Chapter 100 Chapter 18 The Magician and the Apprentice: Schools of Natural Science 2

2 At a certain period in the "Age of Empires", the link between the discoveries and inventions of scientists and the "reality" based on sensory experience (or imagination) was suddenly broken.At the same time, the link between science and "logic" based on common sense (or imagination) is broken at the same time.The two ruptures reinforce each other, because the progress of natural science depends more and more on the person who writes mathematical formulas with pen and paper, rather than on the people in the laboratory. The twentieth century has thus become a world in which the theorist guides the pragmatist, who tells the latter what to look for, and in the name of his theory.In other words, it would be a mathematician's world—but, according to the author's guidance from authority, only molecular biology, since its theories are still rarely the exception.It’s not that observation and experimentation have become secondary. On the contrary, the instruments and techniques of science and technology in the 20th century have undergone greater changes than any period since the 7th century, and several of them have even won the highest honor in the scientific community——Nobel prize.That is to say, for example, the invention of electron microscope (1937) and radio telescope (radio telescope, 1957) has broken through the limitations of optical microscope magnification, allowing human beings to have a closer look at the world of molecules and even atoms. Looking at the distant sky of the universe.In recent decades, with the assistance of computers, the automation of various procedures and increasingly complex experimental activities and calculations have brought experimenters, observers, and theoretical personnel responsible for building models to a higher level.In some fields, such as astronomy, advances in instrumentation have led to major discoveries—sometimes unintentional accidents—and thus further theoretical innovations.Basically, modern astronomy (cosmology) is facilitated by the following two discoveries: one is the observation conclusion made by Hubble (Hubble) based on the analysis of the spectrum of galaxies (spectra of galaxies, 1929): the universe is constantly expanding; One is that Arno A. Penzias and Wilson discovered in 1965 the cosmic background radiation (radionoise).However, for scientific research in the short twentieth century, although theory and practice are still equally important, the one who directs the overall situation is already the master of theory.

For scientists themselves, saying goodbye to sensory experience and common sense means parting ways with the original sense of certainty of their own experience and the usual methodology of the past.The consequences of this phenomenon can be seen from Yiran’s evolution of the supreme discipline after all other sciences—physics—in the first half of this century.It is true that the focus of attention in physics is still as small as the smallest component of all matter (whether dead or alive) and as large as the qualitative structure of the largest combination of matter.In this respect, its position remains unshakable, even at the end of the century, as the central pillar of natural science.However, in the second period of this century, the throne of physics is facing the challenge of life science; the latter is completely changed by the revolution of molecular biology after the 1950s.

Of all the sciences there is none more solid, more coherent, more methodical than the world of Newtonian physics.But when the theories of Max Planck and Einstein came out, together with the advent of atomic theory derived from the discovery of radiation in the 1990s, it was completely shaken from its foundation.The world of classical physics is objective, that is, things can be properly observed under the constraints of observation tools (such as optical microscopes or telescopes).The world of classical physics is by no means ambiguous: any object or phenomenon is either this or that, either this or that, and the distinction between them is clear.Its laws and laws are universal, regardless of the microcosm or the large celestial body, it can be established equally in any time and space.The organism that connects various classical physical phenomena is also clearly identifiable, and can be expressed by the terms of "cause and effect".Under this basic concept, the entire system of the classical physical world belongs to a kind of "determinism" (determinism), and the purpose of laboratory experiments is to get rid of the complex confusion shrouded in daily life, so as to demonstrate its deterministic nature. Mutually.Only a fool or a child would claim that a flock of birds or butterflies can fly free regardless of the laws of gravity.Scientists are well aware that there are such "unscientific" claims in the world, but as people in science, these "nonsense and humanism" have nothing to do with them.

But in the era between 1895 and 1914, the world of classical law was questioned.Is the light beam a continuous wave, or, as Einstein said based on Planck, a series of intermittent photons (photons) emitted?Perhaps, sometimes it is better to think of it as a wave of light—maybe, sometimes it is better to regard it as a point of light; but is there any relationship between the points of light?If so, what is the connection?Light is a thing, what is "exactly"?The great Einstein himself said 20 years after he proposed this insoluble puzzle: "For light, we now have two theories, both of which are indispensable, but - one thing cannot be denied ——Although theoretical physicists have spent 20 years of great effort, there is still no logical relationship between the two theories." (Holton, 1970 p.1017) And what is there in the atom?Now we all know that the atom is not the smallest matter (therefore, contrary to the meaning of its original Greek name), neither the smallest, nor the indivisible thing, and there is a vast world in it, containing all kinds of smaller and more basic substances.The first postulate in this regard came after Rutherford's discovery of the atomic nucleus in Manchester in 1911—a great discovery, a glorious triumph of the experimental imagination, which laid the foundation for The foundation of modern children's physics is even the first of its kind that will eventually become "big science" - he discovered that outside the nucleus, there are still electrons orbiting, just like a concrete and tiny solar system.But further research, to explore the structure of individual atoms - especially Bohr's hydrogen structure research in 1912-1913 is the most famous; Bohr himself is also aware of Planck's "quantum theory" - but found again Theories disagree.There was a major conflict between his electron and what he himself called "the admirable coherence of ideas worthy of the classical theory of electrodynamics" (Holton, 1970, p. 1028).Although the model proposed by Bohr is effective and has wonderful explanatory and speculative capabilities, it is quite different from the classical physical world.From Newton's mechanical point of view, it is simply "ridiculous and contrary to reason", and it completely denies the internal truth of the vast universe of atoms.Because in fact, electrons are jumping instead of step by step, or appearing and disappearing in different orbits.The moment you discover it, you may be on this track; the next moment, you may be on that track again.Between coming and going, what is the mystery?It cannot be explained by the Bohr model.

The certainty of science itself changes and shakes along with the process of observing phenomena at the "subatomic" level: because the more we try to fix the movement of subatomic particles (particles), the more their speed becomes It's too late to catch.Where exactly is the "true" location of the electron?Someone once described this effort in this way: "When you see it, you have to knock it out." (Weisskopf, 1980, p. 37) This kind of contradiction is exactly what the young German physicist Heisenberg , the famous theory summed up in 1927: "uncertainty principle" (uncertainty principle), and handed down by its name.And the name of this theorem, which focuses on "inaccurate" itself, is indeed of great significance, because it just marks the worry of people in the "new science". The full affirmation of the "old science" has been left behind by them, and everything about the "new science" is so elusive.It's not that they themselves lack validation, nor that their results are questionable.On the contrary, their theoretical deduction, no matter how unconstrained and unbelievable it may seem, was finally confirmed by monotonous and boring observation experiments.This has been the case since Einstein's general theory of relativity (1915) - the earliest evidence for the theory of relativity should have been proposed by a British solar eclipse observation team in 1919, the team members found some distant stars, as the theory of relativity predicted , refracted toward the sun.In fact, for practical purposes, particle physics is no different from Newtonian physics, and its laws are equally measurable—although the shape and nature are quite different—but at least above the atomic level, the theories of Newton and Galileo are still fully valid.What makes scientists nervous is that they don't know how to cooperate between the old and the new.

By 1924-1927, the duality phenomenon that had disturbed physicists in the first quarter of this century was suddenly swept away, or it could be said to be sidelined for a while.The hero here is due to the rise of mathematical physics, that is, "quantum mechanics" (quantum mechanics) that appeared in many countries at the same time.The "truth" in the atomic world does not lie in "wave" or "mass", but in indivisible "quantum states" (quantum states), which can be expressed in either "wave" or "mass".Therefore, it is meaningless to program it as a continuous or intermittent action.Because it is impossible for us to follow the footsteps of electrons and observe closely.Not now, and never will.Therefore, the so-called concepts of position, velocity, and momentum in classical physics cannot be applied beyond a certain point, which is the limit indicated by Heisenberg's "Uncertainty Principle".Of course, beyond this limit, there are other concepts to follow, which can produce more certain results.That is, the (negative) electrons are confined inside the atom, close to the (positive) nucleus, and produce a specific "ripple" or vibration "pattern".The "quantum states" that occur successively in this limited space form a pattern with different frequencies but clear rules; and like all related energies, they can be obtained by calculation, just as Erwin Schrodinger of Austria in 1926 shown.These electronic patterns have amazing predictive and explanatory power.Therefore, many years later, when plutonium was successfully refined for the first time in the Los Alamos atomic reactor, officially embarking on the road to manufacture the first atomic bomb, although the amount obtained was so small that it was impossible to observe its properties, but Based on the number of electrons in the plutonium atom itself, plus the vibration frequency of its ninety-four electrons orbiting the nucleus, and nothing else, scientists can correctly estimate that plutonium will be a brown Metal, with a mass of about 20 grams per cubic centimeter, has some electrical, thermal and ductile properties.As for "quantum mechanics", it can also explain why atoms, molecules, or any other higher combination starting from atoms can remain stable; at the same time, it can also indicate to what extent the addition of additional energy will change this stable state .In fact, someone once exclaimed:

Even the phenomena of life—such as the shape of deoxyribonucleic acid, and various nucleotides (nucleotides), which can resist "thermal motion" at room temperature—exist based on these fundamental models.Even the annual blooming of spring flowers is based on the stability of different nucleoside patterns (Weisskopf, 1980, pp. 35-38). However, although these great breakthroughs in the exploration of natural phenomena are fruitful, they are built on the ruins of the past and deliberately avoid questioning new theories.All the classical dogmas that had been held to be positive by scientific theories were now invalidated: the new theories were so incredible that doubts were put aside for the time being.This phenomenon is not only troubling to the older generation of scientists.Take the "antimatter" theory of Cambridge Dirac (Paul Dirac) as an example, which was proposed after he discovered that his formula could solve a certain electronic state.Borrowing from his formula, an electron state with zero energy "below" empty space can be explained.Therefore, the concept of "antimatter", which is meaningless to everyday things, was quickly adopted by physicists (Steven Weinberg, 1977, pp. 23-24).The word itself means a deliberate mentality that does not allow any prejudice of "existing reality" to hinder the progress of "theoretical calculation": no matter what the "reality" is, it will always catch up with the results calculated by theoretical formulas sooner or later.However, this concept is not easy to accept after all, even those scientists who have long forgotten the teachings of the great Rutherford are no exception.Rutherford once said that any theory of physics is not a good reason if it cannot be explained clearly to the barmaid.

But even among the pioneering heroes of the "new science", there are some who simply cannot accept the end of the era of the "old affirmation", even the founders of the new science, Planck and Einstein.Einstein himself, famously expressed his doubts about the "law of pure probability"—rather than "deterministic causality"—in a famous saying: "God does not play dice."He has no reason to argue, but "a voice in my heart tells me that quantum mechanics is not the truth" (M. Jammer, 1966, p. 358).Everyone who put forward the theory of quantum revolution has also tried to take everything from left to right, and to remove the contradictions in it with a one-size-fits-all statement: Schrödinger hoped that his "wave mechanics" (wave mechanics) could clarify the "jumping" of electrons. "Track phenomenon, interpreting it as a "continuous" process of energy transformation.In this way, everything can be covered, and the considerations of space, time, and causal factors in classical mechanics can be preserved.The pioneer masters who pioneered new science, especially Planck and Einstein, were hesitating about the new path they took the lead.But all was in vain.A new game has begun and the old rules no longer apply.

Can physicists learn to live with this perpetual contradiction?Bohr thought the answer was yes, and it was imperative.The magnificence and completeness of the natural world is limited by the characteristics of human language, and it is impossible to explain all of it with a single description.There cannot be only one model for describing nature, and the only way to capture the truth of reality is to report, concentrate, and complement each other in different ways from multiple perspectives, "combine the externally different and internally contradictory Aspects of description, overlapping in endless combinations” (Holton, 1970, p. 2018).This is the basic principle of Bohr's "complementarity", a metaphysical concept similar to the "principle of relativity", which he derived from the ideas of writers who have nothing to do with physics, and It is believed that the spirit here is universally applicable.However, Bohr's "complementarity theory" was not intended to encourage atomic scientists to go further, but it was just a good intention to appease their confusion.Its charm lies beyond reason.Because all of us, not just smart scientists, know that there are many complicated things in the world, and the same thing itself can be seen in many different ways; sometimes it may not be analogous, sometimes even contradictory, but every method , should be understood from the overall aspect of things.However, we are at a loss as to how these differences are connected and related.The effect produced by a Beethoven sonata can be studied and investigated from many aspects including physics, physiology, and psychology, or it can be absorbed purely through quiet listening.However, no one knows how these different ways of understanding are related.

But despite all the relief, the uncomfortable feeling still exists.On the one hand, we have the great synthesis of new physics in 1920, which provided the key to unraveling the mysteries of nature, and even into the late 20th century, the basic concepts of the quantum revolution continued to apply.However, since 1900-1927, unless we regard the "non-linear analysis" (non-linear analysis) brought about by the theory of computer technology as a drastic new change that deviates from the tradition, it can be said that there is not much drastic change in the physical world, but only in It's just an evolutionary leap under the same conceptual framework.But on the other hand, there is a general incoherence in it. In 1931, this incongruity finally extended to another discipline—even the certainty of mathematics was reconsidered.An Austrian mathematical logician, Kurt Godel, demonstrated that a set of principles can never be established by itself; to show its consistency or non-contradiction, another set of external statements must be used.So to prove "Gödel's theorem", a world without internal contradictions and self-harmony, is simply unimaginable.

This is the "crisis in physics" - to borrow the title of a great book by a young British Marxist, Christopher Caudwell (1907-1937) (a self-taught scholar who died tragically in Spain) ).This is not only a "crisis of the foundations" (crisis of the foundations) - as the mathematical circles called the period from 1900 to 1930 (see Chapter 10 of "The Age of Empires") - but also a common conception of the world shared by ordinary scientists.In fact, just as physicists shrug their shoulders at the philosophical questions and go back to digging into the new frontier before them, a second-stage crisis is looming in.Because by the 1930s and 1940s, the atomic structure that appeared before the eyes of scientists became more and more complicated every year.The binary atomic world of positive nucleon and negative electron is not so simple.Now in the Atom family, there is a family of "children", birds and beasts, with thousands of heads moving around. Every day, all kinds of new members emerge, some of them are really strange.Sir Edwin Chadwick of Cambridge, in 1932, first discovered one of the new members of this family of "sons", the uncharged "neutron" (neutron) - but other "sons", Such as "massless" and uncharged "neutrino", etc., have long been deduced in theory.These subatomic particles, such as mayfly morning dew, are almost all short-lived; there are so many types, and they have multiplied under the impact of high-energy accelerators of "big science" after World War II.By the end of the 1950s, there were more than a hundred kinds; and the trend of continued increase did not see any possibility of stopping.Beginning in the 1930s, the situation was further complicated by the discovery that, besides the various charged boys that unite the nucleon and the various electrons, there are two additional forces of unknown function in the home.One is the so-called "strong force", which is responsible for combining neutrons and positively charged protons (protons) in the nucleus; as for the responsibility for causing the decay of certain particles, other so-called "strong forces" have to be blamed. Weak force" (weak force) on the head. Amidst all this upheaval, amidst the decay of the rise of science in the twentieth century, there was one fundamental, and fundamentally aesthetic, assumption that remained unchallenged.In fact, while the cloud of "uncertainty" hangs over everything else, this assumption stands out and becomes increasingly indispensable to scientists.Like the poet Keats, they all believe that "beauty is truth, and truth is beauty"—although their criteria for beauty are different from Keats.A "beautiful" theory is essentially a deduction of "truth". Its arguments must be elegant, concise and smooth, and its pattern must be magnificent and comprehensive.It must be both synthesizable and simplistic, as the great scientific theories of all time have demonstrated.The scientific revolution produced in the age of Galileo and Newton has proved that the same law governs the sky and the earth.As for the revolution in chemistry, it also simplifies all kinds of things in the world that matter is tied to, and simplifies them into 92 basic elements that are connected systematically.The fruits of victory in physics in the 19th century also show that there is a common root among the phenomena of electricity, magnetism, and optics.But the new generation of scientific revolution brings complexity instead of simplicity.Einstein's incredible relativity, describing gravity as a curve of space-time, does bring a certain disturbing duality into nature: "On the one hand, there is the stage—the curved space-time ; on the other hand, the actors—that is, electrons, neutrons, electromagnetic fields. But there is no connection between the two.” (Steven Weinberg 1979, p. 43) During the last 40 years of his life In the past 20 years, Einstein, the Newton of the 20th century, devoted all his energy to finding a "unified field theory" to integrate the electromagnetic field and gravitation, but he failed.Well now, suddenly there are two more apparently irrelevant forces in the world, which have nothing to do with the electromagnetic field and gravity.The continual proliferation of subatomic particles, however exciting, can only be a provisional, preliminary truth.Because no matter how beautiful the details are, the atomic diagrams of the new era are always not as beautiful as the old atomic diagrams, and even the purely practical people of this century-for such people, there is no other judgment for any hypothesis. Standards, as long as they work—sometimes I can’t help dreaming, hoping to have an elegant, beautiful and comprehensive "everything theory" that can explain everything—borrowed from a Cambridge physicist The words of Stephen Hawking.However, this dream seems to be getting further and further away, although since the 1960s, physics has once again realized the possibility of such a comprehensive overview.In fact, by the 1990s, the physics community generally believed that they were not far from some truly fundamental level.The many names of its layer particles may be reduced to several rather simple but consistent subgroups. At the same time, various heterogeneous disciplines such as meteorology (meteorology), ecology (ecolo), non-nuclear physics (non-nuclear physics), astronomy (astronomy), fluid dynamics (fluid dynamics), and other various branches of mathematics, first It arose independently in the Soviet Union, and appeared in the Western world shortly thereafter, with the help of computers as analytical tools.Across the vast, ill-defined territory between them, a new synthesis—or revival—bears the slightly misleading title of “chaos theory.”The truth revealed by this theory is not so much the unfathomable consequences of a completely deterministic scientific process; A surprisingly general shape and pattern is contained within the disjointed shapes.Chaos theory brings new meaning to the old law of causality.It breaks the joint between the original "causality" and "predictability", because its meaning is not that things are accidental, but that the final result that follows a specific cause cannot be predicted in advance.The theory also reinforces another new development, pioneered by paleontologists and of general interest to historians.That is to say, the chain of historical or evolutionary development, although a sufficiently consistent and reasonable explanation can be obtained afterwards, the result of the evolution of things cannot be predicted at the beginning.Because even if it is exactly the same road, if there is any change in the initial stage, no matter how insignificant, how obviously insignificant it seems at the time, "the river of evolution will diverge into another completely different river" ( Gould, 1989, p. 51).This situation has far-reaching political, economic and social consequences. But going one step further, the world of the new physicist still has a completely paradoxical level, but as long as this paradox remains in the small world of the atom, it will not affect the daily life of human beings—this is the world that even scientists themselves live in .But in the world of physics, at least one new discovery cannot be so isolated from the world.That is the extraordinary cosmic fact: the entire universe seems to be expanding at a dizzying speed - this has long been predicted by the theory of relativity and confirmed by the American astronomer Hubble in 1929.This expansion event was later confirmed by other astronomical data in the 1960s (but at that time, even many scientists could not accept it, and some people even hurriedly came up with another theory of confrontation—the so-called "stability theory" of celestial bodies).So it's hard not to wonder where this infinitely rapid expansion is taking the universe (and us)?When did it start?how to startWhat is the history of the universe?And start over with the Big Bang.As a result, cosmology and astronomy began to flourish, and became a hot topic in science in the 20th century, and it was the easiest subject to turn into a bestseller.And the status of history in the natural sciences (perhaps only geology and its related sub-disciplines are still exceptions) has also been greatly improved-up to this time, the latter have been proudly not interested in history.Therefore, between "hard" science and "experiment", the intimate relationship between the two, which was originally a natural pair, is gradually weakening.The so-called experiment is originally a procedure for replicating and reproducing natural phenomena; today, how can science use experiments to reproduce those phenomena that are inherently impossible to repeat?The expanding universe embarrasses scientists and laymen alike. This embarrassment and confusion proves that what the predecessors said is true.As early as the time of the catastrophe, there were caring people who cared about this matter, and those with discerning eyes spoke out.They are convinced that an old world has come to an end, if not yet, at least in the convulsions of the last days; but on the other hand, the outlines of a new world are still indistinct.Regarding the two crises between science and the external world, the great Planck was categorical and held that there was an undeniable absolute relationship: We are at a very unique moment in history.At this moment, it is the full portrayal of the word crisis.Every branch of our spiritual and material civilization seems to have reached a momentous turning point.This outlook is not only manifested in the actual state of public affairs today, but also in the general basic values ​​of personal and social life.The idea of ​​knocking down idols has now invaded the halls of science as well.Today, there is simply no scientific law to be found, and no one denies it.At the same time, almost every kind of absurd theory can find followers (Planck, 1933, p. 64). This is a middle-class German who grew up in the atmosphere of certainty in the 19th century. Facing the atmosphere of the Great Depression and the rise of Hitler, he was full of emotions. It is a natural reaction to say this. But in fact, his gloom and depression were exactly the opposite of the mood of most scientists at the time.The latter view was shared by Rutherford, who told the British Association (1923): "We, the people, are living in a remarkable age of physics" (Howarth, 1978, p. 92) Every issue of a scientific journal, every research symposium—for scientists love the combination of competition and collaboration more than ever—brings exciting new news, big breakthroughs .The scientific community at this time was still small enough (at least in pioneering disciplines such as nuclear physics and crystallography) to offer every young researcher a chance to become a scientific star.Scientists have an enviable and lofty status.Most of the 30 Nobel Prize winners in the UK in the first half century came from Cambridge; in fact, Cambridge "was" British science itself.At that time, our students who were studying here naturally knew very well in their hearts: if their math scores were good, they would really want to study in that department. In this atmosphere of the times, to be honest, the future of natural science is naturally bright. Apart from further victories and inventions, what other prospects are there?Although the various theories before us are fragmentary, imperfect, and improvised; but looking at the bright future of science, all these defects can be tolerated, because they will only be temporary. .But at the age of 20, they have won the supreme scientific honor - the Nobel Prize - these young winners, why should they worry about the future?However, for this group of men (and occasionally women) who continue to prove "how unreliable the so-called 'progress' is", they are facing the catastrophic events of the great era and the crisis they themselves are in How can the world stay out of it and remain unmoved?They cannot and will not stay out of it.The era of catastrophe thus became one of the rare eras in which scientists were compelled to be politically infected by comparison.The reasons, not least because of the large-scale emigration of many scientific people from Europe because their ethnicity or consciousness was not tolerated by the authorities, are enough to prove that scientists, too, cannot take personal political immunity for granted.In retrospect, a typical British scientist in the 1930s was usually a member of the Cambridge Scientists Anti-War Group (this would be a leftist), and his or her radical views were even more unadorned than those of his predecessors. In the midst of intense approval, it was confirmed.The latter, from the Royal Society (Royal Society) all the way to the Nobel Prize winners, are all famous people: crystallographer Bernal, geneticist Haldane, chemical embryologist Joseph Needham Joshef Needham), physicists Patrick M.S. Blackett and Dirac, and mathematician G.H. Hardy.Hardy even thinks that in the entire 20th century, only two other figures, Lenin and Einstein, are worthy enough to match his Austrian cricket hero Don Bradman (Don Bradman).As for the typical American physicist in the 1930s, in the post-war Cold War years, he was more likely to encounter political troubles for his persistent radical views before or after the war.Such as Robert Oppenheimer (Robert Oppenheimer, 1904-1967), the father of the atomic bomb, and Linus Pauling, a chemist who won two Nobel Prizes (one of which was a Peace Prize) and a Lenin Prize.The typical French scientist is often a sympathizer of the Popular Front in the 1930s, and more enthusiastically supported the underground anti-enemy movement during the war-you must know that most French people are not the latter.As for the typical scientists in exile from central Europe, no matter how little interest they may have in public affairs, it is almost impossible at this time not to be hostile to fascism.And scientists who were unable to leave or stay in fascist countries or the Soviet Union could not stay out of the political tricks of their governments—regardless of whether they themselves actually agreed with the positions of the authorities—not for other reasons than that. They couldn't avoid the public gestures.Just like Nazi Germany stipulated to salute Hitler, the great physicist Max von Laue (Max von Laue, 1897-1960) tried his best to avoid it: before leaving home, he held something in both hands.The natural sciences are distinct from the social or human sciences, so this pan-political phenomenon is highly unusual.Because the science of natural science neither needs to hold opinions on human affairs, nor does it suggest any ideas (except for some parts of life sciences)-but it often has opinions on "God". Yet the more immediate factor in which scientists relate to politics is that they believe in one thing (very justifiably) that laymen simply do not understand—including politicians—that, if properly used, modern science will bestow upon human society What an amazing potential.The collapse of the world economy and the rise of Hitler seem to prove this point of view in different ways (on the contrary, the Soviet official and its Marxist ideology's belief in natural science made many Western scientists at that time mistakenly believe that it is a regime better suited to realize this potential).And so technocracy and radical thought converge, because at the moment, only the political left, with its full devotion to science, rationality, and progress—what conservatives sneer at as “scientism” ) name - nature, representing the party who recognizes and supports the "social function of science". "The Social Function of Science" (The Social Function of Science) was a very influential propaganda book at that time (Bernal, 1939). It is conceivable that its author was a typical Marxist physicist at that time—— —Genius brimming, full of fighting breath.The same typical example, there is also the popular front government in France from 1936 to 1939, which set up the first post of "undersecretary of scientific research" for science. ——Curie (lrene Joliot-Curie) served and established the "National Center for Scientific Research" (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, CNRS), which is still the main institution providing research funding in France.In fact, it is becoming increasingly clear, at least to scientists, that scientific research requires not only public funding but also research that is sponsored and organized by the public.英国政府的科学单位，于1930年时，一共雇有743名科学人员——人手显然不够——30年后，已经爆增至7000人以上（Bernal 1967，p．931）。 科学政治化的时代，在二战时达到巅峰。这也是自法国大革命雅各宾党时期以来，第一场为了军事目的，有系统并集中动员科学家力量的战争。就成效而言，同盟一方的成就，恐怕比德意日三国轴心为高，因为前者始终未打算利用现有的资源及方法，速战速决赢得胜利（见第一章）。就战略而言，核战争其实是反法西斯的产物。如果单纯是一场国与国之间的战争，根本不会打动尖端的核物理学家，劳驾他们亲自出马，呼吁英美政府制造原子弹——他们本身多数即为法西斯暴政下的难民或流亡者。到原子弹制成，科学家却对自己的可怕成就惊恐万状，到了最后一分钟还在挣扎，试图劝阻政客和军人们不要真的使用；事后，并拒绝继续制造氢弹。种种反应，正好证明了“政治”情感的强大力量。事实上二战以后掀起的反核运动，虽然在科学界普遍获得很大支持，主要的支持者，却还是与政治脱不了干系的反法西斯时代的科学家们。 与此同时，战争的现实也终于促使当政者相信，为科学研究投下在此之前难以想象的庞大资源，不但可行，而且在未来更属必要。但是环顾世上各国，只有美国一国的经济实力，能够在战时找得出20亿美元巨款（战时币值），单单去制造一个核弹头。其实回到1940年前，包括美国在内，无论是哪一个国家，恐怕连这笔数字的小零头做梦都舍不得掏出，孤注一掷，投在这样一个冒险空想的计划之上。更何况此中唯一根据，竟是那些一头乱草的书呆子笔下所涂的令人摸不着头脑的神秘公式演算。但是等到战争过去，如今唯有天际（或者说举国的经济规模），才是政府科学支出及科学人事的界限了。70年代时，美国境内的基本研究，三分之二是由政府出资进行，当时一年几乎高达50亿美元，而其雇用的科学家及工程师人数，更达百万余名（Holton，1978，pp．227－228）。