3 ms·

Maybe in the next life! I never expect anything remotely easy when looking at a Chandrasekhar paper or book. Even his public talks were beyond stratospheric.

Maybe in the next life! I never expect anything remotely easy when looking at a Chandrasekhar paper or book. Even his public talks were beyond stratospheric. He gave a couple of them at Berkeley in 1976[1]. I was in middle school at the time and went along with my parents. Large, full auditorium for both sessions and looking back, they were given at such a high level that I think even professional physicists would have struggled to follow all of them. His Ryerson lectures at Chicago are similarly highbrow. I stood in line and shook his hand. I remember the gray hair and the immaculate charcoal-gray suit. I don't think he smiled. [1] https://gradlectures.berkeley.edu/series/hitchcock/page/3/ https://gradlectures.berkeley.edu/series/hitchcock/page/3/ [2] https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/T/bo4432943.html https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/T/bo443294...

rramadass 2y ago
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar was a very unique and rather underrated Physicist due to the then prevalent colonial racism attitudes. He received his Nobel prize some 50 years after he made his discovery when he was just 19/early-20s. His uniqueness lies in his breadth of study which he consciously adopted after being undermined/betrayed by Arthur Eddington on his stellar structure studies. Here is a nice short film with his own words - https://aeon.co/videos/the-indian-astronomer-whose-innovative-work-on-black-holes-was-mocked-at-cambridge https://aeon.co/videos/the-indian-astronomer-whose-innovativ... A longish biography, Nobel at Ninteen, S. Chandrasekhar here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXTruZkQ7hI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXTruZkQ7hI A short interview with the man himself - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-lJjR7pM7k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-lJjR7pM7k Finally, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subrahmanyan_Chandrasekhar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subrahmanyan_Chandrasekhar ; He wrote that his scientific research was motivated by his desire to participate in the progress of different subjects in science to the best of his ability, and that the prime motive underlying his work was systematization. "What a scientist tries to do essentially is to select a certain domain, a certain aspect, or a certain detail, and see if that takes its appropriate place in a general scheme which has form and coherence; and, if not, to seek further information which would help him to do that". Chandrasekhar developed a unique style of mastering several fields of physics and astrophysics; consequently, his working life can be divided into distinct periods. He would exhaustively study a specific area, publish several papers in it and then write a book summarizing the major concepts in the field. He would then move on to another field for the next decade and repeat the pattern. Thus he studied stellar structure, including the theory of white dwarfs, during the years 1929 to 1939, and subsequently focused on stellar dynamics, theory of Brownian motion from 1939 to 1943. Next, he concentrated on the theory of radiative transfer and the quantum theory of the negative ion of hydrogen from 1943 to 1950. This was followed by sustained work on turbulence and hydrodynamic and hydromagnetic stability from 1950 to 1961. In the 1960s, he studied both the equilibrium and the stability of ellipsoidal figures of equilibrium, and general relativity. During the period, 1971 to 1983 he studied the mathematical theory of black holes, and, finally, during the late 80s, he worked on the theory of colliding gravitational waves. Chandrasekhar was awarded half of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1983 for his studies on the physical processes important to the structure and evolution of stars. Chandrasekhar accepted this honour, but was upset the citation mentioned only his earliest work, seeing it as a denigration of a lifetime's achievement.
- OldGuyInTheClub 2y ago
  I wouldn't apply the term 'underrated' to him. He was treated poorly by Eddington and shamefully by Gale in Chicago who wouldn't let him lecture on the main campus until Hutchins intervened. He's been the subject of a couple of biographies and has a space telescope named in his honor. His body of work is impressive but, candidly, I am not sure what of that body had the impact of the white dwarf result. His radiative transfer book is still referenced but I am not certain that's what the Nobel Committee considers, at least in physics. Woodward and Corey won in chemistry for bodies of work but I am not sure that would apply in Chandrasekhar's case of if he would have been offended by a "lifetime achievement" award.
  - rramadass 2y ago
    > His body of work is impressive but, candidly, I am not sure what of that body had the impact of the white dwarf result. But this is precisely my point of contention when i said he was "underrated"; Eddington was such a asshole to the young Chandrasekhar (who was just in his early 20s full of ambition, energy and hardwork) that he sent Chandra into a depression, demoralized him and made him rethink his life's future work. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar%E2%80%93Eddington_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar%E2%80%93Eddingto... for reference. Listen to what Chandra says in the first aeon animated video titled "Shattering Stars" i had linked to above after the 9-min mark; "I was in my middle twenties; i had to think about my scientific future. Even if i was right, as i thought i was, the idea that one's scientific life has to be motivated by the off chance that we make a great discovery was too risky; too much of a gamble". Again after 10:35-min mark; "If you look at my scientific record, how do i judge it? I think one of the motives of Science is to leave some kind of memorial behind oneself. People can make great discoveries and be remembered for that but there is a more modest role a Scientist can play, to assemble material which will be helpful to others and be of some permanent value; I have chosen that approach; __All i think as a consequence of my first shattering experience in Cambridge__". If he had not moved to the US i believe the scientific world would have lost him. He explicitly toned down his ambitions in order to do Science. He was a stellar mathematician and was able to marry Relativity and Quantum Theory in his work all at a very young age. There is no telling how great he would have become if he had had the right support and encouragement when he needed it. > if he would have been offended by a "lifetime achievement" award. He actually was unhappy that the Nobel committee only recognized his stellar structure studies and not the subsequent work that he did in the next 50 years. As wikipedia states; Chandrasekhar accepted this honour, but was upset the citation mentioned only his earliest work, seeing it as a denigration of a lifetime's achievement. I believe he would very much have valued a "lifetime achievement" award.

rramadass 2y ago

Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar was a very unique and rather underrated Physicist due to the then prevalent colonial racism attitudes. He received his Nobel prize some 50 years after he made his discovery when he was just 19/early-20s. His uniqueness lies in his breadth of study which he consciously adopted after being undermined/betrayed by Arthur Eddington on his stellar structure studies. Here is a nice short film with his own words - https://aeon.co/videos/the-indian-astronomer-whose-innovative-work-on-black-holes-was-mocked-at-cambridge https://aeon.co/videos/the-indian-astronomer-whose-innovativ... A longish biography, Nobel at Ninteen, S. Chandrasekhar here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXTruZkQ7hI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXTruZkQ7hI A short interview with the man himself - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-lJjR7pM7k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-lJjR7pM7k Finally, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subrahmanyan_Chandrasekhar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subrahmanyan_Chandrasekhar ; He wrote that his scientific research was motivated by his desire to participate in the progress of different subjects in science to the best of his ability, and that the prime motive underlying his work was systematization. "What a scientist tries to do essentially is to select a certain domain, a certain aspect, or a certain detail, and see if that takes its appropriate place in a general scheme which has form and coherence; and, if not, to seek further information which would help him to do that". Chandrasekhar developed a unique style of mastering several fields of physics and astrophysics; consequently, his working life can be divided into distinct periods. He would exhaustively study a specific area, publish several papers in it and then write a book summarizing the major concepts in the field. He would then move on to another field for the next decade and repeat the pattern. Thus he studied stellar structure, including the theory of white dwarfs, during the years 1929 to 1939, and subsequently focused on stellar dynamics, theory of Brownian motion from 1939 to 1943. Next, he concentrated on the theory of radiative transfer and the quantum theory of the negative ion of hydrogen from 1943 to 1950. This was followed by sustained work on turbulence and hydrodynamic and hydromagnetic stability from 1950 to 1961. In the 1960s, he studied both the equilibrium and the stability of ellipsoidal figures of equilibrium, and general relativity. During the period, 1971 to 1983 he studied the mathematical theory of black holes, and, finally, during the late 80s, he worked on the theory of colliding gravitational waves. Chandrasekhar was awarded half of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1983 for his studies on the physical processes important to the structure and evolution of stars. Chandrasekhar accepted this honour, but was upset the citation mentioned only his earliest work, seeing it as a denigration of a lifetime's achievement.

OldGuyInTheClub 2y ago
I wouldn't apply the term 'underrated' to him. He was treated poorly by Eddington and shamefully by Gale in Chicago who wouldn't let him lecture on the main campus until Hutchins intervened. He's been the subject of a couple of biographies and has a space telescope named in his honor. His body of work is impressive but, candidly, I am not sure what of that body had the impact of the white dwarf result. His radiative transfer book is still referenced but I am not certain that's what the Nobel Committee considers, at least in physics. Woodward and Corey won in chemistry for bodies of work but I am not sure that would apply in Chandrasekhar's case of if he would have been offended by a "lifetime achievement" award.
- rramadass 2y ago
  > His body of work is impressive but, candidly, I am not sure what of that body had the impact of the white dwarf result. But this is precisely my point of contention when i said he was "underrated"; Eddington was such a asshole to the young Chandrasekhar (who was just in his early 20s full of ambition, energy and hardwork) that he sent Chandra into a depression, demoralized him and made him rethink his life's future work. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar%E2%80%93Eddington_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar%E2%80%93Eddingto... for reference. Listen to what Chandra says in the first aeon animated video titled "Shattering Stars" i had linked to above after the 9-min mark; "I was in my middle twenties; i had to think about my scientific future. Even if i was right, as i thought i was, the idea that one's scientific life has to be motivated by the off chance that we make a great discovery was too risky; too much of a gamble". Again after 10:35-min mark; "If you look at my scientific record, how do i judge it? I think one of the motives of Science is to leave some kind of memorial behind oneself. People can make great discoveries and be remembered for that but there is a more modest role a Scientist can play, to assemble material which will be helpful to others and be of some permanent value; I have chosen that approach; __All i think as a consequence of my first shattering experience in Cambridge__". If he had not moved to the US i believe the scientific world would have lost him. He explicitly toned down his ambitions in order to do Science. He was a stellar mathematician and was able to marry Relativity and Quantum Theory in his work all at a very young age. There is no telling how great he would have become if he had had the right support and encouragement when he needed it. > if he would have been offended by a "lifetime achievement" award. He actually was unhappy that the Nobel committee only recognized his stellar structure studies and not the subsequent work that he did in the next 50 years. As wikipedia states; Chandrasekhar accepted this honour, but was upset the citation mentioned only his earliest work, seeing it as a denigration of a lifetime's achievement. I believe he would very much have valued a "lifetime achievement" award.