SearcharxivSearch

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

Scientific Promise

Scientists constantly face decisions about what lines of research to pursue. This Element introduces the philosophical debate about scientific pursuitworthiness. It explains how it can be rational to pursue a theory even if the theory is less well supported than its rivals, and it discusses existing philosophical frameworks for guiding pursuit decisions. The Element also develops a new perspective. Existing accounts focus predominantly on theories, while experiments are largely neglected. This is an important shortcoming. Theoretical promise depends on experimental promise, and experimental promise raises questions of its own. Drawing on the epistemology of experimentation, the Element advances an account of experimental pursuitworthiness. It is argued that such pursuitworthiness depends on experimental virtues like a clear signal and simplicity of design. Moreover, the kinds of uncertainty that constrain the assessment of scientific pursuits are examined. Finally, the Element highlights open questions in the philosophy of scientific pursuitworthiness.

physics.hist-ph

Is Black Hole Evaporation Prediction Friendly?

Manchak and Weatherall (2018) formulate the black hole information paradox as a failure of predictability in black hole evaporation spacetimes, diagnosed by non-global hyperbolicity. I offer a strategy for resolving this paradox. I argue that failures of predictability in black hole evaporation are not well diagnosed by non-global hyperbolicity. I then consider two weakenings of global hyperbolicity: prediction and retrodiction friendliness, the failure of which could ground a new paradox. However, deidealized black hole evaporation models can be prediction and retrodiction friendly. Therefore, the information paradox cannot be based upon failures of global hyperbolicity, nor either retrodiction or prediction unfriendliness.

physics.hist-ph

The Crab Nebula progenitor: recovering the 1054 AD supernova event as galactic Gamma-ray burst

In 1054 AD a daytime star appeared in the constellation of Taurus, for three weeks, and it was reported in various sources from Europe to China/Japan: it was one of the few documented galactic supernovae of the last two millenia. This paradigm has been established about sixty years ago, as the comprehension of the physics of supernovae progressed with enough observational data. The Gamma-ray bursts were discovered in the same period, but only in the past few years have their observations become daily and their distances have been fully understood as cosmological. After the explosion, the exponential decay of the luminosity in gamma-rays and X-rays has been followed with telescopes onboard dedicated satellites. Also the exponential decay of the afterglow's optical and radio frequencies have been observed with the largest optical and radio telescopes. Within the binary-driven hypernova framework, successful in explaining all the observed phases of the Gamma-ray bursts, the universal exponential decay can be extended to 1000 years after the burst, to account for the present values of Gamma and X-rays as well as optical and radio frequencies of the Crab Nebula. Both the daytime visibility of the burst, and the simultaneous radiation plagues appeared in Constantinople and Cairo is a strong evidence of the presence of Gamma-rays in the lower atmosphere, coming from the same source originating the Crab nebula. The association to the daytime visibility of that star and the following plague meets exactly the etymology of the word dis-aster, bad star.

physics.hist-ph