Not Only Because of Theory: Dyson, Eddington and the Competing Myths of the 1919 Eclipse Expedition

TL;DR

This paper re-examines the 1919 Eclipse Expedition, challenging claims of bias against Newtonian predictions and arguing that the key organizers, especially Dyson, acted appropriately, supported by a modern re-analysis of the data.

Contribution

It provides a detailed historical analysis of the expedition's data handling and biases, and introduces new evidence supporting the impartiality of the key scientists involved.

Findings

Data analysis was justified and unbiased.

Modern re-analysis supports original data interpretation.

Key figures like Dyson were not prejudiced in favor of Einstein.

Abstract

The 1919 Eclipse Expedition to test the light-bending prediction of General Relativity remains one of the most famous physics experiments of the 20th century. However, in recent decades it has been increasingly often alleged that the data-analysis of the expedition's leaders was faulty and biased in favor of Einstein's theory. Arthur Stanley Eddington is particularly alleged to have been prejudiced in favor of general relativity. Specifically it is claimed that some of the data, which would have favored the so-called Newtonian prediction, was thrown out on dubious grounds. This paper argues that a close examination of the views of the expedition's organizers, and of their data analysis, suggests that they had good grounds for acting as they did, and that the key people involved, in particular the astronomer Frank Watson Dyson, were not biased in favor of Einstein. It also draws attention to a modern re-analysis of the most important eclipse plates which, though overlooked until now, tends to strongly support the thesis of this paper.