Advertisement

Gravitation and Nineteenth-Century Physical Worldviews

  • F. H. Van Lunteren
Chapter
Part of the Archives Internationales D’Histoire des Idées / International Archives of the History of Ideas book series (ARCH, volume 123)

Abstract

The reign of Newton’s theory of gravitation spanned a period of roughly two centuries. Much has been written about the original resistance it encountered, its gradual acceptance and its overwhelming success in the hands of the continental mathematicians of the eighteenth century. Equally well-known is the eventual dethronement of Newton’s theory by Einstein’s general theory of relativity. The conception of this theory, stemming from the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass, its striking confirmation, involving a solar eclipse, and the resultant worldwide celebrity it brought its originator make for a popular story. Far less attention, however, has been paid to the attitude of nineteenth-century scientists towards the Newtonian theory, in spite of the fact that proposals of explanatory mechanisms, sometimes involving modification of the force-law, abounded in the second half of the nineteenth century.1 This neglect is probably due to the sterility of these proposals and the fact that gravitation as a separate field of reseach did not exist during this period. This paper does not aim at filling this gap by treating any of these theories in detail or by presenting a general survey. Instead it will focus on the nineteenth-century change in attitude towards the nature of gravitation.

Keywords

Nineteenth Century Solar Eclipse Mechanical Reduction Gravitational Theory Universal Gravitation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    1b. For a survey of these theories see: Woodward, J.F., “The Search for a Mechanism: Action at a distance in gravitational Theory,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, Denver, 1972, ch. 4,5, and 6.Google Scholar
  2. 1a.
    North, J.D., “The measure of the Universe,” Oxford, 1965, ch. 3.Google Scholar
  3. 1c.
    Roseveare, N.T., “Mercury’s Perihelion: from Le Verrier to Einstein,” Oxford, 1982, ch. 5.Google Scholar
  4. 2.
    Heilbron, J.L., “Elements of early modern physics,” Berkeley, 1982, pp. 47–53.Google Scholar
  5. 2a.
    Han-kins, T.L., “Science and the Enlightenment,” Cambridge, 1985, pp. 37–41.Google Scholar
  6. 2b.
    The Dictionnaire de Physique (1793) lists fifteen different phenomena proving the existence of universal gravitation, Dictionnaire de Physique, Monge, G. et al., eds. vol. 1, Paris, 1793, pp. 327–328.Google Scholar
  7. 3.
    Dictionnaire de Physique (note 2), p. 326.Google Scholar
  8. 4.
    See notes 10 and 11.Google Scholar
  9. 5.
    Fox, R., “The rise and fall of Laplacian physics,” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 4, 1974, pp. 91–92.Google Scholar
  10. 6.
    Laplace, P.S. de, “Exposition du système du monde,” vol. 2, Paris, 1796, p. 198.Google Scholar
  11. 7.
    Merz, J.T., “A history of European thought in the nineteenth century,” vol. 1, New York, 1965, ch. 4, especially pp. 346–348.Google Scholar
  12. 8.
    Fox (note 5), pp. 109–127.Google Scholar
  13. 9.
    Caneva, K.L., “Conceptual and generational change in German physics: the case of electricity, 1800–1846,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, Princeton University, 1974, pp. 23–28.Google Scholar
  14. 10.
    Kant, I., “Metaphysische Anganfsgründe der Naturwissenschaft,” Riga, 1786, esp. ch. 2.Google Scholar
  15. 10a.
    Mayer J.T., “Anfangsgründe der Naturlehre,” Göttingen, 1801, pp. 101–2.Google Scholar
  16. 10b.
    Kastner, C.W.G., “Grundriss der Experimentalphysik,” Heidelberg, 1820, 2nd ed., vol. 1, pp. 56–57Google Scholar
  17. 10c.
    Kries, F.C., “Lehrbuch der Physik,” Jena, 1816, 2nd ed., pp. 8–9.Google Scholar
  18. 10d.
    Muncke, G.W., “Handbuch der Naturlehre,” Heidelberg, 1829, vol. 1, pp. 27–34.Google Scholar
  19. 11.
    Heimann, P.M. & McGuire, J.E., “Newtonian forces and Lockean powers: concepts of matter in eighteenth-century thought,” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 3, 1971, pp. 233–306.Google Scholar
  20. 12.
    Heilbron (note 2), pp. 64–65.Google Scholar
  21. 12a.
    Gehler, J.S.T., “Physikalisches Wörterbuch,” Leipzig, 1798, vol. 1, pp. 169–170;Google Scholar
  22. 12b.
    Brisson, M.-J., “Traité élémentaire ou principes de physique,” Paris, 1789, vol 1, p. 166.Google Scholar
  23. 12c.
    Vince, S., “Observations on the hypotheses which have been assumed to account for the cause of gravitation from mechanical principles, “Cambridge, 1806.Google Scholar
  24. 12d.
    Notable exceptions are the Swiss scientists Deluc, Prevost and L’Huilier, each of whom gave support to the mechanical theory of their compatriot Le Sage.Google Scholar
  25. 12e.
    Deluc, J.A., “Idées sur la météorologie,” Paris, 1786, vol. 1, pp. 132–133.Google Scholar
  26. 12f.
    Prevost, P., “Notice de la vie et des écrits de George-Louis Le Sage de Genève,” 1805, p. 563.Google Scholar
  27. 12g.
    L’Huilier, S.A.J., “Exposition élémentaire des principes des calculs supérieurs,” Berlin, 1787, p. 187.Google Scholar
  28. 13.
    Heilbron (note 2), pp. 64–65; Du Bois-Reymond, E., “Ueber die Grenzen des Na-turerkennens,” 1872, in “Reden von Emil du Bois-Reymond,” Leipzig, 1912, 2nd ed. vol. 1, p. 448.Google Scholar
  29. 14.
    See Le Sage, “l.er Traité. Physique Mecanique,” in “Deux traités de physique mécanique,” Prevost, P. (ed.). Genève and Paris, 1818, pp. 91–93.Google Scholar
  30. 15.
    Newton, I., “The mathematical principles of natural philosophy,” reprint of Motte’s translation of 1729, London, 1968, p. 392. Dictionnaire de Physique (note 2), p. 328.Google Scholar
  31. 16.
    Laplace, P.S. de, “Traité de mécanique céleste,” vol. 4, Paris, 1805, pp. 325–326Google Scholar
  32. 16b.
    Laplace, P.S. de, “Traité de mécanique céleste,” vol. 5, Paris, 1825, pp. 403–407.Google Scholar
  33. 17.
    See Roseveare (note 1), pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
  34. 18.
    Ibid., pp. 4 and 20–32.Google Scholar
  35. 19.
    Ibid., p. 44 and 50–52.Google Scholar
  36. 20.
    The only notable experiments before the last quarter of the century were those performed by Bessel (pendulum-experiments with different materials) and Faraday (looking for a relation between electricity and gravitation); Bessel, F.W., “Versuche über die Kraft, mit welcher die Erde Körper von verschiedener Beschaffenheit anzieht,” Astronomische Nachrichte 10, 1833, p. 97ff.; Faraday, M., “On the possible relation of gravity to electricity,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1851, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
  37. 21.
    Apart from an occasional chapter on astronomy, no rubric was devoted to it in any of the major subject classifications or abstracting journals. In the Fortschritte der Physik, for instance, gravitational theories were usually noticed under ‘Mechanik.’Google Scholar
  38. 22.
    See for instance Grove, W.R., “On the correlation of physical forces,” London, 1846.Google Scholar
  39. 23.
    Harman, P.M., “Energy, force, and matter. The conceptual development of nineteenth-century physics,” Cambridge, 1982, pp. 19–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 24.
    Harman, P.M., “Energy, force, and matter. The conceptual development of nineteenth-century physics,” Cambridge, 1982, p. 31 and 104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 25.
    See for instance Buchwald, J.Z., “The quantitative ether in the first half of the nineteenth century,” in: Cantor, G.N. & Hodge, M.J.S., eds., “Conceptions of Ether,” Cambridge, 1981, pp. 222–225.Google Scholar
  42. 26.
    Hesse, M.B. “Forces and Fields, The Concept of Action at a Distance in the History of Physics,” London, Edinburgh, etc., 1961, pp. 216–222.Google Scholar
  43. 27.
    See Gooding, “Faraday, Thomson, and the concept of the magnetic field,” British Journal for the History of Science 13, 1980, pp. 105–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 28.
    Faraday, M., “A speculation touching Electric Conduction and the Nature of Matter,” The London, Edingurgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 24, 1844, pp. 136–144.Google Scholar
  45. 29.
    Faraday, M., “A speculation touching Electric Conduction and the Nature of Matter,” The London, Edingurgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 24, 1844, p. 144.Google Scholar
  46. 30.
    Faraday, M., “On the conservation of force,” The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 13, 1857, pp. 225–239.Google Scholar
  47. 34.
    See Whittaker, E., “A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity,” new ed., London and New York, 1951, pp. 294–303.Google Scholar
  48. 35.
    Hertz, H.R., “Die Prinzipien der Mechanik, in neuem Zusammenhange,” Leipzig, 1894.Google Scholar
  49. 36.
    Harman (note 23), pp. 25–27.Google Scholar
  50. 39.
    Tait, P.G., “Properties of Matter,” Edinburgh, 1885, p. 6.Google Scholar
  51. 40.
    See North (note 1), pp. 32–38; Roseveare (note 1), pp. 101–108.Google Scholar
  52. 41.
    Aronson, S., “The Gravitational Theory of Georges-Louis Le Sage,” The Natural Philosopher 3, 1964, pp. 51–74.Google Scholar
  53. 42.
    Herschel, J., “On the Origin of Force,” Fortnightly Review 1, 1865, p. 438.Google Scholar
  54. 42a.
    Maxwell, J.C., draft of “Atom” Article for the Encyclopaedia Britannica and published version of “Atom” respectively, both in Garber, E., Brush, S.G., and Everitt, C.W.F. eds., “Maxwell on Molecules and Gases,” Cambridge, MA and London, 1986, p. 173 and 205 resp.Google Scholar
  55. 43.
    See for instance Leray, P. “Constitution de la Matière,” Paris, 1869; Isenkrahe (note 38).Google Scholar
  56. 44.
    Maxwell, J.C., “Attraction” in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, republ. in “The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell,” Niven, W.D. ed., 1965 (1890), New York, vol. 2, p. 490.Google Scholar
  57. 45.
    Herivel, J.W., “Aspects of French theoretial physics in the nineteenth century,” The British Journal for the History of Science 3, 1966–1967, pp. 123–125.Google Scholar
  58. 46.
    Kargon, R, “Model and analogy in Victorian science: Maxwell and the French physicists,” Journal of the History of Ideas 30, 1969, pp. 423–436; Harman, P.M. (note 23), pp. 69–71. The term ‘kinetic view of nature’ again derives from Merz.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 47.
    Heilbron, J.L., “Fin-de-siècle physics,” in “Science, Technology and Society in the Time of Alfred Nobel,” Bernhard, CG., Crawford, E. and Sörbom, P., eds., Oxford, New York, etc., 1982, p. 53.Google Scholar
  60. 48.
    Mach, E., “Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung, historisch-kritisch dargestellt,” Leipzig, 1883, p. 472.Google Scholar
  61. 49.
    Heilbron (note 47), p. 51.Google Scholar
  62. 50.
    See, for example, McCormmach, R., “H.A. Lorentz and the Electromagnetic View of Nature,” Isis 61, 1970, p. 461.Google Scholar
  63. 52.
    See note 50.Google Scholar
  64. 54.
    See Zenneck, J.A.W., “Gravitation,” in Encyklopädie der mathematischen Wissenschaften vol. 5, Leipzig, pp. 38–44.Google Scholar
  65. 55.
    Lorentz, H.A., “Beschouwingen over de Zwaartekracht,” Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam. Verslag van de gewone vergaderingen der wis-en na-tuurkundige afdeling 8, 1900, pp. 603–620.Google Scholar
  66. 56.
    Wien, W.C.W.O.F.F., “Ueber Elektronen,” Physikalische Zeitschrift 6, 1905, p. 607.Google Scholar
  67. 57.
    See Girard, P.R., “The conceptual development of Einstein’s general theory of relativity,” unpublished doctoral-dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1981, pp. 85–109; Roseveare (note 1), pp. 148–152.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. H. Van Lunteren
    • 1
  1. 1.University of UtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations