIICK10K15

FIUE1

The~j ireI

La %je reo\ 64 -Oxjdces:

FIGURE 151

oa Cooper pr

3

I

i II its cohexence erlvhsI5 FIGURE 16

I

I 67

0 _

>a

- -to

CYaGA

-~ -AWLinin uoloa&a

CrihczA fietcks NC2

IAq ct~u oo Te~Aot iMe~~is

HC2 o" q af

8: 20

SVQ n F'.rc - JP 4

FISllRE 18

69

Nelrit c vte~iri45 cire

6o\e super.coVnct4ctorsI

qve ess~nthQv fotr tvie

Fomaion of Coopev'pitr

!,k 2.?

FIGURE 191

701

lc i0

in 11

-0.-

LLS

4a; ,- IISNRtNI O]3ZI1VW8ON__%I ?

LAn

z .-j

LAWLo>

Qj -j

I7 1

LLW.

6

(L () - 75£

us. > f (U 0

03.-o 0U')o 3o C CU 0

> 0' CL

8 Ia

0. ci

z Q)

0 CO)

0 ::D

0 CL

I =ICl*4 7/

caI

raqxxo' . 4pr'Lp".

TN

TC(K) (La 1 .xBax) 2 CUO 4

200-

1001

A. F.

S. C.

0IR 23

IcII,

2eo - , . .. .. o

280 280 1240[ 201

200 - 280

160- 8CSCO-4 240

120- 280I8o-1 >

80 24010 -E 40- BCSCO-3 200

E 24

4020

I_-_., - 8')

I_ 20 40 csco-l -200

TCO0 1t60 1

40 0 4 3

0 C-40 20

I~~ BCSCO-2 0 ao'

a~~W TCBCO-i 601

40- 40

20- -201

0 50 loT 2 (K2)U

X 3L 13 5- :"

F ig. 7 1

F '[RE 23

7-1

i

Temperature (K)10 50 40 20

Og LajSr0 )2CUO 4

'cn 01

co c

0

:; T 9

coo*L 63

cc

0.01 0.2 00C.09 .5 00

l/emear (K-1

x2(06*

_l-IR- 0, lq .

a)5

PWIW. povenficae tio in 4

shovlcohevce enl 46 sqe-o ow~v

Ife ee vani~ SIN R- 5SS

AWIAOI

x '

~e~r 0 (T T')~~

FIGURE 25

76I

acVs a ,s o v

3u ertl Lat , e ,

11

3 FIGURE 26

3 77

I1. Manuhart, P. Chaudhari, D. Dimos, C. C. Tsuei and T.R. McGuire I

II

KO-1 50 G.B.

0.8 - ".B.

u- KO-2 "-15° G.B.

0.6 SNS ,A .- B. I

L =2N (T) ' - ICS

0.4-

0.2 0~Io ,

0 20 40 60 80 IT (K)

FIGURE 27

78

II

Discovev 0? I-1 'nTc Superc

S eokytA fov new~ Expevivnerwt4 Teovwdiccal-

I Icolm ~ Ljrd eVvodej

o ovi L a e~ve -, Cv4~ib

sbov ga flvcttric mpeYN1Shodco~etee viQ~ 4KT ivctok vA.

C QflI cveAf F.

-~ ~ (oae\~~ HMi 9C) 11 IC4PF,%\ hblv

? 'I(TUJ"RE 28

~7 )

IIi

INTRODUCTION OFDR. EDWARD TELLER, HONORARY DIRECTOR

INSTITUTE OF FOR TECHNOLOGY AND STRATEGIC RESEARCH

VADM John T. Parker

My pleasure this afternoon is to introduce thelunchtime lecturer, Dr. Edward Teller. You may wonderwhy I was asked to introduce Dr. Teller on this occasion.Certainly not because of my part in his work, or my partin the announcement that we are celebrating today,because on the day of the announcement I was in the isecond grade. Nor was I asked on the basis of mypersonal relationship with Dr. Teller: I met him for thefirst time only a few months ago.

Nevertheless, the honor has come to me tointroduce a man whom most of you know better than I do.You know of his brilliant history. Some of you haveworked with him in the offices and classrooms where heforges a vigorous future. He was here at the Universityas a faculty member at the time of Niels Bohr'sannouncement.

Many illustrious names are associated with the ndevelopment of nuclear weapons, but among those names,Dr. Teller's has always had special significance becausehe has been, to quote U.S. News and World Report, "apowerful influence on the nation's defense elite since1939, when he played a role persuading Roosevelt todevelop the atomic bomb."

In that eventful year, Dr. Teller accompaniedEugene Wigner and Leo Szilard on a visit to Aiert iEinstein, which precipitated the famous letter resultingin the formation of the Manhattan Project.

I should point out here that after World WarII, the Department of Defense portion of the ManhattanProject became the Armed Forces Special Weapons Projectand then the Defense Atomic Support Agency. Now, the

I

great grandson of the Manhattan Project is the DefenseNuclear Agency. Hence my presence here today.

The agency is privileged to carry on work whichlessens the risk of nuclear combat by assuring that wehave a strong nuclear deterrent. We work to sustain thevitality of the deterrent given us by Dr. Teller andothers.

You might say that if it were not for Dr.Teller and others, I would probably not have a job today.

Dr. Teller is probably best known for his partin the development of the hydrogen bomb. Again, hiscontribution was much more than his science. To quotethe Encyclopedia Britannica, "his stubborn perseverancein the face of skepticism and even hostility from many ofhis peers played the major role in bringing that projectto a successful completion."

Yet through the years he has worn many hats: asa professor, science adviser to presidents, anddistinguished guest lecturer at several universities. Hewas instrumental in the creation and founding of LawrenceLivermore National Laboratory and has served as theLaboratory's director.

He has contributed countless ideas to youngresearch physicists, and has been a source of inspirationto all of his students. He has been an increasinglyinfluential spokesman on nuclear concerns: not onlynuclear weaponry but, also, the peaceful uses of nuclearenergy and the development of alternative energy sources.He was an ardent champion, for example, of ProjectPlowshare, the peaceful use of nuclear explosions.

In addition to his doctorate from theUniversity of Leipzig, Dr. Teller holds numerous honorarydegrees from universities worldwide. He is SeniorResearch Fellow at the Hoover Institution of War,Revolution and Peace at Stanford University, andProfessor Emeritus of Physics at the University ofCalifornia at Berkeley.

He has been both official and e- officioconsultant to Presidents and the Congress for fiftyyears. The world has, indeed, been fortunate to ha,:

91

enjoyed forty years without a nuclear conflict. Thepotential for such a holocaust has been upon us eversince the Soviets learned to make nuclear weapons. Manyvisionary people set about to try to ensure that nuclearwar would not happen. Dr. Teller has been at theforefront of this group, constantly arguing for nationalstrength and preparedness as the deterrent to nucleardisaster.

More recently, Dr. Teller has given his supportto the nuclear-driven :-ray laser as a promising conceptfor achieving the goals of the strategic defense

initiative, and thereby this dynamic man of many partsearned again from U.S. News and World Report the enviousstatement, "Dr. Teller is still controversial after allthese years."

Of one thing we can be certain: Dr. Teller's Icareer during the nuclear age has greatly impacted on allof our lives, and will continue to influence those offuture generations.

i

IIIIIi

II

LUNCHEON ADDRESS

TOWARD A MORE SECURE WORLD

Dr. Edward Teller

I intended to talk exclusively about the future;but in the last few hours, I have heard so much about thepast that I cannot entirely resist adding a few commentsabout it, too. In particular, I want to mention the manwho played a very great role in getting these conferencesstarted, my very good friend, Joe Gamow, who got me toWashington in the first place.

Together, we looked into all kinds of peculiarthings. The topic of our conference in 1937 was, I think,the energy source of the sun. We didn't make any headwayat the conference, but I made one important contribution:I persuaded Hans Bethe to come. He was not interested inthat strange subject, but hardly more than a couple ofmonths later, he had solved the puzzle. A few yearslater, he got the Nobel Prize for that work.

Gamow usually called me early every morning--about 9 o'clock--with a brand new idea about some aspectof physics. In ninety percent of the cases, the idea waswrong; but in ten percent of the cases, it was excellent.I found it very pleasant to serve as Gamow's filter,because he had a wonderful property: he did not mindbeing wrong. The important thing for him was that theidea was new. It did not have to be right. That wasreally very nice.

The evening before the conference in 1939, Gamowcalled me and said, "Bohr has arrived, and he has gonecrazy. He says that uranium splits." For a minute, Ithought that was a little peculiar, but it very quicklybecame clear that the idea resolved the problem of all theune;:plained elements. Fermi was supposed to have made acouple of transuranic elements by bombarding uranium, butothers showed up and the list grew longer than all thearms of an Indian goddess put together.

IWhen the conference opened, we were supposed to

talk about low-temperature physics. But Bohr hadsomething to say fiist, and his remarks were not exactlyon low-temperature. We listened to him. It was the newsof the century. But after about half an hour, we gotrstarted on the proper topic of the conference.

That evening, Merle Tuve asked us to come to the ICarnegie Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism. In theintervening few hours, he and some of his colleagues hadreproduced the experiment that showed the fission Ifragments. Fission had been there, waiting to be foundfor a considerable time, though the facts had stared inour faces.

During the conference, Mici and I were verybusy: we were in charge of the social affairs. We hadhad people in our home continuously throughout theconference and were quite exhausted by the time it ended.But one-half hour later, there went the phone. "Szilardis here. I am at Union Station. Will you come and pickme up?" Leo Szilard had not been at the conference; butwhen we picked him up, I heard in detail all about theconsequences of fission, which Szilard had been thinkingabout for much longer and in much greater detail thananyone else.

The following summer I was teaching at Columbia,where Szilard was working. Szilard was very ingeniousabout everything else, but he did not know how to drive acar. Furthermore, he had the strange idea that I was agood driver. He asked me to give him a lift to LongIsland to see Einstein, and I agreed. When we got there,Szilard pulled a letter out of his pocket, and Einsteinsigned it. The letter was addressed to PresidentRoosevelt. That was the beginning. What it led to, allof us know.

Now let me turn to the future. In our end-of-the millennium atmosphere, many of us are worried about Ithe end of the world. I want to talk about another worry.It is connected with science and technology, and I canimagine that it will have a happy ending.

Just before I was half a year old, on the 30thof June 1908, a meteorite arrived at a spot about 300 Imiles northwest by north of Lake Baykal near the Tunguska

84I

II

3 River, which is a tributary of the Yenissey River. Nobodywas in the immediate vicinity.

* The meteorite approached the earth's surfacefrom the southeast on a very oblique path. It exploded afew degrees south of the Arctic Circle. No portion of themeteorite has ever been found. In a region of tens ofsquare miles the forest was laid flat. The event wasregistered on micro-bargraphs throughout the world.

I Very good Soviet research work has shown thatthe meteorite was a stuny meteorite, a chondrite, that hada mass of a few million tons. Very small pieces of itwere distributed around the world. They were deposited,among other places, near the South Pole; where fragments,found in the glaciers and dated to 1908, have beenanalyzed. The fragments show an iridium concentration athousand times greater than is found in terrestrialmaterials.

Iridium is the noblest of the noble metals. Inthe early stage of the earth, oxygen combined with theeasily oxidized metals. Roughly half of the iron wasoxidized; and the other half, which stayed metallic, nowforms the- liquid core of the earth. All the metals thatwere not easily oxidized, including iridium, weredissolved. Hardly any iridium was left in the mantle.Iridium is not similarly removed, however, in theformation of a meteorite; so its presence is a primeindicator of a meteorite or a meteorite fragment.

The Tunguska meteorite, weighing a few milliontons, came in on a very glancing orbit at an unknownvelocity. Usually, that type of meteorite travels between15 and 20 miles per second. An object 300 feet acrossmoving with a velocity much higher than the velocity ofsound produces a high pressure ahead of it. When themeteorite reached an altitude of about five miles abovethe earth's surface, the pressure of air ahead of it,which had heated the surface of the meteor.

luminosity, became too great. The meteorite broke intofragments, which were then individually heated andvaporized. In that process, they produced an explosion )ta force equivalent to 12 megatons of TNT.

I Had the meteorite's force been spent a fewthousand miles farther to the west, many people would have

I 85II

Ibeen killed. Had that been the case, we would still be ireading about the Tunguska meteorite today. Butfortunately, that did not happen.

How frequently do big meteorites arrive? Some ireach the surface of the earth. The moon, not protectedby an atmosphere, is full of meteorite craters. On earthwe have but a few. Also on earth ancient craters erode.On the moon, they are preserved.

There is a meteor crater in Canada that is iseventy kilometers across. The details of the crater areno longer readily visible. The center of such cratersusually is somewhat elevated. Today, the center of the ICanadian crater is surrounded by a belt of water, nearlyseventy kilometers across. That meteorite, which struckapproximately 200 million years ago, was ten times the Isize and one thousand times the weight of the Tunguskameteorite.

One meteorite that arrived sixty-five million

years ago has become famous. The son of my friend LuisAlvarez discovered its occurrence from the pattern ofiridium deposits throughout the world. That meteorite isestimated to have been ten miles across and about amillion times as heavy as Tunguska. It may have led tothe extinction of the dinosaurs.

There is no exact information about thedistribution and frequency of occurrence of such Imeteorites. However, generally speaking, the bigger onescome less frequently. Meteorites ten times heavier thanTunguska occur perhaps one-fifth as often. My friends in ILivermore looked into the question of how much damagemeteorites throughout the world cause each year and foundit to be somewhere between 10 and 100 million dollars. I iwant to talk about what we can do about preventing thatdamage. Even ten years ago, no real good options existed;but now there is one.

Astronomic equipment can include arrays ofphotoelectric cells where each pixel in the cell is just afew microns across. What is new and is steadily improvingare the associated computers. If such a combination wereput up in space, meteorites of considerable size could beidentified more easily by at least a factor of ten,perhaps by a factor closer to a hundred.

86I

II

In order to see a runguska-sized meteorite twoor three weeks ahead of time, we would have to watchobjects of the twenty-third magi.itude. That means thatthe object i3 perhaps ten million times less luminous thanthe faintest star visible to the naked eye. Furthermore,such an object could be anywhere in the entire sky. Whatis amazing is that today the needed surveillance canprobably be done at c- cost well under 100 million dollars.

Of course, all those faint objects could not becatalogued. But the objects o. interest are those thatare very close to earth, that have an unusually bigparallax, and that move in relation to the background ofthe other stars. The task is most formidable becauseobjects approaching us are those that appear to move theleast. But the problem can be addressed by putting thetelescope in orbit, because the orbitinq telescope moves afew miles a second, which therefore makes it possible todistinguish our object that moves with respect to it--evenif the object is coming straight at the earth.

Knowing what to look for, the necessaryobservations can be made. with one good observation postwe would find out quite soon how many meteorites approachthe earth that are as big as the one that blew up overTunguska.

In the case of meteorites, we must find out whatis going on: not by using bird watchers, but by usingelectronic equipment and comouters. They are alreadyfabulous and are becoming year by year more fabulousstill. If that is done, we shall learn not only thefrequency with which meteorites approach the earth, butpractically free of charge we shall learn a hundred timesas much as we now know about nova stars, particularlyabout super novae. Most of the time, the sky is viewedthrough telescopes of a very narrow field of view; thereis no general survey. We have learned that the sunchanges its radiation on an eleven-year cycle. We havethe rudiments of information about perhaps a hundred otherstars, but for most gently changing star3 we don't knowtheir variability.

Improving our observational equipment wn1'Jincrease our knowledge about the whole science of thestellar atmospheres. The computer could be programmed toattend to almost all variable objects, or to any specifid

97

I

class of variable objects. Information about cepheidvariables, quasars, or seyfert galaxies would bec6megreatly increased once we had an appropriate observationstation.

It is much more difficult to decide what wemight be able to do about the meteorites we shalldiscover. I am not certain that my proposal is the rightanswer, but doing something is obviously of interest toeveryone on the planet. I hope that any program to limitdamage from meteorites will be undertaken not by theUnited States alone, or together with just the other superpower, but that such a program will be the work of allnations, for everyone's benefit. Here is a topic that is Iclearly of universal interest and universal importance.

The program, of course, would involve sending upsomething to meet and destroy or deflect the meteorites:For example, a nuclear bomb or a non-nuclear device suchas those developed under che Strategic Defense Initiative. 3A nuclear weapon must not collide with the meteorite,because its structure would be destroyed and the nuclearreactions would never get going. But if the explosionwere set off just a few feet short of collision, a fewpercent of the bomb's energy would be coupled into themeteorite. In that case, a meteorite of the approximatemass of Tunguska would break-up into small pieces, whichwould become completely harmless. The few pieces thatreach the earth at all will burn up in the highatmosphere.

A meteorite one million times bigger thanTunguska--one the size of the Alvarez meteorite--cannot be Iblown up. But it can be noticed when it is much fartheraway, about a year ahead of the collision. All that wouldbe needed would be to give it a little sidewise shove. iThat could be done by exploding a hydrogen bomb a shortdistance from the surface at the side of it. Blowing acrater half a mile in diameter in the meteorite wouldreduce its mass only by about one-tenth of one percent.This could produce a sidewise movement big enough todeflect it and avoid a collision. 3

The new art of breaking-up or deflectingmeteorites could be developed year to year, if we wishel,by practicing on objects that come as close as the moon.

88I

II

We could safely experiment, and when a real danger shouldoccur, we would than be in a position to avert the damage.

It is unlikely that meteorites several hundredtimes bigger than the Alvarez meteorite can ever besufficiently deflected. Fortunately, the Alvarezmeteorite is apparently the biggest object that has everhit the earth during its four and a half billion years ofexistence.

In the geological record, there is evidence ofperiods of mass extinction of living species. These maybe connected with the arrival of giant meteorites, whichcan cause a thousand times more destruction than a nuclearwar. Fifty years ago we have made the first step towardnuclear power. Fifty years from now we could be wellunderway to use this power for universal protection.

89

APPENDIX

50th ANNIVERSARY COMMEMORATING THE FIRST PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTOF THE SUCCESSFUL TEST OF FISSION

ATTENDEES

Dr. George Abraham Mr. William. M. ArendaleNaval Research Laboratory U.S. Department of Energy

Mr. Steven Adrian Mr. Barry AshbyGraduate Student PresidentPhysics Department Ashby & AssociatesThe George WashingtonUniversity Mr. Nikolay I. Avdoshkin

Third Secretary (Science &Mr. John F. Ahearne Technology), Embassy of theResources for the Future, Inc. Union of Soviet Socialist

RepublicsMr. Abdallah Al-DabbasGraduate Student Dr. Marcel Bardon, DirectorDepartment of Engineering Division of PhysicsAdministration, The George National Science FoundationWashington University

Dr. Ralph E. Beatty, Jr.Dr. David Aldrich Alumnus - The GeorgeSAIC Washington University

Mr. William 0. Allen Dr. Eric Beckjorg, DirectorSAIC Office of Nuclear Regulatory

Research, U.S. NuclearMr. Alastair Allcock Regulatory CommissionCounselor for Science,Technology and Energy Dr. James W. BehrensEmbassy of the United Center for Basic StandardsKingdom National Institute of

Standards and TechnologyMr. Edward ArderyPotomac Electric Power Company

1

I

Mr. Everett H. Bellows Mr. Luis BrooksStudent

Professor Simon Y. Berkovich T.C. Williams High SchoolDepartment of ElectricalEngineering and Computer Dr. Louis BrownScience, The George Washington Department of TerrestrialUniversity Magnetism, Carnegie

Institution of WashingtonDr. Ted G. BerlincourtODUSD (RANT) Dr. John L. BurnettThe Pentagon U. S. Department of Energy I

Division of Chemical ScienceProf. Berry N. BermanPhysics Department Mr. Allan D. Carlson UThe George Washington National Institute ofUniversity Standards and Technclcgy

Dr. Frederick Bernthal Ms. Rebecca CaressAssistant Secretary for Graduate StudentScience & Technology Physics Department

U.S. Department of State The George WashingtonUniversity

Prof. Giorgio V. BorgiottiDepartment of Electrical Dr. Joseph CassidyEngineering and Computer Physics DepartmentScience, The George Washington American UniversityUniversityI

Mr. Shi-Kit ChanMr. Albert Bottoms Graduate StudentInstitute for Technology & The George Washington IStrategic Research UniversityThe George WashingtonUniversity Mr. Thomas W. Chappelle

Policy and PlanningMr. Ray Bowers NASAEditor and PublicationsOfficer, Carnegie Institution Prof. Narinder S. Chauhan uof Washington Department of Electrical

Engineering and Computer3Mr. Scott Bradley Science, The George WashinQtonKaman Sciences Corporation University

Prof. George Brier Mr. Bernard B. Chew iSchool of Engineering and AlumnusApplied Science The George WashingtonThe George Washington UniversityUniversity

2U II

Mr. Muhammad A. Choudhary Mr. Harold DavidsonGraduate Student AlumnusDepartment of Engineering The George WashingtonAdministration, The George UniversityWashington University

Dr. Edward F. DenisonDr. Leslie Cohen Brookings InstitutionInstitute for Defense AnalysesScience and Technology Dr. Ashok R. DeshmukhDivision Senior Vice President - APCE

ANSERMrs. Agda Cohen

Mr. Otto DoerfingerDr. Edward E. Conrad Consultant, Institute forKAMAN Sciences Corporation Technology and Strategic

ResearchMr. Peter CorroAeroscience Instructor Dr. R. Gregory DowningT.C. Williams High School National Institute of

Standards and TechnologyDr. Donald B. CoylePhysics Department Mr. Sinisa N. DragicAmerican University Graduate Student

Physics DepartmentMr. Charles Craig The George WashingtonDepartment of Defense University

Mr. Allan T. Crane Mr. Joseph DukertSenior Associate Alumnus - The GeorgeOTA, U.S Congress Washington UniversityEnergy and Materials

Mr. Dale DunsworthDr. Hall L. Crannell U.S. Department of EnergyPhysics DepartmentCatholic University Mr. Edgar Edelsack

Institute for Technology andDr. Charles Lewis Critchfield Strategic ResearchPhysics Professor Consultant

Mrs. Charles Critchfield Ms. Charlotte EricsonUniversity Relations

Dr. Stanley Crowley The George WashingtonTechnical Director UniversityANSER

Mr. John M. FabianVice President - Space

ANSER

3

IDr. Ulrik Fedserspiel Mr. Robert GebhardsbauerEmbassy of Denmark Admissions Office I

School of Engineering andDean James Feir, Associate Applied Science, The GeorgeDean, School of Engineering Washington Universityand Applied Science, TheGeorge Washington University Mr. William R. Gee, Jr.

Potomac Electric Power CompanyMs. Barbara FlemingU.S. Council for Energy Dr. Frederick W. GiesslerAwareness Consultant IMr. Donald Fletcher Prof. Charles M. GilmoreStudent Department of Civil, UT. C. Williams High School Mechanical and Environmental

Engineering, The GeorgeMr. Leonard A. Ford Washington UniversityAlumnus, The George WashingtonUniversity Dr. Stanley Goldberg

National Museum of AmericanMs. Jan Forsythe History, SmithsonianInstitute for Technology and InstitutionStrategic ResearchThe George Washington Mr. Glen E. GordonUniversity Department of Chemistry and

BiochemistryMr. Sam Fowler University of MarylandCommittee on International andInsular Affairs Dr. William R. GrahamU.3. House of Representatives Science Advisor to the

PresidentProf. Raymond FoxDepartment of Civil, Mr B. L. GrazemanMechanical and Environmental AlumnusEngineering, The George The George WashingtonWashington University University 3Dr. Roderick S. French Mr. Jerry D. GriffinVice President for Academic Associate Deputy AssistantAffairs, The George Washington Secretary, Reactor SystemsUniversity Development and Technology

U. S. Department of EnergyProf. Oscar N. Garcia IDepartment of Electrical Mr. Donald G. GrovesEngineering and Computer ConsultantScience, The George Washington Institute for Technology and IUniversity Strategic Research

4I

II

Dr. Donald U. Gubser The George WashingtonNaval Research Laboratory UniversityMaterials Science andTechnical Division Mr. Lawrence Hoffman

SAICDr. Lawrence R. Hafstad

Mr. Harold James HogeMrs. Mary Hafstad Visiting Research Associate

Department of MechanicalMr. Harry A. Hamilton EngineeringAlumnus Tufts UniversityThe George Washington

University Mrs. Ruth Hoge

Prof. Muhammad I. Haque Mr. William F. Huf, AlumnusDepartment of Civil, The George WashingtonMechanical and Environmental UniversityEngineering, The GeorgeWashington University Mrs. William Huf

Prof. Eamon P. Harper Mr. Donald HuttenlockerPhysics Department Assistant DirectorThe George Washington Research and Resources - SEASUniversity The George Washington

UniversityMr. James W. HarrSupervisor of Science His Excellency Eigel JorgensenCharles County Public Schools Embassy of Denmark

Mr. Robert Harris Mrs. Nahid KhozeimehStudent Special Assistant forT.C. Williams High School International Programs

School of Engineering andMr. John R. Healy Applied Science, The GeorgeGenerating Schedule/Cost Washington UniversityDepartment Engineering andConstruction G.oup Frof. Ali KiperPEPCO Department of Civil,

Mechanical and EnvironmentalProf. Herman Hobbs Engineering, The GeorgePhysics Department Washington UniversityThe George WashingtonUniversity Ms. Jeanne King

Institute for Technology andMr. John J. Hodge, Consultant Strategic ResearchInstitute for Technology and The George WashingtonStrategic Research University

5

IMr. Robert L. Kirk Mr. Maurice LeftwichPresident and CEO Student IAllied-Signal Aerospace Co. T.C. Williams High School

Mr. Carmen Kocinski Brig. Gen. Lynwood B. Lennon 3Graduate Student (US Army Retired)Department of Electrical Systematics ManagementEngineering and Computer Services Corporation IScience, The George WashingtonUniversity Dr. Benjamin Lepson

Naval Research LaboratoryDr. Peter Krueger

Department of Defense Mrs. Inda Lepson

Mrs. Marylin Krupsaw, Director Prof. Joseph B. Levy UScience & Engineering Chemistry DepartmentApprentice Program - SEAS The George WashingtonThe George Washington UniversityUniversity

Mr. David LewisMr. George Kulynych Graduate Student 3Babcock and Wilcox Department of Physics

The George WashingtonDr. Peter M. Lang University IU.S. Department of Energy

Dr. Harold Liebowitz, DeanDr. Carl J. Lange, Vice School of Engineering and IPresident for Research and Applied Science, The GeorgeAdministration, Office of Washington UniversitySponsored Research, The GeorgeWashington University Prof. John M. Logsdon

Elliott School ofDr. Clarence E. Larson International StudiesEnergy Consultant The George Washington

UniversityMr. Jason LathropeStudent Mr. Robert LoveT.C. Williams High School Student

T.C. Williams High SchoolMs. Romona LaudaGrant and Contract Specialist Ms. Wendy Lutherfr'itional Science Foundation Associate Director

Alumni RelationsDr. Leonard L. Lederman The George WashingtonNational Science Foundation University i

III

Mr. Michael Mabrey Dr. Tin MoStudent U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryT.C. Williams High School Commission

Dr. John E. Mansfield Dr. Alan H. MoghissiDARPA/ASTO President

Institute for RegulatoryMr. John Manning ScienceBoard of TrusteesThe George Washington Mr. Arlene MonsourUniversity Executive Assistant

Federal Emergency ManagementMr. Scott Matthews AgencyGraduate StudentPhysics Department Ms. Alyssa MontecalvoThe George Washington University RelationsUniversity The George Washington

UniversityThe Honorable Mike McCormack

Dr. Dominic J. MonettaMr. T. D'Arcy McGee Technical DirectorCounselor, Energy Naval Ordnance StationEmbassy of Canada

Mr. Malcolm R. MooreMr. Graham McIntyre AlumnusDirector, Research and The George WashingtonResources - SEAS UniversityThe George WashingtonUniversity Dr. David D. Moran

Assistant Technical DirectorMr. Eric S. Mendelsohn David Taylor Naval ResearchAlumnus CenterThe George WashingtonUniversity The Honorable Robert Morris

Deputy DirectorMr. Richard E. Metrey Federal Emergency ManagementTechnical Director AgencyDavid Taylor Research Center

Prof. E. Thomas Moyer, Jr.Mr. Hugh Miller Department of Civil,Consultant Mechanical and ElectricalSchool of Engineering and Engineering, The GeorgeApplied Science, The George Washington UniversityWashington University

Mr. John MillerU.S. Department of Energy

7

iDr. K. Alex MUller Vice Admiral John T. ParkerNobel Laureate Director IIBM Zurich Research Laboratory Defense Nuclear Agency

Dr. Peter Murray, Director Ms. Patricia ParrattNuclear Programs Carnegie Institution ofWestinghouse Electric WashingtonCorporationi

Mr. Thomas A. Penn

Dr. Charles M. Newstead AlumnusOffice of Nuclear Technology The George Washingtonand Safeguards UniversityU.S. Department of State

Prof. Theodore P. PerrosMs. Nancy Jo Nicholas Chemistry Department IGraduate Student The George WashingtonDepartment of Physics UniversityThe George WashingtonUniversity Mr. Scott Peters

Manager, Media ServicesMr. Greg Ogden U.S. Council for Energy 3Kaman Sciences Corporation Awareness

Dr. Akira Omoto Ms. Gladys H. Pettiford 3The Tokyo Electric Power Science SpecialistCompany Alexandria City Public SchoolsMr. Claudio OrzalesiScience Attache Prof. J. Roger PeverlyEmbassy of Italy Physics Department

The George WashingtonDr. William A. Owczarski UniversityOffice of Science & TechnologyPolicy Dr. Heinz Pfeiffer

Manager of Technology andDr. Thomas Palmieri EnergyChief, Nuclear Energy Branch Pennsylvania Power & LightOffice of Management and IBudget Ms. Marian Pierson

Institute for Technology andMr. Agus Pambagio Strategic Research, The IAlumnus George Washington UniversityThe George WashingtonUniversity Mrs. Peggy. J. Posey

National Academy of SciencesDr. Ronald S. Pandolfi National Research CouncilCentral Intelligence Agency 5

I

I

Mr. R. Lee Potterton Dr. Frederick Rothwarf, ViceAlumnus PresidentThe George Washington Center for InnovativeUniversity Technology

Ms. Carolyn B. Purdy Prof. David RowleyUniversity of Maryland Chemistry DepartmentChemistry Department The George Washington

UniversityDr. John RasmussenVice President Dr. Upendra RoyGenerating Engineering and Patent and Trademark OfficeConstruction Group Department of CommercePEPCO

Dr. William SaenzThe Honorable Dixy Lee Ray Naval Research Laboratory

Mr. Jacques B. Read Dr. Toichi SakataFirst Secretary

Dr. Uri Reychav Embassy of JapanVisiting Scholar,Department of Engineering Mr. Jun SalangAdministration StudentThe George Washington T.C. Williams High SchoolUniversity

Dr. Janet M. SaterDr. Andrew W. Reynolds Institute for Defense AnalysesOffice of InternationalResearch and Development Dr. Charles M. SchomanPolicy, U. S. Department of David Taylor Nava- ResearchEnergy Center

Dr. Donald W. Roe Dr. Rowland ScottGaithersburg High School Prof. of Pediatrics and

Child HealthMr. George Rosita Howard UniversityStudentT.C. Williams High School Dr. Frederick Seitz

President EmeritusProf. Sam Rothman Rockefeller UniversityProfessor of Engineering andTechnology, Institute for Prof. Homer B. SewellTechnology and Strategic Department of EngineeringResearch, The George Administration, The GeorgeWashington University Washington University

9

Dr. Emad Shamma Prof. Richard SolandDepartment of Engineering Department of OperationsAdministration Research, The GeorgeThe George Washington Washington UniversityUniversity IUnivrsi tyDr. Henry Solomon

Mrs. Anne Sheffield Dean, Graduate School of ArtsDepartment of Engineering and Sciences iAdministrationThe George Washington Dr. Waldo SommersUniversity Department of Public

AdministrationDr. Roger E. Sherman The George WashingtonMuseum Technician UniversityNational Museum of AmericanHistory Dr. Robert J. Soulen

Naval Research LaboratoryMr. Grover Sherlin IWashington Academy of Sciences Dr. Michael Spengos

Physics DepartmentDr. Edward B. Shykind American UniversityDepartment of Commerce

Mr. Gilmore T. SpiveyMr. James Sinclair Alumnus UEconomists The George WashingtonBureau of Labor Statistics University

Dr. Maxine F. Singer Dr. Kurt R. StehlingPresidentCarnegie Institution of Mr. H. Guyford Stever 3Washington

Dr. Paul K. StrudlerProf. Nozer Singpurwalla National Institutes of HealthDepartment of OperationsResearch, The George Dr. Bruce P. StraussWashington University Power Associates 3Mr. James A. Smith Mr. James F. Strother

The Institute of ElectricalMrs. Marilyn Smith and Electronics Engineers, 3U.S. Department of Energy Inc.

Dr. Richard R. Smith Mr. Michael K. Szwac 3Argonne National Laboratory Alumnus, The George Washington

University

Mrs. Anna Szwak

10 3

I

Mr. Ralph Talley Mr. Troy Wade, II

US Army, Retired Assistant SecretaryDefense Programs (DPI)

Mr. Hsiasming Tan Department of Energy

Graduate)'StudentChemistry Department Dr. Oren A. Wasson

The George Washington National Institute of -

University Standards and Technology

Mr. J_ T. Tanner Mr. Frank Wiminitz

Food and Drug Administration Kaman Sciences Corp.

Dr. Edward.Teller Dr. John A. White

Honorary Director Department of Physics

Institute for Technology and AmericanUniversity

Strategic Research, The GeorgeWashington University Dr. Theodore S. Wilkinson, III

Director for Office of Nuclear

Dr. John C. Travis Technology and Sifeguards

I Department of Physics U.S. Department of State

Georgetown UniversityDr. Peter M. Williams

Dr- Stephen Joel Trachtenberg Advanced Reactors andPresident, The George Standardization

Washington University Nuclear Regulator Commission

I Mr. Adrian Tyndall Mr. Jerry Wilson

Graduate Student Advanced Reactors ane

Chemistry Department Standardization

The George Washington Nuclear Regulatory CommissionUniversity

Mr. James Wing

Mr. Umar Alhaji

Institute for Technology and [r. James P. Wright

Strategic Research DirectorThe George Washington Intergalactaic Astronomy

University National Science Foundation

Prof. Ferenc Vajda- Mr. Takayo YagiDepartment of Electrical Power ReacLor and Nuclear Fuel

Engineering and Computer Development CorporationScience

The George WashingtonUniversityI

I!1I

IMr. Hengxia YangGraduate StudentChemistry DepartmentThe George WashingtonUniversity

Dr. Doug ZubanovPhysics DepartmentThe George WashingtonUniversity

IIIII

/i I

IIIII

II

Institute for Technology and - DTICLise Meitner with Otto Frisch--both Austrian physicists in...

Documents

Transcript of Institute for Technology and - DTICLise Meitner with Otto Frisch--both Austrian physicists in...