Putting Physics to WorkAlbert W. Hull Citation: Review of Scientific Instruments 6, 377 (1935); doi: 10.1063/1.1751905 View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1751905 View Table of Contents: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/rsi/6/12?ver=pdfcov Published by the AIP Publishing Articles you may be interested in Putting a Slug to Work Comput. Sci. Eng. 11, 62 (2009); 10.1109/MCSE.2009.35 Putting the Second Law to Work AIP Conf. Proc. 1033, 319 (2008); 10.1063/1.2979052 Cleve Moler: Putting Math to Work Comput. Sci. Eng. 1, 10 (1999); 10.1109/MCSE.1999.10016 Putting Physics to Work Rev. Sci. Instrum. 6, 36 (1935); 10.1063/1.1751924 Putting Photons to work Phys. Today

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitationnew.aip.org/termsconditions.

Downloaded to IP: 155.247.166.234 On: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 03:08:05

DECEMBER. 1935 R. S. 1. VOLUME 6

PHYSICS FORUM

Putting Physics to W ork*

L ET us begin by facing the facts. Physics has enjoyed a place in the sun which it can

not expect to hold permanently. Human beings quickly learn to expect a continuation of that which has been. In children we call it spoiling. Physicists would be more than human if they were not somewhat spoiled by the popularity they have enjoyed.

Part of this popularity, namely, that due to the interest of the public in relativity and quantum theory, has been unfounded, since it is based upon mystery rather than understanding. An­other part has been fortuitous and temporary in nature, namely, that part which followed the discovery by physics of a commercially valuable product-the electron. But much of it is based on a firm foundation and will endure. Industry and world opinion have had their attention called to the value of research in physical science, and after the clouds of overemphasis and popular fas­cination have cleared away, there will be left a better understanding of fundamental values.

What are these inherent values in physics? First and foremost, physics is the foundation of all engineering. In fact, most of the branches of engineering are the legitimate children of physics, many of them grown so large and prosperous that they have come to look down on their parent. In the past few years, however, there has been an awakening to the need of a better understanding by engineers of the foundations of their engineer­ing knowledge, which means more training in the fundamentals taught by physics. It is recognized today that engineering can use a certain number of cook-book or hand-book engineers, but if engineering practice is to progress, that progress can be obtained only by men who understand the basic principles on which engineering is founded. The first and largest service of physics, then, is its

* Presented at the Conference on Industrial Physics arranged by the Physics Department, University of Pitts­burgh, November 15, 1935.

part in the fundamental equipment of every engineer. The share of the professional physicist in this service is the training of engineers. This will be a continuing and, I think, increasing field of service for physicists. At the present moment the only effect of increased emphasis on funda­mentals will probably be more hours of work for the already overworked teacher; but in the future it is sure to mean more and better teachers. I hope it is going to mean physicists on all engi< neering faculties. The goal is more physics in engineering.

The second great service of physics is pure research, i.e., research which does not seek financial return. The advance of physical science in the last ten years has been so phenomenal as to constitute an all-time record. The effectiveness of its mass attack has been a surprise, even to its own workers. It is the best example, to date, of the power of cooperation. Up to twenty years ago scientific research was highly individualistic. When a man announced a discovery or published a preliminary account of an investigation, it was equivalent to staking out a claim in that field, and the ethical standards of the day forbade any one else to enter the field. Now it is considered ethical not only for one but for half the scientific world to join in a mass attack upon any new field that is opened. This method is, I think, philosophically sound, in line with social evolu­tion. Practically, it has more than justified itself by the success it has achieved in the last ten years.

The fear has been expressed by some that physical research is progressing too rapidly for the good of humanity, and should be curbed. I tis scarcely necessary to tell this audience that such a fear is groundless, or that there is no need for worry lest the field for scientific investigation become exhausted. We should indeed be bigots if we thought that our present knowledge con­stituted any appreciable fraction of the ultimate which is within the reach of human understand-

377

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitationnew.aip.org/termsconditions.

Downloaded to IP: 155.247.166.234 On: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 03:08:05

378 PHYSICS FORUM

ing. By all means let physical science progress to more and greater victories.

On the other hand, we should recognize that the popularity which physical science has enjoyed in the last few years is a matter of relativity. Popularity is by its very nature exclusive. If science is popular, other branches of human interest must be relatively neglected. Many branches have felt this neglect and said so. It is devoutly to be hoped that other fields of scien­tific research, particularly the economic and social sciences, will progress in the years ahead of us, and that art and literature too will playa larger part in enriching human life. If they do, we must expect and accept the loss by physical re­search of some of its prestige, but not its progress.

Prestige tends to be self-propagating in that it engenders financial support, and this is a matter of great importance to science. It may be that physical science must look forward to a less ex­clusive enjoyment of this prerogative. Much of the progress of the last ten years, which has brought American science from the foot of the class to the top, has been due to the opportunities afforded by graduate fellowships. Physics has enjoyed a large fraction of these fellowships. It is to be anticipated that this emphasis will shift, and that other sciences, as they advance, will share more and more in this opportunity, leaving to physics a lesser share. Already the Rockefeller Foundation has indicated its decision to place more emphasis upon the economic, biological and social sciences. No one will question the desira­bility of research in these fields.

In the meantime how is physics to carryon? We must find new means and methods. Federal support is a possibility, and is in line with the policies of other countries, particularly England and Russia. State support through the state universities will continue, but may not greatly increase. Endowment by private philanthropy will not be available for the next few years and is likely to flow into other fields, which may at the time be more popular. In every practical undertaking one should hope for the best and prepare for the worst. We should face the prob­lem of carrying forward the torch of physical science with not only unabated, but accelerated speed, without additional facilities. I believe it can and will be done. The problem is not an

insoluble one in comparison with some that science has solved.

Let me suggest two or three possibilities: The first is more participation in research by our army of physics teachers. Do not say that they are already overworked. I know it only too well. But I think it can be proven that work has never yet hurt anybody; only ineffective or unsuc­cessful work, which we call worry. If happiness is proportional to accomplishment, as our phi­losophers tell us, then more, not less, overwork should be our goal. I believe it is a sound phi­losophy. I should be the last to minimize the amount of work carried by physics teachers, but frankly I do not think that is the reason for their small contribution to research. I think it is rather a feeling of the ineffectiveness of their part-time efforts, in comparison with the opportunities afforded by fellowships and endowed research professorships. And so the falling away of these exclusive privileges, which have been our great asset in the past, may open the door to our real permanent heritage, the participation in research by a much greater army, to the benefit of science and the enrichment of life of those participating.

Second, it is not only possible but probable, and in line with present trends, that better teaching can and will be done with less hours, thus allowing more opportunity for research by teachers. Teachers have long recognized the futility of that part of their effort which is devoted to the grading of students, as well as the enormous waste of energy expended in prodding and pushing the uninterested minority. Lecturing is an obsolete method, suited to a time when books were scarce. Even the time spent in expla­nation is largely unessential, being not explana­tion at all but oral information in lieu of reading and thinking. These facts are not cited as criti­cisms of present methods, but as a recognition of inherent values and possibilities. The problem is fundamentally not so much one of methods as of traditional attitudes, which are not easily changed. Perhaps the cultivation of research may itself be a factor in bringing about this change. Experience has shown that the best way of cor­recting a poor expenditure of time is to crowd it out by a better one, especially if the better one is accompanied by enthusiasm. Under these con­ditions human ingenuity always finds a sub-

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitationnew.aip.org/termsconditions.

Downloaded to IP: 155.247.166.234 On: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 03:08:05

PHYSICS FORUM 379

stitute, and usually a better one, for the time that was spent ineffectively. Furthermore, I have long been convinced, as I think most teachers have, that the secret of teaching is not explana­tion but inspiration. The sight of a physics teacher absorbed in research may accomplish more for a student than his presence at the black­board. Personally, I believe it would, under proper conditions and with proper attitudes; at least for all those students who ought to be studying science. It is an experiment worth trying.

Finally, the student himself may take part in the research. This is already being widely prac­ticed, even in undergraduate circles, with honor students and seniors. It can go much further, with benefit to the student as well as to science.

The third field for physics is industrial research. I t differs from pure research in that, whether fundamental or superficial, it must always be able to justify its existence to stockholders. It differs from engineering in that it is not essen­tially continuous. For engineers there is a normal, continuous need, to design bridges, dams, machines, buildings. The demand varies with industrial activity and is in direct proportion to it; i.e., every large machine or other project requires a definite amount of engineering. The physicist, on the other hand, has no such essential position. He is either a luxury, indulged in as a speculation during prosperity and dropped when adversity threatens; or a development engineer in new or borderline fields not served by any engineering body, e.g., when a new scientific discovery is in process of conversion to industrial use. The physicist shares this precarious status with the research chemist. But, in the case of the chemist, there is a germane field of engineering for which his training fits him. The physicist has no such relations. He is a man without a country; a scientific jack at all trades and master of none.

Prior to 1910, physicists had very little indus­trial value, and had developed a certain defensive pride in their impracticality. Then came the dis­covery of the electron tube, a product of physics which industry could use. Immediately physicists were in'demand. This beginning of a period of industrial employment of physicists was hailed as a new era, in which business had at last

awakened to the value of science. Actually business had not changed at all, as recent events have demonstrated. The willingness to discharge the research staff while continuing to pay divi­dends is just as prevalent as of old-and is probably sound business policy. What really happened was that physics had stumbled on a discovery-electrons in vacuum-which industry could use; and physicists were temporarily in demand to direct and supervise its use. The demand continued for about ten years, the normal period. Then the inevitable and proper result followed; a new branch of engineering was born. By 1925 several of our universities had courses in radio engineering which turned out men better prepared than average physicists to meet the demand; and the era, or rather the wave, of industrial physics subsided.

This was a major wave. There will be other large waves. In the meantime, there is a con­tinuous ebb and flow of smaller waves whose integrated effect far outweighs the peaks. In and between the various professions there are gaps ~hich the physicist, because of his broad train­ing, is qualifipo to fil!. Many of thpse involve the use of instruments. Calorimetry and photometry are examples: The use of photo-tubes for meas­uring the density of solutions, of paper pulp, of smoke; for color analysis, sound reproduction, measurement of illumination, temperature; for timing and control of industrial processes: The use of electron tubes to measure vibration and noise; to analyze sound; to record heart beats, brain impulses: The use of rectifiers and Thyra­trons in industrial control of machines: The use of x-rays as a tool in chemical analysis, in meas­uring orientation and strain in metals, phase boundaries in alloys, holes in castings, size of colloid particles. One of the most recent fields for the physicist is that of analyst for organic chemists, making use of the physicist's knowledge of infrared absorption technique to determine the concentrations of hydrogen and deuterium, in a new and very important method of studying reaction rates.

In the majority of these services physics plays an assistant, or at most an associate role. Can physicists adapt themselves to this role? Can they make the transition from the individualism of graduate research to the cooperation necessary

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitationnew.aip.org/termsconditions.

Downloaded to IP: 155.247.166.234 On: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 03:08:05

380 PHYSICS FORUM

in industry? Many a self-confident young Ph.D., fresh from his solo thesis effort, has brought discredit on himself and his profession by at­tempting to remake the industry which employs him, according to his own very narrow ideas. A useful maxim, that would help avoid such catas­trophes, is that judgment based on less than two years' experience is seldom of value. The quality that is needed, however, is not less confidence in his own ability, but more respect for that of others.

Even these smaller and more numerous ser­vices of physics are, like the larger ones, in a state of flux, and none of them constitute perma­nent professions. As soon as the importance of anyone is recognized, it is incorporated in the training of one or another of the engineering professions. Hence the physicist who follows this career will be called upon for an ever-changing variety of services. His qualifications for such service are broad fundamental knowledge, famil­iarity with instruments, and training in the scien­tific method of attack. There will be a steady, and, I think, increasing demand for men ~f this type.

There remains the fundamental, pure or impure, research which stable firms and founda­tions carryon over a period of years. It is usually expensive, and can be justified only under stable economic and political conditions. Many such projects are started by optimistic organizations in times of prosperity, only to be lopped off as a luxury when change threatens. The stable de­mand in this field is limited but attractive. If business can be stabilized it may greatly increase. The asset for such work is native ability rather than training, since the experience required for worthwhile service is generally large compared with that which college training can furnish.

So much for what physicists can do. What are they doing? Of the 2735 members of the American Physical Society, 1866, or two-thirds, are in edu­cational work, 484 in industry, 12 in private research, 2 are lawyers, 2 physicians, 1 an editor, and approximately 50 are in government work. There remain 318 whose employment could not be ascertained, many of whom may be in indus­try. Of the 484 listed industrial workers, 115 are in the Bell Telephone Laboratories and 40 in the General Electric laboratories, leaving 329 dis­tributed among 161 industrial concerns, about 2 to each concern. Of course, not all of these may be physicists; but if we take it at face value, it means that the majority of industrial physicists are in small laboratories. Herein lies ground for optimism. There were 1575 industrial and con­sulting research laboratories in the United States in 1933, according to the National Research Council Bulletin. Approximately only one-tenth of these employ physicists today. Here is a large potential market. If the present rate of industrial recovery continues, some of this market should become available in the immediate future, and more and more as recovery progresses, with a resultant steady demand for physicists.

But physics in industry, not physicists, should be our goal. When recovery is accomplished, when our slack employment has been taken up, and we look out to plan for the future, what then will be the demand for physicists in industry? Perhaps precarious and intermittent, as in the past. It is not the essential thing. What will be the demand for physics in industry? Strong and increasing. This is the important thing. Physics, not physicists!

Research Laboratory, General Electric Company,

Schenectady, New York.

ALBERT W. HULL

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitationnew.aip.org/termsconditions.

Downloaded to IP: 155.247.166.234 On: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 03:08:05