PD Smith

Heart of the atom

Times Lit­er­ary Sup­ple­ment, 4 Feb­ru­ary 2005, p 32

Bri­an Cath­cart, The Fly in the Cathe­dral: How a small group of Cam­bridge sci­en­tists won the race to split the atom (308pp. Viking/Penguin, 2004)

By PD Smith

In The World Set Free, one of HG Wells’s less well-known nov­els, writ­ten a year before World War One, a pro­fes­sor of physics tells a rapt audi­ence about the won­ders of radioac­tiv­i­ty: “a lit­tle while ago we thought of the atoms as we thought of bricks, as sol­id build­ing mate­r­i­al, as sub­stan­tial mat­ter, as unit mass­es of life­less stuff, and behold! these bricks are box­es, trea­sure box­es, box­es full of the intens­est force.” In Wells’s fic­tion­al future, the secrets of radioac­tiv­i­ty were unlocked in 1933, but by 1956 the trea­sure box had become a Pandora’s box as atom­ic bombs (a phrase coined by Wells) rained from the skies. Thank­ful­ly Wells’s pre­dic­tion of a war fought between nuclear super­pow­ers has not come true, but 1933 was indeed sig­nif­i­cant. In that year, a quixot­ic genius named Leo Szi­lard had a eure­ka moment while walk­ing down Southamp­ton Row in Lon­don, when he realised how the ener­gy of the atom could be released by cre­at­ing a self-sus­tain­ing chain reac­tion. Neu­trons were the key; the exis­tence of these atom­ic par­ti­cles had been proven in 1932 by James Chad­wick at the Cavendish Lab­o­ra­to­ry in Cam­bridge. And it was two of Chadwick’s col­leagues who, in that same year, cre­at­ed the first machine to split the atom.

The Direc­tor of the Cavendish was Sir Ernest Ruther­ford and it had been his work on radioac­tiv­i­ty, with chemist Fred­er­ick Sod­dy, that inspired Wells’s 1913 nov­el. Ruther­ford rede­fined the under­stand­ing of the atom. As Bri­an Cath­cart says in The Fly in the Cathe­dral, he over­turned the rather appeal­ing notion that the atom resem­bled a plum pud­ding. Accord­ing to this view “the sponge of the pud­ding was a spher­i­cal, per­me­able bulk of mys­te­ri­ous elec­tri­fi­ca­tion and the elec­trons were the plums, speck­led in large num­bers through and around it.”

Instead Ruther­ford pro­posed that the atom was like a minia­ture solar sys­tem, with elec­trons orbit­ing a nucle­us of oth­er par­ti­cles: “in rela­tion to the atom, the nucle­us was a mere speck in a cav­ernous void … it was like a fly in a cathe­dral.”

But the pre­cise make-up of the atom­ic nucle­us was still a mys­tery, and no one was more keen to catch this elu­sive fly than Ruther­ford. In 1919, using a process he called “arti­fi­cial dis­in­te­gra­tion”, he had chipped away at the nucle­us and iden­ti­fied one of its build­ing blocks: the pro­ton. But progress stalled and it took anoth­er eight years for Ruther­ford to dream up a high volt­age machine that would gen­er­ate a stream of atom­ic par­ti­cles to shat­ter the nucle­us. As he put it, “we are rather like chil­dren, who must take a watch to pieces to see how it works.” The era of par­ti­cle accel­er­a­tors was about to begin.

Cathcart’s excel­lent study tells the sto­ry of two Cavendish sci­en­tists who were in the van­guard of this rev­o­lu­tion – Ernest Wal­ton and John Cock­croft. While it is a sto­ry that has been ignored by most pop­u­lar his­to­ries of sci­ence, for Cath­cart, Cock­croft and Walton’s break­through “ranks among the most aston­ish­ing and unex­pect­ed sci­en­tif­ic achieve­ments of the twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry”. When Wal­ton arrived at the Cavendish in 1927 from Trin­i­ty Col­lege, Dublin, he was 24 years old and “lit­tle bet­ter than a begin­ner in atom­ic physics”. With­in six weeks, how­ev­er, he was work­ing at the cut­ting edge of physics — on the accel­er­a­tion of par­ti­cles by elec­tri­cal means. Cock­croft, from Tod­mor­den on the York­shire-Lan­cashire bor­der, was 6 years old­er than Wal­ton and an expe­ri­enced elec­tri­cal engi­neer. It was Cock­croft who first grasped the sig­nif­i­cance of a the­o­ret­i­cal paper by the bril­liant young Sovi­et physi­cist George Gamow. As a boy Gamow once smug­gled com­mu­nion bread home to test tran­sub­stan­ti­a­tion beneath his micro­scope. But in 1928 anoth­er mys­tery con­cerned him: how par­ti­cles enter or leave the atom­ic nucle­us. Accord­ing to Gamow’s the­o­ry, pro­tons car­ried less than half the pos­i­tive charge of alpha par­ti­cles, the bul­let of choice for most physi­cists. There­fore, pro­tons would “encounter less repul­sion when they met the pos­i­tive­ly charged pro­tec­tive bar­ri­er of the nucle­us”, and so might be the ide­al par­ti­cle to pen­e­trate the nucle­us using rel­a­tive­ly low volt­ages.

The­o­ry had nev­er been the Cavendish’s strength. Ruther­ford once said that the­o­rists “play games with their sym­bols, but we, in the Cavendish, turn out the real sol­id facts of nature.” But armed with Gamow’s the­o­ry, Cock­croft and Wal­ton began work­ing on the first of their accel­er­a­tors in spring 1929.

The final machine, with its spark gap spheres and glass vac­u­um tubes, looked like some­thing from Fritz Lang’s Metrop­o­lis. In Nicholas Mosley’s pow­er­ful nov­el about the sci­ence and phi­los­o­phy of the peri­od, Hope­ful Mon­sters (1990), Cock­croft and Walton’s accel­er­a­tor is mem­o­rably described as hav­ing “a bizarre appear­ance like some­thing con­struct­ed as a prop for a mod­ern bal­let. It was like an out­size vil­lage pump crowned with a tin top hat: who­ev­er worked it had to sit in a tea-chest lined with lead; this was to pro­tect him from pos­si­ble effects of radi­a­tion. But such was the excite­ment of the time that physi­cists did not wor­ry much about radi­a­tion.”

After three years and four months of work, Cock­croft and Wal­ton final­ly suc­ceed­ed in dis­in­te­grat­ing the atom: they fired pro­tons at a lithi­um tar­get and the nucle­us split into two alpha par­ti­cles. “No com­pa­ra­ble nuclear reaction—nothing remote­ly like it—had ever been observed before. […] They were putting in pro­tons, the lithi­um was essen­tial­ly van­ish­ing and what emerged were two alpha particles—nuclei of heli­um. They were not mere­ly chip­ping bits off a nucle­us; they had gone right to its heart.”

For the first time a man-made appa­ra­tus had shat­tered the atom­ic nucle­us and for this both men shared the 1951 Nobel prize for physics. Ruther­ford was delight­ed: they had final­ly caught “that tiny fly buzzing about in the huge, emp­ty cathe­dral of the atom.” After­wards, much to Rutherford’s annoy­ance, news­pa­per head­lines her­ald­ed an age of lim­it­less ener­gy. Though the dis­in­te­gra­tion of the lithi­um atom did indeed pro­duce a rel­a­tive­ly large amount of ener­gy, only a mod­est 1 pro­ton in 10 mil­lion entered a tar­get nucle­us. It was not until the heav­i­est ele­ment, ura­ni­um, was split in 1938 that sci­en­tists like Szi­lard realised that a new and ter­ri­ble pow­er source was final­ly with­in reach.

Cath­cart has writ­ten a won­der­ful­ly lucid account of the ori­gins of par­ti­cle physics for the gen­er­al read­er. The Fly in the Cathe­dral offers a fas­ci­nat­ing insight into the nuts and bolts of exper­i­men­tal (rather than the­o­ret­i­cal) physics in the 1920s and 30s. He paints a vivid pic­ture of research life at the Cavendish, from the “sadis­tic mean­ness” of its chief tech­ni­cian, Lin­coln (“a man of Edwar­dian bear­ing, with a waxed mous­tache curled up in points on each side”), to the dai­ly rit­u­al of after­noon tea and pen­ny buns. But the high point in the life of this remark­able sci­en­tif­ic com­mu­ni­ty were the meet­ings of the Cavendish Phys­i­cal Soci­ety. For writer and sci­en­tist CP Snow, in his nov­el The Search (1934), they were “the essence of all the per­son­al excite­ment in sci­ence; they were romantic…I had seen and heard and been close to the lead­ers of the great­est move­ment in the world.”