Advertisement

On Quantum Electrodynamics [Among Essays Dedicated to Niels Bohr on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday] [1955b]

  • Robert S. Cohen
  • John J. Stachel
Chapter
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 21)

Abstract

When I arrived at the Institute on the last day of February, 1931, for my annual stay, the first person I saw was Gamow. As I asked him about the news, he replied in his own picturesque way by showing me a neat pen drawing he had just made1. It represented Landau, tightly bound to a chair and gagged, while Bohr, standing before him with upraised forefinger, was saying: “Bitte, bitte. Landau, muss ich2nur ein Wort sagen!” I learned that Landau and Peierls had just come a few days before with some new paper of theirs which they wanted to show Bohr, “but” (Gamow added airily) “he does not seem to agree—and this is the kind of discussion which has been going on all the time.” Peierls had left the day before, “in a state of complete exhaustion,” Gamow said. Landau stayed for a few weeks longer, and I had the opportunity of ascertaining that Gamow’s representation of the situation was only exaggerated to the extent usually conceded to artistic fantasy.

Keywords

Field Component Quantum Electrodynamic Charge Fluctuation Classical Source Pseudoscalar Coupling 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. [1]
    L. Landau and R. Peierls, Z. Physik69 (1931). 56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    N. Bohr and L. Rosenfeld, Dan. Mat.-fyx. Medd. 12 (1933). No. 8 [English translation: this volume, p. 357). See also B. Ferretti, Nuow Cimento 12 (1954), 558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    J. H. Fabre. Souvenirs entomoiogiques. IX, Chapter XXIII.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    W. Thirring and B. Touschek, Phil Mag. 62 (1951), 244.R. Glauber. Phys. Rev. 84 (1951)395. H Umezawa. Y. Takahashi and S. Kamefuchi. Phys. Rev. 85 (1952), 505 J. Schwinger. Phys. Rev, 91 (1953), 728.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    W. Heisenberg. Leipziger Ber. 86 (1934). 317.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    E. Corinaldesi. Supplemento al Nuovo Cimento10 (1953), 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    N. Bohr and L. Rosenfeld, Phys. Rev. 78 (1950), 794. [This volume, p. 4011.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    E. Corinaldesi, Nuovo Cimento8 (1951), 494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    E Corinaldesi, Nuovo Cimento9 (1952). 194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    C. Hurst. Proc. Cambr. Phil. Soc. 48 (1952) 625. W Thirring. Helv. Phys. Acta 26 (1953), 33. A. Petermann, Phys. Rev. 89 (1953). 1160; Archives Genève 6 (1953), 5; Helv. Phys. Acta 26 (1953), 291, 731.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    J. Schwinger, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 37 (1951) 452; Phys. Rei 82 (1951). 914; 91 (1953). 713. 728; 92 (1953), 1283; 93 (1953). 615; 94 (1954). 1362.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    R. Peierls. Proc. Roy. Soc. A 214 (1952). 143.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    B. Ferretti. Nuovo Cimento8(1952), 108; 10 (1953). 1079; 12 (1954). 457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    E R Caianicllo, Nuovo Cimento10 (1953). 1634; 11 (1954). 492; 12 (1954). 561.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    H. Umezawa and A. Visconti. Nuovo Cimento1 (1955). 1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    S Sakata. H. Umezawa and S. Kamefuchi. Progress in Theoretical Physics7 (1952), 377, 551.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    A. Petermann. Helv. Phys. Acta27 (1954). 441.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    S. F. Edwards. Phys. Rei90 (1953). 284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    A. Petermann, Nuclear Physics I(1956). 355. 357.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert S. Cohen
  • John J. Stachel

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations