Appendix

Lynn Cominsky, chair of the SSU Physics department

Bob Jacobson, Physics Professor at UC Berkeley

 John David Jackson, writer of Physics texts and a Physics Professor at UC Berkeley

   1.. Are you familiar with the life and work of J. Robert Oppenheimer?

LC: Yes. Also that of his brother Frank, who started the Exploratorium in San Francisco.

BJ: Somewhat.  I never met him, but have read about him and talked with people who knew him.

JDJ: Yes

   2.. Oppenheimer took several stands during his career: The stand against Nazism with his leadership of the Atomic Bomb project

The stand against a global arms race by promoting open access to scientific information and discouraging the development of the "super-bomb"

The stand against political repression during the anti-Soviet McCarthy era when he chose to defend himself at the Security Hearing

Which of these stands do you feel is the most relevant today?

LC: I feel the third stand is most relevant today because 1) Nazism no longer exists as a major threat to today's free and open societies and 2) the super-bomb is already developed, so it is too late to stop it now. On the other hand, political repression and illegal spying by our government continues, so it is still an issue. I hope you have had the chance to see the recent movie "Good Night and Good Luck" about the McCarthy hearings, it is very informative.

BJ: By far the 1st one is most important and continues to be relevant today.  Reasonable people can differ about the global importance of the 2nd and 3rd, but there's little doubt that the Manhattan Project shortened the 2nd World War, and that's a good thing.

As to the 2nd point, I agree on the need for open access to scientific information.  On disarmament, however, I think Oppenheimer and others were sadly mistaken.  History sometimes takes a long time to make decisions clear, but it now is clear that Soviet Russia was a threat, that nuclear weapons did act as a deterrent to that threat, and they were therefore a part in overcoming that threat.

As to his defense, I'm not sure as to whether that was "political repression". Many of my colleagues at Berkeley agree that it was, and they may be right; I'm just not sure.  The issue was whether he should have a security clearance given some very, very troubling facts.  There was and is no doubt that others were spying for USSR, and that we had lost some very important information due to that.  It's harder to know whether the allegations about Oppenheimer were significant enough to indicate he was also a risk.

JDJ: None of them is exactly relevant today, but the prevention of proliferation of nuclear weapons and the security of the huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons in the US and the former Soviet Union are probably the most pressing concerns.

3. What is the difference between experimental physics and theoretical physics?

LC: Experimentalists perform experiments, build hardware and make measurements to test out the theories proposed by the theoretical physicists. There are also observational physicists, such as astrophysicists who cannot conduct experiments except by observing data that comes, for example, from stars and galaxies. These types of measurements can also be used to test theories. And there are also computational physicists who write big computer programs to solve equations to see what happens. Usually the equations represent someone's theories, like Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, for example. People can use computer programs to solve these equations, which then make predictions that can be tested using observations
made by astrophysicists.

BJ: Theoretical physics is mostly discussion, calculation & comparison of ideas.  It's a deeply social activity, as people try to understand the implications and consistency of each others ideas, confront them with others data, etc.  Experimental physics is much more a "one thing at a time" activity. It's still done in collaboration (usually), with multiple people working on different aspects.  But you're usually trying to learn about one thing, not trying to pull lots of things together in a single theory.

JDJ: Experimental physics is the doing of experiments to test theories or to develop new results (data) that extend our understanding of how nature works. Theoretical physics is the codification and explanation of a variety of experimental facts into a
coherent description that is capable of making predictions of the results of future different experiments. Usually it involves a lot of mathematics and complicated equations when some prediction turns out wrong, the theoretical physicist goes back to the drawing board and tries to modify his theory to keep the parts that agree with Mother Nature and correct the parts that don't work. His new improved theory gives us a larger and better picture of more facts. Experimenters are always trying to disprove existing theories. Theorists are always trying to get ahead of the experimenters and make correct predictions. That is how physicists enlarge our understanding of the Universe.

  4.. Do you have access to any first hand sources of Oppenheimer material; such as photographs, letters, speeches, or video tapes?

LC: Sorry, no.  There is a lot of stuff in the public domain, however.

BJ: Sorry, no.  But the physics library here at Berkeley might.  You can contact them via email at <skoskine@library.berkeley.edu>

JDJ: No, but Ron Kolb of the LBNL Public Affairs office, may have some materials. There are several recent books about Oppenheimer. Googling on Oppenheimer, or going to Amazon.com should give you some leads.

   5.. Are you at liberty to discuss your work at Sonoma State University, UC Berkeley, or LBNL?

LC: Yes. I am a professor and chair of the Physics and Astronomy department and I also lead a group of people who do Education and Public Outreach for NASA on behalf of several different astronomical satellites that study x-rays and gamma-rays from space from objects
like galaxies, black holes and pulsars. We train teachers, develop curricula for high school students, run a robotic observatory, develop planetarium and television programs, write interactive web games and have lots of fun. I also teach college students and go to lots of meetings. I travel a lot, usually once a month I go somewhere on an airplane.

BJ: I work both on the Berkeley campus and at LBL. I can talk about everything, because nothing I do is classified. (Neither the Berkeley physics department nor LBL does classified work)

JDJ: YES

   6.. Can you tell me about the security procedures?

LC: We have no security procedures at SSU, I do not have a security clearance. My husband, on the other hand, is also a physicist, and he has a "Q" clearance to work inside the gates at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Most of his work relates to astronomy, but sometimes detectors and software that he works on can be used for other things, like Homeland Security. Many years ago I worked on a theoretical paper about nuclear explosions on the surfaces of neutron stars. There were many similarities to nuclear explosions on the Earth, and I used software that was developed at LLNL by an astrophysical colleague which could be used to model both types of explosions. I never went inside the secure area at LLNL, though.

BJ: Not much, as there aren't very many other than the usual door locks to keep computers from being stolen, etc.

JDJ: LBNL is a totally unclassified laboratory in Berkeley. because there are many experimental machines that can cause injury if not used properly, the lab does control access to the site. Guided parties of students and other visitors can come, but otherwise employees and students doing research at the lab must show ID at the gates before being allowed in.

   7.. Do you feel that someone that has communist beliefs should be given a security clearance in today's world?

LC: I am not sure what you mean by "Communist beliefs." Communism, in the form that was practiced by the former Soviet Union, is pretty much gone as we know it. It still exists in China, but in a very different form. I think what is important is where are the loyalties of the person under consideration for security clearance. If they are a loyal US citizen, then they should be able to obtain a security clearance. However, if their beliefs are such that they are in favor of overturning our form of government, then they would pose a security risk, and should not be given a clearance.

BJ: Depends on what the job is.  It certainly would make me question their judgement, but so would somebody who believes the earth is flat.

JDJ: This is a bit of a loaded question. Today communism is largely a spent force. Only China, North Korea, and Cuba are overtly Communist countries. Certainly, US security clearance (e.g., at the nuclear weapons labs) should not be given to members of the Communist parties of these countries. But a US citizen with vague beliefs in communism (lower case C) as an ideal is another matter. He or she should be judge on all available criteria.

   8.. Do you think a person's political beliefs should impact their
chances for a job?

LC: Again, this depends on what you mean by "political beliefs." For example, if you want a job working on someone's campaign or for a political party, or for any one of the many non-profit groups that work on political issues, it would not work to have political beliefs that are counter to those of the employing organization.  On the other hand, the vast majority of jobs in this country, including that of a college professor, are not oriented towards politics, and therefore in these types of jobs, one's beliefs should have no impact.

BJ: That depends on the extent.  Minor beliefs, with no job impact, keeping them out of a job? Probably not.  Critical beliefs that effect their ability to do the job?  Probably yes.
Would you hire a vegan to herd cows? To grow corn?

JDJ: No, unless the position is overtly political, such as a member of the president's cabinet or his chief of staff. Even then exceptions occur. Norman Minetta, Bush's Secretary of Transportation, is a registered Democrat.

9. Do you think most of the current physics majors will end up in
weapons related jobs?

LC: No, I do not. We have done a study of where our graduates have ended up, which you can read about online here:

http://www.phys-astro.sonoma.edu/people/graduates/GradsAchievements.html

As you can see, very few of our grads works for a weapons laboratory or a military-type employer.

BJ: It's been a while since I've seen those numbers, but IIRC the real number is well less than 10%. (Physicists tend to be more interested in the numbers we can measure, rather than what we believe. If we're curious about something, we tend to ask "How can I measure that?" rather than say "Well, I guess it's about ..."

JDJ: NO

   10.. What other types of jobs are available for a physicist?

LC: Again, I would ask that you read the study. Most of our graduates are either teachers, engineers, computer programmers, scientific business people or scientific research assistants of some type or another. Getting a degree in physics is a great preparation for anything else that you might ever want to do, because if you can do physics (which develops excellent problem solving skills), you can do anything! And employers know that, which is why our grads are in such high demand.

BJ: You can get a lot of information about that, including some accurate numbers, from <http://aip.org/statistics/trends/emptrends.html>

JDJ: Physicists must know a lot about computing and mathematical analysis in order to do their physics research. They also are very broadly trained to analyze problems and seek solutions. They can find jobs in Silicon Valley industries, in stock market firms, in teaching of science in schools and universities, in basic and applied research laboratories.  Increasing numbers are studying biophysics, a union of biology with physics, and will find jobs in the biotech industry.