December 9, 1920] 



NATURE 



467 



Letters to the Editor. 



\The Editor does not hold himself responsible for 

 opinions expressed by his correspondents. Neither 

 can he undertake to return, or to correspond with 

 the writers of, rejected manuscripts intended for 

 this or any other part of Nature. No notice is 

 taken of anonymous communications.] 



Name for the Positive Nucleus. 



A NAME is wantcil fur the fundamental unit of 

 latter, which is also the unit of positive electricity 

 i^. at present known. The name ""electron" is best 

 limited to the unit of negative electricity, about which 

 a {{ood deal is by this tmie known. Less is known 

 fiout the positive unit, but it appears to be the brick 

 ! which all atoms are built up, electrons acting as 

 cement. Nearly all the mass belongs to the positive 

 unit, and the simplest atom — namely, hydrogen — 

 appears to consist of one positive and one negative 

 unit electric charge. The heaviest atom known has 

 ninety-two such charges, and among the chemical 

 elements are all intermediate grades. Prout's famous 

 hypothesis that every element was a multiple of 

 hydrogen is thus, with some modification, being con- 

 firmed, though the unnamed unit is not exactly an 



om of hydrogen, but the nucleus, the main sub- 



ance, of that atom. 



At the Cardiff meeting of the British Association 

 .iir Ernest Rutherford siiggested, or tentatively 

 approved the suggestion, that the name "proton" 

 should be applied to this hydrogen nucleus or unit of 

 positive charge. To call it a positive electron is un- 

 desirable — that name might be assuming too much — 

 ' r it is just conceivable that the progress of dis- 



■very may detach from the proton a positive charge 



'>re closely akin to the negative electron — in fret 

 i: image of it. (It is not clear why a positive unit 

 should differ so markedly, as at present it does, from 

 the negative unit.) But, whatever the proton's rela- 

 tion to positive electricity, and whatever its constitu- 

 lion may be, it seems undeniable that it is the most 

 <»><-ntial and massive ingredient in every atom of 

 malti-r. 



From the scientific point of view the name " proton " 

 is therefore good, for it signifies a fundamental sub- 

 stance and conveys a suggestion of Prout. But from 

 the literary point of view there mav be some objec- 

 lion, and a name for the fourulation-stone of the 



aterial universe ought to be capable of being used 



poetry, as the word "atom" has been used. It 



\\ ould seem well, therefore, to ask for suggestions 



'"■fore any name is adopted and allowed to get into 



^^'■neral use. . 



liJiicii Later. — Before sending in the above explana- 

 tory note I consulte<l some men of letters, who will, 

 I hope, allow their names to be mentioned, ;:nd who 

 have made some excellent suggestions : 



Ambrov, as an English version of electron, suited 

 ■' the unit of positive elertricitv. 



Mkrros", a conventional mtxlification of lu'pot. 



Vr-on", or something based on the root llr-; or 

 • \en I'r itself. 



Prime, as a primordial substance irresolvable into 

 factors. 



Crntros, as a nucleus round which things revolve. 



Hyi.on, as the fundamental unit of matter. 



Of these I personally prefer Ilylon; it serves to 

 convey a fact with a minimum of hypothesis; it is itself 

 a convenient word, and it surely need not be regarded 



NO. 2667, VOL. 106] 



as too metaphysical. If its first syllable suggests a 

 real, but painfully illegitimate, relationship to hydrogen, 

 that may be for it or against it, according to taste. 1 

 find the word '" proton " is not liked ; it has been 

 described as "used up and very dull." Wrong pro- 

 nunciation may be hostile to " L'r," and, besides, it 

 might be confused with the other end of the series 

 (uranium), though otherwise it shares some of the 

 advantages of the happily invented word "gas." 



Oliver Loe>ge. 



The British Association. 



TiiK correspondence in Nature under this heading 

 has been most instructive. The widely spread feeling 

 that the Association fails as an organisation to pro- 

 mote the growth of the scientific spirit could ndt well 

 be more definitely brought to light, particularly as 

 many who are known to hold strong views have 

 refrained from expressing them; unfortunately, moral 

 indecision is fast becoming a characteristic of our 

 class. It is all very well lor the late secretary and 

 the present holders of the office to hint that the 

 recommendations cancel out ; maybe they are 

 different; nevertheless, excepting our dear old 

 member, Father Cortie, who has the sense of humour 

 on all occasions, everyone agrees that the Associa- 

 tion does not touch the public. 



The most serious contribution to the discussion, 

 that of greatest import, is the frank statement 

 by the secretary of the Press and Publicity Sub- 

 Committee at Cardiff— for once a man who dares 

 to ^ive open expression to the views he has 

 formed^that we were in no way worth what we 

 cost the locality ; he has voiced a whisper, not seldom 

 heard at previous meetings, which has long weighed 

 on the conscience of some members of the 

 Association. 



The jeast satisfactory letter is that of the two 

 secretaries, who are merely apologetic, in no way 

 constructive. The manner in which, in their opening 

 paragraph, they quietly imply that they are " It " 

 would be amusing were the issue not so serious. 

 Majestically they tell us to send them our views and 

 that they will consider them. No doubt— and con- 

 sign them to the waste-paper basket, as of yore. 



HIven outsiders see that science is losing its 

 influence. Dean Inge, in one of his recent outspoken 

 addresses, pointed out that " a general revolt against 

 the dictatorship of science had been the most remark, 

 able tendency in modern thought. In politics the anti- 

 scientific temper was rampant. The revolution which 

 more than a hundred vears ago guillotined Lavoisier, 

 'having no need of chemists,' was now proclaiming 

 that it had no need of intellectuals of any kind. In 

 Russia they had been tortured and massacred ; in 

 our own country they were ignored and despised." 



Ephemeral writers such as Mr. Ci. K. Chesterton 

 openly scoff at us and lead the public to believe that 

 evolution is a theory of the past and eugenic doctrine 

 moonshine. Their word is accepted, ours is not ; 

 the clown is ever popular, the comic nclor alwavs 

 preferred to the traffic; if we will assume only the 

 prophet's mantle we must exi>oct to be stoned. 



It is useless for .Sir Ray I.ankesfer to take such 

 men across his knee arwl thwack them in his best 

 grandfalherlv style. The literarv brat'i'ndoeio is onlv 

 to lie silenced by showinc him up as ridiculcHis; he is 

 but playing a part — writing nonsense l>erausr it pays; 

 if is his trade and we must not blame him hut blame 

 the school in which the class is bre<l and has its In-ing. 

 We are too conceitedly serious, hopelessly narrow in 

 our outlook, too self-centred to be alive to public 



