On the other hand, P. Curie, who, in conjunction with Debierne, had made
a series of researches on the radium emanation, expressed dissent from
this view. P. Curie[337] did not consider that there was sufficient
evidence that the emanation was material in nature, and pointed out that
no spectroscopic evidence of its presence had yet been obtained, and
also that the emanation disappeared when contained in a sealed vessel.
It was pointed out by the writer[338] that the failure to detect
spectroscopic lines was probably a consequence of the minute quantity of
the emanation present, under ordinary conditions, although the
electrical and phosphorescent actions produced by this small quantity
are very marked. This contention is borne out by later work. P. Curie at
first took the view that the emanation was not material, but consisted
of centres of condensation of energy attached to the gas molecules and
moving with them.
M. and Mme Curie have throughout taken a very general view of the
phenomena of radio-activity, and have not put forward any definite
theory. In Jan. 1902, they gave an account of the general working
theory[339] which had guided them in their researches. Radio-activity is
an atomic property, and the recognition of this fact had created their
methods of research. Each atom acts as a constant source of emission of
energy. This energy may either be derived from the potential energy of
the atom itself, or each atom may act as a mechanism which instantly
regains the energy which is lost. They suggested that this energy may be
borrowed from the surrounding air in some way not accounted for by the
principle of Carnot.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account