Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

The Stolen Credit For What Makes Up the Sun 109

Posted by Soulskill from the stellar-gasbags dept.
StartsWithABang writes: Sure, it's easy today to look at the Sun and know it's a ball of (mostly) hydrogen, generating energy by combining those protons in a chain into helium through the process of nuclear fusion. But before we even knew that nuclear fusion was possible, we needed to figure out what the Sun was made out of, a more difficult task than you'd imagine. The credit was given to Henry Norris Russell (of Hertzsprung-Russell diagram fame), but he completely stole the work from a woman you never heard of: his student, Cecilia Payne, after discouraging her from publishing her work on the subject four years prior.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Stolen Credit For What Makes Up the Sun More

The Stolen Credit For What Makes Up the Sun

Comments Filter:

  • footnote, not headline (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    he completely stole the work from a woman you never heard of: his student, Cecilia Payne,

    • Re:footnote, not headline (Score:5, Informative)

      by ClickOnThis ( 137803 ) on Friday March 20, 2015 @05:06PM (#49305019) Journal

      he completely stole the work from a woman you never heard of: his student, Cecilia Payne,

      He didn't "steal" it, and she wasn't his student.

      Cecilia Payne's dissertation originally concluded that stars (particularly our Sun) were composed primarily of ionized hydrogen and helium, with smaller amounts of other elements, mostly metals. Russel reviewed her dissertation, and dissuaded her from presenting that conclusion, because the common wisdom at the time was that the Sun was made of the same stuff as the Earth, but heated to incandescence.

      Later, Russel realized that Payne was right, and gave her brief credit in one of his papers for the idea. Unfortunately the idea was still attributed to Russel for a long time. Payne did get the recognition she deserved, albeit belatedly.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Later, Russel realized that Payne was right, and gave her brief credit in one of his papers for the idea.

        Yes, I believe this was covered in the reboot Cosmos with Neil Degrasse Tyson last year.

  • Fuck off (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Fuck off with that sensationalist garbage. He didnt "steal" anything. He admitted he was wrong and that she was right when it became clear that she was.

    > The credit was given to Henry Norris Russell (of Hertzsprung-Russell diagram fame)

    Citation?

    This site has been completely taken over by man-hating feminists.

    • Re: Fuck off (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 20, 2015 @03:55PM (#49304433)

      Citation: From Wikipedia - "After Payne was proven correct, Russell briefly credited Payne for discovering that the sun had a different chemical composition from Earth in his paper. However the credit was still generally given to him instead."

      Wikipedia cites http://www.webcitation.org/5o0fZYSgo as source. Did we do enough of your homework for you?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Maow ( 620678 )

      This site has been completely taken over by man-hating feminists.

      Well, you're not enough of a man to be a target so don't worry about it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gl4ss ( 559668 )

      you can steal accidentally.

      thing is, would he have thought of it otherwise? he had the mindset that it was made of same stuff as earth, was presented with (I presume some sort of technical/scientific) proof that it wasn't and dismissed it.

      then published the stuff later himself.

  • Not Even Wrong (Score:5, Informative)

    by radtea ( 464814 ) on Friday March 20, 2015 @03:45PM (#49304337)

    This is not even wrong. Payne had the idea first, Russell thought it was wrong, Russell later changed his mind and gave Payne credit: http://blogs.britannica.com/20... [britannica.com] His work cites hers.

    This is how science is supposed to work, although there is always a factor of fame involved in credit-giving, and women have in general not been as forceful in claiming or defending credit as men.

    Furthermore, how many people claiming to be "outraged" by this were even aware of who had been given credit for figuring out the composition of the sun in the first place? Who amongst us is "shocked, shocked" that Russell--whom they had been giving credit to all these years, citing in papers, talking up at cocktail parties--didn't actually make the discovery that is commonly and incorrectly attributed to him?

    • Re:Not Even Wrong (Score:5, Informative)

      by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Friday March 20, 2015 @03:52PM (#49304399)
      Even wikipedia says that Russell gave her credit after he had arrived at the same answer using a different method. So how is this news?

      • The Facts Don't Matter Because "Narrative" (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Kunedog ( 1033226 ) on Friday March 20, 2015 @05:07PM (#49305021)
        I know how it sounds to complain that your one submission (out of the many /. receives) didn't get accepted, but I've tried submitting this recent scientific discovery [slashdot.org] (published in Nature Chemistry [nature.com]) a few times. IMO it's perfect material for Slashdot: a interesting new hypothesis (about a supposedly "well-understood" reaction) put to the test via regularly evolving experiments and apparatuses. And it was even largely funded through Youtube viewers (who the lead scientist thanks in the paper) and documented with (at least one) well-done video [youtube.com].

        But /. never ran it. I can't help but think that part of the problem is that the scientist is Dr. Phil Mason, aka thunderf00t, who is known for his vids that expose Atheism+ and anti-Gamergate types as fools. Think about the lousy submissions that do often make it on the front page, especially those that push an agenda.

        This is why things like Gamergate (and Slashdot's atrocious coverage of it) matter, even if you yourself don't personally care about videogames; it is a fight against neo-puritans who want to filter ALL types of content (not just games, comics, music, movies, etc) you're allowed to see, and refuse to acknowledge the work of those who don't buy into the "narrative."

        P.S. Clearly I'm biased, so if any of you think that my article submission is unworthy for some other reason, let me know (seriously).

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          It's people like you that allow me to hold onto the notion that our species, or at least our civilization isn't fucked beyond repair.

        • Re:The Facts Don't Matter Because "Narrative" (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Brulath ( 2765381 ) on Friday March 20, 2015 @09:13PM (#49306373)

          ...his vids that expose...

          It is often extremely difficult to find a perfect example of something when trying to explain it, so many of the materials people use when trying to make a larger point have flaws and can be nitpicked pretty easily. Any sufficiently complicated argument suffers from this when you attempt to compress it into a smaller time-scale, making it easy to overlook the 'bigger picture' and be offended by the examples presented. How do you distil the years of experiences and biases which have lead you to a particular argument in an objective manner in a short presentation without exposing yourself to seriously flawed examples, regardless of the topic? Try convincing a religious person why they should abandon their religion in 20 minutes without presenting examples that can be nitpicked; it's pretty difficult, because the topic is quite complex when you drill down into it (even though it seems pretty simple, it really requires analysing why they believe first).

          I read somewhere that the best way to respond to an argument is to re-state your opponent's argument, as you understand it and in the best possible light, comment on and discuss the parts you agreed with or liked, and then present the pieces you disagree with. *some searching later* turns out it was Daniel Dennett, here: http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/ [brainpickings.org].

          How to compose a successful critical commentary:

          1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
          2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
          3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
          4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

          Turns out I forgot the learned bit. The reason I'm replying is because I don't think the video creator you mentioned prescribes to a method of arguing which is useful for much beyond entertainment for those who already agree, whatever the subject under discussion. Which is partly the fault of the format – it's much faster and easier to make a dissection-style video that is short and matches your preconceived viewpoint than it is to do the above – but that's not really an excuse for intellectual laziness in the end.

          Note that I'm not saying his opponents are correct – some use the same approach as he does and fail for the same reasons. I'm pointing out that his videos don't prescribe to any form of argument which could be used to convince a person to change their mind. He does not expose anyone, because the people who watch them already agree. The best that most short youtube arguments aspire to is entertainment.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by hey! ( 33014 )

        Because even after Russell gave her credit for showing this first, people still credited him with the discovery.

        So this story doesn't contradict that narrative that people in the early 20th C were sexist and unfair to the achievements of women. But it also shows that not all men fit this mold. So it's good news for human nature; it means most of us have caught with the best of us from a hundred years ago.

      • So how is this news?

        Um, uh ... because ... science! Women! Memes!

  • Helium (Score:5, Interesting)

    by itzly ( 3699663 ) on Friday March 20, 2015 @03:49PM (#49304367)

    The article missed the opportunity to mention that the spectral line for helium was unknown at the time, and was first discovered in the sun. Hence the name was adopted from Helios, the Greek god of the sun.

  • I remember reading a book some 10-15 years ago where a statement read something along the lines of:
    "The history is riddled with people who made discoveries and people who took credit for them"
    But I can't remember the blimmin name of the book! A brief history of time isn't, a history of nearly everything isn't either...
    Does anyone know what book I'm talking about?

    • It's called "I'm Fuckin' Awesome, You're Fuckin' Out" by Ian A. Shill and Kenny Powers

      I remember reading a book some 10-15 years ago where a statement read something along the lines of: "The history is riddled with people who made discoveries and people who took credit for them" But I can't remember the blimmin name of the book! A brief history of time isn't, a history of nearly everything isn't either... Does anyone know what book I'm talking about?

  • Cosmos (Score:5, Informative)

    by ceoyoyo ( 59147 ) on Friday March 20, 2015 @04:03PM (#49304511)

    This was the subject of an episode of the Neil deGrasse Tyson Cosmos. The summary is pretty sensationalistic too. Hertzsprung discouraged his student from publishing because he thought she was wrong. When she was persistent and turned out to be right, they published. Professors always get the credit for what their students do.

    Also, what is "combining those protons in a chain"?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Hertzsrung --> Russell.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Hertzsrung --> Russell.

        Is there any way you could provide a visual aid for that? Maybe a diagram?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Zordak ( 123132 )
        But let's be honest, most of the people outraged by this article don't know who either one is. I didn't until I read TFA.

        • Re:Cosmos (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ceoyoyo ( 59147 ) on Friday March 20, 2015 @05:47PM (#49305305)

          That's actually a bit of a problem. There are lots of stories about how women get screwed over for credit for scientific discoveries. They do, of course, but so do male students. So did whoever figured out the tungsten light bulb filament in Edison's lab, the guy who came up with the rounded corners on the iPhone, and the intern who actually put together that proposal your boss presented last week.

          When you look into this particular case a bit, it seems like Russell actually acted pretty well.

    • And it used to be much worse. Victor Hugo's early mentor (Francois de Neufchateau) took Hugo's work and passed it off completely as his own. As far as I can tell, that wasn't uncommon.

  • Young Marsden Aaaward (Score:5, Interesting)

    by VAXcat ( 674775 ) on Friday March 20, 2015 @04:03PM (#49304525)
    HA! This reminds me of my days at Rice University, in the early 70s. The Post grad students there each year would award one of their number the "Young Marsden" award. It was presented to the student whose work had been most egregiously ripped off by a faculty member that year. It was called the Young Marsden award, in memory of Marsden, since Rutherford and Geiger got credit for his work on alpha particle scattering

  • Yep women did everything. (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    They invented the sun. They ate the apple.

  • Grad students are to be used up and thrown away.

  • Sure, it's easy today to look at the Sun and know it's a ball of (mostly) hydrogen, generating energy by combining those protons in a chain into helium through the process of nuclear fusion.

    Sure, it's easy to today to look at slashdot and know that it's all (mostly) clickbait, generating revenue for Dice by tricking viewers into visiting websites who think that they can make money by spraying advertizing onto eyeballs in a vain attempt to...

    Damn! I never realized how hard it is to make convoluted run-on se

  • ... this is an argument in favor of giving women the right to vote?

    If you want to discuss this with me further, I'll be staying in the garage for the next few weeks.

  • You mean Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    ...to use her actual name.

    I found this story confusing because when I studied astronomy back in the 1980s, we talked about her extensively, and she was given full credit for her work.

    Want an example of a female astronomer who didn't get the credit she deserved? Jocelyn Bell. Nothing like being overlooked for a Nobel.

  • Bad advice right from the start! (Score:3)

    by wonkey_monkey ( 2592601 ) on Friday March 20, 2015 @04:54PM (#49304943) Homepage

    Sure, it's easy today to look at the Sun

    No it's not, unless you're trying to blind yourself. Use eclipse glasses or make a pinhole projector.

    I think what you meant was "look at Wikipedia [etc]"

  • Sure, it's easy today to look at the Sun and know it's a ball of (mostly) hydrogen, generating energy by combining those protons in a chain into helium through the process of nuclear fusion.

    It's also interesting to note that The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy contains the following entry for the 3rd rock from the Sun: Mostly harmless. Someone else submitted a better description ("third rate planet") but it was dismissed because it was written by a Dick.

  • The sun is powered by electricity, not nuclear fusion.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gl4ss ( 559668 )

      you got an electric university electricity generator for sale or something?

  • It took all her years of graduate research and effort, and four additional years, and finally someone with the stature Russell agreeing with her, to overturn the consensus that believed her conclusions were wrong.

    If her supervisor hadn't have been Russell, it would have taken longer. And it would have taken much much longer if there had been anyone with a strong vested interest in her being wrong, say a political agenda depending on sun composition or many scientists trying to maintain a funding source to

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close