The Physical Review

That the use of symbolic dynamics to study the behavior of complex or chaotic systems in fact heralds a new epoch in physics wris boldly suggested by Joseph Ford in the foreword to this Physics Reports review. Ford writes, Just as in that earlier period [referring to 1922, when The Physical Review had published a review of Hilbert Space Operator Algebra] physicists will shortly be faced with the arduous task of learning some new mathematics... For make no mistake about it, the following review heralds a new epoch. Despite its modest avoidance of sweeping claims, its theorems point like arrows toward the physics of the second half of the twentieth century. ... 

A more extensive account of these calculations will be presented to the Physical Review for publication. 

Well, now, the maser became very very popular, there were lots of people working on it. It was so popular, and so many papers were submitted to Physical Review Letters that the editor of that journal said, I m not going to take any more papers on masers, we ve got too many, we ve got to have some space for other things. And so the Physical Review Letters has no papers on masers. 

Following conversations in Gottingen with Hund about his ideas for a quantum mechanical treatment of multiple-electron systems, Mulliken published a paper in 1928 in the Physical Review, the primary American physics journal, which welcomed papers on molecular electronic structure. As soon as he had... 

Ever since the establishment of the Institute of Physics, we have discussed the problem of properly handling the increasing number of articles in physical chemistry which have distinct emphases on the physics side. . . [but are]. . . perhaps too mathematical for the Journal of Physical Chemistry, or too chemical for the Physical Review. 104... 

A full account of the work will appear in the Physical Review. 

E. U. Condon, Physic. Rev., 28, 1182, 1926 Proc. Nat. Acad. Set., 13, 462, 1927. A detailed discussion of the wave mechanical interpretations of this theory as used here is to be given soon in the Physical Review. For the opportunity of seeing the manuscript and conversations on the subject of this paper, we wish to express our thanks to Prof. Condon. 

Fig. 22. The nonmetal-to-metal transition a logarithmic plot of the effective radius afi of the localized-electron state versus the critical (electron) concentration for metallization, n,., in a variety of systems. [Adapted from Edwards and Sienko (68), and used with permission from the American Physical Society, The Physical Review (Solid Stale).)...

The Journal of Chemical Physics, founded in 1933, would welcome papers perhaps too mathematical for the Journal of Physical Chemistry, or too chemical for the Physical Review." [3] Barriol considered himself, while being student at the Ecole Normale Superieure, not to be at the top level of mathematics - the way of working of my mind was of another type" [4] - but he was also too mathematical to be a chemist and he was too chemical to be a physicist. From the beginning, he was interested in entities generally called molecules by chemists, their movements and their properties. For Barriol, their dielectric properties were of the highest value when one wanted to have a look into the microstructure of matter. 

C. Perrier and E. Segre, "Some chemical properties of element 43, Journal of Chemical Physics 5 (1937) 712. We will give more details on the radioactive side of this investigation in a later paper to appear in the Physical Review. See also C. Perrier and E. Segre, Some chemical properties of element 43, Journal of Chemical Physics 7 (1939) 155. 

For detailed discussion of this proposal, see Laser Spectroscopy VIII (Eds. W. Persson and S. Svanberg, Springer-Verlag, 1987), article by P. Zhao, W. Lichten, J.C. Bergquist and H.P. Layer, p. 12 also P. Zhao et al., submitted to the Physical Review also the talk by F. Biraben... 

Professor P. A. Ross of the University of Stanford has recently published two letters in the Physical Review (February 1, and February 15, 1932), in which he mentions some extraordinarily interesting ionization curves representing the K series spectrum of molybdenum. He verifies by these ionization observations the above-mentioned new lines in the K series of molybdenum. He also finds similar lines in the K series of other chemical elements (Tel—Pal—Ag—Cd—Sn— and Sb). Obviously this discovery is of very great importance. The suggestion by Professor Ross... 

At this point we want to make a brief comment upon the approach of Nesbet, reviewed in another article of this volume [9]. Nesbet s main conclusion is that one of the main fundaments of DFT, the so-called locality hypothesis—the assumption that the derivative of the density functionals can be expressed in the form of multiplicative local function—is not generally valid. As we have pointed out in a separate Comment to the Physical Review [10], we believe that the arguments of Nesbet are incorrect and that the mistake is connected to the above-mentioned question of extending the functionals into the domain of unnormalized densities. We summarize our main arguments here and refer to our Comment for further details. 

The detailed paper has been communicated to the Physical Review. 

It seems to me that the appropriate computational structure for our purpose was that briefly presented by B. Hoffmann and myself in the Physical Review (1930) in connection with earlier work in the Quarterly Journal of Mathematics (Oxford Series 1930). The correspondence with the formalism of the Kaluza-Klein theory is so complete that Hoffmann and I described our theory as the geometrical meaning of Kaluza-Klein. However, it must be emphasized that our theory starts from a totally different physical and geometrical point of view as Kaluza. In particular, we infer no link between electric charge and a fifth coordinate our theory is rather four-dimensional throughout. 

Society, with responsibility for all of the Physical Review journals. Physical Review Letters, and Reviews of Modem Physics. The challenge of electronic publishing and associated questions of intellectual properiy, archiving, peer review, cost containment and recoveay, and provision of journals to all who need them are among those that must be addressed in this time of change in scholarly communication. 

Bohr acknowledged it indirectly in his paper for the Physical Review. The slow-neutron fi ssion of U235 occupied the foreground of his discussion because it explained the puzzling difference between uranium and thorium. But Bohr also considered U235 s behavior under fast-neutron bombardment. For fast neutrons, he wrote near the end of the paper, ... because... 

Washington at the DTM. Richard Roberts and R. C. Meyer were preparing a letter to the Physical Review reporting the discovery of delayed neutrons from fissioa These were not the instantaneous secondary neutrons the Columbia researchers were seeking, but they did confirm that the fission fragments had neutrons to spare and would give them up spontaneously. 

As soon as 1 began taking interest in uranium, sharp discussion started on the practical significance. Tuve, Hafstad, and Roberts are entirely aware of what is involved. They also know of Fermi s experiments. Of course, 1 didn t say anything. The above-mentioned letter [to the Physical Review] cannot cause any harm. 

The next topic on the morning s agenda was secrecy. Fermi and Szilard had both written reports on their secondary-neutron experiments and were ready to send them to the Physical Review. With Pegram s concurrence they decided to go ahead and mail the reports to the Review, to es-tabhsh priority, but to ask the editor to delay publishing them until the secrecy issue could be resolved. Both papers went oflT that day. 

In June the Columbia team wrote up its experiment and sent the resulting paper, Neutron production and absorption in uranium, to the Physical Review, which received it on July 3. Fermi left for the Summer School of Theoretical Physics at Ann Arbor, his attention diverted, says Anderson, by an interesting problem in cosmic rays. Either Fermi did not share Szilard s sense of the urgency of chain-reaction research or he was with-... 

Nuclear research in the Soviet Union during this period was limited to skillful laboratory work. Two associates of Soviet physicist Igor Kurchatov reported to the Physical Review in June 1940 that they had observed rare spontaneous fissioning in uranium. The complete lack of any American response to the publication of the discovery, writes the American physicist Herbert F. York, was one of the factors which convinced the Russians that there must be a big secret project under way in the United States. It was not yet big, but by then it had begun to be secret. 

The demonstration vindicated Bohr s hypothesis, but it also led Briggs to even greater suspicion of the value of natural uranium it was very doubtful, he reported to Watson on April 9 whether a chain reaction can be established without separating 235 from the rest of the uranium. Nier, Dunning and their collaborators Eugene T. Booth and Aristide von Grosse had written much the same thing in the Physical Review on March 15 ... 

Leo Szilard was known by now throughout the American physics community as the leading apostle of secrecy in fission matters. To his mailbox, late in May 1940, came a puzzled note from a Princeton physicist, Louis A. Turner. Turner had written a Letter to the Editor of the Physical Review, a copy of which he enclosed. It was entitled Atomic energy from and he wondered if it should be withheld from publication. It seems as if it was wild enough speculation so that it could do no possible harm, Turner told Szilard, but that is for someone else to say. ... 

Within a day, Abelson recalls, I established that the 2.3-day activity had chemical properties different from those of any known element. [It] behaved much like uranium. Apparently the transuranics were not metals like rhenium and osmium but were part of a new series of rare-earth-like elements similar to uranium. For a rigorous proof that they had found a transuranic the two men isolated a pure uranium sample with strong 23-minute U239 activity and demonstrated with half-life measurements that the 2.3-day activity increased in intensity as the 23-minute activity declined. If the 2.3-day activity was different chemically from any other element and was created in the decay of U239, then it must be element 93. McMillan and Abelson wrote up their results. McMillan had already thought of a name for the new element— neptunium, for the next planet out beyond Uranus—but they chose not to offer the name in their report. They mailed the report, Radioactive element 93, to the Physical Review on May 27, 1940, the same day Louis Turner sent Szilard his transuranic theories anticipation and discovery can cut that close in science. 

In Kazan at the end of 1941 he heard from George Flerov, one of the two young physicists in his Moscow laboratory who had discovered the spontaneous fission of uranium in 1940 and reported their discovery in a cable to the Physical Review. Flerov had attended an international meeting of scientists in Moscow in October and heard Peter Kapitza, Ernest Rutherford s prot6g6, when asked what scientists could do to help the war effort, respond in part ... 

Fig. 38. Curve prepared by D. J. Hughes and J. A. Harvey (submitted for publication in the Physical Review) combining the results of the measured distribution of values for many isotopes. Resonances having very small...

Zeleny, J. (1914). Electrical discharge liom liquid points. The Physical Review, VoL 3 (2), 69-91. 

---