Chapter 10 7 resonance

Avant-garde In 1931, Einstein stayed in Pasadena for several months, when Caltech was trying to persuade him to come to the campus to teach.During this period, he attended a seminar of Pauling.Knowing that the audience included some of the greatest living scientists in the world, Pauling took extra pains to elaborate on his new idea of ​​using wave mechanics to solve chemical bonds.Later, a reporter asked Einstein what he thought of the young chemist's theory.He shrugged, smiled and said, "His theory is too complicated for me." Einstein may have only said this out of perfunctory to journalists, but Pauling's explanation of the chemical bond is indeed quite complicated when it comes to precise mathematical calculations - at least for most chemists .Chemists, traditionally, mathematically, or philosophically, were at a loss for Pauling's theory.Chemistry at that time was still a hodgepodge of many subdisciplines rooted in the last century—organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry, physical chemistry, colloid chemistry, agricultural chemistry—each with its own set of people and its own set of problems .Chemists are divided into ionicists, thermodynamicists, and now quantum chemists, each group has its own traditions, methods, journals, and only sits together at plenary meetings a few times a year.In the United States, only the chemistry departments of Caltech and UC Berkeley, which were influenced by Noyce, crossed these old disciplinary constraints, emphasized communication and communication among professors, and devoted themselves to researching the basic ideas of the discipline of chemistry.

In 1931, Pauling created the chemical bond theory based on quantum theory, which was ten years ahead of the thought at that time.The vast majority of chemists neither know what quantum mechanics is, nor pay attention to the great significance of quantum mechanics to the discipline of chemistry.For most practitioners, real chemical research is done in the laboratory, not on a piece of paper; discoveries are made by formulating compounds and observing their reactions, not by deriving some mathematical formula.They may have heard of X-ray crystallography, a physicist's tool, but never used it—Caltech remains one of the few schools that has applied the trick to chemistry.As for Pauling's emphasis on the importance of molecular structure, that is a matter of concern to organic chemists, and chemists in other fields believe that it has little effect on the entire discipline of chemistry.

Bottom line is getting into the lab and getting your hands dirty.Experimental chemists looked down on theorists like Pauling, who relied too much on physics for inspiration.Henry Armstrong, a well-known British chemistry educator, expressed his representative views on this in the mid-1990s: "The fact is that physical chemists never use their eyes, and the most tragic thing is the lack of chemical education. We should put these physics Factors are completely removed from us and returned to our laboratories." Their skepticism of abstract thought is matched only by their ignorance of new physics.The reaction of most early 1930s chemists to the Heitler-London-Slater-Pauling theory of the chemical bond was a listless yawn.They "knew nothing, nothing about the theory, and nobody, except Pauling, cared about it," Harold Urey, the Nobel laureate in chemistry, remembered.

But Noyce and Lewis arranged for Pauling to spread his ideas widely at Caltech and Berkeley, where most of the chemistry students began to realize the importance of the approach, and some of the brightest began to follow Pauling, entering this area.In physics, scholars like Slater and London continued to embellish the mathematical formulation of the hybrid wave function, starting from the first principles of physics to solve the structural problems of simple principles.Yet their work had little impact on chemistry, because they did not grasp the very important empirical facts in the hands of chemists, did not share the same world view, and did not understand which problems were most critical.In short, they are not chemists.

Robert Mulliken is one of the few scientists who is well versed in physics and chemistry.His father was a chemist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He himself studied physics with Millikan at the University of Chicago and lived next door to Slater while studying at Harvard.Like Pauling, he traveled east to Europe in the late 1920s to study quantum mechanics.In Göttingen, Mulliken came under the influence of one of Born's assistants, Friedrich Hender.Hender's approach to solving the chemical bond problem was different from Pauling's.Hunter is interested in molecular spectroscopy, the study of the properties of light absorbed and emitted by molecules.He found that, viewed from this angle, molecules behave in many ways like individual atoms.Hunter and Mulliken proposed a concept of the chemical bond that was diametrically opposed to Pauling's theory.Instead of concentrating and bonding electrons between two nuclei, they argue, electrons are distributed across the surface of the molecule, forming what Mulliken calls molecular orbitals.For example, they imagined that the hydrogen molecule H2 is not formed by two hydrogen atoms sharing electron pairs to form a chemical bond as proposed by Heitler and London, but by splitting a helium atom with two electrons into two nuclei, and at the same time The electron cloud around it forms a new molecular orbital.Mulliken wrote in 1932: "In general no one regards molecules as consisting of atoms or ions. It is thought that molecules are composed of a certain number of bonded electrons or pairs of electrons connecting some atoms or ions bonded together, in a way that doesn't make sense." It's a very radical idea; the molecular orbital concept is at odds with what chemists have understood for years about the nature of chemical bonds, yet it fits the spectroscopic data .When Mulliken returned to the United States to teach at the University of Chicago, he brought this idea back.

For a while, chemists seemed to have to make their own trade-offs between the different theories of Pauling and Mulliken.But fundamentally, the differences between the two views are not as great as they appear.Both are based on Schrödinger's wave equation, and Slater and other scientists discovered in the mid-1930s that if the mathematical formula was deduced further, the two eventually gave the same answer.The situation is a bit like a physicist's trade-off between Heisenberg's matrix and Schrödinger's wave equation: although they seem very different, they are actually the same.The criteria for selection are which method is easier and which one works better in a given situation.

Pauling certainly believed that his method was better at understanding the chemical bond problem.He knew that the molecular orbital method was useful—he had also tried it when he was looking for a breakthrough in the chemical bonding problem—but, after he succeeded in revising the Heitler-London theory in 1931, he largely gave up on it. adopted this method.When Slater showed that his method was practically equivalent to Mulliken's, Pauling saw no need to entangle the molecular orbital method.His ideas were consistent with chemists' understanding of chemical bonds; on the contrary, Pauling felt that Mulliken's method was not intuitive and not easy for students to accept.

Pauling's chemical bond theory became famous in one fell swoop, but Mulliken's theory was unknown.There are many reasons. The most important one is that Pauling is an eloquent teacher and an author with brilliant pens.He knows how to communicate in a language that the chemical community understands.As soon as Pauling spoke, the valence bond theory seemed to be unquestionable wisdom.When Mulliken opened his mouth, the audience fell asleep.Mulliken was a terrible teacher, terribly uncomfortable in public, with a voice that was barely audible.He was unwilling to cater to the students in his chemistry department, and his lectures were always off topic and full of mathematics, which made it difficult for the listeners to follow.His written skills were not much better.As the years went on, Mulliken and his small group of followers devoted themselves to refining their molecular orbital method, continually refining the mathematical equations and using it to solve problems successfully.Twenty years later, a new generation of chemists will be more enamored of Mulliken's theory.But, in the thirties, Mulliken's mind was overwhelmed by the harangue from Pasadena.

After the publication of his first paper, "The Nature of the Chemical Bond," Pauling was inspired. In June 1931, he submitted a follow-up paper, which became the second in his series of papers.In this paper, Pauling explores how quantum mechanics can be used to explain the relatively small number of single-electron and three-electron chemical bonds.In a different interpretation, he used calculations to help identify the peculiar bonding properties of compounds such as oxygen, boron and nitrosyl, the rare "lone electron" molecules that fascinated Lewis.Lewis himself and Pauling discuss some of the points in this paper.When Pauling was a visiting student at Berkeley, the two filled the blackboard in Lewis's office with diagrams and formulas.While puffing on the smoke of his cigar, Louis puffed out knowledge and insights.

Pauling's next target is a bigger puzzle.A mystery that has long plagued the chemical community is the relationship between two different types of chemical bonds, ionic and covalent.According to Lewis, if two atoms share a pair of electrons equally, the chemical bond formed is a covalent bond; Positive electricity, the chemical bond formed is an ionic bond; an ionic bond is a chemical bond produced by the electrostatic attraction between positive and negative ions.The question was whether ionic and covalent bonds were two phenomena with distinct properties, or, as Lewis thought, a transition in a continuum.

In the third paper in Pauling's "The Nature of the Chemical Bond" series, Pauling pointed out that quantum mechanics once again supported Lewis' views.At least in some cases, his formulations show that "deviator" bonds that are both ionic and covalent are consistent with both quantum mechanics and actual observations.In other cases, he found that the jumps between different classes of chemical bonds were discontinuous; this involved the degree to which atoms were attracted to electrons.He cited several examples and proposed some conditions necessary for the formation of these intermediate chemical bonds to prove his point of view. When writing about chemical bonds, Pauling began to use the word "resonance" instead of "electron exchange", and he extended the concept to new fields.Heisenberg used the concept of electron exchange to explain the exchangeability of electrons; Heitler and London used it to explain covalent chemical bonds; Pauling and Slater used it to explain the formation of hybrid chemical bonds such as tetrahedral carbon atoms energy.Now Pauling also proposed that if certain conditions are met, there will also be resonance in the state between the ionic bond and the covalent bond of the molecule.For example, hydrogen chloride can be viewed either as a hydrogen atom bonded to a chlorine atom through a purely covalent bond or as a positively charged hydrogen ion bonded to a negatively charged chlorine atom through a purely ionic bond together.Pauling pointed out that the actual molecule is a hybrid type, a resonance structure between two extreme cases.Whenever this happens, "as long as there's a resonance between the two forms, the structure stabilizes," Pauling said. For Pauling, the whole idea of ​​chemistry began to change.He was excited to realize that resonance can also be applied to the relationship between single and double bonds—it doesn't need to be either-or, but instead can generate resonance between the two states to form stable partial double bonds with unique properties. key.For those structures that cannot be included in the category of classical theory, resonance gives a satisfactory explanation. In fact, according to this new idea, all chemical phenomena can be revalued, and Pauling was engaged in this grand project in the early 1930s.By applying his own resonance theory to various chemical bond problems, and correcting his theoretical results based on the known empirical data of bond length and bond strength, Pauling wrote a series of papers, leading chemistry to a new the way. Pauling's popularity grew with each paper published. In the spring of 1932, he accepted Slater's invitation to give lectures at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for a semester as a visiting professor, and left Eva, who was due to give birth in three months, in Pasadena. Baby is pregnant for the third time.During his visit to the East, he kept on instilling his new ideas to some important figures in the Harvard-MIT chemistry circle, whether in lectures or at the dinner table.After working with a Caltech colleague, Don Yost, to devise a system for estimating the theoretical strength of purely covalent bonds, Pauling had been thinking about ways to estimate the relative strength of ionic and molecular bonds in molecules.After mastering the new numbers, Pauling could compare the numbers he had theoretically deduced with the actual state of different elements combined into compounds.The actual strength of chemical bonds was always greater than theoretically predicted—Pauling believed that the increased energy came from the stabilizing effect of ionic bond resonances.The greater this difference, the more ionic the bond is, and the greater the difference in the ability of the two elements to attract electrons.Using this system, it is possible to answer some previously unresolved questions, such as whether hydrochloric acid HCl is ionic or covalent - Pauling found that it is both, the ratio is 20:80. Another of Pauling's accomplishments at Cambridge should be attributed to biology.Pauling insisted on attending biology seminars at Caltech.Geneticists, he saw, determine where a gene is on a chromosome by measuring how often two separate traits are inherited together: the closer two genes are, the more likely they are to be linked when inherited, which makes He is very interested.Pauling used this idea of ​​positioning to create his own scale for the relationship between pairs of elements.According to his calculations, the more ionic the chemical bond between two atoms, the greater the difference in their ability to attract electrons, and the further apart they would be on his scale.For example, fluorine -- the element with the greatest attraction for electrons -- is at the end of the scale.Lithium is on the other end.The chemical bond of lithium fluoride, the compound formed by these two elements, is almost 100 percent ionic.Iodine is in the middle of Pauling's scale, so the chemical bond of lithium iodide has a strong covalent nature.After comparing some such pairs of elements, he was able to determine a relative property, which he called electronegativity, and assign different values ​​to different elements.These values, in turn, can be used to predict the type and strength of chemical bonds for many molecules, including those for which experimental data are not yet available.During his lectures at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he wrote this idea into a paper, which became another masterpiece in the "Essence of the Chemical Bond" series.A few days after he finished, he hurried on a train back to Pasadena and arrived home on May 30.His daughter Linda Helen was born the next day. Pauling's electronegativity scale was one of his least well-founded yet most influential ideas.It is far from the strict quantum mechanics, but it is easily understood by chemists.They find it very practical to use it to solve real problems.Comparing the electronegativity of two elements in his table, even a researcher who knows nothing about wave functions can roughly predict the nature of the chemical bond between the elements.This scale was quickly promoted and used.Pauling's practice of integrating and matching empirical data with the ideas of quantum mechanics is full of imagination, but it is quite dangerous.With every step forward, he added several new assumptions, further away from the solid ground of the accepted theory.Years later, critics would lash out at the soundness of his approach and overwhelm him, but now he is very successful in everything he does. However, there are also shortcomings.Pauling made a bold assumption that the electronegativity of fluorine is so high that it can even form compounds with inert gases like xenon.Any kind of inert gas is considered to be chemically inert, creating a compound of xenon can be said to have made history.Experiments are needed to prove his predictions.Pure xenon is very rare, but Pauling managed to get some from a colleague to give to Eustace.Eust spent the entire summer of 1933 looking for the compound predicted by Pauling, but found nothing-a failure that made Pauling feel a little confused and embarrassed.We are not sure why Eustace failed to find the compound Pauling was looking for.However, 30 years later, another research group synthesized the xenon compound predicted by Pauling, which caused a global sensation. Pauling used his idea of ​​resonance to solve one of the oldest problems in organic chemistry, thus making the theory famous. Benzene has always been a mystery.It contains 6 carbon atoms and 6 hydrogen atoms, but the structure of the benzene molecule has been elusive.During the winter of 1932 and 1933, Pauling and his student George Weiland set out to solve this problem with the concept of resonance.By spring, they had completed a paper, the fifth in the series of Pauling's chemical bond papers, in which benzene was described as resonating in five extreme or "typical" structures.Pauling wrote: "The molecule can be regarded as an average of the properties of the individual molecules." The method of Pauling and Weiland seems to be very telling: the values ​​​​calculated from their resonance structures are compared with the known molecular structures. , activity and stability are in good agreement.Then, they extended this method to other aromatic molecules such as naphthalene (no less than 42 typical structures) and atomic groups without hydrocarbons. Pauling's thesis on the molecular structure of benzene marked an important step in his entry into organic chemistry.Much of his subsequent work was on organic molecules, and George Weiland made them the centerpiece of his scientific life, publishing an influential textbook, The Theory of Resonance and Its Application in Organic Chemistry in 1944. application".Verlander dedicated the book to "my first and greatest source of inspiration", Linus Pauling. Resonate this powerful thought like a flower in full bloom.In 1933 Pauling co-authored the last two of the series of papers on the nature of the chemical bond with postdoctoral fellow Jack Sherman, extending this idea to more chemical mysteries, such as variations on the traditional single, double, and triple bonds .This work is also original.Pauling proved that the number of molecular chemical bonds is not necessarily an integer, but can take an intermediate form.Here, he once again combined his increasingly rich knowledge about the length and strength of chemical bonds with the idea of ​​resonance stability, and once again gave a unique explanation for a whole class of chemical problems.For example, chemists already know that atoms bonded by single bonds can rotate on their axles like a wheel, while molecules bonded by double and triple bonds cannot; Pauling proposed that between single and double bonds The intermediate form of the molecule -- which he calls the "partial double-bond character" -- also cannot rotate, which is an important factor in predicting molecular structures.Pauling explained this immobility with the concept of quantum mechanics, and then explained the bond length and rotation characteristics of some intermediate forms with his own ideas about resonance between single and double bonds. The whole chemistry began to reassemble in Pauling's mind.Like a jazz musician, he takes a theme from quantum mechanics and improvises semi-empirical variations on it.Pauling's chemistry is a new chemistry, which is in the middle ground of various disciplines of old chemistry.Pauling's quantum chemistry is not an either-or relationship: either this orbital or that orbital, ionic or covalent, single or double.Pauling's chemical bond is a fluid, an amorphous thing that often resonates in intermediate states.Pauling was the first to play this beautiful and exciting melody. optimist In the early 1930s, Pauling published a number of important papers at a rate of one every five weeks, mostly on chemical bonds or new molecular structures, almost completely out of the wave equation: "About 1933 or 1934, I gave up to perform very complex quantum mechanical calculations on molecular structures," he said. "I was working on simple quantum mechanical calculations and realized that if you actually do exact quantum mechanical calculations, you can't learn anything new, because the calculations must match the experimental results." Using this semi-empirical approach, he achieved one result after another.Finally he wrote in 1935: "I feel that I have quite a complete understanding of the nature of the chemical bond." Gradually, Pauling's new view of chemistry began to be accepted by other chemists.The reasons were many: Caltech's atmosphere of openness and tolerance for new ideas, Pauling's mastery of the chemist's jargon, his enthusiasm for spreading his ideas around, his knack for fusing structural studies with quantum theory, and his lack of a solid mathematical foundation The courage to publish theoretical ideas under the conditions.However, the most crucial point is this: he is an optimist. In 1935, two observers wrote an article for the Modern Physical Review introducing the latest developments in quantum chemistry, probably referring to Pauling: "If you want to be satisfied with the research results, you must adopt the optimist's attitude." The mentality and tactics cannot be emulated by the pessimist. The latter demands a rigorous theory free from any questionable approximations and empirical practices based on known facts. In contrast, the optimist is content with an approximate solution to the wave function. … …he arbitrarily borrows experiments to determine the constants because direct calculations are too complicated. On the contrary, the pessimists are perpetually worried, because the approximate omissions are usually so many that the apparent rigor may actually be full of holes. The optimists answer, however, that , approximate calculation is feasible, it can 'point the maze' and provide the idea of ​​'the law of development of things', which makes it possible to systematically sort out a large amount of experimental data that can only be explained by the atomic valence rules of pure experience and acquaintance." As fame grew, Pauling's life changed. In 1931, less than four years after initially serving as an assistant professor, Pauling was promoted to full professor at Caltech. In 1933, he had twice as many graduate students and postdocs as any other chemistry professor.He was awarded an honorary doctorate by his alma mater, Oregon Agricultural College.Offers poured in from other schools—Stanford, University of London, Ohio State—and his Caltech salary rose as a result.In each academic year, he only needs to teach for one semester, so he has enough time for scientific research.A colleague remembers that Noyce made it clear to everyone that the energetic young man was his "confidant" and a possible successor to him as director of Gates' lab.His annual Berkeley lectures also cemented his friendship with Lewis — Pauling remembers the two having “excellent debates” in Lewis’s smoky office — and the pair even considered writing a book together on atomic valence Book. (This vision never materialized.) But, for Pauling, the greatest honor of those years was election to the National Academy of Sciences.The successful mastermind of this achievement was Noyce, which brought Pauling to an important step.The Academy of Sciences is the most prestigious science club in the country with the strictest qualification review and the most emphasis on qualifications. In the early 1930s, among the tens of thousands of scientists in the United States, there were only 250 academicians of the Academy of Sciences, and most of them were twice as old as Pauling.When Pauling was admitted to the Academy of Sciences in May 1933, he became the youngest member in the Academy's 70-year history. At the age of 32, Pauling was already among the top echelons of scientists in the country.He is young and famous, doing research work he likes, and his income is not poor.He has several healthy and lively children, and a virtuous wife.Caltech fulfilled almost all his requirements, and he was able to travel as much as he wanted, give lectures, and publish first-class results. The warm sunshine of success and acclaim swept away the shyness of his youth, and he began to earn a reputation as the most confident and outgoing scientist.At departmental gatherings, he, like Lewis, became the center of heated discussions.He liked strong drinks and told jokes, even if the jokes were indecent, and sometimes he laughed at his own quips, which could be heard across the room.Pauling's wisdom has a sarcastic side at the same time, and he often ridicules and ridicules those pretentious people, slow-thinking people and scholars he doesn't like. He was proud of his spring breeze, and all this also produced a remarkable change in him.His lecturing style changed from confident to emotive.He strode into the classroom with long, wavy hair fluttering in the wind, and his eyes were shining brightly.His lectures seemed disconnected, interspersed with lightning-quick mental arithmetic, teasing at colleagues, and readings in the morning paper.He waved his arms to imitate hydrogen atoms, conjured chemicals, and drew caricatures of a cannon firing photons at electrons.Sometimes he would give lectures lying on a podium in what students called "Roman style," with his head propped on one hand.It was Pauling's skill to weave a coherent, eye-opening lecture out of all this drama. Physicist Martin Kamen remembers Pauling visiting the University of Chicago once in the mid-1930s.On a "wonderful Monday", word came that the routine midday discussion of Physical Chemistry was suspended for one Linus Pauling: Pauling arrived before noon.When the students saw a young man dressed casually and looking good, they couldn't help but be attracted to him, and they were a little surprised.He walked into the classroom full of energy, and the classroom was already full of students who wanted to see the voice and smile of the great man.Pauling put his hands on the podium next to the blackboard, brushed his messy hair with his hands, and signaled the students to move forward a little.He noticed that there were still a few vacant chairs in front of the podium, so he warmly greeted the students crowded by the door to come and sit.Because these chairs were reserved for teachers, the students refused to step forward, but Pauling ignored this.Under his insistence, several students sat down nervously.The speech began, and Pauling quickly wrote down the five topics he wanted to talk about on the blackboard, and then talked one by one, sometimes combined together.He uses powerful language to describe each topic, including lively comments on the researchers who participated in the work. ...his lecture at the seminar was truly a masterpiece, and left an unforgettable impression on each of our students. Pauling loved teaching, partly because of his likes and dislikes about his education, and partly because of his new understanding of his subject.He believes that chemistry education should first cultivate a sense of magic.As early as 1930, he proposed to change the teaching method for first-year freshmen in the Department of Chemistry of Caltech, less about theory and mathematics, and first cultivate students' deep understanding of descriptive chemistry. "In order to stimulate students' interest in chemistry, we can't make the course all explanatory and forget why we explain," he said. "I don't know of a single chemist who was drawn to the field by theoretical chemistry. What initially attracted a chemist was his interest in chemicals and their reactions." He also suggested showing students "What We Know Now "molecular structure diagrams" in order to give them a concrete idea of ​​what they are learning.These molecular structure diagrams are now an integral part of chemistry textbooks, but no one had used them at the time. More importantly, he believes that what chemistry courses teach students should not be a lot of loose materials, but a science with a rigorous and coherent theoretical basis.His theory about chemical bonds can be used to explain many chemical phenomena, from thermodynamics to crystal structure, from inorganic chemistry to organic chemistry, revealing the laws and meanings at a new level.Therefore, he began to organize specific teaching around these basic topics. Those good students with a solid foundation in chemistry and mathematics have become loyal believers in Pauling's theory, while those undergraduates, especially non-chemistry majors who lack preparation in this area, find Pauling's courses difficult and incomprehensible. For those students who were not very respectful to him, Pauling was sometimes very rude.Once, during his first chemistry class with freshmen, his "Romanesque" posture caused the students to roar with laughter.Pauling didn't find it funny at all.A class of 1933 recalled that Pauling "got mad at one of the largest students in the class—later the varsity football linebacker—and drove him out of the room. Since then, our class He was very serious in his classes."Perhaps, in some ways, he was still too young to be taken seriously enough.In the summer of 1934, Pauling grew an ocher beard, on and off for several years, in order to appear more mature and schoolteacher-like. As Pauling's academic career took off, his relationship with Eva changed as well.She used to be able to help him with his work, taking some notes, making some sketches, and making some crystal models.But Pauling's work became more and more theoretical and complicated, and she gradually couldn't keep up. "At first I helped him do some indexing and proofreading at first," she recalls, "but he found that other people did it better than me, and it didn't take as much effort. And I started to have my own interests, and I started Spend your time elsewhere." "Other aspects" are mainly children and families. In late 1932, the Paulings moved to a larger house next to Caltech, had more chores to do, and now had three children to care for: newborn Linda, 1-year-old Peter, and mischievous 7 Little Linus.As is always the case, Eva embraced her new responsibilities wholeheartedly.In 1927, she wrote to herself: "If a woman is frank and clear, she will soon realize that whatever life career she chooses, she cannot do better than a man, Unless the business is childcare at home." She received a home economics education rooted in science in college, and she decided early on in her marriage that she wanted to create an ideal family and raise ideal children. The life of the Pauling family formed a pattern.Eva takes care of the children every day, tidying up the room, doing laundry and cooking; Pauling immerses himself in science all day long.There is a small study at home, and he always goes in early in the morning to start working.After breakfast, he walks the two blocks to school and spends the day in an office or lab.He would go home for dinner, and then he would go back to school for evening seminars, or retreat into his study to continue calculating well into the night.Weekends and most holidays are no exception.He was often out for meetings or lectures, mostly alone.He likes to take the train most of the time when he goes out, because it allows him to do more research alone without interruption. Eva felt obligated to give her husband more time to work.She took care of all the housework, including washing and cooking, kept the children from disturbing him, and carefully arranged the daily life so that he had plenty of time.This is not only the daily arrangement of a housewife, but also the wise choice of a smart woman.Eva later said: "A good scientist must be thinking all the time. He usually doesn't want to be interrupted. A scientist's wife does need to be honest. They shouldn't expect anything. You see, They don't have to go to the theater; they don't have to go to restaurants. . . . They have to have their own knack for having fun, and to think deeply about what life really is." There is some resentment in her words, dissatisfaction with not seeing her husband all day, dissatisfaction with their parallel and distant lives, and dissatisfaction with living in Pauling's shadow.Eva felt that she was on par with Pauling in many respects; her self-esteem was also strong, and she could hope for recognition, too.She loved her children; her husband recalled that she was an "extremely good cook" and made the most of the limited family time she had. But she found that a simple family life could not meet her needs.She didn't want to "honestly do her job."Eva was restless and interested in many big questions; she read widely and pondered national and international events. In the 1930s, the liberal radical ideas she was exposed to as a child began to revive, and she became interested in politics and social affairs again. When they first got married, Eva did not discuss politics with her husband, because Pauling inherited his father's will and believed in the political views of the Republican Party.On his first two presidential ballots, Pauling voted for Herbert Hoover.But as the Great Depression dragged on, Eva became more and more a New Deal believer, speaking publicly in support of Roosevelt and his administration's programs to help the poor. She could no longer effectively talk to Pauling about science, but she could talk about politics.Soon, her remarks attracted Pauling's attention.鲍林说：“我开始倾听她关于贫富差距、关于资本家和工人的言论。民主党离我心目中的正义的距离似乎比共和党要近一些。”在爱娃的敦促下，鲍林改变了对党派和其他一些问题的看法。当他开始认真进行思考时，他开始用爱娃的眼光来看待一切。日益加深的经济危机和由此产生的社会动荡似乎预示着资本主义的破产。加利福尼亚到处是失业游民和政治抗议，鲍林开始倾听人们的抱怨。 1934年，在爱娃的强烈影响下，鲍林投了社会民主党人的票，选阿普顿·辛克莱当加利福尼亚州长。从那以后，鲍林成了一个坚定支持罗斯福民主党的人。 创建天堂的实验室 鲍林新的政治观点与加州理工学院的气氛是格格不入的。多数科学家认为，政治是一个充满污秽、臆断和偏见的雷区，任何一个追求客观的科学家都应该退避三舍。然而，学院的结构本身就含有一些政治的因素，这一点在校长密立根身上尤为突出。他认为，新政是左翼的家长制，会破坏国家的自立，而大萧条不过是社会机器暂时的卡壳，主要的影响是，科学家必须加倍努力才能创造更多的财富。他对那些找不到工作的人没有丝毫的怜悯。他说：“把失业叫做休假，你就马上会有不同的认识。” 加州理工学院塑造了鲍林的职业生涯，而密立根对学院产生了巨大的影响。密立根的父亲是衣阿华州基督教公理会的一名牧师，他本人是一位出色的实验科学家和能干的管理人员。他领导加州理工学院长达四分之一世纪，亲手把它从一个充满生机的小学校变成了全国主要的一个学术中心。在外人看来，密立根就是加州理工学院——有人称之为“密立根的学校”。他的成就还不止于此。在他1923年获得诺贝尔物理学奖之后，在一段时间里，他代表了美国公众头脑中的科学家形象。他下巴方正，满头银发，看上去像一个“博学睿智和德高望重的银行家”。就像《时代周刊》在1927年一篇封面文章中所称的那样，他生来就具有商家特有的那种口若悬河的本领，又有中产阶级技术官僚的灵魂。密立根谈论科学的时候更像在传教，在广播电台，在“扶轮国际”分会的午餐会上，在大众杂志上，在花卉协会的聚会上，他都是这样。他是公开承认自己信奉上帝的为数不多的几个科学家之一。他骄傲地指出，科学发展和资本主义经济发展之间存在着密切的联系，并以说服别人出资捐钱为乐。他代表了新生的科学家出身的官僚，他们将在20世纪中叶在学术界和政界崭露头角。他要传达的信息很简单：“人类面临的最大的问题是，如何更好地刺激并加速科学成果在人类生活各个领域的全面应用。” 他的这一主张在南加利福尼亚的银行界、商业界、工业界和专业人员那里得到了热烈的响应。海耳正是在这些富裕的捐款人的支持下首创了加州理工学院，而密立根不仅确保了这种资助能够延续不断，而且还增加了许多倍。他是筹措资金的大师，他能够投听众所好，利用他们的自尊、贪婪、虚荣，甚至是种族偏见。他说，南加利福尼亚是上帝、物理的聚会之地，天命所是，希望之乡，在地理、气候和人口上都适合成为一个大熔炉，科学进步、商业灵感和基督教价值将共同解决社会顽疾并迎接未来的挑战。密立根告诉那些可能捐款的人说：“就像三个世纪前的英格兰，当今的加利福尼亚标志着雅利安文明的最西部的边睡。”在这里，西方的白人文化将与东方日益增长的经济交汇在一起，大家都会受益。在这里，大型工厂将拔地而起，荒漠将被改造为繁华之都。所有这些当然需要科学知识和工程技术。他相信，加州理工学院是创建天堂的实验室。 密立根能够在纯粹的科学研究和工业利润之间杜撰出令人心动，但实际上含糊不清的前景。他从不承诺会有某一个具体的研究成果，然而他能让那些富裕的捐款人觉得给加州理工学院的赞助是一笔对当地未来经济繁荣的精明投资。他们相信他的布道。加州理工学院校董会的一个席位成了当地最富有的人的一种荣誉象征。在整个20年代，金钱滚滚地流入了学校。 加州理工学院公司化的管理体制使这种科学与商业的结合成了一种固定的形式。密立根在刚来的时候就拒绝采用校长这个一般的学术头衔，坚持由同样数目的商人和教师组成的一个行政委员会来管理学校。他这所学校的领导将不是校长，而是一个他自封的更为商业化的头衔，执行董事。青年教师经常昵称他为“长官”。学校各系都由，些理事会领导，正教授和系主任享有相同的投票权。系内事务由教师委员会监督。这种有意识制定的公司体制降低了集中领导的重要性，更强调集体领导的成果。工商界人士非常喜欢这一种形式。 他们还十分欣赏“长官”所擅长的利用新闻媒介的能力。1932年，报刊发行人亨利·卢斯认为更多的工商界人士希望了解加州理工学院的情况，因此，他让密立根送一些材料给他发表在《财富》杂志上。对密立根来说，一篇新闻报道是远远不够的。“我对他的答复是，……该做的是派一个人到这里来住一段日子，”他回忆说。卢斯派了一名他最好的记者——不久，他成了《财富》的编辑——密立根让他在教师俱乐部住了一个半月。密立根对记者的精心安排得到了回报。发表在1932年7月的关于加州理工学院奇迹的文章不仅仅是一篇吹捧之作；它是一首颂扬科学进步、色彩斑斓的长篇诗歌。加州理工学院是“富商巨贾培育的科学殿堂……在威尔逊山下的平原上，雅典和迦太基、亚力山大和吴哥、罗马和巴黎、卡特莱斯和伦敦的历史正在重演。……学院无所畏惧。它带着一种成功和富裕的姿态迎接陌生人。学院勇往直前，典型的西部风格。它无所顾忌地敲打着宇宙的大门，就像贝多芬著名的四重奏中的主旋律。”文章在介绍鲍林时说：“在晶体和分子结构方面的研究使他在去年赢得朗缪尔奖，他已成为全国最优秀的青年化学家。” 在大萧条期间，在加州理工学院一台蒸汽挖土机的一侧，一个虔诚的墙头艺术家写道：“耶酥救世。”在下面，另外一个人用粉笔加了一句：“但功劳归之于密立根。” 不过，即使是密立根也不能使加州理工学院从大萧条中幸免受到不利的影响。随着利率直线下降，学院投资的受益急剧萎缩；它投资的股票和债券只剩下一半的价值。加州理工学院最大的一项收入来源，木材大王阿瑟·弗莱明巨大的委托基金一夜之间化为乌有，这使学校行政深受震动。1932年，学校的赤字达到80000美元。几乎所有的建设都停了下来，包括计划中的对诺伊斯化学楼的扩建。研究费用和旅差费用一减再减，密立根还请求所有的教师接受百分之十的减薪。鲍林不得不同意减薪，每年从学校得到的4500美元的研究经费也所剩无几，同时还放弃了学校答应的每年500美金的差旅费。 此时，鲍林正全副身心地投入自己的工作，迫切地需要为自己急剧膨胀的研究队伍扩充办公场地。他既没有时间，又没有兴趣来同情上司面临的预算问题。他声言反对减薪，不愿意自动放弃差旅费，并明确表示对日益萎缩的研究资助不满。诺伊斯、密立根和海耳使出浑身解数让他高兴。有一阵子，海耳和其他一些理事从自己的口袋中掏出钱来资助鲍林的研究，而且当化学系新楼停工之后，海耳在他新的天体物理学大楼里腾出教室来作为鲍林的实验室。 密立根加倍努力地在他的企业界朋友处筹措资金，但是大萧条使他的蓄水池也干涸了。从政府那里得不到多少钱，而且密立根认为科学家无论如何不应该和公众在同一个马槽中进食。 不过，学校终于找到了另外一个巨大的基金来源——这笔钱将帮助加州理工学院渡过难关，并且将改变鲍林的学术生涯。