Each theory has its
difficulties. We do not know the origin of the electron, because
we do not know the nature of ether. To some it is an elastic
solid, quivering in waves at every movement of the particles; to
others it is a continuous fluid, every cubic millimetre of which
possesses "an energy equivalent to the output of a
million-horse-power station for 40.000,000 years" (Lodge); to
others it is a close-packed granular mass with a pressure of
10,000 tons per square centimetre. We must wait. It is little
over ten years since the vaults were opened and physicists began
to peer into the sub-material world. The lower, perhaps lowest,
depth is reserved for another generation.
But it may be said that the research of the last ten years has
given us a glimpse of the foundations of the universe. Every
theory of the electron assumes it to be some sort of nodule or
disturbed area in the ether. It is sometimes described as "a
particle of negative electricity" and associated with "a particle
of positive electricity" in building up the atom. The phrase is
misleading for those who regard electricity as a force or energy,
and it gives rise to speculation as to whether "matter" has not
been resolved into "force.
Pages:
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56