The Nobel Prize in Physics and Lise Meitner

Ringvorlesung Zum Gedenken an Lise Meitner 2018/19FU, Berlin, 4 February 2019Karl Grandin, KVA – CVH

“The women who were swindled out of the Nobel Prize”

Questions• Is Lise Meitner forgotten?

• Why did she chose Sweden?

• No support in Sweden?

• Was she counteracted by Manne Siegbahn?

• Why did she not get the Nobel Prize in 1945 (1946, 1947)?

• What happened then?

Lise Meitner to Margarethe Bohr 25/11-1945

”Du weisst ja, dass ich immer das Gefühl habe, das ich mit meiner ganzen Art nicht nach Schweden passe und ich habe auch noch keinen schwedischen Physiker getroffen”.

Eva von Bahr and Lise Meitner in Berlin

Oskar Klein and Niels Bohr

Eva von Bahr at Uppsala Physics institute

Atomic bombs over Hiroshima 6 August and over Nagasaki 9 August 1945

The Research institute for experimental physics of the Swedish Academy of Sciences, 1937–

Manne Siegbahn

Eva von Bahr-Bergius to Carl Wilhelm Oseen 31/1-1939

”It doesn't seem possible to get any [assistant] now and Lise sounds rather unhappy. She says, she feels like a charlatan, who receives money [from the Nobel Committee 5,400 SEK + Eva vB-B], although she cannot accomplish much, and her life seems to her completely pointless. […] If she for the past two years had not been so unaccustomed to simpler technical work such as glass blowing, soldering etc. that she now cannot cope with such.”

Carl Wilhelm Oseen to Eva von Bahr-Bergius 2/2-1939

”Is it true what L.M. says, that it is an assistant she needs? Isn't it rather so, that what she needs is a - even with regard to staff - fully equipped institute, as whose brain she could be? The quote that you mentioned, seems to me, to point quite firmly in this direction.If so, then it is obvious that Sweden cannot give her what she needs. As it was by Bohr's mediation she came here, it seems to me that in the present situation, one should turn to him.It is not certain that even a fully equipped institute would give what L.M. needs. It may be that it would also have to be located in Berlin, at a certain - for L.M. well-known address - and that it needs a second floor, where Hahn is working.In other words it may be that L.M. has reached the age when a transplanting is no longer possible.You probably know that it was impossible to get a grant from the Wallenberg Fund.We have done the best we could.”

en to Eva von Bahr

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946

Grants from NCP [SEK]

Financial support for Lise Meitner

1/2 year

The summer of 1945 Meitner works with uranium experiments, but the cyclotron had not operated as intended.

Nominations for Lise Meitner

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1924 1925 1929 1930 1933 1934 1936 1937 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1954 1955 1956 1959 1961 1964 1965

Physics (29) Chemistry (19)

Special reports on LM

Nominations for Lise Meitner

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1924 1925 1929 1930 1933 1934 1936 1937 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1954 1955 1956 1959 1961 1964 1965

Physics (29) Chemistry (19)

Planck Bohr Hahn

Nominations for Otto Hahn

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1914 1923 1924 1925 1929 1930 1933 1934 1936 1937 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947

Physics (16) Chemistry (23)

Arne Westgren

1944

• Hahn was proposed by the Nobel Committee in Chemistry for the 1944 Prize along with Hevesy who was proposed for the reserved 1943 Prize.

• The Academy endorsed Hevesy, but postponed the 1944 Prize.

• No nominations for Meitner.

1945

• One nomination (of 20) by Oskar Klein in Physics for Meitner.

• Two nominations (of the 20) for Hahn for a Nobel Prize in Physics and one nomination for Hahn (of 24) for a Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

Erik Hulthén’s special report 9/6 1945

From these circumstances and those connected to Hahn's and Strassman's discovery, it should be apparent that Meitner's and Frisch's contribution to the clarification of the nuclear fission problem's physical side is indeed very significant, but they share the honour with a large number of other researchers in the field. Now, it is always a difficult matter to make a definite judgment in priority issues, when the contributions have been made in such a rapid succession as in this case. It might therefore be that the real historical development has been different from what can be observed from the facts cited here. However, since no other documents are available to me, I can not (this year) justify to endorse the proposal regarding a prize award for Meitner and Frisch's efforts.

Niels Bohr till Oskar Klein 11/9-1945

”Of course, it is crucial whether a deal now can be reached to control the new destructive weapons, but since that would be beneficial to all, I have the best hopes for an agreement to be reached in due time and thereby truly secure world peace . [- - -] As you will see from the introductory section on the scientific background [to the atomic bomb], there is an general consensus in the [scientific] community of Lise Meitner and Robert Frisch's contribution to the development […] This might well be decisive help for the Nobel Committee's deliberations. It would not only be a well deserved encouragement, but possibly also of significance for the whole case’s international side, if Meitner and Frisch could be considered for a prize awarded at the same time as [one for] Hahn.”

KVA’s Nobel minutes 15/11 1945

General report chemistry 20/9 1945

Oskar Klein till Niels Bohr 17/11-1945

”At the poll, just over half of the votes were cast for Hahn and slightly less than half for postponement. As far as I could understand, this surprising result was due to a (perhaps not entirely unjustified) fear of some opportunistic, political reasons - the desire to keep up with America and I got a strong impression that there is widespread sympathy for another prize to be given to Lise Meitner and Frisch or maybe to LM alone. However, I do not know Siegbahn's position […]. [The] prize-awarding to all [of them] at the same time would have been much more suited for creating harmony both for everyone involved and in all the circles now disputing who made the greatest effort.”

Consolation Prize?

Cf. Nobel decision made 15 November!

1946

• 5 physics (of 26) and 1 (of 33) chemistry nominations for Meitner.

• Erik Hulthén reiterated his arguments from 1945.

• NC and physics class accepted Hulthén’s reasoning.

• Oskar Klein countered Hulthén in the Academy but to no avail.

1947

• 6 physics (of 31) and 2 (of 29) chemistry nominations for Meitner.

• Bohr tried by nominating M&F in chemistry.

Lise Meitner leaves Siegbahn’s Institute

• In 1946, Lise Meitner finally got her own laboratory in the KTH area (IVA's experimental station) and professor's salary from the Atomic Committee. Two assistants and one technician.

• The laboratory would receive the equivalent of several hundreds of millions SEK in research grants and Meitner worked, among other things with beta spectrometers that she bought.

• Good cooperation with Sigvard Eklund, a student of Manne Siegbahn, in the room next door. ”Er ist ein sehr guter jüngerer Physiker und fairer und angenehmer Mensch und wir rechnen beide auf eine gute Zusammenarbeit.”

• Research reactor.

• Meitner to Cambridge and O.R. Frisch in 1960.

Lise Meitner greets her old collaborator, Sigvard Eklund, then Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

on the occasion of the exhibition "Atoms at Work" in Vienna 19 May 1963.

1958

Conclusion?• Really forgotten?

• Why Sweden?

• Invisible support

• Membership proposed by Siegbahn

• Nobel Prize mechanics – mistake to give Hahn the NPC in 1945?

• Stay in Sweden