11.

10 Triumphs and Falls of Newtonian Theory 303

The British astronomer John C. Adams became convinced of this hypothesis and
thought of solving the problem (between 1843 and 1845) with what is now called
the inverse problem, which is an attempt to deduce the parameters of a mathematical
model from observed data. Although the problem is simple for modern mathematics
after the advent of electronic calculators, at the time it required long and laborious
manual calculations. Adams calculated the path of Uranus using the assumed position
of a perturbing body, derived the difference between the path he calculated and the
observations, and with the latter tried to determine the parameters (trajectory) of the
perturbing body. In September 1845, Adams reported the result of his work to the
director of the Cambridge Astronomical Observatory, with a request to observe the
possible presence of the new planet based on his data.
At the same time, Urbain Le Verrier (unaware of Adams’ work), in late 1845
presented a study to the French Academy of Sciences in Paris showing that pre-
existing theories had failed to explain the motion of Uranus. He in turn began a
study similar to the Adams’ one and in June 1846, in a second memoir submitted to
the same Academy, he communicated the position of the proposed perturbing body,
without giving any indication of mass or orbit.
This led to an interesting international intrigue between France, England and Ger-
many. British astronomers (who had treated Adams’ request as outlandish) realized
that perhaps they had wasted their time. Le Verrier had, in addition to his colleagues
in Paris, also provided the information to the Berlin Observatory. In Berlin they
received Le Verrier’s letter on September 23, 1846, and the observatory immediately
scheduled observations in the region suggested by Le Verrier. They were also lucky:
the new object (later named Neptune) was discovered shortly after midnight, after
less than an hour of searching and less than one degree from Le Verrier’s predicted
position.
For the entire scientific community, it was a triumph of the predictivity and power
of Newton’s theory. And on the strength of this success, a second study began,
concerning the first planet, Mercury (the one closest to the Sun).
What was known is that Mercury’s orbital ellipse has peculiarities related to its
proximity to the Sun; in particular, it is not fixed in space. If we consider perihelion
as a specific point, this has a precession motion. Perihelion precession of Mercury’s
orbit means the rotation of the perihelion position of the planet’s orbit as shown in
Fig. 11.15.
The effect is explained by the perturbation on Mercury of the other planets. The
calculations (known at the time of Le Verrier) were that the estimated total effect was
a rotation of about 5557 arcsec/century. As mentioned, 1 arcsec is equal to 1/3600
of a degree. Thus, the expected deviation is about 1.5.◦ per century. Le Verrier, first,
discovered that this planet is advancing faster than the theory predicts: observations
showed that perihelion is ahead by 5600 arcsec per century, about 43 arcsec more
than predicted.
Le Verrier, using the same method that had enabled the sensational discovery of
Neptune, proposed in 1859 the existence of a hypothetical planet Vulcan, whose orbit
would be internal to that of Mercury. On the strength of credibility, now everyone