THE TIDES

That the great discoveries of Lagrange on the stability of the planetary system are correct is in one sense strictly true. No one has ever ventured to impugn the mathematics of Lagrange. Given the planetary system in the form which Lagrange assumed and the stability of that system is assured for all time. There is, however, one assumption which Lagrange makes, and on which his whole theory was founded: his assumption is that the planets are rigid bodies.

No doubt our earth seems a rigid body. What can be more solid and unyielding than the mass of rocks and metals which form the earth, so far as it is accessible to us? In the wide realms of space the earth is but as a[Pg 532] particle; it surely was a natural and a legitimate assumption to suppose that that particle was a rigid body. If the earth were absolutely rigid—if every particle of the earth were absolutely at a fixed distance from every other particle—if under no stress of forces, and in no conceivable circumstance, the earth experienced even the minutest change of form—if the same could be said of the sun and of all the other planets—then Lagrange's prediction of the eternal duration of our system must be fulfilled.

But what are the facts of the case? Is the earth really rigid? We know from experiment that a rigid body in the mathematical sense of the word does not exist. Rocks are not rigid; steel is not rigid; even a diamond is not perfectly rigid. The whole earth is far from being rigid even on the surface, while part of the interior is still, perhaps, more or less fluid. The earth cannot be called a perfectly rigid body; still less can the larger bodies of our system be called rigid. Jupiter and Saturn are perhaps hardly even what could be called solid bodies. The solar system of Lagrange consisted of a rigid sun and a number of minute rigid planets; the actual solar system consists of a sun which is in no sense rigid, and planets which are only partially so.

The question then arises as to whether the discoveries of the great mathematicians of the last century will apply, not only to the ideal solar system which they conceived, but to the actual solar system in which our lot has been cast. There can be no doubt that these discoveries are approximately true: they are, indeed, so near the absolute truth, that observation has not yet satisfactorily shown any departure from them.

But in the present state of science we can no longer overlook the important questions which arise when we deal with bodies not rigid in the mathematical sense of the word. Let us, for instance, take the simplest of the laws to which we have referred, the great law of Kepler, which asserts that a planet will revolve for ever in an elliptic path of which the sun is one focus. This is seen to be verified by actual observation; indeed, it was established by observation before any[Pg 533] theoretical explanation of that movement was propounded. If, however, we state the matter with a little more precision, we shall find that what Newton really demonstrated was, that if two rigid particles attract each other by a law of force which varies with the inverse square of the distance between the particles, then each of the particles will describe an ellipse with the common centre of gravity in the focus. The earth is, to some extent, rigid, and hence it was natural to suppose that the relative behaviour of the earth and the sun would, to a corresponding extent, observe the simple elliptic law of Kepler; as a matter of fact, they do observe it with such fidelity that, if we make allowance for other causes of disturbance, we cannot, even by most careful observation, detect the slightest variation in the motion of the earth arising from its want of rigidity.

There is, however, a subtlety in the investigations of mathematics which, in this instance at all events, transcends the most delicate observations which our instruments enable us to make. The principles of mathematics tell us that though Kepler's laws may be true for bodies which are absolutely and mathematically rigid, yet that if the sun or the planets be either wholly, or even in their minutest part, devoid of perfect rigidity, then Kepler's laws can be no longer true. Do we not seem here to be in the presence of a contradiction? Observation tells us that Kepler's laws are true in the planetary system; theory tells us that these laws cannot be true in the planetary system, because the bodies in that system are not perfectly rigid. How is this discrepancy to be removed? Or is there really a discrepancy at all? There is not. When we say that Kepler's laws have been proved to be true by observation, we must reflect on the nature of the proofs which are attainable. We observe the places of the planets with the instruments in our observatories; these places are measured by the help of our clocks and of the graduated circles on the instruments. These observations are no doubt wonderfully accurate; but they do not, they cannot, possess absolute accuracy in the mathematical sense of the word. We can, for instance, determine the place of a planet[Pg 534] with such precision that it is certainly not one second of arc wrong; and one second is an extremely small quantity. A foot-rule placed at a distance of about forty miles subtends an angle of a second, and it is surely a delicate achievement to measure the place of a planet, and feel confident that no error greater than this can have intruded into our result.

When we compare the results of observation with the calculations conducted on the assumption of the truth of Kepler's laws, and when we pronounce on the agreement of the observations with the calculations, there is always a reference, more or less explicit, to the inevitable errors of the observations. If the calculations and observations agree so closely that the differences between the two are minute enough to have arisen in the errors inseparable from the observations, then we are satisfied with the accordance; for, in fact, no closer agreement is attainable, or even conceivable. The influence which the want of rigidity exercises on the fulfilment of the laws of Kepler can be estimated by calculation; it is found, as might be expected, to be extremely small—so small, in fact, as to be contained within that slender margin of error by which observations are liable to be affected. We are thus not able to discriminate by actual measurement the effects due to the absence of rigidity; they are inextricably hid among the small errors of observation.

The argument on which we are to base our researches is really founded on a very familiar phenomenon. There is no one who has ever visited the sea-side who is not familiar with that rise and fall of the sea which we call the tide. Twice every twenty-four hours the sea advances on the beach to produce high tide; twice every day the sea again retreats to produce low tide. These tides are not merely confined to the coasts; they penetrate for miles up the courses of rivers; they periodically inundate great estuaries. In a maritime country the tides are of the most profound practical importance; they also possess a significance of a far less obvious character, which it is our object now to investigate.

These daily pulses of the ocean have long ceased to be a mystery. It was in the earliest times perceived that there was a connection between the tides and the moon. Ancient writers, such as Pliny and Aristotle, have referred to the alliance between the times of high water and the age of the moon. I think we sometimes do not give the ancient astronomers as much credit as their shrewdness really entitles them to. We have all read—we have all been taught—that the moon and the tides are connected together; but how many of us are in a position to say that we have actually noticed that connection by direct personal observation? The first man who studied this matter with sufficient attention to convince himself and to convince others of its reality must have been a great philosopher. We know not his name, we know not his nation, we know not the age in which he lived; but our admiration of his discovery must be increased by the reflection that he had not the theory of gravitation to guide him. A philosopher of the present day who had never seen the sea could still predict the necessity of tides as a consequence of the law of universal gravitation; but the primitive astronomer, who knew not of the invisible bond by which all bodies in the universe are drawn together, made a splendid—indeed, a typical—inductive discovery, when he ascertained the relation between the moon and the tides.

We can surmise that this discovery, in all probability, first arose from the observations of experienced navigators. In all matters of entering port or of leaving port, the state of the tide is of the utmost concern to the sailor. Even in the open sea he has sometimes to shape his course in accordance with the currents produced by the tides; or, in guiding his course by taking soundings, he has always to bear in mind that the depth varies with the tide. All matters relating to the tide would thus come under his daily observation. His daily work, the success of his occupation, the security of his life, depend often on the tides; and hence he would be solicitous to learn from his observation all that would be useful to him in the future. To the coasting sailor the question of the day is the time of high water. That time[Pg 536] varies from day to day; it is an hour or more later to-morrow than to-day, and there is no very simple rule which can be enunciated. The sailor would therefore welcome gladly any rule which would guide him in a matter of such importance. We can make a conjecture as to the manner in which such a rule was first discovered. Let us suppose that a sailor at Calais, for example, is making for harbour. He has a beautiful night—the moon is full; it guides him on his way; he gets safely into harbour; and the next morning he finds the tide high between 11 and 12.[45] He often repeats the same voyage, but he finds sometimes a low and inconvenient tide in the morning. At length, however, it occurs to him that when he has a moonlight night he has a high tide at 11. This occurs once or twice: he thinks it but a chance coincidence. It occurs again and again. At length he finds it always occurs. He tells the rule to other sailors; they try it too. It is invariably found that when the moon is full, the high tide always recurs at the same hour at the same place. The connection between the moon and the tide is thus established, and the intelligent sailor will naturally compare other phases of the moon with the times of high water. He finds, for example, that the moon at the first quarter always gives high water at the same hour of the day; and finally, he obtains a practical rule, by which, from the state of the moon, he can at once tell the time when the tide will be high at the port where his occupation lies. A diligent observer will trace a still further connection between the moon and the tides; he will observe that some high tides rise higher than others, that some low tides fall lower than others. This is a matter of much practical importance. When a dangerous bar has to be crossed, the sailor will feel much additional security in knowing that he is carried over it on the top of a spring tide; or if he has to contend against tidal currents, which in some places have enormous force, he will naturally prefer for his voyage the neap tides, in which the strength of these currents is less[Pg 537] than usual. The spring tides and the neap tides will become familiar to him, and he will perceive that the spring tides occur when the moon is full or new—or, at all events, that the spring tides are within a certain constant number of days of the full or new moon. It was, no doubt, by reasoning such as this, that in primitive times the connection between the moon and the tides came to be perceived.

It was not, however, until the great discovery of Newton had disclosed the law of universal gravitation that it became possible to give a physical explanation of the tides. It was then seen how the moon attracts the whole earth and every particle of the earth. It was seen how the fluid particles which form the oceans on the earth were enabled to obey the attraction in a way that the solid parts could not. When the moon is overhead it tends to draw the water up, as it were, into a heap underneath, and thus to give rise to the high tide. The water on the opposite side of the earth is also affected in a way that might not be at first anticipated. The moon attracts the solid body of the earth with greater intensity than it attracts the water at the other side which lies more distant from it. The earth is thus drawn away from the water, and there is therefore a tendency to a high tide as well on the side of the earth away from the moon as on that towards the moon. The low tides occupy the intermediate positions.

The sun also excites tides on the earth; but owing to the great distance of the sun, the difference between its attraction on the sea and on the solid interior of the earth is not so appreciable. The solar tides are thus smaller than the lunar tides. When the two conspire, they cause a spring tide; when the solar and lunar tides are opposed, we have the neap tide.

There are, however, a multitude of circumstances to be taken into account when we attempt to apply this general reasoning to the conditions of a particular case. Owing to local peculiarities the tides vary enormously at the different parts of the coast. In a confined area like the Mediterranean Sea, the tides have only a comparatively small range, varying[Pg 538] at different places from one foot to a few feet. In mid-ocean also the tidal rise and fall is not large, amounting, for instance, to a range of three feet at St. Helena. Near the great continental masses the tides become very much modified by the coasts. We find at London a tide of eighteen or nineteen feet; but the most remarkable tides in the British Islands are those in the Bristol Channel, where, at Chepstow or Cardiff, there is a rise and fall during spring tides to the height of thirty-seven or thirty-eight feet, and at neap tides to a height of twenty-eight or twenty-nine. These tides are surpassed in magnitude at other parts of the world. The greatest of all tides are those in the Bay of Fundy, at some parts of which the rise and fall at spring tides is not less than fifty feet.

The rising and falling of the tide is necessarily attended with the formation of currents. Such currents are, indeed, well known, and in some of our great rivers they are of the utmost consequence. These currents of water can, like water-streams of any other kind, be made to do useful work. We can, for instance, impound the rising water in a reservoir, and as the tide falls we can compel the enclosed water to work a water-wheel before it returns to the sea. We have, indeed, here a source of actual power; but it is only in very unusual circumstances that it is found to be economical to use the tides for this purpose. The question can be submitted to calculation, and the area of the reservoir can be computed which would retain sufficient water to work a water-wheel of given horse-power. It can be shown that the area of the reservoir necessary to impound water enough to produce 100 horse-power would be 40 acres. The whole question is then reduced to the simple one of expense: would the construction and the maintenance of this reservoir be more or less costly than the erection and the maintenance of a steam-engine of equivalent power? In most cases it would seem that the latter would be by far the cheaper; at all events, we do not practically find tidal engines in use, so that the power of the tides is now running to waste. The economical aspects of the case may, however, be very profoundly altered at some[Pg 539] remote epoch, when our stores of fuel, now so lavishly expended, give appreciable signs of approaching exhaustion.

The tides are, however, doing work of one kind or another. A tide in a river estuary will sometimes scour away a bank and carry its materials elsewhere. We have here work done and energy consumed, just as much as if the same task had been accomplished by engineers directing the powerful arms of navvies. We know that work cannot be done without the consumption of energy in some of its forms; whence, then, comes the energy which supplies the power of the tides? At a first glance the answer to this question seems a very obvious one. Have we not said that the tides are caused by the moon? and must not the energy, therefore, be derived from the moon? This seems plain enough, but, unfortunately, it is not true. It is one of those cases by no means infrequent in Dynamics, where the truth is widely different from that which seems to be the case. An illustration will perhaps make the matter clearer. When a rifle is fired, it is the finger of the rifleman that pulls the trigger; but are we, then, to say that the energy by which the bullet has been driven off has been supplied by the rifleman? Certainly not; the energy is, of course, due to the gunpowder, and all the rifleman did was to provide the means by which the energy stored up in the powder could be liberated. To a certain extent we may compare this with the tidal problem; the tides raised by the moon are the originating cause whereby a certain store of energy is drawn upon and applied to do such work as the tides are competent to perform. This store of energy, strange to say, does not lie in the moon; it is in the earth itself. Indeed, it is extremely remarkable that the moon actually gains energy from the tides by itself absorbing some of the store which exists in the earth. This is not put forward as an obvious result; it depends upon a refined dynamical theorem.

We must clearly understand the nature of this mighty store of energy from which the tides draw their power, and on which the moon is permitted to make large and incessant drafts. Let us see in what sense the earth is said to possess a store of energy. We know that the earth rotates on its axis once[Pg 540] every day. It is this rotation which is the source of the energy. Let us compare the rotation of the earth with the rotation of the fly-wheel belonging to a steam-engine. The rotation of the fly-wheel is really a reservoir, into which the engine pours energy at each stroke of the piston. The various machines in the mill worked by the engine merely draw upon the store of energy accumulated in the fly-wheel. The earth may be likened to a gigantic fly-wheel detached from the engine, though still connected with the machines in the mill. From its stupendous dimensions and from its rapid velocity, that great fly-wheel possesses an enormous store of energy, which must be expended before the fly-wheel comes to rest. Hence it is that, though the tides are caused by the moon, yet the energy they require is obtained by simply appropriating some of the vast supply available from the rotation of the earth.

There is, however, a distinction of a very fundamental character between the earth and the fly-wheel of an engine. As the energy is withdrawn from the fly-wheel and consumed by the various machines in the mill, it is continually replaced by fresh energy, which flows in from the exertions of the steam-engine, and thus the velocity of the fly-wheel is maintained. But the earth is a fly-wheel without the engine. When the tides draw upon the store of energy and expend it in doing work, that energy is not replaced. The consequence is irresistible: the energy in the rotation of the earth must be decreasing. This leads to a consequence of the utmost significance. If the engine be cut off from the fly-wheel, then, as everyone knows, the massive fly-wheel may still give a few rotations, but it will speedily come to rest. A similar inference must be made with regard to the earth; but its store of energy is so enormous, in comparison with the demands which are made upon it, that the earth is able to hold out. Ages of countless duration must elapse before the energy of the earth's rotation can be completely exhausted by such drafts as the tides are capable of making. Nevertheless, it is necessarily true that the energy is decreasing; and if it be decreasing, then the speed of the earth's rotation[Pg 541] must be surely, if slowly, abating. Now we have arrived at a consequence of the tides which admits of being stated in the simplest language. If the speed of rotation be abating, then the length of the day must be increasing; and hence we are conducted to the following most important statement: that the tides are increasing the length of the day.

To-day is longer than yesterday—to-morrow will be longer than to-day. The difference is so small that even in the course of ages it can hardly be said to have been distinctly established by observation. We do not pretend to say how many centuries have elapsed since the day was even one second shorter than it is at present; but centuries are not the units which we employ in tidal evolution. A million years ago it is quite probable that the divergence of the length of the day from its present value may have been very considerable. Let us take a glance back into the profound depths of times past, and see what the tides have to tell us. If the present order of things has lasted, the day must have been shorter and shorter the farther we look back into the dim past. The day is now twenty-four hours; it was once twenty hours, once ten hours; it was once six hours. How much farther can we go? Once the six hours is past, we begin to approach a limit which must at some point bound our retrospect. The shorter the day the more is the earth bulged at the equator; the more the earth is bulged at the equator the greater is the strain put upon the materials of the earth by the centrifugal force of its rotation. If the earth were to go too fast it would be unable to cohere together; it would separate into pieces, just as a grindstone driven too rapidly is rent asunder with violence. Here, therefore, we discern in the remote past a barrier which stops the present argument. There is a certain critical velocity which is the greatest that the earth could bear without risk of rupture, but the exact amount of that velocity is a question not very easy to answer. It depends upon the nature of the materials of the earth; it depends upon the temperature; it depends upon the effect of pressure, and on other details not accurately known to us. An estimate of the critical velocity has, however, been made,[Pg 542] and it has been shown mathematically that the shortest period of rotation which the earth could have, without flying into pieces, is about three or four hours. The doctrine of tidal evolution has thus conducted us to the conclusion that, at some inconceivably remote epoch, the earth was spinning round its axis in a period approximating to three or four hours.

We thus learn that we are indebted to the moon for the gradual elongation of the day from its primitive value up to twenty-four hours. In obedience to one of the most profound laws of nature, the earth has reacted on the moon, and the reaction of the earth has taken a tangible form. It has simply consisted in gradually driving the moon away from the earth. You may observe that this driving away of the moon resembles a piece of retaliation on the part of the earth. The consequence of the retreat of the moon is sufficiently remarkable. The path in which the moon is revolving has at the present time a radius of 240,000 miles. This radius must be constantly growing larger, in consequence of the tides. Provided with this fact, let us now glance back into the past history of the moon. As the moon's distance is increasing when we look forwards, so we find it decreasing when we look backwards. The moon must have been nearer the earth yesterday than it is to-day; the difference is no doubt inappreciable in years, in centuries, or in thousands of years; but when we come to millions of years, the moon must have been significantly closer than it is at present, until at length we find that its distance, instead of 240,000 miles, has dwindled down to 40,000, to 20,000, to 10,000 miles. Nor need we stop—nor can we stop—until we find the moon actually close to the earth's surface. If the present laws of nature have operated long enough, and if there has been no external interference, then it cannot be doubted that the moon and the earth were once in immediate proximity. We can, indeed, calculate the period in which the moon must have been revolving round the earth. The nearer the moon is to the earth the quicker it must revolve; and at the critical epoch when the satellite was[Pg 543] in immediate proximity to our earth it must have completed each revolution in about three or four hours.

This has led to one of the most daring speculations which has ever been made in astronomy. We cannot refrain from enunciating it; but it must be remembered that it is only a speculation, and to be received with corresponding reserve. The speculation is intended to answer the question, What brought the moon into that position, close to the surface of the earth? We will only say that there is the gravest reason to believe that the moon was, at some very early period, fractured off from the earth when the earth was in a soft or plastic condition.

At the beginning of the history we found the earth and the moon close together. We found that the rate of rotation of the earth was only a few hours, instead of twenty-four hours. We found that the moon completed its journey round the primitive earth in exactly the same time as the primitive earth rotated on its axis, so that the two bodies were then constantly face to face. Such a state of things formed what a mathematician would describe as a case of unstable dynamical equilibrium. It could not last. It may be compared to the case of a needle balanced on its point; the needle must fall to one side or the other. In the same way, the moon could not continue to preserve this position. There were two courses open: the moon must either have fallen back on the earth, and been reabsorbed into the mass of the earth, or it must have commenced its outward journey. Which of these courses was the moon to adopt? We have no means, perhaps, of knowing exactly what it was which determined the moon to one course rather than to another, but as to the course which was actually taken there can be no doubt. The fact that the moon exists shows that it did not return to the earth, but commenced its outward journey. As the moon recedes from the earth it must, in conformity with Kepler's laws, require a longer time to complete its revolution. It has thus happened that, from the original period of only a few hours, the duration has increased until it has reached the present number of 656[Pg 544] hours. The rotation of the earth has, of course, also been modified, in accordance with the retreat of the moon. Once the moon had commenced to recede, the earth was released from the obligation which required it constantly to direct the same face to the moon. When the moon had receded to a certain distance, the earth would complete the rotation in less time than that required by the moon for one revolution. Still the moon gets further and further away, and the duration of the revolution increases to a corresponding extent, until three, four, or more days (or rotations of the earth) are identical with the month (or revolution of the moon). Although the number of days in the month increases, yet we are not to suppose that the rate of the earth's rotation is increasing; indeed, the contrary is the fact. The earth's rotation is getting slower, and so is the revolution of the moon, but the retardation of the moon is greater than that of the earth. Even though the period of rotation of the earth has greatly increased from its primitive value, yet the period of the moon has increased still more, so that it is several times as large as that of the rotation of the earth. As ages roll on the moon recedes further and further, its orbit increases, the duration of the revolution augments, until at length a very noticeable epoch is attained, which is, in one sense, a culminating point in the career of the moon. At this epoch the revolution periods of the moon, when measured in rotation periods of the earth, attain their greatest value. It would seem that the month was then twenty-nine days. It is not, of course, meant that the month and the day at that epoch were the month and the day as our clocks now measure time. Both were shorter then than now. But what we mean is, that at this epoch the earth rotated twenty-nine times on its axis while the moon completed one circuit.

This epoch has now been passed. No attempt can be made at present to evaluate the date of that epoch in our ordinary units of measurement. At the same time, however, no doubt can be entertained as to the immeasurable antiquity of the event, in comparison with all historic records; but whether it is to be reckoned in hundreds of[Pg 545] thousands of years, in millions of years, or in tens of millions of years, must be left in great degree to conjecture.

This remarkable epoch once passed, we find that the course of events in the earth-moon system begins to shape itself towards that remarkable final stage which has points of resemblance to the initial stage. The moon still continues to revolve in an orbit with a diameter steadily, though very slowly, growing. The length of the month is accordingly increasing, and the rotation of the earth being still constantly retarded, the length of the day is also continually growing. But the ratio of the length of the month to the length of the day now exhibits a change. That ratio had gradually increased, from unity at the commencement, up to the maximum value of somewhere about twenty-nine at the epoch just referred to. The ratio now begins again to decline, until we find the earth makes only twenty-eight rotations, instead of twenty-nine, in one revolution of the moon. The decrease in the ratio continues until the number twenty-seven expresses the days in the month. Here, again, we have an epoch which it is impossible for us to pass without special comment. In all that has hitherto been said we have been dealing with events in the distant past; and we have at length arrived at the present state of the earth-moon system. The days at this epoch are our well-known days, the month is the well-known period of the revolution of our moon. At the present time the month is about twenty-seven of our days, and this relation has remained sensibly true for thousands of years past. It will continue to remain sensibly true for thousands of years to come, but it will not remain true indefinitely. It is merely a stage in this grand transformation; it may possess the attributes of permanence to our ephemeral view, just as the wings of a gnat seem at rest when illuminated by the electric spark; but when we contemplate the history with time conceptions sufficiently ample for astronomy we realise how the present condition of the earth-moon system can have no greater permanence than any other stage in the history.

Our narrative must, however, now assume a different form. We have been speaking of the past; we have been conducted to the present; can we say anything of the future? Here, again, the tides come to our assistance. If we have rightly comprehended the truth of dynamics (and who is there now that can doubt them?), we shall be enabled to make a forecast of the further changes of the earth-moon system. If there be no interruption from any external source at present unknown to us, we can predict—in outline, at all events—the subsequent career of the moon. We can see how the moon will still follow its outward course. The path in which it revolves will grow with extreme slowness, but yet it will always grow; the progress will not be reversed, at all events, before the final stage of our history has been attained. We shall not now delay to dwell on the intervening stages; we will rather attempt to sketch the ultimate type to which our system tends. In the dim future—countless millions of years to come—this final stage will be approached. The ratio of the month to the day, whose decline we have already referred to, will continue to decline. The period of revolution of the moon will grow longer and longer, but the length of the day will increase much more rapidly than the increase in the duration of the moon's period. From the month of twenty-seven days we shall pass to a month of twenty-six days, and so on, until we shall reach a month of ten days, and, finally, a month of one day.

Let us clearly understand what we mean by a month of one day. We mean that the time in which the moon revolves around the earth will be equal to the time in which the earth rotates around its axis. The length of this day will, of course, be vastly greater than our day. The only element of uncertainty in these enquiries arises when we attempt to give numerical accuracy to the statements. It seems to be as true as the laws of dynamics that a state of the earth-moon system in which the day and the month are equal must be ultimately attained; but when we attempt to state the length of that day we introduce a hazardous[Pg 547] element into the enquiry. In giving any estimate of its length, it must be understood that the magnitude is stated with great reserve. It may be erroneous to some extent, though, perhaps, not to any considerable amount. The length of this great day would seem to be about equal to fifty-seven of our days. In other words, at some critical time in the excessively distant future, the earth will take something like 1,400 hours to perform a rotation, while the moon will complete its journey precisely in the same time.

We thus see how, in some respects, the first stage of the earth-moon system and the last stage resemble each other. In each case we have the day equal to the month. In the first case the day and the month were only a small fraction of our day; in the last stage the day and the month are each a large multiple of our day. There is, however, a profound contrast between the first critical epoch and the last. We have already mentioned that the first epoch was one of unstability—it could not last; but this second state is one of dynamical stability. Once that state has been acquired, it would be permanent, and would endure for ever if the earth and the moon could be isolated from all external interference.

There is one special feature which characterises the movement when the month is equal to the day. A little reflection will show that when this is the case the earth must constantly direct the same face towards the moon. If the day be equal to the month, then the earth and moon must revolve together, as if bound by invisible bands; and whatever hemisphere of the earth be directed to the moon when this state of things commences will remain there so long as the day remains equal to the month.

At this point it is hardly possible to escape being reminded of that characteristic feature of the moon's motion which has been observed from all antiquity. We refer, of course, to the fact that the moon at the present time constantly turns the same face to the earth.

It is incumbent upon astronomers to provide a physical explanation of this remarkable fact. The moon revolves[Pg 548] around our earth once in a definite number of seconds. If the moon always turns the same face to the earth, then it is demonstrated that the moon rotates on its axis once in the same number of seconds also. Now, this would be a coincidence wildly improbable unless there were some physical cause to account for it. We have not far to seek for a cause: the tides on the moon have produced the phenomenon. We now find the moon has a rugged surface, which testifies to the existence of intense volcanic activity in former times. Those volcanoes are now silent—the internal fires in the moon seem to have become exhausted; but there was a time when the moon must have been a heated and semi-molten mass. There was a time when the materials of the moon were so hot as to be soft and yielding, and in that soft and yielding mass the attraction of our earth excited great tides. We have no historical record of these tides (they were long anterior to the existence of telescopes, they were probably long anterior to the existence of the human race), but we know that these tides once existed by the work they have accomplished, and that work is seen to-day in the constant face which the moon turns towards the earth. The gentle rise and fall of the oceans which form our tides present a picture widely different from the tides by which the moon was once agitated. The tides on the moon were vastly greater than those of the earth. They were greater because the weight of the earth is greater than that of the moon, so that the earth was able to produce much more powerful tides in the moon than the moon has ever been able to raise on the earth.

That the moon should bend the same face to the earth depends immediately upon the condition that the moon shall rotate on its axis in precisely the same period as that which it requires to revolve around the earth. The tides are a regulating power of unremitting efficiency to ensure that this condition shall be observed. If the moon rotated more slowly than it ought, then the great lava tides would drag the moon round faster and faster until it attained the desired velocity; and then, but not till then, they would give the moon peace.[Pg 549] Or if the moon were to rotate faster on its axis than in its orbit, again the tides would come furiously into play; but this time they would be engaged in retarding the moon's rotation, until they had reduced the speed of the moon to one rotation for each revolution.

Can the moon ever escape from the thraldom of the tides? This is not very easy to answer, but it seems perhaps not impossible that the moon may, at some future time, be freed from tidal control. It is, indeed, obvious that the tides, even at present, have not the extremely stringent control over the moon which they once exercised. We now see no ocean on the moon, nor do the volcanoes show any trace of molten lava. There can hardly be tides on the moon, but there may be tides in the moon. It may be that the interior of the moon is still hot enough to retain an appreciable degree of fluidity, and if so, the tidal control would still retain the moon in its grip; but the time will probably come, if it have not come already, when the moon will be cold to the centre—cold as the temperature of space. If the materials of the moon were what a mathematician would call absolutely rigid, there can be no doubt that the tides could no longer exist, and the moon would be emancipated from tidal control. It seems impossible to predicate how far the moon can ever conform to the circumstances of an actual rigid body, but it may be conceivable that at some future time the tidal control shall have practically ceased. There would then be no longer any necessary identity between the period of rotation and that of revolution. A gleam of hope is thus projected over the astronomy of the distant future. We know that the time of revolution of the moon is increasing, and so long as the tidal governor could act, the time of rotation must increase sympathetically. We have now surmised a state of things in which the control is absent. There will then be nothing to prevent the rotation remaining as at present, while the period of revolution is increasing. The privilege of seeing the other side of the moon, which has been withheld from all previous astronomers, may thus in the distant future be granted to their successors.

The tides which the moon raises in the earth act as a brake on the rotation of the earth. They now constantly tend to bring the period of rotation of the earth to coincide with the period of revolution of the moon. As the moon revolves once in twenty-seven days, the earth is at present going too fast, and consequently the tidal control at the present moment endeavours to retard the rotation of the earth. The rotation of the moon long since succumbed to tidal control, but that was because the moon was comparatively small and the tidal power of the earth was enormous. But this is the opposite case. The earth is large and more massive than the moon, the tides raised by the moon are but small and weak, and the earth has not yet completely succumbed to the tidal action. But the tides are constant, they never for an instant relax the effort to control, and they are gradually tending to render the day and the month coincident, though the progress is a very slow one.

The theory of the tides leads us to look forward to a remote state of things, in which the moon revolves around the earth in a period equal to the day, so that the two bodies shall constantly bend the same face to each other, provided the tidal control be still able to guide the moon's rotation. So far as the mutual action of the earth and the moon is concerned, such an arrangement possesses all the attributes of permanence. If, however, we venture to project our view to a still more remote future, we can discern an external cause which must prevent this mutual accommodation between the earth and the moon from being eternal. The tides raised by the moon on the earth are so much greater than those raised by the sun, that we have, in the course of our previous reasoning, held little account of the sun-raised tides. This is obviously only an approximate method of dealing with the question. The influence of the solar tide is appreciable, and its importance relatively to the lunar tide will gradually increase as the earth and moon approach the final critical stage. The solar tides will have the effect of constantly applying a further brake to the rotation of the earth. It will therefore follow that, after the day and the month have become equal, a still further[Pg 551] retardation awaits the length of the day. We thus see that in the remote future we shall find the moon revolving around the earth in a shorter time than that in which the earth rotates on its axis.

A most instructive corroboration of these views is afforded by the discovery of the satellites of Mars. The planet Mars is one of the smaller members of our system. It has a mass which is only the eighth part of the mass of the earth. A small planet like Mars has much less energy of rotation to be destroyed than a larger one like the earth. It may therefore be expected that the small planet will proceed much more rapidly in its evolution than the large one; we might, therefore, anticipate that Mars and his satellites have attained a more advanced stage of their history than is the case with the earth and her satellite.

When the discovery of the satellites of Mars startled the world, in 1877, there was no feature which created so much amazement as the periodic time of the interior satellite. We have already pointed out in Chapter X. how Phobos revolves around Mars in a period of 7 hours 39 minutes. The period of rotation of Mars himself is 24 hours 37 minutes, and hence we have the fact, unparalleled in the solar system, that the satellite is actually revolving three times as rapidly as the planet is rotating. There can hardly be a doubt that the solar tides on Mars have abated its velocity of rotation in the manner just suggested.

It has always seemed to me that the matter just referred to is one of the most interesting and instructive in the whole history of astronomy. We have, first, a very beautiful telescopic discovery of the minute satellites of Mars, and we have a determination of the anomalous movement of one of them. We have then found a satisfactory physical explanation of the cause of this phenomenon, and we have shown it to be a striking instance of tidal evolution. Finally, we have seen that the system of Mars and his satellite is really a forecast of the destiny which, after the lapse of ages, awaits the earth-moon system.

It seems natural to enquire how far the influence of tides[Pg 552] can have contributed towards moulding the planetary orbits. The circumstances are here very different from those we have encountered in the earth-moon system. Let us first enunciate the problem in a definite shape. The solar system consists of the sun in the centre, and of the planets revolving around the sun. These planets rotate on their axes; and circulating round some of the planets we have their systems of satellites. For simplicity, we may suppose all the planets and their satellites to revolve in the same plane, and the planets to rotate about axes which are perpendicular to that plane. In the study of the theory of tidal evolution we must be mainly guided by a profound dynamical principle known as the conservation of the "moment of momentum." The proof of this great principle is not here attempted; suffice it to say that it can be strictly deduced from the laws of motion, and is thus only second in certainty to the fundamental truths of ordinary geometry or of algebra. Take, for instance, the giant planet, Jupiter. In one second he moves around the sun through a certain angle. If we multiply the mass of Jupiter by that angle, and if we then multiply the product by the square of the distance from Jupiter to the sun, we obtain a certain definite amount. A mathematician calls this quantity the "orbital" moment of momentum of Jupiter.[46] In the same way, if we multiply the mass of Saturn by the angle through which the planet moves in one second, and this product by the square of the distance between the planet and the sun, then we have the orbital moment of momentum of Saturn. In a similar manner we ascertain the moment of momentum for each of the other planets due to revolution around the sun. We have also to define the moment of momentum of the planets around their axes. In one second Jupiter rotates[Pg 553] through a certain angle; we multiply that angle by the mass of Jupiter, and by the square of a certain line which depends on his internal constitution: the product forms the "rotational" moment of momentum. In a similar manner we find the rotational moment of momentum for each of the other planets. Each satellite revolves through a certain angle around its primary in one second; we obtain the moment of momentum of each satellite by multiplying its mass into the angle described in one second, and then multiplying the product into the square of the distance of the satellite from its primary. Finally, we compute the moment of momentum of the sun due to its rotation. This we obtain by multiplying the angle through which the sun turns in one second by the whole mass of the sun, and then multiplying the product by the square of a certain line of prodigious length, which depends upon the details of the sun's internal structure.

If we have succeeded in explaining what is meant by the moment of momentum, then the statement of the great law is comparatively simple. We are, in the first place, to observe that the moment of momentum of any planet may alter. It would alter if the distance of the planet from the sun changed, or if the velocity with which the planet rotates upon its axis changed; so, too, the moment of momentum of the sun may change, and so may those of the satellites. In the beginning a certain total quantity of moment of momentum was communicated to our system, and not one particle of that total can the solar system, as a whole, squander or alienate. No matter what be the mutual actions of the various bodies of the system, no matter what perturbations they may undergo—what tides may be produced, or even what mutual collisions may occur—the great law of the conservation of moment of momentum must be obeyed. If some bodies in the solar system be losing moment of momentum, then other bodies in the system must be gaining, so that the total quantity shall remain unaltered. This consideration is one of supreme importance in connection with the tides. The distribution of moment[Pg 554] of momentum in the system is being continually altered by the tides; but, however the tides may ebb or flow, the total moment of momentum can never alter so long as influences external to the system are absent.

We must here point out the contrast between the endowment of our system with energy and with moment of momentum. The mutual actions of our system, in so far as they produce heat, tend to squander the energy, a considerable part of which can be thus dissipated and lost; but the mutual actions have no power of dissipating the moment of momentum.

The total moment of momentum of the solar system being taken to be 100, this is at present distributed as follows:—

The contributions of the other items are excessively minute. The orbital moments of momentum of the few interior planets contain but little more than one thousandth part of the total amount. The rotational contributions of all the planets and of their satellites is very much less, being not more than one sixty-thousandth part of the whole. When, therefore, we are studying the general effects of tides on the planetary orbits these trifling matters may be overlooked. We shall, however, find it desirable to narrow the question still more, and concentrate our attention on one splendid illustration. Let us take the sun and the planet Jupiter, and, supposing all other bodies of our system to be absent, let us discuss the influence of tides produced in Jupiter by the sun, and of tides in the sun by Jupiter.

It might be hastily thought that, just as the moon was born of the earth, so the planets were born of the sun, and have gradually receded by tides into their present condition.[Pg 555] We have the means of enquiry into this question by the figures just given, and we shall show that it is impossible that Jupiter, or any of the other planets, can ever have been very much closer to the sun than they are at present. In the case of Jupiter and the sun we have the moment of momentum made up of three items. By far the largest of these items is due to the orbital revolution of Jupiter, the next is due to the sun, the third is due to the rotation of Jupiter on its axis. We may put them in round numbers as follows:—

The sun produces tides in Jupiter, those tides retard the rotation of Jupiter. They make Jupiter rotate more and more slowly, therefore the moment of momentum of Jupiter is decreasing, therefore its present value of 12 must be decreasing. Even the mighty sun himself may be distracted by tides. Jupiter raises tides in the sun, those tides retard the motion of the sun, and therefore the moment of momentum of the sun is decreasing, and it follows from both causes that the item of 600,000 must be increasing; in other words, the orbital motion of Jupiter must be increasing, or Jupiter must be receding from the sun. To this extent, therefore, the sun-Jupiter system is analogous to the earth-moon system. As the tides on the earth are driving away the moon, so the tides in Jupiter and the sun are gradually driving the two bodies apart. But there is a profound difference between the two cases. It can be proved that the tides produced in Jupiter by the sun are more effective than those produced in the sun by Jupiter. The contribution of the sun may, therefore, be at present omitted; so that, practically, the augmentations of the orbital moment of momentum of Jupiter are now achieved at the expense of that stored up by Jupiter's rotation. But what is 12 compared with 600,000. Even when the whole of Jupiter's rotational moment of momentum and that of his satellites[Pg 556] has become absorbed into the orbital motion, there will hardly be an appreciable difference in the latter. In ancient days we may indeed suppose that Jupiter being hotter was larger than at present, and that he had considerably more rotational moment of momentum. But it is hardly credible that Jupiter can ever have had one hundred times the moment of momentum that he has at present. Yet even if 1,200 units of rotational momentum had been transferred to the orbital motion it would only correspond with the most trivial difference in the distance of Jupiter from the sun. We are hence assured that the tides have not appreciably altered the dimensions of the orbit of Jupiter, or of the other great planets.

The time will, however, come when the rotation of Jupiter on his axis will be gradually abated by the influence of the tides. It will then be found that the moment of momentum of the sun's rotation will be gradually expended in increasing the orbits of the planets, but as this reserve only holds about two per cent. of the whole amount in our system it cannot produce any considerable effect.

The theory of tidal evolution, which in the hands of Professor Darwin has taught us so much with regard to the past history of the systems of satellites in the solar system, will doubtless also, as pointed out by Dr. See, be found to account for the highly eccentric orbits of double star systems. In the earth-moon system we have two bodies exceedingly different in bulk, the mass of the earth being about eighty times as great as that of the moon. But in the case of most double stars we have to do with two bodies not very different as regards mass. It can be demonstrated that the orbit must have been originally of slight eccentricity, but that tidal friction is capable not only of extending, but also of elongating it. The accelerating force is vastly greater at periastron (when the two bodies are nearest each other) than at apastron (when their distance is greatest). At periastron the disturbing force will, therefore, increase the apastron distance by an enormous amount, while at apastron it increases the periastron distance by a very small amount.[Pg 557] Thus, while the ellipse is being gradually expanded, the orbit grows more and more eccentric, until the axial rotations have been sufficiently reduced by the transfer of axial to orbital moment of momentum.

And now we must draw this chapter to a close, though there are many other subjects that might be included. The theory of tidal evolution is, indeed, one of quite exceptional interest. The earlier mathematicians expended their labour on the determination of the dynamics of a system which consisted of rigid bodies. We are indebted to contemporary mathematicians for opening up celestial mechanics upon the more real supposition that the bodies are not rigid; in other words, that they are subject to tides. The mathematical difficulties are enormously enhanced, but the problem is more true to nature, and has already led to some of the most remarkable astronomical discoveries made in modern times.

Our Story of the Heavens has now been told. We commenced this work with some account of the mechanical and optical aids to astronomy; we have ended it with a brief description of an intellectual method of research which reveals some of the celestial phenomena that occurred ages before the human race existed. We have spoken of those objects which are comparatively near to us, and then, step by step, we have advanced to the distant nebulæ and clusters which seem to lie on the confines of the visible universe. Yet how little can we see with even our greatest telescopes, when compared with the whole extent of infinite space! No matter how vast may be the depth which our instruments have sounded, there is yet a beyond of infinite extent. Imagine a mighty globe described in space, a globe of such stupendous dimensions that it shall include the sun and his system, all the stars and nebulæ, and even all the objects which our finite capacities can imagine. Yet, what ratio must the volume of this great globe bear to the whole extent of infinite space? The ratio is infinitely less than that which the water in a single drop of dew bears to the water in the whole Atlantic Ocean.