Scientists like to check. So when a colleague puts forward hypotheses without proving them, it turns into a skeptical octagon. An illustration through the very strange but true story of the N-rays.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayon_N
In 1903, the physicist René Blondlot (1849–1930) made one of the biggest mistakes of the 2th century in experimental physicsXNUMX.
While Wilhelm Röntgen has just discovered X-rays in 1895 and Henri Becquerel the uranium rays in 1896, René Blondlot started working on Röntgen's rays in 1901. He announced in February 1903 the discovery of new rays which he baptized "rays N "(from the initial of her city, Nancy).
Blondlot enjoying an excellent reputation following his previous research on the polarization of magnetic fields, this discovery is greeted with enthusiasm. The Academy of Sciences publishes numerous notes in its weekly reports. Blondlot continues his research and accumulates "discoveries", like those of new N1 rays "in February 1904.
Two German scientists, Rubens and Lummer, strongly question the discovery, but the rivalry between France and Prussia makes it a question of national honor3. In July 1904, La Revue Scientifique nonetheless published a critical article by an Italian researcher4. Then in September 1904, the journal Nature5 published an article by Robert Williams Wood, translated a month later in La Revue Scientifique6.
Wood recounts his visit to the Blondlot laboratory: the experiments, based on the observation of a candle flame, take place in the dark. Unbeknownst to the experimenters, Wood disrupts the experiments: removal by himself of the triggering device and various simulations. Yet imperturbably, the experimenters continue to "observe" the expected effects.
La Revue Scientifique writes: "Although in France we hardly hear voices that speak out against the fundamental legitimacy of this research, we cannot (not) be struck by the echo of a rumor which does not stops growing abroad, rumor of skepticism and astonishment ”. At the end of 1904, the Académie des Sciences all the same awarded Blondlot the Leconte prize, worth 50 francs, "for all of his work".
Blondlot is gradually losing its support, the illusion of the existence of N rays has indeed lasted barely a year. Gustave Le Bon, adhering to the thesis of autosuggestion, concludes that “the public in the future would know […] how much a great learned body can be the victim of its most lamentable errors. "
Blondlot has trained several other researchers7 in his company:
Charpentier "sensational research on the emission of rays by the nervous system ...";
Adolf Bernard Meyer, on the emission by plants "note on the study of the heavy emission [N rays] coming from the organism";
Fred Dayton Lambert, on the broadcast by soluble enzymes;
Bichat, on "the explanation of the transmission of rays by wires";
Jean Becquerel, son of the discoverer of radioactivity, who presented his papers to the Academy of Sciences;
André Broca, Associate of Physics at the Faculty of Medicine, himself the son of Paul Broca;
Colson, professor of chemistry at the École Polytechnique;
Bagard, professor at the Faculty of Sciences of Dijon.
Analysis
The experiments described by Blondlot were, a posteriori, extremely unreliable. Based on the observation of a flame whose brightness already naturally varies by 25% (according to Wood), the observations required, according to Blondlot "to avoid any constraint of the eye, any effort of vision, of accommodation or other "on the light source whose brightness we wanted to measure. According to physiologists of the time, such as Dr. Weiss, "the relaxation of accommodation is accompanied by dilation of the pupil and as a result of greater penetration of light into the eye".
At discharge, the time was favorable for the discovery of new rays. In addition, the impossibility of reproducing an experiment does not prove its falsity, as cautiously invoked by researchers questioned on this subject (survey by La Revue Scientifique at the end of 1904). Likewise, scientific truth cannot be established on a simple majority of opinions. If researchers have questioned these results, others have claimed to have succeeded in reproducing them.
This case has provided important insights into cognitive processes, and has been cited frequently in this context. It encouraged more caution in the experiments and in some cases to carry out double-blind tests, thus limiting the confirmation bias.
