The greatest British physicist since Newton
The Strangest Man: The hidden life of Paul
Dirac, quantum genius
By Graham Farmelo
Published by Faber and Faber, 2009, £9.99
Reviewed by
Geoff Jones
THE MODERN technological
world around us – television, computers, the internet, GPS, DNA
profiling, lasers, medical scanners – all stems from the work of a small
number of brilliant physicists in the first half of the twentieth
century. Of these, four stand out above the rest: Einstein, Heisenberg,
Schrödinger and Dirac. Everyone has heard of Einstein. Heisenberg (of
the uncertainty principle) and Schrödinger (of the cat) are also
familiar names. But who was Dirac? Farmelo’s book aims to answer the
question.
Paul Dirac (born 1902) was
brought up in Bristol in an unhappy family, ruled by a tyrannical
father, a schoolteacher of Swiss background. At 16, he studied
engineering at Bristol University where his outstanding mathematical
talent soon became evident. Still in his teens, he was reading
Einstein’s theory of relativity which only one or two physicists in
Britain claimed to understand. At 18, he won a scholarship to Cambridge,
but his father denied him funding to take it up. He therefore took a
mathematics degree at Bristol in two years, then gained a Cambridge
scholarship to do postgraduate work in theoretical physics. In
Cambridge, Dirac cut a lonely figure. Utterly taciturn, only answering
precisely framed questions with short exact answers in his strong
Bristol accent, he was nevertheless recognised at once as a brilliant
scientist.
In the 1920s, the world of
physics had been turned upside down. First, Einstein’s theory of
relativity had brought into question the whole nature of time. Second,
experiments had shown classical theory to be completely unable to
explain the structure and properties of atoms. The idea that energy must
be ‘quantised’ – only absorbed or emitted in minute but definite amounts
– appeared unavoidable. But how to frame a theory to describe this, the
way Newton’s theory described the motion of bodies like stars and
planets?
The German physicist, Werner
Heisenberg, and Austrian Jewish, Erwin Schrödinger, put forward possible
but apparently contradictory approaches. Dirac was able to demonstrate
that the two pictures were just two equivalent ways of looking at the
same theory and to formulate that theory in a clear and concise fashion
– quantum mechanics. In 1930, he published a textbook, Principles of
Quantum Mechanics, which is still in print. Dirac’s analysis led him to
predict the existence of particles identical to the electron but
positively charged – positrons – which were observed experimentally a
few years later. Most important, he managed to marry quantum mechanics
with Einstein’s special theory of relativity to produce an equation
which bears his name. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1933.
But the scientific arguments
and debates of the 1920s and 1930s were not isolated from the political
battles taking place outside the laboratory, even for scientists as
unsociable as Dirac. In fact, they were intimately connected not just in
the lives of the physicists themselves but in the whole direction
physics was to take. In Britain, many academics, Dirac included, were
desperately concerned about mass unemployment and the rise of fascism.
In Cambridge – where students had mobilised to break the 1926 general
strike – the late 1920s and early 1930s saw the growth of socialist
ideas.
Many scientists looked
towards the Soviet Union as a model of a better society – a planned
economy seemed a positive alternative to the depression gripping the
west and among Dirac’s few friends at Cambridge was Peter Kapitza, a
Russian physicist. Dirac himself used his Nobel speech in 1933 to call
for redistribution to provide goods for all, despite the fact that
speeches are expected to be non-controversial. He visited the USSR
several times in the 1930s with Kapitza, made friends with other leading
Russian physicists, and was elected to the Soviet Academy of Sciences.
But when, in 1937, Stalin cracked down on Kapitza, refusing to allow him
to return to Cambridge and putting him under virtual house arrest, Dirac
organised a petition of leading physicists and lobbied the Russians,
leading to an odd compromise where Kapitza’s whole laboratory was
shipped from Cambridge to a new institute in Moscow purpose-built for
him!
As the crisis of the 1930s
slipped into war, physicists scattered. Einstein fled to the USA.
Schrödinger left Austria and finally settled in neutral Dublin.
Heisenberg remained in Germany and continued working but not openly
supporting Hitler, unlike some leading German scientists who became avid
Nazis. Back in Cambridge, Dirac organised support for Jewish scientists
fleeing from Germany. Horrified even before the war by the treatment of
Jews in Germany, he resolved never to speak German again, except to
refugees. He took part in the programme to build a nuclear bomb,
devising a method of isotope separation and carrying out calculations on
chain reactions.
But such changes were only
part of a major change in the whole structure of physics. Until the
1930s, physics was a small international ‘cottage industry’, isolated
from world events, with individuals across the world from Denmark to
Japan corresponding, meeting, sharing results and arguing. But as well
as the rise of Hitler, 1933 saw the invention of the cyclotron –
ancestor of today’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC). This marked the start
of ‘big physics’, its absorption in national and international economic
and political power struggles, and the beginning of an extreme
specialisation among physicists. Rather than following their independent
research interests, they were now seen as part of the nation’s economic
capital and their research areas directed by government.
Dirac, as a pure
theoretician, was mainly immune to these trends – he resisted a wartime
invitation to join the code breakers at Bletchley. His quantum theory
was extended by a younger generation of physicists who had cut their
teeth on the atom bomb project. Richard Feynman, the flamboyant US
theoretical physicist who shared the 1965 Nobel Prize, often said with
uncharacteristic modesty: "I’m no Dirac". Dirac himself believed that
much of his theoretical work had reached a dead end. Indeed, near the
end of his life he was quoted as saying: "My life has been a failure".
Nevertheless, he stood head and shoulders above other physicists of his
generation. Suggestions that he threw off almost in passing pointed to
quantum optics and even to the idea that electrons might be
one-dimensional ‘strings’.
Although practically unknown
to the general public, Dirac was honoured by the physics community. He
was Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, a post held more
recently by Stephen Hawking. He was offered a knighthood, which he
refused, but later accepted the Order of Merit presented by Queen
Elizabeth. When asked about his impressions of her, his
characteristically brief comment was merely: "Very small".
Since Dirac’s death in 1984,
physics has changed again. Experimentation, especially in fundamental
research, now requires machines so expensive that no individual state
can afford to fund them. The LHC cost an estimated $6 billion and is the
result of collaboration between over 20 countries. The internet enables
physicists around the world to share results and arguments more quickly
and easily than in the past. At the same time, the question of how
quantum theory describes reality is being raised once again. The view
generally accepted today had been bitterly opposed by Einstein in the
1930s. Dirac was never happy with the consensus, as is well summed up by
a wry comment: "I listened to their arguments but I did not join in
them, essentially because I was not very interested… I was more
interested in getting the correct equations… It seems clear that quantum
mechanics is not in its final form… I think it very likely, or at least
quite possible, that in the long run Einstein will turn out to be
correct, even though for the time being physicists will have to accept
the Bohr probability interpretation, especially if they have
examinations in front of them".
Farmelo’s book is not without
its faults: it dwells in detail on Dirac’s family, marriage and health,
for example, while saying little on his political thinking, and Farmelo
is clearly not sympathetic to socialist ideas. It is quite likely that
Kapitza introduced Dirac to Marxist theory. A committed atheist, Dirac
was very impatient with references to God, regarding the idea as "a
product of the human imagination", and taught only "to keep the lower
classes quiet". On balance, however, this is a thorough and highly
readable biography of the man in his period and can be recommended to
scientists and non-scientists alike. The book has been awarded the Costa
Biography Prize so should be readily available in libraries.