Thoughts on the 110th anniversary of Alfred Wegener’s ‘continental drift’ hypothesis

By Dr Myint Zan

 

ON 6 January 1912, the German scientist Alfred Wegener (1 November 1880-November 1930) first proposed his ‘continental drift’ theory (now also known as ‘plate tectonics’) at the annual meeting of the German Geological Society, Frankfurt am Main.

 

A few comments can be made on the occasion of the 110th anniversary of the reportage of this novel, pioneering and essentially correct scientific hypothesis.

 

Alfred Wegener’s ‘continental drift’ theory was generally (albeit not universally) ignored, marginalized and critiqued during his lifetime and a few decades after his death. Hence in part, the following is a discussion of ‘What took them [the scientific community] so long’ to recognize the essential correctness of Wegener’s theory?

 

‘What took them so long?’ and Wegener’s theory being ‘essentially correct’

From hindsight when one looks at the map of the world it can be seen that the coastlines of Africa and South America if ‘brought together’ would fit like a jig jaw puzzle. But that impression by no means is a sufficient cause to conjecture far less scientifically hypothesised that a few hundred million years ago the African and South American continents were a single continent or for that matter starting around 330 million years ago there was only a single continent now called ‘Pangaea’. Further scientific arguments and ‘proofs’ were made by Wegener when he published his findings and postulates in the German language first in 1915, final revision in 1929: The Origin of Continents and Oceans (translated by John Biram, first published 1966).

 

In the contemporary scientific milieu virtually, all geologists accept that plate tectonics did occur, is occurring and would continue to occur in the future history of the Earth.

 

Alfred Wegener died tragical y around his 50th birthday in early November 1930 in the snows of Greenland where Wegener was on an expedition.

 

Until a few decades after his death, many scientists continued to reject Wegener’s essentially correct scientific hypothesis.

 

The phrase ‘essentially correct scientific hypothesis’ has been used a few times above. The mechanics, the rate of expansion of the continents and other details as envisaged and proposed by Wegener from 1912 to the late 1920s might not have been correct in all details. But they were and they are essentially correct.

 

Essentially (in)correct geocentric and heliocentric theories and proposed ‘mechanisms’ of Ptolemy, Copernicus and Kepler

The statement below may seem that this writer is comparing ‘apples and oranges’. Still, they are about scientific theories and therefore to this writer, the juxtaposition here is not uncalled for.

 

In comparison with the geocentric theory of the ancient astronomer Ptolemy (100-170 Common Era), the heliocentric theory of Copernicus (19 February 1473-24 May 1543) is essentially correct.

 

Copernicus wrongly postulated that the movements by the planets around the Sun were in circles. This was corrected when Johannes Kepler (27 December 1571-15 November 1630) established the parabolic nature of the planets’ orbits around the Sun. Likewise, after Wegener’s continental drift theory came to be accepted in the 1950s and became a firm historical fact from the 1960s onwards the mechanisms of the hypothesised continental drift became less ‘imperfect’ since adjustments and improvements to the details were made.

 

Why did Wegener’s continental drift meet such ‘resistance’ (in the non-Freudian sense of the word) for several decades? It is true that it also took at least several decades for the heliocentric theory to be accepted even by the then scientific community. Opposition to the heliocentric theory occurred from the mid-16th up to the mid-18th century and there were mainly theological and religious reasons for it.

 

Wegener proposed his continental drift theory in January 1912 n e a r l y 370 years after the publication of Copernicus’ On the Revolution of Heavenly Bodies in May 1543. And starting from the early 20th-century modern science has progressed leaps and bounds. Notwithstanding such major advances, many in the scientific community were sceptical of Wegener’s theory. One reason may be that the historical sciences (not ‘history of science’) cannot be proven time and again like some of the physical sciences.

 

The mode of proving Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity and of proving Wegener’s Continental Drift

The General Theory of Relativity of Albert Einstein (14 March 1879-18 April 1955) first published in 1915 was empirically proven within four years in May 1919 when expeditions to observe the eclipse of the Sun were sent to a few places around the world. Wegener’s continental drift theory could not, with immediacy and concreteness, be proven as such since the plate tectonics occurred by less than an inch a year.

 

Continental drift cannot be physically, empirically observed as the eclipse of the Sun that occurred in May 1919 was in confirming the correctness of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. This is not to equate or even analogize the discoveries, postulates and achievements of the great scientists Einstein and Wegener. The correctness of Einstein’s G e n e r a l Theor y o f Relativity was proven and came to be accepted by most of the scientific community in less than four years after Einstein published it in 1915. In contrast, it took over 40 years (till the 1950s) for most of the scientific community to accept the essential correctness of Wegener’s theory after he first proposed it that January day in 1912. Perhaps this writer’s query indeed sort of puzzlement is such that he would ask Pourquoi (in French) bar gyaunt lae (in transliterated Burmese roughly ‘for what reason?’) ဘာ့ကြောင့်လဲ

 

Two mischievous queries regarding ‘Piltdown Man’ and continental drift

In the same year of 1912 (almost to the month) that Alfred Wegener first proposed his continental drift theory amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson (11 July 1864-10 August 1916) reported his ‘discovery’ of the ‘Piltdown Man’. He later claimed and quite a few archaeologists accepted that it was the ‘proven link’ between the great apes and humans.

 

In July 1938 near the site where the so-called Piltdown Man was ‘discovered’ a memorial plaque was erected.

 

In November 1953 (over 40 years after the fake ‘discovery’) Time magazine published an article ‘The End of Man’ written by a group of scientists which conclusively proved that Piltdown Man was a forgery. Fast forward from 1912 (the ‘discovery’), 1938 (the memorial plaque), 1953 (the debunking and proof that Piltdown Man was a fraud) all the way to 2016 where with a very large degree of certainty it was proven that Charles Dawson at least initially single-handedly initiated the forgery that was the ‘Piltdown Man’.

 

The fi­rst ‘mischievous query’

The query that was asked in an earlier section can be asked here again: ‘What took them so long (to discover that ‘Piltdown Man’ was a forgery and Charles Dawson was the forger)’?

 

It took about 40 years, perhaps more, for most of the scientific community including but not limited to geologists, earth scientists, geographers to accept and recognise the essential correctness of Wegener’s findings. Although there was scepticism among (but not limited to) archaeologists, anthropologists palaeontologists about Lawson’s ‘findings’ it took 40 years (from 1912) to conclusively identify it as a fraud and over a century to identify that Charles Dawson was the forger.

 

A second ‘mischievous’ but not irrelevant or irreverent query

Among the geologists and archaeologists between the years 1912 (when both Wegener legitimately and Dawson fraudulently) reported their discoveries to the mid-1950s when Lawson’s fraud was proven and Wegener’s hypothesis started to be vindicated who, in general. Wegener or Lawson was ‘believed’ more?