The Lubin-Tate theory gives an amazingly clean and streamlined way of constructing the subfield (usually denoted) $F\_\pi\subset F^\mathrm{ab}$ for a local field $F$ fixed by the Artin map associated to the prime element $\pi$ (i.e. such that $F^{\mathrm{ab}}=F\_\pi\cdot F^{\mathrm{un}}$ with the usual notations). The idea to consider 1-dim. formal groups over the ring of integers $\mathcal{O}\_F$ is a deus ex machina for me, and I wonder if anyone can explain Lubin-Tate's motivation to consider such a thing?


Related, on page 50 of J.S. Milne's online notes on the class field theory, he offers the speculation that the motivation comes from complex multiplication of elliptic curves and how one might try to get an analogue of the theory for local fields. But this requires again that it is somehow natural to consider formal groups as an analogue which I think still needs a motivation.



> 
> What is the motivation to consider formal groups a la Lubin-Tate theory? Is there a way to motivate their construction?
> 
> 
> 



Motivating Lubin-Tate theory
Sorry I didn’t see this earlier. My memory is vague, and probably colored by subsequent events and results, but here’s how I recall things happening.


Since I had read and enjoyed Lazard’s paper on one-dimensional formal group (laws), which dealt with the case of a base field of characteristic $p$, I decided to look at formal groups over $p$-adic rings. For whatever reason, I wanted to know about the endomorphism rings of these things, and gradually recognized the similarity between, on the one hand, the case of elliptic curves and their supersingular reduction mod $p$, when that phenomenon did occur, and, on the other hand, formal groups over $p$-adic integer rings of higher height than $1$.


I had taken, or sat in on, Tate’s first course on Arithmetic on Elliptic Curves, and was primed for all of this. In addition, I was aware of Weierstrass Preparation, and the power it gave to anyone who wielded it. And in the attempt to prove a certain result for my thesis, I had thought of looking at the torsion points on a formal group, and I suppose it was clear to me that they formed a module over the endomorphism ring. Please note that it was not my idea at all to use them as a representation module for the Galois group.


But Tate was looking over my shoulder at all times, and no doubt he saw all sorts of things that I was not considering. At the time of submission of my thesis, I did not have a construction of formal groups of height $h$ with endomorphism ring $\mathfrak o$ equal to the integers of a local field $k$ of degree $h$ over $\Bbb Q\_p$. Only for the unramified case, and I used extremely tiresome degree-by-degree methods based on the techniques of Lazard. Some while after my thesis, I was on a bus from Brunswick to Boston, and found not only that I could construct formal groups in all cases that had this maximal endomorphism structure, but that one of them could take the polynomial form $\pi x+x^q$. Tate told me that when he saw this, Everything Fell Into Place. The result was the wonderful and beautiful first Lemma in our paper, for which I can claim absolutely no responsibility. My recollection, always undependable, is that the rest of the paper came together fairly rapidly. Remember that Tate was already a master of all aspects of Class Field Theory. But if the endomorphism ring of your formal group is $\mathfrak o$ and the Tate module of the formal group is a rank-one module over this endomorphism ring, can the isomorphism between the Galois group of $k(F[p^\infty]])$ over $k$ and the subgroup $\mathfrak o^\*\subset k^\*$ fail to make you think of the reciprocity map?


