The Dispersion of Feynman Diagrams in Postwar Physics

项目摘要SES 0135615战后物理中费曼图的分散大卫·凯泽·米特与理论物理学的历史和哲学的传统方法不同，该项目考察了近代物理学的历史，重点放在计算技能、本地实践以及理论工具和技术上。特别是，这个项目追溯了一种理论工具的历史，它几乎主导了现代物理学的每一个分支：理查德·费曼于20世纪40年代末引入的S的简单线条画。最令人感兴趣的是，几代年轻的理论家如何学会用图表来框定他们的研究，在一系列相互竞争的理论框架中描述亚原子物质。这种以技能为基础的观点允许历史学家从头开始梳理战后理论物理学的历史，最终将其作为一个关于设计、部署和辩论支撑日常计算的工具的故事。作为对概念世界观或“范式”早期研究的补充，凯泽的历史项目集中于研究实践和将其付诸实施的科学实践者的同时制作。关注费曼图及其从20世纪40年代末到60年代中期的分散，揭示了战后物理学中更大的转变，包括如何与大量研究生合作的观念的改变；如何理解前所未有的大量实验数据；如何在博士后阶段培养年轻物理学家；以及如何在油印的暑期学校讲稿和预印本中交流新的研究技术。费曼图在战后早期几十年的竞争使用和解释，只能在这些制度和教学转型的背景下才能理解。这关系到什么应该被算作“理论物理学”，以及一个人应该如何被培养成一个“理论家”。因此，现代物理学的历史学家和社会学家以及致力于理论构建和选择的科学哲学家都应该对这个项目感兴趣。预期的结果是一本关于费曼图早期历史的书，以及会议报告和发表的文章。

Project AbstractSES 0135615The Dispersion of Feynman Diagrams in Postwar PhysicsDavid KaiserMITUnlike traditional approaches to the history and philosophy of theoretical physics, which have been framed as intellectual or conceptual histories, this project examines the history of recent physics with a focus on calculational skills, local practices, and theoretical tools and techniques. In particular, this project traces the history of a theoretical tool which came to dominate nearly every branch of modern physics: RichardFeynman 's simple line-drawings, introduced in the late 1940s. Of central interest is how generations of young theorists learned to frame their research in terms of the diagrams, in and out of a series of competing theoretical frameworks for describing sub-atomic matter. Such a skills-based view allows historians to unpack the history of postwar theoretical physics from the ground up, as a story ultimately about designing, deploying, and disputing the tools which undergird everyday calculations. Complementing earlier studies of conceptual worldviews or "paradigms," Kaiser's historical project concentrates on the simultaneous crafting of research practices and of the scientific practitioners who put them to work. Focusing on Feynman diagrams and their dispersion from the late 1940s through the mid-1960s illuminates larger transitions within postwar physics, including changing notions of how to collaborate with roomfuls of graduate students; how to make sense of unprecedented reams of experimental data; how to train young physicists at the postdoctoral stage; and how to communicate new research techniques in mimeographed summer school lecture notes and preprints. The competing uses and interpretations of Feynman diagrams during the early postwar decades can only be understood within the context of these institutional and pedagogical transitions. At stake was nothing less than what should count as "theoretical physics," and how someone should be trained to become a "theorist." This project should therefore be of interest both to historians and sociologists of modern physics, as well as to philosophers of science who work on theory construction and selection. The expected outcome is book on the early history of Feynman diagrams, as well as conference presentations and published articles.