Scientific American, Volume XLIII., No. 25, December 18, 1880, page 9 by Various Authors

<< Return to Title Details & Download

 < previous  next > 

10

light. For instance, I quote from a book edited by an eminent man of science in England, the book bearing the date 1873.

"There are two theories of light; one the emissive theory; ... the other, the vibratory theory;" just as if the emissive or corpuscular theory was not mathematically untenable sixty years ago, and experimentally demonstrated to be false more than forty years ago. Unless one were treating of the history of the science of optics there is no reason why the latter theory should be mentioned any more than the old theory of the formation of the earth. It is not to be presumed that any one whose opinion is worth the asking still thinks it possible that the old view may be the true one because the evidence is demonstrable against it, yet while the undulatory theory prevails there are not a few persons well instructed otherwise who still write and speak as though light has some sort of independent existence as distinguished from so-called radiant heat; in other words, that the heat and light we receive from the sun are specifically different.

A brief survey of our present knowledge of this form of energy will help to show how far wrong the common conception of light is. For fifteen years it has been common to hear heat spoken of as a mode of molecular motion, and sometimes it has been characterized as vibratory, and most persons have received the impression that the vibratory motion was an actual change of position of the molecular in space instead of a change of form. Make a ring of wire five or six inches in diameter, and, holding it between the thumb and finger at the twisted ends, pluck it with a finger of the other hand; the ring will vibrate, have three nodes, and will give a good idea of the character of the vibration that constitutes what we call heat. This vibratory motion may have a greater or less amplitude, and the energy of the vibration will be as the square of that amplitude. But the vibrating molecule gives up its energy of vibration

 < previous  next >