PKOCEEDINGS: WASHINGTON ACADEMY 91 



The matters thus far spoken of really belong to the old physics. Max- 

 well's theory of light was the origin of the new. This theory requires 

 the assumption of an ether with properties not hitherto known, an ether 

 that would transmit electrical energy and also transmit light, and which 

 need not have the properties of matter as we know it. When light is 

 transmitted thru ether there is momentum, hence the concept of the 

 pressure of light. The momentum in Maxwell's theory comes out just 

 one-half that in the corpuscular theory of light. 



Electricity is probably of an atomic nature, but we need not attach 

 any idea of mass, in the old sense, to the atom of electricity, yet it possess 

 energy and will behave as tho it had mass. Whether or not we may con- 

 sider the mass of a body to vary with the surrounding energy, it is not 

 legitimate to assume that the mass of an atom is the sum of the com- 

 ponent electrons. There are many difficulties in satisfactorily account- 

 ing for the relations of mass to gravitation and at the same time reaching 

 a satisfactory electron theory of matter. 



The new idea of mass then, places it in the ether and involves the 

 abolition of the constancy of mass: it must change with velocity and the 

 addition theory does not hold. The expression " Ether and Matter" 

 should be "Ether no Matter." From consideration of the instability 

 of motion we are led also to postulate both a longitudinal and a trans- 

 verse mass. 



The really great revolution of modern physical science is based on a 

 single experiment, that of Michelson and Morley who found the ether 

 apparently had no velocity with respect to the earth's motion. No 

 satisfactory explanation of this fact has been found which will also 

 account for many other well known phenomena. Generalization to the 

 principle of relativity sometimes leads to a denial of the ether, tho 

 space carries energy and momentum. We are again in a quandary when 

 we attempt to surmount the difficulties due to rotation. It is an inter- 

 esting problem that of creation founded on the theory of relativity the 

 expounders of which appear to postulate that we can never find any rela- 

 tions between ether and matter. Are we, then to reject all questions treat- 

 ing of the structure of the ether? Concerning the structure of matter, 

 are really all intramolecular forces of electrical origin and are they the 

 same for molecular and large distances? Do we know that magnetic 

 fields can be calculated inside molecules in the same way as outside? 



In conclusion, we must reject the purely materialistic views of Kel- 

 vin and must also resist the meta-mathematician who tempts us with 

 a new apple of knowledge disposing of time as merely a fourth dimension 

 of space and promising to unravel the mystery of creation with a formula. 



In the discussion Mr. R. S. Woodward stated that the physics of 

 today is yet untried, and that we must be patient and not be scared out 

 of our ancient learning, and that the foundations of the older physics 

 are yet quite unshaken. We should revise our earlier ideas about mass, 

 but the certainty of the conservation of mass is strong. The law of 

 gravitation is doubtful and the most in proof of it is yet to be done. 

 Physics and mathematics are often not distinguished, physics is not 



