Abstract

Einstein became world famous on 7 November 1919, following press publication of a meeting held in London on 6 November 1919 where the results were announced of two British expeditions led by Eddington, Dyson and Davidson to measure how much background starlight is bent as it passes the Sun. Three data sets were obtained: two showed the measured deflection matched the theoretical prediction of Einstein's 1915 Theory of General Relativity, and became the official result; the third was discarded as defective. At the time, the experimental result was accepted by the expert astronomical community. However, in 1980 a study by philosophers of science Earman and Glymour claimed that the data selection in the 1919 analysis was flawed and that the discarded data set was fully valid and was not consistent with the Einstein prediction, and that, therefore, the overall result did not verify General Relativity. This claim, and the resulting accusation of Eddington's bias, was repeated with exaggeration in later literature and has become ubiquitous. The 1919 and 1980 analyses of the same data provide two discordant conclusions. We reanalyse the 1919 data, and identify the error that undermines the conclusions of Earman and Glymour.

Highlights

  • Tausch-Pebody complementing the earlier (1915) evidence that the theory explained an anomaly in the orbit of the planet Mercury, established General Relativity as a valid theory of space-time and made Einstein famous.[3]

  • In the order presented by Einstein, the first is the rate of precession of the orbit of the planet Mercury around the Sun

  • We have investigated how scientific expertise acknowledged by expert peerreview in 1919 came to be invalidated and transformed into a story of bias many decades later

Read more

Summary

Published online

THE 1919 ECLIPSE RESULTS THAT VERIFIED GENERAL RELATIVITY AND THEIR LATER DETRACTORS: A STORY RE-TOLD by GERARD GILMORE FRS and GUDRUN TAUSCH-PEBODY*. In 1980 a study by philosophers of science Earman and Glymour claimed that the data selection in the 1919 analysis was flawed and that the discarded data set was fully valid and was not consistent with the Einstein prediction, and that, the overall result did not verify General Relativity. This claim, and the resulting accusation of Eddington’s bias, was repeated with exaggeration in later literature and has become ubiquitous.

INTRODUCTION
Null z
INFLUENCE AND CONSEQUENCE
DISCUSSION
Available data
Sobral astrographic
Principe astrographic
Analysis method
Reduction method
PÀ P xi
Relative weight
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call