Rabindra Bharati Patrika, Vol.

XV, 2012

A SCIENTIST ON TRUTH AND BEAUTY

N. C. Ghosh
[ When preparatory works for publishing last volume of Rabindra Bharati Patrika hundred-fiftieth birth anniversary year of Jagadish Chandra Bose just ended, hundred-fiftieth birth anniversary year of Rabindra Nath Thakur and Prafulla Chandra Roy started. Also, it was hundredth year of Einsteins professorship. Now birth centenary of Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar is going on. As a tribute to luminaries an article entitled Kabir Satya, Bijnanir Satya (Truth of Poet, Truth of Scientist) was published in last volume of Rabindra Bharati Patrika. This article, written by same author, is a tribute to Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, Indian born Scientist; who invented Chandrasekhars Limit for which he has been awarded Nobel Prize.]

On 26th March 1946 Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar delivered a lecture, as a part of the works of the mind lecture series, sponsored by the University of Chicago. It was published in The Works of the Mind edited by Robert B. Heywood. Later content of said deliberation was included in Chandras famous book Truth & Beauty Aesthetics and Motivations in Science in the name The Scientist. In noted lecture Chandra quoted O. Neugebauer where he said : as it is the only branch of the ancient sciences which has come to us intact after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Of course, the level of astronomical studies dropped within the boundaries of the remnants of the Roman Empire, but the traditions of astronomical theory and practice were never lost. On the contrary, the clumsy methods of Greek trigonometry were improved by Hindu and Arabic astronomers, and new observations were constantly compared with those of Ptolemy and so on. This must be paralleled with the total loss of understanding of the higher branches of Greek mathematics before one realizes that astronomy is most direct link connecting the modern sciences with the ancient. Indeed, the works of Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, and Kepler can be understood only by constant reference to the ancient method sand concepts, while the Greek theory of irrational magnitudes and the Archimedes method of integration were understood only after being independently discovered by the moderns. In his book Truth and Beauty Subrahmanyan Chanrasekhar, an Indian born scientist and Nobel Laureate, express his views scientifically having a strong foundation on values he learn from Indian Society, later developed sthetically is charming; but profoundly significant. In search of foundation of the concept of Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhars Truth and Beauty one has to go through the ideas he built from his surroundings, explored from his continuous searching in scientific activities and then developed his own conception with strong logic. In early period of his scientific works most of those were theoretical as in the then circumstance there was no scope to prove those experimentally. Obviously he had faced strong opposition. But opposition did not demoralise him rather created strong conviction infavour of deep attention for searching more and more truth to his goal. That is the beauty of his deep rooted conviction and thus he achieved joy of beauty. On 6 th February 1985 Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar delivered the inaugural address at the Golden Jubilee celebrations of the Indian Academy of Science in Bangalore, where he quoted Hardy saying : Let me finally turn to a different aspect. G. H. Hardy concludes A Mathematicians Apology with the following statement : The case for my life, then, or for that of anyone else who has been a mathematician in the same sense in which I have been one, is this : that I have added something to knowledge, and helped others to add more: and that these something have a value which differs in degree only, and not in kind, from that of the creations of the great mathematicians, or of any of the other artists, great or

small, who have left some kind of memorial behind them. Noting Hardys comment in noted deliberation Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar stated :Hardys statement referred to mathematicians; but it is equally applicable to all scientists. Chandrasekhar I want to draw your attention particularly to his reference to wanting to leave behind some kind of memorial, that is, something that posterity may judge. In what extent, then, is the judgement of posterity which one can never know a conscious motivation in the pursuit of science ? Chandras (short name of Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar) quest of science, science of humanity; component of wide nature, included noted delivered articles; with some other lecture notes in his book Truth & Beauty Aesthetics and Motivations in Science first published in the year 1991. First article of said book is The Scientist. It is a lecture note Chandra delivered on 26 th March 1946 at Chicago University, USA already stated. These two parts of his deliberations, perhaps, is quite enough to understand Chandras frame of thinking, which inspired him to deliver Arther Stanley Eddington Centenary Lectures. He delivered these lectures in Cambridge under the auspices of Trinity College on 19 and 21 October 1982. In the year 1983 Cambridge University published those lectures. Title of his noted lectures were : i. Eddington : The Most Distinguished Astrophysicist of His Time and ii. Eddington : The expositor and exponent of general relativity. He concluded his first lecture saying : It is known that Eddington, on occasions, enjoyed seeing horse races and that, not frequently, took his sister to the Newmarket races. G.H. Hardy must have known of this, for I heard him once ask Eddington if he had ever bet on a horse. Eddington admitted that he had. but just once. Hardy was curious to know the occasion; and Eddington explained that a horse named Jeans was running and that he could not resist the temptation of betting on it. Questioned whether he had won, Eddington responded with his characteristic smile and a No! In his second lecture he firmly stated :I think that the more idle kinds of speculation will be avoided if the investigation is conducted from right point of view. When the properties of an ideal model have been worked out by rigorous mathematics, all the underlying assumptions being clearly understood, then it becomes possible to say that such and such properties and laws lead precisely to such and such effects. If any other disregarded factors are present, they should now betray themselves when a comparison is made with nature. There is no need for disappointment at the failure of the model to give perfect agreement with observation; it has served its purpose, for it has distinguished what are the features of the actual phenomena which require new conditions for their explanation. A general preliminary agreement with observation is necessary, otherwise the model is hopeless; not that it is necessarily wrong so far as it goes, but it has evidently put the less essential properties foremost. We have been pulling at the wrong end of the tangle, which has to be unravelled by a different approach. But after a general agreement with observation is established, and the tangle begins to loosen, we should always make ready for the next knot. I suppose that the applied mathematician whose theory has just passed one still more stringent test by observation ought not to feel satisfaction, but rather disappointment Foiled again! This time I had to find a discordance which would throw light on the points where my model could be improved. Perhaps that is a counsel of perfection; I own that I have never felt very keenly a disappointment of this kind. In Eddington memorial speech at the University of Chicago he said, I believe that any one who has known Eddington will agree that he was a man of the heist integrity and character. I do not believe for example, that he ever thought harshly of anyone. That was why it was so easy to disagree with him on scientific matters. You can always be certain that he would never misjudge you on that account. That cannot be said of others.

One should realise the conviction of Chandra and for that what mental make up possesed. When on read the topics of his stated lecture articles he had chosen viz. Eddington: The Most Distinguished Astrophysicist of His Time and Eddington : The expositor and exponent of general relativity he can not overruled the lines annoying and frustrating Chandra wrote in a letter wrote his father on 7 th February 1935 : My last papers on stellar structure have involved me desperately in the rival jealousies of Eddington, Milne, and Jeans. In said letter he also wrote to his father :I am taking care to be scrupulously polite to all of them.It is the continuation of the history of differences in attitude with Milne which has been brewing for the last three years. The explosion hasnt yet occurred. The whole thing would have been smoothed over had it not been for a awful Howler Eddington has started. He thinks that Paulis principle is wrong! I do not know what he is up to. Not giving convincing arguments or alternate derivation meanwhile when Eddington kept up his attacks on 31 May Chandra wrote his father : Eddington is behaving in the most obscurantist fashion. In said letter he wrote : Though Fowler, Dirac, Bohr and many others agree with me, it is still very annoying to have such strained scientific relations with E. Indeed my differences with him (and also with Milne) have to a considerable extent made me unhappy during the past months. As Fowler said, they are being superstitious and what havoc it makes in science! Chandra knew their differences were not based on honest, scientific arguments. So he wrote, the differences are of a political nature. Prejudices! Prejudices! Eddington is simply stuck up! Take this piece of insolence. If worst comes to the worst we can believe your theory. You see I am looking at it from the point of view not of the stars but of Nature. The International Astronomical Union meeting was held on July 1935, where Eddington gave one hour-long talk. In said lecture Eddington spent considerable portion of his time proclaiming that Chandrasekhars work was heresy and there was no such thing as relativistic degeneracy. He told that the idea of a limiting mass was an absurdity. Chandra was present there. He tried to respond. He sent a note to Henry Norris Russell presiding the session telling him that I would like to reply to Eddington, Russell sent a note back saying, I prefer you dont.

Late seventies when author was working on Turbulent Flow problem his teacher told him about Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar. He gave his student Chandras two papers. Names of those papers were :On Heisenbergs Elementary Theory of Turbulence and The Theory of Axisymmetric Turbulence. First one was published in the Proceedings of Royal Society and second one in the Philosophical Transaction. Also author read about Chandra elsewhere. He was influenced by Chandras glamour. One day his teacher tempted him saying, you are very much enthusiast to meet luminaries. Will you go to attend Chandras lecture. Hearing him author was excited. When he went to attend Chandras lecture he humbly requested one of the organisers for giving him chance to meet Chandra to clear his doubts related to his research problem. Perhaps to encourage a young boy person arranged a scope for him. Author was tremendously excited. He met Chandra. He spared his worthy moments like a teacher for a known young boy. The boy was over whelming. Really author is lucky. He is grateful. The boy submitted his thesis in the year 1986, where he acknowledged great teacher Subrahmanyam Chandrasekhar saying, Works of S. Chandrasekhar, G. K. Batcheler, S. Panchev, L. N. Person, Hoff Meister, F. C. Auluck, R. Narasimha, A. S. Gupta have made contributions in different regions of turbulent flows in respect of the areas stated above and in these context, the author of the present thesis had the privilege to discussed and understand some aspects of problems enumerated here while he attended lectures of these stalwarts. Author referred there number of his papers. Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar died on August 21, 1995. In the year 1996 author submitted a proposal in a Council Meeting of Calcutta Mathematical Society for organising an International Symposium on Mathematical Physics in memory of S. Chandrasekhar. Council approved said proposal and the proposer was assigned the responsibility of Director of the International Symposium on behalf of S.N. Bose School of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences.

Budget of noted programme.. is highest for any programme organised by Calcutta Mathematical Society till date. The symposium was held on 29th December 1997- 1st January 1998. At the time of organising noted symposium Nobel Laureate Abdus Salam died. Both Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar and Abdus Salam were the honoury members of Calcutta Mathematical Society. Council of CMS requested Director of the symposium to do the needful for memorising Abdus Salam in a befitting manner. Name of the proposed symposium changed to International Symposium on Mathematical Physics in memory of S. Chandrasekhar with a special session on Abdus Salam. Many of national and international journals published conference news. So worldwide responses had enthuses all concern. Noted programme was the first symposium of its kind on Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar and till date it is unique on Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar and Abdus Salam through out the globe. Author along with Sarmistha Biswas prepared a paper entitled Chandrasekhars Truth and Beauty in reference to Einstein and Heisenberg. CMS took about two years for organising noted symposium. Few months before of said symposium Indian Academy of Science, Bangalore published a special issue of its journal, on Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar. That was a worthy volume. Conference proceeding was published later by Calcutta Mathematical Society. In this backdrop author thinks A Scientist on Truth and Beauty is quite different from his write up Sweet Reminiscences of a Gentle Colossus Prof. Abdus Salam published in the N. Bulletin Calcutta Mathematical Society in the year 1996, before the noted international symposium, though it is also Sweet Reminiscences of a Gentle Colossus Prof. Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar. There was an intention to publish a write up on Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar in the N. Bulletin Calcutta Mathematical Society during noted International conference organising period. But it was not possible then. Later one write up on Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, written by S. Chakraborty of S. N. Bose National Center for Basic Science - Calcutta, was published in N. Bulletin Calcutta Mathematical Society during 1999. In an article Recent Development in the Study of Turbulent Phenomena, published in a journal available in the net, author referred number of Chandras papers. In the article Chandrasekhars Truth and Beauty in reference to Einstein and Heisenberg to analyse Chandras concepts on truth and beauty it was stated that from ancient period Indian society posses some concepts of truth as well as beauty, different from western society. Indian philosophy is divided into six stika (orthodox) schools of thought, or daranas (views), which accept the Vedas as supreme revealed scriptures. Three other nstika (heterodox) schools do not accept the Vedas as authoritative. The stika schools are: i. Sankhya, a strongly dualist theoretical exposition of mind and matter, that denies the existence of God, ii.Yoga, a school emphasizing meditation closely based on Sankhya, iii. Nyaya or logics, iv. Vaisheshika, an empiricist school of atomism, v. Mimamsa, an anti-ascetic and anti-mysticist school of orthopraxy, vi. Vedanta, the logical conclusion to Vedic ritualism, focusing on mysticism. Vedanta came to be the dominant current of Hinduism in the post-medieval period. The nstika schools are : i. Buddhism, ii. Jainism, iii. Crvka, a sceptical materialist school, died out in the 15th century and whose primary texts have been lost. Indians were accustoming to deal with the Concept of Truth and beauty from ancient period. Undoubtedly these concepts were not like that of western possessed. In the Pan Indian philosophic thought the term 'Satyam Shivam Sundaram' is another name for the concept of the Supreme. 'Sat' is the truth value, 'Shiv' is the good value & 'Sundaram' is the beauty value. Man through his 'Srabana' or education, 'Manana' or experience and conceptualization and 'Sadhana' or practice, through different stages of life (Asramas) comes to form and realize the idea of these three values to develop a value system. This Value-system helps us to develop two basic ideas 1) that of 'Daksha' or the adept/expert and 2) of Mahana/Parama or the Absolute and thus to judge anything in this universe in the light of these two measures, known as 'Adarsha'. A person who has mastered great amounts of knowledge of the grammars, rules, and language of an art-form are adepts (Daksha), where as those who have worked through the whole system and journeyed ahead of these to become a law unto them is called a Mahana. Individuals idea of 'Daksha' and 'Mahana' is relative to one's development of the concept of 'Satyam-Shivam-

Sundaram.' For example, Tagore's idea of these two concepts should be way above any common man's and many perceive Tagore as a 'Mahana' Artist in the realm of literature. This concept of Satyam-Shivam-Sundaram, a kind of Value Theory is the cornerstone of Indian Aesthetics. In this backdrop Chandras concept of Truth and Beauty had been developed, later flourished with scientific knowledge in western perspective. Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar was born in Lahore on 19 th October 1910, a date which is easy to remember 19/10/1910. His father C. Subrahmanya Iyer, popularly known as C.S. Iyer, was in Government service. Then Lahore was part of India and that was the reason of his fathers posting there. When Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar completed his B. Sc. Honours degree his father Mr. C. S. Iyer asked him to join Government service, but Chandra flatly refused, saying that his mind was in science. There was much pressure. Chandra was firm to his decision. Chandras firmness was based on the then Indias environment. Early decades of nineteenth century was a time when the air was more bracing and the wind more freshly than it ever was or has ever been. At that time when great discoveries in physics were being made elsewhere in the world, important discoveries were being made in India too. Student knows the rhyme : Twinkle, twinkle, little star/ How I wonder what you are !.......but how many of them really wonder to know the star! Boy like Chandrasekhar definitely exception. So he did not stop to be really wondered till his last journey. His wonder forced him to know more and more. Authors teacher was a student of Professor Nikhil Ranjan Sen. In Calcutta University names of Satyendra Nath Bose, Meghnad Saha and Nikhil Ranjan Sen were been pronounced in same line. Authors teacher told him, Professor Nikhil Ranjan Sen read the book Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Stability written by Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar and pointed necessary correction of it in different pages of the book. Later he conveyed his opinion to the author of the book. Chandra gladly accepted those and did needful in later edition of the book. Author was searching the book in which Professor Sen wrote his suggested corrections/modifications. After death of Professor Sen perhaps said book is some where on his students desk, but one mast say that is a worthy document. Chandra came in Calcutta .at the Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science (IACS), where C.V. Raman was doing his historic investigation that gave him Nobel Prize. Chandra recalls a meeting with Professor Meghnad Saha. When Chandra was in Calcutta Saha invited him in a dinner along with many leading scientists of the day, even though Chandra was but a mere student. At the Association, Chandra studied a certain problem connected with the interior of stars. Chandras first paper was published in Indian Journal of Physics in the year 1928. Indian Journal of Physics is a journal still published from Calcutta. Name of the paper was Thermodynamics of the Compton Effect with Reference to the Interior of Stars. In same year C. V. Raman discovered Raman Effect for which he was awarded Nobel Prize in the year 1930. In January 1929, annual general meeting of The Indian Science Congress was at Madras. Raman, fresh from the triumph of his great discovery, was the General President of the Congress. Professor S. N. Bose, already famous for his Bose Statistics, was the president of Physics Section. In said congress young Chandra presented a paper. Perhaps the first time Chandra had done so. It was a glorious moment in the history of Indian scientific activities. Thus publishing paper in a Calcutta based journal foundation of invention of Chandrasekhars limit was erected and his deliberation before the scientific community in the annual general meeting of The Indian Science Congress was at Madras gave him blooming effect. In an interview Chandra stated that ..being in the midst of people who had made important discoveries did influence me. But retrospectively, it is not the kind of influence which man should have. He stated, Because it gave a false picture that making discoveries was easy. After all, the

Raman Effect was a very simple discovery in some sense, and young people in India had a wrong impression of what science was. I certainly had a wrong picture. Ramanujan became famous in four years. Sahas second paper produced the ionization theory attached to his name. Sayendra Nath Bose became associated with Einstein in the second or third paper he ever wrote. And Raman made a discovery and got a Nobel Prize. It gave a very glamorous picture, which was all right for these people, people with considerable standing. Although comparing some of them with other great men of science we know, they may not measure equally. But we must remember that these men came from a surrounding and a background that was devoid of modern science. He added, I mean it is a remarkable thing that in the modern era before 1910, there was no [Indian] scientists of international reputation or standing. Between 1920 and 1925, we had suddenly five or six internationally wellknown men. I myself have associated this remarkable phenomenon with the need for self-expression, which became a dominant motive among the young during the national movement. It was a part of the national movement to assert oneself. India was a subject country, but in the sciences, in the arts, particularly in science, we could show the West in their own realm that we were equal to them. In response to the opinion, There is classical image of a scientist as one who does not care for fame or success or anything worldly. He is only interested in search for truth. Chandra expresses his views, saying : I dont believe in that. In my own case, I said before, I started with a totally glamorous views of science that persisted so long as I was in India. And the fact that I had published one or two papers while I was still in college made me feel that I was on the right track. But going to England was a shattering experience precisely from this point of view. Replying another query he told, Motive for which one does science change with time. They should, they must change with timewhen recognition, glamour, reputation continued to dominate as the primary motives in individual scientists lives, deleterious effects took hold. Those who had made significant contributions were constantly aware of those successes. The wanted to be regarded as unique individuals, and therefore they turned around and discouraged younger people or attributed all kind of motives to their contemporaries. Notable is that at the same time he said Satyan Bose was exception. He told, .Raman telling me what Bose had said to him after seeing the spectra, Professor Raman, you have made a great discovery. It will be called Raman Effect, and you will get the Nobel Prize. In said interview Chandra told,.While visiting my sister in Bangalore on that occasion, I went to call on Raman. When I arrived at his office, he was unwrapping my Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Stability, which had coincidentally arrived by mail just then. He took the book in his hand and turned to me and said, The only book of this size I have seen before is a novel by Anthony Trollope absolute trash! And he went on, How do you manage to write a book of this size? I could never find the time to write a book. I always found research far more interestingHere it is perhaps essential to note Chandra and Fermis relation. During the first year I saw him only from distance. We corresponded about colloquia, etc. Then some time passed during which I used to meet him for lunch in Quadrangle Club. On one occasion he said to me, Since you are interested in hydromagnetics, and I dont know anything about it, perhaps it would be nice if we could meet together regularly once a week. We could discuss astrophysical problems. Thats how my close association with him began after few months of discussions, we accumulated a fair amount of material. I wrote it all u as a joint paper. When the paper was all finished and approved. I said to Fermi, Im afraid I made so many mistakes all during this time. He sort of said, Well, too made many mistakes in earlier times. Indeed, I have rarely come across a person as generous as Fermi in physics discussions. I went to England on a Government of India scholarship with the stipulation that on my completion of a Ph.D. degree, I should serve the Indian government for five years; otherwise return the entire money I had received. So when I returned to India in 1936, with the University of Chicago offer in hand, I searched for a position in India not only because of the stipulation, but I sincerely wanted a position in India. I saw a number of officials, like the Director of Public Instruction, and asked them whether I could have a position of a readership in some university and do theoretical work. No, they

said. There was no such position; no position at all. Actually they were rather rude. Then I asked them to absolve me of my commitment. They werent willing to do that either. I said, You cant enforce me to pay the money back when you say you dont have a position. I have an offer of a three-year appointment from Chicago; if I accept it, I dont know when I will return to India. I want to clear this matter. After a great deal of wrangling, they absolved me of my payments. In this backdrop one may think why Chandra had not approached scientists of the then period have good connections ? In noted interview Chandra said. I didnt want to approach Raman for personal reasons. I met Krishnan in 1939 in Cambridge and asked him if I could get a readership in Dacca where he was a professor. Krishnan said he would explore, but nothing came of it. The announcement of the 1983 Nobel Prize for physics, which Chandra shared with William A. Fowler, was greeted with joy and appreciation throughout the scientific community. Perhaps it is worthwhile to cite some of the reactions for visualising reaction of noted society. James Kemp wrote : I am overjoyed, Professor Chandrasekhar. It is forty years late. Guido Mnch wrote: ...at last ! Congratulations ! The Swedish academy has managed to avoid what would have been one of greatest injustices in history. There are more such reactions. But what was Chandras personal reaction ? Kameshwar C. Wali, Chandras biographer noted this way: Over the years in my conversations with him, I had found Chandra somewhat trenchant and unhappy about the Nobel Prize and the public attention in attracts. On occasions in the past, before he received the Nobel Prize, when he found himself described as a Nobel laureate in bulletins and announcements of national and international conferences, he had greatly embarrassed. He had reacted rather strongly, taking the organisers to task. Now that he was a recipient, I was quite curious to see how he really felt, since I watched him go through the Stockholm ceremonies in December 1983 in a rather sober mood. He appeared to be overwhelmed by it all, but not overjoyed. When Kameshwar C. Wali asked Chandra, about his immediate filling when he heard about the declaration of Stockholm. Chandra replied, I was astonished. Later he said, ..I felt it was distorting to science to a large extent, and I thought I could see it objectively because I never considered myself at any time as a possible candidate. The idea that I might be had never occurred to me. Kameshwar Wali then told, was it because astrophysics and astronomy, until recently, were not areas eligible for the Nobel Prize ? Chandra replied, Partly that. But mainly because the areas I worked in, area like hydrodynamics, relative transfer, post-Newtonian approximations, ellipsoids, are areas that are not in the limelight of science. I did not feel I had a sufficient number of people belonging to the establishment who were familiar with my work. The areas I worked on did not make me visible. To narrate his approach to work and his style, Chandrasekhar said. My motive has not been to solve a single problem, but to acquire a perspective of an entire area. He told, I work for my personal satisfaction on things generally outside of the scientific mainstream. Usually my work has become appreciated only after some length of time. In this context perhaps one can remember Einsteins reaction after becoming Professor in the year 2011. In 1905 Albert Einstein did his famous works when he was a clerk of patent office. But he got chance to be Professor in the year 1911 after hard battle. So he wrote one of his friend : Ultimately I achieved professorship. Leonhard Paul Euler was a pioneering Swiss mathematician and physicist. He published more papers than any other mathematician of his time. Euler made important discoveries in fields as diverse as calculus and graph theory. He also introduced much of the modern mathematical terminology and notation, particularly for mathematical analysis, such as the notion of a mathematical function. He is also renowned for his work in mechanics, optics, and astronomy. Euler is considered to be the prominent mathematician of the 18th century and one of the greatest of all time. After long battle Euler ultimately became Professor in Berlin, but despite of his immense contribution to the Academy's prestige, he was eventually forced to leave Berlin. There are many such examples. Thus perhaps hurdle makes one unique. But to be unique honest consistence tireless effort towards the mission is a

must. This is the lesson of Learner, Teacher and Scientist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhars life to know the limit to analyse beyond the limit. This is the truth and also beauty of truth.