Sep-30-17
 | | MissScarlett: This is Percy (not Perry) Williams Bridgman, Nobel Prize winner in Physics and all-round brainbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy... He played four times for Harvard in the annual intercollegiate <C.H.Y.P.> contests, being on first board in 1903-05, leading them to a hat-trick of victories. If he'd stuck around for 1906, he could have played Columbia's Capablanca. He played sixth board in the American (CHYP) vs. Oxbridge universities' cable match in March 1903, losing to Bertram Goulding Brown as the Brits triumphed 3.5-2.5. The Boston Post of December 8th 1903, p.5, has a report of a Jacques Mieses' simul (+10 -6 =2), where Bridgman was one of the victors. The <ACB>, May 1906, p.85, notes he drew Maroczy in a simul given before thirty of Boston's finest. |
|
Dec-15-22
 | | FSR: "The family was deeply religious; reading the Bible each morning and attending a Congregational Church. However, Bridgman later became an atheist." |
|
Dec-15-22
| | MissScarlett: (New York) Sunday News, October 29th 1933, p.69: <Stockholm, Oct. 28 (U.P.). - Percy Williams Bridgman of Cambridge, Mass., was reported today as the probable recipient of the 1932 Nobel physics prize which was reserved that year. Prof. Auguste Piccard, Belgian scientist noted for his exploration of the Stratosphere, is thought to be the recipient of the 1933 physics award.> Totally fake news....the 1932 Prize went to Werner Heisenberg, and for 1933, it was was shared by Erwin Schrödinger and Paul Dirac. Whoever heard of them? |
|
| Dec-15-22 | | stone free or die: A bit harsh to label this as "fake news" when it's really more like "errant speculation": <probable recipient> <thought to be the recipient> are qualifications after all.
Maybe, <fake leads>, but not <fake news>. The situation in physics back in 1933 was confusing anyways, as the Nobel Prize Committee was grappling with the Quantum Revolution. <The Nobel Committee for Physics, however, has not always been as unanimous as it was when it chose its first recipient. In the early 20th century, theoretical discoveries in physics were often particularly problematic. Committee members were comfortable awarding the prize to a theorist whose work had clear experimental confirmation; Niels Bohr, whose model of the hydrogen atom matched hydrogen’s well-known atomic spectrum and predicted the Rydberg constant, is one example. In contrast, the committee could never unanimously agree that Albert Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity had been experimentally and observationally confirmed.2 Einstein was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize for his work on the photoelectric effect, but never for one of the most profound theories in the history of physics.Discoveries in theoretical physics also caused complications for the committee when quantum mechanics (QM) emerged. On 9 November 1933, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announced that the Nobel Prize in Physics for 1932 would go to Werner Heisenberg and the 1933 prize would be shared between Erwin Schrödinger and Paul Dirac (see figure 1). When that announcement was made, three years had elapsed since a physics Nobel had been awarded, the longest peacetime gap in its history. That gap reflects the committee’s struggle to come to grips with the new QM. Dirac in particular seemed destined to share Einstein’s fate of missing a Nobel Prize for his most important contribution—until experimental confirmation arrived at just the right moment.> https://physicstoday.scitation.org/... Basically the committee picked the three at the same time, Heisenberg got slight preferential treatment because his 1925 seminal paper was first. At the awards ceremony Dirac and Heisenberg, being the good sons they were, both took their mothers. Schodinger took his wife (not sure where he left his mistress). . |
|
| Dec-15-22 | | stone free or die: Oops, here's the photo:
https://miro.medium.com/max/720/1*9... PS- As once was told by a prize winner, ~"do your work young, but be sure to live a long life thereafter". In this case, as noted in the bio, Bridgeman eventually did win the Nobel Prize, in 1946. |
|
| Dec-15-22 | | stone free or die: *Schodinger* -> Schrödinger |
|
| Dec-17-22 | | stone free or die: Here's a picture of his long-time home in Cambridge- https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe... I probably have driven by it hundreds, if not thousands, of times without notice. |
|
Dec-17-22
 | | perfidious: <zed>, looks like hundreds of homes in Cantabrigia; do you know where it is? Hail, in mah days there, <Ah> likely passed it by too. Would actually not mind living in Bawston again, but things are damnably expensive. |
|
| Dec-17-22 | | stone free or die: Yes, it's at 10 Buckingham Place off Craigie St., part of BB&N campus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy... https://www.google.com/maps/place/1... When I said I drove by it, I thought it was at the BB&N campus at Gerry's Landings (though I've driven on Craigie almost as much). |
|
Dec-17-22
| | perfidious: In 1984-85, had a friend who lived over that side of Mass Ave before moving to LA, roughly a mile from where I was, just over the Somerville line. |
|
| Dec-17-22 | | stone free or die: Now that's a new concept - left/right bank of MassAve! . |
|
| Dec-17-22 | | stone free or die: Now that's a new concept - left/right bank of MassAve! Never thought of it before, but most of my favorite music locales are right bank - Wally's, Middle East, Cantab, Plough and Stars. Heard a famous place or two were left bank, but at least one burned down before my time. |
|
Dec-17-22
| | perfidious: <zed>, believe I recall Plough and Stars from my days there; not sure I ever visited, though. |
|
| Dec-18-22 | | stone free or die: <<perf> believe I recall Plough and Stars from my days there; not sure I ever visited> Shame that.
https://bostonphoenix.com/boston/ne... https://www.bostonmagazine.com/rest... http://archive.boston.com/news/loca... <Santoro: At the Plough and Stars, I’ve seen <Bonnie Raitt, Morphine, Treat Her Right, and G. Love & Special Sauce>. I was there for <Jeff Buckley>, and of course, <John Lincoln Wright> was a fixture.O’Malley: The man you left out was a favorite friend of mine — he was just in town — called <“Spider” John Koerner>. Santoro: Sure. But let me ask you this, though: Didn't <“Van the Man” Morrison> spend a fair amount of time in the Plough? O’Malley: He did, yes. Back in ’69.> https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-new... Lots of literally types hung out there too, though more so in the daytime hours. |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
