This aspect of the subject has recently been taught with vigour and

success by Dr. Croll in his book "Climate and Time."

A brief and partial explanation of the matter may be given, because

it is a point of some interest and is also one of fair simplicity.

Every one knows that the climatic conditions of winter and summer

are inverted in the two hemispheres, and that at present the sun is

nearest to us in our (northern) winter. In other words, the earth's

axis is inclined so as to tilt its north pole away from the sun at

perihelion, or when the earth is at the part of its elliptic orbit

nearest the sun's focus; and to tilt it towards the sun at

aphelion. The result of this present state of things is to diminish

the intensity of the average northern winter and of the average

northern summer, and on the other hand to aggravate the extremes of

temperature in the southern hemisphere; all other things being

equal. Of course other things are not equal, and the distribution

of land and sea is a still more powerful climatic agent than is the

three million miles or so extra nearness of the sun. But it is

supposed that the Antarctic ice-cap is larger than the northern,

and increased summer radiation with increased winter cold would

account for this.

But the present state of things did not always obtain. The conical

movement of the earth's axis (now known by a curious perversion of

phrase as "precession") will in the course of 13,000 years or so

cause the tilt to be precisely opposite, and then we shall have the

more extreme winters and summers instead of the southern

hemisphere.

If the change were to occur now, it might not be overpowering,

because now the excentricity is moderate. But if it happened some

time back, when the excentricity was much greater, a decidedly

different arrangement of climate may have resulted. There is no

need to say _if_ it happened some time back: it did happen, and

accordingly an agent for affecting the distribution of mean

temperature on the earth is to hand; though whether it is

sufficient to achieve all that has been observed by geologists is a

matter of opinion.

Once more, the whole diversity of the seasons depends on the tilt

of the earth's axis, the 23 deg. by which it is inclined to a

perpendicular to the orbital plane; and this obliquity or tilt is

subject to slow fluctuations. Hence there will come eras when all

causes combine to produce a maximum extremity of seasons in the

northern hemisphere, and other eras when it is the southern

hemisphere which is subject to extremes.

But a grander problem still awaited solution--nothing less than the fate

of the whole solar system. Here are a number of bodies of various sizes

circulating at various rates round one central body, all attracted by

it, and all attracting each other, the whole abandoned to the free play

of the force of gravitation: what will be the end of it all? Will they

ultimately approach and fall into the sun, or will they recede further

and further from him, into the cold of space? There is a third possible

alternative: may they not alternately approach and recede from him, so

as on the whole to maintain a fair approximation to their present

distances, without great and violent extremes of temperature either way?

If any one planet of the system were to fall into the sun, more

especially if it were a big one like Jupiter or Saturn, the heat

produced would be so terrific that life on this earth would be

destroyed, even at its present distance; so that we are personally

interested in the behaviour of the other planets as well as in the

behaviour of our own.

The result of the portentously difficult and profoundly interesting

investigation, here sketched in barest outline, is that the solar system

is stable: that is to say, that if disturbed a little it will oscillate

and return to its old state; whereas if it were unstable the slightest

disturbance would tend to accumulate, and would sooner or later bring

about a catastrophe. A hanging pendulum is stable, and oscillates about

a mean position; its motion is periodic. A top-heavy load balanced on a

point is unstable. All the changes of the solar system are periodic,

_i.e._ they repeat themselves at regular intervals, and they never

exceed a certain moderate amount.

The period is something enormous. They will not have gone through all

their changes until a period of 2,000,000 years has elapsed. This is

the period of the planetary oscillation: "a great pendulum of eternity

which beats ages as our pendulums beat seconds." Enormous it seems; and

yet we have reason to believe that the earth has existed through many

such periods.

The two laws of stability discovered and stated by Lagrange and

Laplace I can state, though they may be difficult to understand:--

Represent the masses of the several planets by m_1, m_2, &c.; their

mean distances from the sun (or radii vectores) by r_1, r_2, &c.;

the excentricities of their orbits by e_1, e_2, &c.; and the

obliquity of the planes of these orbits, reckoned from a single

plane of reference or "invariable plane," by [theta]_1, [theta]_2,

&c.; then all these quantities (except m) are liable to

fluctuate; but, however much they change, an increase for one

planet will be accompanied by a decrease for some others; so that,

taking all the planets into account, the sum of a set of terms like

these, m_1e_1^2 [square root]r_1 + m_2e_2^2 [square root]r_2

+ &c., will remain always the same. This is summed up briefly in

the following statement:

[Sigma](me^2 [square root]r) = constant.

That is one law, and the other is like it, but with inclination of

orbit instead of excentricity, viz.:

[Sigma](m[theta]^2 [square root]r) = constant.

The value of each of these two constants can at any time be

calculated. At present their values are small. Hence they always

were and always will be small; being, in fact, invariable. Hence

neither _e_ nor _r_ nor [theta] can ever become infinite, nor can

their average value for the system ever become zero.

The planets may share the given amount of total excentricity and

obliquity in various proportions between themselves; but even if it were

all piled on to one planet it would not be very excessive, unless the

planet were so small a one as Mercury; and it would be most improbable

that one planet should ever have all the excentricity of the solar

system heaped upon itself. The earth, therefore, never has been, nor

ever will be, enormously nearer the sun than it is at present: nor can

it ever get very much further off. Its changes are small and are

periodic--an increase is followed by a decrease, like the swing of a

pendulum.

The above two laws have been called the Magna Charta of the solar

system, and were long supposed to guarantee its absolute permanence. So

far as the theory of gravitation carries us, they do guarantee its

permanence; but something more remains to be said on the subject in a

future lecture (XVIII).

And now, finally, we come to a sublime speculation, thrown out by

Laplace, not as the result of profound calculation, like the results

hitherto mentioned, not following certainly from the theory of

gravitation, or from any other known theory, and therefore not to be

accepted as more than a brilliant hypothesis, to be confirmed or

rejected as our knowledge extends. This speculation is the "Nebular

hypothesis." Since the time of Laplace the nebular hypothesis has had

ups and downs of credence, sometimes being largely believed in,

sometimes being almost ignored. At the present time it holds the field

with perhaps greater probability of ultimate triumph than has ever

before seemed to belong to it--far greater than belonged to it when

first propounded.

It had been previously stated clearly and well by the philosopher Kant,

who was intensely interested in "the starry heavens" as well as in the

"mind of man," and who shewed in connexion with astronomy also a most

surprising genius. The hypothesis ought by rights perhaps to be known

rather by his name than by that of Laplace.

The data on which it was founded are these:--Every motion in the solar

system known at that time took place in one direction, and in one

direction only. Thus the planets revolve round the sun, all going the

same way round; moons revolve round the planets, still maintaining the

same direction of rotation, and all the bodies that were known to rotate

on their own axis did so with still the same kind of spin. Moreover,

all these motions take place in or near a single plane. The ancients

knew that sun moon and planets all keep near to the ecliptic, within a

belt known as the zodiac: none strays away into other parts of the sky.

Satellites also, and rings, are arranged in or near the same plane; and

the plane of diurnal spin, or equator of the different bodies, is but

slightly tilted.

Now all this could not be the result of chance. What could have caused

it? Is there any connection or common ancestry possible, to account for

this strange family likeness? There is no connection now, but there may

have been once. Must have been, we may almost say. It is as though they

had once been parts of one great mass rotating as a whole; for if such a

rotating mass broke up, its parts would retain its direction of

rotation. But such a mass, filling all space as far as or beyond Saturn,

although containing the materials of the whole solar system in itself,

must have been of very rare consistency. Occupying so much bulk it could

not have been solid, nor yet liquid, but it might have been gaseous.

Are there any such gigantic rotating masses of gas in the heaven now?

Certainly there are; there are the nebulae. Some of the nebulae are now

known to be gaseous, and some of them at least are in a state of

rotation. Laplace could not have known this for certain, but he

suspected it. The first distinctly spiral nebula was discovered by the

telescope of Lord Rosse; and quite recently a splendid photograph of the

great Andromeda nebula, by our townsman, Mr. Isaac Roberts, reveals what

was quite unsuspected--and makes it clear that this prodigious mass also

is in a state of extensive and majestic whirl.

Very well, then, put this problem:--A vast mass of rotating gas is left

to itself to cool for ages and to condense as it cools: how will it

behave? A difficult mathematical problem, worthy of being attacked

to-day; not yet at all adequately treated. There are those who believe

that by the complete treatment of such a problem all the history of the

solar system could be evolved.

[Illustration: FIG. 80.--Lord Rosse's drawing of the spiral nebula in

Canes Venatici, with the stub marks of the draughtsman unduly emphasised

into features by the engraver.]

Laplace pictured to himself this mass shrinking and thereby whirling

more and more rapidly. A spinning body shrinking in size and retaining

its original amount of rotation, as it will unless a brake is applied,

must spin more and more rapidly as it shrinks. It has what

mathematicians call a constant moment of momentum; and what it loses in

leverage, as it shrinks, it gains in speed. The mass is held together by

gravitation, every particle attracting every other particle; but since

all the particles are describing curved paths, they will tend to fly off

tangentially, and only a small excess of the gravitation force over the

centrifugal is left to pull the particles in, and slowly to concentrate

the nebula. The mutual gravitation of the parts is opposed by the

centrifugal force of the whirl. At length a point is reached where the

two forces balance. A portion outside a certain line will be in

equilibrium; it will be left behind, and the rest must contract without

it. A ring is formed, and away goes the inner nucleus contracting

further and further towards a centre. After a time another ring will be

left behind in the same way, and so on. What happens to these rings?

They rotate with the motion they possess when thrown or shrunk off; but

will they remain rings? If perfectly regular they may; if there be any

irregularity they are liable to break up. They will break into one or

two or more large masses, which are ultimately very likely to collide

and become one. The revolving body so formed is still a rotating gaseous

mass; and it will go on shrinking and cooling and throwing off rings,

like the larger nucleus by which it has been abandoned. As any nucleus

gets smaller, its rate of rotation increases, and so the rings last

thrown off will be spinning faster than those thrown off earliest. The

final nucleus or residual central body will be rotating fastest of all.

The nucleus of the whole original mass we now see shrunk up into what we

call the sun, which is spinning on its axis once every twenty-five days.

The rings successively thrown off by it are now the planets--some large,

some small--those last thrown off rotating round him comparatively

quickly, those outside much more slowly. The rings thrown off by the

planetary gaseous masses as they contracted have now become satellites;

except one ring which has remained without breaking up, and is to be

seen rotating round Saturn still.

One other similar ring, an abortive attempt at a planet, is also left

round the sun (the zone of asteroids).

Such, crudely and baldly, is the famous nebular hypothesis of Laplace.

It was first stated, as has been said above, by the philosopher Kant,

but it was elaborated into much fuller detail by the greatest of French

mathematicians and astronomers.

The contracting masses will condense and generate great quantities of

heat by their own shrinkage; they will at a certain stage condense to

liquid, and after a time will begin to cool and congeal with a

superficial crust, which will get thicker and thicker; but for ages they

will remain hot, even after they have become thoroughly solid. The small

ones will cool fastest; the big ones will retain their heat for an

immense time. Bullets cool quickly, cannon-balls take hours or days to

cool, planets take millions of years. Our moon may be nearly cold, but

the earth is still warm--indeed, very hot inside. Jupiter is believed by

some observers still to glow with a dull red heat; and the high

temperature of the much larger and still liquid mass of the sun is

apparent to everybody. Not till it begins to scum over will it be

perceptibly cooler.

[Illustration: FIG. 81.--Saturn.]

Many things are now known concerning heat which were not known to

Laplace (in the above paragraph they are only hinted at), and these

confirm and strengthen the general features of his hypothesis in a

striking way; so do the most recent telescopic discoveries. But fresh

possibilities have now occurred to us, tidal phenomena are seen to have

an influence then wholly unsuspected, and it will be in a modified and

amplified form that the philosopher of next century will still hold to

the main features of this famous old Nebular Hypothesis respecting the

origin of the sun and planets--the Evolution of the solar system.

NOTES TO LECTURE XII

The subject of stellar astronomy was first opened up by Sir William

Herschel, the greatest observing astronomer.

_Frederick William Herschel_ was born in Hanover in 1738, and brought up

as a musician. Came to England in 1756. First saw a telescope in 1773.

Made a great many himself, and began a survey of the heavens. His sister

Caroline, born in 1750, came to England in 1772, and became his devoted

assistant to the end of his life. Uranus discovered in 1781. Music

finally abandoned next year, and the 40-foot telescope begun. Discovered

two moons of Saturn and two of Uranus. Reviewed, described, and gauged

all the visible heavens. Discovered and catalogued 2,500 nebulae and 806

double stars. Speculated concerning the Milky Way, the nebulosity of

stars, the origin and growth of solar systems. Discovered that the stars

were in motion, not fixed, and that the sun as one of them was

journeying towards a point in the constellation Hercules. Died in 1822,

eighty-four years old. Caroline Herschel discovered eight comets, and

lived on to the age of ninety-eight.

LECTURE XII

HERSCHEL AND THE MOTION OF THE FIXED STARS

We may admit, I think, that, with a few notable exceptions, the work of

the great men we have been recently considering was rather to complete

and round off the work of Newton, than to strike out new and original

lines.

This was the whole tendency of eighteenth century astronomy. It appeared

to be getting into an adult and uninteresting stage, wherein everything

could be calculated and predicted. Labour and ingenuity, and a severe

mathematical training, were necessary to work out the remote

consequences of known laws, but nothing fresh seemed likely to turn up.

Consequently men's minds began turning in other directions, and we find

chemistry and optics largely studied by some of the greatest minds,

instead of astronomy.

But before the century closed there was destined to arise one remarkable

exception--a man who was comparatively ignorant of that which had been

done before--a man unversed in mathematics and the intricacies of

science, but who possessed such a real and genuine enthusiasm and love

of Nature that he overcame the force of adverse circumstances, and

entering the territory of astronomy by a by-path, struck out a new line

for himself, and infused into the science a healthy spirit of fresh life

and activity.

This man was William Herschel.

"The rise of Herschel," says Miss Clerke, "is the one conspicuous

anomaly in the otherwise somewhat quiet and prosy eighteenth century. It

proved decisive of the course of events in the nineteenth. It was

unexplained by anything that had gone before, yet all that came after

hinged upon it. It gave a new direction to effort; it lent a fresh

impulse to thought. It opened a channel for the widespread public

interest which was gathering towards astronomical subjects to flow in."

Herschel was born at Hanover in 1738, the son of an oboe player in a

military regiment. The father was a good musician, and a cultivated man.

The mother was a German _Frau_ of the period, a strong, active,

business-like woman, of strong character and profound ignorance. Herself

unable to write, she set her face against learning and all new-fangled

notions. The education of the sons she could not altogether control,

though she lamented over it, but the education of her two daughters she

strictly limited to cooking, sewing, and household management. These,

however, she taught them well.

It was a large family, and William was the fourth child. We need only

remember the names of his younger brother Alexander, and of his much

younger sister Caroline.

They were all very musical--the youngest boy was once raised upon a

table to play the violin at a public performance. The girls were

forbidden to learn music by their mother, but their father sometimes

taught them a little on the sly. Alexander was besides an ingenious

mechanician.

At the age of seventeen, William became oboist to the Hanoverian Guards,

shortly before the regiment was ordered to England. Two years later he

removed himself from the regiment, with the approval of his parents,

though probably without the approbation or consent of the commanding

officer, by whom such removal would be regarded as simple desertion,

which indeed it was; and George III. long afterwards handed him an

official pardon for it.

At the age of nineteen, he was thus launched in England with an outfit

of some French, Latin, and English, picked up by himself; some skill in

playing the hautboy, the violin, and the organ, as taught by his father;

and some good linen and clothing, and an immense stock of energy,

provided by his mother.

He lived as musical instructor to one or two militia bands in Yorkshire,

and for three years we hear no more than this of him. But, at the end of

that time, a noted organist, Dr. Miller, of Durham, who had heard his

playing, proposed that he should come and live with him and play at

concerts, which he was very glad to do. He next obtained the post of

organist at Halifax; and some four or five years later he was invited to

become organist at the Octagon Chapel in Bath, and soon led the musical

life of that then very fashionable place.

About this time he went on a short visit to his family at Hanover, by

all of whom he was very much beloved, especially by his young sister

Caroline, who always regarded him as specially her own brother. It is

rather pitiful, however, to find that her domestic occupations still

unfairly repressed and blighted her life. She says:--

"Of the joys and pleasures which all felt at this long-wished-for

meeting with my--let me say my dearest--brother, but a small

portion could fall to my share; for with my constant attendance at

church and school, besides the time I was employed in doing the

drudgery of the scullery, it was but seldom I could make one in the

group when the family were assembled together."

While at Bath he wrote many musical pieces--glees, anthems, chants,

pieces for the harp, and an orchestral symphony. He taught a large

number of pupils, and lived a hard and successful life. After fourteen

hours or so spent in teaching and playing, he would retire at night to

instruct his mind with a study of mathematics, optics, Italian, or

Greek, in all of which he managed to make some progress. He also about

this time fell in with some book on astronomy.

In 1763 his father was struck with paralysis, and two years later he

died.

William then proposed that Alexander should come over from Hanover and

join him at Bath, which was done. Next they wanted to rescue their

sister Caroline from her humdrum existence, but this was a more

difficult matter. Caroline's journal gives an account of her life at

this time that is instructive. Here are a few extracts from it:--

"My father wished to give me something like a polished education,

but my mother was particularly determined that it should be a

rough, but at the same time a useful one; and nothing further she

thought was necessary but to send me two or three months to a

sempstress to be taught to make household linen....

"My mother would not consent to my being taught French, ... so all

my father could do for me was to indulge me (and please himself)

sometimes with a short lesson on the violin, when my mother was

either in good humour or out of the way.... She had cause for

wishing me not to know more than was necessary for being useful in

the family; for it was her certain belief that my brother William

would have returned to his country, and my eldest brother not have

looked so high, if they had had a little less learning."

However, seven years after the death of their father, William went over

to Germany and returned to England in triumph, bringing Caroline with

him: she being then twenty-two.

So now began a busy life in Bath. For Caroline the work must have been

tremendous. For, besides having to learn singing, she had to learn

English. She had, moreover, to keep accounts and do the marketing.

When the season at Bath was over, she hoped to get rather more of her

brother William's society; but he was deep in optics and astronomy, used

to sleep with the books under his pillow, read them during meals, and

scarcely ever thought of anything else.

He was determined to see for himself all the astronomical wonders; and

there being a small Gregorian reflector in one of the shops, he hired

it. But he was not satisfied with this, and contemplated making a

telescope 20 feet long. He wrote to opticians inquiring the price of a

mirror suitable, but found there were none so large, and that even the

smaller ones were beyond his means. Nothing daunted, he determined to

make some for himself. Alexander entered into his plans: tools, hones,

polishers, and all sorts of rubbish were imported into the house, to the

sister's dismay, who says:--

[Illustration: FIG. 82.--Principle of Newtonian reflector.]

Pioneers of Science · 第 17 / 26 段