Banner
    Geniuses Of Britain - The First Five
    By Hank Campbell | May 12th 2011 07:36 PM | 31 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Hank

    I'm the founder of Science 2.0® and co-author of "Science Left Behind".

    A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone...

    View Hank's Profile
    It's common practice among learned people that, the more educated the company, the more obscure the lists of people they will invent any time there is a question about history.   Science may be universally quantifiable but history of science is quite subjective.   So on a site where we all extol Al-Khwarizmi,  Pietro Monti, Zu Chongzhi,  Ibn al-Haytham and too many others to count in our quest to be thorough, I am going to make a bold claim sure to infuriate historians and nationalists from many countries, including America; some of the greatest scientists of any age were all in one place, at one time, and that place was Britain.

    I will contend that Britain was to science what America's founding fathers were to democracy and China was to culture; a confluence of brilliant minds who dramatically changed the world.  And I intend to do it briefly.

    Like all great science stories, this involves a scary comet and a fire and a plague; Maslow disagreed that good things result from bad and created a hierarchy of needs to try and show it, but trauma often breeds triumph.  As the saying goes, a generation of Borgia's murdering and plotting and poisoning gave us the Renaissance whereas 500 years of Swiss peace only gave us the cuckoo clock.

    And so some of the greatest achievements in science history happened because bad things happened and some people hated each other, and nothing covers the scope of it all better than the upcoming Genius of Britain DVD.   The first episode covers the period during the Civil War (bad), the plague (bad), a comet (bad) and the Great Fire of London (bad) and how five men made great advancements, sometimes as a result of those bad things; for example, a lot of corpses means anatomical research that might not otherwise be possible for a scientist on a budget.    But I don't want to get ahead of myself.   To start, I'll touch on someone no one hated, because it would have been a disaster to do so, since he had been the boyhood friend of the King of England.

    Christopher Wren, architect of the scientific age.  Like all great scientists of the past, Wren was a polymath and an experimental philosopher, the kind of thing that isn't really possible today, because philosophers don't want to do math.    Like all five under discussion, he believed the world could be explained according to natural laws and that superstitions could be invalidated by experiments.    Whereas Archimedes was able to show he could move the world with a proper level, Wren was able to take us firmly out of the dark ages using a spleen.

    The spleen, you see, was regarded as some sort of mystical organ - the theory of humours said black bile determined the physical fitness of people and and black bile came from the spleen.    To prove it was rubbish, Wren cut open a dog (yes, yes, it was the age of bold experimentation) removed its spleen, sewed him back up, and the dog lived.   No spleen needed.   If that is not enough, he dissected the eye of a horse to find out how the lens worked and, doing so, was able to calibrate his telescope more precisely than anyone had done in the past.    This would be important later because he would be the architect of the Royal Observatory (and St. Paul's Cathedral, but this is about science) - more importantly, he was a founding member of the 'Invisible College' group that would dramatically reshape science through the Royal Society in decades to come.

    Robert Boyle, like Wren, was a member of that Invisible College and also a devoted experimentalist.  He did not want to hear any theory unless it could be verified with observation.   He was a devout man, he simply wanted to understand the ways of Creation, and this belief is what inspired the work he is best known for by chemists today; Boyle's Law, PV = k, where k is a constant, P is pressure and V is volume.   Franciscus Linus, a Jesuit scientist, argued that the pressure of air was too nominal to do what Boyle's observations believed it could do, so Boyle, who cataloged everything, set out to find the answer.   

    He created a device, the first vacuum pump in Britain, and was able to show the 'spring' of air, its ability to compress and contract and that pressure and volume vary inversely.  He could make water boil at low temperature, for example, but most importantly he was able to show that air was part of an invisible world all around us - and it had laws that were hidden as well, they just needed to be found.

    He proudly showed his pneumatic engine to a gathering of the Royal Society, using a bird to show members what was happening.    The bird, like all animals in experiments of the time, was doomed, as shown in the picture below, but another interesting note is that the only person who could get the infernal thing to work was his assistant at the time, a fellow named...

    An Experiment on a Bird in an Air Pump by Joseph Wright of Derby 1768
    17th century scientists were tough on critters.   Here is Boyle's bird getting the pneumatic engine treatment in “An Experiment on a Bird in an Air Pump” by Joseph Wright of Derby, 1768.

    Robert Hooke.    Hooke, like any number of great scientists, before and since, was a prickly sort.   It is known he was jealous, annoying and so paranoid he wrote his experiments in code.  It was also believed he was short, ugly and hunchbacked but we have no way to know because there are no pictures of him - more on that in a bit. 

    Whereas Wren thought about the big world, Hooke was thinking about the small - as in fleas.   Like the others, his name is obscure but his contribution to science is without question.   Like the others, he was a polymath and his contributions range from the obscure-to-many (Hooke’s law, the stretching of a spring is directly proportional to the deforming force) to the more well known, like the theory of combustion, the universal joint and an early prototype of the respirator.  But he is most famous in science for his work in the Micrographia, where he created a compound microscope to show the amazing symmetry of nature, even at the tiniest levels.   And then faithfully recreated it in magnificent detail.

    Robert Hooke Micrographia flea
     Here, from Observation XVIII of the Micrographia
    . . . I could exceedingly plainly perceive it to be all perforated and porous, much like a Honey-comb, but that the pores of it were not regular. . . . these pores, or cells, . . . were indeed the first microscopical pores I ever saw, and perhaps, that were ever seen, for I had not met with any Writer or Person, that had made any mention of them before this. . .
    he has coined the term cells and discovered plant cells.  Hooke is, essentially, the father of microbiology, though he acknowledged that his friend Wren did much of the work and must have credit for some of the art.  

    Hooke was not content to just theorize.  He did plenty of self-experimentation, an endeavor frowned on in today's science climate.   Purgatives, emetics, mercury, absinthe - you name it, he ingested it, and it took its toll, but he was crucial to the success of the Royal Society because he was the jack-of-all-trades experimentalist/engineer.

     In modern pop culture parlance, those of you who know your sparkly vampire lore are either Team Edward or Team Jacob.    To science historians, however, you are either Team Hooke or Team...

    Newton.   Isaac Newton made Hooke look positively sunny by disposition.  Whereas the previous three are all collegial members of the Royal Society, Newton instead muttered his way around Cambridge, he of the crazy hair and the poverty which forced him to empty bedpans for the rich kids in order to eat.  Abandoned at age 3, Newton had a hard life and a laser-light focus on things that interested him - and everything interested him.    Alchemy, mysticism, the paranormal, he wanted to investigate everything.   Unlike the others, though, he believed in math ahead of observation and wanted math to be the language of science.    But the math didn't exist, so he would end up having to invent that also.

    It's not that he didn't believe in experimentation, it was just a stepping stone to answers about the fundamental laws that governed the hidden world.   When he wanted to learn about vision, he experimented by poking himself in the eye and when he noted spots of color as he did so, he set up a light and a prism - yet he did not believe, as others did, that the prism created the separate colors from light and instead he was able to mathematically prove that light is not 'pure', it is created from other colors.   He began to believe, in his arrogance, that maths could explain all natural phenomena.

    But his career was not without setbacks either.   Like many of this day, he felt he was smarter than everyone else but still craved some legitimacy.    And so he attempted to submit a paper to the Royal Society, on optics,  but Hooke, who had a need to stick his fingers in everything the Royal Society did, tore it to pieces.   They disagreed on light, with Newton showing that colors combined to make white light while Hooke contended colors resulted from distortions of white light.   Newton would not forget the slight but, at least on the exterior, he wrote in a letter to  Hooke what became one of the most famous passages in science: "If I have seen further it is by standing on ye sholders of Giants."

    Still, the animosity would linger.  Newton knew he had done the math while Hooke believed if he had thought it, the credit was his.   And some agree in the physics world and say Hooke deserves more credit than he gets but, to be fair to Newton, revisionists love to perpetuate myths of the oppressed underdog and Hooke took credit for everything everyone did.   He had a fight with Christiaan Huygens over who deserved credit for inventing the balance-spring watch and a fight with Adrien Auzout over microscope lenses.   By the time he later tried to claim credit for Newton's inverse square law of celestial motion, even his own friends did not believe him.    Newton was still annoyed enough he would not accept the Presidency of the Royal Society until after Hooke died, though he was re-elected for 24 years once he got it.   He was also the first scientist to be knighted.

    But in the decade before the Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica, after the issue with the optics paper and with the greatest scientist of the period alienated from the Royal Society and those other great minds aligned against him, the future looked bleak for Newton, even as Lucasian professor at Cambridge.

    He is now arguably the greatest scientist in history, yet he would barely be known at all except for the efforts of...

    Edmund Halley.   What?   Edmund Halley?  The comet guy?   Well, sure.   Halley was a young, dashing jack-of-all-trades.   He was a facilitator with an eye for science and a practical streak.  He was well-liked, cussed like a sailor and had a taste for adventure.    

    As a young man, he set out to map the stars in the southern hemisphere, ostensibly to help the Royal Navy.  Using nothing but a sextant and math, he made a comprehensive chart and returned home in 1678 a national hero, was given a Royal Society fellowship at age 22 and Oxford was told by royal edict to give him the degree he interrupted to go on the journey.

    But he was a smart man in his own right.   In mapping those stars, he had some questions he did not know how to answer.  Nor did other smart men such as Hooke.    Orbits, to Halley, were clearly elliptical but Kepler's third law said the attraction of the Sun on the planets was as the inverse of the square of the distance between them - and Halley offered 40 shillings in books if anyone could prove how that will be elliptical.   

    Four months passed with no answer to his challenge.   Surely Hooke would not ask Newton, arguably England's greatest scientist, since he had spurned the only man who had the math talent to realize his dreams.  And Wren the architect was busy with St. Paul's Cathedral and other works after the Great Fire of London.  

    Since 1666, Newton had outlined early versions of his three laws of motion and the law giving the centrifugal force on a body moving uniformly in a circular path.  From his law of centrifugal force and Kepler's third law of planetary motion, Newton had deduced the inverse-square law.

    So visit Newton Halley did, and we are told the discourse was icy but with Halley's flair for diplomacy and the offhand comment that he believed Hooke was close to a solution, Newton disclosed he already had the preliminaries worked out, but could not locate it - and then later delivered a recollection which became De Motu Corporum in Gyrum (On the Motion of Revolving Bodies).

    But Halley also saw something extraordinary had happened that could go well beyond De Motu, and so
     Halley ... had the genius to recognise the even greater mathematical genius of Newton, to urge him to write the Principia Mathematica, and then pay for the costs of publication out of his own pocket because the Royal Society was currently broke ...

    - H E Bell, The Savilian professors' houses and Halley's observatory at Oxford, Notes and Records Roy. Soc. London 16 (2) (1961), 179-186.
    In April 1686 Newton presented the first third of the Principia and the rest is science history.

    Halley it not famous just for bringing Newton to the world, of course.   The comet which now bears his name had been known since at least 240 B.C. and had even made a famous appearance in British history - 1066 A.D. before the Battle of Hastings, which ended Anglo-Saxon rule of England and was also the last time the island was conquered by a foreign power - but Halley was the person who discovered the comet was periodic and even accurately predicted its next appearance.   And he did it all using the math of Newton.

    Halley's comet won't be back for another five decades but we still feel its presence, just like we feel the presence of the great man himself - the annual Eta Aquarid meteor shower, created by material from Halley's Comet as it travels on its 76 year orbit through the solar system, peaked last week.

    But it was Halley's ability to band together an illustrious 'team of rivals' that may make Halley the greatest of them all.

    ****

    Am I wrong in my beliefs?  I was inspired to write this short piece because I received the Genius of Britain DVD produced by Channel 4, which is absolutely brilliant in both pace and execution.   It was issued last year but I only received the review copy this month because it is now making its way to America.   Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and others are pitch perfect in delivering interesting overviews of how British science started the scientific age that led to the industrial revolution, modern transportation, evolution and more modern work.

    I can't recommend it highly enough.  Like science, this is one thing the Brits got right.

    Comments

    rholley
    Team Hooke or Team Newton? 

    We now move to the European Championship, where Team Newton are playing Team Leibniz on the field of calculus ....
    Robert H. Olley / Quondam Physics Department / University of Reading / England
    Hank
     Leibniz at least has an argument.   The fundamentals had been around long enough people could simultaneously come up with it, but Hooke believed if he ever mentioned something while having a pint, it was his brilliance and actually doing any work was just a detail.   But, like I said, revisionists always find a way and you aren't a great scientist unless someone in the humanities finds a way to give the credit to someone else.    
    Aitch
    .....more importantly, he was a founding member of the 'Invisible College' group that would dramatically reshape science through the Royal Society in decades to come.
    Some say it was Boyle who coined the phrase, 'Invisible College' and that they, indeed, all 5 men were early English Freemasons, with connections through the Royal Society to Elias Ashmole, Alchemist and founder of the first public museum, and John Flamsteed, first Astronomer Royal

    Strange that from such awe-inspiring beginnings the Masons should end virtually up in the hands of the Bush family and other 'unsavoury gentlemen of influence'......

    I wonder if the 'ancient and honourable' Order of the Garter still has any effect?

    Aitch
    Hank
    Not sure about the Bush conspiracy stuff since, you know, he isn't actually president any more (i.e. time to get over it) but the freemason links are interesting.   And alchemy didn't not work yet then so I always give that a break.
    Interesting. I am a Freemason and I have yet to see this nebulous link to nefarious activities and for sure have not see a Bush link. Really the Freemasons are nothing more than a club of men who help each other and do charitable work for the community. The only real secrets are how we identify each other and any quick scan of the web will tell you just about every little 'secret" in doing so anyway so that isn't even secret anymore.

    Aitch
    Ed

    One can only assume you aren't a Master Mason, or privy to the Skull and Bones club membership list....but surprised you haven't heard about it, though....do you come out from under your rock every now and then...?

    The myth of a gentlemen's club which does charitable deeds for the community was usurped many years ago...and that's no secret for those with access to the web.....

    ...however, that  doesn't detract from the connection with the original 5 Scientists, and the benefit they brought to humanity

    Aitch
    One can only assume your knowledge of Freemasonry is not based on experience but what you have read or have been told. It is true many believe Freemasons are running the world but I have never heard anyone say that people at the Third Degree (a Master Mason) had this level of knowledge of what was going on. Usually the people accused of this are at the 32dn or 33rd degrees, well above a Master mason so I think this shows your point is tribal knowledge rather than based on direct knowledge.

    And by the way, which degree is the skull and bones one of free masonry, I missed that one.

    Hank
    Now I want to join.  When it was just more charity work, well, I do enough already, but if I get to hole up in some secret fortress and determine the fate of the world, I am in.

    Is Colonel Sanders a freemason?  I bet he is.  We all know he is not dead so I bet he is running things from somewhere.
    I think the Dutch could give the British a run for their money with scientists and discoveries. Hans and Zacharias Janssen invented the first compound microscope, Anton van Leeuwenhoek was the real father of microbiology and discovered bacteria. Corneliis Corneliszoon invented the wind powered sawmill. The Dutch invented the first multinational corporation, the stock market. Hans Lippershey created the first practical telescope. Cornelius Drebbel the first navigable submarine. Christian Huygens invented the pendulum clock and theories of diffraction of light. Oh and Huygens invented Newtons second law of motion. Pieter van Musschenbroek invented essentially a capacitor (Leyden jar.) The Dutch also invented other things like the ECG, the Pentode tube, the artificial kidney, compact discs, and the laser discs.

    Hank
    van Leeuwenhoek was the real father of microbiology and discovered bacteria
    You get into the problems with both collaboration and attribution of discoveries - and Hooke having his hands in a lot of pies.   But this article relates to a confluence of brilliant thinkers all in one place at one time, comparing a few short years in science to all of Dutch history is not a tulips to tulips comparison.
    Fair enough but Janssen, van Leeuwenhoek, Corneliszoon, Lippershey, Drebbel, Huygens are all more or less contemporaries to the stated British scientists, and come from a much smaller geographical area. Oh and one thing I forget to mention the first stock market bubble Tupilmania!

    Hank
    That's why I slid in "tulips to tulips" instead of apples to apples.  :)
    Well one thing is for sure, some of the best schools in the world were set up by the English, and teach in English. Even in remote parts of the world, not just here in America, science is taught in English. The terminology often is English. The Dutch would translate works of science and then print them into local languages but the English have always taught it in English, in English schools at least until recently.

    And all this time I thought Albert Einstein was Jewish. I learn something new every day.

    Hank
    Judaism is a religion and England is a country and he lived three centuries later so I am unclear how that relates.   
    If I am not mistaken - Locke, Hume, Smith, Maxwell should be added. This just scrapes the surface - and I hate the English. But then the French, and the Germans. And what about the Italians?

    Hank
    Philosophy is not science, nor is economics, and I was talking about a group all in the same place at the same time.    In electromagnetics and vectors, Maxwell was Scottish, Heaviside was English and Gibbs was American so it is not the same.

    An argument can be made for German science hundreds of years later but not Italy (there was no Italy before the 1800s, it was a nation cobbled together by force - they still aren't a nation, if you ask a lot of them) or France.    

    Yes, these are all amazing, gigantic minds! I would add Leibniz, independently on the
    calculus subject. Leibniz is more and more relevant, I don't know what is the heritage of
    Hooke in biology, but at least everybody knows the Hooke law in elasticity
    "ut tensio sic vis"
    (I know people saying that it has nothing in fact to do with linear elasticity,
    but in fact should be read that the dependence of stress on strain is monotonic, if anybody
    here cares).

    Is there a moral for us, in these times of changing?

    Hank
    Well,  Leibniz was German, not English, and Hooke became famous in his day for microbiology, though they didn't know to call it that yet.   His work on Hooke's Law was abstract at the time, though every engineer knows it now, but Micrografia was a 'best seller' and made him a notable member of the Royal Society
    Hank, your article was meant to have an element of provocation and indeed it has lead to a bit of a debate that is reminding me of something I observe about human discovery; it seems to follow it happens in quantum leaps. Look at Marconi and Edison and Armstrong almost a hundred years ago. The quantum leap was wireless and radio communication and we refine it, we tweak it, but in essence the large leap of discovery happened, was a peak and now we glide on it. (The Newtonian standing on the shoulders of others). Look at the great Italian minds, way ahead of their times and then another set of discoveries somewhere else leaping but definitely not linear.

    Hank
    Yes, we get those inflection points - Britain in the 1600s or Germany perhaps in the 1920s for science.  Heck, the Beatles in the 1960s for music or the 1990s for semiconductors.   No idea how those bursts of inspiration happen but they certainly do.
    Peter Watson in his famous book "Ideas from Fire to Freud" notes:

    "In the year AD 499 the Hindu mathematician Aryabhata calculated pi as 3.1416 and the length of the solar year as 365.358 days. At much the same time he conceived the idea that the earth was a sphere spinning on its own axis and revolving aroud the sun. He thought that that the shadows of the earth falling on the moon caused eclipses. One wonders what all the fuss was about when Copernicus "discovered" some of the above nearly 1000 years later.

    Watson also notes that the concept of the zero and ten numerals were invented in India and introduced to the West by Arabs. Before that the West was using the singularly stupid Roman numerals, bereft of the smallest logic. Had Newton used them, his maths would have amounted to nix.

    Don't boast. Read.

    Hank
    Don't boast. Read.
    You didn't read my article or you would know this comment was irrelevant.   I am not English so it can't be boasting, obviously and Aryabhata supposed elliptical orbits, as did plenty of other people, but was not able to prove it the way Newton allowed.    Now. name me 4 other world-famous scientists who lived near Aryabhata and formed a great society of researchers - if you can't, you see why your comment is based on the title and has nothing at all to do with my actual text.
    Gerhard Adam
    Don't boast. Read.
    ... and your point about Roman numerals being "singularly stupid" is what? 
    Mundus vult decipi
    You can check for yourself why Roman numerals are singularly stupid by trying out simple multiplication using them. It will be an original Western discovery in itself.

    Meanwhile, tell Hank that Newton and company did not pluck their genius from the skies because they were mighty Western intellects. They just hapened to be talented (like Aryabhata) but unlike him lived in a society that did not discourage innovation.

    Man is the child of the economic metier.

    Hank
    Well, I did say my statements would enrage nationalists from all over the world - that includes India.    You can next tell me some Indian guy could have put a man on the Moon except the culture discouraged innovation but that is a different argument.   My piece was about what did happen, not what could have happened in an alternate universe.
    The Stand-Up Physicist
    My daughter's first experiment was to prove there was air. Drop some food coloring in water. Put a napkin at the bottom of a glass. I asked her if the napkin would get wet if I put the glass in the water (upside down). She thought it would get wet. The napkin stayed dry because there was air in the glass. I repeated the experiment with her, and the napkin still stayed dry. Then I tilted the glass, it bubble up some of that air, and the napkin got wet.

    Point of the story is that is still useful to repeat experiment the old masters did, even if they are modified to avoid harming animals. I have done Newton's proof of light being a mix. That requires 2 prisms. The red light isolated from the first prism stays red in the second one.

    The most stunning thing to me about science is we are still figuring out cool stuff.

    Doug

    Hank
    Indeed, as a young guy in the private sector out there pushing a cutting-edge electromagnetic analysis tool, I talked with physicists and engineers hundreds of times about a variety of applications, from DC to microwave, and one day realized I was talking to all these experts and had never so much as built a motor.  So I did - not a car motor, obviously, but I went to Radio Shack and bought wire and made an armature and hooked it up to a battery and off it went, doing nothing, but doing nothing in a special science/engineering way.
    Thank you for the review, very interesting; yes, at that epoch Britain did have some hugely bright minds, didn't they! If I had come up with a similar list, I wouldn't have thought of Wren, though the other four probably would have made it. I'll look for the DVD.

    logicman
    In any list of greats, some smart alec is going to protest that one of their favorites is not in the list.  Now, although my name isn't Alec, i like to think that I'm pretty smart, so ...

    There is a rather strange sound currently emanating from St. Cuthbert's Church in Edinburgh.  That would be Napier's bones spinning in their grave.

    One of the 'giants' on whose shoulders Newton stood was Napier, whose logarithms were used by Kepler in his calculations of celestial motions from which Kepler deduced the inverse square law of attraction.

    Great article, btw. :)
    rholley
    Without a link, many people might miss the point of

    Napier’s Bones.

    Robert H. Olley / Quondam Physics Department / University of Reading / England