Selection from an interview with Ivan Supek
Ivan Supek (April 8, 1915 – March 3, 2007) is remembered by many as a distinguished physicist, the father of modern Croatian science, and the founder of the Ruđer Bošković Institute. Many remember him for his commitment to peace. Some will remember him for his political activism (never within any party), during the Croatian Spring, as well as during the 90s, when he fiercely opposed the Tuđman regime. At the same time, he was a writer who left behind numerous novels, plays, and poems. Success in all these seemingly different fields made him a unique figure, not only within our country but also much wider. Throughout his life, this great man collaborated with the greatest scientists of the 20th century, such as Werner Heisenberg, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr… He always fought tirelessly, guided by the principles of humanism, against scientific irresponsibility, party bias, and sycophancy of dictatorial regimes, which brought humanity to the brink. he did not directly address the impending nuclear war, his words also applied to many other phenomena with tragic consequences.
In the climate of greed of neoliberal capitalism, which has led to global recession, power redistribution, and the resurgence of the dark shadow of nuclear threat that easily turns into an arms race, Ivan Supek’s work remains as relevant today as it was when it was created.
I remember Ivan Supek. This remarkably tall man with an upright posture, often lost in thought or engaged in discussions. I would often encounter him at Zrinjevac. He was more than an inspiration to me, not only during my studies but also afterwards. Unable to resist, I once approached him and shook his hand, thanking him for everything he had done for humanity. After our brief conversation, he told me that the burden on us, the young people, was very heavy and that it was up to us to lead this world towards responsibility. The last time I saw him speak out against war was during the protest against the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Although he did not explicitly mention the impending nuclear war. In his speech, he briefly presented several thoughts about the civilizational abyss into which wild capitalism, which has gone out of control, pushes us all, and which, in its quest for market expansion, constantly creates new wars. We, as students, once invited him to give a lecture. He gladly accepted but did not want to give a lecture, instead preferring to have a conversation with us.
That is why, finally, two years after his death, I present this interview, which took place in April 2006, at the initiative of members of the Connect portal, with special thanks to Dr. Bojan Pečnik, who collected our questions and recorded the conversation. s akademikom Supek. Considering that it would be more accessible to the wider public, I transferred that conversation into a written form. In its raw form, the text was full of digressions, which often led the interlocutor’s thoughts far away from the asked question. In order to create a more coherent whole, I rearranged the questions and answers, added a few additional questions, but also supplemented some of Supek’s answers by taking sentences from some of his other texts.
You have often emphasized that your primary interest was not physics, but philosophy and literature. How did you, as a person with such interests, “stray” into physics?
Yes, I have always been more interested in literature and philosophy. In fact, I enrolled in my first doctorate in philosophy. However, then Werner Heisenberg appeared with the idea of the unity of man and the world and that it should be seen that way. That is the famous Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory. It was precisely because I wanted to delve into that depth, into the unity of man and Nature, because I wanted to develop a better understanding of the nature of reality. After pursuing philosophy on those foundations, I ventured into the realm of physics. Then it so happened that all the professors overestimated me, considering me highly talented and all that. As a result, I ended up obtaining a doctorate in theoretical physics, even though I had wanted to earn it in philosophy.
What was your contribution to physics? complex, in a collective. However, as soon as a collective is formed, it creates a much greater excited energy gap and the vibrations of the lattice cannot easily disturb it, as resistance arises from the vibration of the lattice. However, I have been trying to develop his idea for several months. Then one day in Leipzig, an experimental physicist, Professor Joss, came with a problem of sharp lines in the fluorescence spectra of superconductors, which he could not solve. If it is a solid body, then it has bands, so the spots should be visible. He told this to Friedrich Hund, and Hund came to me and asked if I could explain it. I said I would try. And indeed, after two or three weeks, I solved it, showing that the phononic interaction is a thousand times stronger than the photonic interaction, so all the electrons fall to the lowest level. This is why sharp lines are formed. With this explanation, I went to Heisenberg, and Hund said it was brilliant. We wanted to publish it, but there was one difficulty. I referred to a paper by Felix Bloch, But at that time, works by Jews could not be quoted without permission from the German Ministry of the Interior. I didn’t want to seek such a pointless permission, so that work fell through. It was only published after the war. However, Heisenberg still believed that his solution was valid. Even after the war, he believed in his hypothesis about electron collective behavior. However, it turned out that my idea actually led to a solution for superconductivity. Specifically, it was with that very hypothesis that John Bardeen and his colleagues Leon Cooper and John Robert Schrieffer successfully solved superconductivity in 1957, for which they received the Nobel Prize. If Heisenberg had accepted my idea at that time, we would likely have arrived at a solution for superconductivity soon. It is certain that Heisenberg’s differential and integral equations obey the principles of invariance. From the principles of particle invariance, symmetry, and others, much can be deduced, including superconductivity. I think both approaches are good, I have never been I believed that my way was the only correct one.
How was the Ruđer Bošković Institute established?
After the war, I no longer wanted to engage in physics. I had a sort of aversion to the whole situation following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don’t know, I was so involved in those peace movements, and the behavior of some physicists really angered me. It even made me feel sorry. However, during that post-war period, there was a great witch-hunt against theoretical physicists, quantum theory, and Einstein’s theory of relativity, so I still felt that I should somehow defend that theory. I thought that although I didn’t like the misuse of physics for militant purposes, the theory itself had nothing to do with it. I thought that if they asked me to come and teach, I would gladly accept that. We need to educate theoretical physicists who will be guided by humanism.
First, I worked as a professor at the Medical Faculty, and there I actually wanted to establish molecular biology. However, in the field of theoretical physics, there was complete ignorance. back then. The Academy was empty at the time. There was one professor of theoretical physics in Croatia who retired during the war, but who never really did anything and his dissertation was below the level of a master’s degree. It was very sad, and I felt it was my responsibility to elevate theoretical physics. I can say that I truly did elevate it. Around me, there were about ten young men, the most famous being the very talented Vladimir Jurko Glaser, and also Gaja Alaga, Boro Jakšić, Ivan Babić-Gjalski (son of Ksaver Šandor), Krunoslav Ljolje, Grossmann, Janković… These are all people who are also very well-known abroad and who were very good. In 1948, a rift occurred between Tito and the Stalinist bloc, and the possibility arose for me to start an institute for theoretical physics. Since I had the full support of Tito and Kidrič, who also wanted the institute, nobody really interfered. I had complete authority to do as I pleased.
You were politically active, even though you were never officially part of any party. How Could you explain that?
Yes, I have taken some political actions. I have never been a member of any political party or founded a party; for me, politics is much broader, it is the fight for the common good, as Aristotle defined it. Therefore, we all must engage in politics and come together. Of course, parties should not be interest groups, but should gather around ideas, and then the membership chooses which ideas will prevail. This is only possible if a political profession is not created. Politicians should not be paid, but should understand that it is the duty of each of us to engage in politics, to show our soul. If someone is paid for engaging in politics, and paid much more than others, a political profession is created that only thinks about its own interests. This has really happened, not only in Croatia but all over the world. Everywhere, this profession is immoral, full of corruption. Therefore, I was in favor of people creating parties, forming associations, etc. However, all of this should be based on a strong ethical foundation. you based on voluntary principle. That’s how, let’s say, Saint Paul spoke. He told the apostles and priests not to accept money. He told them that they must have their own profession. And he had his own trade, for which he received money. As soon as an interest sphere with a lot of money like the Church was created, Christianity disappeared. That should, you know, be one of the main lessons.
Can you comment on how we ended up with a very poor educational system? Was it better before?
I don’t think it was much better, people just read a bit more. I think with this globalization, trash literature and pseudo-art have infiltrated, actually dumbing down people so they don’t think about the essential problems of the world. This is not, as one might hastily conclude, the goal of a specific group of people, but rather a product of consumer society. Just look at the list of most read (i.e. best-selling) books. Therefore, globalization, with its focus on profit, has ruined culture and will ruin it even more. Would the introduction of ethics and similar subjects into all university studies create a more complete scientist? Can we predict the consequences of strict disciplinary specialization imposed on every scientist?
I don’t really believe in the discipline of ethics, as it can easily turn into some kind of religious education, which also hasn’t been very useful. I think all people, all professors should be imbued with the idea of humanism. You shouldn’t teach history if you don’t approach it from a humanistic perspective. Even mathematics should be viewed from a humanistic standpoint. In fact, all professors and educators must act in the spirit of humanism. Ethics, as a separate subject, is not necessary.
The knowledge of humanity is enormous, millions of pages of original contributions are written every year, in all fields of human activity. The speed of creating new knowledge is such that the total knowledge of humanity doubles every five years. However, it seems to me that the day is not far when we will reach maximum speed, k The speed of knowledge accumulation will begin to decrease. What is your opinion on this?
That is completely wrong. It is a confusion between knowledge and science itself. Science made its greatest progress somewhere between 1925 and 1933, so in those eight years more was accomplished than in the entire subsequent period. Some form of knowledge exists if you can prepare cosmetic products better than someone else, but I would not consider that as true knowledge.
As for research papers, there are too many being produced today. The error that has taken hold is what we refer to as “publish or perish.” However, Nature recently published a paper that was entirely generated by a computer. It was a sensation, and it was a paper in the field of chemistry. Thousands of scientific papers are published, but unfortunately, most of them are routine. There are several million chemical compounds and constant variations are being published, but that is not true knowledge. If a computer can produce a good paper, it actually shows what is being published today. We should publish what is truly significant. What matters is discoveries, what really brings something new, and not routine work.
In your famous text “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice”, you wrote: “And he (Leo Szilard, the unfortunate initiator of the atomic bomb) did indeed, in a moral hangover, give up deadly physics and switched to molecular biology, from which an equally disastrous scarecrow will be born.” Would he have reached that hangover if he had considered the future applications of his discoveries? Is it necessary for a scientist to think about the possibility of future (mis)use of their research? Or can a scientist assume that science is value-neutral and leave the results of their research to be used as politicians and businessmen see fit?
That was Teller’s thesis, with which I argued when we completely disagreed. Edward Teller claimed that it was the scientist’s job to investigate everything they could, regardless of the consequences. It is the politicians who should worry about how it will be applied. I responded that it is the responsibility of the scientist because they are giving people something to be used in their hands. what they will not responsibly implement. Therefore, all people are responsible for their actions, including scientists. My friend Leo Szilard was the first to come up with the idea of the atomic bomb and initially he was a passionate advocate for its construction. However, he was also Einstein’s friend and they even jointly patented some things in Berlin. When Hitler was at the peak of his power and victories, Szilard and Einstein wrote a letter to Roosevelt warning of the possibility of creating an atomic bomb. Roosevelt did not take it seriously. Then Szilard went to Enrico Fermi in Chicago and they built a nuclear reactor there. After the victory at Stalingrad and the defeat of Erwin Rommel in Africa, it was certain that Germany would lose the war.
Szilard then becomes the most bitter opponent of the atomic bomb and campaigns against it everywhere. Even in Los Alamos, people were divided. One part was in favor of suspending work, so Julius Robert Oppenheimer called a meeting with John Simpson, the leader of one of the groups. The scientific groups within the Manhattan project. He also didn’t know what to do from a Christian perspective. Then General Leslie R. Groves, the military chief of the project, questioned the justification of the billions of dollars invested in the project. It had to be used for the construction of an atomic bomb. And that was the main argument that shook them all. Because how could they justify it to the Senate, which would think that the money was wasted?
You see, money is a terrible thing. And politicians are especially horrible.
The first idea was to drop the atomic bomb on Kyoto, so Oppenheimer said, “Don’t destroy Kyoto, it is still a treasure trove of art.” Then they decided on an industrial center. As we all know, atomic bombs were dropped, hundreds of thousands of mainly innocent people were killed, and for many of us, our world collapsed.
Leo Szilard went into molecular biology after the war because it’s not a dangerous field. That’s why I also established molecular biology at the Ruđer Bošković Institute, justifying it by saying that during the atomic bombings, the importance of understanding the molecular basis of life became evident.
And that’s how molecular biology was born in Croatia. During the time of the Atomic War, there were concerns about heavy radiation, and we needed to prepare for it. As you know, even a single photon can cause mutations, so it had to be studied. Szilard would surely be against the unethical application of molecular biology today.
Do you see any similar social intentions on the global map today that could be initiators of an explosion in certain scientific disciplines? Can some new “matches” have such terrible consequences on the inhumane side?
I will say something that may shock many. The scientific and technological revolution has its good sides. It has expanded our horizons, it has led to many useful applications. However, it has also caused us a lot of harm. Not only that. It creates such a large production, it has such potential, that capitalism cannot tolerate it. The capitalist market is too small to absorb the tremendous capacity of our industry. Asymptotically speaking, the result is that a few industrial giants will dominate the entire market, because they essentially rule it. All The others will be without jobs, earnings, and anything. This is actually a complete failure. Therefore, this combination of scientific-technical revolution and capitalism definitely leads to bankruptcy and ruin.
It is important that the young people understand this.
The essence of capitalism is profit-making. Therefore, the domestic market cannot satisfy that, and then companies strive for exports. A dreadful competition for exports arises. However, this is not done peacefully, but it also requires going to war. The worst thing is that in order to increase the competitiveness of companies in the market, they have to drastically reduce social rights. Nevertheless, social democracy in Europe has managed to create workers’ rights, pensions, health insurance, etc. Now, these are being reduced again in order for us to become more competitive for exports. It is madness that the main focus of politics becomes exports. Production should be oriented towards the domestic people, towards us who live here.
In the era of the scientific-technical revolution, capitalism has become a hindrance, actually the world’s trouble. Politicians still do not realize this. They still think that this neoliberal Capitalism is the ideal of the world. This neoliberalism, initiated by John Williamson, was one of the ideas of the Enlightenment that was associated with all social rights. However, today it is no longer the case. They call it neoliberalism, but it is actually capitalist fundamentalism, which has the dogma of a free market, and this free market is dominated by technologically strong industrial giants that ruin all those who are weak, such as companies, economies, etc. It is a disaster. Until the world realizes that this capitalist globalization is the greatest enemy of humanity, we will not get out of this situation. Of course, this cannot be achieved through terrorist and anarchist actions, but we must fight against it through a clear understanding of the issue. I do not believe in violent methods. All these violent methods have brought more harm than good.
The deception of capitalism is that the free market is actually not free. It is a market in which the technically advanced destroy the weaker ones, and that is t and today’s globalization. When some of our people are enthusiastic about the processes of globalization, it only reflects the low level of our politics.
What remains today in Croatian society from your exceptional dedication to the principles of humanism and social justice, and what remains in the global community?
Very little remains of all that. In fact, we were all very disappointed after Hiroshima. However, at the same time, a new optimism was born. Namely, after World War II, the whole world was terrified of atomic bombs, and we managed to convince the world that general and complete disarmament was absolutely necessary. The pressure from these peace movements was so great that even the United Nations concluded that it was their most important and urgent goal. However, as you know, none of that came true, and instead, there was an even greater arms race.
I wrote quite a bit at that time. Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell founded the Pagvaško Society with their memorandum. In the beginning, the society contacted prominent scientists from the USSR R-A, United Kingdom, and USA. We established a permanent committee, consisting of three Americans, three Englishmen, and three Russians. I was the tenth member, representing a country outside these blocs. Our goal was general and complete disarmament. When the United Nations Declaration was adopted, an eighteen-member committee was established to achieve our goal.
Then about fifty of us met in Cambridge in 1962, and the most active person there was Philip Noel-Baker, who was also the President of the UN Disarmament Committee and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. He became and remained my best friend. But there were also many distinguished representatives from the USSR, USA, United Kingdom… We unanimously concluded that general and complete disarmament is in the interest of all humankind, achievable within four years, and beneficial to everyone. Our document was meticulously elaborated, and I provided significant assistance to Noel-Baker. The whole disarmament plan and action served as the basis for the meeting. after the UN Committee of Eighteen, which was held in Geneva. However, as it is known, they did not budge, so all our efforts were in vain.
I was the president of the Pagvaška Conference for Yugoslavia and we advocated for the same ideals. What is even more important, we published the magazine Encyclopedia Moderna, which was the first multidisciplinary and pluralistic magazine in Europe. This magazine advocated for the pluralism system that we wanted to prevail in the world, so we had some influence. I don’t know how much of that influence remains.
What would you leave for us young people from those efforts as something that should and must be fought and advocated for in the world we live in?
I think it is important for scientists to maintain a cosmopolitan spirit. The global society is truly endangered. It is endangered by atomic bombs, environmental problems, and even globalization, which truly leads to destruction. Therefore, I would say that the first thing is for scientists to feel responsible for the whole world, to be committed In the field of humanities, there should be a dedication to the principles of peace and global prosperity. I believe such an atmosphere prevailed at Ruđer Bošković. Within my group, none of the ten people were party members. They were cosmopolitans, slightly left-leaning, but they felt that scientific responsibility, and we all were humanists. I think that’s the most important thing.
The worst thing is when a scientist becomes a specialist who only focuses on their field, and it’s even worse when they serve the government and ideology. Scientists should detach themselves from any ideology, especially nationalism or religious fanaticism.
We have witnessed all those abuses of knowledge, those negative phenomena that occur when scientists act irresponsibly. Human irresponsibility is precisely the cause of all that nationalism, arms race, and capitalism out of control.
We dreamed of a better, more just world, a society based on the principles of humanism.
We tried to achieve that, but we failed. That’s why my whole life, more or less, has been about striving for a better world. one failure.
But you young people, if you have embraced all these ideas, you must implement them.
We lost the war.