WHAT IS MATTER? 37 



without any practical application, if it were not for the fact that Kauffmann 

 determined the apparent masses of corpuscles shot out from a radium prepara- 

 tion at different velocities, and compared them with the masses calculated on 

 the basis that the whole of the mass was due to the electric charge. The 

 agreement between the observed and calculated values is so close that it leads 

 Thomson to say: "These results support the view that the ivhole mass of these 

 electrified particles arises from their charge." 



Then the corpuscles are to be looked upon as nothing but bits of electric 

 charges. ... It is this view which has led to the introduction of the term 

 electron. . . . We have but to concede the logical sequence of this reasoning, 

 all based on experimental evidence . . . and we have a universe of energy in 

 which matter has no necessary part. 7 



Facts as many and as significant as these, added to the reasoned 

 conclusions of philosophy and psychology, would seem adequate to 

 settle the controversy in favor of the dynamic theory of matter, were it 

 not that we are dealing with an idol of the tribe, far more difficult to 

 shatter than the golden calf. But more remains to be said. The 

 validity of a hypotbesis rests not only upon the facts that support it, 

 but also upon the ability it gives us to explain puzzles in fields adjacent 

 to its own. This makes it worth while to mention, though space will 

 not allow explanations in detail, that a number of knots in physical 

 theory, that before had to be cut or else left alone, can be handily 

 untied by the dynamic hypothesis. Professor Bigelow is again my 

 authority in the statements, that the theory explains the highly puz- 

 zling property of valence, and that " An electronic structure of the 

 atom furnishes a basis from which a plausible explanation of the refrac- 

 tion, polarization and rotation of the plane of polarized light may be 

 logically derived." 8 These explanations bulk large in the aggregate, 

 and the exclusive ability of the dynamic theory to make them adds 

 significantly to its credibility. 



As an alternative to the dynamic theory, thus substantially sup- 

 ported, the conservatives have little to offer, indeed, in the last analysis, 

 nothing but a word. The " matter " they refuse to identify with force 

 shrinks down to John Locke's " something, I know not what," by which 

 a portion of the mass of bodies is to be accounted for. But, Sir Oliver 

 Lodge remarks, " it would be equally true to say unaccounted for. 

 The mass which is explicable electrically is to a considerable extent 

 understood, but the mass which is merely material (whatever that may 

 mean) is not understood at all." 9 " What is this matter which so 

 many insist we must assume? " Bigelow asks, and answers: 



No man can define it otherwise than in terms of energy. . . . Starting with 

 any object and removing one by one its properties, indubitably forms of energy, 



7 Popular Science Monthly, July, 1906. Instead of conceiving matter as 

 explained away, energy taking its place, I prefer to conceive of it as explained 

 as being energy and nothing else. This difference in terminology is unim- 

 portant, but might lead to confusion if not pointed out. 



s hoc. cit. 



9 hoc. cit. 



