Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2008 with funding from Microsoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/advanceofscienceOOhuxluoft THE ADVANCE OF SCIENCE IX THE LAST HALF-CENTURY BY T. H. HUXLEY, P.B.S. ?0£hj. '1- NEW YORK D. APPLETON AND COMPANY 1887 T7) v\t) of Aristotle, the materia prima of his mediseval followers ; while matter, differentiated into our elements, is the equivalent of the first stage of progress towards the ia-xarrj vXtj, or finished matter, of the ancient philosophy. If the material units of the existing order of nature are specialised portions of a relatively homogeneous materia prima — which were originated under conditions that have long ceased to exist and which remain unchanged and unchangeable un- der all conditions, whether natural or ar- tificial, hitherto known to us — it follows that the speculation that they may be indefinitely altered, or that new units may be generated under conditions yet to be discovered, is perfectly legitimate. The- IX THE LAST HALF-CENTURY. 61 oretically, at any rate, the transmutability of the elements is a verifiable scientific hypothesis ; and such inquiries as those which have been set afoot, into the possi- ble dissociative action of the great heat of the sun upon our elements, are not only legitimate, but are likely to yield results which, whether affirmative or negative, will be of great importance. The idea that atoms are absolutely ingenerable and immutable ' manufactured articles ' stands on the same sort of foundation as the idea that biological species are 'manufactured articles ' stood thirty years ago ; and the supposed constancy of the elementary atoms, during the enormous lapse of time measured by the existence of our uni- verse, is of no more weight against the possibility of change in them, in the in- finity of antecedent time, than the con- stancy of species in Egypt, since the days of Rameses or Cheops, is evidence of their immutability during all past epochs of 62 THE ADVANCE OF SCIENCE the earth's history. It seems safe to prophesy that the hypothesis of the evo- lution of the elements from a primitive matter will, in future, play no less a part in the history of science than the atomic hypothesis, which, to begin with, had no greater, if so great, an empirical founda- tion. The old It may perhaps occur to the reader new that the boasted progress of physical sci- theorv. ence does not come to much, if our pres- ent conceptions of the fundamental nature of matter are expressible in terms em- ployed, more than two thousand years ago, by the old 'master of those that know.' Such a criticism, however, would involve forgetfulness of the fact, that the * connotation of these terms, in the mind of the modern, is almost infinitely different from that which they possessed in the mind of the ancient, philosopher. In antiquity, they meant little more than vague speculation ; at the present day, IN" THE LAST HALF-CEXTUEY. 63 they indicate definite physical concep- tions, susceptible of mathematical treat- ment, and giving rise to innumerable deductions, the value of which can be experimentally tested. The old notions produced little more than floods of dia- lectics ; the new are powerful aids to- wards the increase of solid knowledge. Everyday observation shows that, of ( 2 ) Con - J J ' serva- the bodies which compose the material tion of world, some are in motion and some are, or appear to be, at rest. Of the bodies in motion, some, like the sun and stars, ex- hibit a constant movement, regular in amount and direction, for which no ex- ternal cause appears. Others, as stones and smoke, seem also to move of them- selves when external impediments are taken away. But these appear to tend to move in opposite directions : the bodies we call heavy, such as stones, downwards, and the bodies we call light, at least such 64 THE ADVANCE OF SCIENCE as smoke and steam, upwards. And, as we further notice that the earth, below our feet, is made up of heavy matter, while the air, above our heads, is ex- tremely light matter, it is easy to regard this fact as evidence that the lower region is the place to which heavy things tend — their proper place, in short — while the upper region is the proper place of light things ; and to generalise the facts ob- served by saying that bodies, which are free to move, tend towards their proper places. All these seem to be natural mo- tions, dependent on the inherent facul- ties, or tendencies, of bodies themselves. But there are other motions which are artificial or violent, as when a stone is thrown from the hand, or is knocked by another stone in motion. In such cases as these, for example, when a stone is cast from the hand, the distance travelled by the stone appears to depend partly on its weight and partly upon the exertion IN THE LAST HALF-CENTURY. 65 of the thrower. So that, the weight of the stone remaining the same, it looks as if the motive power communicated to it were measured by the distance to which the stone travels — as if, in other words, the power needed to send it a hundred yards was twice as great as that needed to send it fifty yards. These, apparently obvious, conclusions from the everyday appearances of rest and motion fairly represent the state of opinion upon the subject which prevailed among the an- cient Greeks, and remained dominant until the age of Galileo. The publica- tion of the ' Principia ' of Newton, in 1686-7, marks the epoch at which the progress of mechanical physics had ef- fected a complete revolution of thought on these subjects. By this time, it had been made clear that the old generalisa- tions were either incomplete or totally erroneous; that a body, once set in mo- tion, will continue to move in a straight 66 THE ADVANCE OF SCIENCE line for any conceivable time or distance, unless it is interfered with ; that any change of motion is proportional to the 'force' which causes it, and takes place in the direction in which that 'force' is exerted ; and that, w T hen a body in mo- tion acts as a cause of motion on another, the latter gains as much as the former loses, and vice versa. It is to be noted, however, that while, in contradistinction to the ancient idea of the inherent tend- ency to motion of bodies, the absence of any such spontaneous power of motion was accepted as a physical axiom by the moderns, the old conception virtually maintained itself in a new shape. For, in spite of Newton's well-known warning against the ' absurdity ' of supposing that one body can act on another at a distance through a vacuum, the ultimate particles of matter were generally assumed to be the seats of perennial causes of motion termed 'attractive and repulsive forces,' IN" THE LAST HALF-CENTUEY. 67 in virtue of which, any two such parti- cles, without any external impression of motion, or intermediate material agent, were supposed to tend to approach or re- move from one another ; and this view of the duality of the causes of motion is very widely held at the present day. Another important result of investiga- tion, attained in the seventeenth century, was the proof and quantitative estimation of physical inertia. In the old philoso- phy, a curious conjunction of ethical and physical prejudices had led to the notion that there was something ethically bad and physically obstructive about matter. Aristotle attributes all irregularities and apparent dysteleologies in nature to the disobedience, or sluggish yielding, of mat- ter to the shaping and guiding influence of those reasons and causes which were hypostatised in his ideal 'Forms.' In modern science, the conception of the inertia, or resistance to change, of matter 68 THE ADVANCE OF SCIENCE is complex. In part, it contains a corol- lary from the law of causation : A body cannot change its state in respect of rest or motion without a sufficient cause. But, in part, it contains generalisations from experience. One of these is that there is no such sufficient cause resident in any body, and that therefore it will rest, or continue in motion, so long as no external cause of change acts upon it. The other is that the effect which the impact of a body in motion produces upon the body on which it impinges depends, other things being alike, on the relation of a certain quality of each which is called 'mass.' Given a cause of motion of a certain value, the amount of motion, measured by dis- tance travelled in a certain time, which it will produce in a given quantity of matter, say a cubic inch, is not always the same, but depends on what that matter is — a cubic inch of iron will go faster than a cubic inch of gold. Hence, it appears, m THE LAST HALF-CENTUEY. 69 that since equal amounts of motion have, ex hypothesi, been produced, the amount of motion in a body does not depend on its speed alone, but on some property of tiie body. To this the name of 'mass' has been given. And since it seems rea- sonable to suppose that a large quantity of matter, moving slowly, possesses as much motion as a small quantity moving faster, 'mass' has been held to express 'quantity of matter.' It is further de- monstrable that, at any given time and place, the relative mass of any two bod- ies is expressed by the ratio of their weights. When all these great truths respecting molar motion, or the movements of visible and tangible masses, had been shown to hold good not only of terrestrial bodies, but of all those which constitute the visi- ble universe, and the movements of the macrocosm had thus been expressed by a general mechanical theory, there remained 70 THE ADVANCE OF SCIENCE a vast number of phenomena, such as those of light, heat, electricity, magnet- ism, and those of the physical and chemi- cal changes, which do not involve molar motion. Newton's corpuscular theory of light was an attempt to deal with one great series of these phenomena on me- chanical principles, and it maintained its ground until, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the undulatory theory proved itself to be a much better working hypothesis. Heat, up to that time, and indeed much later, was regarded as an im- ponderable substance, caloric ; as a thing which was absorbed by bodies when they were warmed, and was given out as they cooled ; and which, moreover, was capable of entering into a sort of chemical combi- nation with them, and so becoming latent. Rumford and Davy had given a great blow to this view of heat by proving that the quantity of heat which two portions of the same body could be made to give IN THE LAST HALF-CENTUKY. 71 out, by rubbing them together, was practi- cally illimitable. This result brought phi- losophers face to face with the contradic- tion of supposing that a finite body could contain an infinite quantity of another body ; but it was not until 1843, that Mechan- clear and unquestionable experimental ry of proof was given of the fact that there is a ea " definite relation between mechanical work and heat ; that so much work always gives rise, under the same conditions, to so much heat, and so much heat to so much mechanical work. Thus originated the mechanical theory of heat, which be- came the starting-point of the modern doctrine of the conservation of energy. Molar motion had appeared to be de- stroyed by friction. It was proved that no destruction took place, but that an exact equivalent of the energy of the lost molar motion appears as that of the mo- lecular motion, or motion of the smallest particles of a bodv, which constitutes 72 THE ADVANCE OF SCIENCE heat. The loss of the masses is the gain of their particles. Earlier Before 1843, however, the doctrine of proachcs ^ ne conservation of energy had been ap- doctrine P roacne