Archive for the 'Nobel Prize' Category

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.

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

read more | digg story

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

The Right Way to Manage U.S. Attorneys

March 10, 2007

“The actions of an appointed U.S. attorney must be totally off-limits to questions from the White House or anyone in Congress.” from Abbe David Lowell Saturday, March 10, 2007; Page A19.

A discussion of whether Bush is trying to influence the Tom Delay, Jack Abramoff, and Libby investigations or to intimidate Assistant US Attorney Sara Bloom at the USAO Mass from reopening the Harvard investigation follows. This are in response to the article by Abbe Lowell on the US Attorney firings.


The following is all hypotheses and speculation. All statements should be restated as questions. All other
disclaimes apply.
Comments at WaPo


Assistant US Attorney Sara Bloom of USAO Mass is the real target of intimidation? Because Russia used kompromat to get loans from Clinton admin and Bush knew thay by the time of Bush v. Gore? In July 1998, Putin became head of FSB and Russia got another 4.8 billion in IMF loans.

But the money was taken from the bank accounts of the Russian govt to the personal accounts of the leaders. (Note the IMF disputes this in part and had an audit done and claimed equivalent amounts of money from other Russian government controlled accounts were used.) So the Russian government defaulted on Russian govt debt in Aug 98 since the money was not in the govt bank accounts.

Russia 4.8 billion IMF

Russia 4.8 billion IMF

A discussion of some of the IMF Russia and Asia transactions that is more technical is here.

Two professors, Larry Summers and Stanley Fischer had control over the IMF loans to Russia. Putin and the oligarchs and FSB had decades of files on academic kompromat some of it linked to Fischer’s 1969 Ph.D. thesis and an NSF grant involving Paul Samuelson, Summers’ uncle.

The KGB in 1972 at an econ conference in Warsaw may have used this incident and others to try to pressure Samuelson and Arrow, also uncle of Summers to nominate Kantorovich of the USSR for the Nobel in econ.

This was all possibly hid from USAO Mass from 1997 to 2005 by Clinton admin and then Bush. Did Bush use it during Bush v. Gore to make Gore go away? Gore turned down the presidency of Harvard. Did Marc Rich know this? Libby and Wolfowitz? Jacob Wolfowitz likely knew of the 1969 and 1972 incidents.

The above is speculation.⊂=AR

Job Offer to Stanley Fischer from Putin in 2001:

quote Russia Restores Ties with IMF BBC News June 19, 2001 For his part, Mr Putin complimented Mr Fischer, who plans to step down from his IMF role before the end of the year. He also offered him a job. We are always glad to see you in our country, said Mr Putin. If you would like to move from the IMF to Moscow, we can look at various options. end quote.

Putin likely got in on the July 1998 4.8 billion pot of money. So he was protecting his money at this point. After Fischer was hired by Israel in Jan 2005, Putin did an arms deal with Syria and then Iran. Israel and Bush kept quiet. The SVR and FSB are professionals at intimidation. Follow the money. Follow Putins money.
search “In Honor of Edmund S. Phelps ” plagiarism

quote Thus, my much-cited 1969 paper on optimal intertemporal portfolio programming opportunistically used the Bellman-Beckman-Phelps recursive techniques to analyze what defines the best qualitative asset-portfolio mix of the Phelps 1962 aggregate saving. It was not plagiarism but it was horning in on a created public good there for the taking. end quote Paul Samuelson.

old link:

from Preface Knowledge, Information, and Expectations in Modern Macroeconomics:
In Honor of Edmund S. Phelps
Edited by Philippe Aghion, Roman Frydman, Joseph Stiglitz, and Michael Woodford. Its on line.

Note the text was removed from above link after being posted with this link.

But it can be seen with Google inside:

If you type the word plagiarism into the search, you get part of the passage quoted above.  Click on page 1 and scroll down.  This link brings it up:

Fischer’s thesis was part of the same 1969 events. Samuelson and Merton got NSF grants for their 1969 papers. But it was already in part in the 1966 Nils Hakansson Ph.D. thesis that MIT had a copy of in 1966. Fischer got his US citizenship from his thesis. Above is speculation.
search Wolfowitz

Engle Nobel autobio shows Jacob Wolfowitz, Paul’s father was part of this small world in 1969.quote I took Kiefer’s probability and Wolfowitz’s statistics. I was extremely happy. … We married on August 10, 1969. On that day, I turned in my dissertation, received my Ph.D. and we left Cornell for good to take my first academic job at MIT. …
… Many of my students from that time have gone on to do quite well themselves: Larry Summers, …
Frank Fisher, Bob Solow, and Jerry Rothenberg encouraged me to join them on a new project to build a model of the city of Boston. …end quote.
quote Robert M. Solow – Autobiography
So, in 1949-50, I spent a fellowship year at Columbia University, in the lectures of Abraham Wald, Jacob Wolfowitz and T.W. Anderson, along with my fellow … end quote. Solow Nobel Prize autobio.

Solow was on one of the Ph.D. committees of Merton and Stanley Fischer at that time. This was one little world and Russia knew this to use it at the 1972 Warsaw econ conference to pressure Arrow and Samuelson to nominate Kantorovich of the USSR for the 1975 Nobel Prize in economics. Above is speculation.


Paul Wolfowitz was Jacob Wolfowitz’s son and signed the 1998 PNAC letter to make regime change in Iraq part of US goals. Clinton was impeached in fall of 1998 and signed the Iraq Liberation Act in October 1998. At the same time there were hearings into IMF loans for Russia, LTCM bailout, etc.

Robert C. Merton was part of LTCM which bought Russian bonds in Aug 98 betting the IMF would have to bail Russia out. But the money was put into the personal bank accounts of the leaders so it wasn’t there to pay Russia’s bonds, so it defaulted. LTCM went belly up and Congress investigated why the Fed helped arrange a bailout.

The USAO Mass had already started investigating Harvard and Russia and Clinton profs like Larry Summers in spring 1997. If Jacob Wolfowitz had revealed this at that time, Clinton might have been removed from office and this would have become part of the ongoing investigations of Clinton more closely. This could be used again during Bush v. Gore, the USAO Mass was still investigating, in fact to August 2005. The above is all speculation.


The DeLay-Abramoff Money Trail
Nonprofit Group Linked to Lawmaker Was Funded Mostly by Clients of Lobbyist

quote Two former Buckham associates said that he told them years ago not only that the $1 million donation was solicited from Russian oil and gas executives, but also that the initial plan was for the donation to be made via a delivery of cash to be picked up at a Washington area airport.

One of the former associates, a Frederick, Md., pastor named Christopher Geeslin who served as the U.S. Family Network’s director or president from 1998 to 2001, said Buckham further told him in 1999 that the payment was meant to influence DeLay’s vote in 1998 on legislation that helped make it possible for the IMF to bail out the faltering Russian economy and the wealthy investors there.

“Ed told me, ‘This is the way things work in Washington,’ ” Geeslin said. “He said the Russians wanted to give the money first in cash.” Buckham, he said, orchestrated all the group’s fundraising and spending and rarely informed the board about the details. Buckham and his attorney, Laura Miller, did not reply to repeated requests for comment on this article.

The IMF funding legislation was a contentious issue in 1998. The Russian stock market fell steeply in April and May, and the government in Moscow announced on June 18 — just a week before the $1 million check was sent by the London law firm — that it needed $10 billion to $15 billion in new international loans.

House Republican leaders had expressed opposition through that spring to giving the IMF the money it could use for new bailouts, decrying what they described as previous destabilizing loans to other countries. The IMF and its Western funders, meanwhile, were pressing Moscow, as a condition of any loan, to increase taxes on major domestic oil companies such as Gazprom, which had earlier defaulted on billions of dollars in tax payments.

On Aug. 18, 1998, the Russian government devalued the ruble and defaulted on its treasury bills. But DeLay, appearing on “Fox News Sunday” on Aug. 30 of that year, criticized the IMF financing bill, calling the replenishment of its funds “unfortunate” because the IMF was wrongly insisting on a Russian tax increase. “They are trying to force Russia to raise taxes at a time when they ought to be cutting taxes in order to get a loan from the IMF. That’s just outrageous,” DeLay said. end quote

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 31, 2005; A01

search Russia IMF july 1998$file/kap08_01.htm

If Russia was bribing Tom Delay, they weren’t using academic kompromat at the same time? This was a big time operation of the Russian goverment to get these IMF loans. They were bribing Tom Delay through Jack Abramoff and at the same time there were pressuing Larry Summers at US Treasury and Stanley Fischer at IMF based on the academic kompromat trail that stretches back to the 1920’s and includes the same methods used to help gain atomic know-how.

Putin was head of FSB in July 1998. This was partly his operation. That is why he became President of Russia, he was part of this. That’s why Berezovsky and Yeltsin trusted him.

They were pushing all buttons at once and that didn’t just include bribing Tom Delay but also pushing academic kompromat buttons. That was while USAO Mass was investigating Harvard from 1997 and questioning Summers on his relationship to Shleifer.

Paul Wolfowitz and the neocons knew the Clinton profs and Harvard were concealing this history from the USAO Mass investigation. They got the Iraq Liberation Act during the Clinton impeachment. Then used this during Bush v. Gore to influence Scalia and then make Gore go away. Scalia has had econ Ph.D./JD clerks from the schools involved from the 1990’s to now. The links are all over the place. The above is speculation.


Bush is trying to intimidate the investigation of Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff, of Marc Rich, and of other investigations that may link to this. Bush is trying to keep Assistant US Attorney Sara Bloom from reopening the Harvard investigation into whether Bush’s team knew this in 1998 and formed a conspiracy to keep this information from USAO Mass and use it to pressure Clinton admin figures for the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act and then later during Bush v. Gore. Above is speculation.


Bush was not a US government employee prior to Jan 20, 2001. Nor were the others during these incidents. If they formed an agreement as non US government employees to keep this information from the USAO Mass office, that was a conspiracy to obstruct justice and to conceal espionage by Russia against the United States. That is what this is about. That is why they put into the Patriot Act that they could appoint interim US Attorneys. They had this problem from before 9-11. The above is speculation.

read more | digg story

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

Milton Friedman Lost Witness on Russia’s Plagiarism Files

November 16, 2006

“SAN FRANCISCO — Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who advocated an unfettered free market and had the ear of three U.S. presidents, died Thursday at age 94.”

Questions Friedman might have answered on Russia’s Plagiarism Files and use of plagiarism.

1. Was Koopmans a communist or spy?

2. Was there plagiarism involving Andrew D. Roy a victim in 1952 at U Chicago. Was Roy work being given to Markowitz?

3. Was Milton Friedman the one who told Alfred Cowles this was happening?

4. Is that why Cowles had the Managing Editor of Econmetrica resign and move the editorial office to Northwestern?

5. Was pressure used by the Soviets on plagiarism to get nominations for Kantorovich and Koopmans for the 1975 Nobel Prize 1 year ahead of Friedman.

6. Why did Friedman have a feud with Koopmans that he was still writing about in his 1998 autobio.

7. This was written about in a recent book by Martin J. Beckman who was at Cowles Commission around 1952. Beckman takes the side of Koopmans, who is dead. Why are Friedman and Beckmann still fighting this in 1998 and the 2000’s? Is it because Russia used this to pressure low interest rate loans in the 1990’s from Stanley Fischer at IMF and Larry Summers at Treasury, a nephew of Arrow and Samuelson?

8. Stanley Fischer was hired at UChicago in 1969 from MIT. Did they think he had plagiarized Nils Hakansson?

9. Did Richard Posner as a U Chicago prof know of this in the 1970’s?

10. Was Eric Posner given tenure at U Chicago in 1998 as an attempt to influence Judge Posner not to tell this to the FBI or USAO Mass? (speculation of course)

11. Did Russia use pressure to get IMF loans in the 1990’s based on this?

12. Was this info passed to the US Supreme Court during Bush v. Gore to influence the vote against Gore? (this would be hearsay from Friedman)

13. Did they know in the 1950’s that Russia had used plagiarism to help get Klaus Fuchs into Los Alamos and to pressure Niels Bohr to try to influence Churchill and Roosevelt to give the bomb secret to the Soviets?

14. Did Paul A. Samuelson on the Council of the Econometric Society in 1952 know the true story about the Managing Editor of Economerica resigning, along with the editorial Secretary, and the editorial office being moved?

15. Harry Markowitz didn’t receive his Ph.D. until Sep 1955 Quarter, the first date after the Cowles Commission left University of Chicago in July 1955. Was this because Alfred Cowles wouldn’t let Markowitz get his Ph.D.? Or was it someone at Cowles like Koopmans?
Above is speculation not assertions.

16. Markowitz admitted that he didn’t do the formulas of “algebraic simplicity” and “wide acclaim” taught to MBA students and in textbooks in 1987, 3 years before he got the Nobel Prize with the press release using exactly those words. Why did the Press Release use these words? Why are MBA students taught that Markowitz did those formulas and not Roy when Markowitz himself admits Roy did them and that he Markowitz did not?

17. Markowitz thanks Kenneth Arrow in 1955 for giving him the idea of what his thesis at UChicago was, an algorithm for mean variance optimization with short sale constraints. Wolfe did this too at about the same time. These were published in the Naval Research Logistics Quarterly c. 1956. Jacob Wolfowitz, also published in that journal.

18. The Markowitz article was published in March 1952 in Journal of Finance, a second rate journal edited at U Chicago business school. This Markowitz article contained no important formulas as results, just a graph to illustrate mean variance choice with short sale constraints. There is no formula even today for that, just an algorithm. The Roy article was published in July 1952 in Econometrica, the top journal in econ, in July 1952. Econometrica was also edited at U Chicago, in effect by the Cowles Commission. The Roy article did mean variance choice without short sale constrainst and got the formula solutions taught to MBA’s and in textbooks today that are credited to Markowitz. Jacob Wolfowitz wrote the article after Roy’s in the July 1952 issue. Did Wolfowitz know why the managing editor resigned?

19. Did Jacob Wolfowitz tell this to Paul Wolfowitz before Jacob died in 1981?

20. There are many ties from Jacob Wolfowitz to MIT econ in 1969, the year that Robert C. Merton, Paul A. Samuelson, and Stanley Fischer duplicated in part the 1966 UCLA thesis of Hakansson. These include Robert Engle, Robert Solow, and others. Search on Jacob Wolfowitz in the Nobel Prize site.

21. Did Valery Makarov put pressure on US profs at the 1972 Warsaw economics conference? Attendees included Martin Weitzman, then at MIT, now at Harvard, William A. Brock, Martin J. Beckmann and othes.

These are questions, speculation, hypotheses or opinion. All other disclaimers apply.


=Note added

Some earlier Cowles papers by Markowitz are now available on line.  The above has to be revised in light of these.

In particular,

CCDP Economics 278, “Towards a Theory of Financial Behavior” (plus Errata) [15pp] (May 1950)
CCDP Economics 294, “Investment Company Behavior Equations” [7pp] (October 1950)
CCDP Economics 295, “On the Certainty Equivalence and Risk Discount Hypotheses” [16pp] (November 1950)



read more | digg story

Rob Sanchez Vdare H1B DoD

November 1, 2006

Witching Hour For DOD Comments On Foreign Workers

“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

“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

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

Russia plagiarism

China plagiarism

DoD regulation references


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=””&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=””&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=””&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=”″&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=””&gt; refers to Corson Fock case. </a>
<a href=””&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: