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.
Hardback:  

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...
Post a Comment
Read more

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...
Post a Comment
Read more

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more