Copenhagen Historical Sciences - Essay Example

Number Essay Review 4 July 2008 Copenhagen by Michael Frayn May sound anachronistic, but the various disciplines of human endeavour and enquiry do still suffer from a pompous sense of isolation and a pathetic lack of interdisciplinary approach that is stalling the unbridled progress of the entire humanity. To the much touted literary eggheads of today seeped in the established canons of art and creativity, it may seem absurd and unbelievable that the moral, ideological, philosophical and political issues associated with the intricacies and nuances of subatomic science could become the raw material for an intense and gripping drama. Still, the amazing fact is that a talented dream weaver like Michael Frayn has not only succeeded in contriving an engrossing drama revolving around the quantum science and scientists, but despite the worst predictions of the angels of doom, his literary master piece has gone ahead to reap all the well deserved critical and theatrical accolades, considering the much applauded stage renderings of his path breaking work 'Copenhagen' throughout the Europe and North America. 'Copenhagen' draws its inspiration form a much famous or we may say notorious historical incident that involves a meeting between the two patriarchs of quantum mechanics that is the Danish physicist Niels Bohr and his German protg Werner Heisenberg in 1941. Since then, this meeting had been a topic of intense debate, conjectures and surmises amongst the historians and scientists. Infact the recently released letters drafted by Niels Bohr have only added to the confusion and controversy associated with that brief collision of the two scientific luminaries at that momentous point of time. The incident in the play alludes to a critical period during the II World War when Denmark was invaded by the Nazis and was being retained as a protectorate state. Niels Bohr was a distinguished and immensely respected physicist of the times who decided to stay back in Copenhagen and was infact allowed by the Germans to continue to act as the director of the Institute of Theoretical Physics despite his Jewish origins. Werner Heisenberg, who was a German, came under the tutelage of Niels Bohr at more salubrious times in the mid 20s when he accepted a lectureship at the Institute. This lead to a series of ground breaking collaborations between the tow geniuses, that laid the foundations of the much famous Copenhagen interpretation. In March 1927, Heisenberg came out with his uncertainty principle that stated that it was impossible to determine the velocity and the exact position of a subatomic particle at the same time. Following this amazing revelation, Bohr enunciated his complimentarity principle in September 1927 that emphasized the dual nature of matter at the subatomic level and highlighted the simultaneous wavelike and particle like properties of matter. It is not a hidden secret that both the scientist parted ways and abandoned their friendly ties owing to the unpropitious political unfolding of the future that accentuated their ideological differences. Bohr being a half Jew was strongly averse to the tragic possibility of the Germans getting an atomic weapon while Heisenberg though not being an outright Nazi, was a self professed patriot who choose to support his nation in its scientific endeavors in those trying times. Both the scientists being aware of the possibilities inherent in the splitting of atom were not oblivious to its military implications. In 1941, Heisenberg came to see Bohr in the German occupied Copenhagen. What transpired between the two scientists in that short meeting is still an enigma. Whether Heisenberg wanted to eke out the details of the allied nuclear program from Bohr or whether he intended to solicit his support in preventing the development of A-bomb by both the sides is still open to conjectures. Frayn uses this incident as a literary context for his play and goes on to build an intense and enticing drama. Despite the best intentions of the scientific community, people and especially those who are unaware of the intricacies of scientific imagination, prefer to believe that scientific research is an intensely dry effort that is primarily associated with heartless and uncompromising equations, meticulous observations, emotionless gadgets and contraptions and dry dissertations. In 'Copenhagen', Michael Frayn seems to dispel this notion. Though he has used an historical incident as a backdrop for his play, the theme of this story is the human side of scientific research that is as much motivated by ideals and emotions as any other genre of cognitive enquiry. In the very beginning of his play, Frayn tries to trace the philosophical and ideological development of science right from the days when the theological doctrines reigned supreme to the linear certainty introduced by Newtonian Mechanics. The protagonists in the 'Copenhagen' are shown intensely vulnerable and conscious to the uncertainty inherent in their vouched interest that is quantum mechanics that has once again deprived the scientific fraternity of the surety, that was a legacy of the classical physics right from the times of Copernicus. This makes the two protagonists intolerably hazy about the relevance of human determination and personal decision making in the practical phenomenon unleashed by unprecedented developments in the subatomic physics. Such apprehensions are aptly surmised by the dialogue rendered by Bohr at the very start of the play: Throughout history we keep finding ourselves displaced. We keep exiling ourselves to the periphery of things. First we turn ourselves into a mere adjunct of God's unknowable purposes, tiny figures in the great cathedral of creation. And no sooner have we recovered ourselves in the Renaissance, no sooner has man become, as Protagoras proclaimed him, the measure of all things, that we're pushed aside again by the products of our own reasoning! We're dwarfed again as physicists build the great new cathedrals for us to wonder at - the laws of classical mechanics that predate us from the beginning of eternity, that will survive us to eternity's end, that exist whether we exist or not (2). 'Copenhagen' consists of only three protagonists that are Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr and Bohr's wife, Margrethe. Though the plot of the play hovers around that meeting between Heisenberg and Bohr in 1941, the entire drama is unfolded by Frayn in a very distant future when the World War had finally ended and all their worst nightmares had ultimately materialized and crystallized into authentic historical facts. The three characters eventually get together as the ghosts of the past in an austere stage setup propped by three chairs to conduct an autopsy on the unfinished business of that meeting in 1941. Frayn succeeded in elucidating the difference between the nature and temperament of the two physicists by pointing to the analogies between the approaches of the two protagonists in a skiing incident at Bayrishchzell (24). While Heisenberg comes forth as a temperamental and impetuous young man who swears by the mere authenticity of theoretical conclusions, Bohr turns out to be a much sober and fatherly figure that is always open to deliberation, consideration and a need for propriety. The character that ultimately takes the audience by surprise is that of Bohr's wife, Margrethe who though superficially projected to be homely and docile ultimately turns out to be the voice of reason in the whole episode. Though, both the physicists vouch to be logical and reasonable in their own ways, the underlying fact is that both of them are blinded and motivated by their individual perspectives, which makes the possibility of any meaningful synthesis if not resolution, that is the hallmark of any work of art, next to impossible. It is Margrethe that extends the much needed layman's perspective to this contentious encounter. Its is Margrethe that turns out to be the stable proton around which dance the two protagonists like the scintillating energy fields of two electrons, now merging into, now repelled by each other. Infact, Bohr at one stage realizes the vitality of listening to the dictums of commonsense when he stresses upon the need of being able to explain it all to Margrethe (65). It is Margrethe who clearly enunciates that scientific research is infact not a totally secular and unbiased activity as it is much vaunted to be. She blatantly points to the discrepancies and lacunas inherent in the personal conduct of the tow scientists that finally opens them up to the realization that their so called disinterested acts where not so devoid of personal ambition and hidden motives. She exposes the Heisenberg's highly individualistic zeal by saying that "within three months of publishing your uncertainty papers you're offered Leipzig (73). This tendency of the Margrethe to call a spade a spade dispels all the hollow idealistic mist that till now camouflaged the politics and ambition of these two ex comrades in arms and foments the ethical dilemma and moral obfuscation that haunts them till they begin to realize the close similarities between the uncertainty of quantum mechanics and the human inability to predict individual motives and tendencies. This unraveling of hidden motives of which the two physicists were even not aware of till now takes the entire discussion to the realm of unconscious. The predominant sentiment that Frayn leaves his audience with in the end is that of a looming uncertainty prevailing in the realm of human affairs that is so akin to quantum mechanics. Otherwise, how can one explain the undeniable historical fact that a conscientious idealist like Niels Bohr ended up in Los Alamos USA, playing a vital role in the fabrication of Hiroshima Bomb whereas a pragmatic and utilitarian theoretician like Werner Heisenberg never graduated beyond the nascent possibility of designing a nuclear reactor for purely peaceful purposes. This irony in the arena of human affairs and science is personified by the electron cloud like amorphous and nebulous state of the three protagonists near the end of the play when the three of them visualize themselves as the observer, the one being observed and the one observing oneself at the same time (87). Perhaps in this uncertainty lies the panacea for future scientific dilemmas. Eventually this is how some sort of meaningful synthesis is reached in the play where the uncertainty and complimentarity come to embrace each other in the end. The literary genre chosen by Frayn to give expression to the human and scientific dilemma under consideration that is a play is definitely the most apt format for this purpose. There exists a close affinity between scientific research and performing arts in the sense that both these disciplines involve tremendous inspiration, dedication, imagination, hard work and enthusiasm. However, the human side of scientists often remains obscure to common people, mostly because of the specialized language used by them. Such plays will definitely go a long way in introducing the interested masses to the passion and moral catechism inherent in the scientific research. One particular episode from the history of science, that aught to form the subject of some similar literary masterpiece is the enunciation of the Theory of Natural Selection by Darwin. Though many people know of the theoretical aspects of this episode, there exists little insight into the intense soul searching and dilemmas that Darwin must have come across while researching this seminal work that challenged the established religious, philosophical and scientific dogmas of his times. This can definitely make a fertile raw material and an inspiration for some similar engrossing and interesting play. What seems to be the crux of this insightful play by Michael Frayn that is 'Copenhagen' is that all the scientific research exists in a social milieu and thus can not isolate itself from the predominant bulwarks of a holistic social context that is politics, religion, ethics and morality. At the same time, the entire scientific endeavour is also open to the influences exerted on it by the concerned individuals. Thus the direction of scientific research is mostly determined by the tendencies of involved individuals and the influences exerted by the dominant social and political forces of the times. Though this gives way to ample uncertainty in the realm of scientific research, embracing this uncertainty is the only way to attempt a positive resolution to this often ignored dilemma. Total Words: 2000 Works Cited Frayn, Michael. Copenhagen. New York: Anchor Books, 2000 Read More