Jump to content
Guest Larstrup

The Organ

By Guest Larstrup, in The Beer Bar

Recommended Posts

AdamSmith Grand Master

AdamSmith

Posted
Posted

Paul Dirac: The man who conjured laws of nature from pure thought

A fellow quantum physicist has said his discoveries were like 'exquisitely carved statues falling out of the sky, one after another'. In The Strangest Man, Graham Farmelo gets under the skin of one of the most baffling geniuses the world has seen

The Strangest Man has won the 2009 Costa Biography Award

Tim Radford

Friday 3 April 2009 03.21 EDT First published on Friday 3 April 2009 03.21 EDT

Here's a puzzle. Bristol boy – slightly older contemporary of Bristol's other boy Cary Grant – has an unhappy childhood, but doesn't mention it for 50 years; learns to speak French, German and Russian, but becomes famous for his long silences; embarks on the wrong career; gets interested in mathematics and ends up at Cambridge, where he becomes famous for his even longer silences; hears about Einstein and gets into advanced physics; and then goes to Copenhagen to meet Niels Bohr, who grumbles to Ernest Rutherford, "This Dirac, he seems to know a lot of physics, but he never says anything."

Somehow this silent, solemn, young beanpole earns the enthusiastic friendship and admiration of vibrant and merrymaking geniuses such as Bohr himself, Robert Oppenheimer, Werner Heisenberg, George Gamow, Peter Kapitza and so on, without, apparently, initiating reciprocal entertainment or conversation. His discoveries are in quantum mechanics, a subject that remains opaque even after 80 years of continuous exposition.

These discoveries involve no experiment, no apparatus and no observation that ever spontaneously troubled a layman. When quizzed about his achievements and their significance, he declines to explain, saying that quantum theories are built up "from physical concepts which cannot be explained in words at all".

His responses to the most ordinary pleasures have a semi-detached air. He relaxes by climbing trees in a three-piece suit. Dirac once asked Heisenberg why he danced and got the unsurprising answer that it was a pleasure to dance with nice girls. Farmelo reports: "After about five minutes of silence, he said: 'Heisenberg, how do you know beforehand that the girls are nice?'"

Dirac sounds like an unlikely candidate for a biography, let alone a "hidden life". And yet this book races along. In the foreground, a lonely boy who becomes a lonely man driven by the concept of mathematical beauty (not an obsession you tend to volunteer in the pub). In the middle distance, there is university snobbery and economic privation, a difficult father, a smothering mother and a suicidal brother, along with the rise of the Nazi party in Europe, the repressions of Stalinist Russia, the second world war, the devastation of a continent, the atomic bomb, the McCarthy era, and the cold war.

Embracing both foreground and background is the intellectual ferment of physical theory that begins with puzzles about the electron, and comes to a climax with the debate about the nature of matter and the commencement of space and time.

The story is dizzying: the unlikely hero is widely declared the second greatest scientist of the 20th century, and most people have still never heard of him. He proposes anti-matter not on the basis of physical observation, but because his own mathematical logic tells him that it must exist. He shares a Nobel Prize and writes a textbook that becomes an instant and peerless classic (you can read a similar but differently accented response to the man, the discovery and the textbook in Frank Close's highly readable Antimatter, Oxford, £9.99, coincidentally published within a few weeks of The Strangest Man).

And then the mystery deepens. This apparently unfeeling, probably autistic man somehow learns to become politically opinionated, and even warmly responsive, at least to a few friends. He marries, becomes a good husband and father, takes up gardening, learns to tell jokes, develops lecturing skills that make him part of the landscape of scientific show business, and emigrates to America, all without becoming a whit less taciturn to most of his associates.

When I introduced this book club, I wondered if a biography counted as a science book. That is because life is what we make of it; but science goes its own sweet way. Farmelo makes the same point in chapter 31: "If Marie Curie and Alexander Fleming had never been born, radium and penicillin would have been discovered soon after the dates now in the textbooks." The science would have happened anyway: the story of the people who made the science tells us more about history than science.

Dirac might, however, be an exception. He addressed mysteries, and solved them mysteriously. "His discoveries were like exquisitely carved statues falling out of the sky, one after another," says Freeman Dyson in the same chapter. "He seemed to be able to conjure laws of nature from pure thought."

Books such as these tell us as much about the why, as about the how of science. Farmelo has already had enthusiastic reviews and quite rightly, too. This is a rich book: it pinpoints the moment, the milieu, the excitement of discovery and the mystery of matter, and it provides an alternative social history of the 20th century as well. And all of this is held together by a figure simultaneously touching and mysterious, capable of leaps of the imagination on the scale of Einstein and Newton and Darwin, but also capable, when his wife exploded "What would you do if I left you?" of thinking for a while and then answering "I'd say, 'Goodbye, dear.'"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AdamSmith Grand Master

AdamSmith

Posted
Posted
On 10/8/2017 at 10:00 AM, AdamSmith said:

 

In pulling us into ROOTING FOR Pickens to get those bomb doors open -- thus dooming the world -- Kubrick is enacting a trick on the audience that dates back at least to Milton. Who, as deliciously delineated by critic Stanley Fish in his book Surprised by Sin,, seduces us into falling in love with and rooting for his anti-hero Satan!

Pretty obvious, once you hear it articulated.

Even though believing-Protestant Milton pretty clearly had no conscious idea that was what he was doing.

 

And further, courtesy Wiki, a la the recent topic here of help vs harm from social media:

As a prominent and respected literary theorist, Fish is best known for his analysis of interpretive communities — an offshoot of reader-response criticism. Fish's work in this field examines how the interpretation of a text is dependent upon each reader's own subjective experience in one or more communities, each of which is defined as a 'community' by a distinct epistemology. For Fish, a large part of what renders a reader’s subjective experience valuable — that is, why it may be considered “constrained” as opposed to an uncontrolled and idiosyncratic assertion of the self — comes from a concept native to the field of linguistics called linguistic competence. In Fish’s source the term is explained as “the idea that it is possible to characterize a linguistic system that every speaker shares.”[15] In the context of literary criticism, Fish uses this concept to argue that a reader’s approach to a text is not completely subjective, and that an internalized understanding of language shared by the native speakers of that given language makes possible the creation of normative boundaries for one’s experience with language.[citation neede

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Fish

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AdamSmith Grand Master

AdamSmith

Posted
Posted
On 10/13/2017 at 10:02 PM, RA1 said:

Slim Pickens was one of my favorite actors.  Think the B-52 looks anything like the B-707?  It should, same parents.  ^_^

Best regards,

RA1

Eight jet engines seem to me just about exactly the right number. :D

Being a consultant about engineering, I know all the contemporary engine design certification forensics etc etc. And the business drivers of fuel economy and operating economy and and and.

But I still think just two engines is at least two too few. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Members
RA1 Grand Master

RA1

Posted
  • Members
Posted
8 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

Eight jet engines seem to me just about exactly the right number. :D

Being a consultant about engineering, I know all the contemporary engine design certification forensics etc etc. And the business drivers of fuel economy and operating economy and and and.

But I still think just two engines is at least two too few. ^_^

You and several 747 captains certainly agree.

Best regards,

RA1

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...