The Highest Aim of the Physicist

Part 1

THE HIGHEST AIM OF THE PHYSICIST

PROFESSOR HENRY A. ROWLAND

SCIENCE

EDITORIAL COMMITTEE: S. NEWCOMB, Mathematics; R. S. WOODWARD, Mechanics; E. C. PICKERING, Astronomy; T. C. MENDENHALL, Physics; R. H. THURSTON, Engineering; IRA REMSEN, Chemistry; J. LE CONTE, Geology; W. M. DAVIS, Physiography; HENRY F. OSBORN, Paleontology; W. K. BROOKS, C. HART MERRIAM, Zoology; S. H. SCUDDER, Entomology; C. E. BESSEY, N. L. BRITTON, Botany; C. S. MINOT, Embryology, Histology; H. P. BOWDITCH, Physiology; J. S. BILLINGS, Hygiene; J. MCKEEN CATTELL, Psychology; J. W. POWELL, Anthropology.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1899

GENTLEMEN AND FELLOW PHYSICISTS OF AMERICA: We meet to day on an occasion which marks an epoch in the history of physics in America; may the future show that it also marks an epoch in the history of the science which this Society is organized to cultivate! For we meet here in the interest of a science which above all sciences deals with the foundation of the Universe, with the constitution of matter from which everything in the Universe is made and with the ether of space by which alone the various portions of matter forming the Universe affect each other even at such distances as we may never expect to traverse, whatever the progress of our science in the future.

We, who have devoted our lives to the solution of problems connected with physics, now meet together to help each other and to forward the interests of the subject which we love. A subject which appeals most strongly to the better instincts of our nature and the problems of which tax our minds to the limit of their capacity and suggest the grandest and noblest ideas of which they are capable.

In a country where the doctrine of the equal rights of man has been distorted to mean the equality of man in other respects, we form a small and unique body of men, a new variety of the human race as one of our greatest scientists calls it, whose views of what constitutes the greatest achievement in life are very different from those around us. In this respect we form an aristocracy, not of wealth, not of pedigree, but of intellect and of ideals, holding him in the highest respect who adds the most to our knowledge or who strives after it as the highest good.

Thus we meet together for mutual sympathy and the interchange of knowledge, and may we do so ever with appreciation of the benefits to ourselves and possibly to our science. Above all, let us cultivate the idea of the dignity of our pursuit so that this feeling may sustain us in the midst of a world which gives its highest praise, not to the investigation in the pure etherial physics which our Society is formed to cultivate, but to one who uses it for satisfying the physical rather than the intellectual needs of mankind. He who makes two blades of grass grow where one grew before is the benefactor of mankind; but he who obscurely worked to find the laws of such growth is the intellectual superior as well as the greater benefactor of the two.

How stands our country, then, in this respect? My answer must still be, now, as it was fifteen years ago, that much of the intellect of the country is still wasted in the pursuit of so-called practical science which ministers to our physical needs and but little thought and money is given to the grander portion of the subject which appeals to our intellect alone. But your presence here gives evidence that such a condition is not to last forever.

Even in the past we have a few names whom scientists throughout the world delight to honor. Franklin, who almost revolutionized the science of electricity by a few simple but profound experiments. Count Rumford, whose experiments almost demonstrated the nature of heat. Henry, who might have done much for the progress of physics had he published more fully the results of his investigations. Mayer, whose simple and ingenious experiments have been a source of pleasure and profit to many. This is the meager list of those whom death allows me to speak of and who have earned mention here by doing something for the progress of our science. And yet the record has been searched for more than a hundred years. How different had I started to record those who have made useful and beneficial inventions!

But I know, when I look in the faces of those before me, where the eager intellect and high purpose sit enthroned on bodies possessing the vigor and strength of youth, that the writer of a hundred years hence can no longer throw such a reproach upon our country. Nor can we blame those who have gone before us. The progress of every science shows us the condition of its growth. Very few persons, if isolated in a semi-civilized land, have either the desire or the opportunity of pursuing the higher branches of science. Even if they should be able to do so, their influence on their science depends upon what they publish and make known to the world. A hermit philosopher we can imagine might make many useful discoveries. Yet, if he keeps them to himself, he can never claim to have benefited the world in any degree. His unpublished results are his private gain, but the world is no better off until he has made them known in language strong enough to call attention to them and to convince the world of their truth. Thus, to encourage the growth of any science, the best thing we can do is to meet together in its interest, to discuss its problems, to criticize each other's work and, best of all, to provide means by which the better portion of it may be made known to the world. Furthermore, let us encourage discrimination in our thoughts and work. Let us recognize the eras when great thoughts have been introduced into our subject and let us honor the great men who introduced and proved them correct. Let us forever reject such foolish ideas as the equality of mankind and carefully give the greater credit to the greater man. So, in choosing the subjects for our investigation, let us, if possible, work upon those subjects which will finally give us an advanced knowledge of some great subject. I am aware that we cannot always do this; our ideas will often flow in side channels; but, with the great problems of the Universe before us, we may sometime be able to do our share toward the greater end.

What is matter; what is gravitation; what is ether and the radiation through it; what is electricity and magnetism; how are these connected together and what is their relation to heat? These are the greater problems of the universe. But many infinitely smaller problems we must attack and solve before we can even guess at the solution of the greater ones.

In our attitude toward these greater problems how do we stand and what is the foundation of our knowledge?

Newton and the great array of astronomers who have succeeded him have proved that, within planetary distances, matter attracts all others with a force varying inversely as the square of the distance. But what sort of proof have we of this law? It is derived from astronomical observations on the planetary orbits. It agrees very well within these immense spaces; but where is the evidence that the law holds for smaller distances? We measure the lunar distance and the size of the earth and compare the force at that distance with the force of gravitation on the earth's surface. But to do this we must compare the matter in the earth with that in the sun. This we can only do by assuming the law to be proved. Again, in descending from the earth's gravitation to that of two small bodies, as in the Cavendish experiment, we assume the law to hold and deduce the mass of the earth in terms of our unit of mass. Hence, when we say that the mass of the earth is 5½ times that of an equal volume of water we assume the law of gravitation to be that of Newton. Thus a proof of the law from planetary down to terrestrial distances is physically impossible.

Again, that portion of the law which says that gravitational attraction is proportional to the quantity of matter, which is the same as saying that the attraction of one body by another is not affected by the presence of a third, the feeble proof that we give by weighing bodies in a balance in different positions with respect to each other cannot be accepted on a larger scale. When we can tear the sun into two portions and prove that either of the two halves attracts half as much as the whole, then we shall have a proof worth mentioning.

Continue reading The Highest Aim of the Physicist free in the Wunder reader →