The Key To Astronomy Has Often Been Serendipity

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Key To Astronomy Has Often Been Serendipity

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Friday January 1, 2010 @05:05AM from the louis-pasteur-had-it-right dept.

Ars Technica has a great look at just how often serendipity plays a part in major astronomy advances. From Galileo to the accidental discovery of cosmic microwaves, it seems that it is still better to be lucky than good. "But what's stunning is a catalog of just how common this sort of event has been. Herschell was looking for faint stars when he happened across the planet Uranus, while Piazi was simply creating a star catalog when he observed the object that turned out to be the first asteroid to ever be described, Ceres I."

16 of 51 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

This is surprising? by hedwards · 2010-01-01 05:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

Luck has always and probably always will play a strong role in science. The fact that the first blood transfusion happened to work was mostly luck, had it not worked out well it would've probably been quite some time before somebody tried again. Watson and Crick getting to the double helix first required a bit of luck as they probably wouldn't've gotten there first if they weren't lucky enough to be able to get x-ray crystallography from a different research institution.
1. Re:This is surprising? by garg0yle · 2010-01-01 05:23 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  My point too... How is this news? As has often been said, science is less about "Eureka!" and more about "Hmm, that's odd..."
  
  --
  Modding "-1, Troll" is not a proper response if you disagree with me. Try reason.
2. Re:This is surprising? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-01 05:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Even more: astronomy is mainly an observational science. If something does not happen (or more preciselly, the information of the event arrives) right when you are looking out, you will never discover it. You cannot set up an experiment to test your ideas you always need to be lucky enough to see things happen.
  Ok. So that theory about the big bang is nice. Let's make another big bang so we can test it.
3. Re:This is surprising? by samkass · 2010-01-01 05:33 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's funny how "lucky" things often happen to those striving to do new and interesting things in various pursuits. In order for luck to cause anything to happen you have to be set up to take advantage of the lucky situation. The more you do the "luckier" you'll get. (As long as you keep your eyes open while you do it.)
  
  --
  E pluribus unum
4. Re:This is surprising? by Z00L00K · 2010-01-01 05:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  In addition to luck you must also have a flexible mind. This to be able to interpret the unexpected data. Otherwise you can only dismiss it as magic.
  
  Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
  Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
5. Re:This is surprising? by MrMr · 2010-01-01 07:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Let's make another big bang so we can test it.
  Well, that is close to one of the objectives: of this gadget
The Sky is Big by PPH · 2010-01-01 05:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Odds are if an astronomer is going to be looking around for evidence to support one hypothesis, they'll come across lots of other stuff while they're at it.
Its not the same as staring at the sludge in the bottom of a test tube.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
1. Re:The Sky is Big by Bigjeff5 · 2010-01-01 06:59 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Its not the same as staring at the sludge in the bottom of a test tube.
  Are you kidding? Do you not realize how many scientific discoveries occur because scientists were looking at one thing and found something totally unexpected? It kind of defines "discovery".
  Not all things are predicted, in fact most things aren't.
  Look at vulcanized rubber for example, it was a complete accident. Goodyear had the basics in place, but it wasn't until he accidentally dropped some of it on the iron stove he was using to boil it in sulphur, and bingo! It was perfect. Without that invention we would not have rubber today, as natural rubber only maintains its elasticity under a small range of temperatures. The whole world had given up except for Goodyear (and I'm sure a couple others like him), but it was a pure accident that completed the discovery. And even then nobody believed him. Heh, such is science and discovery.
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
2. Re:The Sky is Big by PPH · 2010-01-01 14:05 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Look at vulcanized rubber for example, it was a complete accident. Goodyear had the basics in place, but it wasn't until he accidentally dropped some of it on the iron stove he was using to boil it in sulphur, and bingo!
  But that discovery was limited in that it could only find things involving a hot stove and a piece of rubber. Astronomers have to search everywhere for evidence to support their research.
  Imagine what might have been growing in the refrigerator that your Goodyear scientist missed by not looking there as well.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
In the fields of observation by mgrivich · 2010-01-01 05:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur
1. Re:In the fields of observation by jschen · 2010-01-01 06:52 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Exactly. It's not that those guys got lucky. It's that they followed up on what exactly was interesting about what they observed.
the surprise is what defines a "breakthrough" by panthroman · 2010-01-01 05:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

Maybe important findings get publicity and "breakthrough!" status only if they're somewhat surprising? If folks chip away at a problem for 20 years, even if the result is the same as waiting 19 years and then having a eureka discovery, is it still called a breakthrough?
1. Re:the surprise is what defines a "breakthrough" by insufflate10mg · 2010-01-01 06:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I believe you're a bit off track. Breakthrough status is given to an achievement or accomplishment resulting in a relatively large number of newly opened doors. These doors lead even further down the path of progress in the field. As you chip away at a problem, you slowly open up various doors and make progress towards an ultimate objective. Usually, a surprising discovery is considered a breakthrough simply because the scientists involved weren't slowly opening doors, the surprise instantly opened them up. Simply put, yes, usually milestones referred to as "breakthroughs" are just surprising discoveries, but if a general cure for cancer were discovered today it would also be considered a "breakthrough" despite decades of research prior to it.
  
  First post ever, finally took the leap after two years worth of lurking.
Serendipity's Guide to the Galaxy by Espen · 2010-01-01 05:38 · Score: 3, Informative

Prof. Andy Fabian's (of the Institute of Astronomy at the University of Cambridge and president of the Royal Astronomical Society) entertaining lecture on this very topic, entitled Serendipity's Guide to the Galaxy is available on-line in a range of formats.. Enjoy!
Meh by Futile+Rhetoric · 2010-01-01 05:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

There are so many things going on out there that you are likely to stumble upon something that in hindsight appears serendipitous. You may have won a lottery, but since you have tickets to million different ones, it's not that amazing really.
Great Excuse by Tablizer · 2010-01-01 06:56 · Score: 4, Funny

the first instrument wasn't actually intended to be [an astronomic] telescope at all; instead, it was a spyglass that was expected to find use as an instrument of war.
War, yeah right. More likely Galileo wanted to peep at the neighbor's bosomy daughter. Porn drove new tech back then also.

--
Table-ized A.I.