R. W. Home

Electricity and the nervous fluid.

ConclusionIt may be seen, then, that if one was prepared to accept the existence of insulating sheaths on the nerves, all the arguments raised against the proposed identification of the nervous and electrical fluids, except one, could be answered satisfactorily. The single exception involved the question of how an electrical disturbance in the brain could be confined to a single nerve, and, as was indicated earlier, it was scarcely fair to hold this sort of objection against the electrical theory alone. In that case, there remained no convincing argument to show why one should not accept the identification of the two fluids. On the other hand, of course, it remained an open question as to whether there was any convincing argument to show why one should accept the identification either. Galvani thought that his experiments provided just such an argument.

The Third Law in Newton's Mechanics

Most modern analysts of Newtons laws of motion, whether they have approached the subject from a historical or from a philosophical viewpoint, have tended to concentrate on the status of the first two laws; the third law has largely been overlooked, or else it has been dismissed as somehow less interesting. My purpose in this paper is to reverse this approach—I intend to investigate some of the historical aspects of the third law, particularly the empirical background to Newtons statement of it, and in so doing, I intend to skirt most of the questions which have been raised concerning the status of the other two laws. In concentrating on the historical aspects of the third law, I shall also by-pass Machs controversial re-interpretation of its role in mechanics, for while Mach saw the law as the basis for an operational definition of “mass”, it is quite clear that Newton did not so regard it. On the contrary, Newton seems to have regarded all three of his laws as straightforward statements of fact about the world, so that a knowledge of the factual background to the laws is a fundamental pre-requisite to an understanding of Newtons thought.

Forming new physics communities: Australia and Japan, 1914–1950

Summary In 1914, the physics discipline had reached a very similar stage of development in Australia and Japan. A generation later the paths of development had considerably diverged. A systematic comparison of the evolution of physics in the two countries during these years identifies factors—political, economic and cultural—that led to this divergence, but it also uncovers a number of underlying parallels.

Physics in Australia and Japan to 1914: A comparison

Summary Physics first became established in Australia and Japan at the same period, during the final quarter of the nineteenth and the first years of the twentieth century. A comparison of the processes by which this happened in these two developing countries on the Pacific rim shows that, despite the great cultural differences that existed, and that might have been expected to have been a source of major differences in national receptiveness to the new science, there were in fact many parallels between the patterns of development in the two cases. Identifying these enables us to draw attention to a number of significant features of the physics discipline more generally at this period. Such differences as emerge in the early history of physics in the two countries seem to have arisen more from the different political situations that prevailed than from anything else; in particular they reflect the fact that Australia was a part of the British Empire while Japan was an independent political power.

Some Manuscripts on Electrical and Other Subjects Attributed to Thomas Bayes, F.R.S.

Among the Canton Papers in the Library of the Royal Society there are two items, written in a very distinctive and different hand from the other documents in the collection, that have been attributed to the mathematician Thomas Bayes (1702-1761), discoverer of the theorem named in his honour that is so well known to present-day statisticians (1). A notebook in a similar hand is preserved elsewhere in London, in the archives of the Equitable Life Assurance Society, and it too has been attributed to Bayes (2). Parts of these documents are in a shorthand similar in structure to but different in some of its details from the systems most commonly used in England in the first half of the eighteenth century, and the fact that the same slightly idiosyncratic system of shorthand is used throughout reinforces the evidence of the handwriting as to their common authorship. All three documents were, it appears, drawn up by one and the same person. There is nothing about any of the documents to prove beyond all doubt that that person was Bayes, nor does what is known of their provenance link them definitively with him. The attribution to Bayes of the notebook at the Equitable Life offices is in fact certainly derivative, since it was made merely through a comparison of the handwriting with that used in the documents at the Royal Society (2); but nothing positive is known in regard to these latter documents themselves. Indeed, the grounds upon which they were attributed to Bayes in the first place are uncertain, as is the identity of the person who made the attribution. Probably, however, it was based upon a comparison with the very similar (and similarly distinctive) handwriting in a letter from Bayes to Canton preserved elsewhere in the Royal Society’s archives (3).

Franklin's Electrical Atmospheres

Benjamin Franklins enunciation of his so-called ‘one-fluid’ theory of electricity in the period 1747–55 nas often been hailed as an important milestone in the history of physics. So indeed it was, for, with the rapid and widespread acceptance of the new theory, the science of electricity became based for the first time on the view that the electrification of a body involved the accumulation of a ‘charge’ from elsewhere, rather than the excitation of matter already present in the body. Only a little more remotely, the triumph of Franklins theory over the rival ‘excitation’ theory espoused by the Abbe Nollet paved the way for the more sophisticated fluid theories propounded by Aepinus, Cavendish, and Coulomb in the years that followed.

Leonhard Euler's ‘anti-Newtonian’ theory of light

Summary Leonhard Euler was the leading eighteenth-century critic of Isaac Newtons projectile theory of light. Eulers main criticisms of Newtons views are surveyed, and also his alternative account according to which light is a wave motion propagated through the aether. Important changes are identified as having occurred between 1744 and 1746 in Eulers thinking about the way in which a wave such as he supposed light to be is propagated through a medium. Paradoxically, in view of Eulers overtly anti-Newtonian stand, these amount to Euler abandoning his early, Malebranchian notions about the physical basis of wave propagation, in favour of the ideas set out by Newton in Book II of his Principia.

Ferdinand Mueller’s Alpine Itinerary

In the early 1850s, Victorias newly appointed Government Botanist, Ferdinand Mueller, undertook three remarkable journeys of botanical exploration in the alpine region in the colonys north-east. There has been considerable uncertainty about the route that he followed, especially on his third expedition between November 1854 and March 1855. This paper offers a reconsideration of Muellers travels in the mountains that takes account of his reports and correspondence, published and unpublished, and also the topography of the region. The conclusions reached have implications for the interpretation of Muellers collection records from these expeditions. The paper also discusses Muellers attempt to fix names on various geographical features in the area and suggests why this was unsuccessful.

A botanist for a continent: Ferdinand von Mueller (1825-96).

The botanist and explorer, Ferdinand von Mueller, was the most distinguished of the many German scientists who made important contributions to Australian science during the nineteenth century. This article explores the background to his going to Australia and the way in which he established a scientific career there, and outlines his principal contributions as Victorias Government Botanist for over 40 years, from 1853 to 1896.

Ferdinand Mueller and the Royal Society of Victoria

During the 1850s the botanist Ferdinand Mueller (later von Mueller) played a leading role in the affairs of the predecessor societies of the Royal Society of Victoria. He was president of the last of these, the Philosophical Institute of Victoria, when in January 1860 it was granted permission to style itself the Royal Society of Victoria. The formation of these societies also advanced Mueller’s own career at a crucial stage of its development. In particular, their commitment to publishing volumes of Transactions provided Mueller with a vehicle for publishing descriptions of the many new species he was identifying in the Australian flora, thus freeing him from his former dependence on colleagues in Europe to see his work into print. Following the launching of a series of his own, Fragmenta phytographiae australiae, in 1858, Mueller no longer had to depend on the local society, either, in order to see his botanical work published. When his experience and advice were ignored in the planning of the Burke and Wills Expedition and he became thoroughly disillusioned with fellow members of the Royal Society who were responsible for the debacle, he gradually distanced himself from the organisation and had little to do with it for many years thereafter.