To advance and diffuse the knowledge of physics: An account of the one-hundred-year history of the American Physical Society

American Journal of Physics

Volumn 68, Issue 7, 2000, Pages 595-636

  Lustig, Harry ^a  

^a NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034386094     PISSN: 00029505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1119/1.19500     Document Type: Review

References (169)

1. "...the first great American scientist after Franklin" [The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (Chicago, 1975), 15th ed., Micropaedia Vol. IV, p. 1029], and first head of the Smithsonian Institution, who took the initial steps to cultivate a physics community. In discussions leading to the organization of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 1847, he proposed that physics should have a section of its own in the Association (but that did not happen until 1882). The other major science organization, the National Academy of Sciences, founded in 1863, was reorganized by Henry between 1867 and 1872 into an honorary society for recognizing and advancing original research. The Academy's early members were principally from the physical sciences [George H. Daniels, Science in American Society (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1971)].
2. "...the first great American scientist after Franklin" [The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (Chicago, 1975), 15th ed., Micropaedia Vol. IV, p. 1029], and first head of the Smithsonian Institution, who took the initial steps to cultivate a physics community. In discussions leading to the organization of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 1847, he proposed that physics should have a section of its own in the Association (but that did not happen until 1882). The other major science organization, the National Academy of Sciences, founded in 1863, was reorganized by Henry between 1867 and 1872 into an honorary society for recognizing and advancing original research. The Academy's early members were principally from the physical sciences [George H. Daniels, Science in American Society (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1971)].
3. Daniel J. Kevles, The Physicists - The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America (Harvard U.P., Cambridge, MA, 1995), 2nd print., p. 7.
4. Ibid., p. 26.
5. A. G. Webster, Presidential Address to the American Physical Society, "Some Practical Aspects of the Relation Between Physics and Mathematics," Phys. Rev. XVIII, 297-318 (1904).
6. Melba Phillips, "Arthur Gordon Webster, Father of the APS," Phys. Today 40 (6), 48-52 (1987).
7. Kevles, op. cit., p. 77.
8. Rowland, who was descended from a line of Yale-trained ministers, had decided while in college to devote himself to science and to the kind of research that brought "not...filthy lucre but good substantial reputation." (Kevles, op. cit., p. 25). At the age of twenty-seven, he was appointed the first professor of physics at the newly founded Johns Hopkins University. While working in Helmholtz's laboratory in Berlin, he had succeeded in demonstrating that an electrically charged rotating disk would produce a magnetic field. Back at Hopkins he meticulously obtained an authoritative measure of the ohm and an improved value for the mechanical equivalent of heat. Then, in 1882, he revolutionized the study of light spectra through his invention and use of the Rowland grating (ibid., pp. 26-27). When he assumed the presidency of the APS he was already will and he died in office on April 16, 1901. In his obituary for Rowland ["Henry Augustus Rowland, Physicist," Phys. Rev. XIII (1), 60-64 (1901)], E. L. Nichols records Rowland's extraordinary accomplishments and goes on to say: "The recognition of Rowland's genius was early and unusual... . In 1881, when he was only 33 years of age, he became a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the youngest man probably upon whom that honor has ever been conferred." (The record probably still stands.) But Nichols adds: "For routine teaching he had neither taste nor aptitude and even of the more advanced students only those who were able to brook severe and searching criticism reaped the full benefit of being under him." (One would be surprised to see such a frank appraisal of the teaching performance of a distinguished physicist-colleague in a physics journal today, but not necessarily because it would never be deserved.) It seems unnecessary, for the audience for which this article is intended, to provide any biographical information on Michelson, except perhaps to remark that he was not only the first American Nobel laureate in science - he received the physics prize in 1907 - but also the first, in what was later to become a long list of foreign-born physicists, who served as presidents of the APS. He appears, incidentally, not to have been very diligent as president - seven successive proceedings of meetings in 1901 and 1902 carry the notation "in the absence of the President, Vice-President Webster presided" - and failed to give a presidential address.
9. Rowland, who was descended from a line of Yale-trained ministers, had decided while in college to devote himself to science and to the kind of research that brought "not...filthy lucre but good substantial reputation." (Kevles, op. cit., p. 25). At the age of twenty-seven, he was appointed the first professor of physics at the newly founded Johns Hopkins University. While working in Helmholtz's laboratory in Berlin, he had succeeded in demonstrating that an electrically charged rotating disk would produce a magnetic field. Back at Hopkins he meticulously obtained an authoritative measure of the ohm and an improved value for the mechanical equivalent of heat. Then, in 1882, he revolutionized the study of light spectra through his invention and use of the Rowland grating (ibid., pp. 26-27). When he assumed the presidency of the APS he was already will and he died in office on April 16, 1901. In his obituary for Rowland ["Henry Augustus Rowland, Physicist," Phys. Rev. XIII (1), 60-64 (1901)], E. L. Nichols records Rowland's extraordinary accomplishments and goes on to say: "The recognition of Rowland's genius was early and unusual... . In 1881, when he was only 33 years of age, he became a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the youngest man probably upon whom that honor has ever been conferred." (The record probably still stands.) But Nichols adds: "For routine teaching he had neither taste nor aptitude and even of the more advanced students only those who were able to brook severe and searching criticism reaped the full benefit of being under him." (One would be surprised to see such a frank appraisal of the teaching performance of a distinguished physicist-colleague in a physics journal today, but not necessarily because it would never be deserved.) It seems unnecessary, for the audience for which this article is intended, to provide any biographical information on Michelson, except perhaps to remark that he was not only the first American Nobel laureate in science - he received the physics prize in 1907 - but also the first, in what was later to become a long list of foreign-born physicists, who served as presidents of the APS. He appears, incidentally, not to have been very diligent as president - seven successive proceedings of meetings in 1901 and 1902 carry the notation "in the absence of the President, Vice-President Webster presided" - and failed to give a presidential address.
10. Rowland, who was descended from a line of Yale-trained ministers, had decided while in college to devote himself to science and to the kind of research that brought "not...filthy lucre but good substantial reputation." (Kevles, op. cit., p. 25). At the age of twenty-seven, he was appointed the first professor of physics at the newly founded Johns Hopkins University. While working in Helmholtz's laboratory in Berlin, he had succeeded in demonstrating that an electrically charged rotating disk would produce a magnetic field. Back at Hopkins he meticulously obtained an authoritative measure of the ohm and an improved value for the mechanical equivalent of heat. Then, in 1882, he revolutionized the study of light spectra through his invention and use of the Rowland grating (ibid., pp. 26-27). When he assumed the presidency of the APS he was already will and he died in office on April 16, 1901. In his obituary for Rowland ["Henry Augustus Rowland, Physicist," Phys. Rev. XIII (1), 60-64 (1901)], E. L. Nichols records Rowland's extraordinary accomplishments and goes on to say: "The recognition of Rowland's genius was early and unusual... . In 1881, when he was only 33 years of age, he became a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the youngest man probably upon whom that honor has ever been conferred." (The record probably still stands.) But Nichols adds: "For routine teaching he had neither taste nor aptitude and even of the more advanced students only those who were able to brook severe and searching criticism reaped the full benefit of being under him." (One would be surprised to see such a frank appraisal of the teaching performance of a distinguished physicist-colleague in a physics journal today, but not necessarily because it would never be deserved.) It seems unnecessary, for the audience for which this article is intended, to provide any biographical information on Michelson, except perhaps to remark that he was not only the first American Nobel laureate in science - he received the physics prize in 1907 - but also the first, in what was later to become a long list of foreign-born physicists, who served as presidents of the APS. He appears, incidentally, not to have been very diligent as president -seven successive proceedings of meetings in 1901 and 1902 carry the notation "in the absence of the President, Vice-President Webster presided" - and failed to give a presidential address.
11. Gibbs, chary of organizations, had earlier declined to help organize the Mathematical Society: "[though] I have felt favorably inclined towards the plan...[in view] of my confirmed absenteeism in the few societies to which I belong, it seems hardly worth while for me to join in the undertaking..." [Lynde Phelps Wheeler, Josiah Willard Gibbs (Yale U.P., New Haven, CT, 1951), pp. 181-182]. Aware of these sentiments, Webster apparently did not try to involve Gibbs in the organization of the Physical Society and, in fact, Gibbs never became a member.
12. Although Webster remained all his life a classical physicist and apparently did not assimilate the new developments coming from Europe, he was important and highly esteemed. J. J. Thomson praised him and O. W. Richardson remarked: "None of those who, like myself, had the privilege of being associated with him will ever forget his great geniality, his quick mind, and his forceful methods of expression. Any scientific gathering which secured his presence was assured of success." Webster, by every appearance, also was not only a genial but a contented man for most of his life. In 1910 he reported to the secretary of the Harvard class of 1885: "My life has been entirely devoted to scientific work [this was not quite accurate - he also pursued his interests in languages and writing], which I have thoroughly enjoyed. I...have ample time for my own researches. My life has been totally uneventful, unmarred by accident or sadness. I have hardly been ill since leaving college, a result of the use of the gymnasium then and since, and the avoidance of athletic contests. My scientific work has been rewarded by election to the National Academy of Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences... ." Yet, on May 13, 1923, he killed himself, using a gun he had obtained the day before, ostensibly for use in his research laboratory. Melba Phillips (Ref. 5, from which all quotations in this note are taken) reports that the new president of Clark University, Wallace W. Atwood, had clashed with Webster over academic freedom issues during the "red scare" of the early 1920's. Among other actions, Atwood had banned the left-leaning Nation magazine, to which Webster had been a frequent scientific contributor, from the University's library. More directly threatening to Webster, Atwood was clearly embarked on a course of diminishing graduate work and research at Clark. He abolished the graduate department of mathematics, forcing two full professors into retirement. There were rumors that the entire graduate school was to be closed and that physics would go next. In 1922 Princeton University conferred the honorary degree of Doctor of Science on Webster, but at Clark he was in imminent danger of losing his job. The shocking and astonishing event of Webster's suicide was noted in scientific circles both in the US and abroad. It was the subject of a special feature in the New York Times and there was a five-column obituary in Science. There was only a brief -though moving - obituary in The Physical Review, written by its managing editor, G. S. Fulcher, who had been a student of Webster. The Council of the American Physical Scoiety took no notice of the death of the Society's founder. Phillips rightfully deplores this disregard and her 1987 article served finally, but only partially, to repair the omission.
13. Michael Pupin, From Immigrant to Inventor (Scribner's, New York, 1925), pp. 91-103.
14. Phys. Rev. 75, 1601-1604 (1949).
15. Melba Phillips, "The American Physical Society: A Survey of Its First 50 Years," Am. J. Phys. 58 (1), 219-230 (1990). The call to the meeting is reprinted as Appendix A.
16. Kevles (op. cit., p. 77) states that there were thirty-eight participants. He apparently assumes, erroneously, that Rowland and Michelson were there.
17. Reference 12, Appendix B gives the names and institutions.
18. As early as 1893, a firm of druggists had offered to exchange its magazine with the newly founded Physical Review (Meyer Brothers Druggist to E. L. Nichols, 23 February 1893, Cornell University Rare Manuscripts Division).
19. Amy Halsted, "From Manhattan to Maryland - The American Physical Society and Its Relocation," unpublished master's thesis, Baruch College of the City University of New York, 1993, p. 3. The main contribution of this work is to tell the story of the controversial move of the Society from New York to College Park, which was debated from 1988 to 1990, and took place in 1993.
20. Kevles, op. cit., p. XXIV.
21. To be sure, much of the time, particularly in the flush post World War II years, when there were two to four times more openings than the number of physicists looking for jobs, the placement service provided more of a benefit to the country than to the physicists. In 1956, Paul D. Foote reported, ["Physics Then and Now," Phys. Today 9 (9), 21 (1956)] that, at the APS meeting in New York City, the recruiters mobbed the fifth and sixth floors of the hotel, enticing and enlisting candidates for industrial, governmental, and academic positions.
22. Barry M. Casper, "Physicists and public policy - The 'Forum' and the APS," Phys. Today 27 (5), 31-37 (1974).
23. Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. I (1), 4-16 (1900); reprinted in Spencer Weart, ed. Selected Papers of Great American Physicists (American Institute of Physics, New York, 1976), pp. 91-103.
24. Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. I (1), 4-16 (1900); reprinted in Spencer Weart, ed. Selected Papers of Great American Physicists (American Institute of Physics, New York, 1976), pp. 91-103.
25. "As a new fact arrives the scientist changes it [the probability of truth] from one compartment to another... . The ideal scientific mind, therefore, must always be held in a state of balance which...new evidence may change in one direction or another. It is in a constant state of skepticism, knowing full well that nothing is certain. It is above all an agnostic with respect to all facts and theories of science as well as to all other so-called beliefs and theories. Yet it would be folly to reason from this that we need not guide our life according to the...knowledge that we possess... . Our only course...is to act according to the chances of our knowing the right laws. If we act correctly, right; if we act incorrectly, we suffer. If we are ignorant we die. What greater fool, then, than he who states that belief is of no consequence provided it is sincere." Apparently physics had to contend with both postmodernists and "final theorists" even in Rowland's time.
26. Rowland characterized the dichotomy as "the pursuit of so-called practical science which ministers to our physical needs" as opposed to "the grander portion of the subject which appeals to our intellect alone." He unapologetically declared curiosity-driven research to be the more valuable of the two: "He who makes two blades of grass grow where one grew before is the benefactor of mankind; but he who obscurely worked to find the laws of such growth is the intellectual superior as well as the greater benefactor of the two." But he also gave full recognition to the need for and the usefulness of applied, practical work. After deploring the ignorance of and lack of attention to medical science, he said "... all the sciences are linked together and must advance in concert. The human body is a chemical and physical problem, and these sciences must advance before we can conquer disease. But the true lover of physics needs no such spur to his actions. The cure of disease is a very important object and nothing can be nobler than a life devoted to its cure. The aims of the physicist, however, are in part purely intellectual: he strives to understand the Universe on account of the intellectual pleasure derived from the pursuit, but he is upheld in it by the knowledge that the study of nature's secrets is the ordained method by which the greatest good and happiness shall finally come to the human race."
27. "Where," he asked, "are the great laboratories of research in this city, in this country, nay in the world? We have a few miserable structures here and there occupied by a few starving professors who are nobly striving to do the best with the feeble means at their disposal. But where in the world is the institute of pure research... with an income of $100,000,000 per year? Where can the discoverer in pure science earn more than the wages of a day laborer or cook? But $100,000,000 per year is but the price of an army or navy designed to kill other people. Just think of it, that one percent of this sum seems to most people too great to save our children and descendants from misery... ."
28. To use Kevles's (op. cit.) ubiquitous and accurate, but, in today's political atmosphere, somewhat risky term.
29. Kevles, op. cit., p. 43.
30. Ibid., p. 50.
31. Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 1 (1), 4-14 (1925).
32. Kevles, op. cit., p. 87.
33. The decision to organize that society was actually made at a scientific conference of astronomers and astrophysicists, organized by George Ellery Hale and held in October 1897 in connection with the inauguration of the Yerkes Observatory. It took two years - until September 1899 - for the society formally to come into existence. The hotly debated name adopted at the time was the "Astronomical and Astrophysical Society of America." The older astronomers, reflecting their training and orientation, wanted simply to call it the "Astronomical Society," but Hale had a very different society in mind - one that would include more than the old astronomy. He wanted to establish a society that would attract physicists, because he saw physics as central to the pursuit of astronomy and he thought that he had a chance of doing so, because the APS had not yet been formed. In fact his initial choice for a name was the "Astronomical and Physical Society of America" [emphasis added]. A number of prominent physicists, among them Michelson and Rowland, participated in the meetings that led to the establishment of the society and in fact the latter was a major force in the inclusion of "Astrophysical" in the name. Had Hale succeeded in his endeavors to annex physics, an American Physical Society might not have been created in 1899. It is amazing that there appears to be no reflection of this history in the accounts of the founding of the APS. In 1914 the AAS received it present name, "American Astronomical Society." By that time astrophysics had been fully accepted and it was no longer necessary explicitly to call attention to the legitimacy of the subject in the name. ["The American Astronomical Society's First Century," David H. DeVorkin, ed., published for the American Astronomical Society through the American Institute of Physics (1999), pp. 3-19, 27-34.]
34. The first paragraph of the report provides a summary. "Dissatisfaction exists on the part of many physicists who feel that the activity of the American Physical Society is mainly confined to quantum physics and is not representative of physics in its broadest scope. This feeling is quite general, and whether justified or not, has been definitely evidenced by the formation of such organizations as the Optical Society, the Acoustical Society, the Rheology Society, and others. It is also evidenced by the contemplated formation of the Society of Applied Physics and another Society of Applied Mathematics, the latter being sponsored mainly by mathematical physicists. The feeling is still further evidenced by the fact that numerous papers dealing with pure and applied physics are not even submitted for the consideration of the Physical Review but are published in various chemical, engineering, photographic, and geological journals. This state of affairs is a serious reflection upon the limited activity of the Physical Society in the general field of physics" (Ref. 12, p. 224). It is not clear whether the writers of the report and those for whom they spoke were aware of or impressed by the increasingly pervasive and successful application of quantum mechanics to such subjects as chemistry and (what is now called) materials science. Neither Foote's criticism of the Society nor his industrial affiliation and orientation seem to have been counted against him: he was elected president for 1933.
35. Contrary to Phillips (Ref. 12, p. 222) this decision was made not by the Council, but by the membership at a meeting (the 39th, at the University of Chicago, on May 30th, 1907) where the minutes record that "The Council brought before the meeting a request from the College Entrance Examination Board that the Physical Society cooperate with it in the formation of a Committee to consider the revision of the definition of the Board's present entrance requirements in Physics. After discussion it was moved, and carried by a large majority, that the invitation be declined on the ground that the teaching of Physics and all pedagogical matters lie outside the province of the American Physical Society" ["Proceedings of the American Physical Society, Minutes of the Thirty-Ninth Meeting," Phys. Rev. XXVI, 1184 (1908)].
36. Minutes of the Council and Proceedings of the American Physical Society, on file at the office of the American Physical Society, College Park, MD.
37. The others were to establish a student membership and to make available a special subscription to The Physical Review for individuals who were members of societies interested in the teaching of physics (Ref. 12, p. 222).
38. For an example, see "The Teaching of Physics - With Especial Reference to the Teaching of Physics to Student in Agriculture," Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 1 (11) Supplement (1925-26), 25 pp.
39. A full account of APS's actions and inactions in education in the first three decades of the century and of the events that led to the formation of the AAPT, as well as of the subsequent history of the Association, is given by Reuben E. Alley (http://www.aapt.org/aaptgeneral/96hist.html). The history is also printed in AAPT's 1998 Membership Directory.
40. The other goals were to influence the style and extent of graduate education, to make faculty and students aware of the challenging technological problems of industry, and to examine the need for continuing education of practicing physicists (Ref. 32).
41. The well known and versatile physicist, author, and university administrator Kenneth W. Ford. He had been president of the AAPT in 1972 and would go on to become executive director of AIP in April 1987. Ford's history illustrates the fact that all along there were persons of substance whose leadership in both APS and AAPT helped to foster positive interactions. Thus J. W. Buchta, who had held senior editorial positions on the APS's Physical Review and Reviews of Modern Physics, later became AAPT's first full-time executive officer. Judy Franz, APS's executive officer since 1994, was president of AAPT in 1990-1991. And Edward U. Condon served both societies as president: APS in 1946 and AAPT in 1964-65. Another common bond is the AAPT's respected and engaging American Journal of Physics, in which a number of APS members publish and which many more read for profit and pleasure.
42. This unique institution "combining the functions of a government agency, a private foundation, and an industrial trade association" (Ref. 12, p. 224), which also directly supported researchers in physics and, to a much larger extent, chemistry, had been funded through the resale to "loyal Americans" of German-held plants and patents that had been seized by the US Department of Justice following World War I.
43. Though AIP's history is shorter and, perhaps, less portentous than APS's, it deserves an up-to-date presentation of its own. Early accounts were given by K. T. Compton ["The American Institute of Physics," Rev. Sci. Instrum. 4, 57-58 (1933)], and H. A. Barton ["The story of the American Institute of Physics," Phys. Today 9 (1), 56-66 (1956)].
44. Though AIP's history is shorter and, perhaps, less portentous than APS's, it deserves an up-to-date presentation of its own. Early accounts were given by K. T. Compton ["The American Institute of Physics," Rev. Sci. Instrum. 4, 57-58 (1933)], and H. A. Barton ["The story of the American Institute of Physics," Phys. Today 9 (1), 56-66 (1956)].
45. Some of the leading lights in the Society - particularly those with interests and achievements in several areas of physics - viewed this development with apprehension. Thus Eugene Wigner, who was to become president of the Society in 1956, wrote to J. H. Van Vleck (president in 1952) on July 25, 1945: "...It seems to me that if we split up the American Physical Society into many sub-organizations we may do an excellent job as an employment agency for people who want to specialize in certain fields. However, the charm of physics consists for me, and I am sure for most of our colleagues, in the fact that it comprises all the phenomena of the non-living world and that a Society which has abandoned general interest in all this is not a physical society any more. As you say, the example of the American Chemical Society should be a warning to us all..." (Ref. 229).
46. The dates of organization and capsule descriptions of the divisions and other units of the APS, as well as lists of their past and present officers, are given in the American Physical Society 1998-1999 Centennial Membership Directory, pp. A-12 to A-20.
47. W. W. Havens, Jr. (private communication). That there was strong sentiment for giving the divisions recognition, representation, and power is evident from a report in the 1966 Bulletin of the results of a meeting of divisional officers with the Council: "The Council notes with sympathy the views presented in favor of a strong divisional structure for The American Physical Society and recommends...[that] 1) Each clearly recognized field of physics should be represented by a Division. 2) Each Division should be represented on the Council. 3) Each Division should be responsible for organizing or advising on the presentations for Society meetings and topical conferences." [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. II 11 (1), 6 (1966)]. These proposals were spelled out in detail in the proposed new Constitution that was presented to the members in a subsequent issue [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. II 11 (4), 666-684 (1966)]. K. K. Darrow did not like the new provisions. In his Valedictory, upon his retirement as Secretary at the end of the 1967 Annual Meeting, he writes: "...That some leaders of Divisions want a voice in the Council is understandable; but the divisive forces have gained in strength, and will tend to convert the Society into a likeness of Place Vendôme in Paris, where the harmonious façades designed by the original architect now disguise a medley of interiors totally changed and not always changed for the better." The 1966 constitution made several other changes, including having the Council, instead of the membership, elect the Secretary and the Treasurer, and specifying the duties and mode of operation of the Council in much greater detail than before, and Darrow didn't like any of them: "...Our old Constitution was a masterpiece of economy and flexibility, giving immense freedom with a minimum of restrictions. Much of the new Constitution consists of commands laid upon the Council and the officers to do things that they were doing already, or things that they could have done had they deemed it judicious. Unconstrained, the officers have wrought as well for the Society as though they had been bound by such constraints; unguided, they have furnished their own guidance; uncontrolled, they have needed no control..." [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. II 12 (1), 5 (1967)].
48. W. W. Havens, Jr. (private communication). That there was strong sentiment for giving the divisions recognition, representation, and power is evident from a report in the 1966 Bulletin of the results of a meeting of divisional officers with the Council: "The Council notes with sympathy the views presented in favor of a strong divisional structure for The American Physical Society and recommends...[that] 1) Each clearly recognized field of physics should be represented by a Division. 2) Each Division should be represented on the Council. 3) Each Division should be responsible for organizing or advising on the presentations for Society meetings and topical conferences." [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. II 11 (1), 6 (1966)]. These proposals were spelled out in detail in the proposed new Constitution that was presented to the members in a subsequent issue [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. II 11 (4), 666-684 (1966)]. K. K. Darrow did not like the new provisions. In his Valedictory, upon his retirement as Secretary at the end of the 1967 Annual Meeting, he writes: "...That some leaders of Divisions want a voice in the Council is understandable; but the divisive forces have gained in strength, and will tend to convert the Society into a likeness of Place Vendôme in Paris, where the harmonious façades designed by the original architect now disguise a medley of interiors totally changed and not always changed for the better." The 1966 constitution made several other changes, including having the Council, instead of the membership, elect the Secretary and the Treasurer, and specifying the duties and mode of operation of the Council in much greater detail than before, and Darrow didn't like any of them: "...Our old Constitution was a masterpiece of economy and flexibility, giving immense freedom with a minimum of restrictions. Much of the new Constitution consists of commands laid upon the Council and the officers to do things that they were doing already, or things that they could have done had they deemed it judicious. Unconstrained, the officers have wrought as well for the Society as though they had been bound by such constraints; unguided, they have furnished their own guidance; uncontrolled, they have needed no control..." [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. II 12 (1), 5 (1967)].
49. W. W. Havens, Jr. (private communication). That there was strong sentiment for giving the divisions recognition, representation, and power is evident from a report in the 1966 Bulletin of the results of a meeting of divisional officers with the Council: "The Council notes with sympathy the views presented in favor of a strong divisional structure for The American Physical Society and recommends...[that] 1) Each clearly recognized field of physics should be represented by a Division. 2) Each Division should be represented on the Council. 3) Each Division should be responsible for organizing or advising on the presentations for Society meetings and topical conferences." [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. II 11 (1), 6 (1966)]. These proposals were spelled out in detail in the proposed new Constitution that was presented to the members in a subsequent issue [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. II 11 (4), 666-684 (1966)]. K. K. Darrow did not like the new provisions. In his Valedictory, upon his retirement as Secretary at the end of the 1967 Annual Meeting, he writes: "...That some leaders of Divisions want a voice in the Council is understandable; but the divisive forces have gained in strength, and will tend to convert the Society into a likeness of Place Vendôme in Paris, where the harmonious façades designed by the original architect now disguise a medley of interiors totally changed and not always changed for the better." The 1966 constitution made several other changes, including having the Council, instead of the membership, elect the Secretary and the Treasurer, and specifying the duties and mode of operation of the Council in much greater detail than before, and Darrow didn't like any of them: "...Our old Constitution was a masterpiece of economy and flexibility, giving immense freedom with a minimum of restrictions. Much of the new Constitution consists of commands laid upon the Council and the officers to do things that they were doing already, or things that they could have done had they deemed it judicious. Unconstrained, the officers have wrought as well for the Society as though they had been bound by such constraints; unguided, they have furnished their own guidance; uncontrolled, they have needed no control..." [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. II 12 (1), 5 (1967)].
50. W. W. Havens, Jr. (private communication). That there was strong sentiment for giving the divisions recognition, representation, and power is evident from a report in the 1966 Bulletin of the results of a meeting of divisional officers with the Council: "The Council notes with sympathy the views presented in favor of a strong divisional structure for The American Physical Society and recommends...[that] 1) Each clearly recognized field of physics should be represented by a Division. 2) Each Division should be represented on the Council. 3) Each Division should be responsible for organizing or advising on the presentations for Society meetings and topical conferences." [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. II 11 (1), 6 (1966)]. These proposals were spelled out in detail in the proposed new Constitution that was presented to the members in a subsequent issue [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. II 11 (4), 666-684 (1966)]. K. K. Darrow did not like the new provisions. In his Valedictory, upon his retirement as Secretary at the end of the 1967 Annual Meeting, he writes: "...That some leaders of Divisions want a voice in the Council is understandable; but the divisive forces have gained in strength, and will tend to convert the Society into a likeness of Place Vendôme in Paris, where the harmonious façades designed by the original architect now disguise a medley of interiors totally changed and not always changed for the better." The 1966 constitution made several other changes, including having the Council, instead of the membership, elect the Secretary and the Treasurer, and specifying the duties and mode of operation of the Council in much greater detail than before, and Darrow didn't like any of them: "...Our old Constitution was a masterpiece of economy and flexibility, giving immense freedom with a minimum of restrictions. Much of the new Constitution consists of commands laid upon the Council and the officers to do things that they were doing already, or things that they could have done had they deemed it judicious. Unconstrained, the officers have wrought as well for the Society as though they had been bound by such constraints; unguided, they have furnished their own guidance; uncontrolled, they have needed no control..." [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. II 12 (1), 5 (1967)].
51. Forums, which had in the meantime been established, were each given one voting councillor regardless of size, so long as it met a minimum threshold. Geographic sections, were given non-voting representation ("advisors") on the Council, if their membership exceeded the threshold.
52. Finally there is a provision for non-voting "administrative representatives" - the director of AIP and high ranking APS staff members. In 1997 the Council consisted of the seven officers, two other exofficio (voting) members - the chair of the Nominating Committee and of the Panel on Public Affairs - twenty divisional councillors, four forum councillors, sixteen general councillors, five section advisors, and nine administrative representatives, for a total of sixty-three participants.
53. This has led, during the past year, to a consideration of reversing the growth of the Council by reducing the number of general councillors and returning the representation for each division to one, regardless of size, as well as eliminating the section observers. In order to preserve the representation from the various constituencies, an alternative approach would leave the size intact, but involve the councillors more in the running of the Society by requiring them to serve, in larger numbers, on Council committees that will prepare "legislation" for the full Council.
54. Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. II, 37, 59 (1901). He wrote to his mother: "I left for New York after Christmas in order to attend the meeting of the American Physical Society. The meeting was held in Columbia University, where I gave two papers which were pretty well received, as I am the only worker in the field of excited radioactivity in the English-speaking world..." [Arthur Stewart Eve, Rutherford (Cambridge U.P., Cambridge, 1939)]. At McGill, during his seven-year stay, he wrote eighty papers [Thomas Edward Allibone, "Rutherford, Lord," in The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia 16, 107 (1975)].
55. Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. II, 37, 59 (1901). He wrote to his mother: "I left for New York after Christmas in order to attend the meeting of the American Physical Society. The meeting was held in Columbia University, where I gave two papers which were pretty well received, as I am the only worker in the field of excited radioactivity in the English-speaking world..." [Arthur Stewart Eve, Rutherford (Cambridge U.P., Cambridge, 1939)]. At McGill, during his seven-year stay, he wrote eighty papers [Thomas Edward Allibone, "Rutherford, Lord," in The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia 16, 107 (1975)].
56. Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. II, 37, 59 (1901). He wrote to his mother: "I left for New York after Christmas in order to attend the meeting of the American Physical Society. The meeting was held in Columbia University, where I gave two papers which were pretty well received, as I am the only worker in the field of excited radioactivity in the English-speaking world..." [Arthur Stewart Eve, Rutherford (Cambridge U.P., Cambridge, 1939)]. At McGill, during his seven-year stay, he wrote eighty papers [Thomas Edward Allibone, "Rutherford, Lord," in The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia 16, 107 (1975)].
57. "The magnetic and electric deviation of the easily absorbed rays from radium" [Phys. Rev. XVI (3), 181-182 (1903)] under "Proceedings of the American Physical Society - Minutes of the Eighteenth Meeting." A footnote announces that "the minutes of all meetings of the American Physical Society and abstracts of papers presented to the Society will hereafter be published in the PHYSICAL REVIEW. The publication of the Bulletin of the American Physical Society has been discontinued." Rutherford continues with "Does the radioactivity of radon depend on its concentration?" [Phys. Rev. XVIII (2), 117-118 (1904)]; "The heating effects of the random emanation" (with H. T. Barnes, ibid., 118-120); "Radioactive charge" - an invited paper at a joint meeting with the International Electrical Congress [Phys. Rev. XIX (4), 298 (1904)] - the meeting was in September 1904 in St. Louis, but the talk is listed in the Physical Review Proceedings by title only; "Some properties of the alpha rays from Radium, II [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. XXII (2), 80-81 (1906); and "Magnetic and electric deviation of the alpha rays" (ibid.).
58. "The magnetic and electric deviation of the easily absorbed rays from radium" [Phys. Rev. XVI (3), 181-182 (1903)] under "Proceedings of the American Physical Society - Minutes of the Eighteenth Meeting." A footnote announces that "the minutes of all meetings of the American Physical Society and abstracts of papers presented to the Society will hereafter be published in the PHYSICAL REVIEW. The publication of the Bulletin of the American Physical Society has been discontinued." Rutherford continues with "Does the radioactivity of radon depend on its concentration?" [Phys. Rev. XVIII (2), 117-118 (1904)]; "The heating effects of the random emanation" (with H. T. Barnes, ibid., 118-120); "Radioactive charge" - an invited paper at a joint meeting with the International Electrical Congress [Phys. Rev. XIX (4), 298 (1904)] - the meeting was in September 1904 in St. Louis, but the talk is listed in the Physical Review Proceedings by title only; "Some properties of the alpha rays from Radium, II [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. XXII (2), 80-81 (1906); and "Magnetic and electric deviation of the alpha rays" (ibid.).
59. "The magnetic and electric deviation of the easily absorbed rays from radium" [Phys. Rev. XVI (3), 181-182 (1903)] under "Proceedings of the American Physical Society - Minutes of the Eighteenth Meeting." A footnote announces that "the minutes of all meetings of the American Physical Society and abstracts of papers presented to the Society will hereafter be published in the PHYSICAL REVIEW. The publication of the Bulletin of the American Physical Society has been discontinued." Rutherford continues with "Does the radioactivity of radon depend on its concentration?" [Phys. Rev. XVIII (2), 117-118 (1904)]; "The heating effects of the random emanation" (with H. T. Barnes, ibid., 118-120); "Radioactive charge" - an invited paper at a joint meeting with the International Electrical Congress [Phys. Rev. XIX (4), 298 (1904)] - the meeting was in September 1904 in St. Louis, but the talk is listed in the Physical Review Proceedings by title only; "Some properties of the alpha rays from Radium, II [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. XXII (2), 80-81 (1906); and "Magnetic and electric deviation of the alpha rays" (ibid.).
60. "The magnetic and electric deviation of the easily absorbed rays from radium" [Phys. Rev. XVI (3), 181-182 (1903)] under "Proceedings of the American Physical Society - Minutes of the Eighteenth Meeting." A footnote announces that "the minutes of all meetings of the American Physical Society and abstracts of papers presented to the Society will hereafter be published in the PHYSICAL REVIEW. The publication of the Bulletin of the American Physical Society has been discontinued." Rutherford continues with "Does the radioactivity of radon depend on its concentration?" [Phys. Rev. XVIII (2), 117-118 (1904)]; "The heating effects of the random emanation" (with H. T. Barnes, ibid., 118-120); "Radioactive charge" - an invited paper at a joint meeting with the International Electrical Congress [Phys. Rev. XIX (4), 298 (1904)] - the meeting was in September 1904 in St. Louis, but the talk is listed in the Physical Review Proceedings by title only; "Some properties of the alpha rays from Radium, II [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. XXII (2), 80-81 (1906); and "Magnetic and electric deviation of the alpha rays" (ibid.).
61. "The magnetic and electric deviation of the easily absorbed rays from radium" [Phys. Rev. XVI (3), 181-182 (1903)] under "Proceedings of the American Physical Society - Minutes of the Eighteenth Meeting." A footnote announces that "the minutes of all meetings of the American Physical Society and abstracts of papers presented to the Society will hereafter be published in the PHYSICAL REVIEW. The publication of the Bulletin of the American Physical Society has been discontinued." Rutherford continues with "Does the radioactivity of radon depend on its concentration?" [Phys. Rev. XVIII (2), 117-118 (1904)]; "The heating effects of the random emanation" (with H. T. Barnes, ibid., 118-120); "Radioactive charge" - an invited paper at a joint meeting with the International Electrical Congress [Phys. Rev. XIX (4), 298 (1904)] - the meeting was in September 1904 in St. Louis, but the talk is listed in the Physical Review Proceedings by title only; "Some properties of the alpha rays from Radium, II [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. XXII (2), 80-81 (1906); and "Magnetic and electric deviation of the alpha rays" (ibid.).
62. "The magnetic and electric deviation of the easily absorbed rays from radium" [Phys. Rev. XVI (3), 181-182 (1903)] under "Proceedings of the American Physical Society - Minutes of the Eighteenth Meeting." A footnote announces that "the minutes of all meetings of the American Physical Society and abstracts of papers presented to the Society will hereafter be published in the PHYSICAL REVIEW. The publication of the Bulletin of the American Physical Society has been discontinued." Rutherford continues with "Does the radioactivity of radon depend on its concentration?" [Phys. Rev. XVIII (2), 117-118 (1904)]; "The heating effects of the random emanation" (with H. T. Barnes, ibid., 118-120); "Radioactive charge" - an invited paper at a joint meeting with the International Electrical Congress [Phys. Rev. XIX (4), 298 (1904)] - the meeting was in September 1904 in St. Louis, but the talk is listed in the Physical Review Proceedings by title only; "Some properties of the alpha rays from Radium, II [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. XXII (2), 80-81 (1906); and "Magnetic and electric deviation of the alpha rays" (ibid.).
63. "The magnetic and electric deviation of the easily absorbed rays from radium" [Phys. Rev. XVI (3), 181-182 (1903)] under "Proceedings of the American Physical Society - Minutes of the Eighteenth Meeting." A footnote announces that "the minutes of all meetings of the American Physical Society and abstracts of papers presented to the Society will hereafter be published in the PHYSICAL REVIEW. The publication of the Bulletin of the American Physical Society has been discontinued." Rutherford continues with "Does the radioactivity of radon depend on its concentration?" [Phys. Rev. XVIII (2), 117-118 (1904)]; "The heating effects of the random emanation" (with H. T. Barnes, ibid., 118-120); "Radioactive charge" - an invited paper at a joint meeting with the International Electrical Congress [Phys. Rev. XIX (4), 298 (1904)] - the meeting was in September 1904 in St. Louis, but the talk is listed in the Physical Review Proceedings by title only; "Some properties of the alpha rays from Radium, II [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. XXII (2), 80-81 (1906); and "Magnetic and electric deviation of the alpha rays" (ibid.).
64. Phys. Rev XVI (3), 183 (1903).
65. Ibid., pp. 184-192.
66. "Report of progress in ruling diffraction gratings," Phys. Rev. XX (6), 389-390 (1905); "Reciprocal diffraction phenomena," ibid. 391 (1995); "Use of the concave mirror with diffraction gratings, ibid.
67. "Report of progress in ruling diffraction gratings," Phys. Rev. XX (6), 389-390 (1905); "Reciprocal diffraction phenomena," ibid. 391 (1995); "Use of the concave mirror with diffraction gratings, ibid.
68. "Report of progress in ruling diffraction gratings," Phys. Rev. XX (6), 389-390 (1905); "Reciprocal diffraction phenomena," ibid. 391 (1995); "Use of the concave mirror with diffraction gratings, ibid.
69. Phys. Rev. XXII (2), 122-123 (1906).
70. Phys. Rev. XXIV (2), 227 (1907).
71. Phys. Rev. XXIV (1), 116-118 (1907).
72. Phys. Rev. XXII (6), 318 (1906).
73. Phys. Rev. XXIV (4), 379 (1907).
74. Phys. Rev. XXII (2), 82-110 [it was a long talk] (1906).
75. Phys. Rev XXVI (96), 497-511 (1908).
76. At the meeting of the Society, in October 1899 - the one following the creation - all four papers were read by founding members, one by Rowland, one by Pupin, and two by Webster; in addition there was Rowland's presidential address. The following meeting, in December, featured a joint session with the American Mathematical Society which heard AMS President R. S. Woodward's address on the "Century's progress in applied mathematics" and a paper by Pupin on "The propagation of electric waves along non-uniform conductors." This time there were three contributed papers, by Rowland, Webster, and one non-founder, D. B. Brace. At the June 1900 meeting, which was joint with Section B of the AAAS, the number of papers reached sixteen, but the meeting thereafter again had only four. The 1901 joint meeting with AAAS had six papers, four of which were read either by title or by stand-ins; the location of the meeting at Denver (in the High School Building) - the first time that a meeting was not held at Columbia University - almost surely accounted for the dearth of papers and attendees. In 1902, back at Columbia, the Society, meeting alone, was able to muster fourteen papers. The 22nd meeting, in December 1903, was held at Central High School in St. Louis and attracted twelve papers. The 23rd meeting in February 1904, back at Columbia, had only six. The 24th meeting, in April 1904 in Washington, set a record with twenty papers; it was broken at the 26th meeting at the University of Pennsylvania in 1905, when twenty-nine papers were read. Columbia made a temporary come-back at the 28th meeting of April 1905, where thirty-seven papers were given, including the three by Michelson, but soon relaxed to its lower norm. The 33rd meeting in June 1906 was the first to be held at Cornell and attracted thirty-one abstracts. At the 34th meeting in December at the University of Chicago, which had twenty-one papers, a resolution was adopted "directing the attention of the Council to the desirability of holding a regular yearly meeting in Chicago." (Sixty years later, in the wake of the suppression of the anti Viet-Nam war demonstrations, members petitioned the Council not to hold its 1970 meeting in Chicago; see Sec. V.) That same month, the joint meeting with the AAAS meeting at Columbia set a new record of forty-five papers. The number fifty was reached at the 1907 meeting in Chicago, where papers were given over four days including New Year's eve and New Year's day.
77. The 1905 version of the APS Constitution and By-Laws and list of members, issued by the Society as a separate pamphlet while the Bulletin was not published (having been partially absorbed by The Physical Review), contains the announcement: "Members are...requested to state the time required for the presentation of each paper. If the time is not stated by the author the time announced on the program will be fifteen minutes." Volume I of the resumed Bulletin, for 1925-26, provides an interesting and informative picture of how the meetings had evolved from twenty years earlier, and how often and where they were held.
78. Phillips (Ref. 12, p. 224), citing APS Secretary (1923-1928) H. W. Webb, reports that "Millikan was especially adamant on the subject, but three days of sessions, eighteen papers per session, lasting until 6:00 p.m. on Saturday with no audience finally reconciled him."
79. This at the time practically unique fellowship program played an important role in furthering the development of the most promising American physicists and scientists in other fields. Being named a fellow not only conferred a signal honor on the recipients, but provided much needed resources.
80. The nature of cosmic rays was the subject of the longest and perhaps most heated debate at APS meetings, according to John Blewett (private communication, February 18, 1999) and other participants and listeners. The chief protagonists were Robert Millikan, W. F. G. Swann, and Arthur Compton (all presidents of the APS, in 1916-17, 1931-32, and 1934, respectively). All that was known for a long time was that cosmic rays were very energetic, but atlempts to identify their source yielded cryptic results. Speculations - some wild - about their nature and origin could therefore neither be proved nor disproved for many years. Millikan continued to insist that they were gamma radiation, even when Compton conclusively demonstrated that the intensity of the radiation depended on magnetic latitude. It took more than thirty years to discover its true nature: for the most part positively charged atomic nuclei arriving at the top of the atmosphere. Kevles (op. cit., pp. 179-180, 231-233, 236, and 240-242) has much of interest to say not only about the controversy, but also about the light it cast on the protagonists, and especially on the strong religious convictions of Millikan.
81. The nature of cosmic rays was the subject of the longest and perhaps most heated debate at APS meetings, according to John Blewett (private communication, February 18, 1999) and other participants and listeners. The chief protagonists were Robert Millikan, W. F. G. Swann, and Arthur Compton (all presidents of the APS, in 1916-17, 1931-32, and 1934, respectively). All that was known for a long time was that cosmic rays were very energetic, but atlempts to identify their source yielded cryptic results. Speculations - some wild - about their nature and origin could therefore neither be proved nor disproved for many years. Millikan continued to insist that they were gamma radiation, even when Compton conclusively demonstrated that the intensity of the radiation depended on magnetic latitude. It took more than thirty years to discover its true nature: for the most part positively charged atomic nuclei arriving at the top of the atmosphere. Kevles (op. cit., pp. 179-180, 231-233, 236, and 240-242) has much of interest to say not only about the controversy, but also about the light it cast on the protagonists, and especially on the strong religious convictions of Millikan.
82. 235 as the fissionable isotope, nor with the question whether the experimenters and Bohr announced their results first in print (in The Physical Review) or at an APS meeting. It is worth noting that in 1939 the delay between the submission of letters to The Physical Review and their appearance in print was easily short enough for the publication to have occurred first.
83. The abstract of the paper (given on April 27, 1939) by Booth, Dunning, and Slack, "Fission of uranium and production of delayed emission by slow neutron bombardment," Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 14 (2), 19 (1939), does not substantiate the interpretation of a statement by W. W. Havens, Jr. (Ref. 185) that Dunning et al. at that time demonstrated Uranium 235 to be the important isotope in fission. The abstract confines itself to announcing that the talk will give the range in air of fission products of uranium and the energy distribution of the fission products and reports the measured cross section of delayed neutron emissions after exposure to a strong neutron source to be 1/100 of the value for the fission cross section by slow neutrons. It references a letter to the editor that appeared on March 1, 1939 in The Physical Review by Andersen, Booth, Dunning, Fermi, Glasoe, and Slack ["The fission of uranium," Phys. Rev. 55 (5), 511-512 (1939)], which, in turn, contains the following sentence: "As suggested by Professor Bohr, a possible explanation [for the known fact of uranium having a sharp resonance for slow neutrons of about 25 ev that does not lead to fission but to the formation of
84. 235 as the fissionable isotope, nor with the question whether the experimenters and Bohr announced their results first in print (in The Physical Review) or at an APS meeting. It is worth noting that in 1939 the delay between the submission of letters to The Physical Review and their appearance in print was easily short enough for the publication to have occurred first.
85. 235 as the fissionable isotope, nor with the question whether the experimenters and Bohr announced their results first in print (in The Physical Review) or at an APS meeting. It is worth noting that in 1939 the delay between the submission of letters to The Physical Review and their appearance in print was easily short enough for the publication to have occurred first.
86. 235 as the fissionable isotope, nor with the question whether the experimenters and Bohr announced their results first in print (in The Physical Review) or at an APS meeting. It is worth noting that in 1939 the delay between the submission of letters to The Physical Review and their appearance in print was easily short enough for the publication to have occurred first.
87. The Committee consisted of Gregory Breit (chairman), Jesse W. Beams (who was to become APS's president in 1958), George Pegram (the APS treasurer whose term, from 1918 to 1957, spanned the time of his war-time service), and later, Eugene Wigner (APS President 1956), who was added at Breit's request. H. A. Barton of AIP was put in charge of the repository of secret papers; he carefully noted the date of receipt ot each paper (Ref. 12, p. 226), which was important for establishing priority when many of the papers were published after the War.
88. In his announcement of the meeting, Secretary K. K. Darrow wrote: "Those whose knowledge of the Society began after Pearl Harbor will be surprised at the magnitude of the program, which is a reminiscence of prewar days and a foreboding of the future. Gone are the times of small meetings with ample intervals for leisure and for discussion, which for the past three years have reminded our older members of the early days of the Society. It is no longer possible to arrange the papers so that everyone can hear everything in which he may be interested, and the Secretary can only hope that he came somewhere near to achieving the minimum amount of interference possible under the limitations of time" [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 21 (1), 3 (1946)].
89. For the benefit of very disengaged or very young readers, the editors of Physics Today found it necessary, in an excerpt from this article, to add the explanation that the term was "a droll reference to a week of raunchy round-the-clock rock concerts and nudity displays in 1969 that had no connection at all to scientific research" (Ref. 228, p. 30).
90. The program for the 1926 annual meeting includes an obvious crank abstract, "Theory of the magnetic nature of gravity" [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. I (5) (1925-26)].
91. In fact few "eccentric" abstracts are submitted and even fewer authors actually show up to give the papers. Usually they are slotted for the beginning or end of bona fide sessions, but occasionally they have been accorded a session of their own, under the rubric "Miscellaneous Topics." Those, like this writer, who have been importuned into chairing such sessions, tend to favor the distributional approach.
92. The New York Times, July 16-19, 1952. According to these reports, Peakes was "upset" because the APS had refused in 1949 to publish a pamphlet by him, entitled So You Love Physics. He had the work privately published and sent it to 6500 APS members. By 1952 he was convinced that his electronic theory held the key to prolonging human life. He went to the APS office to "kill some physicists," but found only the eighteen year old Eileen Fahey. He said that he hoped that "the shock of the murder" would draw attention to his ideas.
93. The New York Times, July 16-19, 1952. According to these reports, Peakes was "upset" because the APS had refused in 1949 to publish a pamphlet by him, entitled So You Love Physics. He had the work privately published and sent it to 6500 APS members. By 1952 he was convinced that his electronic theory held the key to prolonging human life. He went to the APS office to "kill some physicists," but found only the eighteen year old Eileen Fahey. He said that he hoped that "the shock of the murder" would draw attention to his ideas.
94. In the 1930's a single room in New York at the Hotel Pennsylvania cost $3.50 and prices were at that or an even lower level throughout the depression. After the War, hotel prices rose first slowly and, beginning in the 1980's, rapidly, and by the 1990's had reached three figures (before the decimal point) in the large cities of the East and West coasts. The 1999 Centennial Meeting was held in Atlanta, rather than in one of the historically and politically more appropriate locales, New York or Washington, because in Atlanta a room in the headquarters hotel could be obtained for "only" $131 per night. Official dinners in 1925-26 were $2.00, except for Washington, where they cost $2.50. (Washington seems to have been an expensive city even then.) For those who did not want to pay that much, the Bulletin also carried information on restaurants famous for (what would now be called) ethnic dishes: Thus, in New York, dinners at the Russian Tea Room were $0.75 and $0.95, while at Luchow's, the (then perhaps justly) famous German restaurant, dinner was $1.50. By the nineties, in order to keep the "banquet" at the Spring meeting going at all, APS was selling tickets at the subsidized price of $30.
95. At a meeting at the old New Yorker hotel in Manhattan in the late fifties, the author overheard two bellboys (as they were then called) commiserating about the lack of business, "I don't understand these guys," one said, "all they do is stand around all day and talk." "Yeah," replied the other, "and not one of them has asked me for a girl yet." And W. W. Havens remembers, when in 1987 the March meeting was held for the first (and last) time in Las Vegas, the local paper reported that, with the physicists in town, the casino take was the lowest in history [W. W. Havens, Jr. (private communication)]. We have been unable to document Havens' recollection, but si non è vero, è ben trovato.
96. At the Society's founding and for many years thereafter participation in APS's meetings had been free of charge. In 1952, the Society's Secretary, K. K. Darrow, announced that "a registration fee of one dollar will be requested. The parlous financial situation of the Society, of which our members are destined to hear more, requires this alteration" [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 27 (4), 3 (1952)]. In 1955 the fee was raised to two dollars for the annual meeting because, as Darrow explained a year later, "... what with the need of renting so capacious a hall as the Manhattan Center and of paying other expenses attendant on conventions in hotels [these meetings] are costly affairs" [Bull. Am. Phys Soc. II 1 (1), 1 (1956)]. In 1959, in an attempt to induce recalcitrant members to pay up, Darrow added, accurately, "To those acquainted with the fees of other societies [the two dollar charge] is more likely to appear absurdly small than unbearably large" [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. II 4 (1), 2 (1959)]. This demonstration of APS's frugality and restraint apparently did not move all attendees, for in 1962 Darrow had to become more insistent and even to threaten a (minor) sanction: "The registration fee stays at the modest figure of two dollars. We insist on registration and we do not accept messages to be posted [on the message board] from anyone who has not yet registered" [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. II 7 (1) (1962)]. By 1996 the least expensive registration (that for a regular member who sent in the fee sufficiently in advance) for a "general" meeting was $195. Students, retired members and otherwise unemployed members (i.e., those classes who had little prospect of having their fees covered by employers) were assessed much less. At that, APS's registration fees have remained smaller than those of many other professional associations. The Bulletin was also initially free. In 1925 an annual subscription, for the six issues, cost $1; by 1939 it had risen to $5. By the nineties, members had been given the opportunity to subscribe to the eight to ten issues individually, at prices ranging from $7 to $14 (for the massive March meeting issue, which in 1998 weighed 1.7 kg). In 1999, "domestic non-members" (i.e., libraries) could subscribe to the Bulletin for $470 for the year. With programs and abstracts available over the Internet, Bulletins were no longer mailed out in advance of meetings. However copies continued to be available, gratis, to registrants at the meetings.
97. At the Society's founding and for many years thereafter participation in APS's meetings had been free of charge. In 1952, the Society's Secretary, K. K. Darrow, announced that "a registration fee of one dollar will be requested. The parlous financial situation of the Society, of which our members are destined to hear more, requires this alteration" [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 27 (4), 3 (1952)]. In 1955 the fee was raised to two dollars for the annual meeting because, as Darrow explained a year later, "... what with the need of renting so capacious a hall as the Manhattan Center and of paying other expenses attendant on conventions in hotels [these meetings] are costly affairs" [Bull. Am. Phys Soc. II 1 (1), 1 (1956)]. In 1959, in an attempt to induce recalcitrant members to pay up, Darrow added, accurately, "To those acquainted with the fees of other societies [the two dollar charge] is more likely to appear absurdly small than unbearably large" [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. II 4 (1), 2 (1959)]. This demonstration of APS's frugality and restraint apparently did not move all attendees, for in 1962 Darrow had to become more insistent and even to threaten a (minor) sanction: "The registration fee stays at the modest figure of two dollars. We insist on registration and we do not accept messages to be posted [on the message board] from anyone who has not yet registered" [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. II 7 (1) (1962)]. By 1996 the least expensive registration (that for a regular member who sent in the fee sufficiently in advance) for a "general" meeting was $195. Students, retired members and otherwise unemployed members (i.e., those classes who had little prospect of having their fees covered by employers) were assessed much less. At that, APS's registration fees have remained smaller than those of many other professional associations. The Bulletin was also initially free. In 1925 an annual subscription, for the six issues, cost $1; by 1939 it had risen to $5. By the nineties, members had been given the opportunity to subscribe to the eight to ten issues individually, at prices ranging from $7 to $14 (for the massive March meeting issue, which in 1998 weighed 1.7 kg). In 1999, "domestic non-members" (i.e., libraries) could subscribe to the Bulletin for $470 for the year. With programs and abstracts available over the Internet, Bulletins were no longer mailed out in advance of meetings. However copies continued to be available, gratis, to registrants at the meetings.
98. At the Society's founding and for many years thereafter participation in APS's meetings had been free of charge. In 1952, the Society's Secretary, K. K. Darrow, announced that "a registration fee of one dollar will be requested. The parlous financial situation of the Society, of which our members are destined to hear more, requires this alteration" [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 27 (4), 3 (1952)]. In 1955 the fee was raised to two dollars for the annual meeting because, as Darrow explained a year later, "... what with the need of renting so capacious a hall as the Manhattan Center and of paying other expenses attendant on conventions in hotels [these meetings] are costly affairs" [Bull. Am. Phys Soc. II 1 (1), 1 (1956)]. In 1959, in an attempt to induce recalcitrant members to pay up, Darrow added, accurately, "To those acquainted with the fees of other societies [the two dollar charge] is more likely to appear absurdly small than unbearably large" [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. II 4 (1), 2 (1959)]. This demonstration of APS's frugality and restraint apparently did not move all attendees, for in 1962 Darrow had to become more insistent and even to threaten a (minor) sanction: "The registration fee stays at the modest figure of two dollars. We insist on registration and we do not accept messages to be posted [on the message board] from anyone who has not yet registered" [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. II 7 (1) (1962)]. By 1996 the least expensive registration (that for a regular member who sent in the fee sufficiently in advance) for a "general" meeting was $195. Students, retired members and otherwise unemployed members (i.e., those classes who had little prospect of having their fees covered by employers) were assessed much less. At that, APS's registration fees have remained smaller than those of many other professional associations. The Bulletin was also initially free. In 1925 an annual subscription, for the six issues, cost $1; by 1939 it had risen to $5. By the nineties, members had been given the opportunity to subscribe to the eight to ten issues individually, at prices ranging from $7 to $14 (for the massive March meeting issue, which in 1998 weighed 1.7 kg). In 1999, "domestic non-members" (i.e., libraries) could subscribe to the Bulletin for $470 for the year. With programs and abstracts available over the Internet, Bulletins were no longer mailed out in advance of meetings. However copies continued to be available, gratis, to registrants at the meetings.
99. At the Society's founding and for many years thereafter participation in APS's meetings had been free of charge. In 1952, the Society's Secretary, K. K. Darrow, announced that "a registration fee of one dollar will be requested. The parlous financial situation of the Society, of which our members are destined to hear more, requires this alteration" [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 27 (4), 3 (1952)]. In 1955 the fee was raised to two dollars for the annual meeting because, as Darrow explained a year later, "... what with the need of renting so capacious a hall as the Manhattan Center and of paying other expenses attendant on conventions in hotels [these meetings] are costly affairs" [Bull. Am. Phys Soc. II 1 (1), 1 (1956)]. In 1959, in an attempt to induce recalcitrant members to pay up, Darrow added, accurately, "To those acquainted with the fees of other societies [the two dollar charge] is more likely to appear absurdly small than unbearably large" [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. II 4 (1), 2 (1959)]. This demonstration of APS's frugality and restraint apparently did not move all attendees, for in 1962 Darrow had to become more insistent and even to threaten a (minor) sanction: "The registration fee stays at the modest figure of two dollars. We insist on registration and we do not accept messages to be posted [on the message board] from anyone who has not yet registered" [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. II 7 (1) (1962)]. By 1996 the least expensive registration (that for a regular member who sent in the fee sufficiently in advance) for a "general" meeting was $195. Students, retired members and otherwise unemployed members (i.e., those classes who had little prospect of having their fees covered by employers) were assessed much less. At that, APS's registration fees have remained smaller than those of many other professional associations. The Bulletin was also initially free. In 1925 an annual subscription, for the six issues, cost $1; by 1939 it had risen to $5. By the nineties, members had been given the opportunity to subscribe to the eight to ten issues individually, at prices ranging from $7 to $14 (for the massive March meeting issue, which in 1998 weighed 1.7 kg). In 1999, "domestic non-members" (i.e., libraries) could subscribe to the Bulletin for $470 for the year. With programs and abstracts available over the Internet, Bulletins were no longer mailed out in advance of meetings. However copies continued to be available, gratis, to registrants at the meetings.
100. Frederick Seitz, who had joined the Society in 1932 and served as its President in 1961, in a private communication (February 7, 2000) describes the creation of the March meeting: "...Everything changed at the end of the war...those of us who had been working in solid state physics missed the special atmosphere we had enjoyed... a group of six of us applied to [K.K.] Darrow in 1948...for an added set of meetings to be held in less frequented cities and devoted to affairs centered about solid state physics. They would have only one or two sessions...Darrow agreed and the new pattern started with great success, meetings being held at places like Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore. Graduate students were prominent [thanks to] Federal money, and many things were reviewed over a solitary bottle of beer in the evenings, much to the chagrin of the bartenders and waitresses. These idyllic conditions lasted for four or five years...the March meeting boomed..[and] finally came to be the gargantuan one." As early as 1952, Darrow had soured on the idea of the March meeting, recognizing its specialized and, to him, divisive nature, and he deplored the "diversion of contributed papers in electron physics and solid state physics to Divisional and other meetings... . The Annual Meeting is [therefore] coming to be dominated by nuclear physics and its generality is in danger of being lost" [Bull. Am. Phys Soc. 27 (1), (1952)]. By 1962 he was more specific: "The 'March' meeting, though in principle a general meeting of the Society, is practically a congress of three divisions of the Society - ...the Division of High Polymer Physics, the Division of Solid State Physics, and the Division of Chemical Physics. This year, only one of its forty-five sessions...lies outside the fields of all three" [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. II 7 (1) (1962)]. Other divisions had been holding their own separate meetings since the fifties, but they apparently went unrecognized by the Bulletin until 1963, when the notices of meetings to come included announcements of the Fifth [emphasis added] Annual Meeting of the Division of Plasma Physics, and of the Annual Meeting of the Division of Fluid Dynamics.
101. Frederick Seitz, who had joined the Society in 1932 and served as its President in 1961, in a private communication (February 7, 2000) describes the creation of the March meeting: "...Everything changed at the end of the war...those of us who had been working in solid state physics missed the special atmosphere we had enjoyed... a group of six of us applied to [K.K.] Darrow in 1948...for an added set of meetings to be held in less frequented cities and devoted to affairs centered about solid state physics. They would have only one or two sessions...Darrow agreed and the new pattern started with great success, meetings being held at places like Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore. Graduate students were prominent [thanks to] Federal money, and many things were reviewed over a solitary bottle of beer in the evenings, much to the chagrin of the bartenders and waitresses. These idyllic conditions lasted for four or five years...the March meeting boomed..[and] finally came to be the gargantuan one." As early as 1952, Darrow had soured on the idea of the March meeting, recognizing its specialized and, to him, divisive nature, and he deplored the "diversion of contributed papers in electron physics and solid state physics to Divisional and other meetings... . The Annual Meeting is [therefore] coming to be dominated by nuclear physics and its generality is in danger of being lost" [Bull. Am. Phys Soc. 27 (1), (1952)]. By 1962 he was more specific: "The 'March' meeting, though in principle a general meeting of the Society, is practically a congress of three divisions of the Society - ...the Division of High Polymer Physics, the Division of Solid State Physics, and the Division of Chemical Physics. This year, only one of its forty-five sessions...lies outside the fields of all three" [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. II 7 (1) (1962)]. Other divisions had been holding their own separate meetings since the fifties, but they apparently went unrecognized by the Bulletin until 1963, when the notices of meetings to come included announcements of the Fifth [emphasis added] Annual Meeting of the Division of Plasma Physics, and of the Annual Meeting of the Division of Fluid Dynamics.
102. Frederick Seitz, who had joined the Society in 1932 and served as its President in 1961, in a private communication (February 7, 2000) describes the creation of the March meeting: "...Everything changed at the end of the war...those of us who had been working in solid state physics missed the special atmosphere we had enjoyed... a group of six of us applied to [K.K.] Darrow in 1948...for an added set of meetings to be held in less frequented cities and devoted to affairs centered about solid state physics. They would have only one or two sessions...Darrow agreed and the new pattern started with great success, meetings being held at places like Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore. Graduate students were prominent [thanks to] Federal money, and many things were reviewed over a solitary bottle of beer in the evenings, much to the chagrin of the bartenders and waitresses. These idyllic conditions lasted for four or five years...the March meeting boomed..[and] finally came to be the gargantuan one." As early as 1952, Darrow had soured on the idea of the March meeting, recognizing its specialized and, to him, divisive nature, and he deplored the "diversion of contributed papers in electron physics and solid state physics to Divisional and other meetings... . The Annual Meeting is [therefore] coming to be dominated by nuclear physics and its generality is in danger of being lost" [Bull. Am. Phys Soc. 27 (1), (1952)]. By 1962 he was more specific: "The 'March' meeting, though in principle a general meeting of the Society, is practically a congress of three divisions of the Society - ...the Division of High Polymer Physics, the Division of Solid State Physics, and the Division of Chemical Physics. This year, only one of its forty-five sessions...lies outside the fields of all three" [Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. II 7 (1) (1962)]. Other divisions had been holding their own separate meetings since the fifties, but they apparently went unrecognized by the Bulletin until 1963, when the notices of meetings to come included announcements of the Fifth [emphasis added] Annual Meeting of the Division of Plasma Physics, and of the Annual Meeting of the Division of Fluid Dynamics.
103. One measure to help assure better communication and help reduce alienation from the Society was taken in 1987, when Executive Secretary W. W. Havens, Jr. and Treasurer Harry Lustig instituted an annual "unit convocation" at headquarters, to which the chairs and secretary-treasurers of the divisions, topical groups, forums, and sections are invited.
104. Kevles, op. cit., p. 40.
105. Ibid, p. 81.
106. The first few volumes contain reviews of books by such scientists as Mach, Ostwald, J. J. Thomson, Nernst, Heaviside, Poincaré, Helmholtz, Pascal, and Rayleigh. Vol. XII (4), 254-256 (1901) carries an extensive review of the Festschrift ("livre jubilaire") for H. A. Lorentz on the twenty-fifth anniversary of his having received the doctor's degree. It contains contributions by Wien, Planck, Poincaré, Wiechert, Thomson, Boltzmann, Rayleigh, and others. The reviewers, for the most part Nichols and Merrill, evidently had no problems with the untranslated German and French works in their original languages.
107. Phys. Rev. 2, 109-124, 133, 136-143 (1913). Millikan's first publication in The Physical Review had occurred in 1896 when he was a graduate student; it was a study of the polarization of the light emitted by incandescent solid and liquid surfaces [Phys. Rev. III, 81-98 (1896)]. (Volumes of the journal were designated with Roman numerals before the take-over by the APS in 1913; at that time a new series, labeled with Arabic numerals, was begun). Another group of interesting papers, from the pre-APS period, were those by E. F. Nichols and G. F. Hull on the pressure of heat and light radiation [Phys Rev. XIII, 307-308, 317-320 (1901); XV, 26-50, 91-104 (1903)].
108. Phys. Rev. 2, 109-124, 133, 136-143 (1913). Millikan's first publication in The Physical Review had occurred in 1896 when he was a graduate student; it was a study of the polarization of the light emitted by incandescent solid and liquid surfaces [Phys. Rev. III, 81-98 (1896)]. (Volumes of the journal were designated with Roman numerals before the take-over by the APS in 1913; at that time a new series, labeled with Arabic numerals, was begun). Another group of interesting papers, from the pre-APS period, were those by E. F. Nichols and G. F. Hull on the pressure of heat and light radiation [Phys Rev. XIII, 307-308, 317-320 (1901); XV, 26-50, 91-104 (1903)].
109. Phys. Rev. 2, 109-124, 133, 136-143 (1913). Millikan's first publication in The Physical Review had occurred in 1896 when he was a graduate student; it was a study of the polarization of the light emitted by incandescent solid and liquid surfaces [Phys. Rev. III, 81-98 (1896)]. (Volumes of the journal were designated with Roman numerals before the take-over by the APS in 1913; at that time a new series, labeled with Arabic numerals, was begun). Another group of interesting papers, from the pre-APS period, were those by E. F. Nichols and G. F. Hull on the pressure of heat and light radiation [Phys Rev. XIII, 307-308, 317-320 (1901); XV, 26-50, 91-104 (1903)].
110. Phys. Rev. 2, 109-124, 133, 136-143 (1913). Millikan's first publication in The Physical Review had occurred in 1896 when he was a graduate student; it was a study of the polarization of the light emitted by incandescent solid and liquid surfaces [Phys. Rev. III, 81-98 (1896)]. (Volumes of the journal were designated with Roman numerals before the take-over by the APS in 1913; at that time a new series, labeled with Arabic numerals, was begun). Another group of interesting papers, from the pre-APS period, were those by E. F. Nichols and G. F. Hull on the pressure of heat and light radiation [Phys Rev. XIII, 307-308, 317-320 (1901); XV, 26-50, 91-104 (1903)].
111. Phys. Rev. 2, 109-124, 133, 136-143 (1913). Millikan's first publication in The Physical Review had occurred in 1896 when he was a graduate student; it was a study of the polarization of the light emitted by incandescent solid and liquid surfaces [Phys. Rev. III, 81-98 (1896)]. (Volumes of the journal were designated with Roman numerals before the take-over by the APS in 1913; at that time a new series, labeled with Arabic numerals, was begun). Another group of interesting papers, from the pre-APS period, were those by E. F. Nichols and G. F. Hull on the pressure of heat and light radiation [Phys Rev. XIII, 307-308, 317-320 (1901); XV, 26-50, 91-104 (1903)].
112. Phys. Rev. 21, 483-502 (1923).
113. Phys. Rev. 30, 705-740 (1927).
114. Phys. Rev. 34, 1293-1322 (1929).
115. Phys. Rev. XXV, 31-38, 60 (1907).
116. Phys. Rev. 2, 409-410, 415-416, 430 (1913).
117. Phys. Rev. 2, 450-457, 485-486 (1913). The editors and contributors to the Stroke volume (Ref. 101) selected fifteen articles that were published in The Physical Review before 1930 for inclusion among the 200 reprinted articles. Unsurprisingly, nine of these and all four from the first two decades fall into the category "Science and Technology." Among another 800 articles, reproduced on a CD ROM, there are forty-five dating from before 1930. The book and disk, although entitled THE PHYSICAL REVIEW - The First Hundred Years, actually covers, with a few exceptions, only the first nine decades. The total number of articles published in The Physical Review before 1930 was about one-thirtieth of that published since then. For example, twenty articles were published in the first year, by 1913 the count had risen to only seventy-five; by 1933 it had reached 480 articles and letters; in 1953 it was 1423; in 1973 it was 4654; and by 1993 it reached 11,698. The last two numbers include the by then separate Physical Review Letters. (Figure 5 shows the numbers of articles received and published annually by the Physical Review and Physical Review Letters since 1963.) Fifteen pre-1930 papers among the 200 selected for reprinting from the entire ninety-year period is thus not only a respectable, but a disproportionately impressive showing. The higher percentage of articles deemed worthy of preservation may seem, at first sight, to invalidate the conclusion that in its early years The Physical Review occupied a less important place among physics journals than after 1930. Putting aside the unlikely possibility that the editors of the book used more lenient selection criteria for the early period, this seeming inconsistency is resolved by noting that the standing of a journal is judged by the number and the fraction of the world's important papers published in it. By these two measures, the later Physical Review is a clear winner, in spite of the fact that the ratio of important to total articles appearing in the Physical Review judged important is smaller than in earlier years. The large number of ephemeral papers published is cited in justification by those who advocate more stringent acceptance criteria as an act of mercy toward the journal's overloaded readers and financially strapped library purchasers.
118. Phys. Rev. 2, 450-457, 485-486 (1913). The editors and contributors to the Stroke volume (Ref. 101) selected fifteen articles that were published in The Physical Review before 1930 for inclusion among the 200 reprinted articles. Unsurprisingly, nine of these and all four from the first two decades fall into the category "Science and Technology." Among another 800 articles, reproduced on a CD ROM, there are forty-five dating from before 1930. The book and disk, although entitled THE PHYSICAL REVIEW - The First Hundred Years, actually covers, with a few exceptions, only the first nine decades. The total number of articles published in The Physical Review before 1930 was about one-thirtieth of that published since then. For example, twenty articles were published in the first year, by 1913 the count had risen to only seventy-five; by 1933 it had reached 480 articles and letters; in 1953 it was 1423; in 1973 it was 4654; and by 1993 it reached 11,698. The last two numbers include the by then separate Physical Review Letters. (Figure 5 shows the numbers of articles received and published annually by the Physical Review and Physical Review Letters since 1963.) Fifteen pre-1930 papers among the 200 selected for reprinting from the entire ninety-year period is thus not only a respectable, but a disproportionately impressive showing. The higher percentage of articles deemed worthy of preservation may seem, at first sight, to invalidate the conclusion that in its early years The Physical Review occupied a less important place among physics journals than after 1930. Putting aside the unlikely possibility that the editors of the book used more lenient selection criteria for the early period, this seeming inconsistency is resolved by noting that the standing of a journal is judged by the number and the fraction of the world's important papers published in it. By these two measures, the later Physical Review is a clear winner, in spite of the fact that the ratio of important to total articles appearing in the Physical Review judged important is smaller than in earlier years. The large number of ephemeral papers published is cited in justification by those who advocate more stringent acceptance criteria as an act of mercy toward the journal's overloaded readers and financially strapped library purchasers.
119. Phys. Rev. 2, 450-457, 485-486 (1913). The editors and contributors to the Stroke volume (Ref. 101) selected fifteen articles that were published in The Physical Review before 1930 for inclusion among the 200 reprinted articles. Unsurprisingly, nine of these and all four from the first two decades fall into the category "Science and Technology." Among another 800 articles, reproduced on a CD ROM, there are forty-five dating from before 1930. The book and disk, although entitled THE PHYSICAL REVIEW - The First Hundred Years, actually covers, with a few exceptions, only the first nine decades. The total number of articles published in The Physical Review before 1930 was about one-thirtieth of that published since then. For example, twenty articles were published in the first year, by 1913 the count had risen to only seventy-five; by 1933 it had reached 480 articles and letters; in 1953 it was 1423; in 1973 it was 4654; and by 1993 it reached 11,698. The last two numbers include the by then separate Physical Review Letters. (Figure 5 shows the numbers of articles received and published annually by the Physical Review and Physical Review Letters since 1963.) Fifteen pre-1930 papers among the 200 selected for reprinting from the entire ninety-year period is thus not only a respectable, but a disproportionately impressive showing. The higher percentage of articles deemed worthy of preservation may seem, at first sight, to invalidate the conclusion that in its early years The Physical Review occupied a less important place among physics journals than after 1930. Putting aside the unlikely possibility that the editors of the book used more lenient selection criteria for the early period, this seeming inconsistency is resolved by noting that the standing of a journal is judged by the number and the fraction of the world's important papers published in it. By these two measures, the later Physical Review is a clear winner, in spite of the fact that the ratio of important to total articles appearing in the Physical Review judged important is smaller than in earlier years. The large number of ephemeral papers published is cited in justification by those who advocate more stringent acceptance criteria as an act of mercy toward the journal's overloaded readers and financially strapped library purchasers.
120. Phys. Rev. 2, 450-457, 485-486 (1913). The editors and contributors to the Stroke volume (Ref. 101) selected fifteen articles that were published in The Physical Review before 1930 for inclusion among the 200 reprinted articles. Unsurprisingly, nine of these and all four from the first two decades fall into the category "Science and Technology." Among another 800 articles, reproduced on a CD ROM, there are forty-five dating from before 1930. The book and disk, although entitled THE PHYSICAL REVIEW - The First Hundred Years, actually covers, with a few exceptions, only the first nine decades. The total number of articles published in The Physical Review before 1930 was about one-thirtieth of that published since then. For example, twenty articles were published in the first year, by 1913 the count had risen to only seventy-five; by 1933 it had reached 480 articles and letters; in 1953 it was 1423; in 1973 it was 4654; and by 1993 it reached 11,698. The last two numbers include the by then separate Physical Review Letters. (Figure 5 shows the numbers of articles received and published annually by the Physical Review and Physical Review Letters since 1963.) Fifteen pre-1930 papers among the 200 selected for reprinting from the entire ninety-year period is thus not only a respectable, but a disproportionately impressive showing. The higher percentage of articles deemed worthy of preservation may seem, at first sight, to invalidate the conclusion that in its early years The Physical Review occupied a less important place among physics journals than after 1930. Putting aside the unlikely possibility that the editors of the book used more lenient selection criteria for the early period, this seeming inconsistency is resolved by noting that the standing of a journal is judged by the number and the fraction of the world's important papers published in it. By these two measures, the later Physical Review is a clear winner, in spite of the fact that the ratio of important to total articles appearing in the Physical Review judged important is smaller than in earlier years. The large number of ephemeral papers published is cited in justification by those who advocate more stringent acceptance criteria as an act of mercy toward the journal's overloaded readers and financially strapped library purchasers.
121. The Physical Review may have benefitted even before their arrival: Victor Weisskopf reports (Ref. 101, p. 12) that his first paper in The Physical Review was submitted in 1936, while he was still in Europe. "I thought my chance of getting a job in the U.S. would be enhanced if I published a paper in the Physical Review on a topic of special interest in the U.S. [Niels] Bohr visited the U.S. every year to 'sell his refugees.' "
122. The Physical Review may have benefitted even before their arrival: Victor Weisskopf reports (Ref. 101, p. 12) that his first paper in The Physical Review was submitted in 1936, while he was still in Europe. "I thought my chance of getting a job in the U.S. would be enhanced if I published a paper in the Physical Review on a topic of special interest in the U.S. [Niels] Bohr visited the U.S. every year to 'sell his refugees.' "
123. A sample of important Physical Review articles and letters of the thirties includes: R. J. Van De Graaff, "A 1,500,000 volt electrostatic generator" [38, 1919-1920 (1931)]; G. Breit and I. I. Rabi, "Measurement of nuclear spin" [38, 2082-2083 (1931)]; L. Onsager, "Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes" [38, 2265-2279 (1931)]; H. C. Urey, F. G. Brickwedde, and G. M. Murphy, "A heavy Hydrogen isotope of mass 2 and its concentration" [40, 1-15 (1932)]; E. O. Lawrence and M. S. Livingston, "The production of high speed light ions without the use of high voltages" [40, 19-35 (1932)] - in fact the invention of the cyclotron; A. H. Compton, "A geographic study of cosmic rays" [43, 387-403 (1933)]; C. D. Anderson, "The positive electron" [43, 491-494 (1933)]; E: Wigner and F. Seitz, "On the constitution of metallic sodium" [43, 804-810 (1933)] - an early classic solid state paper; Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, "Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be complete?" [47, 777-780 (1935)] - the famous EPR paradox paper - and Niels Bohr's answer to it, under the same title [48, 696-702 (1935)]; G. Breit and E. Wigner, "Capture of slow neutrons" [49, 519-531 (1936)]; I. I. Rabi, J. R. Zacharias, S. Millman, and P. Kusch, "A new method of measuring nuclear magnetic moment" [53, 318 (1938)]; P. A. Cerenkov, "Visible radiation produced by electrons in a medium with velocities exceeding that of light" [52, 378-379 (1937)] - the first observation of the phenomenon following the theory of Frank and Tamm; J. M. B. Kellogg, I. I. Rabi, N. F. Ramsey, Jr., and J. R. Kellogg, "An electrical quadrupole moment of the deuteron" [55, 318-319 (1939)]; H. A. Bethe, "Energy production in stars" [55, 103 (1939)]; and, of course, N. Bohr and J. A. Wheeler, "The mechanism of nuclear fission" [56, 426-450 (1939)].
124. A sample of important Physical Review articles and letters of the thirties includes: R. J. Van De Graaff, "A 1,500,000 volt electrostatic generator" [38, 1919-1920 (1931)]; G. Breit and I. I. Rabi, "Measurement of nuclear spin" [38, 2082-2083 (1931)]; L. Onsager, "Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes" [38, 2265-2279 (1931)]; H. C. Urey, F. G. Brickwedde, and G. M. Murphy, "A heavy Hydrogen isotope of mass 2 and its concentration" [40, 1-15 (1932)]; E. O. Lawrence and M. S. Livingston, "The production of high speed light ions without the use of high voltages" [40, 19-35 (1932)] - in fact the invention of the cyclotron; A. H. Compton, "A geographic study of cosmic rays" [43, 387-403 (1933)]; C. D. Anderson, "The positive electron" [43, 491-494 (1933)]; E: Wigner and F. Seitz, "On the constitution of metallic sodium" [43, 804-810 (1933)] - an early classic solid state paper; Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, "Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be complete?" [47, 777-780 (1935)] - the famous EPR paradox paper - and Niels Bohr's answer to it, under the same title [48, 696-702 (1935)]; G. Breit and E. Wigner, "Capture of slow neutrons" [49, 519-531 (1936)]; I. I. Rabi, J. R. Zacharias, S. Millman, and P. Kusch, "A new method of measuring nuclear magnetic moment" [53, 318 (1938)]; P. A. Cerenkov, "Visible radiation produced by electrons in a medium with velocities exceeding that of light" [52, 378-379 (1937)] - the first observation of the phenomenon following the theory of Frank and Tamm; J. M. B. Kellogg, I. I. Rabi, N. F. Ramsey, Jr., and J. R. Kellogg, "An electrical quadrupole moment of the deuteron" [55, 318-319 (1939)]; H. A. Bethe, "Energy production in stars" [55, 103 (1939)]; and, of course, N. Bohr and J. A. Wheeler, "The mechanism of nuclear fission" [56, 426-450 (1939)].
125. A sample of important Physical Review articles and letters of the thirties includes: R. J. Van De Graaff, "A 1,500,000 volt electrostatic generator" [38, 1919-1920 (1931)]; G. Breit and I. I. Rabi, "Measurement of nuclear spin" [38, 2082-2083 (1931)]; L. Onsager, "Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes" [38, 2265-2279 (1931)]; H. C. Urey, F. G. Brickwedde, and G. M. Murphy, "A heavy Hydrogen isotope of mass 2 and its concentration" [40, 1-15 (1932)]; E. O. Lawrence and M. S. Livingston, "The production of high speed light ions without the use of high voltages" [40, 19-35 (1932)] - in fact the invention of the cyclotron; A. H. Compton, "A geographic study of cosmic rays" [43, 387-403 (1933)]; C. D. Anderson, "The positive electron" [43, 491-494 (1933)]; E: Wigner and F. Seitz, "On the constitution of metallic sodium" [43, 804-810 (1933)] - an early classic solid state paper; Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, "Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be complete?" [47, 777-780 (1935)] - the famous EPR paradox paper - and Niels Bohr's answer to it, under the same title [48, 696-702 (1935)]; G. Breit and E. Wigner, "Capture of slow neutrons" [49, 519-531 (1936)]; I. I. Rabi, J. R. Zacharias, S. Millman, and P. Kusch, "A new method of measuring nuclear magnetic moment" [53, 318 (1938)]; P. A. Cerenkov, "Visible radiation produced by electrons in a medium with velocities exceeding that of light" [52, 378-379 (1937)] - the first observation of the phenomenon following the theory of Frank and Tamm; J. M. B. Kellogg, I. I. Rabi, N. F. Ramsey, Jr., and J. R. Kellogg, "An electrical quadrupole moment of the deuteron" [55, 318-319 (1939)]; H. A. Bethe, "Energy production in stars" [55, 103 (1939)]; and, of course, N. Bohr and J. A. Wheeler, "The mechanism of nuclear fission" [56, 426-450 (1939)].
126. A sample of important Physical Review articles and letters of the thirties includes: R. J. Van De Graaff, "A 1,500,000 volt electrostatic generator" [38, 1919-1920 (1931)]; G. Breit and I. I. Rabi, "Measurement of nuclear spin" [38, 2082-2083 (1931)]; L. Onsager, "Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes" [38, 2265-2279 (1931)]; H. C. Urey, F. G. Brickwedde, and G. M. Murphy, "A heavy Hydrogen isotope of mass 2 and its concentration" [40, 1-15 (1932)]; E. O. Lawrence and M. S. Livingston, "The production of high speed light ions without the use of high voltages" [40, 19-35 (1932)] - in fact the invention of the cyclotron; A. H. Compton, "A geographic study of cosmic rays" [43, 387-403 (1933)]; C. D. Anderson, "The positive electron" [43, 491-494 (1933)]; E: Wigner and F. Seitz, "On the constitution of metallic sodium" [43, 804-810 (1933)] - an early classic solid state paper; Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, "Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be complete?" [47, 777-780 (1935)] - the famous EPR paradox paper - and Niels Bohr's answer to it, under the same title [48, 696-702 (1935)]; G. Breit and E. Wigner, "Capture of slow neutrons" [49, 519-531 (1936)]; I. I. Rabi, J. R. Zacharias, S. Millman, and P. Kusch, "A new method of measuring nuclear magnetic moment" [53, 318 (1938)]; P. A. Cerenkov, "Visible radiation produced by electrons in a medium with velocities exceeding that of light" [52, 378-379 (1937)] - the first observation of the phenomenon following the theory of Frank and Tamm; J. M. B. Kellogg, I. I. Rabi, N. F. Ramsey, Jr., and J. R. Kellogg, "An electrical quadrupole moment of the deuteron" [55, 318-319 (1939)]; H. A. Bethe, "Energy production in stars" [55, 103 (1939)]; and, of course, N. Bohr and J. A. Wheeler, "The mechanism of nuclear fission" [56, 426-450 (1939)].
127. A sample of important Physical Review articles and letters of the thirties includes: R. J. Van De Graaff, "A 1,500,000 volt electrostatic generator" [38, 1919-1920 (1931)]; G. Breit and I. I. Rabi, "Measurement of nuclear spin" [38, 2082-2083 (1931)]; L. Onsager, "Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes" [38, 2265-2279 (1931)]; H. C. Urey, F. G. Brickwedde, and G. M. Murphy, "A heavy Hydrogen isotope of mass 2 and its concentration" [40, 1-15 (1932)]; E. O. Lawrence and M. S. Livingston, "The production of high speed light ions without the use of high voltages" [40, 19-35 (1932)] - in fact the invention of the cyclotron; A. H. Compton, "A geographic study of cosmic rays" [43, 387-403 (1933)]; C. D. Anderson, "The positive electron" [43, 491-494 (1933)]; E: Wigner and F. Seitz, "On the constitution of metallic sodium" [43, 804-810 (1933)] - an early classic solid state paper; Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, "Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be complete?" [47, 777-780 (1935)] - the famous EPR paradox paper - and Niels Bohr's answer to it, under the same title [48, 696-702 (1935)]; G. Breit and E. Wigner, "Capture of slow neutrons" [49, 519-531 (1936)]; I. I. Rabi, J. R. Zacharias, S. Millman, and P. Kusch, "A new method of measuring nuclear magnetic moment" [53, 318 (1938)]; P. A. Cerenkov, "Visible radiation produced by electrons in a medium with velocities exceeding that of light" [52, 378-379 (1937)] - the first observation of the phenomenon following the theory of Frank and Tamm; J. M. B. Kellogg, I. I. Rabi, N. F. Ramsey, Jr., and J. R. Kellogg, "An electrical quadrupole moment of the deuteron" [55, 318-319 (1939)]; H. A. Bethe, "Energy production in stars" [55, 103 (1939)]; and, of course, N. Bohr and J. A. Wheeler, "The mechanism of nuclear fission" [56, 426-450 (1939)].
128. A sample of important Physical Review articles and letters of the thirties includes: R. J. Van De Graaff, "A 1,500,000 volt electrostatic generator" [38, 1919-1920 (1931)]; G. Breit and I. I. Rabi, "Measurement of nuclear spin" [38, 2082-2083 (1931)]; L. Onsager, "Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes" [38, 2265-2279 (1931)]; H. C. Urey, F. G. Brickwedde, and G. M. Murphy, "A heavy Hydrogen isotope of mass 2 and its concentration" [40, 1-15 (1932)]; E. O. Lawrence and M. S. Livingston, "The production of high speed light ions without the use of high voltages" [40, 19-35 (1932)] - in fact the invention of the cyclotron; A. H. Compton, "A geographic study of cosmic rays" [43, 387-403 (1933)]; C. D. Anderson, "The positive electron" [43, 491-494 (1933)]; E: Wigner and F. Seitz, "On the constitution of metallic sodium" [43, 804-810 (1933)] - an early classic solid state paper; Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, "Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be complete?" [47, 777-780 (1935)] - the famous EPR paradox paper - and Niels Bohr's answer to it, under the same title [48, 696-702 (1935)]; G. Breit and E. Wigner, "Capture of slow neutrons" [49, 519-531 (1936)]; I. I. Rabi, J. R. Zacharias, S. Millman, and P. Kusch, "A new method of measuring nuclear magnetic moment" [53, 318 (1938)]; P. A. Cerenkov, "Visible radiation produced by electrons in a medium with velocities exceeding that of light" [52, 378-379 (1937)] - the first observation of the phenomenon following the theory of Frank and Tamm; J. M. B. Kellogg, I. I. Rabi, N. F. Ramsey, Jr., and J. R. Kellogg, "An electrical quadrupole moment of the deuteron" [55, 318-319 (1939)]; H. A. Bethe, "Energy production in stars" [55, 103 (1939)]; and, of course, N. Bohr and J. A. Wheeler, "The mechanism of nuclear fission" [56, 426-450 (1939)].
129. A sample of important Physical Review articles and letters of the thirties includes: R. J. Van De Graaff, "A 1,500,000 volt electrostatic generator" [38, 1919-1920 (1931)]; G. Breit and I. I. Rabi, "Measurement of nuclear spin" [38, 2082-2083 (1931)]; L. Onsager, "Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes" [38, 2265-2279 (1931)]; H. C. Urey, F. G. Brickwedde, and G. M. Murphy, "A heavy Hydrogen isotope of mass 2 and its concentration" [40, 1-15 (1932)]; E. O. Lawrence
130. A sample of important Physical Review articles and letters of the thirties includes: R. J. Van De Graaff, "A 1,500,000 volt electrostatic generator" [38, 1919-1920 (1931)]; G. Breit and I. I. Rabi, "Measurement of nuclear spin" [38, 2082-2083 (1931)]; L. Onsager, "Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes" [38, 2265-2279 (1931)]; H. C. Urey, F. G. Brickwedde, and G. M. Murphy, "A heavy Hydrogen isotope of mass 2 and its concentration" [40, 1-15 (1932)]; E. O. Lawrence and M. S. Livingston, "The production of high speed light ions without the use of high voltages" [40, 19-35 (1932)] - in fact the invention of the cyclotron; A. H. Compton, "A geographic study of cosmic rays" [43, 387-403 (1933)]; C. D. Anderson, "The positive electron" [43, 491-494 (1933)]; E: Wigner and F. Seitz, "On the constitution of metallic sodium" [43, 804-810 (1933)] - an early classic solid state paper; Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, "Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be complete?" [47, 777-780 (1935)] - the famous EPR paradox paper - and Niels Bohr's answer to it, under the same title [48, 696-702 (1935)]; G. Breit and E. Wigner, "Capture of slow neutrons" [49, 519-531 (1936)]; I. I. Rabi, J. R. Zacharias, S. Millman, and P. Kusch, "A new method of measuring nuclear magnetic moment" [53, 318 (1938)]; P. A. Cerenkov, "Visible radiation produced by electrons in a medium with velocities exceeding that of light" [52, 378-379 (1937)] - the first observation of the phenomenon following the theory of Frank and Tamm; J. M. B. Kellogg, I. I. Rabi, N. F. Ramsey, Jr., and J. R. Kellogg, "An electrical quadrupole moment of the deuteron" [55, 318-319 (1939)]; H. A. Bethe, "Energy production in stars" [55, 103 (1939)]; and, of course, N. Bohr and J. A. Wheeler, "The mechanism of nuclear fission" [56, 426-450 (1939)].
131. A sample of important Physical Review articles and letters of the thirties includes: R. J. Van De Graaff, "A 1,500,000 volt electrostatic generator" [38, 1919-1920 (1931)]; G. Breit and I. I. Rabi, "Measurement of nuclear spin" [38, 2082-2083 (1931)]; L. Onsager, "Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes" [38, 2265-2279 (1931)]; H. C. Urey, F. G. Brickwedde, and G. M. Murphy, "A heavy Hydrogen isotope of mass 2 and its concentration" [40, 1-15 (1932)]; E. O. Lawrence and M. S. Livingston, "The production of high speed light ions without the use of high voltages" [40, 19-35 (1932)] - in fact the invention of the cyclotron; A. H. Compton, "A geographic study of cosmic rays" [43, 387-403 (1933)]; C. D. Anderson, "The positive electron" [43, 491-494 (1933)]; E: Wigner and F. Seitz, "On the constitution of metallic sodium" [43, 804-810 (1933)] - an early classic solid state paper; Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, "Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be complete?" [47, 777-780 (1935)] - the famous EPR paradox paper - and Niels Bohr's answer to it, under the same title [48, 696-702 (1935)]; G. Breit and E. Wigner, "Capture of slow neutrons" [49, 519-531 (1936)]; I. I. Rabi, J. R. Zacharias, S. Millman, and P. Kusch, "A new method of measuring nuclear magnetic moment" [53, 318 (1938)]; P. A. Cerenkov, "Visible radiation produced by electrons in a medium with velocities exceeding that of light" [52, 378-379 (1937)] - the first observation of the phenomenon following the theory of Frank and Tamm; J. M. B. Kellogg, I. I. Rabi, N. F. Ramsey, Jr., and J. R. Kellogg, "An electrical quadrupole moment of the deuteron" [55, 318-319 (1939)]; H. A. Bethe, "Energy production in stars" [55, 103 (1939)]; and, of course, N. Bohr and J. A. Wheeler, "The mechanism of nuclear fission" [56, 426-450 (1939)].
132. A sample of important Physical Review articles and letters of the thirties includes: R. J. Van De Graaff, "A 1,500,000 volt electrostatic generator" [38, 1919-1920 (1931)]; G. Breit and I. I. Rabi, "Measurement of nuclear spin" [38, 2082-2083 (1931)]; L. Onsager, "Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes" [38, 2265-2279 (1931)]; H. C. Urey, F. G. Brickwedde, and G. M. Murphy, "A heavy Hydrogen isotope of mass 2 and its concentration" [40, 1-15 (1932)]; E. O. Lawrence and M. S. Livingston, "The production of high speed light ions without the use of high voltages" [40, 19-35 (1932)] - in fact the invention of the cyclotron; A. H. Compton, "A geographic study of cosmic rays" [43, 387-403 (1933)]; C. D. Anderson, "The positive electron" [43, 491-494 (1933)]; E: Wigner and F. Seitz, "On the constitution of metallic sodium" [43, 804-810 (1933)] - an early classic solid state paper; Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, "Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be complete?" [47, 777-780 (1935)] - the famous EPR paradox paper - and Niels Bohr's answer to it, under the same title [48, 696-702 (1935)]; G. Breit and E. Wigner, "Capture of slow neutrons" [49, 519-531 (1936)]; I. I. Rabi, J. R. Zacharias, S. Millman, and P. Kusch, "A new method of measuring nuclear magnetic moment" [53, 318 (1938)]; P. A. Cerenkov, "Visible radiation produced by electrons in a medium with velocities exceeding that of light" [52, 378-379 (1937)] - the first observation of the phenomenon following the theory of Frank and Tamm; J. M. B. Kellogg, I. I. Rabi, N. F. Ramsey, Jr., and J. R. Kellogg, "An electrical quadrupole moment of the deuteron" [55, 318-319 (1939)]; H. A. Bethe, "Energy production in stars" [55, 103 (1939)]; and, of course, N. Bohr and J. A. Wheeler, "The mechanism of nuclear fission" [56, 426-450 (1939)].
133. A sample of important Physical Review articles and letters of the thirties includes: R. J. Van De Graaff, "A 1,500,000 volt electrostatic generator" [38, 1919-1920 (1931)]; G. Breit and I. I. Rabi, "Measurement of nuclear spin" [38, 2082-2083 (1931)]; L. Onsager, "Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes" [38, 2265-2279 (1931)]; H. C. Urey, F. G. Brickwedde, and G. M. Murphy, "A heavy Hydrogen isotope of mass 2 and its concentration" [40, 1-15 (1932)]; E. O. Lawrence and M. S. Livingston, "The production of high speed light ions without the use of high voltages" [40, 19-35 (1932)] - in fact the invention of the cyclotron; A. H. Compton, "A geographic study of cosmic rays" [43, 387-403 (1933)]; C. D. Anderson, "The positive electron" [43, 491-494 (1933)]; E: Wigner and F. Seitz, "On the constitution of metallic sodium" [43, 804-810 (1933)] - an early classic solid state paper; Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, "Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be complete?" [47, 777-780 (1935)] - the famous EPR paradox paper - and Niels Bohr's answer to it, under the same title [48, 696-702 (1935)]; G. Breit and E. Wigner, "Capture of slow neutrons" [49, 519-531 (1936)]; I. I. Rabi, J. R. Zacharias, S. Millman, and P. Kusch, "A new method of measuring nuclear magnetic moment" [53, 318 (1938)]; P. A. Cerenkov, "Visible radiation produced by electrons in a medium with velocities exceeding that of light" [52, 378-379 (1937)] - the first observation of the phenomenon following the theory of Frank and Tamm; J. M. B. Kellogg, I. I. Rabi, N. F. Ramsey, Jr., and J. R. Kellogg, "An electrical quadrupole moment of the deuteron" [55, 318-319 (1939)]; H. A. Bethe, "Energy production in stars" [55, 103 (1939)]; and, of course, N. Bohr and J. A. Wheeler, "The mechanism of nuclear fission" [56, 426-450 (1939)].
134. A sample of important Physical Review articles and letters of the thirties includes: R. J. Van De Graaff, "A 1,500,000 volt electrostatic generator" [38, 1919-1920 (1931)]; G. Breit and I. I. Rabi, "Measurement of nuclear spin" [38, 2082-2083 (1931)]; L. Onsager, "Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes" [38, 2265-2279 (1931)]; H. C. Urey, F. G. Brickwedde, and G. M. Murphy, "A heavy Hydrogen isotope of mass 2 and its concentration" [40, 1-15 (1932)]; E. O. Lawrence and M. S. Livingston, "The production of high speed light ions without the use of high voltages" [40, 19-35 (1932)] - in fact the invention of the cyclotron; A. H. Compton, "A geographic study of cosmic rays" [43, 387-403 (1933)]; C. D. Anderson, "The positive electron" [43, 491-494 (1933)]; E: Wigner and F. Seitz, "On the constitution of metallic sodium" [43, 804-810 (1933)] - an early classic solid state paper; Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, "Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be complete?" [47, 777-780 (1935)] - the famous EPR paradox paper - and Niels Bohr's answer to it, under the same title [48, 696-702 (1935)]; G. Breit and E. Wigner, "Capture of slow neutrons" [49, 519-531 (1936)]; I. I. Rabi, J. R. Zacharias, S. Millman, and P. Kusch, "A new method of measuring nuclear magnetic moment" [53, 318 (1938)]; P. A. Cerenkov, "Visible radiation produced by electrons in a medium with velocities exceeding that of light" [52, 378-379 (1937)] - the first observation of the phenomenon following the theory of Frank and Tamm; J. M. B. Kellogg, I. I. Rabi, N. F. Ramsey, Jr., and J. R. Kellogg, "An electrical quadrupole moment of the deuteron" [55, 318-319 (1939)]; H. A. Bethe, "Energy production in stars" [55, 103 (1939)]; and, of course, N. Bohr and J. A. Wheeler, "The mechanism of nuclear fission" [56, 426-450 (1939)].
135. A sample of important Physical Review articles and letters of the thirties includes: R. J. Van De Graaff, "A 1,500,000 volt electrostatic generator" [38, 1919-1920 (1931)]; G. Breit and I. I. Rabi, "Measurement of nuclear spin" [38, 2082-2083 (1931)]; L. Onsager, "Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes" [38, 2265-2279 (1931)]; H. C. Urey, F. G. Brickwedde, and G. M. Murphy, "A heavy Hydrogen isotope of mass 2 and its concentration" [40, 1-15 (1932)]; E. O. Lawrence and M. S. Livingston, "The production of high speed light ions without the use of high voltages" [40, 19-35 (1932)] - in fact the invention of the cyclotron; A. H. Compton, "A geographic study of cosmic rays" [43, 387-403 (1933)]; C. D. Anderson, "The positive electron" [43, 491-494 (1933)]; E: Wigner and F. Seitz, "On the constitution of metallic sodium" [43, 804-810 (1933)] - an early classic solid state paper; Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, "Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be complete?" [47, 777-780 (1935)] - the famous EPR paradox paper - and Niels Bohr's answer to it, under the same title [48, 696-702 (1935)]; G. Breit and E. Wigner, "Capture of slow neutrons" [49, 519-531 (1936)]; I. I. Rabi, J. R. Zacharias, S. Millman, and P. Kusch, "A new method of measuring nuclear magnetic moment" [53, 318 (1938)]; P. A. Cerenkov, "Visible radiation produced by electrons in a medium with velocities exceeding that of light" [52, 378-379 (1937)] - the first observation of the phenomenon following the theory of Frank and Tamm; J. M. B. Kellogg, I. I. Rabi, N. F. Ramsey, Jr., and J. R. Kellogg, "An electrical quadrupole moment of the deuteron" [55, 318-319 (1939)]; H. A. Bethe, "Energy production in stars" [55, 103 (1939)]; and, of course, N. Bohr and J. A. Wheeler, "The mechanism of nuclear fission" [56, 426-450 (1939)].
136. A sample of important Physical Review articles and letters of the thirties includes: R. J. Van De Graaff, "A 1,500,000 volt electrostatic generator" [38, 1919-1920 (1931)]; G. Breit and I. I. Rabi, "Measurement of nuclear spin" [38, 2082-2083 (1931)]; L. Onsager, "Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes" [38, 2265-2279 (1931)]; H. C. Urey, F. G. Brickwedde, and G. M. Murphy, "A heavy Hydrogen isotope of mass 2 and its concentration" [40, 1-15 (1932)]; E. O. Lawrence and M. S. Livingston, "The production of high speed light ions without the use of high voltages" [40, 19-35 (1932)] - in fact the invention of the cyclotron; A. H. Compton, "A geographic study of cosmic rays" [43, 387-403 (1933)]; C. D. Anderson, "The positive electron" [43, 491-494 (1933)]; E: Wigner and F. Seitz, "On the constitution of metallic sodium" [43, 804-810 (1933)] - an early classic solid state paper; Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, "Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be complete?" [47, 777-780 (1935)] - the famous EPR paradox paper - and Niels Bohr's answer to it, under the same title [48, 696-702 (1935)]; G. Breit and E. Wigner, "Capture of slow neutrons" [49, 519-531 (1936)]; I. I. Rabi, J. R. Zacharias, S. Millman, and P. Kusch, "A new method of measuring nuclear magnetic moment" [53, 318 (1938)]; P. A. Cerenkov, "Visible radiation produced by electrons in a medium with velocities exceeding that of light" [52, 378-379 (1937)] - the first observation of the phenomenon following the theory of Frank and Tamm; J. M. B. Kellogg, I. I. Rabi, N. F. Ramsey, Jr., and J. R. Kellogg, "An electrical quadrupole moment of the deuteron" [55, 318-319 (1939)]; H. A. Bethe, "Energy production in stars" [55, 103 (1939)]; and, of course, N. Bohr and J. A. Wheeler, "The mechanism of nuclear fission" [56, 426-450 (1939)].
137. A sample of important Physical Review articles and letters of the thirties includes: R. J. Van De Graaff, "A 1,500,000 volt electrostatic generator" [38, 1919-1920 (1931)]; G. Breit and I. I. Rabi, "Measurement of nuclear spin" [38, 2082-2083 (1931)]; L. Onsager, "Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes" [38, 2265-2279 (1931)]; H. C. Urey, F. G. Brickwedde, and G. M. Murphy, "A heavy Hydrogen isotope of mass 2 and its concentration" [40, 1-15 (1932)]; E. O. Lawrence and M. S. Livingston, "The production of high speed light ions without the use of high voltages" [40, 19-35 (1932)] - in fact the invention of the cyclotron; A. H. Compton, "A geographic study of cosmic rays" [43, 387-403 (1933)]; C. D. Anderson, "The positive electron" [43, 491-494 (1933)]; E: Wigner and F. Seitz, "On the constitution of metallic sodium" [43, 804-810 (1933)] - an early classic solid state paper; Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, "Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be complete?" [47, 777-780 (1935)] - the famous EPR paradox paper - and Niels Bohr's answer to it, under the same title [48, 696-702 (1935)]; G. Breit and E. Wigner, "Capture of slow neutrons" [49, 519-531 (1936)]; I. I. Rabi, J. R. Zacharias, S. Millman, and P. Kusch, "A new method of measuring nuclear magnetic moment" [53, 318 (1938)]; P. A. Cerenkov, "Visible radiation produced by electrons in a medium with velocities exceeding that of light" [52, 378-379 (1937)] - the first observation of the phenomenon following the theory of Frank and Tamm; J. M. B. Kellogg, I. I. Rabi, N. F. Ramsey, Jr., and J. R. Kellogg, "An electrical quadrupole moment of the deuteron" [55, 318-319 (1939)]; H. A. Bethe, "Energy production in stars" [55, 103 (1939)]; and, of course, N. Bohr and J. A. Wheeler, "The mechanism of nuclear fission" [56, 426-450 (1939)].
138. A sample of important Physical Review articles and letters of the thirties includes: R. J. Van De Graaff, "A 1,500,000 volt electrostatic generator" [38, 1919-1920 (1931)]; G. Breit and I. I. Rabi, "Measurement of nuclear spin" [38, 2082-2083 (1931)]; L. Onsager, "Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes" [38, 2265-2279 (1931)]; H. C. Urey, F. G. Brickwedde, and G. M. Murphy, "A heavy Hydrogen isotope of mass 2 and its concentration" [40, 1-15 (1932)]; E. O. Lawrence and M. S. Livingston, "The production of high speed light ions without the use of high voltages" [40, 19-35 (1932)] - in fact the invention of the cyclotron; A. H. Compton, "A geographic study of cosmic rays" [43, 387-403 (1933)]; C. D. Anderson, "The positive electron" [43, 491-494 (1933)]; E: Wigner and F. Seitz, "On the constitution of metallic sodium" [43, 804-810 (1933)] - an early classic solid state paper; Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, "Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be complete?" [47, 777-780 (1935)] - the famous EPR paradox paper - and Niels Bohr's answer to it, under the same title [48, 696-702 (1935)]; G. Breit and E. Wigner, "Capture of slow neutrons" [49, 519-531 (1936)]; I. I. Rabi, J. R. Zacharias, S. Millman, and P. Kusch, "A new method of measuring nuclear magnetic moment" [53, 318 (1938)]; P. A. Cerenkov, "Visible radiation produced by electrons in a medium with velocities exceeding that of light" [52, 378-379 (1937)] - the first observation of the phenomenon following the theory of Frank and Tamm; J. M. B. Kellogg, I. I. Rabi, N. F. Ramsey, Jr., and J. R. Kellogg, "An electrical quadrupole moment of the deuteron" [55, 318-319 (1939)]; H. A. Bethe, "Energy production in stars" [55, 103 (1939)]; and, of course, N. Bohr and J. A. Wheeler, "The mechanism of nuclear fission" [56, 426-450 (1939)].
139. Spencer Weart, "The last fifty years - a revolution?," Phys. Today 34 (11), 37-49 (1981).
140. The early editorial triumvirate of Nichols, Merritt, and Bedell had been succeeded by the latter alone, as Managing Editor, at the time of the take-over by the APS in 1913. G. S. Fulcher held this position from 1923 to 1925.
141. Abraham Pais, in Ref. 101, p. 7.
142. Phys. Rev. 33, 276 (1929). Only one year after launching Reviews of Modern Physics, and following a decision of the APS Council at its meeting of December 1930, Tate inaugurated and became the editor of yet another APS journal, one devoted to applied physics. Originally simply called Physics, the publication received its present name, Journal of Applied Physics, in 1937, upon being taken over by AIP. Although APS divested itself of the journal largely for financial reasons - this was during the period when even The Physical Review had to be financially managed by the newly formed umbrella organization - the APS action was seen by some as renewed evidence of the Society's stuffy disdain for practical work, or at least of the waxing and waning of interest in the applications of physics (Ref. 100, p. 151).
143. Phys. Rev. 33, 276 (1929). Only one year after launching Reviews of Modern Physics, and following a decision of the APS Council at its meeting of December 1930, Tate inaugurated and became the editor of yet another APS journal, one devoted to applied physics. Originally simply called Physics, the publication received its present name, Journal of Applied Physics, in 1937, upon being taken over by AIP. Although APS divested itself of the journal largely for financial reasons - this was during the period when even The Physical Review had to be financially managed by the newly formed umbrella organization - the APS action was seen by some as renewed evidence of the Society's stuffy disdain for practical work, or at least of the waxing and waning of interest in the applications of physics (Ref. 100, p. 151).
144. Eugene Garfield, Current Comments 26, 3 (1988).
145. H. A. Bethe and R. F. Bacher "Nuclear physics. A: Stationary states of nuclei," Rev. Mod. Phys. 8 (2), 82-229 (1936); H. A. Bethe "Nuclear physics. B: Nuclear dynamics, theoretical," ibid. 9 (2), 69-244 (1937); M. Stanley Livingston and H. A. Bethe, "Nuclear physics. C: Nuclear dynamics, experimental," ibid. 9 (3), 245-390 (1937).
146. H. A. Bethe and R. F. Bacher "Nuclear physics. A: Stationary states of nuclei," Rev. Mod. Phys. 8 (2), 82-229 (1936); H. A. Bethe "Nuclear physics. B: Nuclear dynamics, theoretical," ibid. 9 (2), 69-244 (1937); M. Stanley Livingston and H. A. Bethe, "Nuclear physics. C: Nuclear dynamics, experimental," ibid. 9 (3), 245-390 (1937).
147. H. A. Bethe and R. F. Bacher "Nuclear physics. A: Stationary states of nuclei," Rev. Mod. Phys. 8 (2), 82-229 (1936); H. A. Bethe "Nuclear physics. B: Nuclear dynamics, theoretical," ibid. 9 (2), 69-244 (1937); M. Stanley Livingston and H. A. Bethe, "Nuclear physics. C: Nuclear dynamics, experimental," ibid. 9 (3), 245-390 (1937).
148. Henry H. Barschall, "The cost-effectiveness of physics journals," Phys. Today 41 (7), 56-59 (1988); H. H. Barschall and J. R. Arrington, "Cost of physics journals: a survey," Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 33 (7), 1437-1447 (1988).
149. Henry H. Barschall, "The cost-effectiveness of physics journals," Phys. Today 41 (7), 56-59 (1988); H. H. Barschall and J. R. Arrington, "Cost of physics journals: a survey," Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 33 (7), 1437-1447 (1988).
150. The numbers of citations were: 2506 for S. Chandrasekhar, "Stochastic problems in physics and astronomy," Rev. Mod. Phys. 15, 1-89 (1943); 2430 for C. C. J. Roothaan, "New developments in molecular orbital theory," 23, 68-89 (1951); for the same author's "Self-consistent field theory for open shells of electronic systems," 32, 179-185 (1960); 1320 for K. Alder, A. Bohr, T. Huus, B. Mottelson, and A. Winther, "Study of nuclear structure by electromagnetic excitation with accelerated ions," 28, 432-542 (1956); 1236 for A. M. Lane and R. G. Thomas, "R-matrix theory of nuclear reactions," 30, 257-353 (1958); and 1164 for L. S. Kisslinger and R. A. Sorenson, "Spherical nuclei with simple residual forces," 35, 853-915 (1963). The large number of citations of the Roothaan papers is at least in part attributable to their appeal to chemists, a much larger community than physicists. The interest of astronomers in the Chandrasekhar article also added to its citations, but it is highly likely that physicists by themselves would have put it on the list of the top 100. The fact that Reviews of Modern Physics has been consistently hospitable to neighboring areas of science and to cross-disciplinary approaches is worth noting: according to Garfield (Ref. 90) it was even singled out, in the 1950's by an advisory committee to the Genetics Citation Index, as the only physics journal that was important to the emerging field of molecular biology. The core gospel of the Bethe bible, "Nuclear physics. B: Nuclear Dynamics, theoretical," published in 1937, easily made it into the top 100 with 334 citations. This is remarkable in view of the fact that the half-life for citations of Reviews of Modern Physics articles is about ten years (which, to be sure, is longer than the half-lives of other physics journals), and that the citation count covered the period from 1955 until 1986.
151. The numbers of citations were: 2506 for S. Chandrasekhar, "Stochastic problems in physics and astronomy," Rev. Mod. Phys. 15, 1-89 (1943); 2430 for C. C. J. Roothaan, "New developments in molecular orbital theory," 23, 68-89 (1951); for the same author's "Self-consistent field theory for open shells of electronic systems," 32, 179-185 (1960); 1320 for K. Alder, A. Bohr, T. Huus, B. Mottelson, and A. Winther, "Study of nuclear structure by electromagnetic excitation with accelerated ions," 28, 432-542 (1956); 1236 for A. M. Lane and R. G. Thomas, "R-matrix theory of nuclear reactions," 30, 257-353 (1958); and 1164 for L. S. Kisslinger and R. A. Sorenson, "Spherical nuclei with simple residual forces," 35, 853-915 (1963). The large number of citations of the Roothaan papers is at least in part attributable to their appeal to chemists, a much larger community than physicists. The interest of astronomers in the Chandrasekhar article also added to its citations, but it is highly likely that physicists by themselves would have put it on the list of the top 100. The fact that Reviews of Modern Physics has been consistently hospitable to neighboring areas of science and to cross-disciplinary approaches is worth noting: according to Garfield (Ref. 90) it was even singled out, in the 1950's by an advisory committee to the Genetics Citation Index, as the only physics journal that was important to the emerging field of molecular biology. The core gospel of the Bethe bible, "Nuclear physics. B: Nuclear Dynamics, theoretical," published in 1937, easily made it into the top 100 with 334 citations. This is remarkable in view of the fact that the half-life for citations of Reviews of Modern Physics articles is about ten years (which, to be sure, is longer than the half-lives of other physics journals), and that the citation count covered the period from 1955 until 1986.
152. The numbers of citations were: 2506 for S. Chandrasekhar, "Stochastic problems in physics and astronomy," Rev. Mod. Phys. 15, 1-89 (1943); 2430 for C. C. J. Roothaan, "New developments in molecular orbital theory," 23, 68-89 (1951); for the same author's "Self-consistent field theory for open shells of electronic systems," 32, 179-185 (1960); 1320 for K. Alder, A. Bohr, T. Huus, B. Mottelson, and A. Winther, "Study of nuclear structure by electromagnetic excitation with accelerated ions," 28, 432-542 (1956); 1236 for A. M. Lane and R. G. Thomas, "R-matrix theory of nuclear reactions," 30, 257-353 (1958); and 1164 for L. S. Kisslinger and R. A. Sorenson, "Spherical nuclei with simple residual forces," 35, 853-915 (1963). The large number of citations of the Roothaan papers is at least in part attributable to their appeal to chemists, a much larger community than physicists. The interest of astronomers in the Chandrasekhar article also added to its citations, but it is highly likely that physicists by themselves would have put it on the list of the top 100. The fact that Reviews of Modern Physics has been consistently hospitable to neighboring areas of science and to cross-disciplinary approaches is worth noting: according to Garfield (Ref. 90) it was even singled out, in the 1950's by an advisory committee to the Genetics Citation Index, as the only physics journal that was important to the emerging field of molecular biology. The core gospel of the Bethe bible, "Nuclear physics. B: Nuclear Dynamics, theoretical," published in 1937, easily made it into the top 100 with 334 citations. This is remarkable in view of the fact that the half-life for citations of Reviews of Modern Physics articles is about ten years (which, to be sure, is longer than the half-lives of other physics journals), and that the citation count covered the period from 1955 until 1986.
153. The numbers of citations were: 2506 for S. Chandrasekhar, "Stochastic problems in physics and astronomy," Rev. Mod. Phys. 15, 1-89 (1943); 2430 for C. C. J. Roothaan, "New developments in molecular orbital theory," 23, 68-89 (1951); for the same author's "Self-consistent field theory for open shells of electronic systems," 32, 179-185 (1960); 1320 for K. Alder, A. Bohr, T. Huus, B. Mottelson, and A. Winther, "Study of nuclear structure by electromagnetic excitation with accelerated ions," 28, 432-542 (1956); 1236 for A. M. Lane and R. G. Thomas, "R-matrix theory of nuclear reactions," 30, 257-353 (1958); and 1164 for L. S. Kisslinger and R. A. Sorenson, "Spherical nuclei with simple residual forces," 35, 853-915 (1963). The large number of citations of the Roothaan papers is at least in part attributable to their appeal to chemists, a much larger community than physicists. The interest of astronomers in the Chandrasekhar article also added to its citations, but it is highly likely that physicists by themselves would have put it on the list of the top 100. The fact that Reviews of Modern Physics has been consistently hospitable to neighboring areas of science and to cross-disciplinary approaches is worth noting: according to Garfield (Ref. 90) it was even singled out, in the 1950's by an advisory committee to the Genetics Citation Index, as the only physics journal that was important to the emerging field of molecular biology. The core gospel of the Bethe bible, "Nuclear physics. B: Nuclear Dynamics, theoretical," published in 1937, easily made it into the top 100 with 334 citations. This is remarkable in view of the fact that the half-life for citations of Reviews of Modern Physics articles is about ten years (which, to be sure, is longer than the half-lives of other physics journals), and that the citation count covered the period from 1955 until 1986.
154. The numbers of citations were: 2506 for S. Chandrasekhar, "Stochastic problems in physics and astronomy," Rev. Mod. Phys. 15, 1-89 (1943); 2430 for C. C. J. Roothaan, "New developments in molecular orbital theory," 23, 68-89 (1951); for the same author's "Self-consistent field theory for open shells of electronic systems," 32, 179-185 (1960); 1320 for K. Alder, A. Bohr, T. Huus, B. Mottelson, and A. Winther, "Study of nuclear structure by electromagnetic excitation with accelerated ions," 28, 432-542 (1956); 1236 for A. M. Lane and R. G. Thomas, "R-matrix theory of nuclear reactions," 30, 257-353 (1958); and 1164 for L. S. Kisslinger and R. A. Sorenson, "Spherical nuclei with simple residual forces," 35, 853-915 (1963). The large number of citations of the Roothaan papers is at least in part attributable to their appeal to chemists, a much larger community than physicists. The interest of astronomers in the Chandrasekhar article also added to its citations, but it is highly likely that physicists by themselves would have put it on the list of the top 100. The fact that Reviews of Modern Physics has been consistently hospitable to neighboring areas of science and to cross-disciplinary approaches is worth noting: according to Garfield (Ref. 90) it was even singled out, in the 1950's by an advisory committee to the Genetics Citation Index, as the only physics journal that was important to the emerging field of molecular biology. The core gospel of the Bethe bible, "Nuclear physics. B: Nuclear Dynamics, theoretical," published in 1937, easily made it into the top 100 with 334 citations. This is remarkable in view of the fact that the half-life for citations of Reviews of Modern Physics articles is about ten years (which, to be sure, is longer than the half-lives of other physics journals), and that the citation count covered the period from 1955 until 1986.
155. The numbers of citations were: 2506 for S. Chandrasekhar, "Stochastic problems in physics and astronomy," Rev. Mod. Phys. 15, 1-89 (1943); 2430 for C. C. J. Roothaan, "New developments in molecular orbital theory," 23, 68-89 (1951); for the same author's "Self-consistent field theory for open shells of electronic systems," 32, 179-185 (1960); 1320 for K. Alder, A. Bohr, T. Huus, B. Mottelson, and A. Winther, "Study of nuclear structure by electromagnetic excitation with accelerated ions," 28, 432-542 (1956); 1236 for A. M. Lane and R. G. Thomas, "R-matrix theory of nuclear reactions," 30, 257-353 (1958); and 1164 for L. S. Kisslinger and R. A. Sorenson, "Spherical nuclei with simple residual forces," 35, 853-915 (1963). The large number of citations of the Roothaan papers is at least in part attributable to their appeal to chemists, a much larger community than physicists. The interest of astronomers in the Chandrasekhar article also added to its citations, but it is highly likely that physicists by themselves would have put it on the list of the top 100. The fact that Reviews of Modern Physics has been consistently hospitable to neighboring areas of science and to cross-disciplinary approaches is worth noting: according to Garfield (Ref. 90) it was even singled out, in the 1950's by an advisory committee to the Genetics Citation Index, as the only physics journal that was important to the emerging field of molecular biology. The core gospel of the Bethe bible, "Nuclear physics. B: Nuclear Dynamics, theoretical," published in 1937, easily made it into the top 100 with 334 citations. This is remarkable in view of the fact that the half-life for citations of Reviews of Modern Physics articles is about ten years (which, to be sure, is longer than the half-lives of other physics journals), and that the citation count covered the period from 1955 until 1986.
156. The numbers of citations were: 2506 for S. Chandrasekhar, "Stochastic problems in physics and astronomy," Rev. Mod. Phys. 15, 1-89 (1943); 2430 for C. C. J. Roothaan, "New developments in molecular orbital theory," 23, 68-89 (1951); for the same author's "Self-consistent field theory for open shells of electronic systems," 32, 179-185 (1960); 1320 for K. Alder, A. Bohr, T. Huus, B. Mottelson, and A. Winther, "Study of nuclear structure by electromagnetic excitation with accelerated ions," 28, 432-542 (1956); 1236 for A. M. Lane and R. G. Thomas, "R-matrix theory of nuclear reactions," 30, 257-353 (1958); and 1164 for L. S. Kisslinger and R. A. Sorenson, "Spherical nuclei with simple residual forces," 35, 853-915 (1963). The large number of citations of the Roothaan papers is at least in part attributable to their appeal to chemists, a much larger community than physicists. The interest of astronomers in the Chandrasekhar article also added to its citations, but it is highly likely that physicists by themselves would have put it on the list of the top 100. The fact that Reviews of Modern Physics has been consistently hospitable to neighboring areas of science and to cross-disciplinary approaches is worth noting: according to Garfield (Ref. 90) it was even singled out, in the 1950's by an advisory committee to the Genetics Citation Index, as the only physics journal that was important to the emerging field of molecular biology. The core gospel of the Bethe bible, "Nuclear physics. B: Nuclear Dynamics, theoretical," published in 1937, easily made it into the top 100 with 334 citations. This is remarkable in view of the fact that the half-life for citations of Reviews of Modern Physics articles is about ten years (which, to be sure, is longer than the half-lives of other physics journals), and that the citation count covered the period from 1955 until 1986.
157. "Science and Technology of Directed Energy Weapons," N. Bloembergen and C. K. N. Patel, [study] co-chairmen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 59 (3, part 2), S2-202 (1987). Both Bloembergen and Patel later served as presidents of the APS, in 1991 and 1995, respectively.
158. K. K. Darrow, who was APS's Secretary from 1941 until 1967, in his obituary for Tate [K. K. Darrow, American Philosophical Society Yearbook, 325 (1950)] suggested that The Physical Review should be known as Tate's Journal, in analogy with Poggendorf's Annalen (later the Annalen der Physik).
159. In his valedictory upon his retirement, Condon reported that he had been appointed editor for the term 1957-1959 and that this term had never been extended. Since no one showed up to do the work, he served nine years as a "usurper" [E. U. Condon "The past and the future of the Reviews of Modern Physics," Rev. Mod. Phys. 40, 876-8 (1968)].
160. 3He - articles which remain the "bible" for researchers in that field. In a similar spirit, following a suggestion by Ugo Fano, the journal strove to publish, in each issue, several "colloquia" - short, non-technical presentations of work of current interest, written in the style of a colloquium talk (or at least the Platonic ideal of such a talk). Fano solicited and edited these colloquia from 1992 to 1995, a task that is now in the hands of Anthony Starace.
161. 3He - articles which remain the "bible" for researchers in that field. In a similar spirit, following a suggestion by Ugo Fano, the journal strove to publish, in each issue, several "colloquia" - short, non-technical presentations of work of current interest, written in the style of a colloquium talk (or at least the Platonic ideal of such a talk). Fano solicited and edited these colloquia from 1992 to 1995, a task that is now in the hands of Anthony Starace.
162. 3He - articles which remain the "bible" for researchers in that field. In a similar spirit, following a suggestion by Ugo Fano, the journal strove to publish, in each issue, several "colloquia" - short, non-technical presentations of work of current interest, written in the style of a colloquium talk (or at least the Platonic ideal of such a talk). Fano solicited and edited these colloquia from 1992 to 1995, a task that is now in the hands of Anthony Starace.
163. Throughout the war, the size of The Physical Review declined every year, from 2564 pages in 1939 to 668 pages in 1945. In 1946 the number recovered to 1730. Important papers during the years 1940-46 included G. Racah, "Theory of complex spectra" [Phys. Rev. 61, 186-197 (1942)]; three contributions by L. Onsager, "Anisotropic solutions of colloids" [62, 558 (1942)], "Crystal statistics" [62, 559 (1942)], and "The distribution of energy in turbulence" [68, 286 (1945)]: F. Bloch, "Nuclear induction" [70, 460 (1946)]; E. M. Purcell, H. C. Torrey, and R. V. Pound, "Resonance absorption by nuclear magnetic moments in a solid" [69, 37-38 (1946)]; and E. Wigner, "Resonance Reactions" [70, 606-618 (1946)]. While there were no American papers on fission, in 1940 there was still a letter on spontaneous uranium fission, sent from Leningrad on June 14 by G. N. Flerov and K. A. Petrjak, and published two weeks later [58, 89 (1940)]. And in 1944 we find an article from the USSR by D. Iwanenko and I. Pomeranchuk on the maximum energy obtainable with a betatron [65, 343 (1944)]. Some of the papers published in 1946 and thereafter were, to be sure, work that had accumulated during the war as a result of the voluntary censorship. Thus, the chemical separation of plutonium, achieved in 1941, was not published until 1946 [G. T. Seaborg, E. M. McMillan, J. W. Kennedy, and A. C. Wahl, "Radioactive element 94 from deuterons on uranium," 69, 366-367 (1946)], when the following footnote was added: "This letter was received on [28 January 1941], but was voluntarily withheld until the end of the war... ." Notwithstanding Melba Phillips' statement (Ref. 12, p. 227) that "...the Reviews of Modern Physics suffered a critical shortage of papers. No one had time to prepare review articles...," that journal's size did not shrink significantly during the war years.
164. Throughout the war, the size of The Physical Review declined every year, from 2564 pages in 1939 to 668 pages in 1945. In 1946 the number recovered to 1730. Important papers during the years 1940-46 included G. Racah, "Theory of complex spectra" [Phys. Rev. 61, 186-197 (1942)]; three contributions by L. Onsager, "Anisotropic solutions of colloids" [62, 558 (1942)], "Crystal statistics" [62, 559 (1942)], and "The distribution of energy in turbulence" [68, 286 (1945)]: F. Bloch, "Nuclear induction" [70, 460 (1946)]; E. M. Purcell, H. C. Torrey, and R. V. Pound, "Resonance absorption by nuclear magnetic moments in a solid" [69, 37-38 (1946)]; and E. Wigner, "Resonance Reactions" [70, 606-618 (1946)]. While there were no American papers on fission, in 1940 there was still a letter on spontaneous uranium fission, sent from Leningrad on June 14 by G. N. Flerov and K. A. Petrjak, and published two weeks later [58, 89 (1940)]. And in 1944 we find an article from the USSR by D. Iwanenko and I. Pomeranchuk on the maximum energy obtainable with a betatron [65, 343 (1944)]. Some of the papers published in 1946 and thereafter were, to be sure, work that had accumulated during the war as a result of the voluntary censorship. Thus, the chemical separation of plutonium, achieved in 1941, was not published until 1946 [G. T. Seaborg, E. M. McMillan, J. W. Kennedy, and A. C. Wahl, "Radioactive element 94 from deuterons on uranium," 69, 366-367 (1946)], when the following footnote was added: "This letter was received on [28 January 1941], but was voluntarily withheld until the end of the war... ." Notwithstanding Melba Phillips' statement (Ref. 12, p. 227) that "...the Reviews of Modern Physics suffered a critical shortage of papers. No one had time to prepare review articles...," that journal's size did not shrink significantly during the war years.
165. Throughout the war, the size of The Physical Review declined every year, from 2564 pages in 1939 to 668 pages in 1945. In 1946 the number recovered to 1730. Important papers during the years 1940-46 included G. Racah, "Theory of complex spectra" [Phys. Rev. 61, 186-197 (1942)]; three contributions by L. Onsager, "Anisotropic solutions of colloids" [62, 558 (1942)], "Crystal statistics" [62, 559 (1942)], and "The distribution of energy in turbulence" [68, 286 (1945)]: F. Bloch, "Nuclear induction" [70, 460 (1946)]; E. M. Purcell, H. C. Torrey, and R. V. Pound, "Resonance absorption by nuclear magnetic moments in a solid" [69, 37-38 (1946)]; and E. Wigner, "Resonance Reactions" [70, 606-618 (1946)]. While there were no American papers on fission, in 1940 there was still a letter on spontaneous uranium fission, sent from Leningrad on June 14 by G. N. Flerov and K. A. Petrjak, and published two weeks later [58, 89 (1940)]. And in 1944 we find an article from the USSR by D. Iwanenko and I. Pomeranchuk on the maximum energy obtainable with a betatron [65, 343 (1944)]. Some of the papers published in 1946 and thereafter were, to be sure, work that had accumulated during the war as a result of the voluntary censorship. Thus, the chemical separation of plutonium, achieved in 1941, was not published until 1946 [G. T. Seaborg, E. M. McMillan, J. W. Kennedy, and A. C. Wahl, "Radioactive element 94 from deuterons on uranium," 69, 366-367 (1946)], when the following footnote was added: "This letter was received on [28 January 1941], but was voluntarily withheld until the end of the war... ." Notwithstanding Melba Phillips' statement (Ref. 12, p. 227) that "...the Reviews of Modern Physics suffered a critical shortage of papers. No one had time to prepare review articles...," that journal's size did not shrink significantly during the war years.
166. Throughout the war, the size of The Physical Review declined every year, from 2564 pages in 1939 to 668 pages in 1945. In 1946 the number recovered to 1730. Important papers during the years 1940-46 included G. Racah, "Theory of complex spectra" [Phys. Rev. 61, 186-197 (1942)]; three contributions by L. Onsager, "Anisotropic solutions of colloids" [62, 558 (1942)], "Crystal statistics" [62, 559 (1942)], and "The distribution of energy in turbulence" [68, 286 (1945)]: F. Bloch, "Nuclear induction" [70, 460 (1946)]; E. M. Purcell, H. C. Torrey, and R. V. Pound, "Resonance absorption by nuclear magnetic moments in a solid" [69, 37-38 (1946)]; and E. Wigner, "Resonance Reactions" [70, 606-618 (1946)]. While there were no American papers on fission, in 1940 there was still a letter on spontaneous uranium fission, sent from Leningrad on June 14 by G. N. Flerov and K. A. Petrjak, and published two weeks later [58, 89 (1940)]. And in 1944 we find an article from the USSR by D. Iwanenko and I. Pomeranchuk on the maximum energy obtainable with a betatron [65, 343 (1944)]. Some of the papers published in 1946 and thereafter were, to be sure, work that had accumulated during the war as a result of the voluntary censorship. Thus, the chemical separation of plutonium, achieved in 1941, was not published until 1946 [G. T. Seaborg, E. M. McMillan, J. W. Kennedy, and A. C. Wahl, "Radioactive element 94 from deuterons on uranium," 69, 366-367 (1946)], when the following footnote was added: "This letter was received on [28 January 1941], but was voluntarily withheld until the end of the war... ." Notwithstanding Melba Phillips' statement (Ref. 12, p. 227) that "...the Reviews of Modern Physics suffered a critical shortage of papers. No one had time to prepare review articles...," that journal's size did not shrink significantly during the war years.
167. Throughout the war, the size of The Physical Review declined every year, from 2564 pages in 1939 to 668 pages in 1945. In 1946 the number recovered to 1730. Important papers during the years 1940-46 included G. Racah, "Theory of complex spectra" [Phys. Rev. 61, 186-197 (1942)]; three contributions by L. Onsager, "Anisotropic solutions of colloids" [62, 558 (1942)], "Crystal statistics" [62, 559 (1942)], and "The distribution of energy in turbulence" [68, 286 (1945)]: F. Bloch, "Nuclear induction" [70, 460 (1946)]; E. M. Purcell, H. C. Torrey, and R. V. Pound, "Resonance absorption by nuclear magnetic moments in a solid" [69, 37-38 (1946)]; and E. Wigner, "Resonance Reactions" [70, 606-618 (1946)]. While there were no American papers on fission, in 1940 there was still a letter on spontaneous uranium fission, sent from Leningrad on June 14 by G. N. Flerov and K. A. Petrjak, and published two weeks later [58, 89 (1940)]. And in 1944 we find an article from the USSR by D. Iwanenko and I. Pomeranchuk on the maximum energy obtainable with a betatron [65, 343 (1944)]. Some of the papers published in 1946 and thereafter were, to be sure, work that had accumulated during the war as a result of the voluntary censorship. Thus, the chemical separation of plutonium, achieved in 1941, was not published until 1946 [G. T. Seaborg, E. M. McMillan, J. W. Kennedy, and A. C. Wahl, "Radioactive element 94 from deuterons on uranium," 69, 366-367 (1946)], when the following footnote was added: "This letter was received on [28 January 1941], but was voluntarily withheld until the end of the war... ." Notwithstanding Melba Phillips' statement (Ref. 12, p. 227) that "...the Reviews of Modern Physics suffered a critical shortage of papers. No one had time to prepare review articles...," that journal's size did not shrink significantly during the war years.
168. Throughout the war, the size of The Physical Review declined every year, from 2564 pages in 1939 to 668 pages in 1945. In 1946 the number recovered to 1730. Important papers during the years 1940-46 included G. Racah, "Theory of complex spectra" [Phys. Rev. 61, 186-197 (1942)]; three contributions by L. Onsager, "Anisotropic solutions of colloids" [62, 558 (1942)], "Crystal statistics" [62, 559 (1942)], and "The distribution of energy in turbulence" [68, 286 (1945)]: F. Bloch, "Nuclear induction" [70, 460 (1946)]; E. M. Purcell, H. C. Torrey, and R. V. Pound, "Resonance absorption by nuclear magnetic moments in a solid" [69, 37-38 (1946)]; and E. Wigner, "Resonance Reactions" [70, 606-618 (1946)]. While there were no American papers on fission, in 1940 there was still a letter on spontaneous uranium fission, sent from Leningrad on June 14 by G. N. Flerov and K. A. Petrjak, and published two weeks later [58, 89 (1940)]. And in 1944 we find an article from the USSR by D. Iwanenko and I. Pomeranchuk on the maximum energy obtainable with a betatron [65, 343 (1944)]. Some of the papers published in 1946 and thereafter were, to be sure, work that had accumulated during the war as a result of the voluntary censorship. Thus, the chemical separation of plutonium, achieved in 1941, was not published until 1946 [G. T. Seaborg, E. M. McMillan, J. W. Kennedy, and A. C. Wahl, "Radioactive element 94 from deuterons on uranium," 69, 366-367 (1946)], when the following footnote was added: "This letter was received on [28 January 1941], but was voluntarily withheld until the end of the war... ." Notwithstanding Melba Phillips' statement (Ref. 12, p. 227) that "...the Reviews of Modern Physics suffered a critical shortage of papers. No one had time to prepare review articles...," that journal's size did not shrink significantly during the war years.
169. Throughout the war, the size of The Physical Review declined every year, from 2564 pages in 1939 to 668 pages in 1945. In 1946 the number recovered to 1730. Important papers during the years 1940-46 included G. Racah, "Theory of complex spectra" [Phys. Rev. 61, 186-197 (1942)]; three contributions by L. Onsager, "Anisotropic solutions of colloids" [62, 558 (1942)], "Crystal statistics" [62, 559 (1942)], and "The distribution of energy in turbulence" [68, 286 (1945)]: F. Bloch, "Nuclear induction" [70, 460 (1946)]; E. M. Purcell, H. C. Torrey, and R. V. Pound, "Resonance