Fighting ignorance since 1973 • It’s taking longer than we thought
The University of Chicago describes itself as the place where the first nuclear fission reaction occurred in December 1942. Enrico Fermi, Leo Szilard, Lise Meitner, Otto Hahn, Glen Seaborg and others are said to have collaborated on the project in the squash courts under the stands at Stagg Field. Unfortunately, this tale of the university as the site of the first nuclear fission reaction amounts to a myth. A nuclear reaction probably occurred there, but the University of Rome, Italy could just as easily be described as the site of the first reaction. In People of the Century (1999), Richard Rhodes writes:
Granted, the fission fragments from the uranium weren't detected.
Nonetheless, according to Rhodes, nuclear fission first occurred in 1934,
not 1942. To test the veracity of Rhodes's claim, one should be able to
detect some small quantity of radiation where the reaction occurred at the
University of Rome. Even if the paraffin foil blocked the fission fragments,
small amounts of radioactivity should remain.
The key terms here are "self-sustaining" and "chain reaction." No one thinks December 2, 1942, was the first time anyone had split an atom. Whatever may have happened in Italy in 1934, the first confirmed instance of nuclear fission was reported by chemists in Germany in 1938. Almost immediately it was realized that, whereas 1 split atom = interesting laboratory curiosity, lots and lots of atoms splitting at the same time = whoa, baby. Luckily for the Allies in World War II, realizing this was one thing; actually doing it — that is, producing a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction — was something else. That's what Enrico Fermi and his colleagues accomplished at the University of Chicago in 1942.
I'll omit the details, but the short version is this: After considerable trouble, Fermi and friends assembled an intricate arrangement of uranium, graphite, and other necessities in the famous squash court — the first atomic pile. At 9:54 a.m. on December 2, Fermi gave the signal to begin removing a series of cadmium control rods that were putting the brakes on things up till then, and the Geiger counters began clicking. At 3:25 p.m., with the Geiger counters buzzing like mad, Fermi declared, "The reaction is self-sustaining" — which is to say, neutrons were plowing into uranium atoms, which split (or fissioned), producing more neutrons, which split other uranium atoms, which emitted still more neutrons, which split yet other atoms … you get the picture. The chain reaction lasted 28 minutes, enough to demonstrate what needed to be demonstrated, whereupon Fermi gave the order to slide the mama control rod back in before things got out of hand. Much additional work was required to make the leap from atomic pile to atomic bomb. But Fermi and company had managed a crucial feat on the road to the nuclear age — and if the U. of C. wants to take credit for having played a part in that, well, God love 'em, why not?
In short, James, your efforts to embarrass Hyde Park's chief contribution to Western civilization have once again gone aground. Not to worry — let a professional help you out. The U. of C. has had a hand in all sorts of dubious enterprises, of which nuclear fission isn't necessarily the most problematic. Let's consider another Chicago specialty, economics, which I daresay has been much on everyone's mind. Just the other day in the New York Review of Books I came upon the following arresting passage in Robert Skidelsky's review of The Ascent of Money by the UK historian Niall Ferguson:
Probably you've never heard of the Black-Scholes formula before now. I don't claim to be intimately acquainted with it myself. However, after some study (Ferguson's views, offered in condensed form in a recent Vanity Fair article, are a good place to start), I think the following may be confidently asserted: (a) it was the first practical method of pricing options, about which you need know nothing other than that they were a type of derivative, the class of arcane financial instruments whose meteoric growth lies at the heart of our current fix; (b) it was devised by academics universally acknowledged as brilliant; (c) it relied heavily on abstruse mathematics that no one other than specialists (and maybe not all of them) really understood; (d) in most circumstances it worked pretty damn well, generating huge bucks for its inventors when applied in the financial markets; (e) nonetheless, it embodied a certain naivete regarding human behavior (principally, the assumption that people always act rationally) that led it to grossly underestimate the risk that things would completely tank; (f) because of (b), (c), and most of all (d), those charged with supervising the financial system overlooked (e) and persisted in believing mathematical models such as Black-Scholes offered a shield against disaster that they manifestly didn't; and (g) this isn't the least of the reasons we're now screwed.
Now to the heart of the matter. Who were the Nobel Prize-winning mathematical economists responsible for the Black-Scholes formula? You might guess their names were Black and Scholes. Well, no. The winners of the 1997 economics Nobel were Myron Scholes and Robert C. Merton — Fischer Black, who no doubt otherwise would have shared the prize, had died in 1995. No matter. Consider the CVs of this intrepid trio:
You see the significance of this. Two of these three financial wizards have connections with the University of Chicago; Scholes in particular was clearly a U. of C. product. Sticklers may object that (a) the men actually met at MIT and developed what were arguably their key ideas while there; (b) it's not like these guys were solely or even mainly responsible for the present fiasco, which had a thousand fathers, among them some of the most distinguished minds of our time; and (c) the U. of C. can't fairly be blamed for every daft scheme cooked up by the people who walk through its doors. True, but we're not talking about fair. If universities are happy to bask in the successes of those who toil on their premises, which the U. of C. obviously is, they can't complain if they get beaten up for the brainstorms that go south.
In sum, James, you've been barking up the wrong tree. Fermi and friends at least appreciated the dangers of what they were about; Scholes and his confederates evidently didn't. If you want to give the University of Chicago grief about something, give them grief about that.
— Cecil Adams
Send questions for Cecil Adams to firstname.lastname@example.org or post them on the Straight Dope Chicago Message Board.
Send comments about this website to: email@example.com
Advertise on the Straight Dope! Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.
Copyright 1996-2008 Sun-Times Media, LLC.