The nature of the physical worldEddington, Arthur Stanley, Sir
Philosophy
The nature of the physical world
Eddington, Arthur Stanley, Sir
Physics -- Philosophy; Science -- Philosophy
The Structure of the Atom. Between 1905 and 1908 Einstein and
Minkowski introduced fundamental changes in our ideas of time and
space. In 1911 Rutherford introduced the greatest change in our idea
of matter since the time of Democritus. The reception of these two
changes was curiously different. The new ideas of space and time were
regarded on all sides as revolutionary; they were received with the
greatest enthusiasm by some and the keenest opposition by others. The
new idea of matter underwent the ordinary experience of scientific
discovery; it gradually proved its worth, and when the evidence became
overwhelmingly convincing it quietly supplanted previous theories.
No great shock was felt. And yet when I hear to-day protests against
the Bolshevism of modern science and regrets for the old-established
order, I am inclined to think that Rutherford, not Einstein, is the
real villain of the piece. When we compare the universe as it is now
supposed to be with the universe as we had ordinarily preconceived it,
the most arresting change is not the rearrangement of space and time by
Einstein but the dissolution of all that we regard as most solid into
tiny specks floating in void. That gives an abrupt jar to those who
think that things are more or less what they seem. The revelation by
modern physics of the void within the atom is more disturbing than the
revelation by astronomy of the immense void of interstellar space.
The atom is as porous as the solar system. If we eliminated all the
unfilled space in a man’s body and collected his protons and electrons
[Pg 2]
into one mass, the man would be reduced to a speck just visible with a
magnifying glass.
This porosity of matter was not foreshadowed in the atomic theory.
Certainly it was known that in a gas like air the atoms are far
separated, leaving a great deal of empty space; but it was only to be
expected that material with the characteristics of air should have
relatively little substance in it, and “airy nothing” is a common
phrase for the insubstantial. In solids the atoms are packed tightly in
contact, so that the old atomic theory agreed with our preconceptions
in regarding solid bodies as mainly substantial without much interstice.
The electrical theory of matter which arose towards the end of the
nineteenth century did not at first alter this view. It was known
that the negative electricity was concentrated into unit charges of
very small bulk; but the other constituent of matter, the positive
electricity, was pictured as a sphere of jelly of the same dimensions
as the atom and having the tiny negative charges embedded in it. Thus
the space inside a solid was still for the most part well filled.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account