Remember, your Weekly Discussion Posts #1 and #2 are due Friday by 11:00pm. I don’t accept any late posts. I assume you’ve set a weekly calendar event to remind you of this assignment.

Collins & Pinch. The Golem: Science, Ch. 2

Remember, we’re not so interested in the scientific definitions surrounding the theory of relativity; instead, we’re concerned with how scientific authority drew (assumed) decisive conclusions from experiments said to prove Einstein’s theory.

Speaking of the mythical golem, one of the most famous is the creature in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, which we’re reading in November. Her 225th birthday is tomorrow, 8/30/2022, so Happy Birthday, Mary Shelley!

What to take away from the readings

We aren’t concerned about surface details in the readings. We’re interested in epistemology and rhetoric (both terms are defined on August 22nd’s webpage). For instance, a surface detail from this reading would be that Michelson observed light rays in the late-19th Century. Likewise, another surface reading would be Eddington observed light bending by photographing stars close to the Earth. Both “readings” tell who did what by stating the narrative of events.

On the other hand, reading for epistemology and rhetoric means you consider what implications the processes for conducting the experiments had on a science. For instance, a critical reading (reading to figure out how meaning is constructed) on Michelson would be Michelson’s assumed failed experiment was used by future scientific authorities to confirm Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity. Also, Eddington’s observations proved Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity because scientific authorities (not the entirety of the scientific community) decided as a group to accept certain observations that would confirm Einstein’s theory and reject observations that didn’t confirm the theory. Scientific assumptions privileged Einstein, and those assumptions guided which observations to use (and to reject) for confirming the theory.

The extremely attuned critical thinker would conclude that regardless of which observation or experiment was used to “prove” either the Einsteinian or Newtonian theories, the Universe never changed, only our perception of it.

As I mentioned before, this class isn’t about teaching your science and technology; it’s supposed to teach you about science and technology, specifically the ways in which people communicate and believe in science. We’ll discuss this more in the future, but I want to highlight it now. You’re immersed in a prevailing culture and accept (and reject) certain ideas because of your experiences and worldviews. There are time when we might want to judge another culture negatively; however, we must understand that there are very few universal assumptions. Relativism is an important cultural studies concept that claims one can’t judge another culture based on one’s own cultural construction (doing so is called cultural imperialism). The acceptance of one’s culture is relative to on’e cultural references–one’s place in the world. However, some might be more comfortable with cultural pluralism, which states that a dominant (hegemonic) culture recognizes the value and richness of diverse subcultures within the society. Scientific schools of thought are similar because one field’s answer to a question is relative to its epistemology. This might be confusing, but, as you read, consider that the scientists and engineers mentioned are members of particular culture–social and professional. You’re trying to determine why someone might conclude a certain way. After all, aren’t facts just facts–always true?

“Relativism” can sometimes mean “anything goes,” but that’s for a longer ethical discussion beyond the scope of this course. When you approach the readings, consider contexts. Learning the “science” established isn’t as important as understanding what contexts led to particular discoveries.

Break up Ch. 2 into Two Parts

Part 1: Michelson-Morley and Miller Experiments

Take away 3 things

1. Michelson-Morley’s experiment may prove Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, but it was after the fact—way after the fact—that that was concluded.
2. Miller was a preeminent scientist during his time. Einstein was also famous but didn’t have the cultural status he has today. History has been good to Einstein…Miller is nearly lost to history.
3. Miller’s interferometer results were an anomaly (in the sense they were a nuisance) that needed to be explained away. Relativity hadn’t been decisively proven, but the scientific community started believing Einstein’s theory and moved away from believing in ether conducting light.

Part 2: Eddington’s “Proof” of Relativity

Take away 3 things

1. Eddington confirmed Einstein’s theory by choosing to use the results that fit Einstein’s theory. This is an inappropriate way to confirm results.
2. It was extremely difficult for Eddington to have properly controlled for conditions under which to photograph the stars he used to gather data.
3. No decisive results can be said to confirm light displacement, but important scientific organizations believed Eddington’s observations as correct—garnering the necessary support to establish scientific knowledge.

A note on observations from the Sobral and Principe expeditions and the photograph plates. We won’t go into the statistical details–standard deviations and confidence intervals–leave that to your stats class. Just remember that the Sobral 4-inch plates appeared to confirm Einstein’s theory that light would be displaced by 1.7 sec. of arc. The Astrographic plates from Sobral appeared to confirm the Newtonian prediction of 0.84 sec. of arc. Eddington (and his buddies) used the Principe plates–“the worst of all” (p. 48)–“as supporting evidence while ignoring the 18 plates taken by the Sobral astrographic” (p. 50).

In other words, although relativity is scientific law, these expeditions didn’t prove it decisively. In fact, Eddington and the Astronomer Royal selectively chose which results to use to confirm Einsteinian physics.

Pseudo Homework on Ch. 2–Reversing Einstein and Newton

Review the table on p. 49 of Collins & Pinch, and draw a conclusion based on reversing Einstein’s and Newton’s displacement calculations. Imagine if these were their estimations:

• Newton predicts light will be displaced by the Sun’s gravitational field by 0.8 secs of an arc. {Correction from class}
• Einstein predicts light will be displaced by the Sun’s gravitational field by 1.7 secs of an arc.

		Low Bound	Mean	High Bound
Sobral	8 Good Plates (4-inch)	1.713	1.98	2.247
	18 Poor Plates (astro)	0.140	0.86	1.580
Principe	2 poor plates	0.944	1.62	2.276

10% Confidence intervals for the observations at Sobral and Principe (p. 49)

I’m not asking you to actually do any homework you’ll turn in. The above is to get you thinking about how one’s predisposition in favor of a particular school of thought makes that person conclude differently from one who’s of another school of thought.

Key Parts of the Chapter (quotations and paraphrasing)

Aether or Ether and The Cosmos, Atmosphere, and Everything in Between

It’s important to understand that the concept of ether was a 2500-year-old belief. Scientists assumed that a substance was the conduit for light and, eventually, radio waves. Scientific papers and newspaper headlines still referenced “the ether” into the early 20th Century. Now, we refer to radio waves and light going through fields.

Scientific Authority Establishes the Theory

• p. 27: Collins & Pinch believe that consensus about Einstein’s theory of relativity, in part, “had something to do with the ending of [World War I] and the unifying effect of science on a fractured continent.”
  • This is a humanistic perspective on science because it identifies subjective human feelings as a reason for establishing a science. The desire to consent and establish pan-European beliefs after a terrible struggle motivated belief in the theory of relativity.
• p. 50-51: the Astronomer Royal and the Royal Society supported Eddington’s observation choices, which “proved” Einstein’s theory.
• p. 51: “[T]here was nothing inevitable about the observations themselves until [the powers that be] had finished with their after-the-fact determinations of what the observations were taken to be.” Consensus led to which numbers to believe; decisive numbers didn’t drive the conclusions.
  • Remember, facts don’t speak for themselves; people speak for the facts, and people have biases.

Assumptions or Hypotheses are Only as Good as Your Assumptions or Hypotheses

This is circular reasoning, but the point is that it is almost impossible to stumble upon something if you don’t know what you’re looking for. Appropriate hypotheses won’t be far fetched; they’ll be within a particular range of possibilities. That range is discipline specific. A genetic engineer might hypothesize that splicing together varietals of corn would possibly lead to a plant resistant to particular fungi or blights. The genetic engineer wouldn’t hypothesize that splicing varietals of corn together would yield cans of Red Bull—that’s ridiculous.

• p. 29: Michelson & Morley (M & M…yummy) hypothesized that the “aether wind” would increase the speed of light. That hypothesis, under the circumstances, wasn’t unreasonable. Wind currents and river currents can speed up (with the current) or slow down (against the current) the speeds of creatures or objects, phenomena that humans probably observed for millennia.
• p. 35: In order to “properly” test the ether wind effect on the speed of light, M & M needed to control for so-called ether drag or the contours of the Earth. They had to do their experiments with good equipment and under the proper conditions.
• p. 37-38: M & M’s 1887 interferometer “was not much use as a speedometer” for the Earth, which was their goal. It didn’t even set out to test relativity: “Only after Einstein’s famous papers were published…did the experiment become ‘retrospectively reconstructed’ as…proof of relativity.”

Dayton Miller Continues Experiments into the 1920s

• p. 40: By 1925, Miller believed his interferometer showed the speed of the Earth to be 10 km/sec based on observing displacement {how far out of place the light is}.
  This won him “the ‘American Association for the Advancement of Science’ prize.” Many thought this disproved Einstein’s theory of relativity.
• Timeline:
  • 1881—Michelson-Morley Experiment
  • 1887—Michelson-Morley Experiment #2, neither found what they were looking for
  • 1907—Albert Michelson wins the Nobel Prize in Physics for using instruments to analyze atmospheric forces.
  • 1921—Einstein wins Nobel Prize in Physics for establishing photoelectric effect and not for the theory of relativity.
  • 1925—Dayton Miller wins the American Association for the Advancement of Science prize for finding the Earth’s speed and disproving Einstein’s theory of relativity…or did he?
  • 1999—Einstein is Time magazine’s Man of the Century. At some point, probably gradually, the theory of special relativity became a black box—a science about which debate ceased. Culturally, Einstein is considered the (or one of the) most brilliant minds of the 20th Century.
• p. 40-42: Collins & Pinch suggest that Miller’s ideas—even though carefully argued—weren’t accepted because a critical mass of scientists believed Einstein’s theory of special relativity.
• p. 42: “Miller’s results were ‘just an anomaly that needed to be explained away.’”

Eddington confirms Einstein’s Prediction

We could get into lots of detail, but I want us to focus on 3 things:

1. What was the goal of photographing stars with respect to Newtonian and Einsteinian physics?
2. What controls or conditions had to be considered when photographing the stars to determine whether or not gravity bends light?
3. How did Eddington confirm Einstein’s theory?

• p. 43-44: “[A] strong gravitational field should have an effect on light rays,” and “the Einstein effect should be greater than the Newtonian effect.”
  The difference should be that light is displaced by nearly twice the distance under Einsteinian physics than Newtonian physics.
• p. 46: In order to get accurate results, “as much as possible [had to be] kept constant between the observations and the background comparisons.”
  • Seasons of the year
  • Hot vs. cold telescopes: temperature expands and contracts the focal length of a telescope
  • Weather conditions affect what can be photographed
  • Telescopes need to move with the Earth in order to have a fixed view of a celestial body. Therefore, film exposures of 5-30 seconds (depending on the amount of light available) need to take into account the Earth’s movement.
• p. 45: Eddington used Einstein’s prediction to choose which observations (photo plates) to use and which to discard, and, in doing so, he confirmed Einstein’s prediction. Collins & Pinch claim this is “something that no experiment can do.”

Conclusion

• p. 45: There was agreement to agree that Eddington’s observations confirm Einstein’s predictions.
• p. 52: The impact on culture was huge even if there was no “straightforward observational test. What we have seen are the theoretical and experimental contributions to a cultural change, a change which was just as much a licence [British spelling] for observing the world in a certain way as a consequence of those observations.”
• p. 53: “No test [of light displacement proving the theory of special relativity] was decisive or clear cut, but taken together [the tests] acted as an overwhelming movement.”

We’re not done with relativity and cultural values. Much to the dismay of some politicians and cultural warriors, many theories of interpretation are pluralistic or relativistic in nature. What that means is that truth isn’t based on any ABSOLUTE; instead, one’s idea of truth is RELATIVE to one’s culture. In the humanities, we can argue that relativity isn’t just a cornerstone of modern physics: it allows us to consider multiple theories of interpretation. Different societies share prevailing beliefs and attitudes based on cultural assumptions reinforced by the members of that society.

Next Class

Continue with the syllabus and read Chapters 3 & 4 in Collins and Pinch. Ch. 3 gets into rushing to judgment on a science not yet proven and the policy impacts that can have—policies taxpayers may have to pay for! Ch. 4 is going to have us discussing how scientists convince others that something they can’t see exists…