Sounds like a graph of the quality of his relationships with other human beings would have a spike at only one point and zero everywhere else...
:o the original Manci Pixie Dream girl
If you want to learn a bit more about Dirac's life, I really recommend reading "The Strangest Man" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Strangest_Man
> After returning from a visit with her in Budapest, Dirac wrote, “I felt very sad leaving you and still feel that I miss you very much. I do not understand why this should be, as I do not usually miss people when I leave them.”
This line is like something out of a movie.
Dirac used to introduce her as "Wigner's sister" rather than "my wife".
why should someone be 'less than fully human' if they dont have 'feelings', particularly of the romantic kind.
we accept people of different sexual orientations. we should accept people of all emotional orientations too.
I listened to a very good 'In Our Time' podcast episode about Paul Dirac recently: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000fw0p
He said quite a few words in succession on religion. Somehow most of a century later, the intelligentsia persists in claiming that views such as these (i.e. those also of Dawkins et al.) are somehow "childish" or "culturally illiterate".
I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards—in heaven if not on earth—all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins.
His father caused his "lack of desire to speak" by beating him for each speaking error while he was a child.
Dirac solved this error as best as a child could: by not speaking. This trauma lasted to his death.
Someone will now say "citation needed", and to those people I give these 2 books to read and what I wrote above will become as clear as day.
Alice Miller: The Drama of the Gifted Child
Alice Miller: The Body Never Lies
One of my hobbies is reading (and writing, one day) short romance stories, another one is reading factoids about distinguished people, specially scientists. I was grinning like a fool through most of this article.
I like this because it generally asserts that anyone, even someone as apparently closed off as Dirac, can find love and/or happiness.
Dirac himself told the reason of why he didn't talk much differently:
Wigner:
How much did you talk to your parents?
Dirac:
Very little. My father made the rule that I should only talk to him in French. He thought it would be good for me to learn French in that way. Since I found that I couldn’t express myself in French, it was better for me to stay silent than to talk in English.
Source: https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral...
Perhaps his human side was suppressed.
People with high IQs, who win Nobel prizes are more complex than the average joe. Their motivations, inspirations and behaviour, perhaps, needs a different perspective than normal analysis.
Its a wonderful article, but seems to suggest that his human nature was non existant, rather than hidden. This I find is unbelievable. Perhaps he never had a chance to truly explore his human side, mainly because those who tried to make him explore were not patient nor persistant.
> Dirac pondered this for some minutes before responding, “But Heisenberg, how do you know beforehand that the girls are nice?”
Interesting article. Title needs (2015).
This is really sweet.
Not much to say... Life is meant to be lived. Don't forget to live it.
> “A single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.”
I don't understand how this is supposed to be some kind of heart warming story. I mean.... maybe it was something nice for Dirac, but it sounds as much like a ruthless sociopath hunting a the man down like a zebra on the Serengeti plain. I guess there were kids at least! But otherwise there's no indication Dirac ... was any more (or to be fair less) happy afterwords.
Curiously, nothing is said about how this 'life-changing' love actually changed his life and work.
From the title I thought I'd be R. Feynman.
It is really wonderful when you get to know someone and they show you a whole new part of life you hadn't experienced before. I think it's a big mistake to close off the possibility of such things ("my life is about facts not feelings"), but then again I have no Nobel prizes to my name.
So what are they saying, women should court incels?
That's a touching story, and it illustrates something I've been thinking about recently: that we're not as "rational" as we think we are, to a certain extent, because all of our current rationality depends on everything that has happened, not everything that will happen in the future.
Paul Dirac, an absolutely brilliant man, decided early on that his life "was mainly concerned with facts and not feelings." In a sense he planned his life out with imperfect information--as we all do--until something came along and completely turned his life around, in this case his future wife.
I think that's a hopeful message? That your life and your thoughts are limited by all that has happened to you, not by what hasn't happened to you yet, by definition, because you can't imagine a future that hasn't happened to you. I know, anecdotally, a handful of people who swore off marriage in their 20s, only to turn right around and get married in their 30s after meeting somebody who changed their minds. The same is true for academics and, really, everything--a student who resigns himself to hating math until he finds a teacher who understands his feelings, etc.
Or maybe it's late and I'm rambling. Either way, I really enjoyed reading this essay.