ArticlePDF Available

Fermilab: Physics, the Frontier, and Megascience

Authors:
Lillian Hoddeson at University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Lillian Hoddeson
Adrienne W. Kolb at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab)
Adrienne W. Kolb
Catherine Westfall
Catherine Westfall
Catherine Westfall
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Download full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation

Abstract

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, located in the western suburbs of Chicago, has stood at the frontier of high-energy physics for nearly forty years. Since 1972, when the laboratory’s original particle accelerator began producing the world’s highest-energy protons for research, the government-supported scientific facility has been home to numerous scientific breakthroughs, including the discoveries of the top and bottom quarks. Fermilab is the first history of this laboratory and of its powerful accelerators told from the point of view of the people who built and used them for scientific discovery. Focusing on the first two decades of research at Fermilab, during the tenure of the laboratory’s charismatic first two directors, Robert R. Wilson and Leon M. Lederman, the authors trace the rise of what they call “megascience,” the collaborative struggle to conduct large-scale international experiments in a climate of limited federal funding. This dramatic period of innovation was shaped by an inevitable tension between Fermilab’s pioneering ethos and the practical constraints of tightened budgets. Fermilab illuminates the growth of the modern research laboratory during the Cold War and captures the drama of human exploration at the cutting edge of science. It is essential reading for anyone interested in regional history, the history of physics, or institutional history.
Content uploaded by Lillian Hoddeson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lillian Hoddeson on Jan 13, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
BOOK REVIEWS
Hans C. von Baeyer, Editor
Department of Physics, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia 23187; hcvonb@wm.edu
Fermilab: Physics, the Frontier, and Megascience.Lillian
Hoddeson, Adrienne W. Kolb, and Catherine Westfall.
512 pp. The University of Chicago Press, IL, 2008.
Price: $45.00 共cloth兲ISBN 978-0-226-34623-6. 共Gabor
Domokos, Reviewer.兲
This is a serious scholarly work, complete with notes and
references. I am sure that it will be appreciated by historians
of science dealing with the modern history of physics in the
United States.
In addition, those of us who are not professionals in the
history of physics will enjoy the lively style of the book and
the authors’ description of the drama that culminated in the
construction and operation of the largest particle physics
laboratory in this country. Very sensibly, the authors paint a
detailed backdrop, starting in the late 1950s and leading up
to the planning and construction of the National Accelerator
Laboratory, now known as Fermilab. And drama there was.
Not only did physicists disagree on the scope of such a labo-
ratory 共regional? national?兲, but also, politics, as always, was
involved, since it was clear to everyone concerned that the
construction would require large sums of money. There was
a controversy then, as there is today, about the role of “big
science” in the nation’s life. In addition, there was a very
serious scientific debate about how best to construct a large
accelerator in order to satisfy the growing needs of particle
physics.
Edwin MacMillan of Berkeley, CA was the main propo-
nent of the new accelerator and he insisted that it should be
built in Berkeley. After all, that was the place where the
technology of modern accelerators was born in the form of
E.O. Lawrence’s cyclotron. 共Today the name of the labora-
tory celebrates that event—it is the Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory.兲There were, however, competitors: Brookhaven
and the Midwestern Universities Research Association. It is
fascinating to follow the story of how the new accelerator
ended up in the Midwest—in a suburb of Chicago. Its first
director, Robert Wilson 共1914–2000兲, was a very interesting
person, full of new ideas regarding accelerators and almost
anything else—truly a renaissance man. Among other things,
he was actively interested in architecture: he designed the
original high-rise building at the laboratory in the shape of
the accelerator magnet he invented. It was at Wilson’s insis-
tence that the new laboratory was made accessible to all
qualified particle physicists and was named National Accel-
erator Laboratory 共NAL兲.共It was later renamed Fermi Na-
tional Accelerator Laboratory, or Fermilab for short, the
name it bears today.兲
I found it interesting to read about Wilson’s distrust of
computers. Apparently he believed that computations should
be carried out by physicists at their home institutions. I don’t
know whether this was a prophetic insight or a limitation. In
any case, the World Wide Web is based precisely on the idea
of spreading computing tasks to the home institutions of par-
ticle physicists, so Bob Wilson would be happy to see his
ideas realized.
Wilson was followed as director by Leon Lederman.
While Wilson was, in a sense, a builder, Lederman brought
with him the spirit of research. 共He shared the Nobel prize in
1988.兲Under his directorship, NAL continued along the di-
rection originally set by Wilson and became the laboratory
where the fundamental interactions have been explored at the
highest energies. It may be appropriate to interpret a quote
from Leon as his credo:
“The life of a physicist is filled with anxiety, pain,
hardship, tension, attacks of hopelessness, depres-
sion and discouragement.” However, “…the su-
preme pleasures of physics, especially experienc-
ing rare ‘epiphanies’, made the research worth all
the pain” 共p. 227兲.
An important aspect of Lederman’s directorship was his
insistence on communicating the excitement of physics to
the general public. Physics is an integral part of our culture.
Furthermore, particle physicists are, ultimately, on the pay-
roll of the taxpayers, who have a right to know what they get
for their money. The Fermilab outreach effort initiated by
Lederman has been highly successful and has served as a
model for many similar efforts elsewhere.
I am very firmly convinced that the seeds of the success of
Fermilab as described in the later chapters of the book were
sown by its first two directors. Its TEVATRON accelerator is
today the tool for the exploration of fundamental interactions
at the highest energies, at least until the new machine at the
European laboratory 共CERN兲starts taking data.
Overall, I am pleased to praise the authors for the accuracy
of their work. I have only a few complaints.
Evidence for neutral currents. In the early seventies, there
were some doubts about the existence of neutral weak cur-
rents. Carlo Rubbia’s group repeatedly claimed that there
was evidence for their existence and then had to retract the
claim. 共It must be remembered that physics progresses at the
margins of what is known, and that in any experiment a large
amount of data is needed before a result is definitely con-
firmed.兲It is, however, inaccurate to state that the discovery
of charm “explained the absence of neutral currents”共p.
167兲. What charm helped to explain was the absence of
flavor-changing neutral currents which would, for example,
enable a neutral gauge boson to decay into an electron and a
muon.
The magnetic moment of the muon. Contrary to the au-
thors’ claim 共p. 231兲, Lederman’s experiment on 共g-2兲at
CERN did not measure the spin of the muon. That was al-
ready known to be 1
2in units of the reduced Planck constant.
Rather, the measurement established that the electromagnetic
interactions of the muon are the same as those of the elec-
tron. 共Soon after the muon was discovered, I.I. Rabi suppos-
edly asked: “Who ordered that?” We still do not have a good
answer to Rabi’s tongue-in-cheek question.兲
Mangled Italian. The quote from Gilberto Bernardini on p.
228 is not really in Italian. As Lederman tells the story, early
in a joint experiment, when Gilberto succeeded in finding the
671 671Am. J. Phys. 77 共7兲, July 2009 http://aapt.org/ajp © 2009 American Association of Physics Teachers
first hint of a positive signal, he went wild, yelling: “Mamma
mia! Regardo incredibilo. Primo secourso…” Actually Gil-
berto spoke a very beautiful Italian. I suspect that Leon man-
aged to misquote him in their very real enthusiasm over their
success. I cannot blame the authors for the misquote.
In the end, I find that there are not many inaccuracies in
this book. I am convinced that it will make a useful reference
not only for historians of physics, but also for practicing
particle physicists—we should learn from our past successes
and mistakes. And to the rest of the physics community it
tells a good tale.
Gabor Domokos is Professor Emeritus of Physics at Johns
Hopkins University. He is conducting research on the theory
of high energy elementary particle interactions and high en-
ergy cosmic rays.
BOOKS RECEIVED
Atmospheric Thermodynamics: Elementary Physics and Chemistry.
Gerald R. North and Tatiana L. Erukhimova. 278 pp. Cambridge U. P.,
New York, 2009. Price: $70.00 共hardcover兲ISBN 978-0-521-89963-5.
Carbon Nanotube Science: Synthesis, Properties and Applications. Peter
J. F. Harris. 312 pp. Cambridge U. P., New York, 2009. Price: $90.00
共hardcover兲ISBN 978-0-521-82895-6.
Digital Image Processing for Medical Applications. Geoff Dougherty. 459
pp. Cambridge U. P., New York, 2009. Price: $89.00 共hardcover兲ISBN
978-0-521-86085-7.
Discovering the Expanding Universe. Harry Nussbaumer and Lydia Bieri.
243 pp. Cambridge U. P., New York, 2009. Price: $59.00 共hardcover兲
ISBN 978-0-521-51484-2.
Dynamics of Self-Organized and Self-Assembled Structures. Rashmi C.
Desai and Raymond Capral. 342 pp. Cambridge U. P., New York, 2009.
Price: $80.00 共hardcover兲ISBN 978-0-521-88361-0.
Excitations in Organic Solids. Vladimir M. Agranovich. 512 pp. Oxford U.
P., New York, 2009. Price: $130.00 共hardcover兲ISBN 978-0-19-
923441-7.
Finding the Big Bang. P. James E. Peebles, Lyman A. Page, Jr. and R.
Bruce Partridge. 587 pp. Cambridge U. P., New York, 2009. Price:
$80.00 共hardcover兲ISBN 978-0-521-51982-3.
Mind and Nature: Selected Writings on Philosophy, Mathematics, and
Physics. Hermann Weyl. 272 pp. Princeton U. P. 2009. Price: $35.00
共cloth兲ISBN 978-0-691-13545-6.
The Monster Group and Majorana Involutions. A. A. Ivanov. 265 pp.
Cambridge U. P., New York, 2009. Price: $99.00 共hardcover兲ISBN 978-
0-521-88994-0.
Optical Imaging and Spectroscopy. David J. Brady. 528 pp. John Wiley &
Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2009. Price: $119.00 共cloth兲ISBN 978-0-470-
04823-9.
Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science. Hermann Weyl. 336 pp.
Princeton U. P. 2009. Price: $35.00 共paper兲ISBN 978-0-691-14120-6.
Quantum Gods: Creation, Chaos, and the Search for Cosmic Con-
sciousness. Victor J. Stenger. 292 pp. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY,
2009. Price: $26.98 共hardcover兲ISBN 978-1-59102-713-3.
Quantum mechanics. Gennaro Auletta, Mauro Fortunato, and Giorgio Pa-
risi. 755 pp. Cambridge U. P., New York, 2009. Price: $90.00 共hard-
cover兲ISBN 978-0-521-86963-8.
Quantum Statistical Mechanics. William C. Schieve and Lawrence P. Hor-
witz. 428 pp. Cambridge U. P., New York, 2009. Price: $85.00 共hard-
cover兲ISBN 978-0-521-84146-7.
Sub-Riemannian Geometry: General Theory and Examples. Ovidio
Cailin and Der-Chen Chang. 383 pp. Cambridge U. P., New York, 2009.
Price: $99.00 共hardcover兲ISBN 978-0-521-89730-3.
Viscoelastic Materials. Roderic Lakes. 479 pp. Cambridge U. P., New
York, 2009. Price: $126.00 共hardcover兲ISBN 978-0-521-88568-3.
Waves in Metamaterials. L. Solymar and E. Shamonina. 401 pp. Oxford U.
P., New York, 2009. Price: $95.00 共hardcover兲ISBN 978-0-19-
921533-1.
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?). Brian Cox and Jeff
Forshaw. 254 pp. Da Capo Press, Cambridge, MA, 2009. Price: $24.00
共hardcover兲ISBN 978-0-306-81758-8.
INDEX TO ADVERTISERS
AAPT Summer 2009 Meeting . . ...................... Cover 2
WebAssign–Me, Myself & WebAssign . .................... 577
AAPT Ad ............................................ 579
AAPT Career Center . .................................. 580
672 672Am. J. Phys., Vol. 77, No. 7, July 2009 Book Reviews
... In the context of the class, the educator can facilitate a discussion of the concept of big science (Weinberg, 1961) and then define its types as megascience (Hoddeson et al., 2008) and proto-megascience (Pronskikh, 2016). We draw attention to the fact that along with the increases in cost, the complexity of theories and equipment, duration, data volumes, and the size of teams in science, as megascience emerged, structural changes also occurred related to the division of communities of theorists, experimenters, and instrumentalists (Galison, 1987) and the degeneration of experiments into long chains tied to specific equipment and technologies, which lose epistemic criteria for the ending of the experiment (Hoddeson et al., 2008). ...
... In the context of the class, the educator can facilitate a discussion of the concept of big science (Weinberg, 1961) and then define its types as megascience (Hoddeson et al., 2008) and proto-megascience (Pronskikh, 2016). We draw attention to the fact that along with the increases in cost, the complexity of theories and equipment, duration, data volumes, and the size of teams in science, as megascience emerged, structural changes also occurred related to the division of communities of theorists, experimenters, and instrumentalists (Galison, 1987) and the degeneration of experiments into long chains tied to specific equipment and technologies, which lose epistemic criteria for the ending of the experiment (Hoddeson et al., 2008). Thus, one of the distinguishing features of megascience is the instrument-centric nature of experiments. ...
... A fact in biology, according to Latour, is a laboratory construct, as is the quark (Pickering, 1984). Methodological choices in biology (Knorr-Cetina (1999)) are often similar to those in megascience and dictated by random circumstances, such as access to resources or the availability of personnel, but, similarly, the availability of a working instrument, appropriate personnel, and resources determines the continuation of a megascience experiment (Hoddeson et al., 2008). Thus, the modern historiography of science provides a rich empirical basis for illustrating philosophical ideas. ...
Expert Text Analysis in the Inclusion of History and Philosophy of Science in Higher Education
Article
Full-text available
  • Aug 2022
  • Sci Educ
The history and philosophy of science (HPS) plays a special role in education. An elective HPS course on the philosophy of scientific experimentation for young scientists and graduate students of natural science is presented. The course bears a pragmatic character, and its main aims include the development of critical thinking (CT), familiarization with philosophical problems in the relevant areas of knowledge, and the cultivation of a taste for reflective, critical analysis, both individual and group based, which contributes to a deeper understanding of the features of scientific practice in the context of modern complex group cooperation. Students are offered a classical HPS program that included debates on the relationship between empiricism and rationalism, the role of Kant’s transcendental philosophy, modern topics associated with the practical success of rationalism in the emergence of modern natural science, and the theory-ladenness of experimentation. Particular attention during the course is paid to the problems of megascience, the inclusion of which is justified by the specifics of the students’ engagement with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Emphasis is placed on the structure and typology of the collective subject in the modern educational process as well as in experimental practice. Lessons on the methodology of expert text analysis (META), which are aimed at the development of critical thinking skills and the creation of an interdisciplinary discussion space, are included in the course and relied on the example of the history and philosophy of high-energy physics to motivate professional reflection. META classes included in the course prepare graduate students for teamwork in big science, proto-megascience, and megascience. The course offers practical recommendations that could be applied to students’ own research and could be useful for practitioners.
View
... Other authors have undertaken significant work to examine different facets of research infrastructures and experimental collaborations using such facilities (D'Ippolito and Rüling, 2019); these include the wider economic impact of LSRIs (Autio et al., 1996(Autio et al., , 2004, historic narratives (Hermann et al., 1987a,b;Krige et al., 1997;Hallonsten, 2011;Hoddeson et al., 2008;Heinze et al., 2015b;Riordan et al., 2015;Heinze et al., 2015aHeinze et al., , 2017 and some evaluation exercises (Irvine and Martin, 1984;Martin and Irvine, 1984a,b). Yet, despite the prominence of LSRIs in the public sphere, their consumption of significant public funds, and the well-established policies for managing the construction of such facilities in the US and Europe (ESFRI, 2018;NSF, 2019), the literature lacks a cohesive conceptual framework concerning the management of LSRI construction projects by the host organisation and whether the project influences the host. ...
... A second practical consideration related to the incidence of LSRIs, because billion-dollar projects do occur rather infrequently. Fortunately, there have been two similar particle physics projects at laboratories that even had an intense rivalry -these are the Tevatron and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) (Lederman, 1983;Hoddeson et al., 2008;Evans, 2014). Furthermore, these two projects happen to be broadly representative of accelerators in particle physics. ...
... The interviews revealed a strategy that both Fermilab and CERN tailored senior leadership selection primarily to meet the needs of their project at that specific point in its lifecycle. This trend seemed to be less apparent at Fermilab compared to CERN owing to its different governance arrangements (Hoddeson et al., 2008). Nonetheless, it proved to be a key factor behind the successful construction of the Tevatron. ...
Tailoring Leadership to the Phase-Specific Needs of Large Scale Research Infrastructures
Preprint
Full-text available
  • Sep 2020
'Large Scale Research Infrastructures' (LSRIs), a subcategory of megaprojects which incorporate a characteristic of a high or 'super high' level of technological uncertainty, are often undertaken as cooperative projects with long lead times by one or more national governments. A lack of research into the effect of the LSRI project's lifecycle on the research organisation is apparent, particularly when scientists and engineers exercise freedom to organise the project directly. Two case studies used senior leadership selection as proxy for the LSRI project lifecycle using a contingency theory framework. These were the Tevatron (Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, USA) and the Large Hadron Collider at the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN). This LSRI lifecycle is mapped onto lifecycles used in theory and in policy. Previous research did not detect that these projects become institutionalised, so influencing the selection of new research organisation senior leadership according to its needs at that stage of its lifecycle. This represents something of a novelty as most contingency theory work is theoretical with few attempts to use it as a conceptual framework for empirical evidence. The findings indicate a second new understanding, that while the literature characterises a leadership style transition from democratic to authoritarian as the project progresses, LSRIs exhibit a reverse transformation, probably as a product of the characteristically high level of organisational technical competence. The construction of LSRIs maps better onto the traditional project lifecycle and the National Science Foundation's large facility lifecycle than onto other lifecycles. There is a policy opportunity to commission a 'generational survey' upon the completion of an LSRI, to understand the characteristics of the 'next big machine'.
View
... Moreover, at that time, the construction of ever more complex and costly instruments became a decisive factor for success and progress in scientific fields such as ground-based astronomy and nuclear/particle physics. For instance, the ever larger accelerators for nuclear/particle physics demanded ever larger governmental investments (Hoddeson et al 2008;Greenberg 1967/99). ...
... Second, "megascience" has also been used with a sociological/analytical meaning. The history of Fermilab, the US-American flagship particle physics facility in Illinois, inaugurated in 1972, was chronicled and analyzed by Hoddeson et al (2008) who identified the transition of particle physics in the 1970s into a new state as a move from "big science" to "megascience". The development had a micro and a macro component, interrelated of course. ...
... But this is a phenomenon isolated to particle physics -no other science has had a similar development, and other forms of Big Science are still serving teams of researchers by the size of five to ten, or occasionally, 40-50 (Hallonsten 2016a: 100). It can, hence, be concluded that "megascience", at least in the analytical meaning of the word as developed by Hoddeson et al (2008) and further refined by Hallonsten (2016a: 62-4), is a particle physics phenomenon. A related concept is "megaprojects", which has gotten its own subspecialism of macrosociology, much by the work of Flyvbjerg (2003Flyvbjerg ( , 2008Flyvbjerg ( , 2014Flyvbjerg ( , 2017. ...
View
... Although the importance of applied science was increasingly recognized in post-war Belgium, SCK CEN was never incorporated into wider coordinated government initiatives. 23 For many years, 20 See, for example, the emphasis on directors' visions in Hoddeson, Kolb, & Westfall (2008);Holl (1997). 21 Helmreich (1990, pp. ...
View
... We analyzed sixty-seven experiments that were run in Fermilab during the transitional period of its development, while it was still managed as a platform for a number of smaller external teams, rather than as a site for a few long-running experiments (Hoddeson et al., 2008). The reason for excluding calibrations of instruments, linked experiments, and precision measurements is that they are disproportionately cited and their tasks are too specialized. ...
Machine learning in scientific grant review: algorithmically predicting project efficiency in high energy physics
Article
Full-text available
  • Jul 2022
As more objections have been raised against grant peer-review for being costly and time-consuming, the legitimate question arises whether machine learning algorithms could help assess the epistemic efficiency of the proposed projects. As a case study, we investigated whether project efficiency in high energy physics (HEP) can be algorith-mically predicted based on the data from the proposal. To analyze the potential of algorithmic prediction in HEP, we conducted a study on data about the structure (project duration, team number, and team size) and outcomes (citations per paper) of HEP experiments with the goal of predicting their efficiency. In the first step, we assessed the project efficiency using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) of 67 experiments conducted in the HEP laboratory Fermilab. In the second step, we employed predictive algorithms to detect which team structures maximize the epistemic performance of an expert group. For this purpose, we used the efficiency scores obtained by DEA and applied predictive algorithms-lasso and ridge linear regression, neural network, and gradient boosted trees-on them. The results of the predictive analyses show moderately high accuracy (mean absolute error equal to 0.123), indicating that they can be beneficial as one of the steps in grant review. Still, their applicability in practice should be approached with caution. Some of the limitations of the algorithmic approach are the unreliability of citation patterns, unobservable variables that influence scientific success, and the potential predictability of the model.
View
... Mega science units can be seen as both a source of new knowledge and an experimental site to test new methods and approaches that are then implemented as practical solutions, economic models, etc. [21]. The goal of unique research units and the academic sector in general is to create new devices and materials using new principles (e.g., metamaterials that can be seen as devices embodies in materials). ...
Digital Twins in Real Economy: Unobvious Effects
Chapter
  • Feb 2022
This work considers the transition of methods and approaches from the realm of science into the real economy as exemplified by digital twins. The authors review the transition from the use of the digital twin to the digital footprint of a real physical object. The importance of the educational component in matters concerning the use of digital twins is growing. The authors note the increasing role of generally understood algorithms and their connection to moral and ethical principles. They formulate the idea of the transformation of laws concerning scientific and digital technologies. Social inequality and alienation are increasing due to the introduction of digital technologies in everyday life. The authors discuss the necessity of a detailed assessment of moral and ethical risks and challenges caused by the rapid digitalization in the academic sector and its transfer into everyday life. There is an idea that only the presence of three efficient components—“real object” (e.g., a mega-science facility), digital footprint, and users (researchers working with the data)—can provide the connections between the model and the algorithm and the real world.KeywordsDigital twinsMega-science facilityDigitalizationThe link between science and economyRisks and challenges
View
... (Furthermore, the historian is often justified in telling linear stories of Big Science experiments because such experiments often became institutions themselves, producing strings of related experiments of long duration that have been called 'experimental strings'.) (Hoddeson et al. 2011). ...
Database thinking and deep description: designing a digital archive of the National Synchrotron Light Source
Article
  • Dec 2019
Over the past few years, research carried out at large-scale materials science facilities in the USA and elsewhere has undergone a phase transition that affected its character and culture. Research cultures at these facilities now resemble ecosystems, comprising of complex and evolving interactions between individuals, institutions, and the overall research environment. The outcome of this phase transition, which has been gradual and building since the 1980s, is known as the New (or Ecologic) Big Science [Crease, R. and Westfall, C. (2016). The new big science. Physics Today, 69: 30–6]. In this article, we describe this phase transition, review the practical challenges that it poses for historians, review some potential digital tools that might respond to these challenges, and then assess the theoretical implications posed by “database history’.
View
... The current intergovernmental agreement between France, Germany and the UK is valid until 2023, although the three countries have already expressed their commitment to apply for an extension until 2033 (ILL 2019). Whether governments will ultimately continue to support ILL or shift towards alternative neutron sources or technologies (a scenario similar to the transition/ switch from Fermilab to the Superconducting Super Collider in the United States (US); Hoddeson et al 2008) remains an open question. This fundamental uncertainty makes the case of the ILL ideal to gain an understanding of the efforts addressed towards keeping an RI alive. ...
Keeping a Research Infrastructure alive: Material, social, and political work at the Institut Laue-Langevin (ILL)
Chapter
  • Aug 2020
Research Infrastructures (RIs) play an important role in European science policy and practice (Cramer and Hallonsten, this volume) (Lozano et al 2014), yet relatively little is known about the social and political processes that drive their organizational and scientific development over time. Previous studies have focused on the creation and early development of RIs (Hallonsten 2015; Westfall 2008), or on the consequences of conducting research in the context of RIs for the internationalization and increase in interdisciplinary research (Elzinga 2012; Weinberg 1967). Some have also explored the financial difficulties these organizations may encounter in maintaining full functionality over time (Crease 2001, 2005). This chapter sheds light on the efforts addressed towards maintaining an RI in operation over an extended period of time; besides some exceptions discussing the extent to which the science becomes mature (Holmberg 2013; Westfall 2008) or the provision of decommissioning projects (Brumfiel 2004), how RIs’ lifespan develops has not been fully addressed by previous research.
View
String theory, Einstein, and the identity of physics: Theory assessment in absence of the empirical
Article
Full-text available
  • Oct 2021
  • STUD HIST PHILOS SCI
String theorists are certain that they are practicing physicists. Yet, some of their recent critics deny this. This paper argues that this conflict is really about who holds authority in making rational judgment in theoretical physics. At bottom, the conflict centers on the question: who is a proper physicist? To illustrate and understand the differing opinions about proper practice and identity, we discuss different appreciations of epistemic virtues and explanation among string theorists and their critics, and how these have been sourced in accounts of Einstein's biography. Just as Einstein is claimed by both sides, historiography offers examples of both successful and unsuccessful non-empirical science. History of science also teaches that times of conflict are often times of innovation, in which novel scholarly identities may come into being. At the same time, since the contributions of Thomas Kuhn historians have developed a critical attitude towards formal attempts and methodological recipes for epistemic demarcation and justification of scientific practice. These are now, however, being considered in the debate on non-empirical physics.
View
String theory, Einstein, and the identity of physics: Theory assessment in absence of the empirical
Preprint
Full-text available
  • May 2021
String theorists are certain that they are practicing physicists. Yet, some of their recent critics deny this. This paper argues that this conflict is really about who holds authority in making rational judgment in theoretical physics. At bottom, the conflict centers on the question: who is a proper physicist? To illustrate and understand the differing opinions about proper practice and identity, we discuss different appreciations of epistemic virtues and explanation among string theorists and their critics, and how these have been sourced in accounts of Einstein's biography. Just as Einstein is claimed by both sides, historiography offers examples of both successful and unsuccessful non-empirical science. History of science also teaches that times of conflict are often times of innovation, in which novel scholarly identities may come into being. At the same time, since the contributions of Thomas Kuhn historians have developed a critical attitude towards formal attempts and methodological recipes for epistemic demarcation and justification of scientific practice. These are now, however, being considered in the debate on non-empirical physics.
View
Vision to Reality: From Robert R. Wilson's Frontier to Leon M. Lederman's Fermilab
Article
Full-text available
  • Apr 2003
We examine the roles of vision and leadership in creating and directing Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory from the late 1960s through the 1980s. The story divides into two administrations having different problems and accomplishments, that of Robert R. Wilson from 1967-1978, which saw the transformation from cornfield to frontier physics facility, and that of Leon M. Lederman from 1979-1989, in which the laboratory evolved into one of the world's major high-energy facilities. Lederman's pragmatic vision of a user-based experimental community helped him to convert the pioneering facility that Wilson had built frugally into a laboratory with a stable scientific, cultural, and funding environment.
View
Dynamics of Self-Organized and Self-Assembled Structures, by Rashmi C. Desai and Raymond Kapral
Article
  • Nov 2010
Book review. We all represent examples of self-organised and selfassembled structures. The natural world is full of them, and they are by no means exclusively biological in character. One can think of, e.g. the process of crystallisation from a melt or saturated solution, the hexagonal patterns that form in Rayleigh–Be´nard convection when a fluid is heated from below, chemical waves, and patterns in Langmuir monolayers at water– air interfaces. Sometimes there is a fairly direct connection between the character and symmetry of the underlying intermolecular forces and the resultant macroscopic structure, and this will usually be true under equilibrium or quasi-equilibrium conditions. Such processes can be analysed and modelled using free energy functionals and relaxational dynamics. Often, however, the structure arises under nonequilibrium conditions, where there is a continuous flow of energy and/or matter through the system, in which case more sophisticated approaches are needed.
View
General Theory and Examples. Ovidio Cailin and Der-Chen Chang. 383 pp
  • Jan 2009
  • Sub-Riemannian
  • Geometry
Sub-Riemannian Geometry: General Theory and Examples. Ovidio Cailin and Der-Chen Chang. 383 pp. Cambridge U. P., New York, 2009. Price: $99.00 hardcover ISBN 978-0-521-89730-3.
  • Jan 2009
  • Applications Properties
  • J F Peter
  • Harris
Carbon Nanotube Science: Synthesis, Properties and Applications. Peter J. F. Harris. 312 pp. Cambridge U. P., New York, 2009. Price: $90.00 hardcover ISBN 978-0-521-82895-6.
Price: $119.00 cloth
  • Jan 2009
  • Optical Imaging
  • Spectroscopy
  • J David
  • Brady
Optical Imaging and Spectroscopy. David J. Brady. 528 pp. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2009. Price: $119.00 cloth ISBN 978-0-470- 04823-9.
Price: $99.00 hardcover
  • Jan 2009
  • U P Cambridge
Cambridge U. P., New York, 2009. Price: $99.00 hardcover ISBN 978- 0-521-88994-0.
And Why Should We Care?) Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw
  • Jan 2009
  • Why Does
  • E Mc
Why Does E = mc 2 ?: (And Why Should We Care?). Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. 254 pp. Da Capo Press, Cambridge, MA, 2009. Price: $24.00 hardcover ISBN 978-0-306-81758-8.
278 pp. Cambridge U. P. Price: $70.00 hardcover
  • Jan 2009
  • R Gerald
  • Tatiana L North
  • Erukhimova
Gerald R. North and Tatiana L. Erukhimova. 278 pp. Cambridge U. P., New York, 2009. Price: $70.00 hardcover ISBN 978-0-521-89963-5.
Quantum mechanics. Gennaro Auletta, Mauro Fortunato, and Giorgio Parisi
  • Jan 2009
  • Optical Imaging
  • David J Spectroscopy
  • Brady
Optical Imaging and Spectroscopy. David J. Brady. 528 pp. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2009. Price: $119.00 ͑cloth͒ ISBN 978-0-470-04823-9. Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science. Hermann Weyl. 336 pp. Princeton U. P. 2009. Price: $35.00 ͑paper͒ ISBN 978-0-691-14120-6. Quantum Gods: Creation, Chaos, and the Search for Cosmic Consciousness. Victor J. Stenger. 292 pp. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, 2009. Price: $26.98 ͑hardcover͒ ISBN 978-1-59102-713-3. Quantum mechanics. Gennaro Auletta, Mauro Fortunato, and Giorgio Parisi. 755 pp. Cambridge U. P., New York, 2009. Price: $90.00 ͑hard-cover͒ ISBN 978-0-521-86963-8.
Ovidio Cailin and Der-Chen Chang
  • Jan 2009
  • Sub-Riemannian
  • Geometry
Sub-Riemannian Geometry: General Theory and Examples. Ovidio Cailin and Der-Chen Chang. 383 pp. Cambridge U. P., New York, 2009. Price: $99.00 ͑hardcover͒ ISBN 978-0-521-89730-3.