The relationship between Albert Einstein and Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar was complex and nuanced, encompassing elements of both collaboration and disagreement. While it wouldn't be entirely accurate to label it a simple "rivalry," it is true that there were periods of tension and differing viewpoints around Chandrasekhar's work on stellar evolution, particularly regarding the fate of massive stars.
Here's a breakdown of their relationship:
A) Early support and collaboration:
Einstein initially recognized Chandrasekhar's talent and supported his early career. He helped him secure a fellowship at Cambridge University and even nominated him for the Nobel Prize in 1936.They collaborated on a paper in 1939 on the radiation of stars.
B) Friction and disagreement:
Chandrasekhar's 1935 paper proposed the Chandrasekhar limit, which states that a white dwarf exceeding 1.44 solar masses would collapse under its own gravity. This contradicted Einstein's belief that white dwarfs could reach any mass.Einstein strongly opposed the Chandrasekhar limit, even publicly criticizing it for several years. This period of disagreement created some tension between them.
C) Reconciliation and mutual respect:
Despite their differences, Einstein eventually acknowledged the validity of Chandrasekhar's work. He publicly admitted his mistake in 1966, citing new observational evidence.While their collaboration didn't resume, they maintained a level of mutual respect and admiration for each other's work.
Overall:
While there were periods of disagreement and tension, it's important to avoid framing their relationship as solely a "rivalry." Their interactions were more complex, encompassing both support and criticism.Ultimately, their contrasting viewpoints led to further exploration and understanding of stellar evolution. Chandrasekhar's work, later confirmed by observation, paved the way for our current understanding of supernovae and black holes.
Here are some additional points to consider:
Other scientists like Arthur Eddington also played a role in the debate surrounding the Chandrasekhar limit.
The nature of scientific progress often involves disagreement and challenge. This can be a healthy process that leads to more robust understanding.
