"An article appeared in the Los Angeles Times, a Los Angeles daily newspaper, dated 7/18/56, to the effect that the
appointee's wife was granted a divorce from him because of
appointee's constantly working calculus problems in his head
as soon as awake, while driving car, sitting in living room, and
so forth, and that his one hobby was playing his African drums.
His ex-wife reportedly testified that on several occasions when
she unwittingly disturbed either his calculus or his drums he
flew into a violent rage, during which time he choked her, threw
pieces of bric-a-brac about and smashed the furniture. This antic
reflects that the court approved a $7500 cash settlement in
favor of the appointee's ex-wife, giving her an automobile, furniture and objects of art, as well as $300 per month for two
years and $250 a month for a third year"
As I noted in the edit to my comment in another sub-thread, their divorce happened before "no-fault" divorce was created. At that time, couples wishing to divorce would often concoct stories of abuse or adultery to give the courts grounds on which to grant their request.
It's doubtful anyone alive today could say definitively, but this could be an instance of that practice. I certainly hope it was.
I can't say I knew him well but I knew him out of school, and this is completely unlike the guy I knew. Your theory makes sense -- especially the humorous elaboration about thinking about calculus at all times as grounds for divorce -- THAT sounds like the classic sense of humor.
> There are many able and eminent physicists [...] Some of these persons are practical physicists--with a very thorough knowledge of creative as well as theoretical physics and of the scientific world--not mere mathematicians as is the case of theoretical physicists.
(these people, if one reads on, being considered by the author as better candidates than Feynman) I'd have guessed someone with a less theoretical background than Teller. It could just be an attempt to appear impartial, I guess.
I wasn't for an instant suggesting that the person who wrote that anti-Feynman screed was actually impartial, nor that they expected to be thought not hostile to Feynman.
But a theoretical physicist might have thought their attack would look less like a matter of professional jealousy if they couched part of it in terms of how much more appropriate an experimental physicist would be.
(I don't think that's very likely. I think the person who wrote this was probably not a theoretical physicist. That's why I think it was unlikely-ish to have been Edward Teller. I was simply pondering possible reasons why a theoretical physicist like Teller might have written those words about theoretical versus not-so-theoretical physics.)
