Second Crisis
In spite of Treiman's attitude toward me (never come to Princeton again), my professional
asset was and still is my Princeton background with Einstein's name.
 After finding out my connection with my thesis advisor was totally useless, I had
to find a different route to Princeton and Einstein.
 When I was a graduate student, I noticed that Eugene Paul Wigner (Nobel 1963) was
totally isolated from the rest of Princeton. Yet, I started studying his 1939 paper on
his little groups of the Lorentz group governing the internal spacetime symmetries of
of the particles in Einstein's relativistic world. After losing my professional
confidence in Sam Treiman (my thesis advisor), I continued studying Wigner's paper
to construct my alternate route to Princeton.
 In 1973, with my longtime colleague named Marilyn Noz, I started publishing papers
on moving bound states in Einstein's relativistic world using harmonic oscillator wave
functions. These wave functions are applicable to moving bound states such as
protons in GellMann's quark model.
In 1979, with my colleagues, I published a paper
stating that these oscillator wave functions can be regarded as physical applications of
the mathematical framework spelled out in Wigner's 1939 paper.
However, Wigner was not familiar with the physics based on highenergy accelerators,
and I made no attempts to impress him with this paper.
 In 1983 and 1986, with my younger colleagues, I published my papers
containing this table:
Contents of Einstein's E = mc^{2}

Particle 
Massive/Slow 
between 
Massless/Fast 

Einstein 
Energy Momentum 
E = p^{2}/2m 
E = [m^{2}c^{4} + (cp)^{2}]^{1/2 } 
E = cp 

Wigner 
Helicity Spin, Gauge 
S_{3} S_{1}
S_{2}

Wigner's 1939 paper 
Helicity Gauge Trans.


 Here comes to my second crises. My progress on this research line on Wignerism made
many people unhappy.
 Arthur Wightman
and Louis Michel
were known as the two most respected Wignerists. Wightman was a professor at Princeton
University, and I was in his class in 1961 when he gave lectures on Wigner's 1939 paper.
Michel was a highly respected French physicist who visited the University of
Maryland in 1970. He gave a series of lectures on Wigner's 1939 paper. I
attended all of his lectures.
When Wigner published the English version of his book entitled "Group Theory and
Atomic Spectra," he thanked both Michel and Wightman in the preface. Wigner's
original book was written in German.
Thus, there is a reason for them to claim their ownership of Wigner's heritage.
They are in these two photos:
I took these photos.
They became upset because I published my papers about Wigner without their permissions.
They had their Herod Complexes. Since I also have the
same Herod Complex, I understand what went on in their minds.
 In 1971, Wigner retired from his departmental duties and became an emeritus professor.
He released his postilion of the Thomas D. Jones Professor of Mathematical Physics.
Wightman was given this title. Thus, there is a good reason for him and others to
regard Wightman as the owner of Wignership at Princeton.
 With his prestige, Wightman told me directly my published
table given above is incorrect. Since Wightman's office and Wigner's office were in
the same building on the Princeton campus, he must have told the same story directly
to Wigner.
Wightman was not my thesis advisor at Princeton, but I was in his class where he gave
a series of lecturers on Wigner's work on the Lorentz group. He knew me well.
He could have talked to me if he was unhappy with my papers.
Instead, he gave his death sentence on my papers without asking me a single question.
I have to say that
Wightman was not a good scholar.
 Since many people regarded Wightman as the guardian of Wigner at Princeton, they
asked him what he thought about me while I was publishing papers with Wigner. Wightman's
answer was
Kim is taking advantage of Wigner.
Wightman was right in saying that I elevated myself by publishing my papers with Wigner.
However, why could he not take the same advantage? His office was very close to
Wigner's office in the same physics building on the Princeton campus. It is generally
agreed that Wightman could not add anything to Wigner's research line even though he
inherited the same position title from him.
 Louis Michel wrote to John S. Toll (Chancellor of the University of Maryland)
to fire me, because I was publishing "wrong" papers about Wigner.
Toll was the chairman of the physics department in 1962 when he hired me as an
assistant professor, and I was his yesman until 1965 when he left Maryland to
become the president of Stony Brook University. Toll was very happy when I attended
his inaugural ceremony at Stony Brook in 1966.
In 1978, Toll came back to Maryland as the Chancellor of the State University System.
Michel did not know Toll used to become very happy when Wigner came to Maryland at my
invitation. See this photo of Wigner with the Tolls
and myself.
To John Toll, and to me,
Michel became a Joke.
 Michel and Wightman were excellent mathematical physicists, and I respect
them. They took these despicable actions against me because they did not
read or understand the paper Wigner published on
group contractions with a Turkish
physicist named Erdal Inonu.
It is possible that they had a prejudice against those who are not
EuroAmericans, including Turks and Koreans. This kind of prejudice is
not uncommon in the academic world even these days.
Yet, the prejudice against me was minimal compared what Einstein had to face
in Europe. He had to move to Princeton in 1933. At that time, America was
noman's land for scientists. Let us look at
this poster.
As late as my undergraduate years (195458), I had to read the
books by Courant and Hilbert written in German on mathematical physics.
The key members of the Manhattan Project (producing the first nuclear bombs) were
born or studied in Europe. For scientists, the United States was an underdeveloped
country when Einstein was forced to leave Europe in 1933.
 The most effective way to shut them up was to publish my papers with Wigner.
This was precisely what I did.
This was how I converted my second crisis to
a great opportunity.
Wigner was happy with his Nobel Prize (1963), but not 100% happy because the prize
was not for his 1939 paper. He was looking for someone who could work with him to
exploit the full implications of his paper and to make it Nobelworthy.
Indeed, this was the great opportunity for me. The best way to approach
Wigner was to tell him he and Einstein are comparable, by showing the
table given above.
 In his 1939 paper, Wigner noted that the
internal spacetime symmetry of the massive particle at rest is like O(3)
(threedimensional rotation group with three rotational degrees of freedom).
Look at a potato. You know how to rotate it.
You can rotate it around the x axis, y axis, as well as around the z axis.
 According to Wigner's 1939 paper, the internal spacetime symmetry of a massless
particle moving with the speed of light is like E(2) (twodimensional Euclidean group
with one rotational and two translational degrees of freedom). On a flat field, you
can rotate yourself while standing. You can run from west to east, or from south to north.
 It is very easy to associate the rotational degree with the helicity (rotation
around the momentum = one degree of freedom).
How about the two translational degrees
of freedom for the massless particle? It became known that they correspond to the
gauge degree of freedom for massless particles.
 However, why two translational degrees for one gauge variable? On this issue, I
struggled with Wigner to find the solution to this problem, and we published the
result in a joint paper in 1987. The pictorial
illustration is given in this webpage.
 Paul A. M. Dirac (190284, Nobel 1933)
was Wigner's brotherinlaw. Dirac's wife was Wigner's sister named Margit. However,
it does not appear that these two great physicists talked about physics when they met.
I was fortunate to have an audience with Dirac in 1962.
I told Wigner my story of Dirac's work summarized in this figure.
 Wigner clearly understood my explanation of Dirac's papers
(published in 1927, 45, and 49), and we synthesized them in the language Wigner
used in his 1939 paper. Here is the paper
published in the Journal of Mathematical Physics.
 Many people were wondering how a boy from Korea (underdeveloped country at that
time, but not now) and from an obscure place (Maryland compared with Princeton) could
approach Wigner. My answer is very simple. I was able to talk with Wigner because
I am a Korean with this piece of Korean Wisdom. I was
able tell Wigner the story he wanted to hear.
 In 1979, during the
Einstein Centennial Year (he was born in 1879), a Turkish physicist named
Bulent Atalay constructed this impressive
portrait of Wigner with Einstein.
 Wigner was so happy with this portrait that he was showing it prominently
in his office. However, on what scientific ground? This is precisely the role
I could play. I showed him the following table contained in my papers
published earlier:
Contents of Einstein's E = mc^{2}

Particle 
Massive/Slow 
between 
Massless/Fast 

Einstein 
Energy Momentum 
E = p^{2}/2m 
E = [m^{2}c^{4} + (cp)^{2}]^{1/2 } 
E = cp 

Wigner 
Helicity Spin, Gauge 
S_{3} S_{1}
S_{2}

Wigner's 1939 paper 
Helicity Gauge Trans.


 Wigner liked this table because the table contains his name with Einstein's
name. This is the scientific content of his portrait with Einstein shown above.
In this way, I told Wigner the story he wanted to hear. Here, I used
this piece of Korean wisdom.
 With these preparations, in 1989, I was able to publish my own paper in Physical
Review Letters (the most prestigious journal in physics).
 This paper contains the following table.
Further Contents of Einstein's E = mc^{2}

Particle 
Massive/Slow 
between 
Massless/Fast 

Einstein 
Energy Momentum 
E = p^{2}/2m 
E = [m^{2}c^{4} + (cp)^{2}]^{1/2 } 
E = cp 

Wigner 
Helicity Spin, Gauge 
S_{3} S_{1}
S_{2}

Winner's Little Groups 
Helicity Gauge Trans.


GellMann Feynman 
Proton Hadron 
GellMann's quark model

Covariant bound states 
Feynman's parton picture


I added the bottom row to the table given before.
This blue row is about the quark model as a quantum bound state and its
parton picture when it moves with the speed close to that of light. Mostly with
Marilyn Noz, I published many papers on this aspect in the earlier years, and you may
click here to see how much work we did on
this blue row.
 The abovementioned 1989 paper of mine contained also
this figure telling GellMann's quark model and
Feynman's parton picture are two different ways of observing the same bound state in
quantum mechanics. The updated version of this figure is
 GellMann's quark model is based on boundstate quantum mechanics, and Feynman's
parton picture is about how this bound state appears while moving fast in Einstein's
Lorentzcovariant world. This is an old issue in physics.
There is a much older issue in physics (almost forgotten). One hundred years ago,
Bohr was worrying about the discrete energy levels of the hydrogen atom. Einstein was
interested in how things appear to moving observers. Bohr and Einstein met occasionally,
but there are no written records to indicate that they ever talked about moving hydrogen
atoms. The point is therefore that the BohrEinstein issue can be addressed in terms of
the quarkparton puzzle.
Click here for my review paper on the
quantum mechanics of moving bound states. If it is burdensome for you to read this
paper,
 go to this webpage for the history of physics
since Bohr and Einstein.
 Click here for the bridge between Bohr and Einstein
(moving bound states in Einstein's world).
 You may also be interested in this page on
Einstein in Copenhagen.
 The referee for this paper made some comments to improve the paper, and I made
necessary corrections. Even though the journal did not reveal his name,
there is a good reason for me to believe that the referee was
Steven Weinberg
(Nobel 1979). His English style was quite familiar to me.

Sam Treiman with Steven Weinberg, photo from Princeton Weekly (September 30, 1985).

When I was writing my PhD thesis at Princeton, I had to look at those written by the students
who received their degrees earlier with the same advisor. Weinberg was Sam Treiman's
first student who got his degree in 1957. I was Treiman's 5th student who got the degree
in 1961. Weinberg was not famous at that time, but I had to follow his style while writing
my thesis.
Furthermore, Weinberg published a number of papers on Wignerism in the Physical Review
during the period of 19611966. Thus, there is also a good reason for the journal to
choose him as the referee for my paper having to do with Wignerism.
Click here for Weinberg's papers on massless
particles published in 1964.
Indeed, from those papers by Weinberg, I got the hint that the translational degrees of
freedom in the Wigner's little group correspond to gauge transformations.
 Since Weinberg (Nobel 1979) is so famous these days, people do not believe me
when I tell them I shared the same advisor with him at Princeton.
Click here for the Wikipedia
page for Treiman with a partial list of his doctoral students.
It is also because I am known these days as Wigner's youngest student, for
some good reasons. I enjoy living in
this interesting world.

