The 1930 Nobel Prize for Physics: A Close Decision?

Author(s): Rajinder Singh and Falk Riess

Source: Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 55, No. 2 (May, 2001), pp. 267-
283
Published by: The Royal Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/532100 .
Accessed: 16/06/2014 08:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Royal Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Notes and Records of
the Royal Society of London.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.48 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:10:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Notes Rec. R. Soc. Lond. 55 (2), 267-283 (2001) © 2001 The Royal Society

THE 1930 NOBEL PRIZEFOR PHYSICS:A CLOSEDECISION?

by

RAJINDERSINGHAND FALKRIESS

Departmentof Higher Educationand History of Science, Faculty of Physics,

Universityof Oldenburg,PO Box 2503, D-26111 Oldenburg,Germany

SUMMARY

Raman scattering(in Russia called combinationscattering)was discovered in 1928

by Indianand Russian scientists, at almost the same time. In 1930, the Nobel Prize
for Physics was awardedto the Indian scientist Sir C.V. Raman, F.R.S., while the
RussianscientistsG.S. LandsbergandL.I. Mandelstamwere rejected.The reasonsfor
this are illustratedby analysingthe nominationlettersfor the three scientists, as well
as the reportof the Nobel Committeefor the year 1930.

INTRODUCTION

In 1930, the coveted Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded to Sir C.V. Raman
(1888-1970) for his achievementsin the field of light scatteringandthe discovery of
the Ramaneffect. The effect deals with the scatteringof monochromaticlight from
substances.The spectrumof the scatteredlight gives informationaboutthe molecular
structure.
The discovery of the effect was hailed by an American physicist R.W. Wood
(1868-1955) as '.. .one of the best convincingproofs of the quantumtheory'.'Due to
the simplicity of the apparatus,2the application of the discovery in the field of
experimentalandtheoreticalphysics grew rapidly.Withintwo years and five months,
385 papers and five special monographswere published.3The significance of the
inventionwas so evident thatthe Nobel Committeedecidedto honourthe discoverer
within two years of the discovery.4
However, in the past, questions have been raised about the sharingof the prize
between the Russian scientists and Raman.For example, the authorsR.G.W.Brown
and E.R. Pike wrote, '...in view of all the circumstances, however, it would be
interestingto know why it was not sharedwith the Russians'.5Similarly,Raman's
biographer,G.H. Keswani,asked, 'Why did the Nobel Committeefor physics not vote
for the sharingof the prize by the ... Russians?'.6The famous Russian scientist I.L.
Fabelinskii pointed out: 'In 1930 ... the Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to
Raman alone for the discovery of combinationscattering',7and 'There remainsthe
question why the Russian physicists were not awardedthe Nobel Prize for physics

267

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.48 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:10:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
268 Rajinder Singh and Falk Riess

Figure 1. Sir ChandrasekharaVenkata Raman, ER.S. (Royal Society portrait.)

while the Indian physicist received the prize for exactly the same work done at the
same time. It is likely that no definite answer to this question will ever be given'.8
In this paper, an attempt is made to answer the questions posed above. It will be
argued that Raman's quick way of publication and his good contacts with the Western
scientific community played a crucial role in influencing the Nobel Committee in its
prize adjudication in favour of Raman.
After the extracted biographies of the three scientists, a short review about the
theoretical prediction of the effect, as well as the experimental work which led to the
discovery of the effect by Indian and Russian scientists, is given.

A SHORT BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE ON THE THREE SCIENTISTS

The data for G.S. Landsberg9 and L.I. Mandelstam°1 are taken from the well-known
Dictionary of Scientific Biography.
G.S. Landsberg(1890-1957): Landsbergreceivedhis graduationfromNizhniyNovgorod
(Gorky)and later enteredMoscow University.In 1915, he publishedhis first scientific
paperin collaborationwithN.N. Anfreevon the manufacturing of largeelectricalresistors.
During1918-1920he was lecturerat the OmskAgricultureUniversity.His contactwithL.I.
Mandelstambeganin 1925 at the Universityof Moscowandthey startedworkingon light
scatteringin crystals.Besideshis manyotherscientificstudies,themainonesto be mentioned
arehis methodof rapididentificationof alloyedsteelsby spectralanalysis,investigationsin
the field of combinationscatteringin organicsubstancesanddevelopmentof methodsand

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.48 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:10:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The 1930 Nobel Prize for Physics: a close run decision? 269

Ij.: i

Figure 2. Professor G.S. Landsberg, around 1950. (Courtesy of Professor L. Landsberg.)

At
theStrasbourg Physical Institute he came in contact with the famous Russian radio-
devices for spectral analysis. In 1940 he was awardedthe State Prize for his work on spectral
analysis. In 1946 he was elected as an active member of the USSR Academy of Sciences.
L.I. Mandelstam (1879-1944): After graduating from the Gymnasium in 1897 he entered
the University of Novorossysk in Odessa. Due to his political activities he was expelled from
the University. Later he continued his studies at the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics in
the University tof
achievements heStrasbourg.
most i At
rtatthat
oestime his field
anacte of interest
mmcontr othewas
f electromagnetic
first alte vibrations
S ating-current
and their applications in radio-technology. In 1902 he did his doctoratewith excellent marks.

physicist N.D. Papalexi, who later nominated him for the Nobel Prize. They worked together
on non-linear vibrations and the creation of radio-geodesy. Among his many other

parametrical generator with periodically changing inductivity and the radio-interference

method to measure precisely the velocity of propagation of radio waves.
After serving different institutes in 1925 he came to the Moscow State University as
professor of theoretical physics. Here began his collaboration with Landsberg. His interest
in light scattering went back to 1907. He was the first person to show that in a homogeneous
medium the scattering of light is due to the change in the density of molecules due to
thermal vibrations as predicted by Smoluchowski.
C.V. Raman (1888-1970): A compendium of Raman's life given below is taken from his
11-
biographies.
Raman was a brilliant student. After finishing his education he joined the Indian Finance
Service and was posted in Calcutta. During his leisure time he accomplished research in the
laboratory of the Indian Association for the Cultivation of Sciences (IACS), which was
established in 1876. Due to Raman's publications and popularity among the scientific

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.48 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:10:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
270 RajinderSingh and Falk Riess

community of Calcutta he was appointed Professor at the University College of Science,

Calcutta.His initialwork was relatedto the field of acoustics. Due to his work on acoustics and
optics in 1924 he was elected as a Fellow of The Royal Society of London. His fields of interest
were acoustics, wave-optics, magneto-optics, X-ray spectroscopy, Raman scattering, etc. He
also established scientific journals such as the Indian Journal of Physics, the Proceedings of
IACS, CurrentScience and the Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Science (IAS). In 1934
he startedthe IAS Bangalore and remained its presidentuntil his death in 1970.

The abovebiographiesshow thatfor all threescientists,the problemof light scattering

was one theircommonfields of research,which eventuallyled to the discoveryof the
Ramaneffect.

BACKGROUND TO THE DISCOVERY

Theoreticalprediction
The velocity of lightin a mediumdependson its wavelengthor frequency.The process
is nameddispersion.In 1922, the firstattemptwas madeby C.G. Darwin(1887-1962)
to explainthisphenomenonon the basis of quantumtheory.He calculatedthe quantum-
spectralfrequenciesof molecules,which come intoplay due to the interactionbetween
waves and molecules.'8But Darwinwas criticized'9as he did not follow strictlythe
fundamentallaw of conservationof energy,accordingto which energycan neitherbe
creatednor destroyed,but remainsunchangedbefore and aftera process.
The Austrian scientist A. Smekal (1895-1959) claimed that before Darwin, he
himself had triedto explainthe phenomenonof dispersion,but he felt thathis results
were not quiteuseful because like Darwinhe foundit difficultto maintainthe energy
balance between radiationand matter.Smekal, by assuming that light has quantum
structure,had shown thatmonochromaticlight afterscatteringwill have not only the
original frequencybut also frequenciesof higher and lower wavelengths.20His idea
that in the scattering processes, the correspondence between the dispersion
eigenfrequenciesandquantum(theoretical)spectralfrequenciesof the atomicsystems
are fundamentallyrelatedto each other,led to the derivationof a dispersionformula
on the basis of Bohr's correspondenceprinciple(i.e. the dispersiondue to an atom in
a stateof high quantumnumberis the same in classical andquantumtheories222).The
complete explanationin terms of quantumtheory of the absorption,scatteringand
dispersionprocesses was given by Kramersand Heisenbergin an excellent article,
which aimed to explain the structureof atoms in terms of quantummechanics and
Bohr's correspondenceprinciple.23This paperremainedthe 'cornerstone',although
in this directionsome work was done by Niels Bohr (1885-1962),24M. Born et al.,'2
P.A.M.Dirac (1902-1984),26K.F. Herzfeld27and Smekal.2829
It is ratherstrangethat the experimentalistsdid not take note of these theories.A
probablereason could be that the concepts of the new quantummechanicswere yet
to be completelyunderstood.For example,in 1926, E. Schr6dinger(1887-1961) and
Dirac gave two different formulationsof quantummechanics, and a third one was
given by W. Heisenberg(1901-1976) just a few months later.30

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.48 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:10:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The 1930 Nobel Prizefor Physics: a close run decision? 271

Althoughin orderto give creditto thetheoristSmekal,theeffecthas oftenbeennamed

as the Smekal-Ramaneffect in Germanliterature,3' as faras the discussionof the Nobel
Prize is concerned,Smekal'sname is irrelevantas the reportof the Nobel Committee
shows he was not nominated.Thus our discussionwill be limitedto Russianscientists
andRamanalone,who came to the discoverythroughentirelydifferentroutes.

Light scattering and the experimentaldiscoveryof the Ramaneffect

The blue colour of the sky was one of the earliest phenomena to attracthuman
interest. The notion that the brightness of the daytime sky is due to 'reflection' of
sunlight by particles contained in the air was formulatedby Alhazen of Basra, the
Arabic physicist who carriedout much of his work in Cairo during the early 11th
century.32 In ca. 1500, Leonardoda Vinci suggestedthatthe colourof the sky was due
to the action of finely divided matter,renderingthe atmospherea turbidmedium.33In
the second half of the 19thcentury,the experimentalresultsof differentscientistshad
established that small particles scatter light of bluish colour and scatteredlight is
polarized.32In 1881, LordRayleigh34(1842-1919) pointed out thatthe blue colour of
the sky had nothing to do with the suspendedparticlesin the atmospherebut is due
to the scatteringof light by the airmolecules. He had shown thatthe scatteringpower
of waves is inverselyproportionalto the fourthpowerof the wavelengthof light.35 Thus
the blue partof the sunlightspectrum,being of shorterwavelength,is responsiblefor
the blue colour of the sky. As far as the blue colour of the sea is concerned, Lord
Rayleigh was of the opinion that 'the much-admireddarkblue of the deep sea has
nothing to do with the colour of water, but is simply the blue of the sky seen by
reflection'.36Raman disapprovedLord Rayleigh's view and showed that the blue
colour of the sea is caused by the diffractionof light by water molecules.37
As far as the discoveryof the effect is concerned,Ramanfirst gave its description
in his lecture,which was deliveredon 16 March1928 andpublishedon 31 March1928
in the IndianJournalof Physics. Accordingto Raman,by 1923 scatteredlight with a
changeof wavelengthhadalreadybeen observedby his studentK.R.Ramanathan, who
was checkingthe effect of wavelengthon the polarizationof the scatteredlight.38And
in 1925 it was observedby K.S. Krishnan,who extendedRamanathan's work.39In 1925,
the CalcuttaGrouptriedto photographthe spectrum,butbecausethe intensitywas very
low, it was not successful.Forthe samereasonthe effect couldnot be detectedin gases
in the following years.40Ramanstatedfurther:
Earlythis year(1928), however,a powerfulimpetusto furtherresearchwas providedwhen
I receivedthe idea thatthe effect was some kind of opticalanalogueto the type of X-ray
scatteringdiscoveredby Prof.Compton,for whichhe recentlyreceivedthe Nobel Prizein
Physics. I immediately undertook an experimentalre-examinationof the subject in
collaborationwith Mr.K.S. Krishnanandthis has provedvery fruitfulin results.41
In the publicationentitled,'A new type of secondaryradiation',RamanandKrishnan
observed that in 60 liquids and vapours they had found the scattered secondary
radiation with degraded frequency. To stress that it was not fluorescence,42they
pointed out thatthe scatteredlight was polarizedand had high intensity.43
This paper
was communicatedon 16 February1928 andpublishedon 31 March 1928. However,

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.48 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:10:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
272 RajinderSingh and Falk Riess

the spectroscopicproof of the phenomenon(see figure 3) and its correlationto the

Kramers-Heisenbergtheorywas given in the above-mentionedlecture.4'
Russian version
The study of molecular scatteringof light in the Soviet Union began as a result of
Mandelstam'sefforts.Mandelstam,while workingon Einstein'sand Debye's theory
of specific heat of solids, came to the conclusion thatwhen light of frequency(v) is
scatteredby a crystal,it would not only be diffractedby the Debye elasticwaves acting
as a grating,but in additiontherewould be a frequencyshift (Av) in the scatteredlight
caused by the elastic waves propagatingwith the velocity of sound. The frequencies
of the scatteredlight can be determinedby the following Brillouinequation:

v'=v+Av, (1)

where Av is given by:

Av=+2nv v)sin 20. (2)

\c}

In the above expressionn is the refractiveindex, 0 is the scatteringangle and v and

c are the velocities of sound and light, respectively.
The Russianscientistswho were searchingfor the above-statedfrequencyshift in
quartzand iceland spar noticed that the observed wavelength or frequency shift is
different from the expected. They were sure that they had discovered a new
phenomenon. As far as the explanation of these new lines in the spectrum was
concerned, they stated that it was too early to give a definite result. One of the
theoreticalexplanationscould be that duringscattering,at the cost of the energy of
the scatteringlight, some of the infraredfrequenciesof quartzareexcited,which leads
to the change in the frequencyof the scatteredlight.44
In general,the publicationsof Ramanand Krishnanin Nature43and of Landsberg
andMandelstamin Die Naturwissenschaften44 areconsideredthe announcementof the
In
discovery.45 fact, their chosen methods of publication played a crucial role in
determining who won the discoverygame. In the following section, this point will be
elaboratedin detail.

THRILL OF QUICK PUBLICATIONS

I.L. Fabelinskii(who was a studentandco-workerof Landsberg'sfor a long time and

knew him well) reportsabout the method of publicationof the Russian discoverers
as follows:
.. Theydidnot rushto publishtheirresults.Morethanthat,aftersomeparticularstudyhad
been carried out, and even after a paper had been written for publication, they did not

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.48 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:10:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The 1930 Nobel Prizefor Physics: a close run decision? 273

immediatelysend it off to a journal;insteadthey let is [it] sit in the drawera while. While
the paperwas sittingin the draweranotheridea couldbe addedor, if necessary,the shades
of meaningof some expressioncouldbe refinedor changed.7

Also, '...and even such cautious physicists as Mandelstam and Landsberg ... never
made haste to push on their publications...'.8 In anotherpaper, he observed, 'The
Russian scientists, unfortunately,were in no hurryto reporttheir discovery of the
effect, which they studiedin crystallinequartzand calcite, i.e. in solids. News of the
discovery reached print only in July'.7But in this particularyear of the discovery,
anotherimportantreason for the delay in sendingthe results for publicationwas that
a relative of Mandelstam'shad to be helped to obtain a dischargefrom prison after
he was arrestedon 15 March 1928 for some reason.8
Raman,on the otherhand,believed in quickpublication.One of Raman'sstudents
who was with him in Calcuttaobserved:
He [Raman]was so very criticalin composingandeditingscientificpapers... thatoftenit
mayget too lateforpostingthepaperto thepublishersin theordinarymanners.Buthe would
hail a taxi andrushto the GeneralPostOffice,paylatefee andget a paperdespatchedin the
nick of time.46
As faras the particularpaperrelatedto the discoveryis concerned,he took specialcare.
For example, on 16 March 1928 he deliveredan addressto the SouthIndianScience
Association, Bangalore,andthis lecture,entitled 'A new radiation',4'was '.. .written
out immediately on his returnto Calcuttaand printedovernightby courtesy of the
CalcuttaUniversityPress. ...Thousandsof reprintsof this unique articlewere posted
the same day to scientists all over the world'.46As the IndianJournal of Physics had
only recentlybeen launched(in 1927) anddid not have much of a circulationin 1928,
in orderto give maximumpublicityto his discoveryRamanobtained2000 reprintsof his
historicpaperafterpublicationin theIndianJournalof Physicsandpostedit to all physicists
of importanceincludingthoseworkingon the scatteringof lightin France,Germany,Russia,
CanadaandtheUSA, andto scientificinstitutionsall overtheworld,thusensuringRaman's
priorityto the discovery....47
After the publicationof the Russians'results,Ramanwas worriedaboutthe question
of priority.The rescue came from Germanyin the form of an articleby the German
scientist,P. Pringsheim(1881-1963), who was a well-known authorityin the field of
fluorescence,luminescenceandlight scattering.He repeatedRaman'sexperimentand
confirmed the result. In the German-speakingareas, he coined the term 'Raman
effect'.48 After this paper was published, Raman was sure that the matterhas been
decided in his favour,as one of Raman'sstudentsobserved:
He [Raman]told us that the controversyaboutthe priorityof the discoverywas settled
whenthe effect was namedafterhim alone.Thiswas in referenceto the discoveryof some
new lines in the spectraof light scatteredby some transparent
crystalsmadeby Landsberg
andMandelstam...49
The above discussion leaves no doubt that Raman believed in quick publication,
whereasthe Russianswere much slower. The law of 'first come first served' was and
is the backboneof research.Ramanunderstoodit well. Not only that, he knew how
to fight for the priority.

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.48 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:10:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
274 RajinderSingh and Falk Riess

DEFENDING THE PRIORITY

The bibliography
The most effective document with which Raman defended the priority was the
bibliography,containing 160 papers listed chronologicallyaccordingto the date of
publication.50Ramanhad shown that before the Russians' first paperwas published
in the Frenchjournal ComptesRendus on 9 July 1928, 15 otherpapershad already
been published.They were mainlythe work of IndianandFrenchscientists.The most
importantpoint is thatsome of the listed papersare commentedon in such a way that
readersget the impressionthatRamanwas in factthe discoverer.For example,the first
paperfrom Landsbergand Mandelstam5'has been commentedon as follows:
In thiscommunication
theauthorsreferto theworkof RamanandKrishnan in
published
Natureanddescribeobservationsof the sameeffectmadeby themin quartzandiceland-spar,
usingthe mercuryradiationsfromX 2482 to X4358.50

And LandsbergandMandelstam'ssecondpaper,4which was communicatedon 6 May

1928 got the remarks:

The authors refer to the work of Raman and Krishnan published in Nature (see notes 2 and
52
3)43 with which they were acquaintedbefore their communication was sent for publication.
The spectrum of scattering in quartz is reproduced (see also note 1651).50

It is very likely thatRamansent reprintsof the bibliographyto well-knownscientists.

For example, Ernest Rutherford(1871-1937) and C.T.R. Wilson (1869-1959) in
their nominationletterwrote:
We regret that we have been unable to prepare in time a list of his more important papers,
but for your guidance we are sending by separate parcel a list of many of the various
publications relating to the Raman Effect which has been preparedby one of his students.
Many new papers have appeared since this publication.53

On 27 April 1928, the Russian scientist Landsbergpresentedhis results at an optics

colloquium at the Institute of Physics of the People's Commissariat of Public Health.
Later, in the sixth congress of Russian physicists, which began in Moscow on 5
August 1928 and ended on 15 August in Saratov, Professors Mandelstam and
Landsberg reported the discovery entitled 'A new effect accompanying the scattering
of light'. This congress was attended by 21 foreign scientists, who included Dirac, P.
Debye, L. Brillouin, Darwin and Born.

THE FACTS OF CREDIT FOR SIMULTANEOUSDISCOVERY

Fabelinskii7andBrownandPike5areof the opinionthatDarwin,RutherfordandBorn

gave credit to the Russian scientists and Raman for the simultaneousdiscovery. In
particular, they quote the Presidential Address of Rutherford to The Royal Society.54
There is no doubt that Rutherford stated: 'an excellent account of these beautiful

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.48 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:10:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The 1930 Nobel Prizefor Physics: a close run decision? 275

experimentswas given this year by RamanandKrishnanin ourProceedings. Similar

effects were observedby LandsbergandMandelstamby examiningthe light scattered
by certaincrystals.54But in the same lecture,while describingthe mechanismof the
effect, the speaker observed, 'Changes to these states correspondto the Raman
effect...'54(emphasisadded).The use of this termleaves no doubtto whom Rutherford
gives credit. Another factor that cannot be ignored is the nomination letter of
RutherfordandWilsonto the Nobel Committee,which was writtenbarelytwo months
after the 'PresidentialAddress'. The nominationletter written on 25 January1930
reads: 'We desire to recommendfor the Nobel Prize in Physics, Sir Chandrasekhara
VenkataRamanF.R.S.,PalitProfessorin the Universityof Calcutta,for his discovery,
generallyknown as the RamanEffect...'53(emphasisadded).This also shows that,for
Rutherford,Ramanwas the discoverer.
As far as Darwin was concerned,afterreturningfrom the Russian conferencehe
wrote in Naturethatthe RussianscientistsLandsbergandMandelstam'describedhow
they had independentlydiscoveredRaman'sphenomenon,the scatteringof light with
changed frequency'.5556 Raman was offended by this article and replied immediately
in a letterto Naturein which he statedthat: 'Their [the Russians'] paperappearedin
printaftersixteen otherprintedpaperson the effect, by variousauthors,had appeared
in recognised scientific periodicals'57(emphasisin original).
Born, in a mentioned
footnote, that the reporthadbeen preparedwith the help of his
RussiancolleaguesLasaraeff,JoffeandWawiloff.58 if theygive more
It is understandable
importanceto theircountrymen. Also, in theparagraph wheretheymentionLandsbergand
Mandelstam's achievements,theauthorstwiceusedtheterm'Ramaneffect'.Forexample:
...from G. Landsberg and L. Mandelstam ... on a new process of light scattering in quartz
and iceland spar,and from P. Pringsheim ... on the Raman effect and the infra-redbands...;
an excellent article from P. Pringsheim on this Raman effect is to be found in volume 31
of this Journal.59(Translated from German, emphasis added.)
Even Born and his Russian colleagues in their own article acceptedthat the Raman
effect had become a reality,before the work of the Russianswas publishedor known
to the scientific community(emphasis added).
It was not enough to defend the priority.The next step was to find the renowned
Westernscientistswho shouldnominatea personforthe Nobel Prize.AlthoughRaman
was sure it was a first-ratediscovery and that some of the physicistswould nominate
him, he did not believe in the 'game of chance'60
or 'luck'. He took pragmaticstepsand
asked for help fromhis Westerncolleagues, as we shall see in the next section.

RAMAN'S CONTACTS WITH THE WESTERN SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY

In the life of a successfulperson,the contactson official as well as privatelevels are

important.Probably,in thepoliticalsituationof thattime,Russianscientistsdidnot have
open contactsoutsidetheirown country.On the otherhand,even beforethe discovery
Ramanhadalreadyhadofficialorprivateinvitationsto visit well-knownscientistssuch
as Rutherford(in England),Bohr (in Denmark)andR.A. Millikan(in the US).

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.48 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:10:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
276 RajinderSingh and Falk Riess

Ramanknew that he should obtain supportfrom the senior Nobel laureateswho

had the rightto nominate.One of Raman'sstudents,who was with him in those days,
narratesthatfor this purpose'He [Raman]approachedboth Sir ErnestRutherfordand
ProfessorSiegbahn'.4In fact, Rutherfordand Wilson wroteto the Nobel Committee:
...We areboth of [the]opinionthatRamanis a physicistof exceptionalability,who in the
difficultconditionsin his owncountryhasbuiltup a successfulschoolof researchwhichhas
alreadyproducedwork of high quality.He is a man strongboth on the theoreticaland
experimentalside andthis is well illustratedby manyof his papers.We areof the opinion
thathis workis of the outstandingqualityrequiredfor this greathonour.53
Another Nobel laureateand the father of moder atomic physics, Niels Bohr, had
congratulatedRamanon the discovery as follows: 'I take this opportunityto express
my most cordialcongratulationsto you to your greatdiscovery of the new radiation
phenomenonwhich has addedso immensely to our knowledge of optics and atomic
physics'.61At the end of 1929, RamanaskedBohrto nominatehim for the Nobel Prize
He did not know thatBohr had alreadynominated
so thatthe prize may go to India.62
him for the year 1929,63and would repeathis proposalfor the year 1930.

Swedishscientists
The reportpreparedby the Nobel Committeewas signed by H. Pleijel, M. Siegbahn,
V.C.Gyllenskold,E. HulthenandC.W.Oseen, some of whom were knownto Raman.
For example, the correspondence of B.B. Ray (1894-1944)-a colleague of
Raman's-shows that Raman had contact with Siegbahn.64Also C.W. Oseen
(1879-1944), who held the Chairof TheoreticalPhysics at the Universityof Uppsala
and laterthe directorshipof the Nobel Institutefor TheoreticalPhysics, was known
to Raman,as a lettershows.65Althoughthe contactwas normalbetweentwo scientists,
sometimes communicationalso leads to sympathy.This can be supportedby the
argumentthat before the discovery, from 1900 to 1929, not a single Indianscientist
even got an invitationto make a nomination.The goodwill of the Nobel Committee
in favourof Ramancan be judged fromthe invitationto nominatecandidatesextended
to Professors D.M. Bose (1885-1975) and S.K. Mitra (1890-1963), both from the
Universityof Calcutta,whereRamanwas teaching.Theirnominationlettersdated25
January1930 show that they did not nominate Raman, but anotherfamous Indian
scientist, the astrophysicistM.N. Saha.66
The list of nominatorsas well as that of the members of the Nobel Committee
shows thatRaman'scontactwith importantpersonssupportedhis case. Mostprobably
this was not the case with the Russian scientists. Although Born and Darwin had
shown compassionby writing articles in Die Naturwissenschaften59 and Nature55in
favourof Landsbergand Mandelstam,it appearsthatthey did not seek the supportof
their countrymento proposethem for the Nobel Prize.

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.48 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:10:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The 1930 Nobel Prizefor Physics: a close run decision? 277

THE NOBEL PRIZEPROPOSALS

IN 1930

Thefoundation of the Nobel Prize

The Nobel Foundationwas establishedunderthe terms of the Will of Alfred Nobel
(1833-1896), drawnup on 27 November 1895. Accordingto the relevantpartsof the
will, the interestof the capitalshouldbe dividedinto five equalpartsandbe distributed
annuallyin the form of five prizes, which shouldbe awardedin the fields of physics,
chemistry,physiology or medicine, peace and literature.The prizes for physics and
chemistryshould be awardedby the (Royal) Swedish Academy of Sciences.67
In orderto take action accordingto the will of the founder,the Nobel Committee
sends invitationsduringthe monthof Septemberto competentpersonsto put forward
proposals,which have to be submittedbefore 1 Februarythe following year.Previous
Nobel laureates,the membersof the Nobel Committeefor physics and chemistry,the
membersof the Swedish Science Academy,physics and chemistryprofessorsat the
universitiesand institutesof technology of Sweden, Denmark,Finland,Iceland and
Norway,andthe KarolinskaInstitute,chair-holdersat inviteduniversitiesandspecially
invitedindividualshave the rightto proposeone or more candidates.68
In 1929, C. Fabry (France) recommended J. Cabannes and C.V. Raman; and
Bohr's proposalwas thateitherR.W.Woodor R.W.Woodand Ramanshouldget the
Nobel Prize for Physics. In thatyear, 48 nominatorssent 97 proposalsandproposed
29 persons,69but none of them mentionedthe Russian scientists. 'For the year 1930,
39 competentpersons were asked to make proposals. Out of them 37 persons sent
proposals.Therewere 21 validrecommendationsfor a full or sharedprize'70(translated
from Swedish). In the list of 21 proposed candidateswere the foundersof quantum
mechanicssuch as Born, Heisenbergand Schrbdinger.The lattertwo were nominated
six and nine times, whereas Ramanwas nominated 10 times. F.L. de Broglie, H.M.
de Broglie, R. Pfeiffer, J. Stark,E. Rutherfordand C.T.R. Wilson proposed Raman
alone; whereasE. Bloch suggestedR.W.Wood and C.V.Raman.Bohr was for Wood
or Wood and Raman and J. Perrinwas of the opinion that Raman or Raman and
Heisenbergshould get the prize.71As far as the Russiannominatorswere concerned,
N. Papalexi of Leningradproposedthat the prize should go to Mandelstamalone,72
whereas O. Chwolson statedthat Ramanshould get half of it and the rest should go
to Landsbergand Mandelstam.73

THE ARGUMENTS OF THE RUSSIAN NOMINATORS AND

THE OPINION OF THE NOBEL COMMITTEE

To show the argumentsof the Russiannominators,their lettersare given in detail in

the following paragraphs.
The RussiannominatorChwolsonfromLeningradstatedin his proposalas follows:
On March 31st, 1928 in the English Journal Nature a communication appeared, signed by
Prof. C.V. Raman in Calcutta on Feb. 16, in which the researcher describes the new
phenomenon discovered by him. It is now well known under the name 'Raman Effect'.

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.48 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:10:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
278 Rajinder Singh and Falk Riess

Now undoubtedly Professors G.S. Landsberg and L.I. Mandelstam in Moscow have
seen and explained the same phenomenon on February21st. Prof. Max Born from Gottingen
knows the situation exactly and has published something about it. Unfortunatelythe Russian
scientists did not hurry to make their discovery known. If they had written to Nature on
February21st, their communication would have been published earlierthan Raman's; in that
case there would not have been a 'Raman Effect', but a 'Landsberg-Mandelstam Effect' or
an effect designated to all the three names. Therefore it would be unjust to attach such a
decisive importance to the accidental omissions of the Russian researchers. I allow myself
to propose the following: The Nobel Prize for Physics for 1930 to divide: one-half to
Professor C.V. Raman (Calcutta) and one-half to Professors G.S. Landsberg and L.I.
Mandelstam in Moscow.73(Translatedfrom German.)

The second nominator, Papalexi, after telling the importance of 'combination scattering'
(emphasis in original) for radiation theory, stated that the discovery deserves the
Nobel Prize. He wrote:
... Thisnew phenomenonthepossibleexistenceof whichalreadywas madeplausibleby A.
Smekal (...) on the basis of quantummechanicalconsiderationsis discoveredin 1928
practicallyat the sametime andabsolutelyindependentlyfromeach otherby C.V.Raman
and K.S. Krishnan (...) in liquids, and L. Mandelstam (...) together with G. Landsberg in
crystals.
Thisdiscovery,whichrepresentsan instructiveexampleof parallelismin scientificworks,
resulted from Mr. Mandelstam'smany years' work in experimentaland theoretical
investigationson light-scatteringby molecules.The resultsareto be foundin Landsberg's
andhis students'publications,whichhavebeena sourceof motivationforotherresearchers
workingin this field. In particularL. Mandelstam'spublicationsin Annalenfir Physik
B23, 626 (1907) andB41, 606 (1913) areto be referred,which have essentiallyhelpedto
explain the theoreticaland experimentalrelationin this field. Startingfrom theoretical
considerations aboutthenecessityof the occurrenceof scatteredradiationcausedby thermal
motion with frequencies which are different from the frequency of the incident
monochromaticradiationL. Mandelstamlooked for a possibilityto ascertainthis effect
experimentallysince 1918. ...After these attemptshadled to the discoveryof combination
scattering... L. Mandelstamandhis studentsexaminedthisradiationin differentsubstances
in severalpapers....
In considerationof these resultsI feel free to permitmyself to propose... ProfessorDr
LeonidMandelstam... as a candidatefor the Nobel Prize for Physics in the year 1930.72
(TranslatedfromGerman.)

Thus in his letter, Papalexi claimed that already in 1918, Mandelstam had come to the
idea about the existence of scattered light with changed frequencies, but he did not
publish his results until 1926 in a Russian journal. However, the Committee was of
the opinion that Smekal, in 1923, and Kramers and Heisenberg, in 1925, had already
given this explanation.74The claim of the Russians for the prediction of the effect on
the basis of theory was rejected.75As far as the experimental discovery was concerned,
the Committee reported as follows:
If we see Mandelstam'sand Landsberg'sfirstpublicationin Naturwissenschaften 16, 557
(1928), we get a differentpicture.The shortnote hadbeen dated6th May andexplainsthe
discoveryof combinationlinesof thediffuselightin crystallinequartz.Theexistenceof these
lineshasbeenshownexperimentally, butaboutthe interpretationof the linesthe authorssay,
'We considerit to it be prematureat this momentto give a definiteinterpretation of the

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.48 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:10:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The 1930 Nobel Prize for Physics. a close run decision? 279

phenomenon in question. One of the theoretical interpretationswhich is possible consists of

the following...' (translatedfrom German), in which the authors gave the same statement as
Raman. And furtherthey said, 'Whether and in what way the phenomenon observed by us
is connected with the one which was recently described by Raman cannot be judged at the
moment because of its rather summary description' (translated from German). However,
Raman's and Krishnan's letters to Nature of March 31st as well as that of April 21st gave
a very clear explanation of the nature of the phenomenon (both cited by Mandelstam and
Landsberg). Under these conditions, Mandelstam and Landsberg cannot argue to have
obtained their experimental results independently.76(translated from Swedish)

Another point that favoured Raman is that like the discoverer,57the Committee also
believed that the universality of the phenomenon was established by Raman. It reported:
Ramanmade sure of the universalcharacterof the phenomenonby carryingout a large
numberof observations.In this comprehensiveanalysishe foundca. 80 substanceswhich
show the effect.7(TranslatedfromSwedish.)

And further:
Raman's first observation(Ind.J. Phys. 2, 387 (1928)) mainly covers liquids. However, he also
mentionsthatthe effectis to be foundin gases(CO2,NO2)andin solids,quartzor ice-spar.In
a workby RamanandKrishnan(Ind.J. Phys.2, 389 (1928))a numberof differentliquidslike
benzene, pentane, ether, methyl alcohol, water and others were examined and the new
frequencies were comparedwith infraredabsorptionfrequencies.78(Translatedfrom Swedish.)
The above paragraph leaves no doubt that the Committee was convinced that Raman
established the universal validity of the effect by his experimental results.
After giving full credit to Raman the Nobel Committee stated that:
theRamaneffectis usefulforthe studyof atomicphysicsandtheconstituentsof a compound.
to provemodemtheoriesin atomicphysics.TheCommittee
It also givesvaluableinformation
findsRaman'sdiscoveryon diffusionlightis worththeNobel PrizeforPhysics.79(Translated
from Swedish.)

However, the Nobel Committee can only recommend a candidate, it is the Academy
that is empowered to take the final decision, which is announced at a press conference
held in Stockholm and attended by representatives of the international news media.
The message of the Academy contains the name of the laureate and a short statement
describing the reason or achievements for which the prize has been awarded. For
example, in 1930 the Academy announced that the Nobel Prize for Physics goes to
Sir Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman, for his work on light scattering and for the
discovery of the effect named after him.

CONCLUSION

Raman's example shows that to be nominated for the Nobel Prize, contacts with
renowned scientists play a decisive role. Raman's nomination by the renowned
physicists and Nobel laureates like Rutherford, Bohr and Stark strengthened his case,
whereas the prospects of Landsberg and Mandelstam (who were nominated by their
own countrymen only) were poor.

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.48 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:10:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
280 RajinderSingh and Falk Riess

Figure 3. (a) Incident spectrum of benzene filtered through blue glass.

(b) Raman spectrum of benzene with additional lines.
(Courtesy of the Raman Research Institute.)

In the field of research,the credit of discovery goes to the person who publishes
his results first. The argumentationof the Nobel Committeeto decide in favour of
Ramanwas based on this principle.
The Nobel Committeewas of the opinion that Raman establishedthe universal
characterof the effect by investigating a large number of solids and liquids. The
Russian scientists were not supposed to have obtained their experimentalresults
independently,mainly because they cited fromRaman'spapersin theirpublications.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thankan anonymousrefereefor valuablecomments.We also thankMrsAdelheid

Wegner Demmer, ICBM, University of Oldenburg (Germany), for the Swedish
translation,and Mr Jan Tapdrup,Departmentof History of Science, University of
Aarhus(Denmark),for translationof a Niels Bohr letterfrom Danish to English.We
are grateful to the Nobel Archive of the Royal Swedish Academy of Science,
Stockholm(Sweden), for sending the documentsconcerningthe Nobel Prize for the
year 1930, the SNF rulesandthe letterof C.W.Oseen.Thanksarealso due to the Niels
Bohr Archive, Copenhagen(Denmark),for sendingthe correspondenceof Bohr and
Raman.One of us (R.S.) acknowledgesthe supportof this workby a fellowshipfrom
the HeinrichBoell Stiftung.

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.48 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:10:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The 1930 Nobel Prize for Physics: a close run decision? 281

NOTES

1 R.W. Wood, 'Wave-length shifts in scatteredlight', Nature 122, 349 (1928). Similar comment
is to be found in another publication of R.W. Wood, 'The Raman spectra of scattered
radiation', Phil. Mag. Lond. 6, 729-743 (1928).
2 For experimentsone needs a monochromaticsource of light, a spectrographand the substance
whose structureis to be determined.
3 S. Bhagavantam, 'The Raman Effect-its significance for physics and chemistry (Appendix
1), Ind. J. Phys. 5, 237-293 (1930). See also note 60, A.S. Ganesan. The bibliography
compiled by him contains not 150 but 160 items. However, in Europe the first detailed
bibliography which contains 413 original papers and 15 detailed articles were published until
June 1931 was published by K. W. F Kohlrausch, Der Smekal-Raman-Effekt,Strukturder
Materie in Einzeldarstellungen, vol. 12 (Berlin, Julius Springer 1931), pp. 355-372.
4 Before Raman, M. von Laue (1879-1960) and K.M. Siegbahn (1886-1978) were the only
two scientists who received the prize within two years of their inventions. See Table 28.3 in
H. Kragh, Quantum generations-a history of physics in the twentieth century (Princeton
University Press, 1999), pp. 434-439.
5 R.G.W. Brown and E.R. Pike, 'A history of optical and optoelectronicphysics in the twentieth
century'. In Twentieth century physics, vol. III (ed. L.M. Brown and Sir B. Pippard), pp.
1385-1504 (New York: IOP Publishing Ltd., AIP Press Inc., 1995).
6 See p. 59 in note 12, G.H. Keswani.
7 I.L. Fabelinskii, 'The discovery of combinational scattering of light (the Raman effect)',
Physics-Uspekhi 21, 780-797 (1978).
8 I.L. Fabelinskii, 'Seventy years of combination (Raman) scattering', Physics-Uspekhi 41,
1229-1247 (1998).
9 J.G. Dorfman, 'Landsberg Grigory Samuilovich'. In Dictionary ofscientific biography, vol.
VII (Ed. in Chief C.C. Gillispie), pp. 622-623 (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1973).
10 J.G. Dorfman, 'Mandelstam Leonid Isaakovich'. In Dictionary ofscientific biography, vol.
IX (Ed. in Chief C.C. Gillispie), pp. 76-77 (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1974).
11 P. Krishnamurti,Sir C. V Raman-a short biographical sketch (Bangalore, The Bangalore
Press, 1938).
12 G.H. Keswani, Raman and his effect (New Delhi, National Book Trust India, 1980).
13 P.R. Pisharoty, C. V Raman (New Delhi: Publication Division, Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting, Government of India, 1982).
14 S.N. Sen, Prof. C. V Raman-scientific work at Calcutta (Calcutta, Shri PG Ghosh, Registrar,
Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science, Jadavpur, 1988).
15 A. Jayaraman,C. V Raman-a memoir (New Delhi, Affiliated East-West, 1992).
16 G. Venkataraman,Journey into light-life and science of C. V Raman (New Delhi, Penguin
Books India, 1994).
17 G. Venkataraman,Raman and his effect (Hyderabad, Universities Press (India), 1995).
18 C.G. Darwin, 'A quantumtheory of optical dispersion', Nature 110, 841-842 (1922).
19 C.G. Darwin, 'The wave theory and the quantumtheory', Nature 111, 771-772 (1923).
20 A. Smekal, 'Zur Quantentheorie der Dispersion', Die Naturwissenschaften 43, 873-875
(1923).
21 H.A. Kramers, 'The law of dispersion and Bohr's theory of spectra', Nature 113, 673-674
(1924).
22 H.A. Kramers, 'Quantum theory of dispersion', Nature 114, 310-311 (1924). See also G.
Breit, 'The quantum theory of dispersion', Nature 114, 310 (1924).
23 H.A. Kramers and W. Heisenberg, 'Uber die Streuung von Strahlung durch Atome', ZS.f
Phys. 31, 681-708 (1925).
24 N. Bohr, 'Zur Polarisation des Fluorescenzlichtes', Die Naturwissenschaften 12, 1115-1117
(1924).

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.48 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:10:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
282 Rajinder Singh and Falk Riess

25 M. Born, W. Heisenberg and P. Jordan., 'Zur QuantenmechanikII', ZS.f Phys. 35, 557-615
(1926).
26 P.A.M. Dirac, 'The quantum theory of dispersion', Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 114, 710-728
(1927).
27 K.F. Herzfeld, 'Versuch einer quantenhaften Deutung der Dispersion', ZS. f Phys. 23,
341-360(1924).
28 A. Smekal, 'Zur Quantentheorie der Streuung und Dispersion', ZS. f Phys. 32, 241-244
(1925).
29 A. Smekal, 'Uber "metastationare"Atom-und Molekiilzustinde', ZS.f Phys. 34, 81-93
(1925).
30 H.A. Bethe, 'Quantum theory', Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 1-5 (1999).
31 For more details see note 48, R. Singh and F. Riess.
32 K. Milton, The scattering of light and other electromagnetic radiation (London, Academic
Press, 1969), p. 27.
33 J. Tyndall, 'On the blue colour of the sky, the polarization of skylight and on the polarization
of light by cloudy matter generally', Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 17, 223-233 (1868/69).
34 Rayleigh initiated the inquiry about the blue colour of the sky, as Maxwell wanted to know
the size of air molecules and was hoping to find the density of ether. See footnote on p. 376,
note 35, Rayleigh Lord.
35 Lord Rayleigh, 'On the transmission of light through an atmosphere containing small
particles in suspension, and on the origin of the blue of the sky', Phil. Mag. 47, 375-384
(1899).
36 Lord Rayleigh, Scientific papers, vol. 5, p. 540 (quoted by C.V. Raman, see note 37).
37 C.V. Raman, 'On the molecular scattering of light in water and the colour of the sea', Proc.
R. Soc. Lond. A101, 64-80 (1922).
38 K.R. Ramanathan, 'Electromagnetic theory of the scattering of light in fluids-Paper B',
Proc. Ind. Assoc. Cult. Sci. 8, 181-198 (1923).
39 K.S. Krishnan, 'On the molecular scattering of light in liquids', Phil. Mag. 50, 697-715
(1925).
40 C.V. Raman, 'The molecular scattering of light'. Nobel Lecture delivered at Stockholm, 11
December 1930. See also: S. Ramaseshan and C.R. Rao, C. V Raman--apictorial biography
(Bangalore, Indian Academy of Sciences, 1988), p. 153.
41 C.V. Raman, 'A new radiation', Ind. J. Phys. 2, 387-398 (1928).
42 In this phenomenon the change of wavelength is also observed.
43 C.V. Raman and K.S. Krishnan, 'A new type of secondary radiation', Nature 121, 501
(1928).
44 G. Landsberg and L. Mandelstam, 'Eine neue Erscheinung bei der Lichtzerstreuung in
Krystallen'. Die Naturwissenschaften 16, 557-558 (1928).
45 In fact anotherpaperby the Russians was published even four days earlier,i.e. on 9 July 1928.
See note 51, G. Landsberg and L. Mandelstam.
46 L.A. Ramdas, 'Dr. C.V. Raman', J. Phys. Educ. 1, 2-18 (1973).
47 R.S. Krishnan and R.K. Shankar, 'Raman effect: history of the discovery'. J. Raman Spect.
10, 1-8 (1981).
48 R. Singh and F. Riess, 'Seventy years ago-the discovery of the Raman effect as seen from
Germany physicists', Curr.Sci. 74, 1112-1115 (1998).
49 S.C. Sirkar, 'Reminiscences of my association with Prof. C.V. Raman. In The Calcutta
Municipal Gazette-C. V Raman birth centenary special number, pp. 54-58 (Calcutta, The
Calcutta Municipal Corporation, 1988).
50 A.S. Ganesan, 'Biography of 150 papers on the Raman effect', Ind. J. Phys. 4, 281-346
(1929).
51 G. Landsbergand L. Mandelstam, 'Sur des faits nouveaux relatifs a la diffusion de la lumiere
dans les cristaux', Comptes Rendus 187, 109-110 (1928).

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.48 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:10:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The 1930 Nobel Prize for Physics. a close run decision? 283

52 C.V. Raman, 'A change of wave-length in light scattering', Nature 121, 619 (1928).
53 E. Rutherford and C.T.R. Wilson to the Chairman of the Nobel Committee, letter dated 25
January 1930.
54 E. Rutherford, 'Address of the President, Sir Ernest Rutherford, O.M., at the Anniversary
Meeting, November 30, 1929', Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 126, 184-203 (1930).
55 C.G. Darwin, 'The sixth congress of Russian physicists'. Nature 122, 630 (1928).
56 A similar report was published by M. Born. See note 59, M. Born.
57 C.V. Raman, 'Investigations of the scattering of light', Nature 123, 50 (1929).
58 See footnote 1 in note 59, M. Born.
59 M. Born, 'VI. KongreBfder Assoziation der russischen Physiker'. Die Naturwissenschaften
39, 741-743 (1928).
60 Raman's statement quoted by a journalist in Pas Star News (California) 19 November 1924:
'There is really no such thing as chance, because everything happens for definite reasons,
that being characterized as chance for which the causes (are) ... not known'.
61 N. Bohr to C.V. Raman, letter dated 18 September 1929.
62 C.V. Raman to N. Bohr, letter dated 6 December 1929.
63 N. Bohr to the Nobel Committee, letter dated 29 January 1929.
64 B.B. Ray to N. Bohr, letter dated 6 May 1924.
65 C.V. Raman to C.W. Oseen, letter dated 16 December 1929.
66 D.M. Bose and S.K. Mitra to the Nobel Committee, letter dated 25 January 1930.
67 Statutes of the Nobel Foundation (henceforth SNF), pp. 1-2, 27 April 1995.
68 E. Crawford,J.L. Heilbron and R. Ullrich, The Nobelpopulation 1901-1937 (California,The
Regents of the University of California, 1987), p. 12. See also SFN 'Special Rules' 1994, § 1.
69 G. Kueppers, P. Weingartand N. Ulitzka, Die Nobelpreise in Physik und Chemie 1901-1929,
Materialien zum Nominierungsprozess (Bielefeld, B.K. Verlag GmbH, 1982), p. 25.
70 The Report of the Nobel Committee (henceforth RNC), Document No. 711, p. 1, 30
September 1930.
71 RNC 1930. See also note 68, E. Crawford et al., pp. 120-123.
72 N. Papalexi to the Nobel Committee, letter dated 6 January 1930.
73 0. Chwolson to the Nobel Committee, letter dated 6 January 1930.
74 RNC, op. cit., note 70, p. 12.
75 In order to give credit to the theorist A. Smekal, later the effect has been often quoted as the
'Smekal-Raman effect' or 'Raman-Smekal effect' in German literature. For details see
note 48, R. Singh and F. Riess.
76 RNC, op. cit., note 70, pp. 12-13.
77 RNC, op. cit., note 70, p. 6.
78 RNC, op. cit., note 70, p. 7.
79 RNC, op. cit., note 70, p. 11.

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.48 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:10:28 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions