Every few years, for a handful of minutes or so, science shines while the sun goes dark.

A total eclipse of the sun is, for those who witness it, something like a religious experience. For those who understand it, it is symbolic of science’s triumph over mythology as a way to understand the heavens.

In ancient Greece, the pioneer philosophers realized that eclipses illustrate how fantastic phenomena do not require phantasmagoric explanation. An eclipse was not magic or illusion; it happened naturally when one celestial body got in the way of another one. In the fourth century B.C., Aristotle argued that lunar eclipses provided strong evidence that the Earth was itself a sphere (not flat as some primitive philosophers had believed). As the eclipsed moon darkened, the edge of the advancing shadow was a curved line, demonstrating the curvature of the Earth’s surface intervening between the moon and sun.

Oft-repeated legend proclaims that the first famous Greek natural philosopher, Thales of Miletus, even predicted a solar eclipse that occurred in Turkey in 585 B.C. But the only account of that prediction comes from the historian Herodotus, writing more than a century later. He claimed that during a fierce battle “day suddenly became night,” just as Thales had forecast would happen sometime during that year.

There was an eclipse in 585 B.C., but it’s unlikely that Thales could have predicted it. He might have known that the moon blocks the sun in an eclipse. But no mathematical methods then available would have allowed him to say when — except, perhaps, a lucky coincidence based on the possibility that solar eclipses occurred at some regular cycle after lunar eclipses. Yet even that seems unlikely, a new analysis posted online last month finds.

“Some scholars … have flatly denied the prediction, while others have struggled to find a numerical cycle by means of which the prediction could have been carried out,” writes astronomer Miguel Querejeta. Many such cycles have already been ruled out, he notes. And his assessment of two other cycles concludes “that none of those conjectures can be regarded as serious explanations of the problematic prediction of Thales: in addition to requiring the existence of long and precise eclipse records … both cycles that have been examined overlook a number of eclipses which match the visibility criteria and, consequently, the patterns suggested seem to disappear.”

It’s true that the ancient Babylonians worked out methods for predicting lunar eclipses based on patterns in the intervals between them. And the famous Greek Antikythera mechanism from the second century B.C. seems to have used such cycle data to predict some eclipses.

Ancient Greek astronomers, such as Hipparchus (c. 190–120 B.C.), studied eclipses and the geometrical relationships of the Earth, moon and sun that made them possible. Understanding those relationships well enough to make reasonably accurate predictions became possible, though, only with the elaborate mathematical description of the cosmos developed (drawing on Hipparchus’ work) by Claudius Ptolemy. In the second century A.D., he worked out the math for explaining the movements of heavenly bodies, assuming the Earth sat motionless in the center of the universe.

His system specified the basic requirements for a solar eclipse: It must be the time of the new moon — when moon and sun are on the same side of the Earth — and the positions of their orbits must also be crossing the ecliptic, the plane of the sun’s apparent orbital path through the sky. (The moon orbits the Earth at a slight angle, crossing the plane of the ecliptic twice a month.) Only precise calculations of the movements of the sun and moon in their orbits could make it possible to predict the dates for eclipsing alignments.

Predicting when an eclipse will occur is not quite the same as forecasting exactly where it will occur. To be accurate, eclipse predictions need to take subtle gravitational interactions into account. Maps showing precisely accurate paths of totality (such as for the Great American Eclipse of 2017) became possible only with Isaac Newton’s 17th century law of gravity (and the further development of mathematical tools to exploit it). Nevertheless Ptolemy had developed a system that, in principle, showed how to anticipate when eclipses would happen. Curiously, though, this success was based on a seriously wrong blueprint for the architecture of the cosmos.

As Copernicus persuasively demonstrated in the 16th century, the Earth orbits the sun, not vice versa. Ptolemy’s geometry may have been sound, but his physics was backwards. While demonstrating that mathematics is essential to describing nature and predicting physical phenomena, he inadvertently showed that math can be successful without being right.

It’s wrong to blame him for that, though. In ancient times math and science were separate enterprises (science was then “natural philosophy”). Astronomy was regarded as math, not philosophy. An astronomer’s goal was to “save the phenomena” — to describe nature correctly with math that corresponded with observations, but not to seek the underlying physical causes of those observations. Ptolemy’s mathematical treatise, the Almagest, was about math, not physics.

One of the great accomplishments of Copernicus was to merge the math with the physical realty of his system. He argued that the sun occupied the center of the cosmos, and that the Earth was a planet, like the others previously supposed to have orbited the Earth. Copernicus worked out the math for a sun-centered planetary system. It was a simpler system than Ptolemy’s. And it was just as good for predicting eclipses.

As it turned out, though, even Copernicus didn’t have it quite right. He insisted that planetary orbits were circular (modified by secondary circles, the epicycles). In fact, the orbits are ellipses. It’s a recurring story in science that mathematically successful theories sometimes are just approximately correct because they are based on faulty understanding of the underlying physics. Even Newton’s law of gravity turned out to be just a good mathematical explanation; the absolute space and invariable flow of time he believed in just aren’t an accurate representation of the universe we live in. It took Einstein to see that and develop the view of gravity as the curvature of spacetime induced by the presence of mass.
Of course, proving Einstein right required the careful measurement by Arthur Eddington and colleagues of starlight bending near the sun during a solar eclipse in 1919. It’s a good thing they knew when and where to go to see it.

Immigrants, they get the job done — eventually. Among dwarf mongooses, it takes newcomers a bit to settle into a pack. But once these immigrants become established residents, everyone in the pack profits, researchers from the University of Bristol in England report online December 4 in Current Biology.

Dwarf mongooses (Helogale parvula) live in groups of around 10, with a pecking order. The alphas — a top male and female — get breeding priority, while the others help with such group activities as babysitting and guard duty. But the road to the top of the social hierarchy is linear and sometimes crowded. So some individuals skip out on the group they were born into to find one with fewer members of their sex with which to compete —“effectively ‘skipping the queue,’” says ecologist Julie Kern.
Kern and her colleague Andrew Radford tracked mongoose immigration among nine packs at Sorabi Rock Lodge Reserve in Limpopo, South Africa. The researchers focused on guard duty, in which sentinels watch for predators and warn foragers digging for food.

Dwarf mongoose packs gain about one member a year. Among pack animals, higher group numbers are thought to come with the benefit of better access to shared social information like the approach of prowling predators. But upon arrival, new individuals are less likely to pitch in and serve as sentinels, Kern and Radford found. One possible reason: Immigrants lose weight during their transition from one pack to another and may not have the energy required for guard duty.
Pack residents don’t exactly put out a welcome mat for strangers, either. On the rare occasions when newcomers take a guard shift, residents tend to ignore their warning calls. Newbies may be seen as less reliable guards, or packs may have signature alarm calls that immigrants must learn. But after five months, these immigrants have come far. “Given time to recuperate following dispersal and a period of integration,” Kern says, “they contribute equally to their new group.”

Science came out of the lab and touched people’s lives in some awe-inspiring and alarming ways in 2017. Science enthusiasts gathered to celebrate a total solar eclipse, but also to march on behalf of evidence-based policy making. Meanwhile, deadly natural disasters revealed the strengths and limitations of science. Here’s a closer look at some of the top science events of the year.

Great American Eclipse
On August 21, many Americans witnessed their first total solar eclipse, dubbed the “Great American Eclipse.” Its path of totality stretched across the United States, passing through 14 states — with other states seeing a partial eclipse. This was the first total solar eclipse visible from the mainland United States since 1979, and the first to pass from coast to coast since 1918 (SN: 8/20/16, p. 14).
As people donned protective glasses to watch, scientists used telescopes, spectrometers, radio receivers and even cameras aboard balloons and research jets in hopes of answering lingering questions about the sun, Earth’s atmosphere and the solar system. One of the biggest: Why is the solar atmosphere so much hotter than the sun’s surface (SN Online: 8/20/17)? Data collected during the event may soon provide new insights.

March for Science
On April 22, Earth Day, more than 1 million people in over 600 cities around the world marched to defend science’s role in society. Called the first-ever March for Science, the main event was in Washington, D.C. Featured speakers included Denis Hayes, coordinator of the first Earth Day in 1970, and science advocate Bill Nye (SN Online: 4/22/17). Attendees advocated for government funding for scientific research and acceptance of the scientific evidence on climate change.

The march came on the heels of the Trump administration’s first budget proposal, released in March, which called for cutting federal science spending in fiscal year 2018 (SN: 4/15/17, p. 15). Some scientists worried that being involved with the march painted science in a partisan light, but others said science has always been political since scientists are people with their own values and opinions (SN Online: 4/19/17).

Climate deal announcement
On June 1, President Donald Trump announced that the United States would pull out of the Paris climate accord (SN Online: 6/1/17) — an agreement the United States and nearly 200 other countries signed in 2015 pledging to curb greenhouse gas emissions to combat global warming. With the announcement, Trump made good on one of his campaign promises. He said during a news conference that the agreement “is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States.”

Nicaragua and Syria signed on to the agreement in late 2017. A withdrawal from the United States would leave it as the only United Nations–recognized country to reject the global pact. President Trump left the door open for the United States to stay in the climate deal under revised terms. A U.S. climate assessment released in November by 13 federal agencies said it is “extremely likely” that humans are driving warming on Earth (SN Online: 11/3/17). Whether that report — the final version of which is due to be released in 2018 — will have an impact on U.S. involvement in the global accord remains to be seen.

North Korea nuclear test
On September 3, North Korea reported testing a hydrogen bomb, its sixth confirmed nuclear detonation, within a mountain at Punggye-ri. That test, along with the launch of intercontinental ballistic missiles this year, increased hostilities between North Korea and other nations, raising fears of nuclear war. As a result of these tests, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution strengthening sanctions against North Korea to discourage the country from more nuclear testing.

As the international community waits to see what’s next, scientists continue to study the seismic waves that result from underground explosions in North Korea. These studies can help reveal the location, depth and strength of a blast (SN: 8/5/17, p. 18).

Natural disasters
The 2017 Atlantic hurricane season saw hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria devastate areas of Texas, Florida and the Caribbean. More than 200 people died from these three massive storms, and preliminary estimates of damage are as high as hundreds of billions of dollars. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had predicted that the 2017 season could be extreme, thanks to above-normal sea surface temperatures. The storms offered scientists an opportunity to test new technologies that might save lives by improving forecasting (SN Online: 9/21/17) and by determining the severity of flooding in affected regions (SN Online: 9/12/17).

In addition to these deadly storms, two major earthquakes rocked Mexico in September, killing more than 400 people. More than 500 died when a magnitude 7.3 earthquake shook Iran and Iraq in November. And wildfires raged across the western United States in late summer and fall. In California, fires spread quickly thanks to record summer heat and high winds. At least 40 people died and many more were hospitalized in California’s October fires. Rising global temperatures and worsening droughts are making wildfire seasons worldwide last longer on average than in the past, researchers have found (SN Online: 7/15/15).

Not so long ago, the lives of sea turtles were largely a mystery. From the time that hatchlings left the beaches where they were born to waddle into the ocean until females returned to lay their eggs, no one really knew where the turtles went or what they did.

Then researchers started attaching satellite trackers to young turtles. And that’s when scientists discovered that the turtles aren’t just passive ocean drifters; they actively swim at least some of the time.
Now scientists have used tracking technology to get some clues about where South Atlantic loggerhead turtles go. And it turns out that those turtles are traveling to some unexpected places.

Katherine Mansfield, a marine scientist and turtle biologist at the University of Central Florida in Orlando, and colleagues put 19 solar-powered satellite tags on young (less than a year old), lab-reared loggerhead sea turtles. The turtles were then let loose into the ocean off the coast of Brazil at various times during the hatching season, between November 2011 and April 2012.

The tags get applied to the turtles in several steps. Turtle shells are made of keratin, like your fingernails, and this flakes off and changes shape as a turtle grows. Mansfield’s team had figured out, thanks to a handy tip from a manicurist, that a base layer of manicure acrylic deals with the flaking. And then some strips of neoprene along with aquarium silicone attach the tag to the shell. With all that prep, the tag can stay on for months. The tags transmit while a turtle is at the water’s surface. A loss of the signal indicates that either the tag has fallen off and sunken into the water, “or something ate the turtle,” Mansfield says.
The trackers revealed that not all Brazilian loggerhead sea turtles stay in the South Atlantic. Turtles released in the early- to mid-hatching season stay in southern waters. But then the off-coast currents change direction, which brings later-season turtles north, across the equator. Their trajectories could take them as far as the Caribbean, the Gulf of Mexico or even farther north, which would explain genetic evidence of mixing between southern and northern loggerhead populations. And it may help to make the species, which is endangered, more resilient in the face of environmental and human threats, the researchers conclude December 6 in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

But, Mansfield cautions, “these are just a handful of satellite tracks for a handful of turtles off the coast of Brazil.” She and other scientists “are just starting to build a story” about what happens to these turtles out in the ocean. “There’s still so much we don’t know,” she says.

Mansfield hopes the tracking data will help researchers figure out where the young turtles can be found out in the open ocean so scientists can catch, tag and track wild turtles. And there’s a need for even tinier tags that can be attached to newly hatched turtles to see exactly where they go and how many actually survive those first vulnerable weeks and months at sea. Eventually, Mansfield would like to have enough data to make comparisons between sea turtle species.

“The more we’re tracking, the more we’re studying them, we’re starting to realize [the turtles] behave differently than we’ve historically assumed,” Mansfield says.