The Neptune File: A Story of Astronomical Rivalry and the Pioneers of Planet Hunting

The Neptune File: A Story of Astronomical Rivalry and the Pioneers of Planet Hunting

by Tom Standage

View All Available Formats & Editions

The bizarre orbital patterns of Uranus had for years been an nsolved astronomical puzzle. But when English mathematician John Crouch Adams came across them in 1841, he discovered that there was one very important piece missing: The gravitational pull of another planet-a planet no one had ever seen before. If Adams was able to see in the sky what he was able to


The bizarre orbital patterns of Uranus had for years been an nsolved astronomical puzzle. But when English mathematician John Crouch Adams came across them in 1841, he discovered that there was one very important piece missing: The gravitational pull of another planet-a planet no one had ever seen before. If Adams was able to see in the sky what he was able to deduce on paper, he would not only have discovered a new planet, but also a revolutionary ability to gain knowledge of worlds we cannot see through the power of mathematics.

Unfortunately for him, he had a rival. The French astronomer Urbain Le Verrier calculated the planet's position shortly after Adams-and the international race to spot Neptune began.

"Standage has dug out some fascinating new information, greatly enlivened by the stories of acrimonious fighting." (Sir Arthur C. Clarke)

"An enterprising book that deals adeptly with both the astronomical theory and the human passions." (The Economist)

"It's wonderful to realize that scientists of 150 years ago were chasing fame and glory just as they do today." (Cliff Stoll, author of The Cuckoo's Egg and High Tech Heretic)

"Extraordinary...colorful...both astronomy buffs and armchair explorers will revel in his tale." (Publishers Weekly)

"This is science writing at its best, broadening the mind even as it entertains." (The Oregonian)

Author Biography: Tom Standage, author of The Victorian Internet, is a science correspondent at The Economist. Formerly deputy editor of the technology section of London's Daily Telegraph, he has also written for Wired, The Guardian, and The Independent.

Editorial Reviews
From the author of The Victorian Internet comes another fascinating excursion into the history of science to show the past's continuing relevance. The mathematical techniques developed in the 19th century to discover the planet Neptune laid the basis for modern planet hunting around distant stars.
Publishers Weekly - Publisher's Weekly
At a time when new extra-solar planets are announced monthly, Standage (The Victorian Internet) recounts an extraordinary tale of the confluence of great scientific and mathematical investigation and talent, as well as personal and national rivalries, which produced both a momentous discovery and enough embarrassment to cloud the careers of several distinguished astronomers. The protagonist is mathematical prodigy and Cambridge University astronomy graduate student John Couch Adams, who in 1845 completed a detailed calculation of the orbit of an unseen planet based on its supposed gravitational effects on Uranus. To put the enormous originality of Adams's hypothesis into proper perspective, Standage actually begins his account with the discovery of Uranus in 1781, considered inexplicably unruly in its movements and thus an anomaly among planets. Applying the fresh approach of mathematics to this conundrum, Adams calculated exactly where another planet, soon to be known as Neptune, was in the solar system. England's astronomer royal, George Airy, as well as Adams's own observatory director, James Challis, although intrigued, did not endorse Adams's theory until Airy began corresponding with a French mathematician named Urbain Le Verrier, who shared Adams's belief. This finding ignited Airy's desire not to let England lose out to France in what could be a monumental breakthrough. On August 12, 1846, Challis spotted but did not recognize Neptune and missed earning Adams and himself credit for the discovery, which went ultimately to an astronomer in Berlin. Standage, science correspondent at the Economist, gives a colorful account of the Neptune affair. Both astronomy buffs and armchair explorers will revel in his tale. Illus. Astronomy Book Club alternate. (Oct.) Copyright 2000 Cahners Business Information.
The whole thing started out in William Herschel's back yard. On a chilly spring evening in 1781, when he should have been practicing his violin, this amateur astronomer unwittingly discovered the planet Uranus. Some 60 years later, in 1841, a mathematician was browsing through a used book store and stumbled upon an old report by the Royal Astronomer that described some strange orbital movements of the new planet. Could these have been caused by the gravitational pull of still another undiscovered planet? Unfortunately, an opinionated French astronomer was busy coming to the same conclusion. The resulting fray spread across two continents and brought out the worst in some of the most august scientific personages of the day. At first glance, the march of scientific progress would seem to be a straightforward and orderly affair, with knowledge building upon knowledge until we reach the peak we occupy today. However, history invariably is made by people acting just like people, and sometimes even the best educated and most dignified scientists can act like schoolboys when their professional interests are tweaked. Author Tom Standage is a science correspondent for a London newspaper, a background that serves him well when writing for the average layman. Orbital mechanics is an esoteric topic, yet his sensible explanations (backed up with sketches and diagrams) make the courses of planets and the wobble of stars perfectly understandable. He has great fun with the personality quirks of his subjects as well, and the entire book is a page-turning adventure as well as a painless lesson in science and history. Standage's previous book, The Victorian Internet, deals much the same way with thedevelopment of the telegraph. Recommended to high school and public collections. Category: Science. KLIATT Codes: SA—Recommended for senior high school students, advanced students, and adults. 2000, Berkley, 240p. illus. notes. index., Ages 16 to adult. Reviewer: Raymond L. Puffer; Ph.D., Historian, Edwards Air Force Base, CA
Library Journal
The story of Neptune's discovery is an oft-told tale (see, e.g., Morton Grossier's The Discovery of Neptune, 1962, and H.S. Jones's John Couch Adams and the Discovery of Neptune, 1947), but it still fascinates because of the human drama contained therein. Neptune was the first planet to be "discovered" by mathematical calculation before it was physically observed. Englishman John Couch Adams and Frenchman Urbain Le Verrier, unaware of each other's work, each began with the available data on the orbit of Uranus and correctly deduced the approximate location of an unseen eighth planet. Adams finished first, but the two senior astronomers to whom he appealed for observational confirmation were slow and fumbling in their efforts. Le Verrier was luckier; two observers at the Berlin Observatory sighted the predicted planet a few hours after receiving a letter from Le Verrier on September 23, 1846. When English astronomers belatedly announced Adams's earlier calculations, an international furor erupted. Eventually, Adams and Le Verrier were recognized as the co-discoverers of Neptune. For lay readers, science journalist Standage (The Victorian Internet) offers a well-written, interesting version of the Neptune drama and supplements it with a brief review of the recent discoveries of numerous planets revolving around stars other than the sun. Recommended for public and academic libraries.--Jack W. Weigel, Ann Arbor, MI Copyright 2000 Cahners Business Information.
School Library Journal
Adult/High School-Beginning with Sir William Herschel's 1781 discovery of Uranus, this account describes the genesis and development of our modern age's search for new planets. When unaccountable variations were observed in Uranus's orbital behavior, scientists in several countries raced to find the cause, and it was mathematicians who eventually deduced, in the next century, the presence of Neptune, the first planet to be discovered through calculation alone. In a readable, journalistic (though somewhat low-key) style, Standage reveals the twists of fate, personalities, nationalistic rivalries, bureaucratic snafu, and mounting scientific evidence that determined the course of this great discovery. John Couch Adams, in England, and Urbain Le Verrier, in France, independently converged upon Neptune by means of different mathematical theories and methods; controversy raged for years over who found the mystery planet first, but it is Adams who, by this account, comes out ahead, for having developed the better method. He is also more sympathetic, due to his modest, forward-thinking personality, and thanks to the "Neptune File"-recently rediscovered documentation showing how his work, and its recognition, had been impeded by his own countrymen. Finally, touching upon today's planetary astronomy, Standage shows how the science developed by these 19th-century mathematicians led to today's stunning discoveries of planets belonging to other suns. This is a fascinating story that can prove both useful and interesting to students of astronomy, mathematics, and history.-Christine C. Menefee, Fairfax County Public Library, VA Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information.
Standage, science and technology correspondent at , reveals the international intrigue, scandal, and scientific ingenuity of the search for and discovery of the solar system's eighth planet. He says that pinpointing its position mathematically before it was actually observed ushered in a new era in planet hunting. Annotation c. Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (

Product Details

Penguin Publishing Group
Publication date:
Edition description:
Product dimensions:
5.62(w) x 7.46(h) x 0.68(d)

Read an Excerpt

Chapter One

The Musician of the Spheres

Then felt I like some watcher of the skies
When a new planet swims into his ken.

—John Keats
   "On First Looking into Chapman's Homer"

Sometime between ten and eleven o'clock on the night of Tuesday, March 13, 1781, William Herschel was looking at the stars through a homemade telescope from his garden in the English spa town of Bath. Herschel was a musician by trade, but his passion for astronomy had grown over the previous few years to the point that he was spending more time with his astronomical instruments than with his musical ones. What he saw through his telescope that night was to change his life completely and win him widespread and lasting fame. He was about to become the first person to discover a new world.

    For centuries, astronomers had followed the five "classical" planets—Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn—across the skies. The existence of these planets, which resemble bright stars clearly visible to the naked eye, has been known to humankind almost from the beginning of civilization itself. But since antiquity nobody had ever discovered any additional planets, and the idea that there might be more such objects lurking in the heavens seemed outlandish.

    Herschel was in a unique position to make such a fortuitous discovery. Having taught himselfastronomy, he had little interest in the tedious business of measuring the positions of the stars or working out tables of the positions of the Moon and planets, which was what professional astronomers spent most of their time doing. Instead, as an amateur, he was free to roam the skies at will, looking at whatever took his fancy. At the same time, Herschel was no ordinary amateur. As a result of the trial-and-error process of learning to build his own telescopes, he had, without realizing it, become the finest telescope maker in the world.

    The telescope he was looking through on that chilly March night was one of his favorites: 7 feet long, 7 inches in diameter, with a wooden tube and a handmade mirror that was the result of hours of painstaking grinding and polishing. The tube was supported by an elaborate wooden frame, with a system of cords and pulleys and three small crank-handles to adjust its position. Herschel also had beside him a set of his own eyepieces, each one mounted in a tube of cocus wood, the kind of wood used in the body of an oboe—one of the first musical instruments he had learned to play as a boy. By removing one eyepiece and inserting another, Herschel could vary the magnifying power of his telescope.

    Increasing the magnification would, for example, make a planet (such as Jupiter or Saturn) appear larger and more distinct. Herschel particularly enjoyed looking at Saturn, which, with its spectacular ring system, is a magnificent sight in even the smallest, feeblest telescope. But on that particular night he was looking at stars, not planets, using one of his less powerful eyepieces, with a magnifying power of 227 times.

    As he swept the telescope over the constellation of Gemini, Herschel noticed something unusual. He decided to take a closer look and removed the telescope's eyepiece in order to substitute a more powerful one. Switching to the eyepiece with a magnification of 460, he found that his mystery object appeared twice as large as it had under a magnification of 227; when he switched to the eyepiece with a magnification of 932, it doubled in size again. Because stars are so distant that they appear as points of light, no matter how great the magnification, this meant the mystery object was definitely not a star. So he noted it in his astronomical journal as "a curious either nebulous star or perhaps a comet."

    The object was essentially a slightly fuzzy blob. Herschel knew that a fuzzy blob could be one of two things: a nebula (a generic term covering all manner of star clouds, clusters, and what we now know are distant galaxies) or a comet (an orbiting snowball within our own solar system that brightens and spews out a tail of gas and dust as it approaches the Sun). The two can be told apart by seeing whether or not they move relative to the fixed stars. Nebulae, like stars, stay fixed; comets, like planets, move from one night to the next. Hoping that perhaps he had discovered a comet, Herschel noted its position so he could observe it after a few days and see if it was still in the same place. A few days later, on the night of Saturday March 17, he noted in his journal, "I looked for the comet or nebulous star, and found that it is a comet, for it has changed its place."

    To have discovered a comet was quite an achievement, and Herschel knew what to do: He had to inform the astronomical community as quickly as possible, to establish his priority as the discoverer. In those days, the members of the worldwide scientific community informed each other of new discoveries, theories, and experiments via a constant blizzard of correspondence, often sending or receiving dozens of letters in a single day. So Herschel, who was only a peripheral member of this informal international network, immediately sent a letter containing the details of his comet to the most senior astronomer he knew: Thomas Hornsby, the director of the observatory in Oxford, with whom he had exchanged a few letters in the past. Through his friend William Watson, who moved in scientific circles in London, Herschel also informed Nevil Maskelyne, at the Royal Greenwich Observatory. Maskelyne was the astronomer royal, the most senior astronomer in the country.

    Maskelyne found the comet almost immediately, and Hornsby found it a few days later. But they both realized that there was something highly unusual about it. "The last three nights I observed stars near the position pointed out by Mr Herschel, whereby I was enabled last night to discern a motion in one of them," Maskelyne wrote to Watson on April 4. But, he added, if this moving star was indeed a comet, it was "very different from any comet I ever read any description of or saw. This seems a comet of a new species." Maskelyne suggested that Herschel write a paper and send it to the Royal Society, the preeminent British scientific society, describing his telescope and his discovery.

    Herschel's comet was unusual because unlike other comets, it had no tail and was not surrounded by a fuzzy cloudlike coma. In fact, it was hardly fuzzy at all. Maskelyne began to suspect that Herschel's comet was, in fact, an entirely new planet.

    Most astronomers were not so sure. Herschel continued to observe what he assumed was a comet, and wrote up his results in a paper that Watson passed to the Royal Society in London, where it was read out loud at the April 26 meeting. Since London was several hours' journey from his home in Bath, Herschel did not attend. Modestly titled "Account of a Comet," his article nonetheless stirred up astonishment and skepticism in equal measure. For although Herschel's account of his discovery was straightforward enough, his casual reference to his eyepieces of 460 and 932 times magnification—along with two others of 1,536 and 2,010 times—astounded the astronomers present. Not even the astronomer royal's telescope, one of the finest available, could magnify any more than 270 times. So Herschel, with his wild claims about the power of his homemade telescope, sounded like a crank.

    Crank or not, there was no denying that Herschel's comet was real and could be seen by any competent astronomer as it made its way through the heavens. Word of the comet soon reached astronomers overseas. Charles Messier, Maskelyne's counterpart in France and a senior figure at the Academy of Sciences (the French equivalent of the Royal Society), wrote to Herschel as soon as he heard of the discovery. A keen comet hunter himself, Messier was particularly impressed by Herschel's ability to spot such a small, faint object.

    As summer approached and the evenings grew lighter, Herschel's comet was lost in the evening twilight and could not be observed again until August. By the time it reappeared in the darkening autumn skies, astronomers had started trying to calculate its orbit.

    To begin with, they based their calculations on the assumption that the orbit was the usual shape for a cometary orbit, a mathematical curve called a parabola. Traveling on a parabolic orbit, a comet swoops in toward the Sun and then hurtles off again into the far reaches of the solar system. But working out a parabolic orbit for Herschel's comet that corresponded to its actual observed motion from night to night proved to be impossible. Even orbits that correctly predicted the comet's motion for a few days quickly became hopelessly inaccurate. Stranger still, the comet did not seem to be getting any larger or brighter, as comets normally do; indeed, Messier noted that with its small disk and whitish light, similar to that of the planet Jupiter, the comet was unlike any of the eighteen comets he had previously observed.

    Anders Lexell, a celebrated mathematician and astronomer from St. Petersburg, Russia, decided to try a different approach. Instead of deriving a parabolic orbit, as would be expected for a comet, he derived the sort of orbit that would be expected of a planet. In 1609 the German astronomer Johannes Kepler had shown that the planets travel around the Sun in almost-circular ellipses. So Lexell performed a calculation to see if the motion of Herschel's comet was consistent with a circular orbit. To his surprise, he found that it was. Furthermore, the orbit was far beyond that of Saturn, the most distant planet from the Sun. Lexell's results, and similar calculations performed soon afterward by other astronomers, tipped the balance of opinion in favor of the idea that Herschel had indeed discovered a planet—one whose faintness, due to its great distance, had prevented anyone from noticing it before.

    This was a truly momentous discovery, and it prompted Sir Joseph Banks, president of the Royal Society, to write to Herschel in November 1781. "Some of our astronomers here incline to the opinion that it is a planet and not a comet," he declared. "If you are of that opinion, it should forthwith be provided with a name." If Herschel failed to move fast, Banks suggested, "our nimble neighbours, the French, will certainly save us the trouble of baptizing it."

    In the same letter Banks also announced that the Council of the Royal Society had decided to award Herschel its highest honor, an annual prize called the Copley Medal, which Herschel was invited to London to receive. At the presentation ceremony on November 30, Sir Joseph made a speech praising Herschel for his discovery of a new planet and for having provided astronomers with a mysterious new body to observe, chart, and scrutinize. He then presented the medal, to great applause.

At the time he made his discovery Herschel was living a double life, combining music with astronomy. His journal entries contain an odd mixture of details of concerts, music lessons, and pupils one minute, and mirrors, glasses, putty, and star maps the next. He was obsessed; every spare moment was devoted to polishing mirrors, building telescopes, and observing the heavens. Often he would return from a concert or a social occasion in Bath and go straight to his telescopes. As his sister Caroline noted in her memoirs, "Every leisure moment was eagerly snatched at for resuming some work which was in progress, without taking time for changing dress, and many a lace ruffle was torn or bespattered by molten pitch."

    Mirror making in particular is not a job for the halfhearted, since the mirror must be continuously polished for hours at a time in order to be free of imperfections. On one occasion, noted Caroline, "by way of keeping him alive I was even obliged to feed him by putting the Vitals by bits into his mouth. This was once the case when at the finishing of a seven-foot mirror. He had not left his hands from it for 16 hours altogether. And in general he was never unemployed at meals, but always at the same time contriving or making drawings of whatever came into his mind. And generally I was obliged to read to him when at some work which required no thinking."

    One of Herschel's pupils, an actor named Bernard, recalled that one evening the sky began to clear in the middle of his music lesson. "There it is at last," cried a jubilant Herschel to the bewilderment of his pupil, dropping his violin and rushing to the telescope to observe a particular star. Bernard also described Herschel's rooms where the lessons took place: "His lodgings resembled an astronomer's much more than a musician's, being heaped up with globes, maps, telescopes, reflectors & c., under which his piano was hid, and the violincello, like a discarded favourite, skulked away in a corner."

    Herschel himself recalled that some of his pupils "made me give them astronomical instead of music lessons." An invariably cheerful and good-tempered man, he was happy to oblige.

    His unexpected discovery catapulted Herschel to international fame. Letters congratulating him were soon coming in from eminent astronomers all over Europe. The French astronomer Joseph-Jérome Lalande wrote from Paris to report that he and his colleagues at the Academy of Sciences, including Messier, had calculated their own approximate circular orbit for the planet and found it orbited the Sun roughly once every 80 years. Since he was writing a book on the history of astronomy, Lalande asked Herschel for information about both himself and his telescope since, he said, astronomers would be "curious about everything which concerns you."

    Many astronomers wanted to know more about Herschel's extraordinarily powerful telescopes. "I congratulate you.... you are the author of a truth which will make your name immortal among Astronomers," wrote the Moravian astronomer Christian Mayer, who went on to ask Herschel whether he would build him a telescope and how much he would charge for it. Similarly, Johann Schörter, a German astronomer based in Lilienthal, wrote to ask if telescopes like the one with which Herschel made his discovery were available for sale; if they were, he said, he would like one, and so would his friend Johann Elert Bode in Berlin. Yet another letter, from Georg Lichtenberg, a German astronomer in Göttingen, praised Herschel as follows: "The accuracy of your observations is hitherto unheard of in astronomy. It has given me special pleasure to see the courage with which you undertake to examine afresh things which we had thought finished and done with."

    But some English astronomers still had their doubts about Herschel. Was he genuinely an astronomer and telescope maker of the highest order or merely a lucky amateur? In December 1781 Watson wrote to Herschel from London to point out just how extravagant the claims he was making about his telescope really were. By this time Herschel had sent a paper to the Royal Society on the subject of double stars, in which he happened to mention the magnification of his most powerful eyepiece, which was over 6,000. This was simply too much for some of the astronomers present. "What! say your opposers," Watson explained, "opticians think it no small matter if they sell a telescope which will magnify 60 or 100 times, and here comes one who pretends to have made some which will magnify above 6000 times! Is this credible?"

    To make matters worse, Herschel had also claimed that many stars that appeared as single stars to other astronomers were revealed by his telescope to be double stars. But nobody else could verify his claims. Was this because their telescopes were inferior, or did Herschel's suffer from some kind of optical flaw? Perhaps, Watson suggested, Herschel should invite other astronomers to examine his telescopes in order to confirm or disprove his claims about their quality. There was even muttering in some quarters that Herschel's planet might yet turn out to be a comet after all.

    Any lingering doubts that Herschel really had discovered a planet were, however, finally demolished in the spring of 1782. By this time a number of astronomers had started working out more accurate orbits for Herschel's planet. The key breakthrough came when Bode discovered that a star, observed by the astronomer Tobias Mayer in 1756 and recorded in his star catalog, had subsequently vanished. The new, more accurate orbits could be used to see where in the sky Herschel's planet would have been at the time. The result was conclusive: Mayer's missing star was exactly where the planet was predicted to have been. Mayer had, without realizing it, seen the planet and mistaken it for a star. Herschel's discovery was thus confirmed beyond all doubt.


Meet the Author

Tom Standage is technology editor at The Economist magazine and the author of four history books, "A History of the World in Six Glasses" (2005), "The Turk" (2002), "The Neptune File" (2000) and "The Victorian Internet" (1998), two of which have been serialized as "Book of the Week" on Radio 4. "The Victorian Internet was made into a Channel 4 documentary, "How The Victorians Wired the World". Tom has previously covered science and technology for a number of newspapers and magazines, including The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, Wired and Prospect. He holds a degree in engineering and computer science from Oxford University, and is the least musical member of a musical family. He is married and lives in Greenwich, London, with his wife and daughter.

Customer Reviews

Average Review:

Write a Review

and post it to your social network


Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See all customer reviews >