Photo de l'auteur

Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (1910–1995)

Auteur de Truth and Beauty: Aesthetics and Motivations in Science

24+ oeuvres 487 utilisateurs 1 Critiques

A propos de l'auteur

Born in what is present-day Lahore, Pakistan, the astrophysicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar obtained his B.S. degree in 1930 from Presidency College in Madras, India. By the time he received his Ph.D. from Cambridge University in 1933, he had formulated a theory on white dwarf stars. afficher plus Chandrasekhar's theory of white dwarf stars states that a white dwarf's mass cannot exceed about one and one-half times that of the sun. His calculations implied that more massive stars would end their lives as neutron stars or black holes. The Chandrasekhar limit has become one of the foundations of astrophysics. This discovery led to Chandrasekhar's first definitive work An Introduction to the Study of Stellar Structure (1939). The book was indicative of the pattern of his scientific career. As a result of an ongoing disagreement with Sir Arthur Eddington on his theory of dwarf stars, Chandrasekhar left Cambridge for the University of Chicago in 1937. The following year, he began to study the dynamics of star clusters, resulting in the publication of his second definitive work, Principles of Stellar Systems, in 1942. During World War II, Chandrasekhar served in the War Department as a scientific consultant. Specifically, Chandrasekhar contributed to the top-secret atomic weapons research at the University of Chicago with Enrico Fermi and James Franck. Toward the end of World War II, Chandrasekhar's field of study was radioative transfer (how light energy moves and interacts with the material through which it travels) in the interior of stars and the effects of magnetism on galaxies. This research led to another landmark book, Hydromagnetic Stability, in 1961. During the 1960s, Chandrasekhar mainly studied ellipsoidal figures of equilibrium. His understanding of planetary rotation and the rotation of white dwarfs, neutron stars, black holes, galaxies, and clusters of galaxies culminated in Ellipsoidal Figures of Equilibrium, published in 1969. In the mid-1970s, Chandrasekhar studied relativity and relativistic astrophysics, rethinking concepts he used when deriving upper limits for the mass of white dwarfs 40 years earlier. This led to the monumental work The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes, published in 1983. Chandrasekhar became an American citizen in 1953. (Bowker Author Biography) afficher moins
Notice de désambiguation :

(eng) In this Indian name, the name Subrahmanyan is a patronymic, and the person should be referred to by the given name, Chandrasekhar

Crédit image: Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar [credit: University of Chicago]

Œuvres de Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar

Radiative Transfer (1960) 63 exemplaires
Principles of Stellar Dynamics (1942) 18 exemplaires
Ellipsoidal Figures of Equilibrium (1969) 17 exemplaires
Liquid Crystals (1980) 13 exemplaires

Oeuvres associées

The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing (2008) — Contributeur — 803 exemplaires

Étiqueté

Partage des connaissances

Membres

Critiques

As a math and physics graduate back in the day, I applaud some of the Physics Professors choices when it comes to choosing the best books in Physics, and I also decry a lot of the works on that supposed imaginary list as being, in the grand scheme of things, quite trivial. I too would have assumed that importance and even profundity - if I dare use such a potent word - would carry some merit for non-fiction works, but, alas, i was quite mistaken it seems. To try to be fair though, as I said elsewhere on this blog, I think that the main problem for the arts and humanities mob is maths. As in their cluelessness about it. It completely underpins the natural sciences, and has to be mastered to at least some extent. Newton's Principia is virtually gibberish to even highly trained modern readers, even when it's not in Latin, which is why I would recommend Newton's Principia: For the Common Reader. This is an abridged and tastefully modernised version by the great Indian astrophysicist Subrahmanijan Chandrasekhar. As a tasteful modernisation should do, it preserves the spirit of the original almost entirely. Unfortunately, in general terms though, to understand 'decent' books on physics and/or mathematics, you have to learn a fair amount of, well....physics and mathematics.

Think of Darwin for instance: since his time, biology has become almost as mathematical as physics, which incidentally gives the lie to a remark once made by Kant (*) that 'there will never be a Newton of the grass blade.' In all probability, Darwin would not be able to understand many mathematical biology books written in the last 50 years, whereas i suspect that Newton, with some effort and a few rapid shifts in certain aspects of his world view, would probably be able to cope with everything in physics up to the early 1900's, before slowing down to digest relativity and quantum theory. Only slowing down though, and that mostly to learn the relevant 18th, 19th and 20th Century maths that postdated him:)

This then, or so it seems, is the peculiar difficulty with mathematics: I know nothing technical about music whatsoever, but I can appreciate the glory that is, for example, Bach without knowing how to read a note of music. But to appreciate calculus, and all that flows from it (**), I must learn calculus, and other mathematics besides. Which, I am always being told, is beyond most people apparently. I still think that people should make more of an effort though. If I can read, for instance, Milton's “Paradise Lost” (several times over the years), then the arts mob can be expected to cope with C. P. Snow, or Koestler's “The Sleepwalkers” can't they?

NB:
(*) Though i certainly think that the Critique of Pure Reason should be on the list somewhere.
(**) Rutherford, the discoverer of the structure of the atom, was fond of saying that 'there are two kinds of science: physics and stamp-collecting', but he was put in his place by the world's then leading mathematician, David Hilbert, who, on hearing of this, replied: 'physics is too difficult to leave to physicists; it can only be done properly by mathematicians.'
… (plus d'informations)
 
Signalé
antao | Sep 1, 2018 |

Prix et récompenses

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi

Auteurs associés

Statistiques

Œuvres
24
Aussi par
1
Membres
487
Popularité
#50,715
Évaluation
3.9
Critiques
1
ISBN
56
Langues
3

Tableaux et graphiques