in no way .TtTcct tliis principle of rationalivc necessity. Win ilu pariick'. com- 

 pared with tlie atom, as a ^rain of sand to llie great Nclnila in AiuliDiiifJa, the 

 iuiinan mind must refuse to believe in its indivisibility. 



If ilie descent from the atom to the electron is merely the hrcakinj,' up of 

 the old hypothetical material unit, and substituting therefor, as an ultimate, 

 a smaller material unit; we are travelling a road that leads nowhere, and which 

 cannot possibly have an end. But the development of the electron theory docs 

 not point in that direction, nor lead to such a conclusion. All the evidence 

 fa\ors the assumption that such a thing as an ultimate material unit docs not 

 exist. On ti prinri grounds, we were already assured that such is the case, but 

 it is a splendid tribute to the thoroughness of modern phj-sical research that the 

 findings of science tend to confirm the mandates of abstract reasoning. 



Professor J. J. Thom-son. of the University of Cambridge, perhaps the great- 

 est authority on the electronic theory of matter, is inclined to the opinion that 

 the essential nature of what we know as "'inatter" is immaterial. His celebrated 

 "vortex theory" blazed the trail in that direction. From it came his own corpus- 

 cular theory, and the theory of electrons — all tending in the same general di- 

 rection. 



Altho. seemingly, remarkably consistent and entirely satisfactory in many 

 respects, the splendid structure of the electron theory of today rests upon an 

 unknown terrain. No scientist living can give, even to himself, a satisfactory 

 explanation of tlie positive electrial content, which, it is supposed, constitutes 

 the conser\'ative. central portion of the atom. We are told that all electrons 

 supposed to be dir-ectly in\-ol\-ed in chemical changes are negative electric charg- 

 es: whether the changes be elemental, as in the case of emanations from radio 

 activity, or molecular in the formation of chemical compounds. The number of 

 these negative electrons determine *the group-form of their arrangement in the 

 atom, and this arrangement determines the nature or qualities of the element 

 in which the form occurs. The accession to an atom, or the loss from it, of 

 one or more negative electrons may necessitate the re-arrangement of the re- 

 maining electrons, thereby changing the fundamental character of the element. 

 suddenly transmuting it into an altogether different element, as such things are 

 judged from reactions in the usual laboratory tests. 



In the formation of chemical compounds, the various groupings into which 

 different numbers of electrons must arrange themselves, as w^ell as their different 

 degrees of stability, have been worked out with ingenious scientific precision, 

 and are apparently confirmed by electrolytic experimentations and formulae. 

 E\-ery addition or loss of an electron affects the positive-negative equilibrium, 

 extn tho it does not break down the group arrangement If we select a certain 

 atom containing the minimum number of negative electrons necessitating a cer- 

 tain group formation, we find that such an atom may receive a definite number of 

 new electrons before the grouping becomes unstable to the breaking point. On 

 the other hand, if this atom should lose even a single electron, the grouping 

 immediately breaks down, and the remaining electrons rearrange themselves in 

 a new form. 



Now, the electron theory would be equally serviceable as a working hypo- 

 thesis, whether we considered the electron as "material" or not. If we regard 

 these supposed ultimate factors as being '"immaterial," the facts would be just 

 as well accounted for; some fundamental difficulties would, doubtless, be over- 

 come; and, moreover, the assumption would have the invaluable additional 

 merit of being in accord with our conviction of rationalistic necessity. An 

 ultimate material particle is unthinkable. 



Science has already demonstrated that the one thing indispensable to the 

 existence of matter is form — the form-grouping of atomic electrical charges. 

 And these forms certainly do not depend upon the assumption that their content 

 and boundaries are material units. They are as purely formal as the mathemati- 

 cal point and line. They- may- well be likened to the ideal forms of geometry 

 and of transcendental philosophy. The more thoroughly we understand the 

 foundations of mathematics and philosophy the better will we appreciate this 

 comparison. The science of geometry would lose none of its validity if all 

 matter, insofar as it now yields to measurement, were swept from the universe. 



