Essays · Herbert Spencer
ADDENDA.
Speculative as is much of the foregoing essay, it appears undesirable to include in it anything still more speculative. For this reason I have decided to set forth separately some views concerning the genesis of the so-called elements during nebular condensation, and concerning the accompanying physical effects. At the same time it has seemed best to detach from the essay some of the more debatable conclusions originally contained in it; so that its general argument may not be needlessly implicated with them. These new portions, together with the old portions which re-appear more or less modified, I here append in a series of notes. NOTE I. For the belief that the so-called elements are compound there are both special reasons and general reasons. Among the special may be named the parallelism between allotropy and isomerism; the numerous lines in the spectrum of each element; and the cyclical law of Newlands and Mendeljeff. Of the more general reasons, which, as distinguished from these chemical or chemico-physical ones, may fitly be called cosmical, the following are the chief.
The general law of evolution, if it does not actually involve the conclusion that the so-called elements are compounds, yet affords _a priori_ ground for suspecting that they are such. The implication is that, while the matter composing the Solar System has progressed physically from that relatively-homogeneous state which it had as a nebula to that relatively-heterogeneous state presented by Sun, planets, and satellites, it has also progressed chemically, from the relatively-homogeneous state in which it was composed of one or a few types of matter, to that relatively-heterogeneous state in which it is composed of many types of matter very diverse in their properties. This deduction from the law which holds throughout the cosmos as now known to us, would have much weight even were it unsupported by induction; but a survey of chemical phenomena at large discloses several groups of inductive evidences supporting it.
The first is that since the cooling of the Earth reached an advanced stage, the components of its crust have been ever increasing in heterogeneity. When the so-called elements, originally existing in a dissociated state, united into oxides, acids, and other binary compounds, the total number of different substances was immensely augmented, the new substances were more complex than the old, and their properties were more varied. That is, the assemblage became more heterogeneous in its kinds, in the composition of each kind, and in the range of chemical characters. When, at a later period, there arose salts and other compounds of similar degrees of complexity, there was again an increase of heterogeneity, alike in the aggregate and in its members. And when, still later, matters classed as organic became possible, the multiformity was yet further augmented in kindred ways. If, then, chemical evolution, so far as we can trace it, has been from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous, may we not fairly suppose that it has been so from the beginning? If, from late stages in the Earth's history, we run back, and find the lines of chemical evolution continually converging, until they bring us to bodies which we cannot decompose, may we not suspect that, could we run back these lines still further, we should come to still decreasing heterogeneity in the number and nature of the substances, until we reached something like homogeneity?
A parallel argument may be derived from consideration of the affinities and stabilities of chemical compounds. Beginning with the complex nitrogenous bodies out of which living things are formed, and which, in the history of the Earth, are the most modern, at the same time that they are the most heterogeneous, we see that the affinities and stabilities of these are extremely small. Their molecules do not enter bodily into union with those of other substances so as to form more complex compounds still, and their components often fail to hold together under ordinary conditions. A stage lower in degree of composition we come to the vast assemblage of oxy-hydro-carbons, numbers of which show many and decided affinities, and are stable at common temperatures. Passing to the inorganic group, we are shown by the salts &c. strong affinities between their components and unions which are, in many cases, not very easily broken. And then when we come to the oxides, acids, and other binary compounds, we see that in many cases the elements of which they are formed, when brought into the presence of one another under favourable conditions, unite with violence; and that many of their unions cannot be dissolved by heat alone. If, then, as we go back from the most modern and most complex substances to the most ancient and simplest substances, we see, on the average, a great increase in affinity and stability, it results that if the same law holds with the simplest substances known to us, the components of these, if they are compound, may be assumed to have united with affinities far more intense than any we have experience of, and to cling together with tenacities far exceeding the tenacities with which chemistry acquaints us. Hence the existence of a class of substances which are undecomposable and therefore seem simple, appears to be an implication; and the corollary is that these were formed during early stages of terrestrial concentration, under conditions of heat and pressure which we cannot now parallel.
Yet another support for the belief that the so-called elements are compounds, is derived from a comparison of them, considered as an aggregate ascending in their molecular weights, with the aggregate of bodies known to be compound, similarly considered in their ascending molecular weights. Contrast the binary compounds as a class with the quaternary compounds as a class. The molecules constituting oxides (whether alkaline or acid or neutral) chlorides, sulphurets, &c. are relatively small; and, combining with great avidity, form stable compounds. On the other hand, the molecules constituting nitrogenous bodies are relatively vast and are chemically inert; and such combinations as their simpler types enter into, cannot withstand disturbing forces. Now a like difference is seen if we contrast with one another the so-called elements. Those of relatively-low molecular weights--oxygen, hydrogen, potassium, sodium, &c.,--show great readiness to unite among themselves; and, indeed, many of them cannot be prevented from uniting under ordinary conditions. Contrariwise, under ordinary conditions the substances of high molecular weights--the "noble metals"--are indifferent to other substances; and such compounds as they do form under conditions specially adjusted, are easily destroyed. Thus as, among the bodies we know to be compound, increasing molecular weight is associated with the appearance of certain characters, and as, among the bodies we class as simple, increasing molecular weight is associated with the appearance of similar characters, the composite nature of the elements is in another way pointed to.
There has to be added one further class of phenomena, congruous with those above named, which here specially concerns us. Looking generally at chemical unions, we see that the heat evolved usually decreases as the degree of composition, and consequent massiveness, of the molecules, increases. In the first place, we have the fact that during the formation of simple compounds the heat evolved is much greater than that which is evolved during the formation of complex compounds: the elements, when uniting with one another, usually give out much heat; while, when the compounds they form are recompounded, but little heat is given out; and, as shown by the experiments of Prof. Andrews, the heat given out during the union of acids and bases is habitually smaller where the molecular weight of the base is greater. Then, in the second place, we see that among the elements themselves, the unions of those having low molecular weights result in far more heat than do the unions of those having high molecular weights. If we proceed on the supposition that the so-called elements are compounds, and if this law, if not universal, holds of undecomposable substances as of decomposable, then there are two implications. The one is that those compoundings and recompoundings by which the elements were formed, must have been accompanied by degrees of heat exceeding any degrees of heat known to us. The other is that among these compoundings and recompoundings themselves, those by which the small-moleculed elements were formed produced more intense heat than those by which the large-moleculed elements were formed: the elements formed by the final recompoundings being necessarily later in origin, and at the same time less stable, than the earlier-formed ones.
NOTE II. May we from these propositions, and especially from the last, draw any conclusions respecting the evolution of heat during nebular condensation? And do such conclusions affect in any way the conclusions now current? In the first place, it seems inferable from physico-chemical facts at large, that only through the instrumentality of those combinations which formed the elements, did the concentration of diffused nebulous matter into concrete masses become possible. If we remember that hydrogen and oxygen in their uncombined states oppose, the one an insuperable and the other an almost insuperable, resistance to liquefaction, while when combined the compound assumes the liquid state with facility, we may suspect that in like manner the simpler types of matter out of which the elements were formed, could not have been reduced even to such degrees of density as the known gases show us, without what we may call proto-chemical unions: the implication being that after the heat resulting from each of such proto-chemical unions had escaped, mutual gravitation of the parts was able to produce further condensation of the nebulous mass.
If we thus distinguish between the two sources of heat accompanying nebular condensation--the heat due to proto-chemical combinations and that due to the contraction caused by gravitation (both of them, however, being interpretable as consequent on loss of motion), it may be inferred that they take different shares during the earlier and during the later stages of aggregation. It seems probable that while the diffusion is great and the force of mutual gravitation small, the chief source of heat is combination of units of matter, simpler than any known to us, into such units of matter as those we know; while, conversely, when there has been reached close aggregation, the chief source of heat is gravitation, with consequent pressure and gradual contraction. Supposing this to be so, let us ask what may be inferred. If at the time when the nebulous spheroid from which the Solar System resulted, filled the orbit of Neptune, it had reached such a degree of density as enabled those units of matter which compose the sodium molecules to enter into combination; and if, in conformity with the analogies above indicated, the heat evolved by this proto-chemical combination was great compared with the heats evolved by the chemical combinations known to us; the implication is that the nebulous spheroid, in the course of its contraction, would have to get rid of a much larger quantity of heat than it would, did it commence at any ordinary temperature and had only to lose the heat consequent on contraction. That is to say, in estimating the past period during which solar emission of heat has been going on at a high rate, much must depend on the initial temperature assumed; and this may have been rendered intense by the proto-chemical changes which took place in early stages.[21]
Respecting the future duration of the solar heat, there must also be differences between the estimates made according as we do or do not take into account the proto-chemical changes which possibly have still to take place. True as it may be that the quantity of heat to be emitted is measured by the quantity of motion to be lost, and that this must be the same whether the approximation of the molecules is effected by chemical unions, or by mutual gravitation, or by both; yet, evidently, everything must turn on the degree of condensation supposed to be eventually reached; and this must in large measure depend on the natures of the substances eventually formed. Though, by spectrum-analysis, platinum has recently been detected in the solar atmosphere, it seems clear that the metals of low molecular weights greatly predominate; and supposing the foregoing arguments to be valid, it may be inferred, as not improbable, that the compoundings and recompoundings by which the heavy-moleculed elements are produced, not hitherto possible in large measure, will hereafter take place; and that, as a result, the Sun's density will finally become very great in comparison with what it is now.
"But what," it may be asked, "will become of this gaseous nucleus when exposed to the enormous gravitative pressure of a shell some thousands of miles thick? How can aeriform matter withstand such a pressure?" Very readily. It has been proved that, even when the heat generated by compression is allowed to escape, some gases remain uncondensible by any force we can produce. An unsuccessful attempt lately made in Vienna to liquify oxygen, clearly shows this enormous resistance. The steel piston employed was literally shortened by the pressure used; and yet the gas remained unliquified! If, then, the expansive force is thus immense when the heat evolved is dissipated, what must it be when that heat is in great measure detained, as in the case we are considering? Indeed the experiences of M. Cagniard de Latour have shown that gases may, under pressure, acquire the density of liquids while retaining the aeriform state, provided the temperature continues extremely high. In such a case, every addition to the heat is an addition to the repulsive power of the atoms: the increased pressure itself generates an increased ability to resist; and this remains true to whatever extent the compression is carried. Indeed it is a corollary from the persistence of force that if, under increasing pressure, a gas retains all the heat evolved, its resisting force is _absolutely unlimited_. Hence the internal planetary structure we have described is as physically stable a one as that commonly assumed."
Had this paragraph, and the subsequent paragraphs, been written five years later, when Prof. Andrews had published an account of his researches, the propositions they contain, while rendered more specific and at the same time more defensible, would perhaps have been freed from the erroneous implication that the internal structure indicated is an universal one. Let us, while guided by Prof. Andrews' results, consider what would probably be the successive changes in a condensing nebulous spheroid. Prof. Andrews has shown that for each kind of gaseous matter there is a temperature above which no amount of pressure can cause liquefaction. The remark, made _a priori_ in the above extract, "that if, under increasing pressure, a gas retains all the heat evolved, its resisting force is _absolutely unlimited_", harmonizes with the inductively-reached result that if the temperature is not lowered to its "critical point" a gas does not liquify, however great the force applied. At the same time Prof. Andrews' experiments imply that, supposing the temperature to be lowered to the point at which liquefaction becomes possible, then liquefaction will take place where there is first reached the required pressure. What are the corollaries in relation to concentrating nebulous spheroids?
Assume a spheroid of such size as will form one of the inferior planets, and consisting externally of a voluminous, cloudy atmosphere composed of the less condensible elements, and internally of metallic gases: such internal gases being kept by convection-currents at temperatures not very widely differing. And assume that continuous radiation has brought the internal mass of metallic gases down to the critical point of the most condensible. May we not say that there is a size of the spheroid such that the pressure will not be great enough to produce liquefaction at any other place than the centre? or, in other words, that in the process of decreasing temperature and increasing pressure, the centre will be the place at which the combined conditions of pressure and temperature will be first reached? If so, liquefaction, commencing at the centre, will spread thence to the periphery; and, in virtue of the law that solids have higher melting points under pressure than when free, it may be that solidification will similarly, at a later stage, begin at the centre and progress outwards: eventually producing, in that case, a state such as Sir William Thomson alleges exists in the Earth.
But now suppose that instead of such a spheroid, we assume one of, say, twenty or thirty times the mass; what will then happen? Notwithstanding convection-currents, the temperature at the centre must always be higher than elsewhere; and in the process of cooling the "critical point" of temperature will sooner be reached in the outer parts. Though the requisite pressure will not exist near the surface, there is evidently, in a large spheroid, a depth below the surface at which the pressure will be great enough, if the temperature is sufficiently low. Hence it is inferable that somewhere between centre and surface in the supposed larger spheroid, there will arise that state described by Prof. Andrews, in which "flickering striæ" of liquid float in gaseous matter of equal density. And it may be inferred that gradually, as the process goes on, these striæ will become more abundant while the gaseous interspaces diminish; until, eventually, the liquid becomes continuous. Thus there will result a molten shell containing a gaseous nucleus equally dense with itself at their surface of contact and more dense at the centre--a molten shell which will slowly thicken by additions to both exterior and interior. That a solid crust will eventually form on this molten shell may be reasonably concluded. To the demurrer that solidification cannot commence at the surface, because the solids formed would sink, there are two replies. The first is that various metals expand while solidifying, and therefore would float. The second is that since the envelope of the supposed spheroid would consist of the gases and non-metallic elements, compounds of these with the metals and with one another would continually accumulate on the molten shell; and the crust, consisting of oxides, chlorides, sulphurets, and the rest, having much less specific gravity than the molten shell, would be readily supported by it.
Clearly a planet thus constituted would be in an unstable state. Always it would remain liable to a catastrophe resulting from change in its gaseous nucleus. If, under some condition of pressure and temperature eventually reached, the components of this suddenly entered into one of those proto-chemical combinations forming a new element, there might result an explosion capable of shattering the entire planet, and propelling its fragments in all directions with high velocities. If the hypothetical planet between Jupiter and Mars was intermediate in size as in position, it would apparently fulfil the conditions under which such a catastrophe might occur. NOTE IV. The argument set forth in the foregoing note, is in part designed to introduce a question which seems to require re-consideration--the origin of the minor planets or planetoids. The hypothesis of Olbers, as propounded by him, implied that the disruption of the assumed planet between Mars and Jupiter had taken place at no very remote period in the past; and this implication was shown to be inadmissible by the discovery that there exists no such point of intersection of the orbits of the planetoids as the hypothesis requires. The inquiry whether, in the past, there was any nearer approach to a point of intersection than at present, having resulted in a negative, it is held that the hypothesis must be abandoned. It is, however, admitted that the mutual perturbations of the planetoids themselves would suffice, in the course of some millions of years, to destroy all traces of a place of intersection of their orbits, if it once existed. But if this be admitted why need the hypothesis be abandoned? Given such duration of the Solar System as is currently assumed, there seems no reason why lapse of a few millions of years should present any difficulty. The explosion may as well have taken place ten million years ago as at any more recent period. And whoever grants this must grant that the probability of the hypothesis has to be estimated from other data.
As a preliminary to closer consideration, let us ask what may be inferred from the rate of discovery of the planetoids, and from the sizes of those most recently discovered. In 1878, Prof. Newcomb, arguing that "the preponderance of evidence is on the side of the number and magnitude being limited", says that "the newly discovered ones" "do not seem, on the average, to be materially smaller than those which were discovered ten years ago"; and further that "the new ones will probably be found to grow decidedly rare before another hundred are discovered". Now, inspection of the tables contained in the just-published fourth edition of Chambers' _Descriptive Astronomy_ (vol. I) shows that whereas the planetoids discovered in 1868 (the year Prof. Newcomb singles out for comparison) have an average magnitude of 11·56 those discovered last year (1888) have an average magnitude of 12·43. Further, it is observable that though more than ninety have been discovered since Prof. Newcomb wrote, they have by no means become rare: the year 1888 having added ten to the list, and having therefore maintained the average rate of the preceding ten years. If, then, the indications Prof. Newcomb names, had they arisen, would have implied a limitation of the number, these opposite indications imply that the number is unlimited. The reasonable conclusion appears to be that these minor planets are to be counted not by hundreds but by thousands; that more powerful telescopes will go on revealing still smaller ones; and that additions to the list will cease only when the smallness ends in invisibility.
Commencing now to scrutinize the two hypotheses respecting the genesis of these multitudinous bodies, I may first remark concerning that of Laplace, that he might possibly not have propounded it had he known that instead of four such bodies there are hundreds, if not thousands. The supposition that they resulted from the breaking up of a nebulous ring into numerous small portions, instead of its collapse into one mass, might not, in such case, have seemed to him so probable. It would have appeared still less probable had he been aware of all that has since been discovered concerning the wide differences of the orbits in size, their various and often great eccentricities, and their various and often great inclinations. Let us look at these and other incongruous traits of them.
(1.) Between the greatest and least mean distances of the planetoids there is a space of 200 millions of miles; so that the whole of the Earth's orbit might be placed between the limits of the zone occupied, and leave 7 millions of miles on either side: add to which that the widest excursions of the planetoids occupy a zone of 270 millions of miles. Had the rings from which Mercury, Venus, and the Earth were formed been one-sixth of the smaller width or one-ninth of the greater, they would have united: there would have been no nebulous rings at all, but a continuous disk. Nay more, since one of the planetoids trenches upon the orbit of Mars, it follows that the nebulous ring out of which the planetoids were formed must have overlapped that out of which Mars was formed. How do these implications consist with the nebular hypothesis? (2.) The tacit assumption usually made is that the different parts of a nebulous ring have the same angular velocities. Though this assumption may not be strictly true, yet it seems scarcely likely that it is so widely untrue as it would be had the inner part of the ring an angular velocity nearly thrice that of the outer. Yet this is implied.
While the period of Thule is 8.8 years, the period of Medusa is 3·1 years. (3.) The eccentricity of Jupiter's orbit is 0·04816, and the eccentricity of Mars' orbit is 0·09311. Estimated by groups of the first found and last found of the planetoids, the average eccentricity of the assemblage is about three times that of Jupiter and more than one and a half times that of Mars; and among the members of the assemblage themselves, some have an eccentricity thirty-five times that of others. How came this nebulous zone, out of which it is supposed the planetoids arose, to have originated eccentricities so divergent from one another as well as from those of the neighbouring planets? (4.) A like question may be asked respecting the inclinations of the orbits. The average inclination of the planetoid-orbits is four times the inclination of Mars' orbit and six times the inclination of Jupiter's orbit; and among the planetoid-orbits themselves the inclinations of some are fifty times those of others. How are all these differences to be accounted for on the hypothesis of genesis from a nebulous ring? (5.) Much greater becomes the difficulty on inquiring how these extremely unlike eccentricities and inclinations came to co-exist before the parts of the nebulous ring separated, and how they survived after the separation.
Ideas discussed in this chapter
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.