Convert Crisis to Fortune? How?

• If one tries to achieve anything in this world, he/she has to go through some difficult steps. The step usually takes the form of tranforming the crises into a fortune.

  I am singing Einstein these days, and some people are paying attention to me. Is it acceptable for a Korean man to talk about Einstein? I am very happy to tell you I went through two steps of crisis-to-fortune.

  I came to the United States from Korea in 1954 after high-school graduation. I studied at the Carnegie Institute of Technology (now called Carnegie Mellon University), and went to Princeton University for graduate study in 1958, and got my PhD degree in physics in 1961, and I stayed there for one addition year as a post-doc.

• In 1962, I became an assistant professor at the University of Maryland. This means that I had to struggle in my research work to establish my name in the field in order to attain a permanent-tenured position at the University.

First Crisis

• I was struggling as an assistant professor, Princeton produced a genius of the Century. His name was Roger Dashen. He became a full professor at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study. Princeton made this judgment based on his calculation of the neutron-proton mass difference, published in the Physical Review.

  I became very unhappy because I have the Herod Complex, and could not afford anyone other than myself becoming a genius. I looked at his paper carefully, and found out a serious error in his paper, and published my result in the Physical Review. Click here for a detailed story.

  However, the reaction from the physics community became very hostile to me, and my position at the University of Maryland was in danger. For most of American physicists, who are not familiar with the technical details of the theory on which Dashen's calculation based,

  Dashen is a genius, but you are a Korean.

  This was a very valid statement at that time. After the Korean War (1950-53), Korea appeared to be hopeless to Americans. Not familiar with the history of that part of the world before the Pearl Harbor Day of 1941, Americans used to say "the best solution of the Korean problem is to give the country to Japan." While I was in Princeton (1958-62), my American friends routinely told me "People with non-white skins" do not have brains to make nuclear bombs. Russians, Englishmen, and Frenchmen had the bombs, but their skins are white.

  Sam Treiman and Joan Treiman with my family. Treiman was my thesis advisor at Princeton, My son was in his quantum mechanics class during his senior year (1986-87) at Princeton. This photo was taken in 1987. Treiman did not know this young boy (Kim in his class) was my son. This means that I was completely eradicated from his memory after my visit to him in 1966. In either case, Treiman was not scientifically capable of supporting my research results. I thus had to change my route to Princeton. I constructed my new route by publishing papers with Eugene Wigner (Nobel 1963). These days, I am known as Wigner's student at Princeton. This was how I converted my first crisis into a fortune.

  I went to Princeton to see Wigner often, and Wigner came to Maryland twice at my invitation. This photo was produced at Chancellor's mansion on the campus of the University of Maryland in 1986.

  As a consequence, my position at the Univ. of Maryland was in danger. Thus, I contacted my thesis advisor at Princeton for help. His name was Sam Treiman, I am listed as one of his doctoral students on his Wikipedia page.

  Treiman was kind enough to invite me to Princeton. In February of 1966, I went there and tried to explain where Dashen's mistake was, but he did not have enough brain to understand the details of what I said, and he became angry. This means that his understanding of the problem was not better than that of the average physicists: "Dashen is a genius but you are a Korean."

• While this was going on, my departmental colleagues took my problem seriously and found out I was right. This is the reason why I still maintain my office at the Univ. of Maryland as a Professor Emeritus and still publish my books and articles with the University address.

  Indeed, the United States was very nice to me. In 1983, my son became a freshman at Princeton.

Second Crisis

In spite of Treiman's attitude toward me, 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.
  1. 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 space-time symmetries of of the particles in Einstein's relativistic world. After losing my professional confidence in Sam Treiman, I continued studying Wigner's paper.

  2. In 1973, with my long-time 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 Gell-Mann'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 high-energy accelerators, and I made no attempts to impress Wigner with this paper.

  3. In 1983 and 1986, with my younger colleagues, I published my papers containing this table:

     Contents of Einstein's E = mc2 Particle Massive/Slow between Massless/Fast

     Einstein Energy Momentum E = p2/2m E = [m2c4 + (cp)2]1/2 E = cp

     Wigner Helicity Spin, Gauge S3 S1 S2 Wigner's 1939 paper Helicity Gauge Trans.

     Wigner liked this table because this table contains his name with Einstein's name. Some prominent people said this table is incorrect.

• Here comes to my second crises. My progress on this research line made many people unhappy.
  1. Even many years after Einstein's death in 1955, going to Princeton was the life-or-death issue for ambitious young boys who wanted to meet Einstein. Princeton thus had to turn down many excellent young students who wanted to pursue graduate program there. There were a number of those among the physics faculty members at the Univ. of Maryland.

     One of those, who got turned down from Princeton, wrote a report saying that all the papers I wrote about Wigner were wrong (I do not have to mention his name because you will not recognize the name). This incident delayed my promotion from associate to full professor by ten years.

  2. 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 well-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. Thus, there is a reason for them to claim their ownership of Winger's heritage.

     

     They became upset because I published my papers about Wigner without their clearance. They had their Herod Complex. Since I also have the same Herod Complex, I understand what went on in their minds.

  3. Wightman told me directly my published table given above is wrong. 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.

  4. 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 Yes-man until 1965 when he left Maryland to become the president of the State University of New York at Stony Brook. 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 Toll and myself.

• The most effective way to shut them up was to publish my papers with Wigner. This was precisely what I did.

  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 Nobel-worthy. 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.

  1. In his 1939 paper, Wigner noted that the internal space-time symmetry of the massive particle at rest is like O(3) (three-dimensional rotation group with three rotational degrees of freedom). The internal space-time symmetry of massless particle moving with the speed of light is like E(2) (two-dimensional Euclidean group with one rotational and two translational degrees of freedom).

  2. It is very easy to associate the rotational degree with the helicity. How about the two translational degrees of freedom? It was known that they correspond to 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 published the result in a joint paper in 1987. The pictorial illustration is given in this webpage.

  3. Paul A. M. Dirac (1902-84, Nobel 1933) was Wigner's brother-in-law. 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.

     

  4. Wigner clearly understood my explanation of Dirac's papers (published in 1927, 45, and 49), and we decided synthesized them in the language Wigner used in his 1939 paper. Here is the paper published in the Journal of Mathematical Physics.

  5. Many people were wondering how a Korean man, 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 aware of this piece of Korean history.

     I was able to tell Wigner the story he wanted to hear: his 1939 paper alone deserves a full Nobel prize, as described above.

• With these preparations, in 1989, I was able to publish my own paper in Physical Review Letters (the most prestigious journal in physics).
  1. This paper contains the following table.

     Further Contents of Einstein's E = mc2 Particle Massive/Slow between Massless/Fast

     Einstein Energy Momentum E = p2/2m E = [m2c4 + (cp)2]1/2 E = cp

     Wigner Helicity Spin, Gauge S3 S1 S2 Winner's Little Groups Helicity Gauge Trans.

     Gell-Mann Feynman Proton Hadron Gell-Mann'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 subject.

  2. The above-mentioned 1989 paper of mine contained also this figure telling Gell-Mann'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

  3. Gell-Mann's quark model is based on bound-state quantum mechanics, and Feynman's parton picture is about how this bound state appears while moving fast in Einstein's Lorentz-covariant 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 Bohr-Einstein issue can be addressed in terms of the quark-parton 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,

     1. go to this webpage for the history of physics since Bohr and Einstein.

     2. Click here for the bridge between Bohr and Einstein (moving bound states in Einstein's world).

     3. You may also be interested in this page on Einstein in Copenhagen.

  4. 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. 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.

     Click here for the Wikipedia page with a partial list of Sam Treiman's doctoral students.

     Furthermore, Weinberg published a number of papers on Wignerism in the Physical Review during the period of 1961-1966. 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.

Princeton's Einstein Genealogy

• Let us go back to the table above with the blue row. The first row is for Einstein's energy-momentum relation. The second row (orange row) is for Wigner. Wigner was very happy with this row, and this is the reason why he wanted to publish papers with me.

  How about my own row? Yes, I was able to add the third row (blue row) based on my early papers which I published mostly with Marilyn Noz.

  This table is in my 1989 paper published in Physical Review Letters (1989). This table can take the form:

  

  where I am primarily responsible for the three arrows given in this table. In 1991, I had a lunch with Professor Wigner at a seafood restaurant in Princeton. Mrs. Wigner and my wife were also there.

• This table justifies the following genealogy.

  

Historical Significance

• From the ancient times, humans look at the stars in the sky. They noticed there are comets and planets. They are scattering states and bound states respectively. Newton's Second Law gave a unified view of these two different phenomena.

  In the early years of the 20th century, Bohr's rule explained the discrete energy levels of the hydrogen atom (bound state of proton and electron), but the electron-proton scattering (called the Rutherford scattering) could be still be explained in the framework of Newtonian mechanics, as shown in the following table.

  Quantum mechanics formulated by Schroedinger and Heisenberg gave the unified picture of scattering and bound states.

• How about the scattering and bound states in Einstein's Lorentz-covariant world? Quantum field theory formulated by Schwinger and Feynman gives a satisfactory answer to scattering problems. The Feynman diagrams indeed give us an effective method of calculating the scattering matrix.

  How about bound states? Paul A. M. Dirac made made his lifelong efforts to construct quantum bound states in Einstein's Lorentz-covariant world. His efforts can be unified into one theory, consistent with the space-time symmetry of the field theory for scattering processes, as two different representations of the inhomogeneous Lorentz group (mathematics of Einstein's Lorentzian world.) Click here for a published article on t his issue.

• Some people say I am a crazy person. Thus, I am allowed to ask a crazy question. Can Einstein's relativity be derived from the basket of equations for quantum mechanics?
  1. Let us look at this figure. Dirac's 1963 paper contains the basket of ten equations for the quantum mechanics of two coupled oscillators, and his 1949 paper contains the ten basic equations of Einstein's special relativity.

  2. Can those ten equations of quantum mechanics be transformed into the ten equations for Einstein's relativity? The answer is YES, as shown above. Click here for a published paper on this subject. I am not that crazy.