Science Quote by Pieter Zeeman

Zeeman’s sentence is science writing at its most quietly strategic: a disclaimer disguised as understatement. He’s not just reporting that the measurements were hard; he’s inoculating his result against the most predictable attack on any new theory-linked observation in physics: “If it’s real, why couldn’t you see it cleanly right away?” By attributing early uncertainty to “the extreme smallness of the variations,” he frames ambiguity as a property of nature, not of experimental sloppiness.

The phrasing “I should point out, however” does a lot of social work. It signals a controlled concession, the kind that reassures peers he has considered objections before they can be raised in the seminar room or referee report. “Some difficulty was experienced” is classic passive voice as professional etiquette: it removes ego, spreads responsibility across apparatus, method, and circumstance, and keeps the tone aligned with the era’s ideal of impersonal objectivity. That restraint matters because Zeeman’s work sits at a hinge point in physics, when laboratory spectroscopy was becoming a proving ground for theories about atoms and electromagnetism. If the predicted effect shows up only as a hairline wobble in an oscillation period, the experiment has to be both exquisitely sensitive and rhetorically defensible.

Subtext: the theory survived contact with reality, but reality made him earn it. He’s telling you the signal was there, just buried under the limits of instruments and the tyranny of small numbers. In that sense, the line is a miniature manifesto for modern physics: progress arrives not with fireworks, but with barely measurable deviations that force better tools, sharper methods, and new confidence in the theoretical map.