by Peter Watson
Chemistry was transformed, too, at much the same time, and arguably with much more benefit for mankind, though the man who effected that transformation did not achieve anything like the fame of Einstein. In fact, when the scientist concerned revealed his breakthrough to the press, his name was left off the headlines. Instead, the New York Times ran what must count as one of the strangest headlines ever: ‘HERE’S TO C7H38O43.’24 That formula gave the chemical composition for plastic, probably the most widely used substance in the world today. Modern life – from airplanes to telephones to television to computers – would be unthinkable without it. The man behind the discovery was Leo Hendrik Baekeland.
Baekeland was Belgian, but by 1907, when he announced his breakthrough, he had lived in America for nearly twenty years. He was an individualistic and self-confident man, and plastic was by no means the first of his inventions, which included a photosensitive paper called Velox, which he sold to the Eastman Company for $750,000 (about $40 million now) and the Townsend Cell, which successfully electrolysed brine to produce caustic soda, crucial for the manufacture of soap and other products.25
The search for a synthetic plastic was hardly new. Natural plastics had been used for centuries: along the Nile, the Egyptians varnished their sarcophagi with resin; jewellery of amber was a favourite of the Greeks; bone, shell, ivory, and rubber were all used. In the nineteenth century shellac was developed and found many applications, such as with phonograph records and electrical insulation. In 1865 Alexander Parkes introduced the Royal Society of Arts in London to Parkesine, the first of a series of plastics produced by trying to modify nitrocellulose.26 More successful was celluloid, camphor gum mixed with pyroxyline pulp and made solvent by heating, especially as the basis for false teeth. In fact, the invention of celluloid brought combs, cuffs, and collars within reach of social groups that had hitherto been unable to afford such luxuries. There were, however, some disturbing problems with celluloid, notably its flammability. In 1875 a New York Times editorial summed up the problem with the alarming headline ‘Explosive Teeth.’27
The most popular avenue of research in the 1890s and 1900s was the admixture of phenol and formaldehyde. Chemists had tried heating every combination imaginable to a variety of temperatures, throwing in all manner of other compounds. The result was always the same: a gummy mixture that was never quite good enough to produce commercially. These gums earned the dubious honour of being labelled by chemists as the ‘awkward resins.’28 It was the very awkwardness of these substances that piqued Baekeland’s interest.29 In 1904 he hired an assistant, Nathaniel Thurlow, who was familiar with the chemistry of phenol, and they began to look for a pattern among the disarray of results. Thurlow made some headway, but the breakthrough didn’t come until 18 June 1907. On that day, while his assistant was away, Baekeland took over, starting a new laboratory notebook. Four days later he applied for a patent for a substance he at first called ‘Bakalite.’30 It was a remarkably swift discovery.
Reconstructions made from the meticulous notebooks Baekeland kept show that he had soaked pieces of wood in a solution of phenol and formaldehyde in equal parts, and heated it subsequently to 140–150°C. What he found was that after a day, although the surface of the wood was not hard, a small amount of gum had oozed out that was very hard. He asked himself whether this might have been caused by the formaldehyde evaporating before it could react with the phenol.31 To confirm this he repeated the process but varied the mixtures, the temperature, the pressure, and the drying procedure. In doing so, he found no fewer than four substances, which he designated A, B, C, and D. Some were more rubbery than others; some were softened by heating, others by boiling in phenol. But it was mixture D that excited him.32 This variant, he found, was ‘insoluble in all solvents, does not soften. I call it Bakalite and it is obtained by heating A or B or C in closed vessels.’33 Over the next four days Baekeland hardly slept, and he scribbled more than thirty-three pages of notes. During that time he confirmed that in order to get D, products A, B, and C needed to be heated well above 100°C, and that the heating had to be carried out in sealed vessels, so that the reaction could take place under pressure. Wherever it appeared, however, substance D was described as ‘a nice smooth ivory-like mass.’34 The Bakalite patents were filed on 13 July 1907. Baekeland immediately conceived all sorts of uses for his new product – insulation, moulding materials, a new linoleum, tiles that would keep warm in winter. In fact, the first objects to be made out of Bakalite were billiard balls, which were on sale by the end of that year. They were not a great success, though, as the balls were too heavy and not elastic enough. Then, in January 1908, a representative of the Loando Company from Boonton, New Jersey, visited Baekeland, interested in using Bakelite, as it was now called, to make precision bobbin ends that could not be made satisfactorily from rubber asbestos compounds.35 From then on, the account book, kept by Baekeland’s wife to begin with (although they were already millionaires), shows a slow increase in sales of Bakelite in the course of 1908, with two more firms listed as customers. In 1909, however, sales rose dramatically. One event that helps explain this is a lecture Baekeland gave on the first Friday in February that year to the New York section of the American Chemical Society at its building on the corner of Fourteenth Street and Fifth Avenue.36 It was a little bit like a rerun of the Manchester meeting where Rutherford outlined the structure of the atom, for the meeting didn’t begin until after dinner, and Baekeland’s talk was the third item on the agenda. He told the meeting that substance D was a polymerised oxy-benzyl-methylene-glycol-anhydride, or n(C7H38O43). It was past 10:00 P.M. by the time he had finished showing his various samples, demonstrating the qualities of Bakelite, but even so the assembled chemists gave him a standing ovation. Like James Chadwick attending Rutherford’s talk, they realised they had been present at something important. For his part, Baekeland was so excited he couldn’t sleep afterward and stayed up in his study at home, writing a ten-page account of the meeting. Next day three New York papers carried reports of the meeting, which is when the famous headline appeared.37
The first plastic (in the sense in which the word is normally used) arrived exactly on cue to benefit several other changes then taking place in the world. The electrical industry was growing fast, as was the automotive industry.38 Both urgently needed insulating materials. The use of electric lighting and telephone services was also spreading, and the phonograph had proved more popular than anticipated. In the spring of 1910 a prospectus was drafted for the establishment of a Bakelite company, which opened its offices in New York six months later on 5 October.39 Unlike the Wright brothers’ airplane, in commercial terms Bakelite was an immediate success.
Bakelite evolved into plastic, without which computers, as we know them today, would probably not exist. At the same time that this ‘hardware’ aspect of the modern world was in the process of formation, important elements of the ‘software’ were also gestating, in particular the exploration of the logical basis for mathematics. The pioneers here were Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead.
Russell – slight and precise, a finely boned man, ‘an aristocratic sparrow’ – is shown in Augustus John’s portrait to have had piercingly sceptical eyes, quizzical eyebrows, and a fastidious mouth. The godson of the philosopher John Stuart Mill, he was born halfway through the reign of Queen Victoria, in 1872, and died nearly a century later, by which time, for him as for many others, nuclear weapons were the greatest threat to mankind. He once wrote that ‘the search for knowledge, unbearable pity for suffering and a longing for love’ were the three passions that had governed his life. ‘I have found it worth living,’ he concluded, ‘and would gladly live it again if the chance were offered me.’40
One can see why. John Stuart Mill was not his only famous connection – T. S. Eliot, Lytton Strachey, G. E. Moore, Joseph Conrad, D. H. Lawrence, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Katherine Mansfield were just some of his circle. Russell stood several times for Parliament (but was never elec
ted), championed Soviet Russia, won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1950, and appeared (sometimes to his irritation) as a character in at least six works of fiction, including books by Roy Campbell, T. S. Eliot, Aldous Huxley, D. H. Lawrence, and Siegfried Sassoon. When Russell died in 1970 at the age of ninety-seven there were more than sixty of his books still in print.41
But of all his books the most original was the massive tome that appeared first in 1910, entitled, after a similar work by Isaac Newton, Principia Mathematica. This book is one of the least-read works of the century. In the first place it is about mathematics, not everyone’s favourite reading. Second, it is inordinately long – three volumes, running to more than 2,000 pages. But it was the third reason which ensured that this book – which indirectly led to the birth of the computer – was read by only a very few people: it consists mostly of a tightly knit argument conducted not in everyday language but by means of a specially invented set of symbols. Thus ‘not’ is represented by a curved bar; a boldface B stands for ‘or’; a square dot means ‘and,’ while other logical relationships are shown by devices such as a U on its side (⊃) for ‘implies,’ and a three-barred equals sign (≡) for ‘is equivalent to.’ The book was ten years in the making, and its aim was nothing less than to explain the logical foundations of mathematics.
Such a feat clearly required an extraordinary author. Russell’s education was unusual from the start. He was given a private tutor who had the distinction of being agnostic; as if that were not adventurous enough, this tutor also introduced his charge first to Euclid, then, in his early teens, to Marx. In December 1889, at the age of seventeen, Russell went to Cambridge. It was an obvious choice, for the only passion that had been observed in the young man was for mathematics, and Cambridge excelled in that discipline. Russell loved the certainty and clarity of math. He found it as ‘moving’ as poetry, romantic love, or the glories of nature. He liked the fact that the subject was totally uncontaminated by human feelings. ‘I like mathematics,’ he wrote, ‘because it is not human & has nothing particular to do with this planet or with the whole accidental universe – because, like Spinoza’s God, it won’t love us in return.’ He called Leibniz and Spinoza his ‘ancestors.’42
At Cambridge, Russell attended Trinity College, where he sat for a scholarship. Here he enjoyed good fortune, for his examiner was Alfred North Whitehead. Just twenty-nine, Whitehead was a kindly man (he was known in Cambridge as ‘cherub’), already showing signs of the forgetfulness for which he later became notorious. No less passionate about mathematics than Russell, he displayed his emotion in a somewhat irregular way. In the scholarship examination, Russell came second; a young man named Bushell gained higher marks. Despite this, Whitehead convinced himself that Russell was the abler man – and so burned all of the examination answers, and his own marks, before meeting the other examiners. Then he recommended Russell.43 Whitehead was pleased to act as mentor for the young freshman, but Russell also fell under the spell of G. E. Moore, the philosopher. Moore, regarded as ‘very beautiful’ by his contemporaries, was not as witty as Russell but instead a patient and highly impressive debater, a mixture, as Russell once described him, of ‘Newton and Satan rolled into one.’ The meeting between these two men was hailed by one scholar as a ‘landmark in the development of modern ethical philosophy.’44
Russell graduated as a ‘wrangler,’ as first-class mathematics degrees are known at Cambridge, but if this makes his success sound effortless, that is misleading. Russell’s finals so exhausted him (as had happened with Einstein) that afterward he sold all his mathematical books and turned with relief to philosophy.45 He said later he saw philosophy as a sort of no-man’s-land between science and theology. In Cambridge he developed wide interests (one reason he found his finals tiring was because he left his revision so late, doing other things). Politics was one of those interests, the socialism of Karl Marx in particular. That interest, plus a visit to Germany, led to his first book, German Social Democracy. This was followed by a book on his ‘ancestor’ Leibniz, after which he returned to his degree subject and began to write The Principles of Mathematics.
Russell’s aim in Principles was to advance the view, relatively unfashionable for the time, that mathematics was based on logic and ‘derivable from a number of fundamental principles which were themselves logical.’46 He planned to set out his own philosophy of logic in the first volume and then in the second explain in detail the mathematical consequences. The first volume was well received, but Russell had hit a snag, or as it came to be called, a paradox of logic. In Principles he was particularly concerned with ‘classes.’ To use his own example, all teaspoons belong to the class of teaspoons. However, the class of teaspoons is not itself a teaspoon and therefore does not belong to the class. That much is straightforward. But then Russell took the argument one step further: take the class of all classes that do not belong to themselves – this might include the class of elephants, which is not an elephant, or the class of doors, which is not a door. Does the class of all classes that do not belong to themselves belong to itself? Whether you answer yes or no, you encounter a contradiction.47 Neither Russell nor Whitehead, his mentor, could see a way around this, and Russell let publication of Principles go ahead without tackling the paradox. ‘Then, and only then,’ writes one of his biographers, ‘did there take place an event which gives the story of mathematics one of its moments of high drama.’ In the 1890s Russell had read Begriffsschrift (‘Concept-Script’), by the German mathematician Gottlob Frege, but had failed to understand it. Late in 1900 he bought the first volume of the same author’s Grundgesetze der Arithmetik (Fundamental Laws of Arithmetic) and realised to his shame and horror that Frege had anticipated the paradox, and also failed to find a solution. Despite these problems, when Principles appeared in 1903 – all 500 pages of it – the book was the first comprehensive treatise on the logical foundation of mathematics to be written in English.48
The manuscript for Principles was finished on the last day of 1900. In the final weeks, as Russell began to think about the second volume, he became aware that Whitehead, his former examiner and now his close friend and colleague, was working on the second volume of his book Universal Algebra. In conversation, it soon became clear that they were both interested in the same problems, so they decided to collaborate. No one knows exactly when this began, because Russell’s memory later in his life was a good deal less than perfect, and Whitehead’s papers were destroyed by his widow, Evelyn. Her behaviour was not as unthinking or shocking as it may appear. There are strong grounds for believing that Russell had fallen in love with the wife of his collaborator, after his marriage to Alys Pearsall Smith collapsed in 1900.49
The collaboration between Russell and Whitehead was a monumental affair. As well as tackling the very foundations of mathematics, they were building on the work of Giuseppe Peano, professor of mathematics at Turin University, who had recently composed a new set of symbols designed to extend existing algebra and explore a greater range of logical relationships than had hitherto been specifiable. In 1900 Whitehead thought the project with Russell would take a year.50 In fact, it took ten. Whitehead, by general consent, was the cleverer mathematician; he thought up the structure of the book and designed most of the symbols. But it was Russell who spent between seven and ten hours a day, six days a week, working on it.51 Indeed, the mental wear and tear was on occasions dangerous. ‘At the time,’ Russell wrote later, ‘I often wondered whether I should ever come out at the other end of the tunnel in which I seemed to be…. I used to stand on the footbridge at Kennington, near Oxford, watching the trains go by, and determining that tomorrow I would place myself under one of them. But when the morrow came I always found myself hoping that perhaps “Principia Mathematica” would be finished some day.’52 Even on Christmas Day 1907, he worked seven and a half hours on the book. Throughout the decade, the work dominated both men’s lives, with the Russells and the Whiteheads visiting each other so the men could discuss
progress, each staying as a paying guest in the other’s house. Along the way, in 1906, Russell finally solved the paradox with his theory of types. This was in fact a logicophilosophical rather than a purely logical solution. There are two ways of knowing the world, Russell said: acquaintance (spoons) and description (the class of spoons), a sort of secondhand knowledge. From this, it follows that a description about a description is of a higher order than the description it is about. On this analysis, the paradox simply disappears.53
Slowly the manuscript was compiled. By May 1908 it had grown to ‘about 6,000 or 8,000 pages.’54 In October, Russell wrote to a friend that he expected it to be ready for publication in another year. ‘It will be a very big book,’ he said, and ‘no one will read it.’55 On another occasion he wrote, ‘Every time I went for a walk I used to be afraid that the house would catch fire and the manuscript get burnt up.’56 By the summer of 1909 they were on the last lap, and in the autumn Whitehead began negotiations for publication. ‘Land in sight at last,’ he wrote, announcing that he was seeing the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press (the authors carried the manuscript to the printers on a four-wheeled cart). The optimism was premature. Not only was the book very long (the final manuscript was 4,500 pages, almost the same size as Newton’s book of the same title), but the alphabet of symbolic logic in which it was half written was unavailable in any existing printing font. Worse, when the Syndics considered the market for the book, they came to the conclusion that it would lose money – around £600. The press agreed to meet 50 percent of the loss, but said they could publish the book only if the Royal Society put up the other £300. In the event, the Royal Society agreed to only £200, and so Russell and Whitehead between them provided the balance. ‘We thus earned minus £50 each by ten years’ work,’ Russell commented. ‘This beats “Paradise Lost.” ‘57