Last week I watched a rerun of Einstein on the History Channel. I had seen it before but I always enjoy serious history. That and the fact that I am desperate for anything worth while watching on TV. A big part of the story was the attempts to prove Einstein’s theory of relativity by photographing a total solar eclipse and measuring the positions of stars that appeared close to the sun. The theory of General Relativity predicts that the path of light will be bent by gravity as it passes close to a massive object. Therefore stars that appear close to the sun (they aren’t really close, they are far beyond the sun in distance but lie in the same direction as the sun) will appear even closer to the sun than they are. See Putting Relativity to the Test for a better description. At the time (1916 to 1922) the only way to photograph stars close to the sun was during a total solar eclipse. Several astronomers competed to test the theory of which Sir Arthur Eddington from the UK and William Wallace Campbell (and here) from the US were the most involved.
~
I really liked the program for humanizing Albert Einstein but found it lacking in explanations. The most disturbing missing detail was in explaining the differing results obtained by Eddington and Campbell. World War I complicated things quite a bit. Einstein was in Germany, Eddington, a big fan of his, was in England and both were not too well thought of because of their views on the war. The American astronomer, Campbell definitely did not share their views of the war but was just as impeded by the conflict. What with one thing and another Campbell had the first opportunity to observe (and hence obtain photographs) of an eclipse. This was the 1918 eclipse which was visible in the state of Washington. After the war was over Eddington got his first opportunity on the island of Príncipe near Africa during the eclipse in May of 1919. Now here is the unexplained part. Campbell could not confirm that the theory was correct and was about to publish results that said Einstein was wrong when Eddington announced that he had confirmed the theory. Today we know that, in the main, Einstein had it correct and therefore Eddington was right on with his results. So, does this make Campbell out to be some sort of incompetent? The program (and almost everyone else) just goes on to praise Eddington and Einstein for this great advance in our understanding of the universe. It remained silent on how Campbell could have been wrong.
~
This wasn’t a case of religion vs. science with one side obtaining knowledge by divine revelation and the other by testing a theory by observation. Or was it? Eddington was a staunch Quaker and therefore an avowed pacifist. Einstein wasn’t a Quaker but did have pacifistic leanings. Campbell was just the opposite. Eddington was a big fan of Einstein and his theory. In more modern times some have suggested that Eddington fudged his results (if he did not lie outright). I prefer to think that Eddington, who understood the theory when most scientists did not, only found results he was looking for. Campbell had another astronomer measuring the results of his observations and this astronomer was more of an observational astronomer than either Campbell or Eddington. As such he was possibly more concerned with data than implications. It turns out that photography and astronomical methods of the time were not up to the challenge of being able to prove the theory. The photographic emulsions of the time could only resolve stars to about ½ of the resolution necessary to confirm the theory. In other words a stars position could not be measured to the accuracy required using photographic emulsions available at that time.
~
Today we have abundant proof that Einstein’s theory of relativity is the best description we have of the universe (even if there are some details where Albert missed the boat). There are many places where we can measure the amount of light’s deflection caused by gravity. Other proofs of the theory exist such as the explanation of the deviation (from Newtonian physics) of Mercury’s orbit. I try to remember that even scientists like to find the results they are looking for and that beliefs can put a spin on results.
~
To my way of thinking, creationists and Eddington differ only in degree. Still, I won’t be changing my thinking about evolution any time soon. I also note that the History Channel airs shows such as UFO Files, UFO Hunters and Monster Quest. The best that can be said of any of those is that they involve a good deal of belief as opposed to fact. What can one believe from a source such as that?
~
Note on the use of Wikipedia – often I look up things on Wikipedia but I always keep in mind that the authors of individual articles can biased and all facts reported there may not necessarily be so.