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, I continued studying Wigner's paper.
 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.
 Even many years after Einstein's death in 1955, going to Princeton was the
lifeordeath 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 are wrong. I choose not to mention his name because you
will not recognize the name (and because I have some big names to mention). This
incident delayed my promotion from associate to full professor by ten years. This
delay was of course a pressure against me to resign from my tenured position.
 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. 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.
 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.
 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 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 the Tolls and myself.
 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.
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). The internal spacetime symmetry of massless particle
moving with the speed of light is like E(2) (twodimensional Euclidean group with one
rotational and two translational degrees of freedom).
 It is very easy to associate the rotational degree with the helicoids. 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.

Paul A. M. Dirac (190284, Nobel 1933)
was Winier'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 decided 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)
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.

