Web edition: December 12, 2008
If Barack Obama confirms that Steven Chu is to become the new Energy Secretary (something that is expected, next week), the Lawrence Berkeley lab chief will become the first individual to assume a Cabinet position while already in possession of a Nobel Prize. So noted a Science Progress blog, yesterday. (Henry Kissinger, who became Secretary of State under Richard Nixon in 1973, won a Nobel Peace Prize — but that was months after becoming a Cabinet officer.)
What that blog, yesterday, failed to point out is that much of the research enterprise that Chu is expected to lead was, in fact, commanded 48 years earlier by another Lawrence Berkeley scientist — one who similarly possessed a Nobel Prize in physics.
From 1961 to 1971, Glenn Seaborg ran the federal government’s energy-research programs. Back then, there was no Energy Department. Seaborg instead directed the non-Cabinet-level Atomic Energy Commission.
This behemoth post-war research agency ran the nation’s big national labs: Argonne, Brookhaven, the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley, Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, Pacific Northwest, Sandia, and a few other special-purpose facilities. Begun to advance nuclear weaponry — and soon after, the peaceful uses of nuclear power — these facilities quickly morphed into all-purpose engines of science performing ground-breaking research on physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, materials science, and even environmental science. These workhorse labs continue to carry out the bulk of the activities that Chu is being tapped to command.
Seaborg had entered the history books at least a decade before the president phoned him with a personal request that he leave Berkeley to head the AEC. The nuclear chemist that John Kennedy called upon had shared his 1951 Nobel for research on artificially creating elements bigger than uranium. His team created a broad host of such transuranics, starting with plutonium (1940). Others would add plenty more. My fave is the short-lived radioactive element 106, also known as seaborgium.
An unassuming giant in science, "nine presidents sought his advice," according to a biography of Seaborg on the LBL website. He was a big man in our shop as well (and I’m not referring to his gangly 6’3” stature). For 29 years — beginning while he was still AEC chairman, and ending in 1995 — Seaborg chaired the board of Science Service Inc. (which is the old name for Society for Science & the Public, Science News’ parent organization).
Suggested Reading
Science & the Public : Obama selects Steven Chu as Energy Secretary
Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.
The more I study the more I know.
The more I know the more ideas I have.
The more ideas I have the more they abstract.
The more they abstract the less I know the truth.
=====.
Some years ago I told with young physicist (!!!).
He said very confidently: ” You cannot be physicist (!)
if you cannot understand the beauty of Minkowski
mathematics.(!!!)
======.
It seems that he is right, because physicists must know
mathematics very well. The problem is that nobody
knows what is real physical meaning of “ 4-D negative
space continuum.” in the Nature. SRT is correct theory
but Minkowski space continuum is abstract. And together
they are paradoxical. More than 100 years we live with
this paradox. Nobody confuses.
==========.
During our conversation I understand that this young physicist
is strong and clever man and he want to reach success. And
I think he will do it. So, in the future he will create new
D/ M-spaces or new symmetries or discover new particles.
And one day he will be a professor and will teach new
generation ( your son or your daughter) in order that they also
have possibility to create new D/ M-spaces or new symmetries
or discover new particles. But if in the beginning the abstract
ideas were put into the fundament of physics then ……..
we can create new and new theories for 1000 years but
the result will be the same - paradoxical.
Our small Orwell’s world.
=============…
What is our intellect ?
1.
We don't know what we are talking about"
/ Nobel laureate David Gross referring to the current state of string theory ./
2.
It is important to realize that in physics today,
we have no knowledge of what energy is.
We do not have a picture that energy comes in little
blobs of a definite amount. ”
(Feynman. 1987)
3.
When asked which interpretation of QM he favored,
Feynman replied: "Shut up and calculate."
4.
when I was first learning quantum mechanics as a graduate student
at Harvard, a mere 30 years after the birth of the subject.
"You'll never get a PhD if you allow yourself to be distracted
by such frivolities," they kept advising me, "so get back to serious
business and produce some results."
"Shut up," in other words, "and calculate."
And so I did, and probably turned out much the better for it.
/ N. David Mermin /
5.
The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex?
Paul Dirac .
6.
“ Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things,
you just get used to them.”
/ John von Neumann ./
7.
Since the mathematical physicists have taken over,
theoretical physics has gone to pot.
The bizarre concepts generated out of the over use and
misinterpretation of mathematics would be funny if it were not
for the tragedy of the waste in time,
manpower, money, and the resulting misdirection.
/ Richard Feynman./
8.
" I feel that we do not have definite physical concepts at all
if we just apply working mathematical rules;
that's not what the physicist should be satisfied with."
/Dirac /
9.
In his 1997 book ” The End of Certainty” Nobel Laureate
Ilya Prigogine wrote:
"The more we know about our universe, the more difficult
it becomes to believe in determinism."
And “ The quantum paradox is real nightmare for classic mind ”
10.
In his book ” Quantum theory “ ( published in 2002 )
John Polkinghorne wrote:
“Quantum theory is certainly strange and surprising,…”
/ chapter 6, part “ Quantum hype”, page 92 /
11.
Etc……..………………….
#
What is our intellect ?
We can see this practically :
after “ big bang “ all Galaxies run away from us.
#
This is our normal intellect in our normal Orwell’s farm.
======================..
Conclusion from some article:
"One of the best kept secrets of science is that physicists
have lost their grip on reality."
=================..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
=======================…
#
"Dark energy, this mysterious stuff in the vacuum of space
which makes the universe want to accelerate, is the basis
for standard cosmology today because it explains much
of what we see,"
/ Research by Dr David Wiltshire, from
New Zealand's University of Canterbury /.
#
Tony Bermanseder wrote:
‘ May the Dark Energy bathe you in its mysterious
light of darkness and illuminate your skeptical minds.
. . . . . . .
4.
..the Dark Energy is INTRINSIC to the spacetime structure.’
============= . .
My opinion.
‘...the Dark Energy is INTRINSIC to the spacetime structure.’
‘the spacetime structure ‘ is Vacuum.
The Dark Energy is INTRINSIC to the Vacuum.
Vacuum is not a died space, but according to Quantum Theory
Vacuum is some kind of Energetic Structure/ Space.
The Energetic Vacuum itself is ‘ The Dark Energy ‘.
The physicists only invent new word ‘Dark Energy ‘ instead of
simple to say ‘ ENERGETIC VACUUM ’.
========== . .
#
If somebody belief in “ big bang” he must take in calculation
that T=2,7K expands and therefore T=2,7K is temporary
parameter and with time it will go to T=0K.
#
Dark energy may be vacuum
[Link was removed]
#
Sakharov's induced gravity: a modern perspective
[Link was removed]
Authors: Matt Visser (Washington University in Saint Louis)
(Submitted on 19 Apr 2002)
Abstract: Sakharov's 1967 notion of ``induced gravity'' is currently
enjoying a significant resurgence. The basic idea, originally presented
in a very brief 3-page paper with a total of 4 formulas, is that gravit
is not ``fundamental'' in the sense of particle physics. Instead it was
argued that gravity (general relativity) emerges from quantum field
theory in roughly the same sense that hydrodynamics or continuum
elasticity theory emerges from molecular physics. In this article I will
translate the key ideas into modern language, and explain the various
versions of Sakharov's idea currently on the market.
#
When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum, that endless
infinite void.
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
================ . .
Please, have patience and wait “when the next revolution rocks physics.”
============== . .
#
" The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex? "
/ Paul Dirac ./
==========..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.