Quirky sides of scientists : true tales of ingenuity and error from physics and astronomy

216 Pages·2007·1.07 MB·English

by  David Topper

Quirky Sides of Scientists
True Tales of Ingenuity and Error
From Physics and Astronomy
David R. Topper
David R. Topper
Department of History
University of Winnipeg
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Canada R3B 2E9
[email protected]
Library of Congress Control Number: 2007925263
ISBN-13: 978-0-387-71018-1 e-ISBN-13: 978-0-387-71019-8
Printed on acid-free paper.
©2007 Springer Science(cid:2)Business Media, LLC.
All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written
permission of the publisher (Springer Science(cid:2)Business Media, LLC., 233 Spring Street, New York,
NY 10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in
connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software,
or by similar or dissimilar methodology now know or hereafter developed is forbidden.
The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks and similar terms, even if they
are not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are
subject to proprietary rights.
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
springer.com
Acknowledgments
For their assistance and support at various stages of this project I kindly thank
Wayne Choma, James Hanley, Scott Montgomery, and Dwight Vincent. For his
congenial camaraderie spanning more than three decades, I am grateful to my
much-missed late friend and colleague in the history of science, David Dyck. Iam
also beholden to all my students who asked (and continue to ask) challenging
questions, forcing me to concede that I don’t know many things—and compelling
me to find them out. And, not the least, I acknowledge the University of Winnipeg,
especially for granting me a research leave to complete this task.
Whatever singular insights may be found in this book, I will be pleased
to accept the accolades for—though fully cognizant that all errors, too, are
minealone.
vii
A Note on the Figures
I drew all 57 figures. Figures 3.1, 3.5, 4.1, 6.3, 6.4, 6.6, 8.4, and 11.4 are based on
images from I.B. Cohen’s The Birth of a New Physics(New York: W.W. Norton,
1960; revised ed.1985), a teaching text I have used for over three decades. Others
are from articles I have published, which are cited at the end of the corresponding
chapters. In my sketches of original historical images I have translated any Latin
inscriptions into English. The consequential loss entailed in not reproducing the
original diagrams and artwork is mitigated by the present-day fact that most
images are available on the Internet.
ix
Contents
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
A Note on the Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Prelude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. Tenacity and Stubbornness: Einstein on Theory and Experiment . . . . 3
1.1. Tenacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Stubbornness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3. Einstein’s Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Notes and References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2. Convergence or Coincidence: Ancient Measurements of the Sun
and Moon—How Far? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.1. The Speed of Light . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2. Ancient Astronomy: Ptolemy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3. Aristarchus’s Measurement and Ptolemy’s Model . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Notes and References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3. The Rationality of Simplicity: Copernicus on Planetary Motion. . . . . 25
3.1. Planetary Motion: Geocentrism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2. Heliocentrism: The Hierarchy of the Planets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.3. Heliocentrism: Planetary Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.4. Copernicus and Simplicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.5. Copernicus and Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Notes and References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4. A Silence of Scientists: Venus’s Brightness, Earth’s Precession,
and the Nebula in Orion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.1. Ptolemy on Venus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.2. Copernicus on Venus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.3. Galileo on Venus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
xi
xii Contents
4.4. Galileo, Sunspots, and Precession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.5. Galileo and Nebulae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Notes and References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5. Progress Through Error: Stars and Quasars—How Big, How Far? . . . 67
5.1. Copernicus and the Distance of Stars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.2. Tycho and Parallax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5.3. Galileo on the Stars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5.4. Quasars and Cosmology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Notes and References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
6. The Data Fit the Model but the Model Is Wrong: Kepler and the
Structure of the Cosmos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
6.1. Neutrinos and Sydney’s Opera House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
6.2. Kepler and God’s Mind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
6.3. Kepler and the Equant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
6.4. Kepler’s Music of the Heavens, and Beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Notes and References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
7. Art Illustrates Science: Galileo, a Blemished Moon, and a Parabola
of Blood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
7.1. Galileo and Cigoli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
7.2. Galileo and Artemisia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Notes and References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
8. Ensnared in Circles: Galileo and the Law of Projectile Motion . . . . . 123
8.1. The Problem with Projectiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
8.2. Galileo’s Abstraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
8.3. The Relativity of Motion and the Rotating Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
8.4. Galileo’s Inertia in Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Notes and References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
9. Aesthetics and Holism: Newton on Light, Color, and Music . . . . . . . 139
9.1. Newton Creates the Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
9.2. Newton Counts the Colors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
9.3. From Colors to Music . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
9.4. Newton’s Holism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Notes and References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
10. Missing One’s Own Discovery: Newton and the First Idea
of an Artificial Satellite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
10.1. The PrincipiaProject: Origin and Execution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
10.2. Newton’s Sketch—and the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
10.3. The Projectile Path: What Did Newton Know? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
10.4. Newton and Hooke: A Debate Over a Spiral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Notes and References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Contents xiii
11. A Change of Mind: Newton and the Comet(s?) of 1680 and 1681 . . . 173
11.1. Comets and a Celestial Physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
11.2. Newton’s Struggle with a Celestial Physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Notes and References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
12. A Well-Nigh Discovery: Einstein and the Expanding Universe . . . . . 187
12.1. Nebulae and Galaxies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
12.2. Einstein’s Cosmological Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
12.3. Observational Astronomy in the Early 20th Century . . . . . . . . . 191
12.4. Einstein Defends His Cosmological Constant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Notes and References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Postlude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Prelude
This is unabashedly an idiosyncratic look at science. Based heavily upon my
research and publications—and hence personal interests—it expresses, perhaps,
my quirky side.
Ever since switching fields in graduate school, from physics to studying its
history, I have come to recognize—and especially appreciate—what a thorny
matter it is for the apparently simple laws of science to immerge out of the shad-
ows of history. This, in turn, made me realize how remarkable and unobvious the
expositions in today’s science textbooks are; what is eventually straightforward
and transparent today was not so in the past. I did not appreciate the astonishing
elegance of many science textbooks; that is, not until I studied the contrasting
history of the subject. The subject of this book, however, is not textbook science;
the textbook is the foil. A scientific idea, law, discovery, or experiment as expli-
cated in a textbook is really a distillation of a multifaceted and often-intricate and
convoluted historical narrative, with many missed starts, dead ends, mistakes,
even sophistries and deceptions—a labyrinth of ingenuity and error that looks
linear only after the fact.
The book thusly is directed at the reader who is curious about science but
whose exposure has been primarily from science courses and their accompanying
textbooks—thus devoid of real history. This book is also intended for those who
take pleasure in carefully studying pictures, illustrations, diagrams, of which
there are scores in this book, and who are willing to spend the time required to
compare and comprehend figure and text, so as to follow the historical narrative
and scientific argument. A significant segment of what purports to be writings on
science directed beyond the classroom and academy is done so under the stricture
that the text should read rather like a novel—as if, God forbid, one might need to
stop and ponder a picture or think about an idea. I expect that anyone reading this
book “like a novel” is wasting one’s time.
The overall structure of the book is plain. Sandwiched between two chapters on
the doggedness of Einstein are ten more in approximately chronological order,
beginning with an ancient astronomical measurement followed by episodes from
the Scientific Revolution (Copernicus through Newton), with accompanying
1
2 Prelude
background narratives from ancient science, telling tales revealing some quirky
sides of scientists. The format is simple: every chapter constitutes more or less an
essay unto itself; furthermore, each is divided into subsections, which are occa-
sionally followed by boxed-in essays on specific peripheral topics. To preserve
the integrity of the argument of each chapter while concomitantly avoiding too
much duplication, I have cross-referenced relevant material from elsewhere in
the book by section number, for example, “see section 2.3” means section 3 of
Chapter 2. Accordingly, the book may be read in any order. So, begin browsing,
perusing, reading—wherever you wish.
1
Tenacity and Stubbornness: Einstein
on Theory and Experiment
One of the common images of Einstein is this: lost in thought, he scribbles
esoteric equations on the back of an envelope and creates a new world. Out of the
mathematics on the envelope emerges a theory that he is so convinced is true, no
experiment is required for proof. There are many stories of Einstein’s disdain for
experiments, especially when the experiments contradicted his theories. But a
deeper look into the matter reveals a more complex attitude toward experimenta-
tion. Especially interesting is a little-known tale of Einstein himself engaged in an
experiment to test one of his own theories—and how he confronted his own data.
One of the guiding factors in all this was Einstein’s tenacity for sticking with a
scientific problem, following wherever it leads, and stubbornly not straying from
the quest.
1.1. Tenacity
When once asked how he discovered the laws of physics, Newton said it was
straightforward—he just thought about the problem, constantly. Confronted with
a problem, Newton became obsessed until he solved it. But most of his life was
not spent cracking what today we would consider problems in science; indeed, his
interest in science was infrequent. Newton mostly was occupied with theology,
church history, and alchemy, although for him they were all of a piece.
Einstein, too, once he began, seemingly never stopped thinking about physics.
But, in contrast to Newton, science was mostly what he pursued throughout his
life. He had little commitment to his family, and except for his involvement with
various social concerns (socialism, Zionism, the world-government movement),
his life was spent zealously preoccupied with matters of physics. He tells us in his
autobiography that at about the age of 16 he thought about a paradox concerning
how light would appear if he traveled along with the light beam, and this imagi-
nary ride led, about 10 years later, to what we now call the special theory of
relativity. The resolution of the paradox entailed two principles: the relativity of
motion and the invariant speed of light. In that year, 1905, he not only published
two papers on relativity (in the second deducing E(cid:2)mc2) but also laid the
3