The Experiment That Made Einstein Famous

The Experiment That Made Einstein Famous One hundred years ago, an extraordinary feat of astronomy proved that the theory of relativity was true By Andrew Robinson, Feb. 14, 2019, Wall St. Journal

One hundred years ago, at the beginning of 1919, few people outside Germany had ever heard of Albert Einstein. By the year?s end, however, he had become a world-wide celebrity and a symbol of human genius. What made Einstein?s reputation was one of the most important experiments in 20th-century science: a challenging, incredibly precise observation of a solar eclipse that proved his general theory of relativity for the first time.

The special theory of relativity, published by Einstein in 1905, introduced a new understanding of space and time, including the equation that linked energy, mass and the speed of light: E = mc². It was followed 10 years later by his general theory, in which Einstein extended the concept to include accelerated motion and gravity, based on a highly sophisticated mathematical conception of ?space-time.?

But for all of its later fame, the theory of relativity made no impact on the general public when first published in 1905. Even some distinguished scientists rejected it. In 1910, the great physicist Ernest Rutherford joked that Anglo-Saxons like himself had ?too much sense? to understand such an abstruse theory. To overcome such skepticism, Einstein had to find a way for his ideas to be experimentally confirmed.

His solution had to do with the way that light travels through the cosmos. According to Isaac Newton?s theory of gravity, which had been generally accepted by physicists since the 17th century, light rays are attracted by gravitational forces because light is made of tiny particles that Newton called ?corpuscles.? On their journey from a distant star to our eyes on Earth, the trajectory of these particles would be very slightly curved or ?deflected? by the gravity of the sun.

Einstein agreed with Newton?s idea, but in 1915-16 he used his general theory of relativity to recalculate the deflection of light and found that it would actually be twice the amount predicted by Newton. If the magnitude of the actual deflection could be measured, it would show whose theory of gravity was correct, Newton?s or Einstein?s. ?The examination of the correctness or otherwise of this deduction is a problem of the greatest importance, the early solution of which is to be expected of astronomers,? wrote Einstein.

The first opportunity to test Einstein?s predictions would come on May

29, 1919, when a total solar eclipse would allow telescopes to observe starlight as it passed the rim of the darkened solar disc. Exceptional care would be required, given that Einstein?s calculated deflection was only 1.7 seconds of arc?that is, a displacement of a mere sixtieth of a millimeter on a photographic plate.

The opportunity was seized by the British Astronomer Royal, Frank Dyson, and a leading Cambridge astronomer, Arthur Eddington, who had become a convinced advocate of general relativity. In 1917, even as World War I was raging, Dyson persuaded the British government to budget £1,000 for a team of four astronomers led by Eddington to observe the coming eclipse. Two would be stationed on Principe, an island off the coast of West Africa, and the other two in Sobral, a city in northeastern Brazil.

Both expeditions faced formidable technical problems, from monkeys interfering with the telescopes to high temperatures (which distorted the photographs) and cloudy skies. As Eddington, in Principe, recorded in his diary, ?The first 10 photographs show practically no stars. The last six show a few images which I hope will give us what we need; but it is very disappointing.? The measurements on one plate agreed with Einstein?s predicted deflection, and another provided at least some further confirmation. Eddington sent Dyson a noncommittal telegram: ?Through cloud. Hopeful.?

Once back in England, Eddington developed four more Principe plates. He detected in them Einstein?s value for the deflection of starlight, though within a rather large margin of error. Fortunately, the Sobral plates provided conclusive support for Einstein?s theory.

In November 1919, Eddington presented his conclusions to a joint meeting of the Royal Society and the Royal Astronomical Society in London. The greatest names in British physics, astronomy and mathematics attended, though not Einstein himself, who remained in Berlin. J.J. Thomson, discoverer of the electron and president of the Royal Society, declared that ?this is the most important result obtained in connection with the theory of gravitation since Newton?s day. If it is sustained that Einstein?s reasoning holds good?then it is the result of one of the highest achievements of human thought.?

Almost immediately, the British proof of a German theory was seen?in Britain, at least?as a sign of hope for international reconciliation after World War I. But in defeated Germany, Einstein?s theory of relativity was regarded with growing and often anti-Semitic suspicion, culminating in the publication of ?A Hundred Authors against Einstein? in 1931. As Einstein wrote in 1921 to a German colleague, ?The English have behaved much more nobly than our colleagues here.?

Few people, English or otherwise, have ever fully understood general relativity. Einstein himself was baffled that the theory had elicited such ?passionate resonance? and made him an international celebrity. But of the theory itself there is no doubt: In the century since 1919, general relativity has been confirmed again and again by increasingly accurate astronomical measurements. Today it accounts for both the amazing accuracy of the Global Positioning System and for our understanding of the evolution of the universe since the Big Bang,

13.8 billion years ago.

?Mr. Robinson is the author of ?Einstein: A Hundred Years of Relativity? (2015). His new book on Einstein will published later this year by Yale University Press.

formatting link

Reply to
davidp
Loading thread data ...

I take issue with this. Within two years, he was awarded the Nobel prize in Physics.

'The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921 was awarded to Albert Einstein "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect." '

Although relativity is what made newspaper headlines, the photo-electric research was immensely important and must have been very well-known among physicists around the world before 1919. His paper on that was published in 1905. Millikan won the 1923 Nobel for research which must have been aware of Einstein's 1905 paper.

Reply to
polygonum_on_google
<snip>

I take issue with "In the century since 1919, general relativity has been confirmed again and again by increasingly accurate astronomical measurements."

It should be "In the century since 1919, general relativity has failed to be refuted again and again by increasingly accurate astronomical measurements."

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Yes, this is the correct way to formulate it, as any proper scientist will confirm.

Reply to
Tim Streater

You would be surprsied at how few scientists with even quitre good degrees fromm Oxbridge would say that "confirnation of a theory is strong eveidence that it is true"

Even Quine, who ought to know better, starts of by assuming things he should not.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

I'm sure Jim Al-Khalili will be mortified. (His "Black Holes, Wormholes and Time Machines" has "general relativity has been confirmed by experimental evidence time and time again".)

Reply to
Robin

Exactly my point. Even scientists with f****ng PHds really dont understand what science *is*.

Ecen some philsophers of science, like Quine don't.

"Our talk of external* things, our very notion of things, is just a conceptual apparatus that helps us foresee** and control the triggering of our sensory receptors*** in the light of previous** triggering of our sensory receptors. The triggering, first and last, is all we have to go on"

  • He assumes that things are external without saying to what.
** he assumes time is independent of perception. *** he seems to assume receptors are physical without defining what physical is.

and so on.

Science is taught as FACT. It is not fact. It is a model, a map of experience that is *not inconsistent* with the experience, if first we can agree on what that experience is of.

Many scientific theories may fit the same facts.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Or just possibly scientists tend to know full well that a theory is never proved but also know that:

(a) "confirm" can in context mean "support" and "corroborate" (as any decent dictionary will confirm),

(b) scientists with even the meanest intellects read "confirm" in context accordingly - ie as shorthand for "support rather than conflict with", "confirm the predictions of..." etc (which is why journals such as Nature have no problem with authors using it)

(c) it doesn't pay to be a precious pedant even when writing for fellow scientists, and is just counter-productive pomposity when writing for the general public.

Reply to
Robin

I think he was aiming for sales to anyone from researchers through students to general science enthusiasts ;)

Reply to
Robin

Yes we all got taught this at School. why post it here? Brian

Reply to
Brian Gaff

No. It can give people the idea that Science can be proved or even, in the foolish words of the UN SecGen, "settled". Writing for the general public (and ignorant journos) is when it *is* important to be careful.

Reply to
Tim Streater

Well said. And too many fairly reputable scientists do the same thing, when they venture into politics and policy.

Changing the subject, when I was on jury duty I realised that I didn't really know what "reasonable doubt" meant (it typically has a circular definition). On doing a little research it seems the consensus is around the 90 or 95% confidence level, much the same as the idea it's good enough to publish at better than 95% confidence. While I am fundamentally opposed to capital punishment, I'd be prepared to convict but certainly not at that confidence level. Something more like the 5 (or is it 6?) sigma level used for acceptance of fundamental particles like the Higgs Boson.

Reply to
newshound

Tim. Its mot just that they are incomplete or slightly innaccurate, they might be totally utterly WRONG.

Think 'The Matrix'

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Yup!

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

:-)

Y'know what worries me? It's that "God", what ever that may mean, magicked it all into existence at some point. The end result (so far) is us and we're looking into it and looking for what the rules are. And it started off working with just simple rules, but the more we looked into it, the more complex the rules had to become in order for what worked previously by magic to work consistently by reality. And that "God" is just ahead of us in creating new layers, worked by new rules, and we keep having to delve deeper and deeper. So we started off with billiard ball atoms, and that worked until people started probing and so "God" had to come up with structure and components for the atoms, with inner parts and layers.

Take galaxies, f'rinstance. If "God" just created these as-is, it was too bad for him that we started measuring velocities of the stars as they whizz round the galaxies and Oops! the distribution of stellar velocities means the galaxies will fly apart quite soon unless we invoke something completely new like dark matter and dark energy to hold it all together, gravitationally. And WTF is that, eh?

So yes, the theories we love today may be dust in 100 years.

Reply to
Tim Streater

Your quotations are as accurate as the rest of your ramblings. That quote referred to Bessie Braddock. The Lady Astor story is about poison.

Reply to
Bob Martin

You mean Bessie Braddock accused Lady Astor of being drunk? Gosh - who knew!

Reply to
Tim Streater

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.