Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In the Chandrasekhar–Eddington dispute of the early 20th century, English astronomer Arthur Eddington and the Indian astronomer Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar disagreed over the correct theory to describe the final stages of a star's lifecycle. During the dispute, Chandrasekhar was at the beginning of his career and Eddington was a renowned ...
Chandrasekhar's work presaged the discovery of black holes, which at the time seemed so absurdly non-physical that Eddington refused to believe that Chandrasekhar's purely mathematical derivation had consequences for the real world. Eddington was wrong and his motivation is controversial.
During this time, Chandrasekhar became acquainted with British physicist Sir Arthur Eddington. Eddington took an interest in his work, but in January, 1935, gave a talk severely criticizing Chandrasekhar's work (see #Dispute with Eddington and Chandrasekhar–Eddington dispute).
Chandrasekhar's work on the limit aroused controversy, owing to the opposition of the British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington. Eddington was aware that the existence of black holes was theoretically possible, and also realized that the existence of the limit made their formation possible. However, he was unwilling to accept that this could happen.
Work by Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar suggested that collapsing stars beyond a certain mass cannot be supported by degeneracy pressure, but this result was challenged by the more prestigious Arthur Stanley Eddington, and was not fully accepted for several decades.
This calculation was in opposition to Sir Arthur Eddington theories about stars. Eddington mocked Chandrasekhar various times and frequently campaigned against Chandrasekhar during conferences. [7] In 1935, Møller was the first to write a paper in collaboration with Chandrasekhar to criticise Eddington's theory.
Arthur Stanley Eddington. Arthur Stanley Eddington (early treatises, [note 2] relativistic stars, Eddington–Finkelstein coordinates, role of curvature, parametrized post-Newtonian formalism, popularization of general relativity), Jürgen Ehlers (Ehlers vacuum family, symmetries of pp waves, spacetime view of gravitational lensing, Newtonian ...
However, his analysis had a mathematical error, and his approximation to the magnitude of the effect should actually have been zero, as pointed out in the same year by Arthur Stanley Eddington. Zwicky promptly acknowledged the correction, [ 9 ] although he continued to hope that a full treatment would be able to show the effect.