Newton Einstein Hawking Poker
On July 1 physicist Michael Cates will be the 19th person to sit in what is perhaps the most prestigious “chair” in science when he assumes the post of the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University.
- Stephen Hawking Einstein Newton Poker
- Newton Einstein Hawking Poker Chips
- Newton Einstein Hawking Poker Table
2000+ Free online slots just for fun: play the best free online casino slots with no download, no sign Stephen Hawking Einstein Newton Poker up, no deposit required. Top free slot machine games with bonus rounds and free spins bonus in instant Stephen Hawking Einstein Newton Poker play! The most popular new online slots: penny and 3d slots from. NEW DELHI: One of the most memorable scenes in cult TV show ' Star Trek ' shows the character 'Data' playing a game of poker with a virtual Issac Newton, a virtual Albert Einstein, and Stephen Hawking who was representing himself, in the flesh. The episode aired in 1993 and was part of the show's ' Next generation ' season. Stephen Hawking: ‘I enjoyed my poker game with Newton.’ Ahead of a C4 series, Professor Stephen Hawking talks about Britain’s finest scientific minds.
Although sometimes called “Newton’s chair” after its most famous holder, Sir Isaac was not the only brilliant mind, nor the most colourful individual, to occupy the post.
The Lucasian Chair was founded in 1663 at the bequest of Henry Lucas (1640-1648), who was a member of Parliament for Cambridge University. In his will, he provided “a yearly stipend and salarie for a professor […] of mathematicall sciences in the said Vniversitie” to “honor that greate body” and assist “that parte of learning which hitherto hath not bin provided for”.
The Lucasian Chair has been held by a fascinating procession of scientists, including
- Physicist and mathematician Issac Newton (who held the chair from 1669 to 1702)
- Astronomer George Biddell Airy (1826 to 1828)
- Mathematician and computing pioneer Charles Babbage (1828 to 1839)
- Physicist and mathematician George Stokes (1849 to 1903)
- Physicist Paul Dirac (1932 to 1969)
- Theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking (1979 to 2009) and most recently,
- Theoretical physicist Michael Green (2009 to 2015).
It also has the unusual distinction of having been held by a famous – though fictitious and wholly artificial person – Star Trek: The Next Generation’s Data, in the series’ final episode, “All Good Things…”. But that is another quantum timeline.
Smart seat
The first Lucasian Professor, Isaac Barrow, held both the Regius Professorship of Greek and Gresham Chair in geometry.
Sadly, Barrow’s early ardour for mathematics had waned by the time he took up the Chair in 1663. His “method of tangents”, though, was seen as ground breaking at the time. This proto-calculus set the scene for his brilliant successor: Isaac Newton.
Newton was elected to the Chair after his anni mirabiles of 1666. According to William Stukeley’s 1752 biography, that is the year Newton inferred the law of gravity by observing an apple falling in his orchard as he “sat in contemplative mood”.
While Lucasian Professor, Newton developed his most important contributions to science, in particular the masterpieces Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687) and Opticks (1704).
At the time of Newton’s election in 1669, the Lucasian Chair was one of eight Chairs at Cambridge. The Lucasian Professor is elected, then as now. The election is made by the masters of the Colleges at Cambridge, with the vice chancellor able to break a deadlock if required.
An uneven history
Despite its prestige, the history of the Chair is not one of undiluted greatness.
The stories of the post-Newtonian Chairs of William Whiston (from 1702 to 1710), Nicholas Saunderson (1711 to 1739), John Colson (1739 to 1760), Edward Waring (1760 to 1798) and Isaac Milner (1798 to 1820) was largely one of translating, teaching, expanding and developing the great works of former Chair-holder, Newton.
In the latter half of the 19th century, as science became the arena of professional scientists rather than dilettante gentlemen, the Lucasian Chair was sometimes used as a stepping stone to more lucrative or important positions.
Robert Woodhouse (Chair from 1820 to 1822) lasted only two years in the post. He was rewarded for his “conformity” by securing the Plumian Chair of mathematics and the directorship of the Cambridge astronomical observatory.
His successor, Thomas Turton (from 1822 to 1826), described as “mathematically inert and utterly reliable”, departed to the more prestigious Regius Chair of Divinity (founded in 1540 by Henry VIII) and better paid dean-ships, eventually becoming the Bishop of Ely.
Dirac and the quantum age
Nevertheless, while the term might not apply to all holders of the Chair, Paul Dirac (from 1932 to 1969), was indisputably brilliant. In fact, Dirac personified the stereotype of the lone genius.
Einstein said of him: “This balancing on the dizzying path between genius and madness is awful.”
By the age of 26, Dirac had, in the period from 1925 to 1928, developed his own theory of quantum mechanics and relativistic quantum theory of the electron, as well as predicted the existence of antimatter.
Dirac, like Newton, also made significant contributions to science in his tenure as Lucasian Professor. According to John Polkinghorne, Dirac was once asked about his most fundamental belief, upon which, “he strode to a blackboard and wrote that the laws of nature should be expressed in beautiful equations”.
Hawking: the stopgap professor?
Of the more recent holders of the Lucasian Chair, it is the name of Stephen Hawking, who held the Professorship for three decades from 1979 to 2009, that has become most synonymous with the post – and a household name at that.
In an interview with Hélène Mialet, Hawking said he always assumed he was elected as a stopgap professor because he was not expected to live a long time and his “work would not disgrace the standards expected of the Lucasian chair”.
Nonetheless he confounded his doctors and held the chair until the retirement age of 67.
Hawking had, at the time of his election, hoped the Chair might go to a brilliant scientist who was not already affiliated with or educated at Cambridge. This would have been a remarkable change.
Holders of the Lucasian Chair have all been Cambridge graduates, in addition to being male and British. Only Dirac and Hawking have undergraduate degrees from a university other than Cambridge (Bristol and Oxford, respectively). Dirac alone was not of British birth – he was a Swiss national, though born in England in 1902 and acquiring British nationality in 1919.
The quality of Hawking’s scientific output puts this “stopgap professor” in the Lucasian top-three league, along with Newton and Dirac.
Incidentally, Stephen Hawking played a game of poker with Star Trek’s Data – the fictitious future Lucasian Chair – along with fellow Chair Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein (the latter played by actors, of course) in Star Trek: the Next Generation’s episode “Descent”.
Hawking was succeeded by Michael Green, who was Lucasian Professor from 2009 to this year. Green made long-term contributions to mathematics, including pioneering string theory in 1984.
What does the future of the chair hold?
Michael Cates is certainly no stopgap professor. Cates is an expert in the statistical mechanics of “soft materials”, examples of which are: colloids (paint); emulsions (mayonnaise); foams (shaving cream); surfactant solutions (shampoo); and liquid crystals (flat screen TVs).
His models capture the essential physics without including all the, at times confounding, chemical detail.
Prior to his election as Lucasian Professor, Cates held a Royal Society Research Professorship at Edinburgh. At age 54, he will likely hold the Chair for more than a decade. It will be fascinating to see what he contributes to mathematics and the ongoing Lucasian history during his tenure.
As for future chairs? If Star Trek is any indication, it will continue to be populated by some of the most brilliant minds in the known universe – although one wonders when it might be finally held by a brilliant woman.
Thread Rating:
I hadn't paid attention to the poker play in this episode, but did this time and noticed this scene, like many others in TNG, has nonsensical poker procedure. It's so rife with error that I won’t even bother explaining it. I will say that it certainly *sounds* like a rousing game of poker! Here's the action:
Clockwise at the poker table from Data are holograms of Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, and Sir Isaac Newton.
—Einstein recalls that Hawking raised Data 4. He mistakenly calculates that the bet is 7 to him.
—Newton corrects Einstein by saying the bet is 10 to him. The sound of a clinking of chips indicates that Einstein calls.
—After some discussion, Newton says the action is to Hawking, who now raises 50.
—Newton and Data fold.
—Einstein, sensing a bluff, calls.
—Hawking shows quad 7s.
During the poker craze of the 2000s, my friend and I watched with more scrutiny over what the crew of the Enterprise-D was doing in the episode Cause and Effect. Yes, I know it's television and the writers are just trying to tell their story for the non-poker-playing masses (for extra flair, they often make the obligatory string bets). They're even playing 5 Card Stud for goodness' sake! I don't fault them for errors, but I would have been really impressed had the show got the game right. (One pet peeve was always that Worf turns over his hole card for all to see—definitely a poker faux pas!)
Because this is the Internet, here's an overanalysis of their game from an unedited transcript of the emails my friend and I exchanged. You're welcome!
So I'm watching TNG right now with a deck of cards....
Data: _ 4 9 6 9 (I'm assuming everybody has a rainbow)
Riker: _ 8 10 J 7
Worf: 3 A 7 4 J (yeah he did turn over his hole card
right before turning everything face down)
Beverly: _ Q Q 2 8
1 rd, no bet
2 rd, Bev opens with 10, everyone calls
3 rd, Bev leads with 20, Will raises 'and 50 more',
everyone calls
4 rd, Bev leads with 20, Data folds, Will raises, Worf
folds, and Bev reraises, Will reraises, and Bev calls.
Data shows a pair of 9s, I doubt he has 2 pair since
he didn't go against Bev's 2 Q's at the end, unless he
thought Bev had a Q in the hole. Why did he call
Will's first raise when he only had the first 9? If
he had a 9 in the hole, why fold at Bev's rd 4 lead?
Worf should also have folded with Will's raise, but
Klingons have gaul, so I can see him staying in.
Will was bluffing one of 2 9's (gut shot straight
draw), since Data was showing the other 2 9's. Bev
could have had either of the 2 other Q's (3 Q's), or
one of the 3 2's or one of the 2 8's (2 pair); or not
and just a pair.
My response was:
You watched that in quite detail. I wonder if the writers had each round of betting scripted. I doubt it, though.
Data's betting doesn't make much sense. He woud have needed either an A or K in the hole, and hope he pairs one of those to beat Crusher's pair of queens after the second up-card. It's possible data had a 4 in the hole, in which case he would stay in hoping for a 4 to make three-of-a-kind. But since Worf got one of his 4s, he was facing long odds to win the hand. Perhaps Riker's raise put enough money in the pot to make the 'pot odds' correct for him to try for the last 4, but I doubt it. If he had 9s and 4s after the last round (he definitely didn't have three 9s) he would have at least called Crusher on the last round, even with Riker's straight draw showing. With 2 pair, calling a bet of 20 with a pot that big is the correct play, and calling Crusher would also prevent Riker from trying to bluff *two* players.
Dr. Crusher definitely should have reraised Riker's raise of 50. At that point, he was without question trailing Crusher's 2 queens, and the correct strategy would be to make it expensive for him to try for his straight.
His response:
I would think the betting was scripted; and then the
cards were then scripted to match the 'action'. The
important part was the play between Will and Bev.
Leading to Bev calling Will's bluff; because she
'remembered' what he had. When we first see the poker
game, the Enterprise had already exploded once
onscreen.*
And since Worf and Data ultimately folded, their hands
weren't important. Come to think of it, Worf should
have lead out with the first A (bluffing that he had
an A in the hole).
*I come up with about 46 times through the causality
loop. Worf says that their chronometers are off 17.4
hours. I assume the poker game was at 9pm and the
crash occurred just after the 6am morning meeting
(9.078hr loop).
Wait, it could be *47* times (the loop being 8.88
hrs)! Owing to the inside joke about 47 with the TNG
writers!
My response:
excellent analysis!
did you notice how Data's cards are neatly lined up in front of him, while everyone else's cards are just kind of piled about? (though, he *is* the dealer and would more likely place the cards, rather than drop them)
one last poker note: usually in stud games (5-card, 7-card), the last card is dealt face-down.
His response:
Didn't notice the neatness, but it fits Data's
character. I did notice that Data looked at his hole
card right before he folded. Not like he can forget
what card he had...
I was wondering about the amount of face up cards!
Hard to bluff when the rest of the table knows 4/5 of
you hand!
But it moves the story along much faster. A 7 card
game would have taken longer to 'play', and only
showing 3 cards would have made it harder to show that
Will was bluffing a straight. Although they could
have given him an open-ended draw. And with Bev
showing her pair [chuckle] and two hole cards, I think
it would be harder to bluff.
Also, Troi is normally at these games. I'd think she
was omitted for time.
My response:
Yeah, I remember him looking at his hole card, as well. That's probably a cultural sub-routine, where he's observed that although players clearly remember their hole card(s), they look one more time to admire their hands before folding.
Yep, they made a simplistic game even simpler with that 'house rule.' Probably not much of an exciting game in the long run.
And finally, I agree for storytelling purposes they probably kept the poker table simple. It usually takes 5 or 6 people to make poker interesting. Good poker players will fold most of the time, so 4-handed, it'll be rare to get a good pot going. Unless everyone calls like in this scene.
His response:
I'm surprised I haven't found any analysis of ST poker
games online.
[Editor's note: you have now!]
But good analysis. Well done.
TigerWuAs far as Data looking at the cards he would obviously have memorized, you're right in that it's a specifically programmed sub-routine. It's been mentioned throughout the series that Data has been programmed to act more human and do things he doesn't need to do to better fit in with people around him.
Stephen Hawking Einstein Newton Poker
Before the poker boom in the early 2000's, I never played in a casual game where betting was consistent or made sense as far as raises and re-raises and all of that. Even nowadays when I (rarely) play, outside of a tournament setting or for any real money, nobody really pays attention to that stuff. Super-casual poker players like me don't think about odds or pot odds or check-raising or any of that other poker math that constitutes 'good' play, so I guess that's why I never thought the poker scenes in TNG were all that unrealistic. Keep in mind they're not playing for money, and they rarely play at that (I think Picard says in one episode something like he hasn't played in months).
As far as Data looking at the cards he would obviously have memorized, you're right in that it's a specifically programmed sub-routine. It's been mentioned throughout the series that Data has been programmed to act more human and do things he doesn't need to do to better fit in with people around him.
Picard only played in the game once, in the last scene of the finale!
Picard only played in the game once, in the last scene of the finale!
That's right... I forgot about that! So he played even less than I remembered...haha...Mission146
Picard only played in the game once, in the last scene of the finale!
Yeah, but he, 'Should have done it a long time ago.'
Yeah, but he, 'Should have done it a long time ago.'
I do always get a bit dusty at that scene...
I love the Hawking scene too. It’s the only time in ST that a cameo appearance is of someone who is playing them self.
Newton Einstein Hawking Poker Chips
Troi: I seem to remember her mentioning at one of the poker games, the telepath thing is something she can turn on and off, and promises to keep it off during the games. They’re all friends and such, it was accepted, and that was that.5 card: Remember that this was before the poker boom. Most people haven’t heard of Hold Em, in fact most people haven’t heard of a game that has more than five cards. So, for an unsophisticated TV audience, 5 card makes sense.
Stud: I remember poker scenes in other episodes that were draw. Don’t know why the game in the original post was stud. In the Hawking episode it kinda makes sense since we don’t see anyone putting cards in his card holder.
Splashing the pot: Again, it’s a friendly game. Also, wasn’t it a relatively small table?
String bets: Now that’s a whole other can of worms. And again, it can happen in friendly games. And, yeah, it’s almost required whenever there’s a poker game on a TV show.
As some of you may remember me saying, I am a dealer in a pub poker league. So I have to respond to a lot of these kind of issues. I tell new players that although they see it all the time on TV, you’ll never see it on a poker show. Bottom line, when you say “I see your bet, and...” there’s no ‘and’.
Rounders: Rounders is often held as an example of a dramatic, but realistic, presentation of poker.
The biggest example of rules being broken is at the judge’s game. When Mikey starts betting for the dean, that’s two man on a hand. Absolutely forbidden.
And there are string bets. I can think of a couple But the way they did them, the way the scenes played out, they were perfect example of string bets that could have happened in real life.
Newton Einstein Hawking Poker Table
There were the games vs Teddy KGB, particularly the last hand. (Everybody remembers this one.) Not only is KGB splashing the pot, he is doing it one stack at a time, string bet, while saying, “I ... bet ... it ... all.” Of course Mike isn’t gonna object, he has the nuts!
In the scene where the opponent says “I bluffed the big ringer!” Right before that he says “You’re raising me $300? I call your $300. How much is in there Whites?”
Whites replies, “Um, $1,500”
“$1,500? Here’s $1,000... $500... I bet the pot limit, kiddo.”