LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

spectroscope, or, as we may term the instrument, the ‘light-sifter,’ tells us of what nature an object which is a source of light may be. If the object is a luminous solid or liquid, the instrument converts its light into a rainbow-coloured streak. If the object is a luminous vapour, its light is converted into a few bright lines. And lastly, if the object is a luminous solid or liquid shining through any vapours, the rainbow-coloured streak again makes its appearance, but it is now crossed by dark lines, corresponding to the vapours which surround the object and absorb a portion of its light.

      But I must not omit to notice two circumstances which render the interpretation of a spectrum somewhat less simple than it would otherwise be.

      In the first place, if an object is shining by reflected light its spectrum is precisely similar to that of the object whose light illuminates it. Thus we cannot pronounce positively as to the nature of an object merely from the appearance of its spectrum, unless we are quite certain that the object is self-luminous. For example, we observe the solar spectrum to be a rainbow-coloured streak crossed by a multitude of dark lines, and we conclude accordingly that the sun is an incandescent globe shining through a complex vaporous atmosphere. We feel no doubt on this point, because we are absolutely certain that the sun is self-luminous. Again, we observe the spectrum of the moon to be exactly similar to the solar spectrum, only, of course, much less brilliant. And here also we feel no doubt in interpreting the result. We know, certainly, that the moon is not self-luminous, and therefore we conclude with the utmost certainty that the light we receive from her is simply reflected solar light. So far all is clear. But now take the case of an object like a comet, which may or may not be self-luminous. If we find that a comet’s spectrum resembles the sun’s—and this is not altogether a hypothetical case, for a portion of the light of every comet yet examined does in reality give a rainbow-coloured streak resembling the solar spectrum—we cannot form, in that case, any such positive conclusion. The comet may be a self-luminous body; but, on the other hand, its light may be due merely to the reflection of the solar beams. Accordingly, the spectroscopist always accompanies the record of such an observation with an expression of doubt as to the real nature of the object which is the source of light.

      Secondly, when an electric spark flashes through any vapour, its light gives a spectrum which indicates the nature, not only of the vapour through which the spark has passed, but of the substances between which the spark has travelled. Thus, if we cause an electric flash to pass between iron points through common air, we see in the spectrum the numerous bright lines which form the spectrum of iron, and in addition we see the bright lines belonging to the gases which form our atmosphere.

      Both the considerations above discussed are of the utmost importance in studying the subject of the auroral light as analysed by the spectroscope, because there are many difficulties in forming a general opinion as to the nature of the auroral light, while there are circumstances which would lead us to anticipate that the light is electric.

      I notice also in passing that we owe to the Swedish physicist Ångström a large share of the researches on which the above results respecting the spectrum of the electric spark are founded. The reader will presently see why I have brought Ångström’s name prominently forward in connection with the interesting branch of spectroscopic analysis just referred to. If the discovery we are approaching had been effected by a tyro in the use of the spectroscope, doubts might very reasonably have been entertained respecting the exactness of the observations on which the discovery rests.

      It was suggested many years ago, long indeed before the true powers of spectroscopic analysis had been revealed, that perhaps if the light of the aurora were analysed by the prism, evidence could be obtained of its electric nature. The eminent meteorologist Dové remarked, for instance, that ‘the peculiarities presented by the electric light are so marked that it appears easy to decide definitely by prismatic analysis whether the light of the aurora is or is not electric.’ Singularly enough, however, the first proof that the auroral light is of an electric nature was derived from a very different mode of inquiry. Dr. Robinson, of Armagh, discovered in 1858 (a year before Kirchhoff’s recognition of the powers of spectroscopic analysis) that the light of the aurora possesses in a peculiar degree a property termed fluorescence, which is a recognised and characteristic property of the light produced by electrical discharges. ‘These effects,’ he remarks of the appearances presented by the auroral light under the tests he applied, ‘were so strong in relation to the actual intensity of the light, that they appear to afford an additional evidence of the electric origin of the phenomenon.’

      Passing over this ingenious application of one of the most singular and interesting properties of light, we find that the earliest determination of the real nature of the auroral light—or rather of its spectrum—was that effected by Ångström. This observer took advantage of the occurrence of a brilliant aurora in the winter of 1867–68 to analyse the spectrum of the coloured streamers. A single bright line only was seen! Otto Struve, an eminent Russian astronomer, shortly afterwards made confirmatory observations. At the meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society in June, 1868, Mr. Huggins thus described Struve’s results:—‘In a letter, M. Otto Struve has informed me that he has had two good opportunities of observing the spectrum of the aurora borealis. The spectrum consists of one line, and the light is therefore monochromatic. The line falls near the margin of the yellow and green portions of the spectrum. … This shows that the monochromatic light is greenish, which surprised me; but General Sabine tells me that in his polar expeditions he has frequently seen the aurora tinged with green, and this appearance corresponds with the position of the line seen by M. Struve.’

      The general import of this observation there is no mistaking. It teaches us that the light of the aurora is due to luminous vapour, and we may conclude, with every appearance of probability, that the luminosity of the vapour is due to the passage of electric discharges through it. It is, however, possible that the position of the bright line may be due to the character of the particles between which the discharges take place.

      But the view we are to take must depend upon the position of the line. Here a difficulty presents itself. There is no known terrestrial element whose spectrum has a bright line precisely in the position of the line in the auroral spectrum. And mere proximity has no significance whatever in spectroscopic analysis. Two elements differing as much from each other in character as iron and hydrogen may have lines so closely approximating in position that only the most powerful spectroscope can indicate the difference. So that when Ångström remarks that the bright line he has seen lies slightly to the left of a well-known group of lines belonging to the metal calcium (the principal ingredient of common chalk), we are by no means to infer that he supposes the substance which causes the presence of the bright line has any resemblance to that element. Until we can find an element which has a bright line in its spectrum absolutely coincident with the bright line detected by Ångström in the spectrum of the aurora,[1] all speculation as to the real nature of the vapour in which the auroral electric discharge takes place, or of the substances between which the spark travels, is altogether precluded.

      It was supposed after the total solar eclipse of 1869 that the spectrum of the sun’s corona exhibited the same bright lines as the aurora. But recent observations show that the coincidence is not so close as had been supposed, and, in fact, there is no evidence to show that the lines are the same.

      (From Fraser’s Magazine, February 1870.)

THE EARTH A MAGNET.

       Table of Contents

      There is a very prevalent but erroneous opinion that the magnetic needle points to the north. I remember well how I discovered in my boyhood that the needle does not point to the north, for the discovery was impressed upon me in a very unpleasant manner. I had purchased a pocket-compass, and was very anxious—not, indeed, to test the instrument, since I placed implicit reliance upon its indications—but to make use of it as a guide across unknown regions. Not many miles from where I lived lay Cobham Wood, no very extensive forest certainly, but large enough to lose oneself in. Thither, accordingly, I proceeded with three schoolfellows. When we had lost ourselves, we gleefully called the compass into action, and

Скачать книгу