THE ASTRONOMICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF HEAT

The Story of the Heavens by Robert S. Ball is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book here. THE ASTRONOMICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF HEAT

CHAPTER XXVI. THE ASTRONOMICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF HEAT

Heat and Astronomy—Distribution of Heat—The Presence of Heat in the Earth—Heat in other Celestial Bodies—Varieties of Temperature—The Law of Cooling—The Heat of the Sun—Can its Temperature be Measured?—Radiation connected with the Sun's Bulk—Can the Sun be Exhausting his Resources?—No marked Change has occurred—Geological Evidence as to the Changes of the Sun's Heat Doubtful—The Cooling of the Sun—The Sun cannot be merely an Incandescent Solid Cooling—Combustion will not Explain the Matter—Some Heat is obtained from Meteoric Matter, but this is not Adequate to the Maintenance of the Sun's Heat—The Contraction of a Heated Globe of Gas—An Apparent Paradox—The Doctrine of Energy—The Nebular Theory—Evidence in Support of this Theory—Sidereal Evidence of the Nebular Theory—Herschel's View of Sidereal Aggregation—The Nebulæ do not Exhibit Changes within the Limits of our Observation.

That a portion of a work on astronomy should bear the title placed at the head of this chapter will perhaps strike some of our readers as unusual, if not actually inappropriate. Is not heat, it may be said, a question merely of experimental physics? and how can it be legitimately introduced into a treatise upon the heavenly bodies and their movements? Whatever weight such objections might have once had need not now be considered. The recent researches on heat have shown not only that heat has important bearings on astronomy, but that it has really been one of the chief agents by which the universe has been moulded into its actual form. At the present time no work on astronomy could be complete without some account of the remarkable connection between the laws of heat and the astronomical consequences which follow from those laws.

In discussing the planetary motions and the laws of Kepler, or in discussing the movements of the moon, the proper motions of the stars, or the revolutions of the binary stars, we proceed[Pg 514] on the supposition that the bodies we are dealing with are rigid particles, and the question as to whether these particles are hot or cold does not seem to have any especial bearing. No doubt the ordinary periodic phenomena of our system, such as the revolution of the planets in conformity with Kepler's laws, will be observed for countless ages, whether the planets be hot or cold, or whatever may be the heat of the sun. It must, however, be admitted that the laws of heat introduce certain modifications into the statement of these laws. The effects of heat may not be immediately perceptible, but they exist—they are constantly acting; and in the progress of time they are adequate to effecting the mightiest changes throughout the universe.

Let us briefly recapitulate the circumstances of our system which give to heat its potency. Look first at our earth, which at present seems—on its surface, at all events—to be a body devoid of internal heat; a closer examination will dispel this idea. Have we not the phenomena of volcanoes, of geysers, and of hot springs, which show that in the interior of the earth heat must exist in far greater intensity than we find on the surface? These phenomena are found in widely different regions of the earth. Their origin is, no doubt, involved in a good deal of obscurity, but yet no one can deny that they indicate vast reservoirs of heat. It would indeed seem that heat is to be found everywhere in the deep inner regions of the earth. If we take a thermometer down a deep mine, we find it records a temperature higher than at the surface. The deeper we descend the higher is the temperature; and if the same rate of progress should be maintained through those depths of the earth which we are not able to penetrate, it can be demonstrated that at twenty or thirty miles below the surface the temperature must be as great as that of red-hot iron.

We find in the other celestial bodies abundant evidence of the present or the past existence of heat. Our moon, as we have already mentioned, affords a very striking instance of a body which must once have been very highly heated. The extraordinary volcanoes on its surface place this beyond any[Pg 515] doubt. It is equally true that those volcanoes have been silent for ages, so that, whatever may be the interior condition of the moon, the surface has now cooled down. Extending our view further, we see in the great planets Jupiter and Saturn evidence that they are still endowed with a temperature far in excess of that which the earth has retained; while, when we look at our sun, we see a body in a state of brilliant incandescence, and glowing with a fervour to which we cannot approximate in our mightiest furnaces. The various fixed stars are bodies which glow with heat, like our sun; while we have in the nebulæ objects the existence of which is hardly intelligible to us, unless we admit that they are possessed of heat.

From this rapid survey of the different bodies in our universe one conclusion is obvious. We may have great doubts as to the actual temperature of any individual body of the system; but it cannot be doubted that there is a wide range of temperature among the different bodies. Some are hotter than others. The stars and suns are perhaps the hottest of all; but it is not improbable that they may be immeasurably outnumbered by the cold and dark bodies of the universe, which are to us invisible, and only manifest their existence in an indirect and casual manner.

The law of cooling tells us that every body radiates heat, and that the quantity of heat which it radiates increases when the temperature of the body increases relatively to the surrounding medium. This law appears to be universal. It is obeyed on the earth, and it would seem that it must be equally obeyed by every other body in space. We thus see that each of the planets and each of the stars is continuously pouring forth in all directions a never-ceasing stream of heat. This radiation of heat is productive of very momentous consequences. Let us study them, for instance, in the case of the sun.

Our great luminary emits an incessant flood of radiant heat in all directions. A minute fraction of that heat is intercepted by our earth, and is, directly or indirectly, the source of all life, and of nearly all movement, on our earth. To pour forth heat as the sun does, it is necessary that his temperature[Pg 516] be enormously high. And there are some facts which permit us to form an estimate of what that temperature must actually be.

It is difficult to form any numerical statement of the actual temperature of the sun. The intensity of that temperature vastly transcends the greatest artificial heat, and any attempt to clothe such estimates in figures is necessarily very precarious. But assuming the greatest artificial temperature to be about 4,000° Fahr., we shall probably be well within the truth if we state the effective temperature of the sun to be about 14,000° Fahr. This is the result of a recent investigation by Messrs. Wilson and Gray, which seems to be entitled to considerable weight.

The copious outflow of heat from the sun corresponds with its enormous temperature. We can express the amount of heat in various ways, but it must be remembered that considerable uncertainty still attaches to such measurements. The old method of measuring heat by the quantity of ice melted may be used as an illustration. It is computed that a shell of ice 43-1⁄2 feet thick surrounding the whole sun would in one minute be melted by the sun's heat underneath. A somewhat more elegant illustration was also given by Sir John Herschel, who showed that if a cylindrical glacier 45 miles in diameter were to be continually flowing into the sun with the velocity of light, the end of that glacier would be melted as quickly as it advanced. From each square foot in the surface of the sun emerges a quantity of heat as great as could be produced by the daily combustion of sixteen tons of coal. This is, indeed, an amount of heat which, properly transformed into work, would keep an engine of many hundreds of horse-power running from one year's end to the other. The heat radiated from a few acres on the sun would be adequate to drive all the steam engines in the world. When we reflect on the vast intensity of the radiation from each square foot of the sun's surface, and when we combine with this the stupendous dimensions of the sun, imagination fails to realise how vast must be the actual expenditure of heat.

In presence of the prodigal expenditure of the sun's heat,[Pg 517] we are tempted to ask a question which has the most vital interest for the earth and its inhabitants. We live from hour to hour by the sun's splendid generosity; and, therefore, it is important for us to know what security we possess for the continuance of his favours. When we witness the terrific disbursement of the sun's heat each hour, we are compelled to ask whether our great luminary may not be exhausting its resources; and if so, what are the prospects of the future? This question we can partly answer. The whole subject is indeed of surpassing interest, and redolent with the spirit of modern scientific thought.

Our first attempt to examine this question must lie in an appeal to the facts which are attainable. We want to know whether the sun is showing any symptoms of decay. Are the days as warm and as bright now as they were last year, ten years ago, one hundred years ago? We can find no evidence of any change since the beginning of authentic records. If the sun's heat had perceptibly changed within the last two thousand years, we should expect to find corresponding changes in the distribution of plants and of animals; but no such changes have been detected. There is no reason to think that the climate of ancient Greece or of ancient Rome was appreciably different from the climates of the Greece and the Rome that we know at this day. The vine and the olive grow now where they grew two thousand years ago.

We must not, however, lay too much stress on this argument; for the effects of slight changes in the sun's heat may have been neutralised by corresponding adaptations in the pliable organisms of cultivated plants. All we can certainly conclude is that no marked change has taken place in the heat of the sun during historical time. But when we come to look back into much earlier ages, we find copious evidence that the earth has undergone great changes in climate. Geological records can on this question hardly be misinterpreted. Yet it is curious to note that these changes are hardly such as could arise from the gradual exhaustion of the sun's radiation. No doubt, in very early times we[Pg 518] have evidence that the earth's climate must have been much warmer than at present. We had the great carboniferous period, when the temperature must almost have been tropical in Arctic latitudes. Yet it is hardly possible to cite this as evidence that the sun was then much more powerful; for we are immediately reminded of the glacial period, when our temperate zones were overlaid by sheets of solid ice, as Northern Greenland is at present. If we suppose the sun to have been hotter than it is at present to account for the vegetation which produced coal, then we ought to assume the sun to be colder than it is now to account for the glacial period. It is not reasonable to attribute such phenomena to fluctuations in the radiation from the sun. The glacial periods prove that we cannot appeal to geology in aid of the doctrine that a secular cooling of the sun is now in progress. The geological variations of climate may have been caused by changes in the earth itself, or by changes in its actual orbit; but however they have been caused, they hardly tell us much with regard to the past history of our sun.

The heat of the sun has lasted countless ages; yet we cannot credit the sun with the power of actually creating heat. We must apply to the tremendous mass of the sun the same laws which we have found by our experiments on the earth. We must ask, whence comes the heat sufficient to supply this lavish outgoing? Let us briefly recount the various suppositions that have been made.

Place two red-hot spheres of iron side by side, a large one and a small one. They have been taken from the same fire; they were both equally hot; they are both cooling, but the small sphere cools more rapidly. It speedily becomes dark, while the large sphere is still glowing, and would continue to do so for some minutes. The larger the sphere, the longer it will take to cool; and hence it has been supposed that a mighty sphere of the prodigious dimensions of our sun would, if once heated, cool gradually, but the duration of the cooling would be so long that for thousands and for millions of years it could continue to be a source of light[Pg 519] and heat to the revolving system of planets. This suggestion will not bear the test of arithmetic. If the sun had no source of heat beyond that indicated by its high temperature, we can show that radiation would cool the sun a few degrees every year. Two thousand years would then witness a very great decrease in the sun's heat. We are certain that no such decrease can have taken place. The source of the sun's radiation cannot be found in the mere cooling of an incandescent mass.

Can the fires in the sun be maintained by combustion, analogous to that which goes on in our furnaces? Here we would seem to have a source of gigantic heat; but arithmetic also disposes of this supposition. We know that if the sun were made of even solid coal itself, and if that coal were burning in pure oxygen, the heat that could be produced would only suffice for 6,000 years. If the sun which shone upon the builders of the great Pyramid had been solid coal from surface to centre, it must by this time have been in great part burned away in the attempt to maintain its present rate of expenditure. We are thus forced to look to other sources for the supply of the sun's heat, since neither the heat of incandescence nor the heat of combustion will suffice.

There is probably—indeed, we may say certainly—one external source from which the heat of the sun is recruited. It will be necessary for us to consider this source with some care, though I think we shall find it to be merely an auxiliary of comparatively trifling moment. According to this view, the solar heat receives occasional accessions from the fall upon the sun's surface of masses of meteoric matter. There can be hardly a doubt that such masses do fall upon the sun; there is certainly no doubt that if they do, the sun must gain some heat thereby. We have experience on the earth of a very interesting kind, which illustrates the development of heat by meteoric matter. There lies a world of philosophy in a shooting star. Some of these myriad objects rush into our atmosphere and are lost; others, no doubt, rush into the sun with the same result. We also admit that the descent of a shooting star into the atmosphere of the sun[Pg 520] must be attended with a flash of light and of heat. The heat acquired by the earth from the flashing of the shooting stars through our air is quite insensible. It has been supposed, however, that the heat accruing to the sun from the same cause may be quite sensible—nay, it has been even supposed that the sun may be re-invigorated from this source.

Here, again, we must apply the cold principles of weights and measures to estimate the plausibility of this suggestion. We first calculate the actual weight of meteoric indraught to the sun which would be adequate to sustain the fires of the sun at their present vigour. The mass of matter that would be required is so enormous that we cannot usefully express it by imperial weights; we must deal with masses of imposing magnitude. It fortunately happens that the weight of our moon is a convenient unit. Conceive that our moon—a huge globe, 2,000 miles in diameter—were crushed into a myriad of fragments, and that these fragments were allowed to rain in on the sun; there can be no doubt that this tremendous meteoric shower would contribute to the sun rather more heat than would be required to supply his radiation for a whole year. If we take our earth itself, conceive it comminuted into dust, and allow that dust to fall on the sun as a mighty shower, each fragment would instantly give out a quantity of heat, and the whole would add to the sun a supply of heat adequate to sustain the present rate of radiation for nearly one hundred years. The mighty mass of Jupiter treated in the same way would generate a meteoric display greater in the ratio in which the mass of Jupiter exceeds the mass of earth. Were Jupiter to fall into the sun, enough heat would be thereby produced to scorch the whole solar system; while all the planets together would be capable of producing heat which, if properly economised, would supply the radiation of the sun for 45,000 years.

It must be remembered that though the moon could supply one year's heat, and Jupiter 30,000 years' heat, yet the practical question is not whether the solar system could supply the sun's heat, but whether it does. Is it likely that meteors equal in mass to the moon fall into the sun[Pg 521] every year? This is the real question, and I think we are bound to reply to it in the negative. It can be shown that the quantity of meteors which could be caught by the sun in any one year can be only an excessively minute fraction of the total amount. If, therefore, a moon-weight of meteors were caught every year, there must be an incredible mass of meteoric matter roaming at large through the system. There must be so many meteors that the earth would be incessantly pelted with them, and heated to such a degree as to be rendered uninhabitable. There are also other reasons which preclude the supposition that a stupendous quantity of meteoric matter exists in the vicinity of the sun. Such matter would produce an appreciable effect on the movement of the planet Mercury. There are, no doubt, some irregularities in the movements of Mercury not yet fully explained, but these irregularities are very much less than would be the case if meteoric matter existed in quantity adequate to the sustentation of the sun. Astronomers, then, believe that though meteors may provide a rate in aid of the sun's current expenditure, yet that the greater portion of that expenditure must be defrayed from other resources.

It is one of the achievements of modern science to have effected the solution of the problem—to have shown how it is that, notwithstanding the stupendous radiation, the sun still maintains its temperature. The question is not free from difficulty in its exposition, but the matter is one of such very great importance that we are compelled to make the attempt.

Let us imagine a vast globe of heated gas in space. This is not an entirely gratuitous supposition, inasmuch as there are globes apparently of this character; they have been already alluded to as planetary nebulæ. This globe will radiate heat, and we shall suppose that it emits more heat than it receives from the radiation of other bodies. The globe will accordingly lose heat, or what is equivalent thereto, but it will be incorrect to assume that the globe will necessarily fall in temperature. That the contrary is, indeed, the case is a result almost paradoxical at the first glance; but yet it can be shown to be a necessary consequence of the laws of heat and of gases.

[Pg 522]

Let us fix our attention on a portion of the gas lying on the surface of the globe. This is, of course, attracted by all the rest of the globe, and thus tends in towards the centre of the globe. If equilibrium subsists, this tendency must be neutralised by the pressure of the gas beneath; so that the greater the gravitation, the greater is the pressure. When the globe of gas loses heat by radiation, let us suppose that it grows colder—that its temperature accordingly falls; then, since the pressure of a gas decreases when the temperature falls, the pressure beneath the superficial layer of the gas will decrease, while the gravitation is unaltered. The consequence will inevitably be that the gravitation will now conquer the pressure, and the globe of gas will accordingly contract. There is, however, another way in which we can look at the matter. We know that heat is equivalent to energy, so that when the globe radiates forth heat, it must expend energy. A part of the energy of the globe will be due to its temperature; but another, and in some respects a more important, part is that due to the separation of its particles. If we allow the particles to come closer together we shall diminish the energy due to separation, and the energy thus set free can take the form of heat. But this drawing in of the particles necessarily involves a shrinking of the globe.

And now for the remarkable consequence, which seems to have a very important application in astronomy. As the globe contracts, a part of its energy of separation is changed into heat; that heat is partly radiated away, but not so rapidly as it is produced by the contraction. The consequence is, that although the globe is really losing heat and really contracting, yet that its temperature is actually rising.[43] A simple case will suffice to demonstrate this result, paradoxical as it may at first seem. Let us suppose that by contraction of the sphere it had diminished to one-half its diameter; and let us fix our attention on a cubic inch of the gaseous matter in any point of the mass. After the contraction has taken place each edge[Pg 523] of the cube would be reduced to half an inch, and the volume would therefore be reduced to one-eighth part of its original amount. The law of gases tells us that if the temperature be unaltered the pressure varies inversely as the volume, and consequently the internal pressure in the cube would in that case be increased eightfold. As, however, in the case before us, the distance between every two particles is reduced to one-half, it will follow that the gravitation between every two particles is increased fourfold, and as the area is also reduced to one-fourth, it will follow that the pressure inside the reduced cube is increased sixteenfold; but we have already seen that with a constant temperature it only increases eightfold, and hence the temperature cannot be constant, but must rise with the contraction.

We thus have the somewhat astonishing result that a gaseous globe in space radiating heat, and thereby growing smaller, is all the time actually increasing in temperature. But, it may be said, surely this cannot go on for ever. Are we to suppose that the gaseous mass will go on contracting and contracting with a temperature ever fiercer and fiercer, and actually radiating out more and more heat the more it loses? Where lies the limit to such a prospect? As the body contracts, its density must increase, until it either becomes a liquid, or a solid, or, at any rate, until it ceases to obey the laws of a purely gaseous body which we have supposed. Once these laws cease to be observed the argument disappears; the loss of heat may then really be attended with a loss of temperature, until in the course of time the body has sunk to the temperature of space itself.

It is not assumed that this reasoning can be applied in all its completeness to the present state of the sun. The sun's density is now so great that the laws of gases cannot be there strictly followed. There is, however, good reason to believe that the sun was once more gaseous than at present; possibly at one time he may have been quite gaseous enough to admit of this reasoning in all its fulness. At present the sun appears to be in some intermediate stage of its progress from the gaseous condition to the solid condition. We cannot,[Pg 524] therefore, say that the temperature of the sun is now increasing in correspondence with the process of contraction. This may be true or it may not be true; we have no means of deciding the point. We may, however, feel certain that the sun is still sufficiently gaseous to experience in some degree the rise of temperature associated with the contraction. That rise in temperature may be partly or wholly obscured by the fall in temperature which would be the more obvious consequence of the radiation of heat from the partially solid body. It will, however, be manifest that the cooling of the sun may be enormously protracted if the fall of temperature from the one cause be nearly compensated by the rise of temperature from the other. It can hardly be doubted that in this we find the real explanation of the fact that we have no historical evidence of any appreciable alteration in the radiation of heat from the sun.

This question is one of such interest that it may be worth while to look at it from a slightly different point of view. The sun contains a certain store of energy, part of which is continually disappearing in the form of radiant heat. The energy remaining in the sun is partly transformed in character; some of it is transformed into heat, which goes wholly or partly to supply the loss by radiation. The total energy of the sun must, however, be decreasing; and hence it would seem the sun must at some time or other have its energy exhausted, and cease to be a source of light and of heat. It is true that the rate at which the sun contracts is very slow. We are, indeed, not able to measure with certainty the decrease in the sun's bulk. It is a quantity so minute, that the contraction since the birth of accurate astronomy is not large enough to be perceptible in our telescopes. It is, however, possible to compute what the contraction of the sun's bulk must be, on the supposition that the energy lost by that contraction just suffices to supply the daily radiation of heat. The change is very small when we consider the present size of the sun. At the present time the sun's diameter is about 860,000 miles. If each year this diameter decreases by about 300 feet, sufficient energy will be yielded to account[Pg 525] for the entire radiation. This gradual decrease is always in progress.

These considerations are of considerable interest when we apply them retrospectively. If it be true that the sun is at this moment shrinking, then in past times his globe must have been greater than it is at present. Assuming the figures already given, it follows that one hundred years ago the diameter of the sun must have been nearly six miles greater than it is now; one thousand years ago the diameter was fifty-seven miles greater; ten thousand years ago the diameter of the sun was five hundred and seventy miles greater than it is to-day. When man first trod this earth it would seem that the sun must have been many hundreds, perhaps many thousands, of miles greater than it is at this time.

We must not, however, over-estimate the significance of this statement. The diameter of the sun is so great, that a diminution of 10,000 miles would be but little more than the hundredth part of its diameter. If it were suddenly to shrink to the extent of 10,000 miles, the change would not be appreciable to ordinary observation, though a much smaller change would not elude delicate astronomical measurement. It does not necessarily follow that the climates on our earth in these early times must have been very different from those which we find at this day, for the question of climate depends upon other matters besides sunbeams.

Yet we need not abruptly stop our retrospect at any epoch, however remote. We may go back earlier and earlier, through the long ages which geologists claim for the deposition of the stratified rocks; and back again still further, to those very earliest epochs when life began to dawn on the earth. Still we can find no reason to suppose that the law of the sun's decreasing heat is not maintained; and thus we would seem bound by our present knowledge to suppose that the sun grows larger and larger the further our retrospect extends. We cannot assume that the rate of that growth is always the same. No such assumption is required; it is sufficient for our purpose that we find the sun growing[Pg 526] larger and larger the further we peer back into the remote abyss of time past. If the present order of things in our universe has lasted long enough, then it would seem that there was a time when the sun must have been twice as large as it is at present; it must once have been ten times as large. How long ago that was no one can venture to say. But we cannot stop at the stage when the sun was even ten times as large as it is at present; the arguments will still apply in earlier ages. We see the sun swelling and swelling, with a corresponding decrease in its density, until at length we find, instead of our sun as we know it, a mighty nebula filling a gigantic region of space.

Such is, in fact, the doctrine of the origin of our system which has been advanced in that celebrated speculation known as the nebular theory of Laplace. Nor can it be ever more than a speculation; it cannot be established by observation, nor can it be proved by calculation. It is merely a conjecture, more or less plausible, but perhaps in some degree necessarily true, if our present laws of heat, as we understand them, admit of the extreme application here required, and if also the present order of things has reigned for sufficient time without the intervention of any influence at present unknown to us. This nebular theory is not confined to the history of our sun. Precisely similar reasoning may be extended to the individual planets: the farther we look back, the hotter and the hotter does the whole system become. It has been thought that if we could look far enough back, we should see the earth too hot for life; back further still, we should find the earth and all the planets red-hot; and back further still, to an exceedingly remote epoch, when the planets would be heated just as much as our sun is now. In a still earlier stage the whole solar system is thought to have been one vast mass of glowing gas, from which the present forms of the sun, with the planets and their satellites, have been gradually evolved. We cannot be sure that the course of events has been what is here indicated; but there are sufficient grounds for thinking that this doctrine substantially represents what has actually occurred.

[Pg 527]

Many of the features in the solar system harmonise with the supposition that the origin of the system has been that suggested by the nebular theory. We have already had occasion in an earlier chapter to allude to the fact that all the planets perform their revolutions around the sun in the same direction. It is also to be observed that the rotation of the planets on their axes, as well as the movements of the satellites around their primaries, all follow the same law, with two slight exceptions in the case of the Uranian and Neptunian systems. A coincidence so remarkable naturally suggests the necessity for some physical explanation. Such an explanation is offered by the nebular theory. Suppose that countless ages ago a mighty nebula was slowly rotating and slowly contracting. In the process of contraction, portions of the condensed matter of the nebula would be left behind. These portions would still revolve around the central mass, and each portion would rotate on its axis in the same direction. As the process of contraction proceeded, it would follow from dynamical principles that the velocity of rotation would increase; and thus at length these portions would consolidate into planets, while the central mass would gradually contract to form the sun. By a similar process on a smaller scale the systems of satellites were evolved from the contracting primary. These satellites would also revolve in the same direction, and thus the characteristic features of the solar system could be accounted for.

The nebular origin of the solar system receives considerable countenance from the study of the sidereal heavens. We have already dwelt upon the resemblance between the sun and the stars. If, then, our sun has passed through such changes as the nebular theory requires, may we not anticipate that similar phenomena should be met with in other stars? If this be so, it is reasonable to suppose that the evolution of some of the stars may not have progressed so far as has that of the sun, and thus we may be able actually to witness stars in the earlier phases of their development. Let us see how far the telescope responds to these anticipations.

The field of view of a large telescope usually discloses a number of stars scattered over a black background of sky;[Pg 528] but the blackness of the background is not uniform: the practised eye of the skilled observer will detect in some parts of the heavens a faint luminosity. This will sometimes be visible over the whole extent of the field, or it may even occupy several fields. Years may pass on, and still there is no perceptible change. There can be no illusion, and the conclusion is irresistible that the object is a stupendous mass of faintly luminous glowing gas or vapour. This is the simplest type of nebula; it is characterised by extreme faintness, and seems composed of matter of the utmost tenuity. On the other hand we are occasionally presented with the beautiful and striking phenomenon of a definite and brilliant star surrounded by a luminous atmosphere. Between these two extreme types of a faint diffused mass on the one hand, and a bright star with a nebula surrounding it on the other, a graduated series of various other nebulæ can be arranged. We thus have a series of links passing by imperceptible gradations from the most faintly diffused nebulæ on the one side, into stars on the other.

The nebulæ seemed to Herschel to be vast masses of phosphorescent vapour. This vapour gradually cools down, and ultimately condenses into a star, or a cluster of stars. When the varied forms of nebulæ were classified, it almost seemed as if the different links in the process could be actually witnessed. In the vast faint nebulæ the process of condensation had just begun; in the smaller and brighter nebulæ the condensation had advanced farther; while in others, the star, or stars, arising from the condensation had already become visible.

But, it may be asked, how did Herschel know this? what is his evidence? Let us answer this question by an illustration. Go into a forest, and look at a noble old oak which has weathered the storm for centuries; have we any doubt that the oak-tree was once a young small plant, and that it grew stage by stage until it reached maturity? Yet no one has ever followed an oak-tree through its various stages; the brief span of human life has not been long enough to do so. The reason why we believe the oak-tree to have passed through all these stages is, because we are familiar with oak-trees[Pg 529] of every gradation in size, from the seedling up to the noble veteran. Having seen this gradation in a vast multitude of trees, we are convinced that each individual passes through all these stages.

It was by a similar train of reasoning that Herschel was led to adopt the view of the origin of the stars which we have endeavoured to describe. The astronomer's life is not long enough, the life of the human race might not be long enough, to watch the process by which a nebula condenses down so as to form a solid body. But by looking at one nebula after another, the astronomer thinks he is able to detect the various stages which connect the nebula in its original form with the final form. He is thus led to believe that each of the nebulæ passes, in the course of ages, through these stages. And thus Herschel adopted the opinion that stars—some, many, or all—have each originated from what was once a glowing nebula.

Such a speculation may captivate the imagination, but it must be carefully distinguished from the truths of astronomy, properly so called. Remote posterity may perhaps obtain evidence on the subject which to us is inaccessible: our knowledge of nebulæ is too recent. There has not yet been time enough to detect any appreciable changes: for the study of nebulæ can only be said to date from Messier's Catalogue in 1771.

Since Herschel's time, no doubt, many careful drawings and observations of the nebulæ have been obtained; but still the interval has been much too short, and the earlier observations are too imperfect, to enable any changes in the nebulæ to be investigated with sufficient accuracy. If the human race lasts for very many centuries, and if our present observations are preserved during that time for comparison, then Herschel's theory may perhaps be satisfactorily tested.

A hundred years have passed since Laplace, with some diffidence, set forth his hypothesis as to the mode of formation of the solar system. On the whole it must be said that this "nebular hypothesis" has stood the test of advancing science well, though some slight modifications have become[Pg 530] necessary in the light of more recent discoveries. Laplace (and Herschel also) seems to have considered a primitive nebula to consist of a "fiery mist" or glowing gas at a very high temperature. But this is by no means necessary, as we have seen that the gradual contraction of the vast mass supplies energy which may be converted into heat, and the spectroscopic evidence seems also to point to the existence of a moderate temperature in the gaseous nebulæ, which must be considered to be representatives of the hypothetical primitive chaos out of which our sun and planets have been evolved. Another point which has been reconsidered is the formation of the various planets. It was formerly thought that the rotation of the original mass had by degrees caused a number of rings of different dimensions to be separated from the central part, the material of which rings in time collected into single planets. The ring of Saturn was held to be a proof of this process, since we here have a ring, the condensation of which into one or more satellites has somehow been arrested. But while it is not impossible that matter in the shape of rings may have been left behind during the contraction of the nebulous mass (indeed, the minor planets between Mars and Jupiter have perhaps originated in this way), it seems likely that the larger planets were formed from the agglomeration of matter at a point on the equator of the rotating nebula.

The actual steps of the process by which the primeval nebula became transformed into the solar system seem to lie beyond reach of discovery.

About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books.

This book is part of the public domain. Robert S. Ball (2008). The Story of the Heavens. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved October 2022 https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/27378/pg27378-images.html

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org, located at https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html.