Obsolete: On the Conservation of Force

See: Comments on Faraday’s Principle of Force

Faraday

Reference: Disturbance Theory

.

This is a talk by Michael Faraday delivered on February 27, 1857. It is available at the Proceedings of the Royal Institution, Vol. II. p. 352I have added my comments (indented and in a different color) to each paragraph of this letter.

What Faraday is talking about in this paper is the conservation of “matter, energy and space”. Matter, energy and spaceconvert into each other through TIME. Faraday had sent this paper to Maxwell, who read it, but completely missed its meaning.

Faraday was way ahead of his time. If Faraday were to comment on the phenomenon of “quantum entanglement” today he would definitely talk about the participation of the space in between.

.

On the Conservation of Force

Various circumstances induce me at the present moment to put forth a consideration regarding the conservation of force. I do not suppose that I can utter any truth respecting it that has not already presented itself to the high and piercing intellects which move within the exalted regions of science ; but the course of my own investigations and views makes me think that the consideration may be of service to those persevering labourers (amongst whom I endeavour to class myself), who, occupied in the comparison of physical ideas with fundamental principles, and continually sustaining and aiding themselves by experiment and observation, delight to labour for the advance of natural knowledge, and strive to follow it into undiscovered regions.

Faraday was an experimentalist. He had differences of opinions with theoretical scientists. Here he is standing his ground on what he believes, and trying to communicate it. First of all his definition of “force” is different from the Newtonian definition.

 To Faraday, “force is the source or sources of all possible actions of the particles or materials of the universe, these being often called the powers of nature when spoken of in respect of the different manners in which their effects are shown.”

 Conservation of force, then, is the conservation of all possible effects in this universe. This is an all-encompassing concept.

There is no question which lies closer to the root of all physical knowledge, than that which inquires whether force can be destroyed or not. The progress of the strict science of modern times has tended more and more to produce the conviction that “force can neither be created nor destroyed,” and to render daily more manifest the value of the knowledge of that truth in experimental research. To admit, indeed, that force may be destructible or can altogether disappear, would be to admit that matter could be uncreated ; for we know matter only by its forces : and though one of these is most commonly referred to, namely gravity, to prove its presence, it is not because gravity has any pretension, or any exemption amongst the forms of force, as regards the principle of conservation ; but simply that being, as far as we perceive, inconvertible in its nature and unchangeable in its manifestation, it offers an unchanging test of the matter which we recognize by it.

The fundamental question is, “Can force be destroyed?” This is akin to asking, “Can matter be uncreated?” because we know matter only by its forces. The force very intimate to matter is gravity. Gravity appears to be inconvertible in its nature and unchangeable in its manifestation. Therefore, a close examination of gravity may help settle the above question.

Agreeing with those who admit the conservation of force to be a principle in physics as large and sure as that of the indestructibility of matter, or the invariability of gravity, I think that no particular idea of force has a right to unlimited or unqualified acceptance, that does not include assent to it; and also, to definite amount and definite disposition of the force, either in one effect or another, for these are necessary consequences : therefore, I urge, that the conservation of force ought to be admitted as a physical principle in all our hypotheses, whether partial or general, regarding the actions of matter. I have had doubts in my own mind whether the considerations I am about to advance are not rather metaphysical than physical. I am unable to define what is metaphysical in physical science ; and am exceedingly adverse to the easy and unconsidered admission of one supposition upon another, suggested as they often are by very imperfect induction from a small number of facts, or by a very imperfect observation of the facts themselves : but, on the other hand, I think the philosopher may be bold in his application of principles which have been developed by close inquiry, have stood through much investigation, and continually increase in force. For instance, time is growing up daily into importance as an element in the exercise of force.  The earth moves in its orbit in time ; the crust of the earth moves in time; light moves in time; an electro-magnet requires time for its charge by an electric current : to inquire, therefore, whether power, acting either at sensible or insensible distances, always acts in time, is not to be metaphysical ; if it acts in time and across space, it must act by physical lines of force ; and our view of the nature of the force may be affected to the extremest degree by the conclusions, which experiment and observation on time may supply ; being, perhaps, finally determinable only by them. To inquire after the possible time in which gravitating, magnetic, or electric force is exerted, is no more metaphysical than to mark the times of the hands of a clock in their progress; or that of the temple of Serapis in its ascents and descents; or the periods of the occultations of Jupiter’s satellites; or that in which the light from them comes to the earth. Again, in some of the known cases of action in time, something happens whilst the time is passing which did not happen before, and does not continue after: it is therefore not metaphysical to expect an effect in every case, or to endeavour to discover its existence and determine its nature. So in regard to the principle of the conservation of force ; I do not think that to admit it, and its consequences, whatever they may be, is to be metaphysical : on the contrary, if that word have any application to physics, then I think that any hypothesis, whether of heat, or electricity, or gravitation, or any other form of force, which either wittingly or unwittingly dispenses with the principle of conservation, is more liable to the charge, than those which, by including it, become so far more strict and precise.

Faraday urges that the conservation of force ought to be admitted as a physical principle in all our hypotheses, whether partial or general, regarding the actions of matter. He observes that time is growing up daily into importance as an element in the exercise of force. If power acts in time and across space, it must act by physical lines of force. Inquiry after the possible time in which gravitating, magnetic, or electric force is exerted may be quite revealing, as projected by the principle of conservation of force. The conclusions from such an inquiry may affect our view of nature in a fundamental way.

Supposing that the truth of the principle of the conservation of force is assented to, I come to its uses. No hypothesis should be admitted nor any assertion of a fact credited, that denies the principle. No view should be inconsistent or incompatible with it. Many of our hypotheses in the present state of science may not comprehend it, and may be unable to suggest its consequences; but none should oppose or contradict it.

If the principle be admitted, we perceive at once, that a theory or definition, though it may not contradict the principle cannot be accepted as sufficient or complete unless the former be contained in it; that however well or perfectly the definition may include and represent the state of things commonly considered under it, that state or result is only partial, and must not be accepted as exhausting the power or being the full equivalent, and therefore cannot be considered as representing its whole nature; that, indeed, it may express only a very small part of the whole, only a residual phenomenon, and hence give us but little indication of the full natural truth. Allowing the principle its force, we ought, in every hypothesis; either to account for its consequences by saying what the changes are when force of a given kind apparently disappears, as when ice thaws, or else should leave space for the idea of the conversion. If any hypothesis, more or less trustworthy on other accounts, is insufficient in expressing it or incompatible with it, the place of deficiency or opposition should be marked as the most important for examination ; for there lies the hope of a discovery of new laws or a new condition of force. The deficiency should never be accepted as satisfactory, but be remembered and used as a stimulant to further inquiry; for conversions of force may here be hoped for.  Suppositions may be accepted for the time, provided they are not in contradiction with the principle. Even an increased or diminished capacity is better than nothing at all ; because such a supposition, if made, must be consistent with the nature of the original hypothesis, and may, therefore, by the application of experiment, be converted into a further test of probable truth. The case of a force simply removed or suspended, without a transferred exertion in some other direction, appears to me to be absolutely impossible.

Once we agree to this principle of conservation of force, we can hope for much greater result from all our hypotheses. This principle requires that any appearance or disappearance of force should not be ignored but fully investigated. Suppositions may be accepted for the time, provided they are not in contradiction with the principle. Such suppositions should then be tested for truth by experiments.

If the principle be accepted as true, we have a right to pursue it to its consequences, no matter what they may be. It is, indeed, a duty to do so. A theory may be perfection, as far as it goes, but a consideration going beyond it, is not for that reason to be shut out. We might as well accept our limited horizon as the limits of the world. No magnitude, either of the phenomena or of the results to be dealt with, should stop our exertions to ascertain, by the use of the principle, that something remains to be discovered, and to trace in what direction that discovery may lie.

According to Faraday, if the principle of the conservation of force is not fully satisfied then something remains to be discovered. Faraday is proposing this principle as an absolute rule because he is convinced of it as an experimentalist. Underlying the principle of the conservation of force we then have the logic of continuity, harmony and consistency.

I will endeavour to illustrate some of the points which have been urged, by reference, in the first instance, to a case of power, which has long had great attractions for me, because of its extreme simplicity, its promising nature, its universal presence, and its invariability under like circumstances; on which, though I have experimented and as yet failed, I think experiment would be well bestowed: I mean the force of gravitation. I believe I represent the received idea of the gravitating force aright, in saying, that it is a simple attractive force exerted between any two or all the particles or masses of matter, at every sensible distance, but with a strength varying inversely as the square of the distance. The usual idea of the force implies direct action at a distance; and such a view appears to present little difficulty except to Newton, and a few, including myself, who in that respect, may be of like mind with him.

Faraday was fascinated by the power of gravitation, and wanted to understand it fully. He understood that the usual idea of the force implied direct action at a distance, but he was not satisfied by it. He quotes Newton to be not satisfied with it as well:

“That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent, acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial I have left to the consideration of my readers.”–See Newton’s Third Letter to Bentley.

This idea of gravity appears to me to ignore entirely the principle of the conservation of force; and by the terms of its definition, if taken in an absolute sense “varying inversely as the square of the distance” to be in direct opposition to it; and it becomes my duty, now, to point out where this contradiction occurs, and to use it in illustration of the principle of conservation. Assume two particles of matter A and B, in free space, and a force in each or in both by which they gravitate towards each other, the force being unalterable for an unchanging distance, but varying inversely as the square of the distance when the latter varies. Then, at the distance of 10 the force may be estimated as 1 ; whilst at the distance of 1, i.e. one-tenth of the former, the force will be 100 : and if we suppose an elastic spring to be introduced between the two as a measure of the attractive force, the power compressing it will be a hundred times as much in the latter case as in the former. But from whence can this enormous increase of the power come? If we say that it is the character of this force, and content ourselves with that as a sufficient answer, then it appears to me, we admit a creation of power, and that to an enormous amount ; yet by a change of condition, so small and simple, as to fail in leading the least instructed mind to think that it can be a sufficient cause :—we should admit a result which would equal the highest act our minds can appreciate of the working of infinite power upon matter ; we should let loose the highest law in physical science which our faculties permit us to perceive, namely, the conservation of force. Suppose the two particles A and B removed back to the greater distance of 10, then the force of attraction would be only a hundredth part of that they previously possessed ; this, according to the statement that the force varies inversely as the square of the distance would double the strangeness of the above results; it would be an annihilation of force ; an effect equal in its infinity and its consequences with creation, and only within the power of Him who has created.

To Faraday, the idea of gravity as “direct action at a distance” appeared to ignore entirely the principle of the conservation of force. The power of force increased a hundred times when the distance was reduced to a tenth. Similarly, the power of force reduced a hundred times when the distance was increased ten times. How could this enormous creation and destruction of power come about by change of condition so small and simple? This required a closer examination.

We have a right to view gravitation under every form that either its definition or its effects can suggest to the mind; it is our privilege to do so with every force in nature; and it is only by so doing, that we have succeeded, to a large extent, in relating the various forms of power, so as to derive one from another, and thereby obtain confirmatory evidence of the great principle of the conservation of force. Then let us consider the two particles A and B as attracting each other by the force of gravitation, under another view. According to the definition, the force depends upon both particles, and if the particle A or B were by itself, it could not gravitate, i.e. it could have no attraction, no force of gravity. Supposing A to exist in that isolated state and without gravitating force, and then B placed in relation to it, gravitation comes on, as is supposed, on the part of both. Now, without trying to imagine how B, which had no gravitating force, can raise up gravitating force in A; and how A, equally without force beforehand can raise up force in B, still, to imagine it as a fact done, is to admit a creation of force in both particles; and so to bring ourselves within the impossible consequences which have already been referred to.

Faraday: The force of gravity depends upon two particles. If a particle were by itself it could have no force of gravity. Gravitation comes about only if another particle is placed in relation to it. What is the source of this power?

It may be said we cannot have an idea of one particle by itself, and so the reasoning fails. For my part I can comprehend a particle by itself just as easily as many particles; and though I cannot conceive the relation of a lone particle to gravitation, according to the limited view which is at present taken of that force, I can conceive its relation to something which causes gravitation, and with which, whether the particle is alone, or one of a universe of other particles, it is always related. But the reasoning upon a lone particle does not fail; for as the particles can be separated, we can easily conceive of the particle B being removed to an infinite distance from A, and then the power in A will be infinitely diminished. Such removal of B will be as if it were annihilated in regard to A, and the force in A will be annihilated at the same time : so that the case of a lone particle and that where different distances only are considered become one, being identical with each other in their consequences. And as removal of B to an infinite distance is as regards A annihilation of B, so removal to the smallest degree is, in principle, the same thing with displacement through infinite space: the smallest increase in distance involves annihilation of power; the annihilation of the second particle, so as to have A alone, involves no other consequence in relation to gravity; there is difference in degree, but no difference in the character of the result.

Faraday: Removal of the second particle (B) from the vicinity of the first particle (A), will also remove the power of gravity from A. Such removal of B will be as if it were annihilated in regard to A, and the force in A will be annihilated at the same time. The smallest increase in distance involves annihilation of power; the annihilation of the second particle, so as to have A alone.

It seems hardly necessary to observe, that the same line of thought grows up in the mind if we consider the mutual gravitating action of one particle and many. The particle A will attract the particle B at the distance of a mile with a certain degree of force ; it will attract a particle C at the same distance of a mile with a power equal to that by which it attracts B ; if myriads of like particles be placed at the given distance of a mile, A will attract each with equal force ; and if other particles be accumulated round it, within and without the sphere of two miles diameter, it will attract them all with a force varying inversely with the square of the distance. How are we to conceive of this force growing up in A to a million fold or more? and if the surrounding particles be then removed, of its diminution in an equal degree ? Or, how are we to look upon the power raised up in all these outer particles by the action of A on them, or by their action one on another, without admitting, according to the limited definition of gravitation, the facile generation and annihilation of force ?

Faraday: The gravitating factor is mutual. The force of gravity increases in particle A as it is surrounded by increasing number of particle B’s. A will attract each with equal force. The definition of gravity is thus limited as it does not explain the facile generation and annihilation of force.

The assumption which we make for the time with regard to the nature of a power (as gravity, heat, &c.), and the form of words in which we express it, i.e, its definition, should be consistent with the fundamental principles of force generally. The conservation of force is a fundamental principle ; henc’e the assumption with regard to a particular form of force, ought to imply what becomes of the force when its action is increased or diminished, or its direction changed ; or else the assumption should admit that it is deficient on that point, being only half competent to represent the force ; and, in any case, should not be opposed to the principle of conservation. The usual definition of gravity as an attractive force between the particles of matter VARYING inversely as the square of the distance, whilst it stands as a full definition of the power, is inconsistent with the principle of the conservation of force. If we accept the principle, such a definition must be an imperfect account of the whole of the force, and is probably only a description of one exercise of that power, whatever the nature of the force itself may be. If the definition be accepted as tacitly including the conservation of force, then it ought to admit, that consequences must occur during the suspended or diminished degree of its power as gravitation, equal in importance to the power suspended or hidden ; being in fact equivalent to that diminution. It ought also to admit, that it is incompetent to suggest or deal with any of the consequences of that changed part or condition of the force, and cannot tell whether they depend on, or are related to, conditions external or internal to the gravitating particle; and, as it appears to me, can say neither yes nor no to any of the arguments or probabilities belonging to the subject.

If the definition denies the occurrence of such contingent results, it seems to me to be unphilosophical ; if it simply ignores them, I think it is imperfect and insufficient ; if it admits these things, or any part of them, then it prepares the natural philosopher to look for effects and conditions as yet unknown, and is open to any degree of development of the consequences and relations of power : by denying, it opposes a dogmatic barrier to improvement ; by ignoring, it becomes in many respects an inert thing, often much in the way ; by admitting, it rises to the dignity of a stimulus to investigation, a pilot to human science.

Faraday: The usual definition of gravity as “an attractive force between the particles of matter VARYING inversely as the square of the distance”, whilst it stands as a full definition of the power, is inconsistent with the principle of the conservation of force. There is some truth missing that explains the role of space with regards to the force of gravity. This provides stimulus to further investigation.

The principle of the conservation of force would lead us to assume, that when A and B attract each other less because of increasing distance, then some other exertion of power, either within or without them, is proportionately growing up; and again, that when their distance is diminished, as from 10 to 1, the power of attraction, now increased a hundred-fold, has been produced out of some other form of power which has been equivalently reduced. This enlarged assumption of the nature of gravity is not more metaphysical than the half assumption; and is, I believe, more philosophical, and more in accordance with all physical considerations. The half assumption is, in my view of the matter, more dogmatic and irrational than the whole, because it leaves it to be understood, that power can be created and destroyed almost at pleasure.

When the equivalents of the various forms of force, as far as they are known, are considered, their differences appear very great; thus, a grain of water is known to have electric relations equivalent to a very powerful flash of lightning. It may therefore be supposed that a very large apparent amount of the force causing the phenomena of gravitation may be the equivalent of a very small change in some unknown condition of the bodies, whose attraction is varying by change of distance. For my own part, many considerations urge my mind toward the idea of a cause of gravity, which is not resident in the particles of matter merely, but constantly in them, and all space. I have already put forth considerations regarding gravity which partake of this idea, and it seems to have been unhesitatingly accepted by Newton.

The increase and decrease in the force of gravity due to changing distance seems to be compensated proportionally by reduction and growth of some other exertion of power.

Faraday: “For my own part, many considerations urge my mind toward the idea of a cause of gravity, which is not resident in the particles of matter merely, but constantly in them, and all space.”

There is one wonderful condition of matter, perhaps its only true indication, namely inertia; but in relation to the ordinary definition of gravity, it only adds to the difficulty. For if we consider two particles of matter at a certain distance apart, attracting each other under the power of gravity and free to approach, they will approach ; and when at only half the distance each will have had stored up in it, because of its inertia, a certain amount of mechanical force. This must be due to the force exerted, and, if the conservation principle be true, must have consumed an equivalent proportion of the cause of attraction ; and yet, according to the definition of gravity, the attractive force is not diminished thereby, but increased four-fold, the force growing up within itself the more rapidly, the more it is occupied in producing other force. On the other hand, if mechanical force from without be used to separate the particles to twice their distance, this force is not stored up in momentum or by inertia, but disappears ; and three-fourths of the attractive force at the first distance disappears with it : How can this be ?

We know not the physical condition or action from which inertia results; but inertia is always a pure case of the conservation of force. It has a strict relation to gravity, as appears by the proportionate amount of force which gravity can communicate to the inert body; but it appears to have the same strict relation to other forces acting at a distance as those of magnetism or electricity, when they are so applied by the tangential balance as to act independent of the gravitating force. It has the like strict relation to force communicated by impact, pull, or in any other way. It enables a body to take up and conserve a given amount of force until that force is transferred to other bodies, or changed into an equivalent of some other form; that is all that we perceive in it: and we cannot find a more striking instance amongst natural, or possible, phenomena of the necessity of the conservation of force as a law of nature; or one more in contrast with the assumed variable condition of the gravitating force supposed to reside in the particles of matter.

Even gravity itself furnishes the strictest proof of the conservation of force in this, that its power is unchangeable for the same distance; and is by that in striking contrast with the variation which we assume in regard to the cause of gravity, to account for the results at different distances.

The property of inertia of matter seems to be involved in pure conservation of force, same as gravity. In fact, inertia (as mass) seems to have a strict relation to gravity. However, neither can account for the change in the force of gravity with distance.

From Disturbance Theory point of view, inertia relates to the structure of a particle, whereas, the force of gravity relates to the interaction between two particles and the space in between. The common element is that both inertia and gravity can be explained by disturbance in space.

It will not be imagined for a moment that I am opposed to what may be called the law of gravitating action, that is, the law by which all the known effects of gravity are governed; what I am considering, is the definition of the force of gravitation. That the result of one exercise of a power may be inversely as the square of the distance, I believe and admit; and I know that it is so in the case of gravity, and has been verified to an extent that could hardly have been within the conception even of Newton himself when he gave utterance to the law : but that the totality of a force can be employed according to that law I do not believe, either in relation to gravitation, or electricity, or magnetism, or any other supposed form of power.

The mathematical formulation of the law that power may be inversely as the square of the distance, is correct but it does not completely define or cover the force of gravitation, electricity or magnetism.

I might have drawn reasons for urging a continual recollection of, and reference to, the principle of the conservation of force from other forms of power than that of gravitation; but I think that when founded on gravitating phenomena, they appear in their greatest simplicity; and precisely for this reason, that gravitation has not yet been connected by any degree of convertibility with the other forms of force. If I refer for a few minutes to these other forms, it is only to point in their variations, to the proofs of the value of the principle laid down, the consistency of the known phenomena with it, and the suggestions of research and discovery which arise from it. Heat, for instance, is a mighty form of power, and its effects have been greatly developed; therefore, assumptions regarding its nature become useful and necessary, and philosophers try to define it. The most probable assumption is, that it is a motion of the particles of matter; but a view, at one time very popular, is, that it consists of a particular fluid of heat. Whether it be viewed in one way or the other, the principle of conservation is admitted, I believe, with all its force. When transferred from one portion to another portion of like matter the full amount of heat appears. When transferred to matter of another kind an apparent excess or deficiency often results; the word ” capacity ” is then introduced, which, whilst it acknowledges the principle of conservation, leaves space for research. When employed in changing the state of bodies, the appearance and disappearance of the heat is provided for consistently by the assumption of enlarged or diminished motion, or else space is left by the term ” capacity“ for the partial views; which remains to be developed. When converted into mechanical force, in the steam or air-engine, and so brought into direct contact with gravity, being then easily placed in relation to it, still the conservation of force is fully respected and wonderfully sustained. The constant amount of heat developed in the whole of a voltaic current described by M. P. A. Favre, and the present state of the knowledge of thermo-electricity, are again fine partial or subordinate illustrations of the principle of conservation. Even when rendered radiant, and for the time giving no trace or signs of ordinary heat action, the assumptions regarding its nature have provided for the belief in the conservation of force, by admitting, either that it throws the ether into an equivalent state, in sustaining which for the time the power is engaged; or else, that the motion of the particles of heat is employed altogether in their own transit from place to place.

The force of gravitation appears to be the simplest form of all; and that is why it has not yet been connected by any degree of convertibility with the other forms of force. Heat as a form of force is better understood as motion of the particles of matter. Its convertibility is an illustration of the principle of conservation.

It is true that heat often becomes evident or insensible in a manner unknown to us ; and we have a right to ask what is happening when the heat disappears in one part, as of the thermos-voltaic current, and appears in another ; or when it enlarges or changes the state of bodies ; or what would happen, if the heat, being presented, such changes were purposely opposed. We have a right to ask these questions, but not to ignore or deny the conservation of force; and one of the highest uses of the principle is to suggest such inquiries. Explications of similar points are continually produced, and will be most abundant from the hands of those who, not desiring to ease their labour by forgetting the principle, are ready to admit it either tacitly, or better still, effectively, being then continually guided by it. Such philosophers believe that heat must do its equivalent of work : that if in doing work it seem to disappear, it is still producing its equivalent effect, though often in a manner partially or totally unknown; and that if it give rise to another form of force (as we imperfectly express it), that force is equivalent in power to the heat which has disappeared.

When changes occur in heat we must investigate the occurrence based on the belief that heat must do its equivalent of work. if in doing work heat seems to disappear, it is still producing its equivalent effect, though often in a manner partially or totally unknown; and that if it give rise to another form of force (as we imperfectly express it), that force is equivalent in power to the heat which has disappeared. This is application of the principle of conservation of force.

What is called chemical attraction, affords equally instructive and suggestive considerations in relation to the principle of the conservation of force. The indestructibility of individual matter, is one case, and a most important one, of the conservation of chemical force. A molecule has been endowed with powers which give rise in it to various qualities, and these never change, either in their nature or amount. A particle of oxygen is ever a particle of oxygen—nothing can in the least wear it. If it enters into combination and disappears as oxygen,—if it pass through a thousand combinations, animal, vegetable, mineral,—if it lie hid for a thousand years and then be evolved, it is oxygen with its first qualities, neither more nor less. It has all its original force, and only that ; the amount of force which it disengaged when hiding itself, has again to be employed in a reverse direction when it is set at liberty ; and if, hereafter, we should decompose oxygen, and find it compounded of other particles, we should only increase the strength of the proof of the conservation of force, for we should have a right to say of these particles, long as they have been hidden, all that we could say of the oxygen itself.

Again, the body of facts included in the theory of definite proportions, witnesses to the truth of the conservation of force ; and though we know little of the cause of the change of properties of the acting and produced bodies, or how the forces of the former are hid amongst those of the latter, we do not for an instant doubt the conservation, but are moved to look for the manner in which the forces are, for the time, disposed, or if they have taken up another form of force, to search what that form may be.

Even chemical action at a distance, which is in such antithetical contrast with the ordinary exertion of chemical affinity, since it can produce effects miles away from the particles on which they depend, and which are effectual only by forces acting at insensible distances, still proves the same thing, the conservation of force. Preparations can be made for a chemical action in the simple voltaic circuit, but until the circuit be complete that action does not occur ; yet in completing we can so arrange the circuit, that a distant chemical action, the perfect equivalent of the dominant chemical action, shall be produced; and this result, whilst it establishes the electro chemical equivalent of power, establishes the principle of the conservation of force also, and at the same time suggests many collateral inquiries which have yet to be made and answered, before all that concerns the conservation in this case can be understood.

This and other instances of chemical action at a distance, carry our inquiring thoughts on from the facts to the physical mode of the exertion of force; for the qualities which seem located and fixed to certain particles of matter appear at a distance in connexion with particles altogether different. They also lead our thoughts to the conversion of one form of power into another: as for instance, in the heat which the elements of a voltaic pile may either show at the place where they act by their combustion or combination together; or in the distance, where the electric spark may be rendered manifest; or in the wire or fluids of the different parts of the circuit.

The conservation of force has been variously demonstrated in chemical attraction, theory of definite proportions, and even in chemical actions at a distance. In the last case, this raises the question about the physical mode of the exertion of force. It also takes our thoughts to the conversion of one form of power into another.

When we occupy ourselves with the dual forms of power, electricity and magnetism, we find great latitude of assumption; and necessarily so, for the powers become more and more complicated in their conditions. But still there is no apparent desire to let loose the force of the principle of conservation, even in those cases where the appearance and disappearance of force may seem most evident and striking. Electricity appears when there is consumption of no other force than that required for friction; we do not know how, but we search to know, not being willing to admit that the electric force can arise out of nothing. The two electricities are developed in equal proportions; and having appeared, we may dispose variously of the influence of one upon successive portions of the other, causing many changes in relation, yet never able to make the sum of the force of one kind in the least degree exceed or come short of the sum of the other. In that necessity of equality, we see another direct proof of the conservation of force, in the midst of a thousand changes that require to be developed in their principles before we can consider this part of science as even moderately known to us.

One assumption with regard to electricity is, that there is an electric fluid rendered evident by excitement in plus and minus proportions. Another assumption is, that there are two fluids of electricity, each particle of each repelling all particles like itself, and attracting all particles of the other kind always, and with a force proportionate to the inverse square of the distance, being so far analogous to the definition of gravity. This hypothesis is antagonistic to the law of the conservation of force, and open to all the objections that have been, or may be, made against the ordinary definition of gravity. Another assumption is, that each particle of the two electricities has a given amount of power, and can only attract contrary particles with the sum of that amount, acting upon each of two with only half the power it could in like circumstances exert upon one. But various as are the assumptions, the conservation of force, (though wanting in the second,) is, I think, intended to be included in all. I might repeat the same observations nearly in regard to magnetism,—whether it be assumed as a fluid, or two fluids or electric currents,—whether the external action be supposed to be action at a distance, or dependent on an external condition and lines of force—still all are intended to admit the conservation of power as a principle to which the phenomena are subject.

The principles of physical knowledge are now so far developed as to enable us not merely to define or describe the known, but to state reasonable expectations regarding the unknown ; and I think the principle of the conservation of force may greatly aid experimental philosophers in that duty to science, which consists in the enunciation of problems to be solved. It will lead us, in any case where the force remaining unchanged in form is altered in direction only, to look for the new disposition of the force ; as in the cases of magnetism, static electricity, and perhaps gravity, and to ascertain that as a whole it remains unchanged in amount :—or, if the original force disappear, either altogether or in part, it will lead us to look for the new condition or form of force which should result, and to develope its equivalency to the force that has disappeared. Likewise, when force is developed, it will cause us to consider the previously existing equivalent to the force so appearing; and many such cases there are in chemical action. When force disappears, as in the electric or magnetic induction after more or less discharge, or that of gravity with an increasing distance; it will suggest a research as to whether the equivalent change is one within the apparently acting bodies, or one external (in part) to them. It will also raise up inquiry as to the nature of the internal or external state, both before the change and after. If supposed to be external, it will suggest the necessity of a physical process, by which the power is communicated from body to body; and in the case of external action, will lead to the inquiry whether, in any case, there can be truly action at a distance, or whether the ether, or some other medium, is not necessarily present.

We are not permitted as yet to see the nature of the source of physical power, but we are allowed to see much of the consistency existing amongst the various forms in which it is presented to us.  Thus if, in static electricity, we consider an act of induction, we can perceive the consistency of all other like acts of induction with it. If we then take an electric current, and compare it with this inductive effect, we see their relation and consistency. In the same manner we have arrived at a knowledge of the consistency of magnetism with electricity, and also of chemical action and of heat with all the former; and if we see not the consistency between gravitation with any of these forms of force, I am strongly of the mind that it is because of our ignorance only. How imperfect would our idea of an electric current now be, if we were to leave out of sight its origin, its static and dynamic induction, its magnetic influence, its chemical and heating effects? or our idea of any one of these results, if we left any of the others unregarded? That there should be a power of gravitation existing by itself, having no relation to the other natural powers, and no respect to the law of the conservation of force, is as little likely as that there should be a principle of levity as well as of gravity. Gravity may be only the residual part of the other forces of nature, as Mossotti has tried to show; but that it should fall out from the law of all other force, and should be outside the reach either of further experiment or philosophical conclusions, is not probable. So we must strive to learn more of this outstanding power, and endeavour to avoid any definition of it which is incompatible with the principles of force generally, for all the phenomena of nature lead us to believe that the great and governing law is one. I would much rather incline to believe that bodies affecting each other by gravitation act by lines of force of definite amount (somewhat in the manner of magnetic or electric induction, though without polarity), or by an ether pervading all parts of space, than admit that the conservation of force could be dispensed with.

The principle of conservation of forces may be used to sort out the assumptions being used to explain the nature of electricity, magnetism and gravitation, and to explore new dispositions. We may arrive at new knowledge by seeking consistency among these forms of force. It is very unlikely that the power of gravitation exists by itself, having no relation to the other natural powers, and no respect to the law of the conservation of force.

It may be supposed, that one who has little or no mathematical knowledge should hardly assume a right to judge of the generality and force of a principle such as that which forms the subject of these remarks. My apology is this, I do not perceive that a mathematical mind, simply as such, has any advantage over an equally acute mind not mathematical, in perceiving the nature and power of a natural principle of action. It cannot of itself introduce the knowledge of any new principle. Dealing with any and every amount of static electricity, the mathematical mind can, and has balanced and adjusted them with wonderful advantage, and has foretold results which the experimentalist can do no more than verify. But it could not discover dynamic-electricity, nor electromagnetism, nor magneto-electricity, or even suggest them; though when once discovered by the experimentalist, it can take them up with extreme facility. So in respect of the force of gravitation, it has calculated the results of the power in such a wonderful manner as to trace the known planets through their courses and perturbations, and in so doing has discovered a planet before unknown; but there may be results of the gravitating force of other kinds than attraction inversely as the square of the distance, of which it knows nothing, can discover nothing, and can neither assert nor deny their possibility or occurrence. Under these circumstances, a principle, which may be accepted as equally strict with mathematical knowledge, comprehensible without it, applicable by all in their philosophical logic whatever form that may take, and above all, suggestive, encouraging, and instructive to the mind of the experimentalist, should be the more earnestly employed and the more frequently resorted to when we are labouring either to discover new regions of science, or to map out and develop those which are known into one harmonious whole ; and if in such strivings, we, whilst applying the principle of conservation, see but imperfectly, still we should endeavour to see, for even an obscure and distorted vision is better than none. Let us, if we can, discover a new thing in any shape; the true appearance and character will be easily developed afterwards.

The above is a wonderful paragraph that must be studied on its own.

Some are much surprised that I should, as they think, venture to oppose the conclusions of Newton: but here there is a mistake. I do not oppose Newton on any point; it is rather those who sustain the idea of action at a distance, that contradict him. Doubtful as I ought to be of myself, I am certainly very glad to feel that my convictions are in accordance with his conclusions. At the same time, those who occupy themselves with such matters ought not to depend altogether upon authority, but should find reason within themselves, after careful thought and consideration, to use and abide by their own judgment. Newton himself, whilst referring to those who were judging his views, speaks of such as are competent to form an opinion in such matters, and makes a strong distinction between them and those who were incompetent for the case.

Faraday is answering the criticism of those who wanted to strictly sustain the idea of action at a distance and did not want to consider Faraday’s approach to considering space as part of the overall equation.

But after all, the principle of the conservation of force may by some be denied. Well, then, if it be unfounded even in its application to the smallest part of the science of force, the proof must be within our reach, for all physical science is so. In that case, discoveries as large or larger than any yet made, may be anticipated. I do not resist the search for them, for no one can do harm, but only good, who works with an earnest and truthful spirit in such a direction. But let us not admit the destruction or creation of force without clear and constant proof. Just as the chemist owes all the perfection of his science to his dependence on the certainty of gravitation applied by the balance, so may the physical philosopher expect to find the greatest security and the utmost aid in the principle of the conservation of force. All that we have that is good and safe, as the steam-engine, the electric-telegraph, &c., witness to that principle,—it would require a perpetual motion, a fire without heat, heat without a source, action without reaction, cause without effect, or effect without a cause, to displace it from its rank as a law of nature.

This concluding paragraph should be studied on its own.

.

 

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • vinaire  On May 19, 2017 at 4:45 PM

    I have now completed my comments in the second half of this paper.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: