Nexus - 1406 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

As one digs into the matter, one is compelled to ask: how can a set of equations that successfully describe the perihelion of Mercury be useless, erroneous and unsuccessful? And how can the same equations, when they appear in the GTR, suddenly become a stroke of genius? Furthermore, if Einstein was such a genius, why did he not explain what was wrong with Gerber's line of thinking? Why did he have to wait for four years and then let others defend him? And why didn't the defenders explain what was wrong, other than to make accusations like "He copied things which had long been known to every worker in the field..." As one digs into the matter, one is compelled to ask: how can a On the day of the eclipse, Sobral had excellent weather but set of equations that successfully describe the perihelion of Principe did not. At Principe it was cloudy, and the moist ocean Mercury be useless, erroneous and unsuccessful? And how can air made the stars quiver, jump and shift place—almost like the same equations, when they appear in the GTR, suddenly watching them through turbulent water. At Sobral, the heat of the become a stroke of genius? Furthermore, if Einstein was sucha _ day caused some optical distortions. genius, why did he not explain what was wrong with Gerber's line So what were the results? Today it is a sad historical fact that a of thinking? Why did he have to wait for four years and then let few usable but badly distorted photographic images obtained at others defend him? And why didn't the defenders explain what Principe were used as "the evidence". As Eddington himself was wrong, other than to make accusations like "He copied things complained, only two photographic plates were found to be which had long been known to every worker in the field..." useful—but the stars were poorly distributed and scattered at various distances from the Sun and not close to it, as the theory Starry-Eyed Professors demanded. Despite these problems, Eddington was able—beyond The second "classical test" was the bending of light from distant belief—to measure less than 0.01-mm differences between stars as they pass a massive object like the photographs taken during the eclipse and Sun. The argument depended on light plates taken later back in Oxford for having some "mass" that makes gravitational comparison. This was assumed to be attraction possible between photons and a equivalent to a 1.63-arc-second deflection of massive object like our Sun. As one may starlight, according to Eddington. The GTR remember, photons have a mass defined by was finally verified and the press was m = E/c. When this is put into the jubilant: a new era was born. According to Newtonian equations, deviation from the the headlines of the New York Times of 19 thie was Sone. even before there was any Today itis a sad avity vatiation-—Divercion’ot leh ray E = mc’, by German astronomer Johann historical fact that a accepted as affecting Newton's principle, Georg von Soldner (1776-1833) as early as hailed as epoch making! Scientists call the 1801. According to these calculations based few usable but badly discovery one of the greatest human on the photon theory, there should be a distorted photographic achievements". One of the scientists referred deflection of 0.84 arc-seconds for light H H to was none other than Arthur beams passing very close to the Sun. images obtained at Eddington, who in 1930 was knighted This number was later heavily attacked Principe were used for his contributions to science. by Einstein and his friends. But then " A " But was it really "one of the greatest again, von Soldner did not know of the as the evidence . human achievements"? How could one E= mc? formula because Maxwell had be so sure when accuracy of the not even been born—and nobody at photographic equipment was less than that time had any remote idea of the that needed for making the mass of the Sun. It was more an idea, calculations? And worse for the truth, rather than physical reality. if it exists: according to the far better Those who liked to attack Gerber results obtained at Sobral, where later used his formulas to calculate that humidity and clouds were not the light should be bent by approximately problem, results were in favour of 2.5 seconds of arc, while according to Newton's calculations! Eddington Einstein's GTR the formula could lead solved this embarrassing problem by to 1.75 seconds of deflection, depending on some factors of a referring to these photographs as merely being used for checking variable nature. The difference between Einstein's and the older the Principe results. Einstein was later to call this event one of his theories was that Einstein's GTR explained bending as a "curved finest hours! space-time effect". Many astronomers, believing the message from Principe, wanted Not too many took this calculation too seriously, but at least to partake of the glory and tried to repeat the success during one man did: Oxford Professor Arthur Eddington (1882-1944), subsequent eclipses. Strangely, stars did not appear where they who according to Professor Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar "was should have and as late as 1931, when Einstein's success was so confident of the correctness of the theory that, if left to himself, established abroad, Professor Erwin Freundlich reported to the he would not even have planned to go on the eclipse expedition" Physics Association of Berlin, loudly lamenting that "they had left to measure the deflection of the light of stars as they passed the out of consideration observations that did not fit in with the results darkened Sun.* Considering this a priori certainty as a case of that they wanted to obtain".” biased judgement, could one expect the results to be impartial? Einstein, now being a target of anti-Semitism in Germany, felt In 1919, Oxford University sent out two expeditions to the sting of swastika-infected attacks but seemed strangely photograph the eclipse of 29 May. One went to Sobral in Brazil, immune to criticism—or were such allegations just anti-Jewish and another one, led by Professor Eddington, went to the island of criticism? Probably not. Even the so-called "red shift" in light- Principe in the Gulf of Guinea, West Africa. Both expeditions rays passing a strong gravitational field like the Sun's could not be carried identical equipment: a telescope of 343-cm focal length, confirmed, although the predicted value exceeded 100 times the photographic equipment and mirrors for making indirect accuracy of present-day interferometers. According to Sir Joseph photographs of the Sun.“° This information is of vital importance, | Thomson, President of the Royal Society, writing in 1919: "If the since the resolution of the equipment was in the order of two to [red] shift remains unproven as at present the whole theory three seconds of arc. collapses, and the phenomenon just observed by astronomers [at Today it is a sad historical fact that a few usable but badly distorted photographic images obtained at Principe were used as "the evidence". NEXUS * 49 OCTOBER — NOVEMBER 2007 www.nexusmagazine.com