REVELATIONS IN SCIENCE: Blondlot’s N-Rays and the Prism in His Pocket
Art design: huxley.media via Photoshop, inspired by René Magritte’s painting Portrait of Stephy Langui, 1961
A MAN OF NAME
René Prosper Blondlot (1849–1930), a native of Nancy who graduated from the local university and went on to become a professor at his own alma mater, had a stellar and unblemished reputation. He boasted numerous scientific achievements, became a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences founded by Colbert, and was honored with prestigious scientific awards.
A model career, high achievements, and distinguished honors — who would question the opinion of such a respected member of the scientific community? And yet, the discovery that brought him into the spotlight of the scientific world was never confirmed, was exposed as false, and ultimately forgotten. Though it perhaps should be remembered — it could still teach us a great deal…
THE RAY CRAZE
In the last decade of the 19th century, the word «rays» became fashionable among physicists. In 1893, Victor Schumann learned how to detect ultraviolet radiation; in 1895, Röntgen discovered X-rays; in 1896, Henri Becquerel uncovered radioactivity; and in 1897, J. J. Thomson, while studying so-called cathode rays, identified the particle that made them up — the electron…
Blondlot also worked with rays, particularly X-rays, and achieved notable results — he accurately measured their speed, determined that it nearly matched the speed of light, and demonstrated that these rays were electromagnetic waves (an important finding, no doubt!).
Moreover, like many physicists, he suspected that there were still many rays unknown to science, and he was eager to discover them — perhaps a little too eager?
A REMARKABLE DISCOVERY
In 1903, Blondlot announced that he had discovered a completely new type of ray, previously unknown to science. In honor of his native city of Nancy, he named the phenomenon N-rays. Elegant and noble, isn’t it? He found that N-rays were emitted by a wide variety of substances — with the exception of freshly cut wood and some chemically pure metals.
He generated these rays using a heated wire placed inside an iron tube. A thread coated with calcium sulfide, onto which the refracted N-rays were directed, glowed faintly in the dark. Shortly thereafter, Blondlot reported that by using an aluminum prism, he had achieved with N-rays what Newton had once achieved with ordinary light and a glass prism — producing a spectrum of N-rays consisting of lines separated by dark spaces, resembling the spectrum of visible light.
AN ENTHUSIASTIC RECEPTION
A number of scientists confirmed Blondlot’s results and joined the research on the new rays. Jean Becquerel, the son of the discoverer of radioactivity, claimed that N-rays could be transmitted through wires — and that if one end of such a wire was passed over a human skull, light vibrations could be seen at the other end.
He also described how he observed the «anesthesia» of metals emitting N-rays using chloroform, ether, or alcohol — the metals were wiped with these substances, and they stopped emitting N-rays! Another scientist, Charpentier, discovered that N-rays heightened human senses — hearing, smell, and sight.
In just a couple of years, more than 300 papers were published on N-rays and their properties, sometimes signed by prominent scientists — such as d’Arsonval (d’Arsonval currents are still used in physiotherapy today). The authors of these papers clearly considered N-rays to be at the cutting edge of science and were undoubtedly convinced that they truly existed.
MINOR PROBLEMS
However, experiments with N-rays somehow yielded much better results in France than in other scientifically advanced countries like England and Germany. Even authorities such as Kelvin and Crookes were unable to replicate the experiments conducted by Blondlot and his colleagues. The German physicist Heinrich Rubens was personally asked by the Kaiser to reproduce the sensational experiments — he tried hard, but nothing came of it.
So what had the French scientists discovered that so drastically outpaced their competitors? At a conference in Cambridge, Rubens met American physicist Robert Wood and asked whether he would go to Nancy to help solve the mystery.
Rubens himself felt uncomfortable scrutinizing Blondlot, who had responded very politely to all his numerous questions, and told Wood he was counting on him — because he was American, and «Americans can do everything!» Wood couldn’t refuse, nor did he want to — the offer appealed to his reputation as a sharp and insightful investigator.
ROBERT WOOD’S INVESTIGATION
Blondlot and his assistant welcomed Wood into the laboratory, and a series of experiments began. First, Blondlot showed him a cardboard sheet with circles painted in phosphorescent paint and began demonstrating how their glow changed after exposure to N-rays.
Wood asked for permission to place and remove a lead screen — supposedly opaque to N-rays — in the path of the rays. Blondlot confidently identified when the screen was in place and when it was removed. But Wood never actually touched the screen (in the darkened lab, Blondlot couldn’t see this). Things were getting very interesting…
Next, Blondlot showed Wood a dimly lit clock face that he claimed he could clearly see when N-rays were directed at it — even when a flat file was used to block the rays. But Wood noticed a wooden ruler on Blondlot’s table — a material that, according to Blondlot himself, was completely opaque to N-rays.
He began blocking the ray path not with the file, but with the ruler. Oddly enough, it also appeared to be «transparent» to N-rays — Blondlot continued insisting he could see everything perfectly. As Alice would say, things were getting «curiouser and curiouser»…
Then came the main experiment — using a spectroscope designed by Blondlot. Everything proceeded smoothly: Blondlot read the instrument data aloud, which aligned perfectly with his theory. At that moment, Wood quietly, in the dark, removed the spectroscope’s key component — the aluminum prism — and slipped it into his pocket!
Blondlot continued his observations without pause — completely unaware of the missing prism! Everything became clear. Wood discreetly returned the prism to its place — and just in time! The assistant noticed something, told Blondlot that the readings had disappeared — probably because the American had touched something — and declared that the device wasn’t working. The prism, interestingly, was already back in place!
THE END OF THE SENSATION
Wood published a detailed account of his impressions in the journal Nature, and after that, only two more articles on N-rays appeared — likely they had been submitted much earlier, and the clueless journal editors had forgotten to intervene. The French journal La Revue Scientifique soon surveyed French scientists on what they thought of the reality of N-rays.
Of the 40 letters published in subsequent issues, only six cautiously defended Blondlot; the rest were sharply critical. One comment, for example, read: «What a spectacle French science presents when one of its leading representatives measures the positions of spectral lines while the prism of the spectroscope rests in the pocket of his American colleague!»
After that publication, the very term «N-rays» vanished from scientific vocabulary as if by magic.
LIFE AFTER COLLAPSE
How did Blondlot himself cope with the collapse of his theory? In a book about Wood, the author claims it was a personal tragedy for him that he went mad and died by suicide. This version is even supported by a well-known authority, Martin Gardner. It’s a bit unfair — there is reliable evidence that Blondlot lived many more peaceful years after the exposure of his theory.
He retired in 1910 at age 61, as expected, lived another 20 years, and bequeathed his house and garden to his beloved city of Nancy — the site later became a public park named after him. Forget the suicide — he is buried in a Catholic cemetery, and suicides are not permitted there.
His books were republished, and he continued to participate in university events… But what did he himself think about the former sensation? There is a report from Perret, a former assistant dean of the physics department in Nancy that as late as 1926, Blondlot still believed in N-rays — or at least that’s what he said in a private conversation.
But he had no intention of ever repeating anything like that aloud — and rightly so.
WHO IS TO BLAME, AND WHAT IS TO BE DONE?
Was Blondlot a fraud? It seems very unlikely. The effect he claimed to observe was at the threshold of perception: push just a little harder — and you’ll see whatever you want, and he clearly wanted to see something. Some suggest his main assistant was at fault — the same one who suspected Wood of tampering with the device.
Hard to believe: could an entire complex theory really be based on the observations of just one person? After all, Blondlot himself also saw what his theories predicted! Not to mention the three hundred other scientists who published papers on N-rays.
Modern experimenters try to avoid such mistakes using a formula with four components: research must be double-blind, randomized, and placebo-controlled.
In the future, we’ll probably look more closely at each of these elements. For now, let’s focus on what we mean by a blind experiment. It’s very simple: those who are measuring values should not know what results are expected in order to confirm a theory.
If they do know, they will most likely get just those results. Not because they’re dishonest — but because of the many sneaky subconscious mechanisms we don’t control and shouldn’t give a single chance to sway the outcome to what we want, regardless of what’s actually happening.
What Wood did was a classic example of a blind experiment. Blondlot didn’t know whether there was a barrier in the path of the N-rays. He assumed it was being alternately placed and removed — and saw results that matched his expectations.
Had he assumed there was no barrier, he wouldn’t have seen any rays. Had he believed there was a barrier, he wouldn’t have seen the barrier — and still would have been convinced it was all true. Those who expected something else would have seen something else. An observer should not know what result is expected of them — that way, maybe they’ll be forced to see what’s actually there…
A WARNING TO RESEARCHERS
In his book New Light on Old Rays: N-rays, author Robert Lagemann writes that the story of the mass enthusiasm for N-rays is, at its core, mysterious and may evoke ideas of mass hypnosis or collective delusion. But the explanation seems far simpler — we continue to underestimate how suggestible and gullible people can be.
Many hoped that the N-ray affair would serve as a lesson for the academic world and that something like it would never happen again. Unfortunately, that hope was in vain — similarly astonishing episodes of N-ray «discovery» and «closure» have occurred even much later.
So researchers would do well to remember the words of the great Socrates: «Question everything!»
Including whether we should question everything.
Well, yes.
Even that?
You decide where to draw the line. And don’t fall under the spell of reputations — Blondlot had an impeccable one, and where is it now? All we can hope is that the entire N-ray story taught science something. At least a bit of caution…
LITERATURE
- Robert T Lagemann, New Light on Old Rays: N Rays
- Stuart Ritchie, Science Fictions. Exposing Fraud, Bias, Negligence and Hype in Science
- Trevor Pinch and Harry Collins The Golem: What You Should Know About Science
When copying materials, please place an active link to www.huxley.media
Select the text and press Ctrl + Enter
