MERCURY.
The Ancient Astronomical Discoveries--How Mercury was first
found--Not easily seen--Mercury was known from the earliest
ages--Skill necessary in the Discovery--The Distinction of Mercury
from a Star--Mercury in the East and in the West--The
Prediction--How to Observe Mercury--Its Telescopic
Appearance--Difficulty of Observing its Appearance--Orbit of
Mercury--Velocity of the Planet--Can there be Life on the
Planet?--Changes in its Temperature--Transit of Mercury over the
Sun--Gassendi's Observations--Rotation of Mercury--The Weight of
Mercury.
Long and glorious is the record of astronomical discovery. The
discoveries of modern days have succeeded each other with such rapidity,
they have so often dazzled our imaginations with their brilliancy, that
we are sometimes apt to think that astronomical discovery is a purely
modern product. But no idea could be more fundamentally wrong. While we
appreciate to the utmost the achievements of modern times, let us
endeavour to do justice to the labours of the astronomers of antiquity.
And when we speak of the astronomers of antiquity, let us understand
clearly what is meant. The science is now growing so rapidly that each
century witnesses a surprising advance; each generation, each decade,
each year, has its own rewards for those diligent astronomers by whom
the heavens are so carefully scanned. We must, however, project our
glance to a remote epoch in time past, if we would view the memorable
discovery of Mercury. Compared with it, the discoveries of Newton are to
be regarded as very modern achievements; even the announcement of the
Copernican system of the heavens is itself a recent event in comparison
with the detection of this planet now to be discussed.
By whom was this great discovery made? Let us see if the question can
be answered by the examination of astronomical records. At the close of
his memorable life Copernicus was heard to express his sincere regret
that he never enjoyed an opportunity of beholding the planet Mercury. He
had specially longed to see this body, the movements of which were to
such a marked extent illustrative of the theory of the celestial motions
which it was his immortal glory to have established, but he had never
been successful. Mercury is not generally to be seen so easily as are
some of the other planets, and it may well have been that the vapours
from the immense lagoon at the mouth of the Vistula obscured the horizon
at Frauenburg, where Copernicus dwelt, and thus his opportunities of
viewing Mercury were probably even rarer than they are at other places.
The existence of Mercury was certainly quite a familiar fact in the time
of Copernicus, and therefore we must look to some earlier epoch for its
discovery. In the scanty astronomical literature of the Middle Ages we
find occasional references to the existence of this object. We can trace
observations of Mercury through remote centuries to the commencement of
our era. Records from dates still earlier are not wanting, until at
length we come on an observation which has descended to us for more than
2,000 years, having been made in the year 265 before the Christian era.
It is not pretended, however, that this observation records the
_discovery_ of the planet. Earlier still we find the chief of the
astronomers at Nineveh alluding to Mercury in a report which he made to
Assurbanipal, the King of Assyria. It does not appear in the least
degree likely that the discovery was even then a recent one. It may have
been that the planet was independently discovered in two or more
localities, but all records of such discoveries are totally wanting; and
we are ignorant alike of the names of the discoverers, of the nations to
which they belonged, and of the epochs at which they lived.
Although this discovery is of such vast antiquity, although it was made
before correct notions were entertained as to the true system of the
universe, and, it is needless to add, long before the invention of the
telescope, yet it must not be assumed that the detection of Mercury was
by any means a simple or obvious matter. This will be manifest when we
try to conceive the manner in which the discovery must probably have
been made.
Some primaeval astronomer, long familiar with the heavens, had learned to
recognise the various stars and constellations. Experience had impressed
upon him the permanence of these objects; he had seen that Sirius
invariably appeared at the same seasons of the year, and he had noticed
how it was placed with regard to Orion and the other neighbouring
constellations. In the same manner each of the other bright stars was to
him a familiar object always to be found in a particular region of the
heavens. He saw how the stars rose and set in such a way, that though
each star appeared to move, yet the relative positions of the stars were
incapable of alteration. No doubt this ancient astronomer was acquainted
with Venus; he knew the evening star; he knew the morning star; and he
may have concluded that Venus was a body which oscillated from one side
of the sun to the other.
We can easily imagine how the discovery of Mercury was made in the clear
skies over an Eastern desert. The sun has set, the brief twilight has
almost ceased, when lo, near that part of the horizon where the glow of
the setting sun still illuminates the sky, a bright star is seen. The
primaeval astronomer knows that there is no bright star at this place in
the heavens. If the object of his attention be not a star, what, then,
can it be? Eager to examine this question, the heavens are watched next
night, and there again, higher above the horizon, and more brilliant
still, is the object seen the night before. Each successive night the
body gains more and more lustre, until at length it becomes a
conspicuous gem. Perhaps it will rise still higher and higher; perhaps
it will increase till it attains the brilliancy of Venus itself. Such
were the surmises not improbably made by those who first watched this
object; but they were not realised. After a few nights of exceptional
splendour the lustre of this mysterious orb declines. The planet again
draws near the horizon at sunset, until at length it sets so soon after
the sun that it has become invisible. Is it lost for ever? Years may
elapse before another opportunity of observing the object after sunset
may be available; but then again it will be seen to run through the same
series of changes, though, perhaps, under very different circumstances.
The greatest height above the horizon and the greatest brightness both
vary considerably.
Long and careful observations must have been made before the primaeval
astronomer could assure himself that the various appearances might all
be attributed to a single body. In the Eastern deserts the phenomena of
sunrise must have been nearly as familiar as those of sunset, and in the
clear skies, at the point where the sunbeams were commencing to dawn
above the horizon, a bright star-like point might sometimes be
perceived. Each successive day this object rose higher and higher above
the horizon before the moment of sunrise, and its lustre increased with
the distance; then again it would draw in towards the sun, and return
for many months to invisibility. Such were the data which were presented
to the mind of the primitive astronomer. One body was seen after sunset,
another body was seen before sunrise. To us it may seem an obvious
inference from the observed facts that the two bodies were identical.
The inference is a correct one, but it is in no sense an obvious one.
Long and patient observation established the remarkable law that one of
these bodies was never seen until the other had disappeared. Hence it
was inferred that the phenomena, both at sunrise and at sunset, were due
to the same body, which oscillated to and fro about the sun.
We can easily imagine that the announcement of the identity of these two
objects was one which would have to be carefully tested before it could
be accepted. How are the tests to be applied in a case of this kind?
There can hardly be a doubt that the most complete and convincing
demonstration of scientific truth is found in the fulfilment of
prediction. When Mercury had been observed for years, a certain
regularity in the recurrence of its visibility was noticed. Once a
periodicity had been fully established, prediction became possible. The
time when Mercury would be seen after sunset, the time when it would be
seen before sunrise, could be foretold with accuracy! When it was found
that these predictions were obeyed to the letter--that the planet was
always seen when looked for in accordance with the predictions--it was
impossible to refuse assent to the hypothesis on which these predictions
were based. Underlying that hypothesis was the assumption that all the
various appearances arose from the oscillations of a single body, and
hence the discovery of Mercury was established on a basis as firm as the
discovery of Jupiter or of Venus.
In the latitudes of the British Islands it is generally possible to see
Mercury some time during the course of the year. It is not practicable
to lay down, within reasonable limits, any general rule for finding the
dates at which the search should be made; but the student who is
determined to see the planet will generally succeed with a little
patience. He must first consult an almanac which gives the positions of
the body, and select an occasion when Mercury is stated to be an evening
or a morning star. Such an occasion during the spring months is
especially suitable, as the elevation of Mercury above the horizon is
usually greater then than at other seasons; and in the evening twilight,
about three-quarters of an hour after sunset, a view of this shy but
beautiful object will reward the observer's attention.
To those astronomers who are provided with equatorial telescopes such
instructions are unnecessary. To enjoy a telescopic view of Mercury, we
first turn to the Nautical Almanac, and find the position in which the
planet lies. If it happen to be above the horizon, we can at once direct
the telescope to the place, and even in broad daylight the planet will
very often be seen. The telescopic appearance of Mercury is, however,
disappointing. Though it is much larger than the moon, yet it is
sufficiently far off to seem insignificant. There is, however, one
feature in a view of this planet which would immediately attract
attention. Mercury is not usually observed to be a circular object, but
more or less crescent-shaped, like a miniature moon. The phases of the
planet are also to be accounted for on exactly the same principles as
the phases of the moon. Mercury is a globe composed, like our earth, of
materials possessing in themselves no source of illumination. One
hemisphere of the planet must necessarily be turned towards the sun, and
this side is accordingly lighted up brilliantly by the solar rays. When
we look at Mercury we see nothing of the non-illuminated side, and the
crescent is due to the foreshortened view which we obtain of the
illuminated part. The planet is such a small object that, in the glitter
of the naked-eye view, the _shape_ of the luminous body cannot be
defined. Indeed, even in the much larger crescent of Venus, the aid of
the telescope has to be invoked before the characteristic form can be
observed. Beyond, however, the fact that Mercury is a crescent, and that
it undergoes varying phases in correspondence with the changes in its
relative position to the earth and the sun, we cannot see much of the
planet. It is too small and too bright to admit of easy delineation of
details on its surface. No doubt attempts have been made, and
observations have been recorded, as to certain very faint and indistinct
markings on the planet, but such statements must be received with great
hesitation.
[Illustration: Fig. 41.--The Movement of Mercury, showing the Variations
in Phase and in apparent size.]
[Illustration: Fig. 42.--Mercury as a Crescent.]
The facts which have been thoroughly established with regard to Mercury
are mainly numerical statements as to the path it describes around the
sun. The time taken by the planet to complete one of its revolutions is
eighty-eight days nearly. The average distance from the sun is about
36,000,000 miles, and the mean velocity with which the body moves is
over twenty-nine miles a second. We have already alluded to the most
characteristic and remarkable feature of the orbit of Mercury. That
orbit differs from the paths of all the other large planets by its much
greater departure from the circular form. In the majority of cases the
planetary orbits are so little elliptic that a diagram of the orbit
drawn accurately to scale would not be perceived to differ from a circle
unless careful measurements were made. In the case of Mercury the
circumstances are different. The elliptic form of the path would be
quite unmistakable by the most casual observer. The distance from the
sun to the planet fluctuates between very considerable limits. The
lowest value it can attain is about 30,000,000 miles; the highest value
is about 43,000,000 miles. In accordance with Kepler's second law, the
velocity of the planet must exhibit corresponding changes. It must sweep
rapidly around that part of his path near the sun, and more slowly round
the remote parts of his path. The greatest velocity is about
thirty-five miles a second, and the least is twenty-three miles a
second.
For an adequate conception of the movements of Mercury we ought not to
dissociate the velocity from the true dimensions of the body by which it
is performed. No doubt a speed of twenty-nine miles a second is enormous
when compared with the velocities with which daily life makes us
familiar. The speed of the planet is not less than a hundred times as
great as the velocity of the rifle bullet. But when we compare the sizes
of the bodies with their velocities, the velocity of Mercury seems
relatively much less than that of the bullet. A rifle bullet traverses a
distance equal to its own diameter many thousands of times in a second.
But even though Mercury is moving so much faster, yet the dimensions of
the planet are so considerable that a period of two minutes will be
required for it to move through a distance equal to its diameter.
Viewing the globe of the planet as a whole, the velocity of its movement
is but a stately and dignified progress appropriate to its dimensions.
As we can learn little or nothing of the true surface of Mercury, it is
utterly impossible for us to say whether life can exist on the surface
of that planet. We may, however, reasonably conclude that there cannot
be life on Mercury in any respect analogous to the life which we know on
the earth. The heat of the sun and the light of the sun beat down on
Mercury with an intensity many times greater than that which we
experience. When this planet is at its utmost distance from the sun the
intensity of solar radiation is even then more than four times greater
than the greatest heat which ever reaches the earth. But when Mercury,
in the course of its remarkable changes of distance, draws in to the
warmest part of its orbit, it is exposed to a terrific scorching. The
intensity of the sun's heat must then be not less than nine times as
great as the greatest radiation to which we are exposed.
These tremendous climatic changes succeed each other much more rapidly
than do the variations of our seasons. On Mercury the interval between
midsummer and midwinter is only forty-four days, while the whole year
is only eighty-eight days. Such rapid variations in solar heat must in
themselves exercise a profound effect on the habitability of Mercury.
Mr. Ledger well remarks, in his interesting work,[14] that if there be
inhabitants on Mercury the notions of "perihelion" and "aphelion," which
are here often regarded as expressing ideas of an intricate or recondite
character, must on the surface of that planet be familiar to everybody.
The words imply "near the sun," and "away from the sun;" but we do not
associate these expressions with any obvious phenomena, because the
changes in the distance of the earth from the sun are inconsiderable.
But on Mercury, where in six weeks the sun rises to more than double his
apparent size, and gives more than double the quantity of light and of
heat, such changes as are signified by perihelion and aphelion embody
ideas obviously and intimately connected with the whole economy of the
planet.
It is nevertheless rash to found any inferences as to climate merely
upon the proximity or the remoteness of the sun. Climate depends upon
other matters besides the sun's distance. The atmosphere surrounding the
earth has a profound influence on heat and cold, and if Mercury have an
atmosphere--as has often been supposed--its climate may be thereby
modified to any necessary extent. It seems, however, hardly possible to
suppose that any atmosphere could form an adequate protection for the
inhabitants from the violent and rapid fluctuations of solar radiation.
All we can say is, that the problem of life in Mercury belongs to the
class of unsolved, and perhaps unsolvable, mysteries.
It was in the year 1629 that Kepler made an important announcement as to
impending astronomical events. He had been studying profoundly the
movements of the planets; and from his study of the past he had ventured
to predict the future. Kepler announced that in the year 1631 the
planets Venus and Mercury would both make a transit across the sun, and
he assigned the dates to be November 7th for Mercury, and December 6th
for Venus. This was at the time a very remarkable prediction. We are so
accustomed to turn to our almanacs and learn from them all the
astronomical phenomena which are anticipated during the year, that we
are apt to forget how in early times this was impossible. It has only
been by slow degrees that astronomy has been rendered so perfect as to
enable us to foretell, with accuracy, the occurrence of the more
delicate phenomena. The prediction of those transits by Kepler, some
years before they occurred, was justly regarded at the time as a most
remarkable achievement.
The illustrious Gassendi prepared to apply the test of actual
observation to the announcements of Kepler. We can now assign the time
of the transit accurately to within a few minutes, but in those early
attempts equal precision was not practicable. Gassendi considered it
necessary to commence watching for the transit of Mercury two whole days
before the time indicated by Kepler, and he had arranged an ingenious
plan for making his observations. The light of the sun was admitted into
a darkened room through a hole in the shutter, and an image of the sun
was formed on a white screen by a lens. This is, indeed, an admirable
and a very pleasing way of studying the surface of the sun, and even at
the present day, with our best telescopes, one of the methods of viewing
our luminary is founded on the same principle.
Gassendi commenced his watch on the 5th of November, and carefully
studied the sun's image at every available opportunity. It was not,
however, until five hours after the time assigned by Kepler that the
transit of Mercury actually commenced. Gassendi's preparations had been
made with all the resources which he could command, but these resources
seem very imperfect when compared with the appliances of our modern
observatories. He was anxious to note the time when the planet appeared,
and for this purpose he had stationed an assistant in the room beneath,
who was to observe the altitude of the sun at the moment indicated by
Gassendi. The signal to the assistant was to be conveyed by a very
primitive apparatus. Gassendi was to stamp on the floor when the
critical moment had arrived. In spite of the long delay, which
exhausted the patience of the assistant, some valuable observations were
obtained, and thus the first passage of a planet across the sun was
observed.
The transits of Mercury are not rare phenomena (there have been thirteen
of them during the nineteenth century), and they are chiefly of
importance on account of the accuracy which their observation infuses
into our calculations of the movements of the planet. It has often been
hoped that the opportunities afforded by a transit would be available
for procuring information as to the physical character of the globe of
Mercury, but these hopes have not been realised.
Spectroscopic observations of Mercury are but scanty. They seem to
indicate that water vapour is a probable constituent in the atmosphere
of Mercury, as it is in our own.
A distinguished Italian astronomer, Professor Schiaparelli, some years
ago announced a remarkable discovery with respect to the rotation of the
planet Mercury. He found that the planet rotates on its axis in the same
period as it revolves around the sun. The practical consequence of the
identity between these two periods is that Mercury always turns the same
face to the sun. If our earth were to rotate in a similar fashion, then
the hemisphere directed to the sun would enjoy eternal day, while the
opposite hemisphere would be relegated to perpetual night. According to
this discovery, Mercury revolves around the sun in the same way as the
moon revolves around the earth. As the velocity with which Mercury
travels round the sun is very variable, owing to the highly elliptic
shape of its orbit, while the rotation about its axis is performed with
uniform speed, it follows that rather more than a hemisphere (about
five-eighths of the surface) enjoys more or less the light of the sun in
the course of a Mercurial year.
This important discovery of Schiaparelli has lately been confirmed by an
American astronomer, Mr. Lowell, of Arizona, U.S.A., who observed the
planet under very favourable conditions with a refractor of twenty-four
inches aperture. He has detected on the globe of Mercury certain narrow,
dark lines, the very slow shifting of which points to a period of
rotation about its axis exactly coincident with the period of
revolution round the sun. The same observer shows that the axis of
rotation of Mercury is perpendicular to the plane of the orbit. Mr.
Lowell has perceived no sign of clouds or obscurations, and indeed no
indication of any atmospheric envelope; the surface of Mercury is
colourless, "a geography in black and white."
We may assert that, there is a strong _a priori_ probability in favour
of the reality of Schiaparelli's discovery. Mercury, being one of the
planets devoid of a moon, will be solely influenced by the sun in so far
as tidal phenomena are concerned. Owing, moreover, to the proximity of
Mercury to the sun, the solar tides on that planet possess an especial
vehemence. As the tendency of tides is to make Mercury present a
constant face to the sun, there need be little hesitation in accepting
testimony that tides have wrought exactly the result that we know they
were competent to perform.
Here we take leave of the planet Mercury--an interesting and beautiful
object, which stimulates our intellectual curiosity, while at the same
time it eludes our attempts to make a closer acquaintance. There is,
however, one point of attainable knowledge which we must mention in
conclusion. It is a difficult, but not by any means an impossible, task
to weigh Mercury in the celestial balance, and determine his mass in
comparison with the other globes of our system. This is a delicate
operation, but it leads us through some of the most interesting paths of
astronomical discovery. The weight of the planet, as recently determined
by Von Asten, is about one twenty-fourth part of the weight of the
earth, but the result is more uncertain than the determinations of the
mass of any of the other larger planets.