Talk:Arthur Eddington

Text removed 21 Apr 2003
I have removed from the article the folowing statement:
 * From the 1920s until his death, he increasingly concentrated on what he called "fundamental theory" which was intended to be a unification of quantum theory, relativity and gravitation, based on almost numerological analysis of the dimensionless ratios of fundamental constants.

From what I've just read about him, this is a gross exaggeration. Investigation under way. -- looxix 02:57 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)


 * I believe that it relevant ... and I did find a book in 1928 called the fundamental theory. So, unless there is evidence to refute that ... I'm gonna put it back in. JDR


 * Agree with JDR. "Fundamental theory" is a serious work of science that does indeed represent an important finale to Eddington's work. It was published not in 1928 but posthumously in 1948 by Whittaker, one of E's followers. It is a high-powered and difficult, innovative mathematical work that includes new mathematics. Coming so late, it had little impact on mainstream scientists, who were already running on other tracks. Apart from its difficulty, there was and still is the stigma of that easy pejorative "numerology" (although when one ruffles through the pages, one sees differential equations and matrix algebra, much more frequently than the "magic numbers"). IMHO this might even be a "sleeper", some day people might catch up with it and do something with it but they would have to be awfully good at math.  Call me a romantic, but yes it does have its place in this article.
 * Adrian Pollock (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Relativity Theory of Protons and Electrons and Fundamental Theory (which I have in my personal library) were successive snapshots of Eddington's progress toward a new understanding of the originals of physical "law." Clive W. Kilmister wrote Eddington’s Search for a Fundamental Theory: A Key to the Universe, which tried to clarify what Eddington had written in those works, and to correct some apparent errors of detail. Eddington was originally inspired to head off in a new direction by the fact that Dirac's formulation of a theory of the electron was Lorentz-invariant but apparently not expressible in classical tensor formalism, contrary to a key component of his exposition in The Mathematical Theory of Relativity. — DAGwyn (talk) 09:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Quaker Peace witness
Eddington's experimental investigation of general relativity grew directly out his Quaker peace witness, since he wanted to revive cooperation between German and British physicists after the war. This is documented in an article published in Isis (a prominent history-of-science journal) last year, but I have yet to find any online corroboration, which is why I'm putting this claim on the talk page for now. Arkuat 02:29, 2004 Jul 18 (UTC)
 * Could be Batten, Alan H. 'What Eddington Did Not Say'. Isis, 94:4 (2003), 656-59. ISSN 00211753 and

Isis, 2003, 94: 677–678 - letter to the editor. [DOI: 10.1086/386394 I don't have a subscription]. Vernon White '''. . . Talk''' 20:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
Under Biography, the word "headmaster of Stramongate..." was edited into "Seadmaster of Stramongate..." This was done by IP address 24.222.146.103, as you can tell on the history page.

This page has since been vandalised again by 81.179.108.9. Could someone revert it? I don't know how.Leon... 07:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism by 195.194.227.196 again
I reverted 195.194.227.196's changes again. On 27 April, that user deleted most of the article, which I undid later that day. On 2 May, 195.194.227.196 inserted this:


 * bigoted prejudice was the fact that Chandra was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1983 for the very work Eddington was too thick to understand.''

Obviously, these changes violate NPOV and other Wikipedia style policies. I undid them. 84.238.10.31 19:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The Quakers were fairly instrumental in the Underground railroad.

eclipse question
"Newtonian gravitation predicted half the shift of general relativity."

wouldn't newtonian gravity predict zero shift, since in newton's formulation gravity does not affect light?


 * Why do you think gravity would not affect light? See Light --Henrygb 13:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This puzzled me, too. Apparently, however, Newton's particle theory of light said that refraction occurred in denser media due to gravitation.  So you would see a shift.  With the wave theory, however, you would not.  I think we tend to forget this because of wave-particle duality of light, plus relativity, renders this part of Newton's particle theory obsolete. Bigmac31 20:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an intriguing question that has puzzled me for years. However for the purposes of this article it is sufficient to note that a Newtonian analysis (perhaps combined with special relativity, to give photons a gravitating/ relativistic mass of E/C^2?) did predict half the bending of light that was eventually observed.  The point is that general relativity predicted (correctly) twice the quasi-Newtonian shift.--Michael C. Price talk 17:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, Newton would not have predicted any shift, but a naive application of special relativity to the photon would predict half what general relativity does. — DAGwyn (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

all above completelly wrong. Newton did gave light a particle ability and therefore to be with a mass. The German Söldner did publish in 1803 based on newtonian gravity the value of the angle for deflection of light by the sun, which is the half of Einsteins value. And also Einstein was not the first in his days, to thought light is graviatively sensitive. 86.56.93.140 (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Eddington and Chandrasekhar
I noticed the removal of Chandrasekhar from famous students of Eddington. It's true that they were bitter rivals, especially since 1935. However Chandra was a student of Eddington. At his PhD examination in 1933, the only professors present were Ralph Fowler (Chandra's supervisor - at least nominal) and Eddington (my source: Arthur I. Miller Empire of the Stars). Therefore I would vote to restore Chandra as a student of Eddington. It's not a rare event that a former student becomes the main rival of a scholar. Friendly Neighbour 12:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

As I recall it, the young Chandrasekhar even came to England in order to study under Eddington. Chandra was clearly one of Eddington's greatest students. There's an element of tragedy in the way Eddington himself was unable to cope with Chandra's (theoretical)"discovery" of black holes - it was just so contrary to Eddington's deep understanding of the way space-time "ought" to be. It's about the passion the two men had for their science. And it took such a long time before it could be resolved observationally. "Rift" comes closer than "rival" I think. If you ask who Eddington's rivals were, I think more of James Jeans.

Adrian Pollock (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Editing Problems
I tried to fix a minor problem in the section about Eddington's denial of Chadacker (wrong spelling, but you know who I'm talking about) and I found I couldn't. Something is wrong with the editing function. I tried to edit that specific section, the biography section, and the whole page, but the sections between 1.1 Early Years and 2 Astronomy do not seem to exist. I have no idea as to how to fix this, but I think it needs to be done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.255.107.38 (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Duplicated Quotation
Eddington's quote, reflecting on his humor, which goes:

whereupon Eddington replied, "Oh, no! I was wondering who the third one might be!" [2]

whereupon Eddington replied, "Oh, no! I was wondering who the third one might be!" [3]

Appears twice; once in the section concerning Relativity, while the other in the section related to Philosophical writings.

The reference is duplicated as well; items 2 and 3 refer to exactly the same source:

2.	^ As related by Eddington to Chandrasekhar and quoted in Walter Isaacson "Einstein: His Life and Universe", page 262 3.	^ As related by Eddington to Chandrasekhar and quoted in Walter Isaacson "Einstein: His Life and Universe", page 262

Maybe it would be convenient to delete one of the quotes, as well as one of the references, in order to improve this article's consistency.

Burst3 (talk) 17:02, 08 July 2008 (UTC)

Link doesn't work
The following link doesn't work: Stars and Atoms Uvdtloriaq (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

William Marston relationship?
In the recent BBC production of Einstein and Eddington, Eddington professed unrequited love for his best friend at Cambridge, William Marston, who was later killed at Ypres. Is there anything to back this up historically? 86.31.49.142 (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This relationship was a key element in the plot of the film, which tells the story in a highly emotional way. The ODNB article says "He never married" and I think the WP article need not report rumours beyond that (possibly coded) message. Perhaps - Vibert Douglas, A. (1956). The Life of Arthur Stanley Eddington. Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd. has some more clues.
 * I found the film intensely moving, as well as informative. I did not know that the British maintained a naval blockade of Germany, after the Armistice, by way of punishment of and that Winnifred, Arthur's sister did relief work in Berlin. Is this true? Perhaps further questions, which are more about the film than about Eddington, could go on its WP TalkPage.  Vernon White  . . . Talk 17:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, it was undeclared love, rather than unrequited love.

I think that Marston was invented for the TV programme; biographies of Eddington mention no-one of that name. Speculation about Eddington's homosexuality (and it is only speculation) is based on his friendship with mathematician Charles Trimble. For example, Arthur I. Miller writes in Empire of the Stars (pages 38–39),
 * His biographer, Allie Vibert Douglas, noted that Eddington never wanted to get married. Apart from his mother and sister, “his interest in women was simply and solely as acquaintances or, in the case of the very few women astronomers in various countries, as friendly colleagues.” There was, she records, only one person with whom Eddington “formed a lasting friendship [and with whom he] could throw off all the hesitant diffidence which formed an almost impenetrable barrier to intimacy with others.” This was a man whom Douglas refers to as Eddington’s constant companion and “most intimate friend,” Charles Trimble. ... It could well be that the two were more than simply friends. But But in those days it was downright dangerous even to be suspected of homosexuality. Everyone was aware of the penalties of getting caught. The Oscar Wilde affair of 1895 still cast its shadow. If Eddington was a practicing homosexual he wuld have had to be extremely careful in his liaisons; had word got out, he would have been ruined.

I don't think this speculation belongs in the article, though. Gdr 10:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not speculation if we just report that "the documentary portrays Eddington as ...." We can certainly report what the the documentary says, without stating whether the story is true -- although I doubt the BBC would invent something like that.
 * BTW the Naval blockade was maintained after the Armistice because Germany did not formally surrender until 1919.

Be careful: the BBC/HBO Einstein and Eddington is not a documentary. It's a drama, and as a work of fiction it takes many liberties, from the invention of characters to the reordering of events. We can refer to it as evidence of Eddington's presentation in popular culture, but not for anything beyond that. Gdr 22:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In order to be in accord with other Wiki biographies, this topic must be included. Regardless of the fact that Eddington never made any admission in speech or writing, and that no one ever witnessed any such acts, and that no one ever declared himself to be complicit in such a relationship, as Wikipedians we must allow the allegation.Lestrade (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

Agreed, it should be reported. 8 years on, and it is not, though. cheers, Michael C. Price talk 20:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources and References
It would be good if there were more inline references.

In relation to A. Vibert Douglas's biography, the following review, signed J F H,(available online) may be of use: Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, Vol. 51, p.171: Review of Vibert Douglas's biography of A.S. Eddington. This review states that the author was given access to private papers by Eddington's sister, Winnifred.
 * The article also states Charles Trimble, mentioned in the last section, was Vibert Douglas's informant. Vernon White . . . Talk


 * Agreed: more inline references needed. I noticed this was true in the section on Eddington's supposed idealism (parts of which sound like an original argument) and didn't know how else to mark it, so I added "original research?" tags. Whoever knows a better notation is welcome to change these. JKeck (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Broken links removed

 * Awarding of Bruce Medal: PASP 36 (1924) 2
 * Awarding of RAS gold medal: MNRAS 84 (1924) 548

Eddington number (cycling)
Given the Definition of that number as being the number of times E one has cycled a distance of E, the claim in the article is wrong when stating that:
 * "since moving from, say, 70 to 75 will probably require more than five new long distance rides".

Moving from 70 to 75 would require 75 additional rides with a distance of 75 or more (given no rides of that distance have been achieved previously). So while the statement is formally correct (it would indeed "require more than five new long distance rides"), it is somewhat misleading.

Therefore I'd propose:
 * "since moving from, say, 70 to 75 will require up to 75 new long distance rides of length 75 or more."

Just a minor point, since it doesn't affect any important areas of Eddington's achievments.

-pac- (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to post some clarification on the so-called "Eddington number." Eddington, according to Chandrasehkar's bio of him, kept track of his cycling progress via a number "n" in his journals.  I know of no evidence that he referred to it as "E," and certainly not that he thought of it as the "Eddington number".  "E" is just a quantity I've used privately since I was in grad school in the 1980s.  I cannot access Ramsay's piece referenced in the article, so I do not know what (or if) his sources were.  Maybe someone else called it E too; it's not an illogical symbol for it! However, I can access Tlatet's blog, where I find an image of Eddington I made for my page about all this: http://www.lowell.edu/users/jch/mtb/e.html.  Some correction of this section is warranted, but since I agree Wikipedia should not be used to make edits to one's own online material, I'll leave it to other editors to change the section as they see fit. JCHall (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

a nice resource
Just passing through - I found this lovely essay on a blog, with fully referenced quotes, which could be useful to this article. Especially of interest to those who, like Eddington, are wrapped in the spiritual dimensions of mathematical physics. However, this is a very down-to-earth, scholarly summary of his dream. Amphitryoniades (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Eddington's Two Tables
A seperate section describing Eddington's famous "My Two Tables" lecture from 1927 (later re-published in the book, The Nature of the Physical World in 1928) might be an engaging one for readers new to the topic. Following is a suggested video description -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNiEsIIvWDM.

Best, 24.9.58.46 (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Carlos Garcia

"there is a headstone for him in the burial ground of Yealand Quaker Meeting in Yealand Conyers, Lancashire"
Being investigated, as his cremated remains were interred in his mother's grave in Cambridge in 1944.

2.27.122.159 (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed - rather odd to have the passage " there is a headstone for Arthur JOHN Eddington (? -1946) and wife in the burial ground of Yealand Quaker Meeting in Yealand Conyers, Lancashire." when the headstone presumably can't be his!

AndyI 15:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aci20 (talk • contribs)

Eclipse observations are difficult to accomplish
I don't see any stars in the attached eclipse image. Typically astronomers draw circles around the reference stars on photographic plates, and the image doesn't have any. It's also incorrect to say that the 1919 observations "proved" General Relativity, as often noted in popular press. The best these observations could have done is fit predictions of the theory within a certain level of precision. If the images were poor, the fit couldn't have been very satisfying. Must have been more fudging than precision of the results. Successful repeats of this experiment require a lot of observational care in creating the images and maintaining the equipment exactly in position so that nighttime photos taken exactly six months later catch the stars in exactly the same position. Modern equipment and advanced observational skills with understanding and compensation for scintillation of light by the atmosphere still work within margins of statistical error. Hard to believe that the 1919 study came anywhere close to a level of precision that would satisfactorily "prove" General Relativity. Catrachos (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Arthur Eddington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130126003930/http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/awards/henry-draper-medal.html to http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/awards/henry-draper-medal.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Section - The end of the world
I am removing this new section because in length and detail it is excessive for a general biography. The content is indeed of (historical) interest and Eddington's book could certainly be mentioned here. It might well be appropriate to have an article specifically about this book but any evaluative commentary on the contents would have to be sourced to reliable publications and could not be in Wikipedia's (or an editor's) voice. Thincat (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Eddington's teacher / headmaster at Brynmelyn School - Reverend A.A. Brockington
https://www.dixonsmedals.co.uk/1914-star-reverend-brockington-army-chaplains-department-p-1018566.html?osCsid=be97pjk93ci62tu9pvuo5dekq4

BROCKINGTON, Alfred Allen 'Univ. of Lon. B.A. (ist cl. Engl. Hist. Lang, and Lit.) 1891. Ph.D. 1931- Bp's Univ. Lennox, M.A. 1898. d 1898, p 1899 B. and W. C. of Em. Ch. Weston-s.-Mare, 1898-99; Weston-s.-Mare 1899-1900; Twerton-on- Avon 1900-01 ; Mells, Somt. 1901-03 ; V. of Chilcompton 1903-05 ; C. of St. M. Taunton, 1905-11 ; V. of Carhampton vi Rodhuish 1911-15 ; T.C.F. 1915- 19 ; C. of All SS. Runcorn, Dio. Ches. from 1930. Served France from 02.10.1915. Silver War Badge A List 215. Address 1922 Castle Hill, Brockworth, Glouc.87, Canning-street, Liverpool.

Died 4.7.1938 and his obituary states he was educated at King Edwards School, Aston and Masons College. In 1898 he obtained his M.A. at Bishops University, Canada and in 1931 (at the age of 59) he obtained a PHD, (London) for his thesis 'Browning and the 20th century' from 1908 he was lecturer on English Lit at Cambridge University board of extra mural studies, after teaching in England and Canada he became headmaster Brynmelyn School, Weston Super Mare (1896), where he taught Sir Arthur Eddington, who wrote of him, his return to be headmaster of the school, meant the transformation of those wearisome school hours devoted to English into a time of joy and revolution.

AUTHOR, The Seven Signs ; The Parables of the Way, 1904 ; Old Testament Miracles in the Light of the Gospel, 1907 ; The Mark of His Calling,1911 ; The Nazarene, 1921 ; Common Epiphany,1923 ; Gabriel A Little Biography of an Angel,1923 ; Fools' Sojourning, 1926.

Died West Kirby 04.07.1938 DaiSaw (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Felt this should have the American spelling
I thought this a curious reversion -- of course Eddington was British, but we are writing everywhere else in American English in Wikipedia that i'm aware of, so why have British spelling on his page?

I don't have hugely strong feelings on this -- was just surprised at the reversion, though maybe there are guidelines about this somewhere that i'm unaware of.
 * Our guideline on this is WP:Manual of Style so I think British spelling is appropriate. Thincat (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It also occurs to me to say that the article is tagged with to suggest the spelling shouldn't be changed without prior discussion. However "popularizer" is an acceptable, though somewhat unusual, spelling in Britain so MOS:RETAIN comes into play here. Thincat (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Eddington experiment
I recently put a draft article Eddington experiment into mainspace. There is a fair amount of duplication with this article (some of what is here is better than in the article I was working on, partly because that is an old draft that was based in part on what was in this article 10 years ago). I've asked around for help editing the new article, though the main bit might be trying to sort out what should be here and what should be in the spin-off article. Carcharoth (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Doctoral Students of Arthur Eddington
I'm new to Wikipedia, and have never done any editing, but this morning while reading about Arthur Eddington I noticed an error in the box at the top of the article where doctoral students of Arthur Eddington were listed. One of those listed is Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, who moved to the United States for her graduate studies and had Harlow Shapley as her thesis advisor. Her name should be removed from the list of Arthur Eddington's doctoral students. 18:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)J55Hamm1 (talk)

This seems correct to me. Payne-Gaposchkin's autobiography is available on archive.org for borrowing at https://archive.org/details/ceciliapaynegapo00payn/, and the references to Eddington are limited to her years at Cambridge UK, while Shapley's guidance with her research is described at length. I'll make this edit. Andrew Kuchling (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Eddington number definition and article inconsistencies.
Hi all,

First time wikichatting.

The Eddinton number is defined as the "maximum number E such that the cyclist has cycled E miles on E days". The article then goes on to give the Eddington number quantified by a unit of distance (e.g. Km or miles). This is incorrect. The number is clearly unitless. Moreover the analysis of the difference between these E miles or E kilometers is irrelevant as the number is only defined for miles. Thus, someone who has cycled exactly 100 Km exactly 100 times, and no more, cannot not have an E value of 100 kilometers and in fact has an E value of 62 as they have cycled 62 miles at least 62 times as required.

I am aware that this may not be how the number is used in the cycling world. But this is the only correct interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.127.13.105 (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Since that paragraph was entirely unreferenced, and all our sources for cycling Eddington numbers say they're in miles, I've removed the entire paragraph. --bjh21 (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Article issues and classification

 * There are multiple issues that should not be present in a B-class article. It is tagged "needing additional references from May 2016", "weasel-worded phrases from August 2019", "needing clarification from September 2021", and "unsourced statements from January 2023".
 * The criteria #1 states; The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Criteria #4 states, "*The article is reasonably well-written." Tags such as "needing clarification" are not indicative of "well-written.