Skip to main content

No Shadow of a Doubt - Daniel Kennefick ***

It's something of a truism that science tends to go through stages, where each new stage can be typified as 'It's more complicated than we thought.' This book demonstrates that this assertion is also true of history of science. It examines the 1919 eclipse expeditions and their conclusions used to bolster Einstein's general theory of relativity, and how those results have been treated.

This is a very tightly focussed subject for a whole book, and there is a distinct danger here of the material of an article being stretched out to book length - it often did feel that Daniel Kennefick was dragging out a handful of conclusions by repeating the same assertions over and over in subtly different ways. However, this isn't entirely fair as he does give exhaustive detail of the two expeditions which wouldn't have fit in an article, covering how their results were produced and how the controversy (if it could really be called that) arose.

Like many physics professors, Kennefick struggles to explain the details of physics in a way that's accessible to the general reader, but this is only a very small part of the book, which is far more about the history and its implications, and here he is significantly more readable. Though the points may be made rather too often, they are indeed fascinating if you are interested in the way experimental support for scientific theories - and the history of science - develops.

Arguably, as Kennefick points out, eclipse science is an oddball field, as it's very difficult to repeat experiments successfully, particularly as there is only a few-minute window in which to undertake them. This is the context in which we see the developing story of the 1919 eclipse expeditions. From their results being announced through to the 1970s they were generally presented as a triumphant demonstration of Einstein's prediction of the amount the mass of the Sun should warp space, causing stars appearing near it in the sky to be shifted in position. From the seventies onwards - and it's largely how I've seen it presented - it was more seen as a bit of a fudge by English astrophysicist Arthur Eddington, taking results which couldn't really demonstrate anything and making them show what he wanted: that Einstein was correct. Kennefick demonstrates at length that this view is also wildly over-simplistic.

One reason for this is that the myth of Eddington's bias omits the fact that he was only responsible for one of the two expeditions - the other was under the aegis of the Astronomer Royal Frank Dyson (apparently no relation to, but an inspiration for Freeman Dyson). Dyson had no axe to grind and was responsible for the decision, usually blamed on Eddington, of ignoring the data that disagreed with Einstein's predictions. Dyson did this not to cherry pick, but because there were technical problems with the device used that produced these photographic plates, making them difficult to interpret. (Apparently Eddington's only influence was to stop Dyson using the dubious data averaged with the other rather overshot data of Dyson's, which would have brought the results closer to the Einstein prediction.)

Interestingly, and again not revealed in the myth, the remaining 1919 plates were re-measured in the 70s and in fact showed that the ignored data, if measured properly, would also have confirmed the general theory's predictions.

Of course it's entirely possible that Eddington was biassed anyway and was over-confident about the way the results were presented - but  after reading this book, this early effort to test Einstein's theory (which would be verified many times over later by far better tests than the always tricky observation of eclipses) does not seem as flawed as it has repeatedly been presented to be.

An interesting book, then - but it does rather labour the point.

Review by Brian Clegg


Popular posts from this blog

The Art of Statistics - David Spiegelhalter *****

Statistics have a huge impact on us - we are bombarded with them in the news, they are essential to medical trials, fundamental science, some court cases and far more. Yet statistics is also a subject than many struggle to deal with (especially when the coupled subject of probability rears its head). Most of us just aren't equipped to understand what we're being told, or to question it when the statistics are dodgy. What David Spiegelhalter does here is provide a very thorough introductory grounding in statistics without making use of mathematical formulae*. And it's remarkable.

What will probably surprise some who have some training in statistics, particularly if (like mine) it's on the old side, is that probability doesn't come into the book until page 205. Spiegelhalter argues that as probability is the hardest aspect for us to get an intuitive feel for, this makes a lot of sense - and I think he's right. That doesn't mean that he doesn't cover all …

The Best of R. A. Lafferty (SF) – R. A. Lafferty ****

Throughout my high school years (1973–76) I carefully kept a list of all the science fiction I read. I’ve just dug it out, and it contains no fewer than 1,291 entries – almost all short stories I found in various SF magazines and multi-author anthologies. Right on the first page, the sixth item is ‘Thus We Frustrate Charlemagne’ by R. A. Lafferty, and his name appears another 32 times before the end of the list. This isn’t a peculiarity of my own tastes. Short stories were much more popular in those days than they are today, and any serious SF fan would have encountered Lafferty – a prolific writer of short fiction – in the same places I did.

But times change, and this Gollancz Masterworks volume has a quote from the Guardian on the back describing Lafferty as ‘the most important science fiction writer you’ve never heard of’. Hopefully this newly assembled collection will go some way to remedying that situation. It contains 22 short stories, mostly dating from the 1960s and 70s, each w…

David Beerling - Four Way Interview

David Beerling is the Sorby Professor of Natural Sciences, and Director of the Leverhulme Centre for Climate Change Mitigation at the University of Sheffield. His book The Emerald Planet (OUP, 2007) formed the basis of a major 3-part BBC TV series ‘How to Grow a Planet’. His latest title is Making Eden.

Why science?

I come from a non-academic background. None of my family, past or present, went to university, which may explain the following. In the final year of my degree in biological sciences at the University of Wales, Cardiff (around 1986), we all participated in a field course in mid-Wales, and I experienced an epiphany. I was undertaking a small research project on the population dynamics of bullheads (Cotus gobio), a common small freshwater fish, with a charismatic distinguished professor, and Fellow of the Royal Society in London. Under his guidance, I discovered the process of learning how nature works through the application of the scientific method. It was the most exciting t…