Discovery of Neptune

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neptune
Neptune

The discovery of the planet Neptune remains notable because it resulted from theoretical prediction of the existence of a major solar-system body without previously seeing it. What led to its discovery was indirect evidence from the marginal disturbing effects which it produced gravitationally on the observed motion of its neighbouring planet (in order of orbital size) Uranus. The actual discovery was made on September 23, 1846 at the Berlin Observatory, by astronomer Johann Gottfried Galle (assisted by Heinrich d'Arrest), working from the mathematical predictions of Urbain Le Verrier which Galle had received just that same morning. It was a sensational moment of 19th century science and dramatic confirmation of Newtonian gravitational theory. In François Arago's apt phrase, Le Verrier had discovered a planet "with the point of his pen." Unfortunately, Le Verrier's triumph also led to a tense international dispute over priority, as shortly after the Galle/Le Verrier discovery, Astronomer Royal George Airy announced that British mathematician John Couch Adams had simultaneously made mathematical calculations similar to those of Le Verrier [1].

Before its discovery only seven major planets were known to astronomers, the furthest from the sun being Uranus. It was irregularities in the orbit of Uranus that led Adams in England privately and Le Verrier in France publicly to predict an eighth planet. It also led a British team to embark on a secret and ultimately unsuccessful race for its discovery, before Le Verrier's published predictions could be acted upon by anyone other than a British astronomer.

Contents

[edit] Galileo's "near miss"

Galileo's drawings show that he first observed Neptune on December 28, 1612, and again on January 27, 1613; on both occasions, Galileo mistook Neptune for a fixed star when it appeared very close (in conjunction) to Jupiter in the night sky.[2] Believing it to be a fixed star, he is not credited with its discovery. At the time of his first observation in December 1612, it was stationary in the sky because it had just turned retrograde that very day; because it was only beginning its yearly retrograde cycle, Neptune's motion was far too slight to be detected with Galileo's small telescope.[3]

[edit] Irregularities in Uranus's orbit

In 1821, Alexis Bouvard had published astronomical tables of the orbit of Uranus, making predictions of future positions based on Newton's laws of motion and gravitation.[4] Subsequent observations revealed substantial deviations from the tables, leading Bouvard to hypothesize some perturbing body.[5] These irregularities or "residuals", both in the planet's ecliptic longitude and in its distance from the Sun, or radius vector, might be explained by a number of hypotheses: the Sun's gravity, as described by Newton, might behave differently for a planet so distant from it central body; or it might simply be observational error; or, perhaps Uranus was being pulled, or perturbed, by an as-yet undiscovered eighth planet.

[edit] Adams in Cambridge

John Couch Adams
John Couch Adams

Adams learned of the irregularities while still an undergraduate and became convinced of the "perturbation" hypothesis. Adams believed, in the face of anything that had been attempted before, that he could use the observed data on Uranus, and utilising nothing more than Newton's law of gravitation, deduce the mass, position and orbit of the perturbing body.

After his final examinations in 1843, Adams was elected fellow of his college and spent the summer vacation in Cornwall calculating the first of six iterations.

In modern terms, the problem is an inverse problem, an attempt to deduce the parameters of a mathematical model from observed data. Though the problem is a simple one for modern mathematics after the advent of electronic computers, at the time it involved much laborious hand calculation. Adams began by assuming a nominal position for the hypothesised body, using the empirical Bode's law. He then calculated the path of Uranus using the assumed position of the perturbing body and calculated the difference between his calculated path and the observations, in modern terms the residuals. He then adjusted the characteristics of the perturbing body in a way suggested by the residuals and repeated the process, a process similar to regression analysis.

At position a, the outer planet gravitationally perturbs the orbit of Uranus, pulling it ahead of the predicted location. The reverse is true at b, where the purturbation retards the orbital motion of Uranus.
At position a, the outer planet gravitationally perturbs the orbit of Uranus, pulling it ahead of the predicted location. The reverse is true at b, where the purturbation retards the orbital motion of Uranus.

On 13 February 1845, James Challis, director of the Cambridge Observatory, requested data on the position of Uranus, for Adams, from Astronomer Royal George Biddell Airy at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich.[6] Adams certainly completed some calculations on 18 September.[6]

Supposedly, Adams communicated his work to Challis in mid-September 1845 but there is some controversy as to how. The story and date of this communication only seem to have come to light in a letter from Challis to the Athenaeum dated 17 October 1846.[7] However, no document was identified until 1904 when Sampson suggested a note in Adams's papers that describes "the New Planet" and is endorsed, in handwriting not Adams's, with the note "Received in September 1845".[8][7] Though this has often been taken to establish Adams's priority,[9][10] some historians have disputed its authenticity, on the basis that "the New Planet" was not a term current in 1845,[11] and on the basis that the note is dated only after the fact by someone other than Adams.[12] Further, the results of the calculations are different from those communicated to Airy a few weeks later.[7] Adams certainly gave Challis no detailed calculations[10] and Challis was unimpressed by the description of his method of successively approximating the position of the body, being disinclined to start a laborious observational programme at the observatory, remarking "while the labour was certain, success appeared to be so uncertain."[11]

[edit] Le Verrier in Paris

Urbain Jean-Joseph Le Verrier.
Urbain Jean-Joseph Le Verrier.

Meanwhile, Urbain Le Verrier, on 10 November 1845, presented to the Académie des sciences in Paris a memoir on Uranus, showing that the pre-existing theory failed to account for its motion.[9] Unaware of Adams's work, he attempted a similar investigation, and on 1 June 1846, in a second memoir, gave the position, but not the mass or orbit, of the proposed perturbing body. Le Verrier located Neptune within one degree of its actual position.

[edit] The race for priority - London and Cambridge

Upon receiving in England the news of Le Verrier's June prediction, George Airy immediately recognized the similarity of Le Verrier's and Adams' solutions. Up until that moment, Adams' work had been little more than a curiosity, but independent confirmation from LeVerrier spurred Airy to organize a secret attempt to find the planet.[13] [14]. At a July 1846 meeting of the Board of Visitors of the Greenwich Observatory, with Challis and Sir John Herschel present, Airy suggested that Challis urgently look for the planet with the Cambridge 11.25 inch equatorial telescope, "in the hope of rescuing the matter from a state which is ... almost desperate".[15] The search was begun by a laborious method on 29 July.[10] Adams continued to work on the problem, providing the British team with three further solutions during the summer of 1846 which eventually proved worse than his 1845 autumn solutions[12] -- and which sent Challis searching the wrong part of the sky. Only after the discovery of Neptune had been announced in Paris and Berlin did it become apparent that Neptune had been observed on 8 and 12 August but because Challis lacked an up-to-date star-map, it was not recognized as a planet.[9]

[edit] The race for priority - Paris and Berlin

Le Verrier was unaware that his public confirmation of Adams' private computations had set in motion a British search for the purported planet. On 31 August, Le Verrier presented a third memoir, now giving the mass and orbit of the new body. Having been unsuccessful in his efforts to interest any French astronomer in the problem, Le Verrier finally sent his results by post to Johann Gottfried Galle at the Berlin Observatory. Galle received Le Verrier's letter on 23 September and immediately set to work observing in the region suggested by Le Verrier. Galle's student, Heinrich Louis d'Arrest, suggested that a recently drawn chart of the sky, in the region of Le Verrier's predicted location, could be compared with the current sky to seek the displacement characteristic of a planet, as opposed to a stationary star. Neptune was discovered that very night, after less than an hour of searching and less than 1 degree from the position Le Verrier had predicted, a remarkable match. After two further nights of observations in which its position and movement were verified, Galle replied to Le Verrier with astonishment: "the planet whose place you have [computed] really exists" (emphasis in original).

[edit] Disputed priority

Image:neptune_discovery.png

On the announcement of the fact, Herschel, Challis and Richard Sheepshanks, foreign secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society, announced that Adams had already calculated the planet's characteristics and position. Airy, at length, published an account of the circumstances, and Adams's memoir was printed as an appendix to the Nautical Almanac.[9] However, it appears that the version published by Airy had been edited by the omission of a "crucial phrase" to disguise the fact that Adams had quoted only mean longitude and not the orbital elements.[11]

A keen controversy arose in France and England as to the merits of the two astronomers. There was much criticism of Airy in England. Adams was a diffident young man who was naturally reluctant to publish a result that would establish or ruin his career. Airy and Challis were criticised, particularly by James Glaisher,[10] as failing to exercise their proper role as mentors of a young talent. Challis was contrite but Airy defended his own behaviour, claiming that the search for a planet was not the role of the Greenwich Observatory. On the whole, Airy has been defended by his biographers.[10] In France the claims made for an unknown Englishman were resented as detracting from the credit due to Le Verrier's achievement.[9]

The Royal Society awarded Le Verrier the Copley medal in 1846 for his achievement, without mention of Adams, but Adams's academic reputation at Cambridge, and in society, was assured.[10] As the facts became known, some British astronomers pushed the view that the two astronomers had independently solved the problem of Uranus, and ascribed equal importance to each.[10][9] But it is notable that Adams himself publicly acknowledged Le Verrier's priority and credit (not forgetting to mention the role of Galle) in the paper that he gave to the Royal Astronomical Society in November 1846:-

I mention these dates merely to show that my results were arrived at independently, and previously to the publication of those of M. Le Verrier, and not with the intention of interfering with his just claims to the honours of the discovery ; for there is no doubt that his researches were first published to the world, and led to the actual discovery of the planet by Dr. Galle, so that the facts stated above cannot detract, in the slightest degree, from the credit due to M. Le Verrier.

– Adams (1846) [16]

The criticism was soon afterwards made, that both Adams and Le Verrier had been over-optimistic in the precision they claimed for their calculations, and both had greatly overestimated the planet's actual distance from the sun. Further, it was suggested that they both succeeded in getting the longitude almost right only because of a "fluke of orbital timing". This criticism was discussed in detail by Danjon (1946) [17] who illustrated with a diagram and discussion that while hypothetical orbits calculated by both LeVerrier and Adams for the new planet were indeed of very different size on the whole from that of the real Neptune (and actually similar to each other), they were both much closer to the real Neptune over that crucial segment of orbit covering the interval of years for which the observations and calculations were made, than than they were for the rest of the calculated orbits. So the fact that both the calculators used a much larger orbital major axis than the reality was shown to be not so important, and not the most relevant parameter.

The new planet, at first called "Le Verrier" by Francois Arago, received by consensus the neutral name of Neptune. Its mathematical prediction was a great intellectual feat, but it showed also that Newton's law of gravitation, which Airy had almost called in question, prevailed even at the limits of the solar system.[9]

Adams held no bitterness towards Challis or Airy[10] and acknowledged his own failure to convince the astronomical world:[11]

I could not expect however that practical astronomers, who were already fully occupied with important labours, would feel as much confidence in the results of my investigations, as I myself did.

By contrast, Le Verrier was arrogant and assertive, enabling the British scientific establishment to close ranks behind Adams while the French, in general, found little sympathy with Le Verrier.[11] In 1874-1876, Adams was president of the Royal Astronomical Society when it fell to him to present the gold medal of the year to Le Verrier.[9]

[edit] References

  1. ^ Danjon, Prof. André (Director of the Paris Observatory) (1946). Le centenaire de la découverte de Neptune. (in French) Ciel et Terre (journal) (1946) vol.62, p.369. (unknown, France). Retrieved on 2008-01-23.
  2. ^ Hirschfeld, Alan (2001). Parallax:The Race to Measure the Cosmos. New York, New York: Henry Holt. ISBN 0-8050-7133-4. 
  3. ^ Littmann, Mark; Standish, E.M. (2004). Planets Beyond: Discovering the Outer Solar System. Courier Dover Publications. ISBN 0-4864-3602-0. 
  4. ^ Bouvard (1821)
  5. ^ [Anon.] (2001) "Bouvard, Alexis", Encyclopaedia Britannica, Deluxe CDROM edition
  6. ^ a b Kollerstrom, N. (2001). A Neptune Discovery Chronology. The British Case for Co-prediction. University College London. Retrieved on 2007-08-23.
  7. ^ a b c Kollerstrom, N. (2001). Challis' Unseen Discovery. The British Case for Co-prediction. University College London. Retrieved on 2007-08-23.
  8. ^ Sampson (1904)
  9. ^ a b c d e f g h [Anon.] (1911) "John Couch Adams, Encyclopaedia Britannica
  10. ^ a b c d e f g h Hutchins, R. (2004). "Adams, John Couch (1819–1892)". 'Oxford Dictionary of National Biography'. Oxford University Press. 
  11. ^ a b c d e Sheehan, W. et al. (2004). The Case of the Pilfered Planet - Did the British steal Neptune?. Scientific American. Retrieved on 2008-02-08.
  12. ^ a b Rawlins, Dennis (1992). The Neptune Conspiracy.
  13. ^ Dennis Rawlins, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, volume 16, page 734, 1984 (first publication of British astronomer J.Hind's charge that Adams's secrecy disallows his claim).
  14. ^ Robert Smith, Isis, volume 80, pages 395-422, September, 1989
  15. ^ Smart (1947) p.59
  16. ^ Adams, J.C., MA, FRAS, Fellow of St Johns College, Cambridge (1846). On the Perturbations of Uranus (p.265). Appendices to various nautical almanacs between the years 1834 and 1854 (reprints published 1851) (note that this is a 50Mb download of the pdf scan of the nineteenth-century printed book). UK Nautical Almanac Office, 1851. Retrieved on 2008-01-23.
  17. ^ Danjon, Prof. André (Director of the Paris Observatory) (1946). Le centenaire de la découverte de Neptune. (in French) Ciel et Terre (journal) (1946) vol.62, p.369. (unknown, France). Retrieved on 2008-01-23.

[edit] Bibliography