Enrico Fermi and the Physics and Engineering of a nuclear pile: the retrieval of novel documents

S. Esposito; O. Pisanti

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 0803.1145

Enrico Fermi and the Physics and Engineering of a nuclear pile: the retrieval of novel documents

S. Esposito·O. Pisanti

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We give a detailed account of the recent retrieval of a consistent amount (about 600 pages) of documents written by Enrico Fermi and/or his collaborators, coming from different sources previously unexplored. These documents include articles, patents, reports, notes on scientific and technical meetings and other papers, mainly testifying Fermi's activity in the 1940s about nuclear pile physics and engineering. All of them have been carefully described, pointing out the relevance of the given papers for their scientific or even historical content. From the analysis of these papers, a number of important scientific and technical points comes out, putting a truly new light on the Fermi's (and others') scientific activity about nuclear piles and their applications. Quite unexpectedly intriguing historical remarks, such as those regarding the relationships between U.S. and Britain, just after the end of the war, about nuclear power for pacific and/or military use, or even regarding long term physics research and post-war research policy, emerge as well.

Explore related subjects

physics.hist-ph physics.pop-ph physics.soc-ph

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

S. Esposito, O. Pisanti. 2008-03-07. Enrico Fermi and the Physics and Engineering of a nuclear pile: the retrieval of novel documents. https://arxiv.org/abs/0803.1145

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Niels Bohr in North America (1923) and his Meeting with Robert Frost

During the autumn of 1923, Niels Bohr stayed for about three months in Canada and the United States where he gave a series of lectures on atomic and quantum theory. This paper provides details about his many meetings and lectures. It deals in particular with his stay at Amherst College, where he had a long conversation with the celebrated poet Robert Frost. Based on new archival sources, the paper includes a more fine-grained and better documented version of the episode than the one offered by literary critics and scholars. It concludes, perhaps somewhat disappointingly, that the Bohr-Frost meeting was of no great importance to either the physicist or the poet.

physics.hist-ph↗

arXiv2026

Gauge Matters More Than Curvature

Recent orthodoxy, which we call Curvature Fundamentalism, posits that the field strength $F$ on spacetime exhausts the physically significant content of electromagnetism, at least on prosaic (contractible) spacetimes. We argue that it is gauge invariance that constrains physical significance. As a result, there are physically significant quantities that $F$ does not capture, even on contractible spacetimes. We show that this result is robust: in the presence of charged matter fields, there are interference experiments whose outcome cannot be predicted by $F$ or any other point-local gauge invariant quantities on the basis of initial Cauchy data. We prove this using the example of relative phase of a Klein-Gordon-Maxwell field, and use it to identify a context in which the widely-claimed equivalence between the Maxwell-Faraday formulation $EM_1$ and the gauge formulation $EM_2$ of electromagnetism is untenable, and that new strategies may be needed for the reductionist project.

physics.hist-ph↗

arXiv2026

Lorenz vs Lorentz. The controversy examined from the original texts

The attribution of the condition div A + (1/c^2) dPhi/dt = 0 has been under discussion since 1938 as a question of priority between Ludvig Lorenz and Hendrik Lorentz. This work argues that the problem is of a different nature, and that the discussion does not close because it has never been specified what is being attributed. Drawing on the three versions of the 1867 paper and on six further primary sources, it is documented that three separable acts have been designated under a single name: the obtaining of the relation between potentials, its imposition as a restriction on the admissible potentials, and its denomination as a gauge. It is further documented that in none of the three versions of the 1867 paper does the word potential appear, that the magnetic field does not figure in it as a quantity of the theory, and that the vocabulary in which that paper is described today enters the literature after it was written. It is concluded that the disjunction between the two denominations, posed without specifying which of the three acts is being attributed, is ill formed.

physics.hist-ph↗