On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 08:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev
wrote:
http://www.answers.com/topic/arthur-...cat=technology
"Further support came in 1924 when Einstein's prediction of the
reddening of starlight by the gravitational field of the star was
tested: at Eddington's request Walter Adams detected and measured the
shift in wavelength of the spectral lines of Sirius B, the dense white-
dwarf companion of the star Sirius. Eddington thus did much to
establish Einstein's theory..."
In fact, Eddington fooled Walter Adams into measuring the wrong
gravitational redshift. Details he
http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/inde...-la-relativite
Pentcho Valev
-------------
Einstein's "Relativity" book, Appendix 3 "The experimental
confirmation of the general theory of relativity"::
http://www.relativitybook.com/resour...ivity_pdf.html
:: " It is an open question whether or not this effect exists, and
:: at the present time (1920) astronomers are working with great
:: zeal towards the solution. Owing to the smallness of the effect
:: in the case of the sun, it is difficult to form an opinion as
:: to its existence. Whereas Grebe and Bachem (Bonn), as a result
:: of their own measurements and those of Evershed and Schwarzschild
:: on the cyanogen bands, have placed the existence of the effect
:: almost beyond doubt, other investigators, particularly St. John,
:: have been led to the opposite opinion in consequence of their
:: measurements. "
Footnote by R.W. Lawson (translator) to Appendix 3::
:: " Note - The displacement of spectral lines towards the red end
:: of the spectrum was definitely established by Adams in 1924,
:: by observations on the dense companion of Sirius, for which
:: the effect is about thirty times greater than for the sun.
:: R. W. L. "
-------------
Hetherington's critique of the Adams result::
:: 1980, N.S. Hetherington,
:: "Sirius B and the gravitational redshift - an historical review
:: Royal Astronomical Society, Quarterly Journal, vol. 21, Sept.1980, 246-252
::
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00246.000.html
::
:: " Somewhat ironically, as William McCrea has noted, the Royal
:: Astronomical Society seized upon Adams' measurement as reason
:: to award its Medal to Einstein ...
:: ...
:: Notwithstanding Moore's purported confirmation, Adams' alleged
:: measurement of the gravitaitonal redshift of Sirius B is no longer
:: accepted by astronomers.
:: ...
:: However unwilling astronomers are to admit it, here is yet another
:: instance of an astronomer eluding the constraints of objectivity
:: and finding not what is there but what he expected to find. "
-------------
Wesemael, arguing that Adam's result might (//might//) have been due
to unfortunate accident rather than fraud or expectation bias:
:: 1985, F. Wesemael,
:: "A comment on Adams' measurement of the gravitational redshift of Sirius B"
:: Royal Astronomical Society, Quarterly Journal (ISSN 0035-8738) [26]
:: Sept.1985, 273-278 (1985)
::
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985QJRAS..26..273W
::
:: The circumstantial evidence of too perfect an accord between the
:: Adams (1925) and Moore (1928) redshift measurements and Eddington's
:: (1924) predictions may well suggest the occurrence of some 'foul
:: play' in the scientific process. When such a deceit is suspected,
:: however, it behoves science historians to explore critically all
:: aspects of the problem before pronouncing a sentence as categorical,
:: and admittedly worrisome, as Hetherington's. While scientific work
:: is traditionally thought of as a purely objective enterprise, there
:: are indeed numerous cases where personal or cultural prejudice and
:: bias have been known to influence the outcome of scientific inquiry
:: (e.g. Gould 1982).
:: ...
:: Clearly, a reexamination of the original plate material and written
:: records will prove invaluable in assessing the validity of that
:: particular suggestion [[that Adam's result might instead be due to
:: accidental light contamination]]. In the meantime, however, it
:: appears that Hetherington's (1980) claim of deliberate deceit cannot
:: be substantiated.
-------------
For anyone interested in how our strong expectations of how
experiments "ought" to perform can sometimes cause science to go off
the rails, the paper by Jeng brings together some notable examples
(most of which have probably already been raised on s.p.r. by some of
us at some point).
: 2006, Monwhea Jeng,
: "A selected history of expectation bias in physics"
: Am. J. Phys. [74] 578-583 (2006)
:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508199
:
: " Abstract: The beliefs of physicists can bias their results towards
: their expectations in a number of ways. We survey a variety of
: historical cases of expectation bias in observations, experiments,
: and calculations. "
:
: The beliefs of physicists can bias their results towards their
: expectations in a number of ways. We survey a variety of historical
: cases of expectation bias in observations, experiments, and
: calculations.
Jeng doesn't discuss the Adams result, but mentions a few other
similarly-painful cases.
There's also some discussion of the problem in E. Baird (me),
"Relativity in Curved Spacetime" (2007), chapter 21, "The Perils of
Experimentation"
-------------
=Erk= (Eric Baird)
www.relativitybook.com
: " To put it bluntly -- and to give away the punchline -- we have
: failed. We inherited a science, physics, that had been progressing
: so fast for so long that it was often taken as a model for how
: other kinds of science should be done. ... But today, despite our
: best efforts, what we know for certain about these laws is no more
: than we knew back in the 1970s. "
: -- Lee Smolin, "The Trouble with Physics" (2006)