What can be concluded from the material that has been presented here? It seems hard to deny that the working methods in astronomy have been of considerable influence on the emerging discipline of physics. The combination of systematic and precise measurements with mathematical theories based on the use of partial differential equations may have seemed rather obvious at the end of the nine- teenth century, but late eighteenth-century physics had lacked all the ingredients for these new practices. As we have seen, most of them entered physics either through direct interference by astronomers, or by copying their methods. These methods included careful registration of data, statistical data analysis and exten- sive research of the instruments, rather than of nature itself.
Along with the methods came a new set of values. The early nineteenth-century romantic ideal of a divine spark resulting in the discovery of a new phenomenon was replaced by the ideal of disciplined hard work leading to increased precision of measurements. Still, even in the light of the circumstances set out earlier, the new ethos was far from self-evident. Not everybody was easily won over by the cult of precision. Even Kirchhoff admitted that he was originally taken aback by the drudgery of Neumann’s seminar:‘boring observations and even more boring calculations.’99Nor did its success prove everlasting. Around the turn of the nine- teenth century more explorative approaches in experimental physics made a spec- tacular comeback.100Later scientists were astonished by the craze for precision measurement. In his autobiography Hendrik Casimir dismissed Kamerlingh Onnes’motto‘through measurement to knowledge’as being based upon a mis- taken and narrow-minded view of experiment.101Yet, for several decades the new standards managed to raise enthusiasm among leading scientists, including such luminaries as Regnault, Kelvin, Maxwell, Kirchhoff and Kohlrausch. Like Kamer- ling Onnes they judged the new methods to be full of‘spirit and life.’
No doubt novelty itself was part of the attraction, but other factors strongly supported the rise of Gaussian physics and the accompanying values. First among these were the practical needs of modern industrial society. If precision in astron- omy primarily served the interests of navigation, and hence of trade, precise heat measurements were mainly promoted because of their perceived relevance for heat engines, and thus for industry. The subsequent shift towards precision mea- surements in electrodynamics and the related quest for electrical standards was likewise connected to the rise of telegraphy and the interests of the telegraphic industry.102At the end of the century, precision measurements in black body ra- diation that gave rise to a new revolution in physics were just as closely connected to the rapid emergence of electric light. No doubt, the perceived social relevance and the associated view of progress helped to raise enthusiasm for the new style of physics.
Moreover, Gaussian physics supported the drawing of clear disciplinary and professional boundaries. Because it relied upon expert skills–both mathematical and experimental–and expensive facilities, it served to exclude outsiders and to select new professors. Amateurs, who lacked laboratories and sophisticated mea- suring instruments as well as the required skills and protocols, could no longer contribute to the new style of physics. In the early nineteenth century chemistry and experimental physics largely overlapped, but Gaussian physics allowed for a much clearer distinction between the two. Most of all, measuring skills could be trained through laboratory instruction, and could be measured by the precision achieved, whereas the discovery of new phenomena was much more elusive. It is no coincidence that the new style of physics flourished at the very moment that career opportunities began to open up to physicists. By adopting astronomical standards‘natural philosophy’was thus gradually replaced by modern physics.
As we have seen, a whole generation of Dutch physicists flourished in this new approach. In close collaboration they raised the level of Dutch physics to new heights. However, in one meaningful respect their approach differed from that of their predecessors from Königsberg. Where Neumann and Kirchhoff felt uncom- fortable about unobservable entities such as atoms and molecules, the Dutch freely based their theoretical efforts on molecular approaches. By aligning theory and measurements to one another they avoided the pitfalls of empty speculation on the one hand or sterile data gathering on the other. Their ambition and self- confidence was, at least in part, connected to their sense of participating in a new kind of physics, which, as we have seen, was closely modeled on astronomy. Moreover, they came to excel at it. It seems safe to conclude that Gaussian physics was one of the key ingredients of the so-called Second Golden Age of Dutch science.
Notes
1. Lorentz (1925), p. 330, De Haas-Lorentz (1957), pp. 24-26. 2. Lorentz (1925), p. 330.
3. Lorentz (1911), p. 391; Kipnis, Yavelov & Rowlinson (1996), p.8. 4. Heilbron (1982), p. 2. 5. Ibidem, pp. 4-5. 6. Ibidem, pp. 5-9. 7. Ibidem, pp. 65-89. 8. Crosland (1967); Heilbron (1993). 9. Merz (1965), vol. 1, pp. 346-348. 10. Laplace (1798), p. 287. 11. Davis (1986), p. 61. 12. Frankel (1977), p. 44. 13. Alder (2004). 14. Gillispie (1981), p. 334.
15. Buchwald & Rise, pp. 1-24, on 11. 16. Ibidem, pp. 23-24.
17. Ibidem, pp. 12-19 and 23-24. 18. Frankel (1977), pp. 61-64. 19. Fox (1971).
20. Smith & Wise (1989), pp. 120-134. 21. Pannekoek (1961), p. 340. 22. Olesko (1995), p. 107. 23. Ibidem, p. 107. 24. Ibidem, p. 118. 25. May (1981), pp. 302-304. 26. Olesko (1995), pp. 119-121.
27. Jungnickel & McCormach (1986) vol 1, p. 64. 28. Ibidem, pp. 66-69.
29. Ibidem, pp. 65-66. 30. Gauss (1832).
31. Jungnickel & McCormach (1986) vol 1, p. 70. 32. Ibidem, pp. 71-73.
33. Ibidem, pp. 73-75. 34. Ibidem, p. 76.
35. Weber (1893) and Weber (1894).
36. Jungnickel & McCormach (1986) vol. 1, p. 140. 37. Ibidem, pp. 140-141. 38. Ibidem, pp. 141-144. 39. Ibidem, pp. 144-146. 40. Ibidem, 91-92 and 101-105. 41. Ibidem, pp. 104-105. 42. Stichweh (1984), pp. 385-386.
43. Jungnickel & McCormach (1986) vol 2, p. 121. 44. Olesko (1991), pp.25-26. 45. Fricke (1970), pp. 97-98. 46. Pannekoek (1961), p. 324. 47. Ibidem, p. 325. 48. Schaffer (1988). 49. Pannekoek (1961), pp. 321-324. 50. Olesko (1991), pp. 68-72. 51. Olesko (1995), pp. 121-125. 52. Olesko (1991) pp. 32-36.
53. Jungnickel & McCormach (1986) vol 1, pp. 81-82. 54. Olesko (1991), pp. 92-94.
55. Ibidem, pp. 65-66 and 73-75.
56. Jungnickel & McCormmach (1986) vol. 1, p. 93; Olesko (1991), pp. 454-456. 57. Olesko (1991) pp. 128-131 and 171-175.
58. Jungnickel & McCormmach (1986) vol. 1, pp. 148-152; Olesko (1991), pp. 175-178. 59. Ibidem, pp. 179-182; Jungnickel & McCormmach (1986) vol. 1, pp. 153-154.
60. Ibidem, p. 290.
61. Olesko (1991), pp. 415-419. 62. Cahan (1990), p. 154.
63. Jungnickel & McCormmach (1986), vol. 2, pp. 120-121. 64. Zuidervaart (1999), pp. 375-404.
65. Dekker (1992), pp. 21-30; Zuidervaart (2011), p. 62; Hooijmaijers (2011), p. 109. 66. Van Lunteren (2007).
67. Van Lunteren (1995), pp. 115-116 and 118. 68. Weiss (2013).
69. Ibidem.
70. Van Willigen (1868), pp. 74-75.
71. Ibidem; I owe these references to Martin Weiss. 72. Weiss (2013).
73. Van Delft (2005), p. 114. 74. Weiss (2013).
75. Bosscha (1901), pp. 1-13. 76. Lorentz (1911), p. 399.
77. Van Lunteren (2000) pp. 252 and 263-265. 78. Van Delft (2005), pp. 75-76. 79. Ibidem, pp. 102-112. 80. Ibidem, pp. 124-131. 81. Ibidem, pp.137-141. 82. Ibidem, pp. 141-145. 83. Kamerlingh Onnes (1882), p. 16. 84. Ibidem, p. 17. 85. Ibidem, p. 22. 86. Ibidem, p. 32. 87. Ibidem, 36, pp. 38-39. 88. Van Delft (2005), p. 192. 89. Schaffer (1995), p.154. 90. Cahan (1990), pp. 162-164. 91. Cahan (1985), pp. 25-32.
92. A recently established type of secondary education without classical languages. 93. Van Lunteren (1995), pp. 131-133.
94. Snelders (1989).
95. See also Maas in this volume. 96. Lorentz (1925), p. 330. 97. Van Delft (2005), pp. 328-334.
98. Ibidem; Haas-Lorentz (1957) pp. 24-26 and 37. 99. Jungnickel & McCormmach (1986) vol. 1, p.155.
100. Examples are Thomson and Rutherford in Britain, Hertz and Röntgen in Germany, Becquerel in France.
101. Casimir (1983), pp. 160-161.