Archive for the 'Rutherford' Category

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.

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

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

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

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.

Another place to start on Russia Plagiarism Files is

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.

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 14 hits

search Merton Samuelson Hakansson 1969 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 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


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:

  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
  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

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: