Physics in Perspective

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 3–32

What’s in a Name Change?

Solid State Physics, Condensed Matter Physics, and Materials Science
Article

Abstract

When solid state physics emerged in the 1940s, its name was controversial. By the 1970s, some physicists came to prefer “condensed matter” as a way to identify the discipline of physics examining complex matter. Physicists and historians often gloss this transition as a simple rebranding of a problematically named field, but attention to the motives behind these names reveals telling nuances. “Solid state physics” and “condensed matter physics”—along with “materials science,” which also emerged during the Cold War—were named in accordance with ideological commitments about the identity of physics. Historians, therefore, can profitably understand solid state and condensed matter physics as distinct disciplines. Condensed matter, rather than being continuous with solid state physics, should be considered alongside materials science as an outlet for specific frustrations with the way solid state was organized.

Keywords

Solid state physics condensed matter physics materials science discipline formation 

References

  1. 1.
    O. E. Buckley, “What’s in a Name?” Review of Scientific Instruments 15 (1944), 301–304, on 301.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    “Report of National Research Council Conference of Physicists,” Rev. Sci. Inst. 15 (1944), 283–328.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    On biology and natural history, see Vassiliki Betty Smocovitis, Unifying Biology: The Evolutionary Synthesis and Evolutionary Biology (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996); Lynn K. Nyhart, “Natural History and the ‘New’ Biology,” in Nicholas Jardine et al., eds., Cultures of Natural History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 426–446. Physics and natural philosophy are addressed in Iwo Amelung, “Naming Physics: The Strife to Delineate a Field of Modern Science in Late Imperial China,” in Michael Lackner and Natascha Vittinghoff, eds., Mapping Meanings: The Field of Learning in Late Quing China (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2004); Susan Faye Cannon, Science in Culture: The Early Victorian Period (New York: Neale Watson Academic Publishing, 1978); John L. Heilbron, “Natural Philosophy,” in Peter Harrison et al., eds., Wrestling with Nature: From Omens to Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011). On the continuities and discontinuities between alchemy and chemistry, see Bruce T. Moran, Distilling Knowledge: Alchemy, Chemistry, and the Scientific Revolution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005); William R. Newman and Lawrence M. Principe, “Alchemy vs. Chemistry: The Etymological Origins of a Historiographical Mistake,” Early Science and Medicine 3 (1998), 32–65.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Philip W. Anderson, More and Different: Notes from a Thoughtful Curmudgeon (Singapore: World Scientific, 2011), 90.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Helge Kragh, Quantum Generations: A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), 366. Kragh has more recently made his own observations about the importance of names in “Naming the Big Bang,” Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 44 (2014), 3–36.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walter Kohn, “An Essay on Condensed Matter Physics in the Twentieth Century,” Reviews of Modern Physics 71 (1999), S57–S77.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Spencer Weart, “The Solid Community,” in Lillian Hoddeson et al., eds., Out of the Crystal Maze (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 651.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    On frontier rhetoric in high energy physics, see Lillian Hoddeson, Adrienne W. Kolb, and Catherine Westfall, Fermilab: Physics, the Frontier and Megascience (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Christian Joas, “Campos que interagem: física quântica e a transferência de conceitos entre física de partículas, nuclear e do estado sólido,” in Olival Freire Jr., et al., eds., Teoria quântica: estudos históricos e implicações culturais (Campina Grande, Brasil: Livraria da física, 2011), pp. 109–151.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gregory A. Good has made a case for transcending an exclusive focus on small-scale practices when considering discipline formation and considering how disciplinary consensus can develop in response to large-scale professional and political pressures, an approach that this case study supports. Gregory A. Good, “The Assembly of Geophysics: Scientific Disciplines as Frameworks of Consensus,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 31 (2000), 259–292.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saul Dushman et al., “The Present War Is a Physicist’s War,” American Physical Society Division of Solid State Physics records of Roman Smoluchowski, 1943–1947, Niels Bohr Library and Archives, College Park, MD (hereafter Smoluchowski records), folder 3. Smoluchowski’s efforts are chronicled in Weart, “The Solid Community” (ref. 7) and Joseph D. Martin, “Solid Foundations: Structuring American Solid State Physics, 1939–1993.” PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 2013.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Karl K. Darrow, “Formation of a Division of Solid State Physics in the American Physical Society,” memo to APS membership, May 1947, Smoluchowski records, folder 4.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roman Smoluchowski to Stanley R. March, July 10, 1947, Smoluchowski records, folder 4.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roman Smoluchowski to Sidney Siegel, December 17, 1943, Smoluchowski records, folder 1.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roman Smoluchowski to Conyers Herring, February 15, 1944, Smoluchowski records, folder 1.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Quoted in Paul E. Klopsteg, “The Work of the War Policy Committee of the American Institute of Physics,” Rev. Sci. Inst. 14 (1943), 236–241, on 240.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Karl Darrow to Frederick Seitz, May 16, 1944, Smoluchowski records, folder 1.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Léon Brillouin to Saul Dushman, January 25, 1944, Smoluchowski records, folder 1.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    John Van Vleck to Saul Dushman, January 29, 1944, Smoluchowski records, folder 1.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    John Van Vleck to Roman Smoluchowski, February 16, 1944, Smoluchowski records, folder 1. This and subsequent translations are the author’s unless otherwise noted.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    See: Charles Midwinter and Michel Janssen, “Kuhn Losses Regained Van Vleck from Spectra to Susceptibilities,” in Massimiliano Badino and Jaume Navarro, eds., Research and Pedagogy: A History of Early Quantum Physics through its Textbooks (Berlin: Edition Open Access, 2013), 137–205.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Darrow wrote Van Vleck to coordinate nominating Eugene Wigner for fellowship in the American Philosophical Society: “Amor Germanorum, rum cum coca cola, et debilitas memoriae sunt radices multorum malorum. Sicut recte dixisti, Wigner non est socius noster in Societate Philosophica Americana.” (“Love of the Germans, rum and Coca-Cola, and weakness of memory are the roots of many evils. As you have rightly said, Wigner is not our associate in the American Philosophical Society.”) Karl Darrow to John Van Vleck, May 15, 1945, Karl Kelchner Darrow Papers, 1872–1978, Niels Bohr Library and Archives, College Park, MD, box 19. Darrow was a visiting professor at Smith College in 1941. Van Vleck paid a visit, misplacing a pair of suspenders. The two exchanged a series of letters wondering if suspenders could be had in Smith colors and whether this reflected sartorial trends in seven sisters schools. John Van Vleck to Karl Darrow, March 6, 1941; Darrow to Van Vleck, March 13, 1941; and Van Vleck to Darrow, March 25, 1941, J. H. Van Vleck papers, 1853–1981, Niels Bohr Library and Archives, College Park, MD, box 9.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    G. H. Wannier, quoted in an untitled document, 1943, Smoluchowski records, folder 3.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    G. H. Wannier, “The Statistical Problem in Cooperative Phenomena,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 17 (1945), 50–60.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. H. Van Vleck, “A Survey of the Theory of Ferromagnetism,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 17 (1945), 30.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    R. M. Bozorth and H. J. Williams, “Effect of Small Stresses on Magnetic Properties,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 17 (1945), 72–60.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Clarence Zener, “The Fracture Stress of Steel,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 17 (1945), 20–26.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Otto Breck, “Catalysis—A Challenge to the Physicist,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 17 (1945), 61–71.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Seitz became a major figure in American solid state physics before transitioning to administrative and advisory roles in the 1950s. His institutional acumen paved his way to the positions that would make him infamous as an advocate for tobacco and petroleum companies, the role for which he is better remembered today. Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2010).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Frederick Seitz, Modern Theory of Solids (New York: McGraw Hill, 1940).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Charles Kittel, Introduction to Solid State Physics, 2nd edition (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1955).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    John J. Hopfield, “Whatever Happened to Solid State Physics?,” Annual Reviews of Condensed Matter Physics 5 (2014), 1–13, on 3.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Detailed accounts of the transistor’s invention and refinement can be found in Lillian Hoddeson, “The Discovery of the Point-Contact Transistor,” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 12 (1981), 41–76 and Michael Riordan, Lillian Hoddeson, and Conyers Herring, “The Invention of the Transistor,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 71 (1999), S336–S345.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kittel, Introduction to Solid State Physics (ref. 31), vii.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Report of the National Academy of Sciences, 1953–54 (Washington, DC: National Academy of Science, 1954), 60.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ibid., 60.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Report of the National Academy of Sciences, 1957–58 (Washington, DC: National Academy of Science, 1958), 46.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Materials Advisory Board, “Standing Review of Department of Defense Materials Research and Development Program,” Frederick Seitz papers, 1935–1965, University of Illinois Archives, Urbana, IL, box 1, folder Air Research and Development Command, 1952–61 #1.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
  40. 40.
    National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, More Effective Organization and Administration of Materials Research and Development for National Security (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1960), frontmatter.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ibid., vii.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lawrence H. Van Vlack, Elements of Materials Science (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1959), vii.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ibid., vii.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    “Interdisciplinary Laboratories for Basic Research in Materials Sciences,” John Clarke Slater papers, 1908–1976, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, PA (hereafter Slater papers), folder M.I.T. Dept. of Physics #39.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
  46. 46.
    National Academy of Sciences, Advancing Materials Research (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1987), 36.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Cyrus Mody and Hyungsub Choi, “From Materials Science to Nanotechnology: Interdisciplinary Center Programs at Cornell University, 1960–2000,” Hist. Stud. Nat. Sci. 43 (2013), 121–161.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    See S. S. Schweber, “The Empiricist Temper Regnant: Theoretical Physics in the United States, 1920–1950,” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 17 (1986), 55–98 on the American style of theory that grew largely from the school Kemble established.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mildred Dresselhaus, interview with Joseph D. Martin, June 24, 2014.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    John C. Slater to John Kincaid, May 6, 1959, Slater papers, folder Kincaid, John F. #1.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    “The Interdisciplinary Nature of M.I.T. Research,” Slater papers, folder Proposal for a Materials Center at M.I.T., 1960.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Arthur von Hippel, who established the LIR, recalled choosing an abstruse name as “a camouflage trick … to avoid stepping on sensitive toes by encroaching on the entrenched interests of physicists, chemists, and metallurgists in the materials field.” Arthur von Hippel, interview by Z. Malek, September 1969, Arthur von Hippel papers, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Archives and Special Collections, Cambridge, MA, box 1, folder 16.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    “Interdisciplinary Nature of M.I.T. Research” (ref. 51).Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Slater to Kincaid (ref. 50).Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    John C. Slater, untitled memorandum, Slater papers, folder M.I.T. Dept. of Physics #10.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Arthur von Hippel, “New Fields for Electrical Engineering,” Arthur von Hippel papers, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Archives and Special Collections, Cambridge, MA, box 1, folder 44. This was a piece von Hippel prepared for the April 1942 edition of The Tech Engineering News, a periodical published by MIT undergraduates.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
  58. 58.
    “Proposal for An Expanded Program of Materials Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, July 12, 1956,” Slater papers, folder MIT Materials Research #1. The AEC made a similar push within the national laboratories, as discussed in Peter J. Westwick, The National Labs: Science in an American System, 1947–1994 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), 257–258.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    “Materials Research Program, (ca. 1956),” Slater papers, folder M.I.T. Materials Research #1.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
  61. 61.
    Slater to Kincaid (ref. 50).Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    John C. Slater to John Kincaid, April 30, 1959, Slater papers, folder Kincaid, John F. #1.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    John C. Slater, “On the MIT Materials Center,” ca. 1960, Slater papers, folder Slater, J. C. On the MIT Materials Center.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Scott Knowles and Stuart Leslie have argued that the campuses at industrial laboratories such as Bell, General Motors, and IBM mimicked what architect Eero Saarinen supposed to be the university model of organizing research, namely a linear model, in which basic research fed directly into industrial applications. The rhetoric around MIT’s IDL reveal similar goals by suggesting that placing basic research in physics and chemistry alongside materials engineering fields would help to advance ARPA’s technical aims. Knowles and Leslie, “‘Industrial Versailles’: Eero Saarinen’s Corporate Campuses for GM, IBM, and AT&T,” Isis 92 (2001), 1–33.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    ARPA, “Administrative Memo #1,” July 20, 1962, Slater papers, folder M.I.T. Dept. of Physics #138.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Dwight E. Gray and Bruce H. Billings, eds., American Institute of Physics Handbook, 2nd edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963).Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Dwight E. Gray, “The New AIP Handbook,” Physics Today 16(7) (1963), 40–42, on 41.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    The implication that it was problematic to see physics as classifiable by states of matter was apropos. For instance, John Van Vleck’s 1932 monograph The Theory of Electric and Magnetic Susceptibilities (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1932) was seen as a classic of solid state physics, even though it dealt mainly with magnetic susceptibilities in gasses. See: Midwinter and Janssen, “Kuhn Losses Regained” (ref. 21).Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    As in R. A. Ferrell, Y. C. Lee, and M. K. Pal, “Magnetic Quenching of Hyperfine Depolarization of Positive Muons,” Physical Review 118 (1960), 317–319.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Physik der kondensierten Materie 1(2) (1963), frontmatter.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    “Important Announcement,” Phys. Rev. 132 (1963), 1.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Brookhaven’s collaborative efforts are outlined in Robert Crease, Making Physics: A Biography of Brookhaven National Laboratory, 1946–1972 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999).Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Physics: Survey and Outlook (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1966), 67.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    The footnote was cut from the Pake Report but would resurface in a supplement that furnished more detailed reports on the subfields of physics. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Physics: Survey and Outlook, Reports of the Subfields of Physics (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1966), 143.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    “NAS-NRC Physics Survey Committee, Solid State Physics and Condensed Matter,” draft, April 1964, Harvey Brooks Papers, Correspondence and Other Papers relating to National Academy of Sciences, 1962–1986, Harvard University Archives, Cambridge, MA (hereafter Brooks papers), box 1, folder NAS Survey Committee March-April 1964.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    NAS-NRC, Physics Survey (ref. 73), 67.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Ibid., 68.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Ibid., 67–69.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Brian Pippard, “The Cat and the Cream,” Phys. Today 14(11) (1961), 40–41.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    NAS-NRC, Physics Survey (ref. 73), 69.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
  82. 82.
    National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council Physics in Perspective, Volume II, Part A: The Core Subfields of Physics (Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1972).Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Phys. kond. Mat. 1(1) (1963), frontmatter; “Authors,” IBM Journal of Research and Development 8 (1964), 361–364, on 361.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    NAS-NRC, Physics in Perspective (ref. 82), 460.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Ibid., 458.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Ibid., 459.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Philip W. Anderson, “More Is Different” Science, New Series 177 (1972), 393–396, on 393. For a discussion of Anderson’s arguments for the fundamental nature of condensed matter physics, see Joseph D. Martin, “Fundamental Disputations,” Hist. Stud. Nat. Sci., forthcoming.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    American Physical Society Journals, http://journals.aps.org/search, accessed August 13, 2014. The ratio is starker in AIP journals, with 33 instances of “condensed matter” and 4,695 of “solid state.” The difference here is amplified by several factors, including the applied focus of AIP journals during an era that witnessed an explosion in topics such as solid state masers and lasers and the fact that the AIP search algorithm includes the titles of citing articles, which generates a high rate of false positives. American Institute of Physics Journals, http://scitation.aip.org/search, accessed August 13, 2014.
  89. 89.
    Minutes of the American Physical Society Council Meeting, San Francisco, California, January 22, 1978, American Physical Society meeting minutes and membership list, 1902–2003, Niels Bohr Library and Archives, College Park, MD (hereafter APS minutes).Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Minutes of the American Physical Society Council Meeting, Washington, DC, April 23, 1978, APS minutes.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Hopfield, “Whatever Happened” (ref. 32), points to the success of the BCS theory of superconductivity as the theoretical development that encouraged physicists to see solid state problems as general physical problems.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Industrial Research Laboratories of the United States, Sixth Edition (Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1946).Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Industrial Research Laboratories of the United States, Eleventh Edition (Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1960).Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Walter Kohn to George Pake, November 13, 1964, Brooks papers, box 1, folder NAS Survey Committee May-December 1964.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Harvey Brooks to Walter Kohn, March 30, 1964, Brooks papers, box 1, folder NAS Survey Committee March-April 1964.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Panel on Condensed-Matter Physics, Condensed-Matter Physics: Physics through the 1990s (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1986), 3.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
  98. 98.
    NAS-NRC, Physics Survey (ref. 73), 67; NAS-NRC, Physics in Perspective (ref. 82), 142.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    See Lillian Hoddeson, Gordon Baym, and Michael Eckert, “The Development of the Quantum Mechanical Electron Theory of Metals, 1926–1933,” in Lillian Hoddeson et al., eds., Out of the Crystal Maze: Chapters from the History of Solid State Physics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 88–181 and Christian Joas and Jeremiah James, “Subsequent and Subsidiary? Rethinking the Role of Applications in Establishing Quantum Mechanics,” Hist. Stud. Nat. Sci., forthcoming.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    John C. Slater, “The Solid State,” Phys. Today 5(1) (1952), 10–15, on 10.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    NAS-NRC, Condensed-Matter Physics (ref. 96).Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Ibid., viii.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    For an overview of the linear model, see: Benoît Gordon, “The Linear Model of Innovation: The Historical Construction of an Analytical Framework,” Science, Technology, & Human Values 31 (2006), 639–667.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Rustum Roy, “Funding Big Science,” Phys. Today 48(9) (1985), 9.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Matthew N. Eisler, “‘The Ennobling Unity of Science and Technology’: Materials Science and Engineering, the Department of Energy, and the Nanotechnology Enigma,” Minerva 51 (2013), 225–251.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Basel 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lyman Briggs CollegeEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations