| About this Abstract |
| Meeting |
MS&T23: Materials Science & Technology
|
| Symposium
|
History of Materials Science and Engineering
|
| Presentation Title |
Raman vs. Born, after Eddington vs. Chandrasekhar: Crystals and Stars |
| Author(s) |
Olivier Hardouin Duparc |
| On-Site Speaker (Planned) |
Olivier Hardouin Duparc |
| Abstract Scope |
A long and sometimes bitter controversy opposed the Nobel prize winner Sir Chandrasekhar Raman to Max Born about the use of the mathematical cyclic, or periodic, boundary conditions (PBCs) for the calculation of crystalline lattice vibrations and the possible fallacious effects of these conditions on the calculation of physically observable properties derived from the obtained spectra via the Raman effect.
Another well known controversy had previously opposed Sir Arthur Eddington to Raman's nephew, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, about the existence of a limiting mass for stable stars. Less well known is the fact that one of Eddington’s critics was about Chandra’s use of PBCs to treat the behavior of electrons within a highly compressed star.
In both cases, Rudolph Peierls intervened to show that boundary conditions have no effect on usual inner properties. Improvement in the sensitivity of photographic plates eventually led Raman’s pupils to recognize that Born’s PBCs are valid. |