To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The discovery of materials that become superconducting at temperatures higher than previously observed or thought possible opened up a new research field. This chapter examines the individual, scientific, and institutional background of the discovery by Georg Müller and Alex Bednorz at IBM's Rüschlikon Laboratory in Zurich, Switzerland. The first section places the discovery in the context of the evolution, organization, and salient characteristics of the multidisciplinary field of materials science. Section 2.2 examines the industrial connection in an earlier period of technological optimism. We compare current hopes and efforts connected with the technological potential of HTS with the bright outlook for conventional or low-temperature superconductivity (LTS) in the 1960s and early 1970s. Few LTS applications materialized and only one proved commercially viable. What were the main reasons for the decline of the LTS field?
The third section presents a brief historical account of the study of conventional superconductivity and analyzes some of the factors that contributed to the new discovery, which was unexpected in terms of the discoverers themselves, the site, and the conventional wisdom refuted. Section 2.4 deals with the scientific community's reactions to the Zurich discovery. This highly unusual and intense period engendered some unconventional behavior in participants. Scientific excitement was flanked by passionate accounts in the media, which fueled public expectations about the technological and commercial significance of the breakthrough. Finally we describe the inevitable cooling-down phase that prepared the way for the establishment of national research programs.
Materials science as a research field
Individual scientists dominate the story of the discovery of HTS, but the initial event took place in the scientific and technological context of the field of materials science.
The emergence of HTS as a research field is an example of how positing a situation can make it real. Discourse and beliefs, rhetoric and persuasion, and a vision of a bright technological future – hardly supported by reliable facts at the time – acted as a catalyst. As the concept of “windows of opportunities” suggests, when new technologies appear on the market, new opportunities suddenly seem to exist, but the period in which they can be realized and exploited is brief (Perez, 1983; 1989). In the end, unsurprisingly, there are winners and losers. But while institutions maintained their structural grip and while path dependence and varying degrees of preparedness had their effects, for a short, compressed time, scientists' vision and rhetoric, policy constructs and persuasion succeeded in collusively reshuffling some of the more inert parts of the science system, before they resettled into the familiar pattern of institutional stability.
The emergence of a new research field underscores that the science system is not set once and for all; knowledge of its history is thus an essential prerequisite for understanding it: “The passage of time, and changes it brings in the factors and phenomena that interest us, are our single best resource” (MacKenzie, 1990: 7). The study of a process of change is hardly in danger of mistaking a moment for an eternal condition. But it is difficult to distinguish a unique event from more enduring developments that permit generalization. The participants we interviewed, the institutions we visited, the situations and choices reported to us, and above all the state of scientific and technological knowledge continue to change.
1831 was a momentous year for Charles Darwin. He passed his BA examination on 22 January, stayed up in Cambridge for two further terms and returned to The Mount, his home in Shrewsbury, in mid-June. On 6 August he left Shrewsbury with Adam Sedgwick for a geological field trip to North Wales, and after his lone traverse over the Harlech Dome returned to The Mount on Monday 29 August to find letters from John Stevens Henslow and George Peacock inviting him to joint HMS Beagle. This geological field trip was crucial for his work on the Beagle. For example, when he began his first geological work of the voyage on Quail Island, he was by that time a competent geologist. Though others have studied the North Wales tour in some detail, there is also another earlier and much briefer episode to consider. Darwin appears to have geologized on his own at Llanymynech in July. The contrast between his first recorded attempts at Llanymynech in July 1831 and then elsewhere in North Wales in August 1831 is most instructive, as his development as a geologist can be followed in his field notes. Retracing his steps today, and comparing his measurements and observations with new ones, throws light on what he might have learnt at different points during that summer.
The public place of science and technology in Britain underwent a dramatic change during the first half of the nineteenth century. At the end of the eighteenth century, natural philosophy was still on the whole the province of a relatively small group of aficionados. London possessed only one institution devoted to the pursuit of natural knowledge: the Royal Society. The Royal Society also published what was virtually the only journal dealing exclusively with scientific affairs: the Philosophical Transactions. By 1851, when the Great Exhibition opened its doors in Hyde Park to an audience of spectators that could be counted in the millions, the pursuit of science as a national need, its relationship to industrial progress were acceptable, if not uncontested facts for many commentators.
In this article we throw more light on Einstein's position as a pacifist and democrat during World War I than was possible up to now. This results from a systematical search for and evaluation of published and unpublished documents. Among others, it was possible to give evidence of Einstein's radicalization and to clear up the circumstances of his public appearance during the troublesome days of the Revolution in November 1918. Einstein's role in the Bund Neues Vaterland and other pacifist organizations and his interaction with other pacifists in Germany and abroad is exposed in detail and interpreted. In contrast to the generally accepted view, we give a reappraisal of Einstein's activity and show that his pacifism was always of a humanitarian nature. He only rarely applied social and political categories to the happenings during the war. Due to his main focus on physics Einstein's pacifism remained one more of creed than of deed.
This name is given to any collection of similar individuals of the same nature which exist, although we can observe only some of these individuals, and never the entire collection of all at the same time.
Most lay users of statistics think in terms of means (averages), variances or the square of the standard deviation, and Gaussians or bell-shaped curves. Such conventions are entrenched by statistical practice, by deep mathematical theorems from probability, and by theorizing in the various natural and social sciences. I am not claiming that the particular conventions (here, the statistics) we adopt are arbitrary. Entrenchment can be rational without its being as well categorical (excluding all other alternatives), even if that entrenchment claims also to provide for categoricity. 1 provide a detailed description of how a science is “normal” and conventionalized. A characteristic feature of this entrenchment of conventions by practice, theorems, and theorizing, is its highly technical form, the canonizing work enabled by apparently formal and esoteric mathematical means.