Archive for the 'Klaus Fuchs' Category

Max Born Spy Ring

February 24, 2014

From time to time we use the term Max Born Spy Ring. We outline the hypothesis that Max Born had a spy ring around him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born

Following is essential reading on Max Born and his wife’s extreme leftism and family history involved in Marxism.

“The wide-ranging family history of Max Born”

http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/56/2/219.abstract

Read online free: (May be limited to 5 of these a month or something like that)

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3557669?uid=3739936&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103451810411

Interesting reminiscences.  Search on Born or Heisenberg.

http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/4903.html

http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Born.html

http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/histcomp/born-m_auth/index-so.html

http://janus.lib.cam.ac.uk/db/node.xsp?id=EAD%2FGBR%2F0014%2FBORN%201%2F4%2F1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chinese_nuclear_physicists

Those who were Max Born assistants

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheng_Kaijia
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peng_Huanwu

http://info.phys.tsinghua.edu.cn:8080/english/intro/history.php

Who was in the Max Born spy Ring?  First, who was a known Communist given our information now.

  1. Klaus Fuchs
  2. Leopold Infeld
  3. Kun Huang
  4. Cheng Kaijia
  5. Huanwu Peng
  6. L. M. Yang
  7. J. Robert Oppenheimer effectively a Communist by donations, friends, brother, etc.

Max Born mentions the 4 Chinese in his book, “My Life Recollections of a Nobel Laureate”  He doesn’t tell us that some of them later got credit for helping build China’s atomic bomb.

Max Born Assistants who plotted killing of Werner Heisenberg before WWII was over.

  1. Victor Weisskopf
  2. J. Robert Oppenheimer

Most hated physicists post war were all Max Born assistants.

  1. Edward Teller
  2. Werner Heisenberg
  3. Pascual Jordan

That Heisenberg was hated is clear from his son’s website.

http://werner-heisenberg.unh.edu/

Teller is well known to have been hated for testifying against Oppenheimer.  Heisenberg and Pascual Jordan may have been hated for what they might have said.  Each was pre-emptively discredited post WWII.  Jordan by Max Born’s wife who collected his pro Nazi writings and republished them.  Heisenberg was discredited post WWII as described at the website above, particularly by Sam Goudsmit who wrote an attack on Heisenberg in 1947.  Goudsmit later apologized to Jochen Heisenberg.

Max Born

  1. Lobbied for release of Klaus Fuchs when interned.  This was after Born knew he was a Communist as indicated later?  Born didn’t disclose that in the lobbying?
  2. Gave Edward Corson job as adjunct prof for a year at Edinburgh and let him use department resources to write two books.  This was after the Fock Letter.  Corson likely was recommended to this by Klaus Fuchs.
  3. Max Born very left wing himself by his own admission in his book.
  4. His wife also left wing according to Gustav Born paper.
  5. Ancestors of Max Born involved in development of Marxism.

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/born-identity-revealed-in-newly-opened-archive

http://archive.org/stream/TheBornEinsteinLetters/Born-TheBornEinsteinLetters_djvu.txt

http://termessos.de/Bornengl.htm

Born Yang paper on Nuclear Shell Model

Nature 166, 399 (02 September 1950); doi:10.1038/166399a0

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v166/n4218/abs/166399a0.html

Klaus Fuchs was arrested in January 1950.  He could have been tutoring Yang on nuclear physics for atomic bombs or processing on the side before that, as well as the others. Fuchs was back in the UK by 1946 and that gave him overlap with all 4 Chinese in the UK.  Edward Corson also had overlap with several of them and he also could have tutored them in Oak Ridge type calculations and methods. So could have Peierls.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/china-joins-a-bomb-club

http://www.adelaide.edu.au/library/special/mss/green/

Might have insights:

  1. http://www.sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/physics/hamilton

From the above it is clear after careful study that Max Born was very likely a Communist and that he knowingly sponsored Communist spies for Russia who were sent to him by Russian spy masters.

It seems likely that Max Born assistants before Oppenheimer were not Communists and many of those after were.  Heisenberg, Jordan and Pauli may have been targets of recruitment by Max Born.  All 3 may have known that Oppenheimer was a Communist.

Born and Jordan may have had a falling out over an attempt by Born to recruit Jordan as a Communist.

Heisenberg may have asked Niels Bohr at their famous meeting in Copenhagen to tell the British and Americans that Max Born and his assistants from Oppenheimer on were Communists or most of them and should be excluded from war work. This may be the real issue that caused their break.  The plot to kill Heisenberg was made by Weisskopf and Oppenheimer after Bohr escaped to the UK and US.  He may have told them what was really said.  It is considered a mystery what was said at this meeting.  Jochen Heisenberg says the break actually came earlier.  Werner Heisenberg may have brought this up earlier with Borh, e.g. sometime before Heisenberg’s 1939 trip to America.

Victor Weisskopf says that Wolfgang Pauli refused to work on the atom bomb project during WWII because Pauli was too pure. Pauli was at Princeton during the war. Perhaps the reason was that Pauli knew Oppenheimer was a Communist?  Weisskopf was a Max Born assistant and seems like a slippery fellow.  Weisskopf made it his business to write much of the history of these scientists and this may be part of covering up what he knew or did.

Max Born’s memoirs were published after his death.

It is very important to get a copy of “The wide-ranging family history of Max Born” and read it.  This shows how left wing Max Born and his wife were and that a Max Born ancestor was involved with the birth of Marxism.

The above is speculation and hypotheses. Please restate as questions. All other disclaimers apply.

Advertisements

Edward Corson book published atomic energy matters FBI files 1951

February 24, 2014

The FBI in 1951 have a memo about a book that Edward Corson was about to have published concerning “atomic energy matters.”

http://vault.fbi.gov/rosenberg-case/klaus-fuchs/klaus-fuchs-part-84-of

Page 1 of pdf.

FBI memo dated May 2, 1951

To: Director

From: D. M. Ladd

Subject: Edward Michael Corson aka Edward Anatol Corson (or Anatole)

To advise that XXX informed on April 28, 1951 that subject was having a book published concerning atomic energy. XXX desired to know if anything was wrong with the subject and urged that the subject be afforded
clearance to work in the atomic energy field. Bufiles reflect that the subject is an atomic
scientist who corresponded with Emil Klaus Fuchs on February 10, 1950, advising that he did not believe
the accusations against Fuchs.

To further recommend that the Atomic Energy Commission be informed by liason that the subject is having a book published concerning atomic energy matters.

Reference is made to the memorandum from Mr. Guy Hottel, dated May 1, 1951, advising that on April 28, 1951, he interviewed XXX who informed that he, XXX, recently talked to the subject, Edward Michael Corson. XXX reported that Corson is in the process of having a book published which deals with mathematics and chemisty of meetals in the atomic energy field. XXX futher reported that Corson informed him that he had an emotional breakdown as a result of the arrest of Emil Klaus Fuchs for espionage and has not been able to secure proper clearance to work (in the atomic energy field).

http://ead.library.jhu.edu/rg04-030.xml

Corson, Edward Anatole Michael, Ph.D. 1945

Anatol v Anatole as spelling. Bufiles indicate an Anatol, although they might have added an e at the end using a pencil or pen. JHU has Anatole.

The book that Bufiles are talking about is apparently,

Perturbation methods in the quantum mechanics of n-electron systems.
Author: E M Corson
Publisher: New York, Hafner Pub. Co. [1951]

This book is the one discussed in the prior post.

The description in Bufiles sounds like it is about atomic energy related matters relevant to the atomic bomb or processing of bomb materials. However, the book Perturbation Methods is a theoretical book in quantum mechanics and is not oriented towards applications relevant to atom bombs or fuel processing.

The Bufiles description was so different than how I think of the Corson book that I had to think about it to connect this is the book they are talking about. A physicist would not describe the Corson book with the language in Bufiles.

(Note the great question of whether Bufiles is a singular or plural subject cannot be resolved in this post. Contrary definitions may be assumed without warning.)

This memo in Bufiles illustrates the gap in understanding between the FBI and scientists and academics. To the scientist, the Corson book is obviously no threat to national security and doesn’t disclose anything dangerous.

In a literal sense, the Corson book does relate to atomic energy matters. However, this is a different meaning of atomic energy than what the FBI is thinking. You can use the perturbation methods in the book to calculate theoretically atomic energy levels. These are the energy of the electrons speaking loosely. However, electron energy levels don’t have any relevance to atomic energy in the sense of a reactor or bomb or fuel processing. So the book has no real value for atomic energy work in the sense of bombs or reactors or fuel processing.

For scientists, the description of the book in Bufiles does not correspond to how they think about the Corson book. This gap in thinking mattered in the Klaus Fuchs and Corson investigations. The scientists took advantage of this gap to throw dust in the eyes of the FBI. Oppenheimer knew about the plagiarism by Corson of Fock and the Fock Letter. They also knew that would lead to Corson knowing that Born was a victim of plagiarism by Dirac and that Kapitsa knew of it and knew that Rutherford made Bohr and Sommerfeld, Fellows of the Royal Society the year after to keep them quiet. They knew Heisenberg knew of this. They also knew of the attempt on Heisenberg’s life authorized by Weisskopf and Oppenheimer. The FBI might have realized that they were trying to kill Heisenberg late in the war not to stop Germany getting an atomic bomb but to stop Heisenberg telling the FBI about these things after he was captured when the war ended.

If so, the FBI could have focused on Max Born. After Fuchs was arrested in January 1950, many people connected to Max Born left for the Eastern Bloc or had already. This included the 4 Chinese and Leopold Infeld. Oppenheimer was a Max Born assistant and was at Cambridge when the plagiarism occurred there.

The Oppenheimer Security Clearance hearings would have been vastly different if the FBI had known this. They could have discovered the Max Born spy ring and realized that Fuchs was just one of many that were part of it. They also could have realized that the chance Edward Corson was a Communist and spy was much greater.

The universities have known that the FBI comes up short in its ability to do investigations of Russian spying and Chinese spying because it has gaps in its understanding like the one here. Instead of bridging the gap, the universities exploit it to deceive the FBI and other parts of the government. The universities not only undermined the Klaus Fuchs and Corson investigation, but also the Oppenheimer investigation and Peierls investigation.

Oppenheimer knew this when he withheld the information about the Corson plagiarism of Fock and the Fock letter. Dancoff’s plagiarism of Tamm was also concealed. Dancoff was a student of Oppenheimer and worked on the atom bomb during the war. Oppenheimer knew from the war that he was under investigation from time to time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppenheimer_security_hearing#The_Chevalier_incident

The Oppenheimer Security Clearance started in April 1954.

Max Born was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in the fall of 1954.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1954/born-facts.html

The FBI never connected these. The universities took advantage of the FBI’s gaps in knowledge to block and subvert the FBI investigations of Oppenheimer, Fuchs, Corson and Peierls. The FBI never realized that if it focused on Max Born it would get a better understanding of seemingly unrelated events such as Weisskopf and Oppenheimer, both Max Born assistants, trying to get Heisenberg, another Max Born assistant, killed before the war ended.

As it was, the Max Born assistants include many known Communists or spies including Klaus Fuchs, Leopold Infeld, Cheng Kaijia, Huanwu Peng, Kun Huang, and another Chinese.

If the FBI had been able to focus on Max Born and the plagiarism links and what his assistants knew of each other, they could have found out that Klaus Fuchs was just one of many Max Born assistants who were spies. Since Oppenheimer was one, that would have made his security clearance that much more doubtful. It would also have changed the course of the Oppenheimer investigation.

Edward Teller and Hans Bethe had a heated discussion the night before Teller testified at the Oppenheimer Security Clearance. If the FBI understood the plagiarism and Russia’s use of it and how this linked the Max Born assistants together, they could have questioned Edward Teller and learned additional information that Bethe did not want told.

When the Sudoplatov book came out in 1994, saying more scientists were involved, Hans Bethe and Victor Weisskopf were the ones attacking it and PBS for covering it. They were still covering up at that time. Moreover, more was known then of the role of the Chinese Max Born assistants who went back to China and worked on the atomic bomb. However, the FBI never put it all together. Hans Bethe and Victor Weisskopf were still blowing dust in their eyes in 1994. They were still concealing the focal point of Max Born.

http://www.aip.org/history/newsletter/fall94/spy.htm

THE PHYSICS COMMUNITY REPLIES

An early response came from three Manhattan Project physicists in a letter of protest to McNeil-Lehrer. Hans Bethe, Robert R. Wilson and Victor Weisskopf expressed amazement that the program would broadcast such scandalous charges without trying to check the facts. “As a result,” they wrote, “you helped a criminal, who has mounted a highly skilled effort to make himself rich, to slander some of the greatest scientists of this century.” The American Physical Society promptly organized a press conference in which physicists and historians combined to warn that there were strong reasons to doubt Sudoplatov’s claims.

Notice the title, The Physics Community Replies. So the Physics Community as a whole is responsible for concealing even in 1994 the relevance of the plagiarism to Russia’s tradecraft to deal with academics. That was vital information for the FBI to realize that Russia was using this tradecraft to help get IMF loans from Stanley Fischer and Larry Summers. That cover up continues today during the Stanley Fischer confirmation background investigation.

The above contains speculation and hypotheses. Please restate as questions. All other disclaimers apply.

Edward Corson monographs Max Born endorsement

February 23, 2014

Edward Corson wrote 2 important scientific monographs published in 1951 and 1953.

“Perturbation Methods in the Quantum Mechanics of n-Electron Systems”

Edward M. Corson Ph.D. Member, Institute for Advanced Study, 1946-1949; Consultant, Brookhaven National Laboratory; Research Physicist, Union Carbide and Carbon Research Laboratories.

Forward by Max Born, Edinburgh August 1950.

The author who spent almost a complete academic year in my department, is known to me as a scientific enthusiast of high purpose, great erudition and acute mind.

Author’s preface is dated Princeton, New Jersey March 1948.

“Perturbation methods in the quantum mechanics of n-electron systems.” Edward M Corson

About 115,000 results (0.59 seconds)

Edward Corson “Perturbation methods in the quantum mechanics”

About 52 results (0.91 seconds)

http://books.google.com/books/about/Perturbation_Methods_in_the_Quantum_Mech.html?id=wSlI82ap6o0C

Perturbation Methods in the Quantum Mechanics of N-Electron Systems
Front Cover
Edward Michael Corson
Blackie & Son, 1951 – Quantum theory – 308 pages

http://library.ias.edu/files/pdfs/bulletins/Bulletin12.pdf

Max Born, “My Life Reflections of a Nobel Laureate” page 293. Published in German in 1975. Published in English in 1978. Born died in 1970. Neville Mott write the scientific preface.

One, Edward Corson, was an American who excelled as much by his eccentricity as by his scientific enthusiasm. In the space of less than a year while he was in my department, he published a considerable book on an abstract aspect of quantum mechanics and wrote the greater part of another book which appeared soon after (both with Blackie and Sons, Glasgow). He kept my secretary busy and all members of the department in a permanent state of tension through his eccentricities. When the news of Fuchs’s arrest came he sent a telegram to the authorities vouching for Fuchs’s honesty. Later I heard that he had a hard time in the U.S.A., but he has now a decent teaching position.

“Introduction to Tensors, Spinors, and Relativistic Wave Equations”

1953

E. M. Corson Ph.D. Adjunct Professor in Theoretical Physics, Graduate School of Arts and Science, New York University. Senior Scientist in Mathematical Physics, Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University. Research Associate in Psychiatry, New York State Psychiatric Institute. Formerly Fulbright Exchange Professor, Department of Mathematical Physics, University of Edinburgh.

Note that Klaus Fuchs was arrested in January 1950. Corson was then at Edinburgh and wrote in support of Fuchs. That got him questioned by MI-5 in Britain and then later in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs

Edward Corson site:fbi.gov

Edward Corson “Introduction to tensors, spinors”

http://books.google.com/books/about/Introduction_to_tensors_spinors_and_rela.html?id=1IMuAAAAIAAJ

Introduction to tensors, spinors, and relativistic wave-equations (relation structure)
Front Cover
Edward Michael Corson
Hafner Pub. Co., 1953 – Calculus of tensors – 221 pages

Corson’s books as indicated by Max Born are substantial works. They contradict the impression of someone so unstable that he was unable to do serious work. However, Max Born indicates he was eccentric and this consumed energy and time.

How did Edward Corson get to Edinburgh with a Fulbright exchange professorship? Albert Einstein is thanked by Corson in the preface to the second book. Einstein and Born were friends and exchanged letters. However, no letter on Corson survives among their correspondence? Some of the letters are in a published book.

Corson was in New York during WWII with Fuchs and Peierls working on processing uranium calculations for Oak Ridge. Both of them had relations with Max Born as well. So they may have helped arrange it.

Max Born had a large number of Communist assistants. They include Klaus Fuchs, Leopold Infeld, Cheng Kaijia, Kun Huang, Huanwu Peng and another Chinese I think. All of these were after he went to Edinburgh. Thus the chance that Corson was a Communist is made much higher by this year with Max Born in Edinburgh.

Assuming Max Born was a Communist, and Oppenheimer as well, those saying Corson were eccentric or deranged after the Fock Letter plagiarism incident include these two. Also someone at Union Carbide and Carbon. Could this be arranged to cover up that Corson’s plagiarism of Fock was part of a plot by the Soviets?

Corson’s action and the Fock Letter forced people to be more careful to cite Fock. The Dancoff duplication of Igor Tamm in 1950 did the same thing.

Dancoff’s paper was published May 15 1950.

http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.78.382

Fuchs was arrested in January 1950. Could these be connected? This was meant to remind the physicists of Russia’s leverage? So they would say as little as possible to MI-5 and the FBI in the Klaus Fuchs investigation. Or if more were found, the Russians could use this with a Tamm Letter?

Klaus Fuchs site:fbi.gov

About 1,250 results (0.40 seconds)

This was a massive FBI investigation. Russia wanted to stop its people telling things, or others who knew things but were not spies themselves. It also wanted something to use if larger parts of their networks were rolled up.

As it was, the scientists who left the US and UK were not stopped and the others left were also able to weather out the storm.

Many of the Max Born assistants who did leave, left after the Fuchs arrest. Some Chinese had already left.

The last person mentioned in the Max Born book is Herbert S. Green who also left England after the Fuchs arrest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_S._Green

Born in Ipswich, England, he graduated with a PhD from the University of Edinburgh in 1947 with a thesis entitled A Unitary Quantum Electrodynamics.
Career

From 1951 till his death in 1999, Green lectured mathematical physics at the University of Adelaide, Australia.

H.S. Green helped Max Born continue work started with Klaus Fuchs. This is the last paragraph in Max Born’s autobiography.

Max Born himself went back to Germany after Fuchs arrest as well. Escaping to the Eastern Bloc or Switzerland would be much easier from Germany than from Edinburgh. Also, the Germans would find it harder to arrest Born than would MI-5.

Overall, it would appear likely that Edward M. Corson was a Communist and spy for Russia. He was likely part of the same spy ring as Klaus Fuchs. This makes it more likely that Rudolf Peierls was also a Communist and spy.

Peierls site:fbi.gov

http://vault.fbi.gov/Rudolph%20and%20Eugenia%20Peierls/Rudolph%20and%20Eugenia%20Peierls%20Part%201%20of%201

Rudolf Peierls communist

http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Peierls.html

The Corson plagiarism of Fock and the Fock Letter were not told to MI-5 or the FBI it appears during the investigation of Peierls. Nor was Dirac’s plagiarism of Born and Jordan and Kapitsa’s comments on it in the Rutherford obit, indirectly that is.

In 1957 the Americans asked the British to revoke his security clearance, which they did. As a result Peierls resigned from his consultancy role at Harwell.

By withholding information about the plagiarism and Russia’s knowledge of it and published comments on it, the universities hampered the FBI and MI-5 investigations. This apparently continues to the present day.

The use of plagiarism by Russia to manipulate academics is an important part of Russian and Chinese tradecraft in dealing with academics. Keeping this knowledge from the FBI and MI-5 is an ongoing hampering of their work by the universities.

In addition, the FBI thought the first Corson book was possibly releasing atomic secrets or about atomic physics. It is in fact a highly theoretical book which has no atomic secrets in it or anything close. This shows how the FBI and MI-5 need help from the universities. Instead the universities use this to confuse and obstruct FBI and MI-5 investigations.

This includes obstruction of the FBI background check of Stanley Fischer. Russia was in possession of 40 years of plagiarism kompromat in the 1960s when Stanley Fischer started at MIT in 1967. Miguel Sidrauski was a leftist and his wife Martha knew people on the left in Argentina who would later disappear. It is likely that Sidrauski and Fischer were the ones who hatched the plagiarism of the Hakansson thesis, as appears likely is what happened. The Sidrauskis may have been acting for Russia in this or passed it back to Russia.

Many of the atomic scientists were still alive in 1994 when the Sudoplatov book was published. This is when Russia appears to have put pressure on the econ profs by provoking a reaction in the atomic scientists. The FBI and MI-5 are being deceived by the universities on these matters it appears. This is an ongoing conspiracy by the universities. Their investment banking partners are also involved and apparently benefit by their knowledge of this because econ profs in the US government may have some relation to this.

The universities including MIT and Harvard are setting up the Senate and FBI to look like fools in the confirmation hearings for Stanley Fischer as Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Subsequent investigations including possibly at some universities may expose this and show that the universities including MIT have corrupted the confirmation background check process and made a mockery of Senate confirmations that rely on them.

This undermines the role of the Senate, and thus undermines the Constitution and constitutional government in the US. This materially assists Russia and China not only in spying in the US but in their showing parts of this to other countries like Iran to influence them to treat the US with disdain or not negotiate in good faith on atomic arms controls or other matters.

The above is speculation and hypotheses. All other disclaimers apply. Please restate as questions.

Edward M Corson Agent Provocateur Russia continued

February 23, 2014

The FBI files on Edward Anatole Michael Corson reveal a very interesting character.

http://ead.library.jhu.edu/rg04-030.xml

Corson, Edward Anatole Michael, Ph.D. 1945

Corson’s father came from Russia and likely changed his name to Corson. Edward Corson was born in 1921 on Long Island.

http://library.ias.edu/files/pdfs/bulletins/Bulletin12.pdf

http://vault.fbi.gov/rosenberg-case/klaus-fuchs/klaus-fuchs-part-74-of

Referral Responses
Emil Klaus Fuchs
65-58805

Page 34 of the pdf starts a section on Edward M. Corson. This is a memo dated March 3, 1950.

Note the FBI misspells Edinburgh as Edinburg. (One of those furrin cities.) So if you search in the pdf, don’t include the h on the end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh

Bottom of page 34.

Michael George Corson was investigated by the FBI from 1941 to 1945 and again from July 1946 to April 1948. These found nothing. Michael G Corson was considered a possible security threat because he was from Russia. We learn elsewhere in these docs that someone said he was a White Russian and anti-Communist who came to the US in 1918. Edward was born in 1921.

Valentine George Corson, brother of Edward M. Corson and son of Michael G. Corson was investigated in March 1949 in connection with the Loyalty Program.

Page 35,

Edward M. Corson in his filings claimed to be born June 27, 1921 in Long Island New York. His mother was Natalie T. Corson. His brother VG Corson and parents were born in Russia.

Corson showed his education as Johns Hopkins University from 1938 to 1943, receiving a Ph.D. (The JHU record above indicated this was granted in 1945.) Institute Advanced Study Princeton 1946. (This is when he plagiarized Fock.)

Corson worked for Union Carbide and Carbon from 1943 to September 1947 at New York City and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Corson thus could have passed info on processing uranium to the Russians. As it turned out, they built processing plants with dimensions close to those of the US for critical processing.

Corson married to Mary E. Kuntz granddaughter of Peter Kuntz a multimillionaire of Dayton, Ohio.

Charles H. Shaw, professor of physics at Ohio State University who worked with Corson during the war heard Corson to make sympathetic statements to Russia during the war. Shaw characterized Corson as unreliable in his work and declined to recommend Corson for employment.

In 1944, Edward M. Corson paid 100 dollars to the Russian Student Fund in NYC. This was to Pierre Routsky. The fund was associated with radical groups including Communists and pro-Soviet as well as White Russian.

Dr. J. C. Hubbard of JHU indicated he applied to the Russian Students Fund in 1937 and 1938 on behalf of Corson for a loan of 500 dollars, which money was to be repaid.

Michael George Corson was born in Kiev, Russia on December 20, 1886. He entered the US in NYC on December 20, 1918. On Feb 27, 1925, he was naturalized in New York City.

Prior to coming to the United States he was employed in Russia as a research and plane development instructor. From 1922 to 1925 he was employed at the Union Carbide and Carbon Company Research Laboratories. From 1926 to approximately 1947 he was in business for himself as a consulting engineer for various iron and steel companies.

By letter on June 17, 1941, Mr. Adolph A. Berle, Jr., Assistant Secretary, Department of State, advised the Bureau that on May 31, 1940, Michael George Corson appeared at the Department of State and desired to be made an agent of the Department of State in Mexico to combat Nazi and Japanese interests. At that time he said that he had been a Terrorist in Russia and had no fear of using similar methods to rid the world of Hitler ani similar dangers. When told that a memorandum would be made of his visit at the State Department, Mr. Corson remarked that apparently the department was not interested in his offer and unlike Americans in general he was not afraid of shooting and hanging to save the country and he would continue his plan without official aid.

Page 4 of the FBI document is skipped and we go to page 5. The document does not disclose
everything and somethings are blacked out even on pages included.

Page 5 discusses a plan Corson had to get technical information for a plant to process Beryllium to go to Russia. Corson talked with a Dr. Kawecki to obtain plans and possibly Kawecki to travel to Russia.

Michael Corson wrote Bureau that he saw too many capitalists and their top servants to think they were morally or intellectually fit to run the nation’s economic machine.

The FBI original document goes beyond page 5, but this is not included in the PDF.

http://vault.fbi.gov/rosenberg-case/klaus-fuchs/klaus-fuchs-part-84-of

One question that arises from these documents is whether Edward M. Corson and his father were both mentally unstable. Oppenheimer suggested that in one place.

However, Corson’s relation to Max Born is not fully disclosed. It appears that Oppenheimer told very little to the FBI about Max Born.

We now know that Max Born assistants and students included Klaus Fuchs, Leopold Infeld, Cheng Kaijia, Huanwu Peng, Kun Huang who all went to the Eastern Block or Communist China before or shortly after the arrest of Fuchs as a spy. Of these, Cheng Kaijia and Huanwu Peng worked on the Chinese atom bomb.

If we conclude that Max Born was a spy and was a node in a Russian spy ring, then Corson is more likely a Communist. This would probably point to his father being also a spy for Russia. Their histrionic displays would then be seen as ploys.

Corson would later accuse Mott the physicist of being a Communist. Max Born in his book published after his death, says Mott sent Fuchs to Born because Mott thought Fuchs was a Communist and spread Communist propaganda among the undergraduates. Page 284 of Max Born “My Life Recollections of a Nobel Laureate.” Mott in a footnote denies such a comment was made seriously.

Born says he knew Fuchs was a Communist. Corson in the FBI materials says that Born had told him
that Fuchs was trying to spread Communist materials and that Born told him not to.

Looking at the FBI materials, the plagiarism by Corson of Fock and Fock Letter were not reported to the FBI. Oppenheimer talked to them about Corson but did not mention that. Nor did Oppenheimer tell the FBI that Born was plagiarized and Kapitsa had implied this in print in the obit of Rutherford. The Oppenheimer Security Clearance hearing was in spring 1954. Max Born was awarded the Nobel Prize in fall of 1954.

http://vault.fbi.gov/rosenberg-case/klaus-fuchs/klaus-fuchs-part-62-of

Page 8 of pdf related to Corson.

Page 9 of pdf is the information from Oppenheimer and from Corson’s employer relating to him being mentally unstable.

Page 10, Corson said he met Fuchs in 1943.

The book “Klaus Fuchs a biography” by Norman Moss states on page 20 that Corson knew Fuchs in Edinburgh in the 1930s.

The book states the Fuchs, Peierls, and Corson worked on gaseous diffusion calculations for the Oak Ridge plant to process uranium together in New York. Corson claimed not to see much of Fuchs after work it states.

Corson and Peierls both were supportive of Fuchs when Fuchs was arrested. See page 150 of this book and the FBI reports.

Page 151, Peierls restarted smoking after Fuchs arrest and seeing Fuchs in jail. Genia, the wife of Peierls was from Russia and was upset at Fuchs arrest and spying being revealed.

So was Corson unstable? Was he also a Communist? Were Corson’s actions a ploy to distract attention or exhibits of mental instability?

If we assume that Max Born was a Communist, and that Russia sent him people already Communists, then Corson going to Edinburgh in the 1930s would indicate Corson was already a Communist then. This would be at age 17 if that was 1938. Perhaps the entire Corson family were Communists with a cover story of being White Russians who were anti-Communists.

There also is the contentious point of Fuchs being sent by Mott to Born because he was a Communist or not. In the book by Norman Moss, it is stated, Fuchs was sent because they had too many people at Bristol.

Much information was not disclosed to the FBI. Why did Oppenheimer not tell the FBI about Corson’s plagiarism and the Fock Letter when Oppenheimer reported on Corson calling him and being distraught and mentally deranged at Fuchs’ arrest?

Page 10 of pdf of FBI goes on about Corson saying others in England were Communists and security risks. Eventually Corson names Mott as one.

http://vault.fbi.gov/rosenberg-case/klaus-fuchs/klaus-fuchs-part-62-of

Michael Corson was living on 610 West 142nd Street NYC in May 1950. See page 15 of pdf.

MI-5 stated they didn’t attach a high degree of reliability to Corson’s accusations about 4 people as security risks for Russia, although one of them was a known Communist sympathizer.

We keep coming back to the question of whether Corson was unstable. Even if he was, Oppenheimer didn’t tell the FBI about the plagiarism by Corson or that Max Born was a victim of plagiarism or that Kapitsa made references to it.

In 1950, Sidney Dancoff duplicated without attribution the method of Tamm, which is part of Fock Space methods.

It appears that Marcos Moshinksy at Princeton started the use of the term Fock Space and was the first to use that term. He was from Mexico but was born in Ukraine, the same as Corson’s father.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcos_Moshinsky

He was born in 1921 into a Jewish family in Kiev, Ukraine (which was then part of the Soviet Union). At the age of three, he emigrated as a refugee to Mexico, where he became a naturalized citizen in 1942. He received a bachelor’s degree in physics from the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) and a doctorate in the same discipline at Princeton University under Nobel Laureate Eugene Paul Wigner.

http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.84.533

In the present paper we propose to develop a quantum-mechanical scheme in Fock space that would describe interactions that take place through the formation of a compound particle.

http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.72.737

Corson Fock letters in 1947.

If Oppenheimer wanted to make the case that Corson was unstable why omit this? Except that it would direct attention to plagiarism which would lead to attention to Max Born as a plagiarism victim and Kapitsa’s comments about this, cryptically, in the Rutherford obit? That would lead to a focus on the Max Born assistants then leaving to the Eastern Bloc, and raise questions about Oppenheimer himself. So Oppenheimer said nothing about that.

Oppenheimer became director of IAS in 1947, the same year as the Corson Fock exchange. That was an IAS matter since Corson was at IAS at the time.

http://www.ias.edu/people/oppenheimer

Later, Oehme would publish his paper on Edge of the Wedge while at IAS. The Russians are still pushing that this was Bogolyubov’s work and have written Oehme out of the story at the Wiki entry on Edge of the Wedge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge-of-the-wedge_theorem

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edge-of-the-wedge_theorem&action=history

In December 2008, Tamtamar edited this Wiki page to push the Russian version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edge-of-the-wedge_theorem&oldid=259002199

Oppenheimer was direct of IAS when Oehme was there on this paper. Oehme then went to Univ of Chicago. Oehme seems to have been obsessed over this dispute.

Oehme created his own wikipage earlier in 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhard_Oehme

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs

Fuchs helped the Chinese according to the book Nuclear Express.

Fuchs was granted amnesty and released on 23 June 1959, after serving nine years and four months of his sentence at Wakefield Prison and promptly emigrated to the German Democratic Republic (East Germany).[54] A tutorial he gave to Qian Sanqiang and other Chinese physicists helped them to develop the first Chinese atomic bomb, the 596, which was tested five years later according to Thomas Reed and Daniel Stillman, the authors of The Nuclear Express: A Political History of the Bomb and Its Proliferation (2009).[55] Three historians of nuclear weapons history, Robert S. Norris, Jeremy Bernstein and Peter D. Zimmerman, challenged this particular assertion as “unsubstantiated conjecture”[56] and asserted that The Nuclear Express is “an ambitious but deeply flawed book”.[57

Note the Nuclear Express book was discussed Sep 2008 in an article by the same authors.

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/61/9/10.1063/1.2982122

That article linked this blog

One important “pupil” who paid Fuchs an early visit was Qian Sanqiang. In 1959 Qian was the designated mastermind of Mao’s A-bomb program. In July of that year, Qian made his way to East Germany, where he met with Fuchs at length. (H. Terry Hawkins, now a senior fellow at Los Alamos, told Stillman in 2006, “I read this report in an unclassified publication, that this meeting took place shortly after Fuchs returned to East Germany. Fuchs gave Qian information that greatly assisted the Chinese program.” Also see http://www.oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/category/klaus-fuchs.) During those long summer days of 1959, Fuchs gave Qian a full tutorial on the design and operation of Fat Man. In all likelihood, he also added his thoughts on the role of radiation pressure in thermonuclear weapons.

The many Max Born assistants who went to China and at least 2 worked on the bomb for China show that there was much not being discovered by the FBI in the Corson and Fuchs investigations. Some of this was intentional withholding by the universities it would appear. That continued into the 1970s when Kapitsa got the Nobel Prize in physics.

In 1947, the Soviet most likely to get the Nobel Prize in physics was Fock. So if the Soviets were trying to push him, having Corson plagiarize intentionally would be one tactic so they could expose it. The Dancoff paper in 1950 may have been the same with Tamm as the victim. Dancoff was an Oppenheimer student who worked on the bomb. Oehme was at IAS in 1958 and the victim was Bogolyubov. Tamm got the Nobel Prize in 1958 and Born in 1954. Born was also a plagiarism victim and one Kapitsa was implicitly referencing both in obits of Rutherford in the 1930s and later. Rutherford had made Bohr a Fellow of the Royal Society the year after the plagiarism of Born which helped Bohr get Rockefeller money. Rutherford’s son in law Fowler was the professor who sponsored the plagiarism and likely got a letter with the preprint of the Born Jordan paper in 1925. Kapitsa was there and learned this and became a witness against Bohr and Dirac. Kapitsa sent a letter to Bohr trying to recruit him for Russia in 1944. There was then the Terletsky meeting with Bohr and later Sudoplatov book pushing the Terletsky meeting and also that the intelligence services in Russia got the bomb info.

An undergrad paper by Michael Schwartz in 1996 at Harvard states that Russia got its first bomb and all the info on how to process the fuel from the Americans.

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~jus/0302/schwartz.pdf

This paper implies a much larger network than US universities admit to. Sudoplatov also claims his network was larger than is known.

The Sudoplatov book may have been intended by Russia in 1994 to put pressure on the econ profs in control of IMF loans to Russia, Stanley Fischer and Larry Summers. The IMF loans increased in size at this time. Berezovsky then got a loans for shares corrupt enrichment perhaps because he was the one to think of doing this. In his 1997, Nobel Prize autobio, Robert C. Merton makes a misstatement about Hakansson that helped protect Stanley Fischer. A book on Long Term Capital Management says they traded Russian government bonds as if they had inside info. They took a large long position to profit from inside knowledge that Russia had kompromat over Stanley Fischer and Paul Samuelson uncle of Summers?

Going back to Edward M. Corson, at a minimum, info was not disclosed about him or Max Born to the FBI. Nor was this disclosed at the Oppenheimer Security Clearance Hearing. Edward Teller likely knew some of this, but limited his testimony after Hans Bethe and Teller had a heated discussion the night before on what Teller would say.

Bethe and Weisskopf erupted with anger over the Sudoplatov book getting coverage in the US from PBS News Hour and other publications. Weisskopf had plotted with Oppenheimer to kill Heisenberg in 1944 too late in the war for a German bomb but when Heisenberg was a threat to expose some Max Born assistants as communists once the war was over.

http://www.aip.org/history/newsletter/fall94/spy.htm

An early response came from three Manhattan Project physicists in a letter of protest to McNeil-Lehrer. Hans Bethe, Robert R. Wilson and Victor Weisskopf expressed amazement that the program would broadcast such scandalous charges without trying to check the facts. “As a result,” they wrote, “you helped a criminal, who has mounted a highly skilled effort to make himself rich, to slander some of the greatest scientists of this century.” The American Physical Society promptly organized a press conference in which physicists and historians combined to warn that there were strong reasons to doubt Sudoplatov’s claims.

In some quarters any reply by physicists seemed self-serving. “It is now obvious that McCarthy was right,” said the London Sunday Times (April 24); the National Review (May 30) speculated that the APS’s call for opening relevant archives might produce “unhappy surprises of the sort that greeted Hiss and Rosenberg partisans when they demanded access to the FBI’s archives.” A special responsibility fell upon historians of science for an objective evaluation.

The Harvard paper by Swartz would support the Sudoplatov book that there was a vast network of scientists spying for Russia that gave Russia all the info to build their bomb and process the fuel. Sudoplatov indicates in his book that the first bomb was a copy of the American bomb.

Sudoplatov’s implications about Bohr, Fermi and Oppenheimer receive support from the plagiarism aspect of it and the many Max Born assistants involved in bomb work for China. Fermi was also a Dirac plagiarism victim. Oppenheimer as well as Teller, Heisenberg, Pauli, Weisskopf were Max Born Assistants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Bethe

Bethe was a Fowler assistant and received Rockefeller money. Rutherford made Bohr and Sommerfeld Fellows of the Royal Society in 1926 the year after the plagiarism by Dirac of Born that Fowler was part of.

Bethe was an assistant to Fowler, Sommerfeld, Bohr and Fermi in the following years.

The FBI was unable to put together a picture on these interrelationships because the scientists and universities held back info. They knew about the plagiarism and knew Russia knew about it. Russia published comments in print. The Nobel Prize for Tamm was linked to this through the Dancoff duplication of the Tamm work. (Duplication is meant to avoid taking a position on plagiarism, duplication by sympathetic vibrations so to speak is allowed.)

This continued in the 1990s as the scientists reacted in anger to the Sudoplatov book. This reaction created a big furor which the econ profs would hear. They in turn had their plagiarism to cover up. Russia had already put pressure on them to get Nominations for the econ Nobel Prize for Kantorovich is likely. This includes at econ conferences in Poland, where Martin Weitzman of MIT and now Harvard was an attendee. Weitzman was closely linked to Duncan Foley, Peter Diamond, Karl Shell, and Franklin Fisher all linked to the Stanley Fischer work that duplicated the Hakansson thesis that Shell had at MIT in 1966 from public records. All of these should be witnesses along with Robert C. Merton and the latest winners of the Nobel Prize in econ as well.

Miguel Sidrauski was to be Stanley Fischer’s thesis chairman and he was from Argentina. They bonded as fellow immigrants and Zionists as we find from Duncan Foley in part.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/79591095/Duncan-Foley-Interview

Interview Karl Shell

http://www.karlshell.com/pdfs/md.pdf

http://www.karlshell.com/

http://econpapers.repec.org/article/cupmacdyn/v_3a5_3ay_3a2001_3ai_3a05_3ap_3a701-741_5f03.htm

Olivier Blanchard interview of Stanley Fischer.

http://www.iie.com/fischer/pdf/fischer050104.pdf

Blanchard didn’t even know Fischer’s thesis was on dynamic programming including part of their joint book in the 1980s on Macroeconomics.

By the time of Fischer’s thesis, the events of Corson were part of Soviet tradecraft. So the idea of using Fischer to ensnare Samuelson and MIT to put pressure on them to get nominations for Kantorovich for the Nobel Prize in econ may have been in Russia’s mind. If so, Sidrauski and possibly his wife Martha may have played a role. Duncan Foley’s interview prompts such an inquiry. They may also have told Russia it happened.

Sidrauski then Foley then Franklin Fisher were chairmen of the Stanley Fischer thesis. Samuelson was on it. An unusual thesis to have 3 different people as chairman and to apparently plagiarize the Hakansson thesis and another Hakansson paper.

What happened with Corson, Fuchs, Max Born, etc. became tradecraft for Russia to use with academics by the 1960s when the Fischer thesis came along. At that time, Russia wanted a Nobel Prize in econ for Kantorovich. This parallels the prize they got for Tamm after he was apparently plagiarized by Sidney Dancoff, a former Oppenheimer student and assistant, in 1950.

The Fock Letter is a basic point of Soviet tradecraft to manipulate academics over plagiarism. This is true whether Corson was an intentional agent provocateur of theirs or not. The concept was there either way by the time of the 1960s. Sidrauski may have played a role with Stanley Fischer of such a nature. There are also parallels with Fowler and Dirac plagiarizing Max Born. That gave Russia through Kapitsa leverage over Rutherford, Fowler, Dirac, and Bohr. They got leverage over Bohr because Rutherford made him a Fellow of the Royal Society the next year and Bohr was linked to Born and Jordan. Born then wrote to Bohr asking for a Rockefeller stipend for Jordan at Bohr’s institute.

Sudoplatov makes much of Kapitsa in his 1994 book and Bohr. All this was meant to put pressure on the econ profs to give Russia IMF loans. When those materialized from Fischer and Summers, Berezovsky got rewarded in loans for shares. It was Berezovsky who picked Putin to succeed Yeltsin. Putin taunted Fischer with a comment about getting him a job in Moscow after he finished with the IMF. Now Fischer is up for Vice Chairman of the Fed. Franklin Fisher and the others at MIT should be interviewed on these subjects.

The above is speculation and hypotheses. Please restate as questions. All other disclaimers apply.

Navigating Resources on Russia Plagiarism Files

January 31, 2014

This post is meant to help in finding information on Russia Plagiarism Files, ie the hypothesis that the Russian government keeps track of plagiarism, or its appearance or post publication efforts to claim credit or deny credit or recognition to rivals or victims.

If you come to a tag page like Klaus Fuchs you will find a stack of articles with the tag Klaus Fuchs with the latest articles first.  You can think of it as a column of articles with the latest article on the top of the column.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/category/klaus-fuchs/

The latest article may be tagged Klaus Fuchs because it has some application related to Klaus Fuchs.  However, the latest article is not the one to read if you are starting at the beginning.  It will simply confuse you and seem hopeless.

One thing you can do is go to the bottom of the column which is the oldest article.

The top article currently in the Klaus Fuchs tag column is

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2008/12/12/thomas-c-reed-chinese-nuclear-tests/

This article is mostly about Thomas C. Reed citing the tag column Klaus Fuchs.  It is December 12, 2008.

Note the current link to the Reed article is now

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/61/9/10.1063/1.2982122

If we go to the bottom of the Klaus Fuchs tag column, we get

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2006/10/27/russia-used-plagiarism-files-to-get-atomic-know-how/

This article is from 2006.  The 2006 article is more basic and from the beginning. So you would do better to read that unless you can’t think for yourself, in which case you just want to see that Thomas C. Reed linked to these webpages.  Reed was a former Sec of the Air Force and worked with Teller before that to develop nuclear weapons at Lawrence Livermore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_C._Reed

Another place to start on Russia Plagiarism Files is

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/russias-plagiarism-files/

This has links to some other articles.

If you come to a random article webpage from a Google link or a link in an email provided by a friend or unfriend, then you may find it confusing or not of much use.  You have to make some effort to find the right articles to read given your background knowledge.

This navigation page will be added to from time to time.  So you may want to come back to it.

==

As a reminder, See Something Say Something.

If you know something that could be of use in exposing government or academic corruption or in counter-terrorism, speak up.  Chechens or others may have specific resentments against academic, banking, government or international targets.  If you work for one of those or are a student and see something suspicious, speak up.  Report it to someone.  Post a comment on these webpages if you can’t do anything else.

This is currently posted on January 31, 2014.  We are in a fever over Sochi Terrorism.  But the strike may be somewhere else such as Harvard and MIT economics departments or business schools.  If you work or study there, and no one seems to take notice of anything, speak up.  These departments should issue warnings in advance of the Sochi games, really even before this.  They are a special target during Sochi. So are the IMF and World Bank in Washington DC or affiliated locations in Europe.

Russia may also be spreading stories inside Chechen or Muslim groups blaming Andrei Shleifer, Larry Summers, Stanley Fischer or others.  Putin wants to deflect blame for the Chechen genocide and Moscow Apartment Bombings onto the US, British and likely Israel.

After the Boston Bombings in 2013, Putin blamed the CIA for manipulating Anatoly Chubais, this fingered Harvard prof Andrei Shleifer.  If something happens in the US or Europe, Putin will blame the CIA.  If someone is killed, Putin will say they were the next Snowden and were going to expose the CIA.    Russia will have a twisted story to explain whatever happens.  Thus you can’t exclude any target or any scenario because it is too absurd or stupid.

Stanley Fischer’s appointment as Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve before the Sochi Olympics was waiving a red flag in the face of Chechens and Muslims. They blame the IMF loans under Fischer and Summers for funding the Chechen genocide in 1999 during the Second Chechen War.  The Kavkaz Center in Sweden pushes this line.  Thus the Federal Reserve is a target and groups or individuals linked to it.  If you know something about any of this, you should pass that on.  This includes Russia’s use of academic misconduct kompromat, pre or post publication.

The universities, the IMF and World Bank, Federal Reserve, banks and other related financial institutions have not passed on what they know to the FBI or JTTF or even within their own organization to their own security people.  They have to take blame for not doing so.  If you have information or academic misconduct, Russia’s use of it, an interest in this subject by Chechens and Muslims, Chinese, or Russians, then pass it on.

Countries like Pakistan and India and likely Iran try to piggy back on this information and use it. So report people from these countries if you know they are involved in such matters.  You can link to this page in a written report or tip as providing background on these subjects.

Don’t be a victim.  These people manipulate not just terrorism but academic misconduct and recognition to advance their national or group interests.  You don’t have to protect them because they are colleagues or leader figures, even if they have important titles or recognition.

Thomas C Reed Chinese Nuclear Tests

December 12, 2008

One important “pupil” who paid Fuchs an early visit was Qian Sanqiang. In 1959 Qian was the designated mastermind of Mao’s A-bomb program. In July of that year, Qian made his way to East Germany, where he met with Fuchs at length. (H. Terry Hawkins, now a senior fellow at Los Alamos, told Stillman in 2006, “I read this report in an unclassified publication, that this meeting took place shortly after Fuchs returned to East Germany. Fuchs gave Qian information that greatly assisted the Chinese program.” Also see http://www.oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/category/klaus-fuchs.) During those long summer days of 1959, Fuchs gave Qian a full tutorial on the design and operation of Fat Man. In all likelihood, he also added his thoughts on the role of radiation pressure in thermonuclear weapons.

Current link (As of Feb 3 2014) (At link can download article as pdf and also Tweet a comment)

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/61/9/10.1063/1.2982122

Old link was:

http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_61/iss_9/47_1.shtml

Above article by Thomas Reed former Secretary of the Air Force (1976–77) and scientist at Lawrence Livermore.

(2017 updated link:

http://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2982122

)

 

CFR also links to the Reed article at Physics Today.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/17360/physics_today.html

Its possible that Klaus Fuchs gave nuclear know-how to Huanwu-Peng and Kun Huang in the UK between 1945 and 1950.  They were assistants to Max Born.  They returned to China later and became stars in China.

The French may also have helped train them starting even before the German occupation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qian_Sanqiang

Qian went for France in 1937. He studied in Collège de Sorbonne and Collège de France, doing research under Frédéric Joliot-Curie and Irène Joliot-Curie. He returned to China in 1948.

Joliot-Curie was a communist.

There were Chinese “students” at several key places.  In America, UK, France, and possibly even in Germany.  (I have misplaced the reference.)

After graduating in 1936 from Qinghua University, one of China’s leading science institutions, he traveled to France to conduct research at the Curie Laboratory and elsewhere.

Like many Chinese scholars who studied abroad, Qian Sanqiang (pronounced cheeyen sahn-cheeyahng) was sympathetic to the Communist revolution in 1949 and resolved to help the Communists “build the country.”

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE6DC133FF930A35754C0A964958260

Hypothesis: Chinese students abroad were in many cases communists and dual agents of the Russian and Chinese intelligence services.  This may have included Qian Sanqiang, Huanwu-Peng, Kun Huang and others.

Fuchs may have passed additional technical secrets to Russia and China in the late 1940’s through Huanwu-Peng, Kun Huang, both Max Born assistants like Fuchs and possibly in meetings with Qiang Sanqiang before 1948.

China has been intentionally spreading nuclear know-how to other countries according to a new book coming out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/science/09bomb.html?_r=2&ref=science&pagewanted=all

http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/2008/12/nyt-hidden-travels-of-atomic-bomb.html

==

Steven Chu has been nominated to Department of Energy by Obama.  Chu’s parents came from China c. 1945.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1997/chu-autobio.html

My father, Ju Chin Chu, came to the United States in 1943 to continue his education at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in chemical engineering, and two years later, my mother, Ching Chen Li, joined him to study economics. A generation earlier, my mother’s grandfather earned his advanced degrees in civil engineering at Cornell while his brother studied physics under Perrin at the Sorbonne before they returned to China.

==

After the Liberation, he served as director of the French National Center for Scientific Research and became France’s first High Commissioner for Atomic Energy. In 1948 he oversaw the construction of the first French atomic reactor. A devout Communist, he was relieved of his duties in 1950 for political reasons. Joliot-Curie was also one of the eleven signatories to the Russell-Einstein Manifesto in 1955. Although he retained his professorship at the Collège de France, on the death of his wife in 1956, he took over her position as Chair of Nuclear Physics at the Sorbonne.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Joliot-Curie

Search

Perrin Joliot-Curie

Heisenberg’s War: The Secret History of the German Bomb – Google Books Result

by Thomas Powers – 2000 – History – 640 pages
In the years before the war Perrin and Joliot-Curie, longtime friends, both acquired summer houses in the small French coastal town of Paimpol.
books.google.com/books?isbn=0306810115
==
Did Steven Chu’s family help in getting atomic or other know-how for China?  Were they part of China’s know-how gathering network?  Did they recruit other Chinese in the West?  Were they part of Russia’s network?  Was Russia using Chinese to pass under the radar?
Diversity at Berkeley National Lab
Diversity means hiring children of Chinese profs in China to come to the US and take jobs from whites?  It means building a network of Chinese in the US at universities, government and weapons labs?
Scroll down to students.  Is this building a network for China in the US?
==Wen Ho Lee org opposed Bill Richardson
Who funds this organization?
==
Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore are two different labs.  Steven Chu may not have a security clearance, or a very high one.  He is not a nuclear weapons expert like Thomas C. Reed.  But at DOE, Chu will control the nuclear labs. He can promote the Chinese network and move people into the labs.  This is what Sudoplatov said that Oppenheimer, Fermi, etc. did in the 1940’s.   Oppenheimer got his Ph.D. under Max Born.  Fuchs was an assistant to Born.  Fermi’s assistant Bruno Pontecorvo was a spy who fled after Fuchs’s arrest.
Fuchs was arrested Jan 1950, Pontecorvo went to Russia in August 1950.  Pontecorvo also had a position in the UK.

In 1948, after he obtained British citizenship, he was invited by John Cockcroft to contribute to the British atomic bomb project at AERE, Harwell where he joined the Nuclear Physics Division under Egon Bretscher. In 1950 he was appointed to the chair of physics at the University of Liverpool which he was due to take up in January, 1951.

However, on August 31, 1950, in the middle of a holiday in Italy, he abruptly left Rome for Stockholm with his wife and three sons without informing friends or relatives. The next day he was helped by Soviet agents to enter the USSR from Finland. His abrupt disappearance caused much concern to many of the western intelligence services, especially those of Britain and the USA who were worried about the escape of atomic secrets to the Soviet Union after the then recent case of Klaus Fuchs. But as was pointed out immediately, Pontecorvo had had only limited access to “secret subjects” and even later no allegation of spying or of transferring of secrets to the Soviets has ever been made against him.

==
It isn’t just a matter of whether they pass secrets themselves or even know them, but whether they build a network.  Do they inhibit people to turn in suspicious Chinese spies?  Won’t Steven Chu signal to whites, why bother?  He will undermine security just by being in charge.  He will help spread and build the Chinese network.  He demoralizes whites who see the loss of what they built.  That makes China win.  It doesn’t matter if he passes an envelope with secrets.
Steven Chu was one of 46 employees named in a 2006 PricewatershouseCoopers audit of improper compensation practices at the University of California. [11] Records produced under the California Public Relations Act also show that he was one of at least 29 employees offered unusual perks in hiring letters, perks which the university had not made public.[12]
==

Principles for a Diverse Community

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is principally an institution of scientific research, committed to addressing the needs of society. A diverse workforce is an invaluable asset to innovation and research excellence. To this end, we must embody the following principles to successfully affect the Laboratory’s mission and embrace our diverse workplace community.

  • We affirm the inherent dignity in all of us and strive to maintain an environment characterized by respect, fairness, and inclusion. Our valued community encompasses an array of races, creeds, and social circumstances. We recognize and cherish the richness contributed by our diversity.
  • We accept open expression of our individuality and diversity within the bounds of courtesy, respoect, and sensitivity. We take pride in our collective achievements. We honor our differences.
  • As mandated by law and reaffirmed here, we will not tolerate any manifestations of discrimination, including those based on race, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, and status within the Laboratory.
==
This sends the message: don’t turn in Chinese you suspect of being spies.  Don’t question the Chinese building their network here.  Don’t interfere with Chinese ethnocentrism and racism in hiring.
The diversity statement is directed against whites.  Its only intended to silence whites.  Its meant to intimidate and cow whites.  Its written or approved by Steven Chu.  Its intended by Chu to promote the Chinese network in the US.  Chu knows this means giving secrets and kn0w-how to China.  In fact, he intends to give China all the know-how he can.  China is spreading that to Pakistan, Iran, and elsewhere.  Chu has already worked against us.  He is now with this diversity statement.  He will build China’s network inside our labs and make it a thought crime to challenge suspicious behavior by Chinese in the US and in weapons labs.
Steven Chu Chinese Academy of Sciences, Foreign Member,1998
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (R) meets with Chinese-American physicist Steven Chu, the 1997 Nobel Physics Prize laureate, in Beijing on Oct. 11, 2007. [Xinhua Photo]

==
A thread with comments on Steven Chu pick by Obama
I think that steven chu would be a great help. Not because he won some prize, but because he is Asian.” Slayer.

==
==
The running together of paragraphs and other text doesn’t come out.  When I try to remove it, it just comes back.  Sorry.
==
The above are hypotheses or speculation.  These are questions not assertions.  Restate all statements as questions.  No disparagement of any person is intended.  Comments and corrections welcome. All other disclaimers apply.

WaPo: “Russia Seeks More Control At Academy Of Sciences”

March 13, 2007

=Original WaPo Article:

“Russia Seeks More Control At Academy Of Sciences”

By Peter Finn
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, March 13, 2007; Page A01

“MOSCOW — The historic autonomy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, which has pioneered fundamental research in Russia since its founding by Peter the Great three centuries ago, is under threat from government proposals to bring the institution under much tighter state control and end its academic…”

“This is really a war,” Alexander Nekipelov, vice president of the academy, said in an interview at the institution’s august administrative headquarters, a czarist palace on Moscow’s Leninsky Prospekt. “I am sure we are going to win it, but of course we cannot help being worried by the situation.”

Members of the academy, which in 1980 defied Soviet demands that it expel dissident physicist Andrei Sakharov, view the plan as part of a broader trend of increased official control over key parts of Russian society.

==

The Academy of Sciences helps Russian intelligence analyze plagiarism and the interplay between academic and political corruption in the West. This started with Kapitza analyzing plagiarism by Dirac and Niels Bohr being made a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1926 to keep quiet about it. Rutherford was president of the Royal Society and his son-in law Fowler was helping Dirac.

==

Putin became head of FSB in July 1998 and may have gotten in on looting a 4.8 billion IMF loan. This may have involved kompromat on US econ profs Stanley Fischer at IMF and Larry Summers at US Treasury.

Russia may have had academic kompromat files on them for decades including possibly plagiarism by Fischer in his 1969 Ph.D. thesis at MIT in which Samuelson the uncle of Summers was involved.

Putin may want to control the academy because his money comes from it and because Berezovsky and Yeltsin were using this in the 1990’s to get IMF loans. Putin’s participation in this scheme is how he became President of Russia.

Thus the Academy is key to the truth about how he got his money and his power. They have reputation control to expose this and he wants control over them to keep them under control. The above is all speculation and a hypothesis.

==

quote During Soviet days, the academy also repeatedly denied membership to leading Communist Party members on grounds that they lacked scientific credentials. end quote.

quote In November 1945 refused to work on nuclear weapons development under Beria, and in 1946 was dismissed from his posts as director of the Institute for Physical Problems and head of Glavkislorod, and resided at his country house until after Stalin’s death and Beria’s arrest in 1953. He conducted there original research on high-power electronics. In January 1955 Kapitza returned to the post of director of the Institute. end quote RAS bio on Kapitza.

http://kapitza.ras.ru/history/PLKapitza/main.html

Beria sent him a shotgun as a present, but Stalin let Kapitza live and stay at his house. One book says Kapitza should have been killed for what he did. Kapitza lived a long time until 1984.

Kapitza’s was Rutherford’s assistant in 1925 and knew of the plagiarism and coverup including making Bohr a Fellow of the Royal Society.

This gave Kapitza and the Acad of Sci USSR independence of the Party. Even in the 1980’s, they had this as leverage over Teller and Bethe, both of whom didn’t tell this when Fuchs was arrested or at the Oppenheimer security hearings in April 1954. Born the victim got the Nobel in fall 1954.

==

c. 1994, Sudoplatov refers to Kapitza in his book as Rutherford’s assistant. This is what got Bethe and the others scared to denounce the Sudoplatov book, not just the accusations on Oppenheimer, Fermi, and Szilard.

It was in 1995, they got the big IMF loans from profs Fischer and Summers. They were using the accusations on the physicists to scare the econ profs into giving them money. In Russian physics journal(s), they also pushed Kapitza to remind the Americans.

Putin got in on this with Berezovsky and Yeltsin in 1998 as head of FSB when they got more IMF loans and stole them for themselves. Because the Academy has used its knowledge since 1946 to be independent, even against Stalin and Beria, Putin has to get control over them now before the presidential election where he turns over power.

Putin wants to keep his money and keep the Academy from using this as leverage for its own benefit, as it has in the past. Even in the 1930’s, during the purges, Kapitza used this to demand Landau be released from prison. So Putin is trying to control this independence that the Academy has used even under Stalin from its keeping the plagiarism files on US profs. The above is all speculation.

==
“Members of the academy, which in 1980 defied Soviet demands that it expel dissident physicist Andrei Sakharov,”

Kapitza was alive and still a witness against Bethe and Teller. Teller was a key person in SDI in the 1980’s which gave Kapitza leverage until 1984 to protect Sakharov.

==
Comments WaPo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007031201603

read more | digg story

Above is all speculation and hypotheses.  All statements should be restated as questions.  All other disclaimes apply.

The Washington Post: A Wikipedia Of Secrets

November 5, 2006

By Frank Ahrens
Sunday, November 5, 2006; Page F07

“Imagine if, in August 2001, the U.S. intelligence agencies had dumped all of their information into one secure, online resource where it was searchable and accessible to anyone who had the proper clearance.”

“Who knows if the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 could have been averted?”

Academia has allowed Russia to build files on plagiarism by profs in academia. This started in 1925 when Dirac plagiarized Max Born and Pascual Jordan with the aid of Fowler, Rutherford’s son in law. Bohr along with other institute directors in Europe were made Fellows of the Royal Society the next year by Rutherford. This helped them get Rockefeller grants that they needed in their poverty after WWI.

Fowler, Bohr and Rutherford families would stay as house guests of each other. Heisenberg was a house guest of Fowler in July 1925. The plagiarism happened in late October 1925 after the preprints of the Born Jordan paper were available. Fowler rushed the Dirac plagiarism into print in early November 1925 before the Born Jordan paper was published. He did it in the Proceedings of the Royal Society.

Lindemann the scientific adviser to Churchill in the 1930’s and during WWII was a Fellow of the Royal Society at the time and likely heard what happened. It was blatant plagiarism. Born and Jordan changed Heisenberg’s matrix notation and Dirac copied the BJ notation extensively, which showed he had seen their paper.

Dirac kept plagiarizing away. Fermi wrote him a letter about it, this is what is called Fermi Dirac statistics. Dirac later said that spin 1/2 particles should be named fermions.

Klaus Fuchs, Huanwu Peng, Kun Huang, Oppenheimer, and Heisenberg were all Max Born assistants. Peng and Huang went back to China after Fuchs was arrested in 1950. Peng is credited with being a hero of the Chinese bomb project by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.

Kapitza was Rutherford’s assistant in 1925. When Niels Bohr was rescued during WWII, there was a Kapitza letter waiting for him at the Soviet embassy in London in 1944. He met with Churchill who was likely told this history and Churchill was mad. In 1945, Terletsky was sent from Russia to meet with Bohr with another Kapitza letter.

The Russians were pushing the Kapitza story in the 1990’s while they got low interest rate loans from IMF. Sudoplatov had a footnote in his 1994 book to remind the profs in the US of this. They got angry but didn’t tell the truth about this, including Bethe and Teller.

So if a Wikipedia on Russia’s plagiarism files had been available in the 1940’s, Klaus Fuchs might not have been allowed into Los Alamos without more questions being asked. This would have showed that the profs in Los Alamos knew he was a risk.

Bethe was the boss of Fuchs in Los Alamos but also was at Bristol with him in 1936. Fuchs was a Lutheran refugee from Hitler, which meant communist. But Oppenheimer and Fuchs had both been Max Born assistants and knew the above embarrassing details, so Bethe just went along.

The Oppenheimer Security Clearance Hearings were in April 1954. Before Teller testified he and Bethe argued for an hour over what his testimony would be. Teller may have threatened to tell the above. This may be why he was ostracized for his testimony, they were afraid he would tell the above.

Bethe had not told this to the FBI after Fuchs was arrested. Bethe was a known plagiarist and that was already in Physical Review in coy footnotes, including the article on Bethe’s calculation of the Lamb Shift.

Nambu says he was before Bethe Salpeter for the BS equation. But Kita in a footnote tells us he was before Nambu. Kita and Nambu were Japanese and so were easy prey. Nambu is still alive and is a prof at University of Chicago.

Detailed page references on the 1925 plagiarism by Dirac of Born and Jordan, Kapitza’s obituary on Rutherford in 1937 that mentions crediting the work of others, etc. is available in

Russia Used Plagiarism Files to Gain atomic know-how.
Also see Rob Sanchez Vdare H1B DoD for Corson Fock and Chinese assisants of Max Born.


Two Russian profs who may work on these files today are Albert Shiryaev at Moscow State University and Valery Makarov at New Economic School Moscow. Shiryaev does it in finance and Makarov in economics. This includes misconduct at the Federal Reserve, US Treasury, Council of Economic Advisers, US DOJ Antitrust Division Economic Analysis Group, FTC, SEC, IMF and World Bank. This includes profs who may have high level positions there and whose home base university is involved in this, or journals or publishers who they are linked to who are involved.

TOC: US v. Harvard, Bush v. Gore, Russia’s files on Plagiarism

Aldrich Ames and Robert P. Hanssen tipped off the Russians that they had a mole problem inside Russian intelligence. This is why they had Chubais handle negotiations for IMF loans with Stanley Fischer and Larry Summers.

Boris Berezovsky had a Ph.D. in math from Moscow State University and was a manager at the Institute of Control Sciences, Academy of Sciences, USSR. This is the area that analyzed the 1969 NSF grant papers of Robert C. Merton, Paul A. Samuelson, the Stanley Fischer MIT Ph.D. thesis, and the David Levhari TN Srinivasan paper.

They analyzed this for overlapping with the 1966 Nils Hakansson UCLA Ph.D. thesis received at MIT in 1966 because Karl Shell of MIT was session chairman for Hakansson to present the paper at the Dec 1966 Winter Meeting of the Econometric Society. We are neutral on whether this was plagiarism.

Hakansson bio

Hakansson’s contribution was a critical step in both finance and the microfoundations of macroeconomics. It was the joint consumption, savings, portfolio decision under uncertainty for multiple time periods using dynamic programming for the first time. It built on, and cited, the Phelps paper, which it found an error in.

search Merton Samuelson 1969 site:harvard.edu 14 hits

search Merton Samuelson Hakansson 1969 site:harvard.edu 0 hits.

So Harvard is not crediting Hakansson even today in this form. (Merton has cited the 1970 Hakansson paper, including in his book Continuous Time Finance.) One can take off the site:harvard.edu and see that Hakansson is credited by some.

Merton Nobel Prize autobio written after fall 1997, and after USAO Mass investigation started in spring 1997 says:

” The research with Paul on warrant pricing introduced me to the expected utility maxim and its application to optimal portfolio selection in a static framework. As a consequence of that effort, I began to think about combining the static theory of portfolio selection with the intertemporal optimization of lifetime consumption under certainty found in the growth-model literature. Ignorant of the important work underway by Nils Hakansson and Hayne Leland, then graduate students elsewhere, I attacked the problem of dynamic portfolio theory in a continuous-time framework without having the benefit of their discrete-time formulations. Despite all the mathematics courses that I had taken, l had seen neither stochastic dynamic programming nor the Ito calculus, both of which turned out to be key mathematical tools needed for this research. Instead, driven by “need,” I found them and learned them on my own. Presented first at a Harvard-MIT graduate student seminar in November 1968, my paper on lifetime consumption and portfolio selection under uncertainty was published the following August as a companion paper to one by Paul investigating the effect of age on portfolio risk tolerance.”

In fact, Hakansson got his Ph.D. thesis in 1966. Merton’s August 1970 MIT Ph.D. thesis available on line from MIT cites Hakansson as forthcoming.

Merton’s Ph.D. thesis is at MIT in a set of Nobel Prize winner theses on-line. Merton’s thesis home page at MIT. (This is 13.5 megabytes, and can be downloaded as a pdf and viewed. This is better than trying to view the pdf online.)

In a 1973 J. SIAM article, Samuelson and Merton cite the Hakansson 1966 Ph.D. thesis. In the Stanley Fischer 1969 Ph.D. thesis, Fischer cites Hakansson 1966 but says he was given a copy late and had already done his work.

Stanley Fischer thesis available from MIT here. (This is over 27 megabytes, and can be downloaded as a pdf and viewed. This is better than trying to view the pdf online.) The thesis is stamped by the MIT Library with the date October 7, 1969. It is signed August 18, 1969. It itself calls itself an August 1969 thesis. It appears the final typed version was not however completed until October 1969. Fischer went on the academic job market late it appears and was hired at University of Chicago in fall 1969 not as an assistant prof but as a post doc in effect. This required a visa.

Was the footnote acknowledge Hakansson added after August 1969? Aug 1969 is when the Merton and Samuelson NSF papers were published by Harvard in the Review of Economics and Statistics. Hakansson presented his paper at Harvard Business School in Jan/Feb 1969 as did Stiglitz. Both were at Yale.
Merton claims that even in 1997 he didn’t know Hakansson got his Ph.D. in 1966 and that Hakansson was still a graduate student elsewhere in 1968.

Fischer’s thesis also contains another chapter extending the results to uncertain date of death. It turns out Hakansson has already done that and submitted a paper from Yale on it.

There were close links between Yale econ and MIT Econ at the time, including Duncan Foley and Joseph Stiglitz. Stiglitz has carried on a feud with Summers and Fischer from the mid 1990’s to date.This has gotten quite personal. Other Harvard econ profs like Rogoff reacted angrily to Stiglitz criticizing IMF policy under Fischer and Summers.

Hakansson has not been made a Fellow of the Econometric Society. See list of fellows. Almost everyone else even remotely close to this was made a Fellow. This is despite most of them not making a permanent contribution to economics the way Hakansson has. Hakansson’s formulas are part of the permanent math of economics.

Stanley Fischer doesn’t really have any such contribution for his entire career. Fischer was made a Fellow in 1977. Most Fellows don’t have a great formula that is a permanent part of economics like Hakansson does.

Even Paul Samuelson arguably doesn’t have a great single formula of the level that Hakansson has. Most Nobel Prize winners don’t have a major mathematical formula reflecting a breakthrough like Hakansson has. Hakansson’s paper and formulas and theorems were some of the great ones of the 20th century.

Almost none of the other participants at MIT, thesis supervisors and commitee members, Ph.D. students at the time, etc. had a formula as important as Hakansson’s or as influential. Yet almost all of them were made Felllows of the Econometric Society.

For a brief period in the early 1970’s, MIT and Harvard pulled back a little.

But then there was the 1972 Warsaw meeting with the Russians with Valery Makarov. From MIT was Martin Weitzman now at Harvard. William Brock from University of Chicago was there, see his CV in pdf. Also there was Martin J. Beckmann. So was Koopmans, now deceased. Attending that conference doesn’t mean they had any knowledge then or now of any attempt by Soviets like Valery Makarov to apply hypothetical pressure to Koopmans or the other Americans.

Did the Russians put on pressure on them to nominate Kantorovich? Vainshtein of the USSR had recently said Leontief of Harvard had plagiarized, in effect, Soviets on input and output. Leontief got the Nobel Prize for this. Kantorovich got the Nobel Prize in 1975 for math econ work. The only prior math econ winners were Arrow and Samuelson.

After this, the tendency to cite Hakansson went down. Hakansson was not made a Fellow of the Econometric Society in the mid 1970’s as he should have been based on comparisons to others. Why? What changed from the early 1970’s when MIT did start to acknowledge Hakansson and the late 1970’s when that became rarer in the economics profession? Was it Russia using this to pressure nominations for the Nobel Prize from math econ winners Arrow and Samuelson, uncles of Larry Summers, that made the change?

Russia got billions in low interest rate IMF loans from Fischer and Summers. Some of the money went missing. Berezovsky got rich from loans for shares in fall of 1995 after the first 10 billion tranche from IMF in spring 1995.

LTCM, other hedge funds, Goldman Sachs and university endowments traded Russian government bonds in the 1990’s. Goldman Sachs paid Bush senior 100,000 dollars to speak in Moscow June 1998. Jack Abramoff took Delay on a trip to Moscow. The oligarchs were paying off Delay in 1998 to keep the IMF funds coming that they were using academic kompromat to pressure out of Fischer and Summers.

–Fischer Interviews

Fed

Olivier Blanchard, coauthor on textbook from 1989 that cites Merton and Samuelson 1969 but not Hakansson at all, or Fischer.–

John Yoo, Paul Wolfowitz, and possibly George Bush from Prince Bandar were figuring this out in the 1990’s. They got the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 during the Clinton impeachment hearings, along with hearings on loans to Russia, the Fed bailout of LTCM, and during the USAO Mass investigation of Harvard and Shleifer from 1997 to 2005.

Yoo may have told this to Silberman and Hatch who told Scalia. They may have used it to pressure Gore to go away after the decision in Bush v. Gore. Scalia wrote the lone opinion on why they stopped the vote counting early. That may be because he was the one who heard this.

It is possible that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia knew it at the IMF and used that to pressure Bush after 9-11 to ignore their involvement in 9-11. General Ahmed may have said this to Armitage in their meeting and that is why Armitage got so mad. Saudi Arabia got to airlift out its people from the US after 9-11. In November 2001, Pakistan got to airlift out its generals and ISI and soldiers from Kunduz Afghanistan according to Seymour Hersh. This may have been their use of this leverage.

M. A. B. Beg was a physics prof at Rockefeller University. He knew Pais who wrote about the Fock Corson episode in his 1997 book A Tale of Two Continents. Beg was dead by then. Beg was from Pakistan. Beg was an expert in Fock space and may have passed this on to Pakistan. Its possible the Saudis have profs of Muslim or Arab origins who give them info on this for money in the West.

–Reply to a comment at WaPo

quote There is no archive of entries so that a reader can view the history of entries and form an opinion. end quote. Click on history on wiki.

For example, Manmohan Singh, PM of India. Parts of his bio were taken off relating to his experience going to the Soviet Union in 1980’s, etc. Singh gave a speech at Moscow State University indicating knowledge of some of the above and of the cases in econ.

Singh helps balance Pakistan’s knowledge of this at IMF and World Bank. Pakistan had a VP at World Bank and Shaukat Aziz at Citicorp and they know of the kompromat issues used over the decades at IMF and World Bank because of profs there. This is speculation, as are the other posts.

==Excerpt removed from wiki from Singh’s bio from his cv.

A version of wiki that has this is from August 2006. Someone took out the parts indicating his possible cooperation or observation of the Soviets and his work at IMF and World Bank for India where he likely had access to files on academic misconduct of US profs and Russia’s files on them. His speech at Moscow State University on Dec 5, 2005 indicates his knowledge. Notice he mentions Kapitza. This gave him leverage over Bush and Senator Hatch and others to get the India nuclear deal moving forward.

“It is not surprising that your university should have produced great Nobel laureates like Nikolai Semionov, Igor Tamm, Ilia Frank, Leo Landau and Pyotr Kapitza.”

Tamm Dancoff was one of the things the Russians complained off in their own publications in 1955 as overreaching by Oppenheimer protege Dancoff.

“As a student of economics I have admired the work of such great Russian economists as the Nobel Laureates, Wassily Leontief and Leonid Kantorovich.”

Leontief was accused of plagiarism by Vainshtein of USSR in 1969-70 issue of Matekon. Kantorovich got Nobel Prize nominations from prior winners possibly including math econ winners Arrow and Samuelson, the uncles of Larry Summers. Samuelson was on Fischer’s Ph.D. at MIT and on Merton’s. Samuelson got an NSF grant for one of the 1969 papers and supervised Merton to get another NSF grant for another 1969 paper involved in the MIT incident. Its these two papers that Stanley Fischer credits in his 1989 textbook and not Hakansson at all.

India knew of the plagiarism by Dirac with Fowler’s help of Max Born from the 1930’s from Bhabha. Bhabha was in the UK from 1927 to 1939, much of it at Cambridge where the Dirac Fowler plagiarism happened. Bhabha was head of India’s nuclear program.

The excerpt of Singh’s bio removed from wiki:

OTHER ASSIGNMENTS
  Leader of the Indian delegation to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Cyprus (1993)
 

Leader of the Indian delegation to the Human Rights World Conference, Vienna (1993)

  Governor of India on the Board of Governors of the IMF and the International Bank of Reconstruction & Development (1991-95)
  Appointed by Prime Minister of India as Member, Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister (1983-84)
  Chairman, India Committee of the Indo-japan ;Joint Study Committee (1980-83)
   
  Leader, Indian Delegation to :
   
  Indo-Soviet Monitoring Group Meeting (1982)
  Indo-Soviet Joint Planning Group Meeting (1980-82)
  Aid India Consortium Meetings (1977-79)
   
  Member Indian Delegation to :
   
  South-South Consultation, New Delhi (1982)
  Cancun Summit on North-South Issues (1981)
  Aid-India Consortium Meetings, Paris (1973-79)
  Annual Meetings of IMF, IBRD & Commonwealth
Finance Ministers (1972-79)
  Third Session of UNCTAD, Santiago (April-May 1972)
  Meetings of UNCTAD Trade & Development Board,
Geneva (May 1971 – July 1972)
  Ministerial Meeting of Group of 77, Lima (Oct.1971)
  – Deputy for India on IMF Committee of Twenty on
International Monetary Reform (1972 – 74)
  – Associate, Meetings of IMF Interim Committee and Joint
Fund-Bank Development Committee (1976-80, 1982-85)
  Alternate Governor for India, Board of Governors of
IBRD (1976-80)
  Alternate Governor for India, Board of Governors of the
IMF (1982-85)
  Alternate Governor for India, Board of Governors, Asian
Development Bank, Manila (1976-80)
  Director, Reserve Bank of India (1976-80)
  Director, Industrial Development Bank of India (1976-80)
  Participated in Commonwealth Prime Ministers Meeting,
Kingston (1975)
  Represented Secretary;-General UNCTAD at several
inter-governmental meetings including :
  Second Session of UNCTAD, 1968
  Committee on Invisibles & Financing Related to Trade,
Consultant to UNCTAD, ESCAP and Commonwealth
Secretariat
   
  Member, International Organizations :
   
  Appointed as Member by the Secretary-General, United Nations of a Group of Eminent Persons to advise him on Financing for Development (December, 2000)

===

This post represents opinion, hypothesis, or speculation. Nothing in this should be considered an aspersion on any person. All statements should be interpreted as restated to give effect to this. All statements in the positive should be restated as questions. All other conceivable disclaimers apply.

read more | digg story

Rob Sanchez Vdare H1B DoD

November 1, 2006

Witching Hour For DOD Comments On Foreign Workers

http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Teachers/H1B.html

http://www.phys.tsinghua.edu.cn:8080/english/intro/history.php

“Department of Physics at Tsinghua was proud of its graduates. As one of the most magnificent achievements in the history of Chinese modern education, among 23 “A-bomb”,“H-bomb” and “Satellite” Heros in China, 9 were undergraduates of this Department, including Gan-chang Wang, San-qiang Qian, Huan-wu Peng, Da-heng Wang, Jiu-Zhang Zhao, Fang-yun Chen, Jia-xian Deng, Guang-ya Zhu, and Guang-zhao Zhou, and another Hero, Yong-huai Guo, was also studied in its graduate school. In addition, this Departments have cultivated thousands of scholars, including more than 70 Members of the Chinese Academy of Science, of the Chinese Academy of Engineering , of the NAS of USA, etc..”
Peng lab

Huanwu Peng Chinese bomb developer, Bulletin Atomic Scientists

Dr. Zheng-yu Peng was his son and got his Ph.D. in 1989 at Carnegie Mellon and became a prof at UCHC and died recently.

search Zheng-yu Peng

http://microbiology.uchc.edu/Events/pengMemorial.php

“Dr. Peng was born in Beijing, China in 1959. His father Dr. Peng Huan-wu, 91, is a noted physicist and his mother was a physician. Peng continued his family´s scientific tradition. He was quite proud of the rigorous science education he received in China, which culminated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics from Beijing University. In 1982, Dr. Peng came to the United States to continue his studies in Physics at Carnegie Mellon University, and in 1989 he completed his doctoral work and received his Ph.D. degree. He then pursued his childhood dream of working in the biological sciences, first through postdoctoral studies at the University of California, Berkley, and then in the Department of Biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In 1995, he assumed his faculty position at the University of Connecticut Health Center, and quickly rose to the position of Professor in the Department of Molecular, Microbial, and Structural Biology.”

search Peng Huanwu bomb

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013733.php

search Peng hero Chinese atomic bomb

Huanwu Peng was an assistant to Max Born in the 1940’s.

Max Born’s assistants included J. Robert Oppenheimer, Klaus Fuchs (arrested 1950 for atomic espionage), Werner Heisenberg, Kun Huang, and Pascual Jordan. Kun Huang and Huanwu Peng left the West after Klaus Fuchs was arrested. So did Bruno Pontecorvo.

Hypothesis: Max Born was plagiarized by Dirac with Fowler’s assistance. Peter Kapitza of Russia knew that. Russia used this to apply pressure to Niels Bohr, as well as to get Klaus Fuchs into Los Alamos.

search Corson Fock

search Kun Huang

search H1B plagiarism

http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Teachers/H1B.html

Russia plagiarism

China plagiarism

DoD regulation references

2004-D010

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main

This post represents opinion, hypothesis and speculation. All other disclaimers apply. No aspersion is intended to be cast on any person, and the content should be considered restated to give effect to that intent.

Russia used plagiarism files to get atomic know-how

October 27, 2006

This is draft and will be reformatted and cleaned up over time.

This is hypothesis and speculation. Statements in the positive should be understood as restated this way.
Russia used its files on plagiarism to help it gain atomic know-how in the 1940’s, as well as build its academic network in the West starting in the 1920’s. The key incident was the plagiarism by Paul Dirac with Ralph H. Fowler’s help in 1925 of the paper by Max Born and Pascual Jordan on matrix mechanics.

The following references are from the book, “Sources of Quantum Mechanics”, edited with a historical introduction by B. L. van der Waerden. Note this is a Dover paperback book.
Heisenberg’s paper introducing the idea of matrix mechanics was received July 29, 1925 by Zeitschrift fur Physik and publised in vol 33, page 879.


Max Born and Pascual Jordan, “On Quantum Mechanics” was received Sept 27, 1925 by Zeitschrift fur Physik and published in vol 34, page 858. This was considerably after the date of receipt.


The paper by P.A.M. Dirac, “The Fundamental equations of Quantum Mechanics” was received by the Royal Society on Nov 7, 1925, and published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A vol 109 p 642. This was published before the Born and Jordan paper above.

The Dirac paper cites the paper by Heisenberg but not the Born and Jordan paper.

On page 41, van der Waerden states, “In paper 14, Dirac first gives a summary of Heisenberg’s ideas. Simplifying notation just as Born simplified it, he writes the multiplication rule in the form:

xy(nm) = \sum_k x(nk) y(km)”

Dirac supposedly had not seen the Born and Jordan paper, but he changes the notation from Heisenberg’s “clumsy notation” in the same way. However, Dirac also uses exactly the same Latin subscripts for the rule of multiplication as Born and Jordan did. Heisenberg used the notation (n, n-alpha).

On page 266, Heisenberg states the matrix multiplication rule as:

S(n,n-beta) = \Sum_{\alpha} U(n,n-alpha) B(n-alpha,n-beta)

This notation is quite clumsy as others have pointed out.

On page 280, Born and Jordan state the multiplication law as

a(nm) = \sum_k b(nk) c(km)

On page 309, Dirac states a fragment of an argument using the following equation

ab(nk) = a(nm) b(mk)

This is to show the subscripts, its part of a discussion leading up to the quantum mechanical case and has no summation.

Then below that he gives the same matrix multiplication law as Born and Jordan in Dirac’s equation 2,

xy(nm) = \sum_k x(nk) y(km)

Thus Dirac has copied the very Latin indices that Born and Jordan did. This was a clumsy job of copying.

Everyone at the time could tell what Dirac had done.
The paper was “communicated” to the Royal Society by R. H. Fowler, who was married to Rutherford’s daughter,<a href=”http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/%7Ekiwiadams/24125.htm”&gt; Eileen.</a>

Rutherford’s top assistant was Peter L. Kapitza, also spelled Pyotr Kapitsa.Kapitsa was possibly consulted and may even have been the one to tell Rutherford what had happened. Rutherford was director of the Cavendish Lab.

At the Cavendish at that very time was one J. Robert Oppenheimer.Niels Bohr was in correspondence with Fowler at the time over these papers. Bohr is probably the one who sent the paper to Fowler, who gave it to Dirac who then copied it. Fowler then rapidly published it to get out before Born and Jordan.

The result was to keep Born and Jordan from sharing the Nobel Prize with Dirac or Heisenberg, both of whom got the Nobel Prize, but not Jordan ever. In the fall of 1954, Born got the Nobel, after the Oppenheimer Security Clearance Hearings in April 1954. At those hearings, Bethe likely kept Teller from telling this story.

Niels Bohr Collected Works Vol 5, p338 Letter Nov 26, 1925 from Bohr to Fowler: “From Heisenberg I have just heard that Dirac in Cambridge, independent of the work of Born, has made some important contributions to the mathematical formulation of the quantum mechanics. I should be very thankful if you could give me some closer information about his work, or if he possibly should have a spare copy of his paper which he would be kind enough to lend me.”

Bohr then talks about a paper he is working on where he would review this work.We note that Bohr does not offer a copy of the Born and Jordan paper to Fowler. Instead, he refers to it as if Fowler knows what he is talking about.

The Collected Works indicate its the papers above discussed in this letter. Since Bohr doesn’t offer to send Fowler the Born and Jordan paper, we know from this letter that he and Bohr both know that he already has a copy. This means someone sent him the copy already. That would either be Heisenberg or Bohr.

The Born and Jordan paper was submitted and received by Z. fur Physik back in September 1925. But Dirac doesn’t cite that paper. Note that Bohr already says “independently” in this letter without having gotten the paper.

Why does Bohr feel the need to introduce this word already? Because he is indicating he won’t make an issue of it being a copy of what Bohr has already sent Fowler. He is willing to avoid a scandal or fight.

Niels Bohr was a friend of Rutherford before Fowler married Rutherford’s daughter or had even met her or Rutherford. Bohr is indicating he won’t break this bond.
Dirac had sent his paper to Heisenberg. The Heisenberg to Bohr letter was dated Nov 20, 1925, see page 225.

Dirac gave conflicting accounts of his knowledge of both Heisenberg’s lecture on July 28, 1925 in Cambridge. Page 317 of the book Helge Kragh, Dirac A Scientific Biography has a paragraph on Dirac’s multiple inconsistent statements. <a href=”http://www.amazon.com/gp/sitbv3/reader/102-3313973-5690502?asin=0521017564&pageID=S094&checkSum=BTRUHC%20dqPVef42w6KAEMTyzF0cVjXmhFQxiSRfgBqc=”&gt; This paragraph can be seen on Amazon inside if one is a member.</a>

It may be necessary to go through the setup oneself. One can search on Kapitza Club. The top of the page is “Notes and References to pp. 9-14.” Dirac in 1962 said, “He [Heisenberg] gave a talk about a new theory at the Kapitza Club in the summer of 1925, but I wasn’t a member of the Club so I did not go to the club.”

However, Dirac presented at the Club Augus 4. In 1972, Dirac said he did attend the talk.
Klaus Fuchs was the assistant of Max Born in Edinburgh in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s. He became assistant to Hans Bethe at Los Alamos.

Oppenheimer went from Cavendish in 1925 to get his Ph.D. under Max Born in 1926. Bethe and Oppenheimer knew that Born had been plagiarized by Dirac. They also knew that Niels Bohr was made a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1926 to keep him quiet by Rutherford who was President of the Royal Society in 1926.

Peierls had brought Fuchs with him to Los Alamos.

Fuchs was a Lutheran refugee from Hitler, which meant he was probably a strong communist who was known to the regime because he was in demonstrations a lot, which in fact was the case.

Bethe and Fuchs were refugees together at Bristol before Bethe went to Cornell and Fuchs went to Edinburgh.

Bethe and Oppenheimer let Fuchs be at Los Alamos despite his being a security risk and in fact likely spy, because Fuchs knew this unpleasant history. So did Peierls. To expose Fuchs when he got to Los Alamos would mean to expose this history.

Peter Kapitsa knew the whole story. He was Rutherford’s top assistant in 1925 and 1926. He was an eyewitness to how Rutherford made Niels Bohr a Fellow to keep him quiet about Fowler’s involvement.

Fowler was Rutherford’s son-in-law. The Fowler and Bohr families were house guests with each other. That meant Fowler’s wife, i.e. Rutherford’s daughter.

Born wrote to Bohr asking for a Rockefeller stipend for Jordan in 1926. By making Bohr a Fellow of the Royal Society, Rutherford made it easier for Bohr to get Rockefeller foundation money. Max Planck at Berlin, Arnold Sommerfeld at Munich, and others were also made Fellows in 1926 all at the same time. Albert Einstein was already a Fellow.

This meant more Rockefeller money for those given this honor. The victims were given nothing. Instead the lab directors and institute directors were given the Fellow positions, and they used it to get Rockefeller money. They then kept Born and Jordan from complaining.

The pattern of not giving the victims anything shows up in later instances. Perhaps this was copying this case or just it makes sense. Dirac got the Nobel Prize in 1933, but Born and Jordan did not. The plagiarists get prizes and awards and recognition, but the victims don’t. Born could have used that recognition when he had to flee Hitler in 1933.

Stalin brought Kapitsa back to the USSR in 1934, by not letting him leave from his annual summer vaction in the USSR.

Rutherford tried to get Stalin to give Kapitsa back up, i.e. let him return to England. Stalin wanted Kapitsa as a witness against Rutherford, Fowler, and Dirac. Rutherford wanted him back just as much for the same reason. Stalin won.

Dirac won the Nobel Prize in physics in fall 1933. Kapitza took his next vaction to Russia in the summer of 1934. It was then that Stalin kept him.

This was the first chance Stalin had to keep Kapitsa in Russia after Dirac won the Nobel Prize. At that point, Kapitza was too valuable as a witness against Niels Bohr, Dirac, Fowler and Rutherford to let Kapitza leave Russia. Later that would include Oppenheimer who had been at the Cavendish in 1925 and Born’s Ph.D. student in 1926 and went along with this over the years.

The following are from vol 3, “Collected Papers of Kapitza”.

Page 20. Peter Kapitza, wrote an obit of Rutherford published in Nature vol 140, page 1053 in 1937. Kapitza states, “Fairness in acknowledging the originality of the work and ideas of his pupils kept a very healthy spirit in the laboroatory,…”

Page 22. “Text of a lecture at the N.D. Zelinskii University of Physical Chemisty, Mosocw 14 November 1937.” “Recollections of Professor E. Rutherford”.

Page 34:”Rutherford could not stand any careless work and unfair competition. When any of his disciples manifested even the slightest lack of conscience in anything–be it by an incorrect representation of their results or by not quoting the source of their ideas and so by attempting to represent their work as an original whereas in fact the idea of the work was taken from elsewhere,–Rutherford lost interest in such men.”

Kapitza is saying this actually happened. Everyone knew what he was talking about.

“Rutherford himself was extremely accurate in giving credit where credit was due.”

This was said in 1937 and published in 1938. R.H. Fowler was still alive. Fowler had been the one to get the Born and Jordan unpublished paper from Bohr most likely, since Bohr wrote him in 1925 asking for a copy of the Dirac paper but not sending Fowler the Born and Jordan paper, but mentioning it, and it was still unpublished.

He would only do that if he had already sent a copy to Fowler. Kapitza was at the Cavendish lab and was an eyewitness to these events, as was Oppenheimer. But Kapitza was likely consulted by Rutherford and may have been the one to tell him what had happened.

These were strong words to get back to England in 1937. Presumably, Kapitza had had many dinners with Rutherford, his daughter and Fowler. Now he was putting in the needle. But this was required.

Stalin wanted this. Kapitza got Landau and Fock out of prison because he was an eyewitness to these events whom Stalin needed.

Lindemann was an adviser to Churchill on scientific matters. Lindemann was a Fellow of the Royal Society.

There was a letter from Kapitza to Bohr in London at the Russian embassy in 1944 before a meeting between Bohr and Churchill.

Bohr showed it to the British, and it asked Bohr to come to Russia for a job. In effect, to come to Russia to direct their atomic energy program is a possible reading.

Lindemann was in a position to tell Churchill that Bohr was made a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1926 because Dirac had plagiarized Born and Jordan in 1925.

Jordan was then in Germany. Lindemann could tell Churchill that Kapitsa was at Rutherford’s lab and may even have known that Kapitsa was involved in finding a solution.

Kapitsa was made a Fellow later in the 1920’s, but a full Fellow, not a foreign one, even though he was still a Soviet citizen. This was unique. Bohr met with Churchill to tell Churchill to give Russia the secret of the bomb. Churchill reacted very angrily.

“The Bomb A life” by Gerard J. DeGroot on pages 135-36 tells of Kapitza’s resignation from the Soviet bomb project on 3 October 1945. Kapitza wrote to Stalin resigning and complaining of Beria.

In effect, Kapitza wanted Beria removed from the bomb project. Kapitza was then put under house arrest. “Under the circumstances, his treatment was remarkably lenient. A lesser scientist would have been shot. That was certaintly what Beria wanted.”

A footnote tells us that Beria and Kapitza met after this and Beria gave Kapitza a double-barrelled shotgun.This was in 1945. At this point, Niels Bohr, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Hans Bethe, Max Born, Klaus Fuchs, Corson, and others were still alive and many still had influence.

If Stalin killed Kapitza he would lose his eyewitness to the 1925 events. Now he was worth more than ever. That is why Kapitza dared to write a letter in Oct 1945 saying Beria should be removed from running the bomb project.

Stalin didn’t degrade Kapitza nor let him suffer poor treatment. He needed him alive and a credible witness.

Terletsky from the USSR met with Bohr in December 1945 to ask questions on atomic know-how. He brought with him greetings from Joffe and Kapitsa to Bohr.

No real information was given by Bohr. But they were using the Kapitsa leverage again to put pressure on the whole physics community in the West including Oppenheimer and Bethe.

Oppenheimer and Bethe at times both opposed the US developing an H-bomb after the war.

In the FBI investigation after the arrest of Fuchs in 1950 and then again in the April 1954, Oppenheimer Security Clearance Hearings, Oppenheimer and Bethe kept this information from the investigation.

Oppenheimer and Bethe had allowed Bohr into Los Alamos knowing this history. They had kept it all from the security people. They had not told security when Bohr pushed for giving the bomb secret to Russia while at Los Alamos nor after the Dec 1945 meeting. That was all relevent for the Fuchs investigation, since Fuchs was Born’s assistant, as had been Oppenheimer.

Max Born visited Russia and the top scientists in 1945.

“Born meets Edward Neville da Costa Andrade, Hal Anger, Vladimir A. Fok, Victor Frenkel, Julian Huxley, Abram F. Joffe, Irene and Frederick Joliot-Curie, Peter and Anna Kapitza, Theodore von Kármán, Grigorii S. Landsberg, Irving Langmuir, Duncan A. MacInnes, Serge Prokofiev, Jean Perrin, Meghnad M. Saha, Harold Spencer-Jones, and Igor Tamm.”

<a href=”http://libserv.aip.org:81/ipac20/ipac.jsp?uri=full=3100001%7E%216316%7E%210&profile=newcustom-icos”&gt; This includes Fock, Kapitza, and Tamm. </a>

Klaus Fuchs was still an unouted spy. He had been Born’s assistant before the war. Many of the Russians had visited Born in Germany in the 1920’s.

At that time, Born may have formed a link with the Soviets to fight Hitler and because he felt betrayed by the English in the plagiarism.

Corson was an undergrad student in Edinburgh in the 1930’s and then worked on the bomb project. Corson plagiarized Fock in 1946, and Fock exposed this in a letter in 1947. Corson was at the IAS at Princeton.

Oppenheimer became director in 1947. Born wrote an introduction to one of Corson’s books a few years later.
In 1946, Corson plagiarized Fock in a publication in Physical Review. Corson
was a close friend of Klaus Fuchs from Edinburgh in 1938. Corson was in effect an undergrad student of Max Born there.

Corson worked on the atom bomb project during WWII but not on bomb design. Corson presumably thought he could use this history to get away with plagiarizing Fock because he thought the Russians and Americans would both be afraid to nail him on this and have this all come out.

The Russians in general, and Beria and Stalin in particular, didn’t see it that way. They couldn’t let Corson use this as reverse leverage against them. So they had a letter signed by Fock that was very harsh published in Physical Review.
<a href=”http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v72/i8/p737_1″&gt; Fock Letter </a> on Corson’s duplication of Fock’s 1932 paper. The text is viewable for those at a university library or with a subscrition. However, even w/o a subscription one can see the institutional memberships.

Also <a href=”http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/%7Ekochj/slides.pdf”&gt; refers to Corson Fock case. </a>
<a href=”http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/%7Ekochj/Talk.pdf”&gt; Quotes Fock Letter </a>

In the April 1954 Oppenheimer Security Clearance Hearings this entire history was concealed. The hearings could have investigated many issues if told of them.

Max Born by the time of the hearings had had Klaus Fuchs, Huanwu Peng, and Kun Huang as assistants. Fuchs was a known spy. Peng and Kun Huang returned to China after the arrest of Fuchs, as did some other Chinese. They later were credited as the fathers of the Chinese bomb.

Oppenheimer had been Born’s assistant in 1926 and got his Ph.D. in one year. Oppenheimer was at Cavendish in 1925 when the plagiarism happened there.

Born visited the USSR in 1945 after the war and met with Kapitsa and Fock. Born’s undergrad student Corson had plagiarized Fock in 1946 and letters published on it in 1947. Oppenheimer by the time of publication of these letters was head of IAS Princeton, and thus Corson’s supervisor.

Corson had been an atomic scientist during the war, but not working on the bomb, but fuel processing, something the Soviets didn’t ask Fuchs as far as we know.
Its obvious that Born’s many communist assistants and Oppenheimer as his assistant in 1926 should have been told to the investigation in 1954. One question is whether Born was trying to recruit Oppenheimer in 1926.

Born and Jordan had a falling out, and eventually Jordan became a Nazi in 1933. Did Born try to recruit Jordan as a communist in 1925, fail and then try to recruit Oppenheimer in 1926?

The 1950 FBI investigation should have been told the information and issues and been able to settle it then.
The night before Teller’s testimony in April 1954, Bethe and Teller met and debated for an hour if Teller should testify against Oppenheimer. Bethe didn’t want him to.

Its reasonable to infer that during this heated debate, they talked about the above issues. This would have made Bethe even angrier and feeling betrayed. That is partly because Bethe was on the line for this as well. Bethe had been the supervisor of Fuchs.

Bethe also already had priority issues, some of them already mentioned in print. This included his Lamb shift calculation and with respect to priority by Kita, Nambu, and Schwinger for what is now called the Bethe Salpeter equation. Weisskopf wrote Bethe a letter about the Lamb shift calculation, saying in effect that Bethe had acted inappropriately after the Shelter Island Conference.

Schwinger complained the same thing. There is a footnote in his paper. Gell-man and Low also footnote Schwinger’s claim to priority on Bethe Salpeter equation.

Kita notes he was first in an obscure Japanese physics journal even before Nambu. Nambu in his reprint of his papers says he was before Bethe and Salpeter.
Bethe’s main papers on nuclear physics were written with coauthors in the 1930’s.

Fuchs corrected an error in one of Bethe’s main arguments in nuclear physics. This paper was well known at the time, but later was only cited once, by Sengupta, in Physics Review. Fuchs developed an important simple explanation of which nuclei are stable, which has been mostly ignored.

If Teller was going to unveil this whole history of how Russia uses academic misconduct to get benefits from US scientists, then Bethe would have been as much under investigation as Oppenheimer.

Bethe had been the boss of Fuchs. Bethe was a serial user of the ideas of others, and by 1954 this was already in print.
Bethe had the ability to poison the physics community against Teller. When Teller’s testimony was released in 1954, he was villified in the physics community. However, it may be that Bethe was acting behind the scenes to make this worse, because of his fear of exposure on these issues.

Teller was hated not for what he said but for what he almost said in this hypothesis. This is because he could have exposed the whole community to investigation and disrepute. It was the physics community that had covered this up. If Teller told this story, the whole community would be discredited, including all the senior atomic scientists.

In 1950, Dancoff, an Oppenheimer student from Berkeley in the 1930’s, published a paper on a method now called Tamm Dancoff. Dancoff didn’t cite Tamm.

In 1955, the Russians published a celebration of Tamm’s work. They indicated that Dancoff had failed not only to cite Tamm (1945), but also Fock and Landau Peierls from the 1930’s. Corson had copied the same work by Fock from the 1930’s, and that was what the 1947 Fock letter in Physical Review was about, saying he had done this.

Corson had been at IAS Princeton in 1947 when this letter from Fock was published with Corson’s reply.
By pushing this in 1955, the Soviets continued to push on Oppenheimer and thus on Bethe and the rest of the physics community.

Oppenheimer was Born’s assistant in 1926 and got his Ph.D. in one year. Oppenheimer had been at Cavendish in 1925. Corson was an atomic scientist and then under Oppenheimer at IAS, although Oppenheimer only arrived after the plagiarism was published but before the final publication of the Fock Letter in October 1947. Dancoff was Oppenheimer’s student.

Bohr had been under Oppenheimer at Los Alamos. Oppenheimer knew that Bohr was made a Fellow of the Royal Society after the 1925 plagiarism by Dirac and Fowler, and Oppenheimer probably knew that Bohr had sent the Born and Jordan paper to Fowler.

Thus the Soviets in 1955 were continuing to keep the heat on Oppenheimer, who was still director of IAS Princeton.
The Soviets were doing this because it was Bethe and the senior physicists who had collectively concealed this. They had concealed it when Fuchs joined Los Alamos. They concealed it when Fuchs was arrested and Peng and Kun Huang went back to China, along with others like Qian Sanqiang. They had concealed this when Bohr pressed for Russia to get the bomb during the war.

They concealed it when Bohr met with the Russians in December 1945. They concealed it during the Oppenheimer Security Clearance Hearings in April 1954.

Some unanswered questions are:

Was Max Born a communist in Germany in the 1920’s as a way to be anti-fascist?

Did Born try to recruit his assistants, including Heisenberg, Jordan, and Oppenheimer?

How did Born manage to have so many known communists as assistants in the UK in the 1930’s and 1940’s, Klaus Fuchs, Huanwu Peng, and Kun Huang? The latter two went back to China after Fuchs was arrested. In Born’s book, published 8 years after his death, he says Huang was afraid to write Born after this.

Was this information discussed by Bethe and Teller the night before Teller’s testimony at the Oppenheimer Security Hearing? Did Bethe persuade Teller not to tell?

Was Oppenheimer recruited as a sort of half spy by Born or Kapitza in 1925 or 1926? Was Oppenheimer recruiting spies at Berkeley in the 1930’s from his students? Was Dancoff one? Others?

Was all this kept from the 1950 FBI investigation after Fuchs was arrested? From the Oppenheimer Security Hearings in April 1954?

Was Max Born given the Nobel Prize in fall 1954 to quiet this up? Did Bohr help on that? These records are now supposed to be public. Can someone find out and post it? Who recommended Max Born in 1954?

Moreover, Max Born finally got the Nobel Prize in fall 1954. This was in part to keep him quiet and in part to give him stature if there was an investigation. Born went back to Germany from the UK in 1953, and getting a Nobel Prize would mean the Germans would be more likely to protect him from extradition if there was an investigation.

It also meant that Max Born could slip over the border into Switzerland. As a Nobel Prize winner it would be much easier for him to get sanctuary. The same applied to Sweden, Denmark, Norway or Austria.

The Soviets knew all this and were using it all to maintain pressure on the US physics community. They were also using it as general pressure on the academic community in the West and the US.

There was substantial contact between Los Alamos and RAND, with some going from Los Alamos to RAND in the 1940’s and 1950’s.

Albert Wohlstetter was a math Ph.D. who worked at RAND in the 50’s and worked on defense and nuclear strategy. Wohlstetter went to UChicago.

Paul Wolfowitz got his Ph.D. on nuclear issues under Wohlstetter and then worked in that area in DoD in the 1970’s.

Wohlstetter could have told this history to Paul Wolfowitz directly.

Jacob Wolfowitz worked in math departments, and could have learned it through that channel. He could have told his son.

The Ph.D.’s working in nuclear defense strategy at DoD in the 1970’s, may have already have heard this history as well.

Paul Samuelson listed himself as a consultant to RAND in the 1960’s on the paperback edition of Foundations of Economic Analysis. He also wrote a book in the 50’s with a RAND link. Samuelson received the Nobel Prize in 1970 and thus had the ability to nominate in economics as a prior prize winner. Samuelson would also have been a target for the Soviets to pressure to nominate Kantorovich. Larry Summers is the nephew of Samuelson. Samuelson was on Stanley Fischer’s Ph.D. thesis committee in 1969 at MIT.

There were two economics conferences in Poland in the 1970’s, one in 1972 and the other in 1974. The Soviets could have told this history to the American econ profs in order to pressure them to nominate Kantorovich for the Nobel Prize in economics. Koopmans was at the 1972 conference and shared the prize with Kantorovich. He could have been included to sweeten the deal for the Americans.

This is a continuation of the petition to Congress to investigate Bush v. Gore, US v. Harvard, Shleifer and Hay, the HIID grant to Harvard under Jeffrey Sachs and Andrei Shleifer, IMF and World Bank contributions, the Marc Rich pardon, the AIPAC and Libby investigations, Plame Leak Investigation of leak of name of Joe Wilson’s wife, the decision to block Sibel Edmonds’ case, the Indian Nuclear Deal, the Russian Nuclear Deal, the Amnesty and Enhanced Legal Immigration Deal for Mexico, and related matters.

This essay discusses how Russia used its files on plagiarism to gain atomic know-how. This is part of common plan or method evidence. It may also have been used as additional pressure in the 1970’s to get the nominations for the 1975 Nobel Prize for Kantorovich of the USSR or for IMF and World Bank loans in the 1990’s from Stanley Fischer and Larry Summers.

There was a meeting in Poland in 1972 which was attended by Koopmans from the US along with others. Koopmans started out in physics in the 1930’s and likely knew this history.

This is hypotheses or speculation. All statements in the positive should be restated as questions. All other disclaimers apply.

%d bloggers like this: