arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2108.06305

"That Star Is Not on the Map": The German Side of the discovery

Abstract

Neptune was telescopically discovered by Johan Gottfried Galle and Heinrich Louis d'Arrest in Berlin on 23 September 1846 based on the prediction by Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier. The role German astronomers played in the discovery has often been overshadowed by the controversies that erupted in England and France after the discovery. However, their role was crucial, not only in bringing about the discovery in the first place, but also in resolving some of the post-discovery controversies that erupted around priority for the prediction and naming of the planet. German astronomers in Central and Eastern Europe possessed some of the best telescopes of the day and had established themselves over several decades as being at the forefront of observational astronomy. They had produced the star charts that in the end proved indispensable for allowing identification of the planet, while a German publication, Astronomische Nachrichten, published by H. C. Schumacher in Altona, in the vicinity of Hamburg, then part of the Kingdom of Denmark, served as the journal of record. The general neglect of the German part of the story is most strongly attested by the inaccuracies concerning what actually happened on discovery night, which were long propagated in the English-speaking literature. Notably, for 30 years after the discovery, it was not appreciated that there were two observers, while the role of the sky map used was often exaggerated. This chapter sets forth a more complete picture, and in particular emphasises more than previous accounts the critical role of d'Arrest, arguing that he should be celebrated as a co-discoverer. In addition, evidence presented here, much of it not previously available in the English-speaking literature, shows that the name "Neptune" was eventually accepted throughout the scientific community based on German precedents.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Davor Krajnović. 2021-08-13. "That Star Is Not on the Map": The German Side of the discovery. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54218-4

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Niels Bohr in North America (1923) and his Meeting with Robert Frost

During the autumn of 1923, Niels Bohr stayed for about three months in Canada and the United States where he gave a series of lectures on atomic and quantum theory. This paper provides details about his many meetings and lectures. It deals in particular with his stay at Amherst College, where he had a long conversation with the celebrated poet Robert Frost. Based on new archival sources, the paper includes a more fine-grained and better documented version of the episode than the one offered by literary critics and scholars. It concludes, perhaps somewhat disappointingly, that the Bohr-Frost meeting was of no great importance to either the physicist or the poet.

physics.hist-ph

Gauge Matters More Than Curvature

Recent orthodoxy, which we call Curvature Fundamentalism, posits that the field strength $F$ on spacetime exhausts the physically significant content of electromagnetism, at least on prosaic (contractible) spacetimes. We argue that it is gauge invariance that constrains physical significance. As a result, there are physically significant quantities that $F$ does not capture, even on contractible spacetimes. We show that this result is robust: in the presence of charged matter fields, there are interference experiments whose outcome cannot be predicted by $F$ or any other point-local gauge invariant quantities on the basis of initial Cauchy data. We prove this using the example of relative phase of a Klein-Gordon-Maxwell field, and use it to identify a context in which the widely-claimed equivalence between the Maxwell-Faraday formulation $EM_1$ and the gauge formulation $EM_2$ of electromagnetism is untenable, and that new strategies may be needed for the reductionist project.

physics.hist-ph

Lorenz vs Lorentz. The controversy examined from the original texts

The attribution of the condition div A + (1/c^2) dPhi/dt = 0 has been under discussion since 1938 as a question of priority between Ludvig Lorenz and Hendrik Lorentz. This work argues that the problem is of a different nature, and that the discussion does not close because it has never been specified what is being attributed. Drawing on the three versions of the 1867 paper and on six further primary sources, it is documented that three separable acts have been designated under a single name: the obtaining of the relation between potentials, its imposition as a restriction on the admissible potentials, and its denomination as a gauge. It is further documented that in none of the three versions of the 1867 paper does the word potential appear, that the magnetic field does not figure in it as a quantity of the theory, and that the vocabulary in which that paper is described today enters the literature after it was written. It is concluded that the disjunction between the two denominations, posed without specifying which of the three acts is being attributed, is ill formed.

physics.hist-ph