THE RELATION BETWEEN ELECTRICITY AND LIGHT.

[Footnote: A lecture by Dr. O. J. Lodge, delivered at the London

Institution on December 16, 1880.]

Ever since the subject on which I have the honor to speak to you to-night

was arranged, I have been astonished at my own audacity in proposing to

deal in the course of sixty minutes with a subject so gigantic and so

profound that a course of sixty lectures would be quite inadequate for its

thorough and exhaustive treatment.

I must indeed confine myself carefully to some few of the typical and most

salient points in the relation between electricity and light, and I must

economize time by plunging at once into the middle of the matter without

further preliminaries.

Now, when a person is setting off to discuss the relation between

electricity and light, it is very natural and very proper to pull him up

short with the two questions: What do you mean by electricity? and What do

you mean by light? These two questions I intend to try briefly to answer.

And here let me observe that in answering these fundamental questions, I do

not necessarily assume a fundamental ignorance on your part of these two

agents, but rather the contrary; and must beg you to remember that if I

repeat well-known and simple experiments before you, it is for the purpose

of directing attention to their real meaning and significance, not to their

obvious and superficial characteristics; in the same way that I might

repeat the exceedingly familiar experiment of dropping a stone to the earth

if we were going to define what we meant by gravitation.

Now, then, we will ask first, What is electricity? and the simple answer

must be, We don't know. Well, but this need not necessarily be depressing.

If the same question were asked about matter, or about energy, we should

have likewise to reply, No one knows.

But then the term Matter is a very general one, and so is the term Energy.

They are heads, in fact, under which we classify more special phenomena.

Thus, if we were asked, What is sulphur? or what is selenium? we should at

least be able to reply, A form of matter; and then proceed to describe its

properties, _i. e._, how it affected our bodies and other bodies.

Again, to the question, What is heat? we can reply, A form of energy; and

proceed to describe the peculiarities which distinguish it from other forms

of energy.

But to the question. What is electricity? we have no answer pat like this.

We can not assert that it is a form of matter, neither can we deny it; on

the other hand, we certainly can not assert that it is a form of energy,

and I should be disposed to deny it. It may be that electricity is an

entity _per se_, just as matter is an entity _per se_.

Nevertheless, I can tell you what I mean by electricity by appealing to its

known behavior.

Here is a battery, that is, an electricity pump; it will drive electricity

along. Prof. Ayrtou is going, I am afraid, to tell you, on the 20th of

January next, that it _produces_ electricity; but if he does, I hope you

will remember that that is exactly what neither it nor anything else can

do. It is as impossible to generate electricity in the sense I am trying to

give the word, as it is to produce matter. Of course I need hardly say that

Prof. Ayrton knows this perfectly well; it is merely a question of words,

_i. e._, of what you understand by the word electricity.

I want you, then, to regard this battery and all electrical machines and

batteries as kinds of electricity pumps, which drive the electricity along

through the wire very much as a water-pump can drive water along pipes.

While this is going on the wire manifests a whole series of properties,

which are called the properties of the current.

[Here were shown an ignited platinum wire, the electric arc between two

carbons, an electric machine spark, an induction coil spark, and a vacuum

tube glow. Also a large nail was magnetized by being wrapped in the

current, and two helices were suspended and seen to direct and attract each

other.]

To make a magnet, then, we only need a current of electricity flowing round

and round in a whirl. A vortex or whirlpool of electricity is in fact a

magnet; and _vice versa_. And these whirls have the power of directing and

attracting other previously existing whirls according to certain laws,

called the laws of magnetism. And, moreover, they have the power of

exciting fresh whirls in neighboring conductors, and of repelling them

according to the laws of diamagnetism. The theory of the actions is known,

though the nature of the whirls, as of the simple stream of electricity, is

at present unknown.

[Here was shown a large electro-magnet and an induction-coil vacuum

discharge spinning round and round when placed in its field.]

So much for what happens when electricity is made to travel along

conductors, _i. e._, when it travels along like a stream of water in a

pipe, or spins round and round like a whirlpool.

But there is another set of phenomena, usually regarded as distinct and of

another order, but which are not so distinct as they appear, which

manifest themselves when you join the pump to a piece of glass, or any

non-conductor, and try to force the electricity through that. You succeed

in driving some through, but the flow is no longer like that of water in an

open pipe; it is as if the pipe were completely obstructed by a number of

elastic partitions or diaphragms. The water can not move without straining

and bending these diaphragms, and if you allow it, these strained

partitions will recover themselves, and drive the water back again. [Here

was explained the process of charging a Leyden jar.] The essential thing to

remember is that we may have electrical energy in two forms, the static

and the kinetic; and it is, therefore, also possible to have the rapid

alternation from one of these forms to the other, called vibration.

Now we will pass to the second question: What do you mean by light? And the

first and obvious answer is, Everybody knows. And everybody that is not

blind does know to a certain extent. We have a special sense organ for

appreciating light, whereas we have none for electricity. Nevertheless, we

must admit that we really know very little about the intimate nature of

light--very little more than about electricity. But we do know this,

that light is a form of energy, and, moreover, that it is energy rapidly

alternating between the static and the kinetic forms--that it is, in fact,

a special kind of energy of vibration. We are absolutely certain that light

is a periodic disturbance in some medium, periodic both in space and time;

that is to say, the same appearances regularly recur at certain equal

intervals of distance at the same time, and also present themselves at

equal intervals of time at the same place; that in fact it belongs to the

class of motions called by mathematicians undulatory or wave motions. The

wave motion in this model (Powell's wave apparatus) results from the simple

up and down motion popularly associated with the term wave. But when

a mathematician calls a thing a wave he means that the disturbance is

represented by a certain general type of formula, not that it is an

up-and-down motion, or that it looks at all like those things on the top of

the sea. The motion of the surface of the sea falls within that formula,

and hence is a special variety of wave motion, and the term wave has

acquired in popular use this signification and nothing else. So that when

one speaks ordinarily of a wave or undulatory motion, one immediately

thinks of something heaving up and down, or even perhaps of something

breaking on the shore. But when we assert that the form of energy called

light is undulatory, we by no means intend to assert that anything whatever

is moving up and down, or that the motion, if we could see it, would be

anything at all like what we are accustomed to in the ocean. The kind of

motion is unknown; we are not even sure that there is anything like motion

in the ordinary sense of the word at all.

Now, how much connection between electricity and light have we perceived in

this glance into their natures? Not much, truly. It amounts to about

this: That on the one hand electrical energy may exist in either of two

forms--the static form, when insulators are electrically strained by having

had electricity driven partially through them (as in the Leyden jar), which

strain is a form of energy because of the tendency to discharge and do

work; and the kinetic form, where electricity is moving bodily along

through conductors or whirling round and round inside them, which motion

of electricity is a form of energy, because the conductors and whirls can

attract or repel each other and thereby do work.

And, on the other hand, that light is the rapid alternation of energy

from one of these forms to the other--the static form where the medium is

strained, to the kinetic form when it moves. It is just conceivable, then,

that the static form of the energy of light is _electro_ static, that is,

that the medium is _electrically_ strained, and that the kinetic form of

the energy of light is _electro_-kinetic, that is, that the motion is

not ordinary motion, but electrical motion--in fact, that light is an

electrical vibration, not a material one.

On November 5, last year, there died at Cambridge a man in the full

vigor of his faculties--such faculties as do not appear many times in a

century--whose chief work has been the establishment of this very fact, the

discovery of the link connecting light and electricity; and the proof--for

I believe it amounts to a proof--that they are different manifestations

of one and the same class of phenomena--that light is, in fact, an

electro-magnetic disturbance. The premature death of James Clerk-Maxwell is

a loss to science which appears at present utterly irreparable, for he was

engaged in researches that no other man can hope as yet adequately to grasp

and follow out; but fortunately it did not occur till he had published his

book on "Electricity and Magnetism," one of those immortal productions

which exalt one's idea of the mind of man, and which has been mentioned by

competent critics in the same breath as the "Principia" itself.

But it is not perfect like the "Principia;" much of it is rough-hewn, and

requires to be thoroughly worked out. It contains numerous misprints and

errata, and part of the second volume is so difficult as to be almost

unintelligible. Some, in fact, consists of notes written for private use

and not intended for publication. It seems next to impossible now to mature

a work silently for twenty or thirty years, as was done by Newton two and a

half centuries ago. But a second edition was preparing, and much might have

been improved in form if life had been spared to the illustrious author.

The main proof of the electro-magnetic theory of light is this: The rate at

which light travels has been measured many times, and is pretty well known.

The rate at which an electro-magnetic wave disturbance would travel if such

could be generated (and Mr. Fitzgerald, of Dublin, thinks he has proved

that it can not be generated directly by any known electrical means) can

be also determined by calculation from electrical measurements. The two

velocities agree exactly. This is the great physical constant known as the

ratio V, which so many physicists have been measuring, and are likely to be

measuring for some time to come.

Many and brilliant as were Maxwell's discoveries, not only in electricity,

but also in the theory of the nature of gases, and in molecular science

generally, I can not help thinking that if one of them is more striking and

more full of future significance than the rest, it is the one I have just

mentioned--the theory that light is an electrical phenomenon.

The first glimpse of this splendid generalization was caught in 1845, five

and thirty years ago, by that prince of pure experimentalists, Michael

Faraday. His reasons for suspecting some connection between electricity and

light are not clear to us--in fact, they could not have been clear to him;

but he seems to have felt a conviction that if he only tried long enough

and sent all kinds of rays of light in all possible directions across

electric and magnetic fields in all sorts of media, he must ultimately

hit upon something. Well, this is very nearly what he did. With a sublime

patience and perseverance which remind one of the way Kepler hunted down

guess after guess in a different field of research, Faraday combined

electricity, or magnetism, and light in all manner of ways, and at last he

was rewarded with a result. And a most out-of-the-way result it seemed.

First, you have to get a most powerful magnet and very strongly excite it;

then you have to pierce its two poles with holes, in order that a beam of

light may travel from one to the other along the lines of force; then, as

ordinary light is no good, you must get a beam of plane polarized light,

and send it between the poles. But still no result is obtained until,

finally, you interpose a piece of a rare and out-of-the-way material, which

Faraday had himself discovered and made--a kind of glass which contains

borate of lead, and which is very heavy, or dense, and which must be

perfectly annealed.

And now, when all these arrangements are completed, what is seen is simply

this, that if an analyzer is arranged to stop the light and make the field

quite dark before the magnet is excited, then directly the battery is

connected and the magnet called into action, a faint and barely perceptible

brightening of the field occurs, which will disappear if the analyzer be

slightly rotated. [The experiment was then shown.] Now, no wonder that no

one understood this result. Faraday himself did not understand it at all.

He seems to have thought that the magnetic lines of force were rendered

luminous, or that the light was magnetized; in fact, he was in a fog,

and had no idea of its real significance. Nor had any one. Continental

philosophers experienced some difficulty and several failures before they

were able to repeat the experiment. It was, in fact, discovered too soon,

and before the scientific world was ready to receive it, and it was

reserved for Sir William Thomson briefly, but very clearly, to point

out, and for Clerk-Maxwell more fully to develop, its most important

consequences. [The principle of the experiment was then illustrated by the

aid of a mechanical model.]

This is the fundamental experiment on which Clerk-Maxwell's theory of

light is based; but of late years many fresh facts and relations between

electricity and light have been discovered, and at the present time they

are tumbling in in great numbers.

It was found by Faraday that many other transparent media besides heavy

glass would show the phenomenon if placed between the poles, only in a less

degree; and the very important observation that air itself exhibits the

same phenomenon, though to an exceedingly small extent, has just been made

by Kundt and Rontgen in Germany.

Dr. Kerr, of Glasgow, has extended the result to opaque bodies, and has

shown that if light be passed through magnetized _iron_ its plane is

rotated. The film of iron must be exceedingly thin, because of its opacity,

and hence, though the intrinsic rotating power of iron is undoubtedly very

great, the observed rotation is exceedingly small and difficult to observe;

and it is only by a very remarkable patience and care and ingenuity that

Dr. Kerr has obtained his result. Mr. Fitzgerald, of Dublin, has examined

the question mathematically, and has shown that Maxwell's theory would have

enabled Dr. Kerr's result to be predicted.

Another requirement of the theory is that bodies which are transparent

to light must be insulators or non-conductors of electricity, and that

conductors of electricity are necessarily opaque to light. Simple

observation amply confirms this; metals are the best conductors, and are

the most opaque bodies known. Insulators such as glass and crystals are

transparent whenever they are sufficiently homogeneous, and the very

remarkable researches of Prof. Graham Bell in the last few months have

shown that even _ebonite_, one of the most opaque insulators to ordinary

vision, is certainly transparent to some kinds of radiation, and

transparent to no small degree.

[The reason why transparent bodies must insulate, and why conductors must

be opaque, was here illustrated by mechanical models.]

A further consequence of the theory is that the velocity of light in a

transparent medium will be affected by its electrical strain constant; in

other words, that its refractive index will bear some close but not yet

quite ascertained relation to its specific inductive capacity. Experiment

has partially confirmed this, but the confirmation is as yet very

incomplete. But there are a number of results not predicted by theory, and

whose connection with the theory is not clearly made out. We have the fact

that light falling on the platinum electrode of a voltameter generates a

current, first observed, I think, by Sir W. R. Grove--at any rate, it is

mentioned in his "Correlation of Forces"--extended by Becquerel and Robert

Sabine to other substances, and now being extended to fluorescent and other

bodies by Prof. Minchin. And finally--for I must be brief--we have

the remarkable action of light on selenium. This fact was discovered

accidentally by an assistant in the laboratory of Mr. Willoughby Smith, who

noticed that a piece of selenium conducted electricity very much better

when light was falling upon it than when it was in the dark. The light of

a candle is sufficient, and instantaneously brings down the resistance to

something like one-fifth of its original value.

I could show you these effects, but there is not much to see; it is an

intensely interesting phenomenon, but its external manifestation is not

striking--any more than Faraday's heavy glass experiment was.

This is the phenomenon which, as you know, has been utilized by Prof.

Graham Bell in that most ingenious and striking invention, the photophone.

By the kindness of Prof. Silvanus Thompson, I have a few slides to show the

principle of the invention, and Mr. Shelford Bidwell has been kind enough

to lend me his home-made photophone, which answers exceedingly well for

short distances.

I have now trespassed long enough upon your patience, but I must just

allude to what may very likely be the next striking popular discovery; and

that is the transmission of light by electricity; I mean the transmission

of such things as views and pictures by means of the electric wire. It has

not yet been done, but it seems already theoretically possible, and it may

very soon be practically accomplished.

* * * * *

Scientific American Supplement, No. 275, April 9, 1881 · 第 27 / 67 题