MICHAEL FARADAY ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE AETHER, AND THE

NATURE OF ACTION-AT-A-DISTANCE

THOUGHTS ON RAY-VIBRATIONS

To Richard Phillips, Esq.

Dear Sir,

At your request I will endeavor to convey to you a notion of that which I ventured to
say at the close of the last Friday-evening Meeting, incidental to the account I gave
of Wheatstone's electro-magnetic chronoscope; but from first to last understand
that I merely threw out as matter for speculation, the vague impressions of my
mind, for I gave nothing as the result of sufficient consideration, or as the settled
conviction, or even probable conclusion at which I had arrived.

The point intended to be set forth for consideration of the hearers was, whether it
was not possible that vibrations which in a certain theory are assumed to account
for radiation and radiant phaenomena may not occur in the lines of force which
connect particles, and consequently masses of matter together; a notion which as
far as is admitted, will dispense with the aether, which in another view, is supposed
to be the medium in which these vibrations take place.

You are aware of the speculation (2) which I some time since uttered respecting
that view of the nature of matter which considers its ultimate atoms as centres of
force, and not as so many little bodies surrounded by forces, the bodies being
considered in the abstract as independent of the forces and capable of existing
without them. In the latter view, these little particles have a definite form and a
certain limited size; in the former view such is not the case, for that which
represents size may be considered as extending to any distance to which the lines
of force of the particle extend: the particle indeed is supposed to exist only by
these forces, and where they are it is. The consideration of matter under this view
gradually led me to look at the lines of force as being perhaps the seat of vibrations
of radiant phenomena.

Another consideration bearing conjointly on the hypothetical view both of matter

and radiation, arises from the comparison of the velocities with which the radiant
action and certain powers of matter are transmitted. The velocity of light through
space is about 190,000 miles in a second; the velocity of electricity is, by the
experiments of Wheatstone, shown to be as great as this, if not greater: the light is
supposed to be transmitted by vibrations through an aether which is, so to speak,

  1  
destitute of gravitation, but infinite in elasticity; the electricity is transmitted through
a small metallic wire, and is often viewed as transmitted by vibrations also. That
the electric transference depends on the forces or powers of the matter of the wire
can hardly be doubted, when we consider the different conductibility of the various
metallic and other bodies; the means of affecting it by heat or cold; the way in
which conducting bodies by combination enter into the constitution of non-
conducting substances, and the contrary; and the actual existence of one
elementary body, carbon, both in the conducting and non-conducting state. The
power of electric conduction (being a transmission of force equal in velocity to that
of light) appears to be tied up in and dependent upon the properties of the matter,
and is, as it were, existent in them.

I suppose we may compare together the matter of the aether and ordinary matter
(as, for instance, the copper of the wire through which the electricity is conducted),
and consider them as alike in their essential constitution; i.e. either as both
composed of little nuclei, considered in the abstract as matter, and of force or
power associated with these nuclei, or else both consisting of mere centres of
force, according to Boscovich's theory and the view put forth in my speculation; for
there is no reason to assume that the nuclei are more requisite in the one case
than in the other. It is true that the copper gravitates and the aether does not, and
that therefore the copper is ponderable and the aether is not; but that cannot
indicate the presence of nuclei in the copper more than in the aether, for of all the
powers of matter gravitation is the one in which the force extends to the greatest
possible distance from the supposed nucleus, being infinite in relation to the size of
the latter, and reducing the nucleus to a mere centre of force. The smallest atom of
matter on the earth acts directly on the smallest atom of matter in the sun, though
they are 95,000,000 miles apart; further, atoms which, to our knowledge, are at
least nineteen times that distance, and indeed in cometary masses, far more, are
in a similar way tied together by the lines of force extending from and belonging to
each. What is there in the condition of the particles of the supposed aether, if there
be even only one such particle between us and the sun, that can in subtility and
extent compare to this?

Let us not be confused by the ponderability and gravitation of heavy matter, as if

they proved the presence of the abstract nuclei; these are due not to the nuclei, but
to the force super-added to them, if the nuclei exist at all; and, if the aether
particles be without this force, which according to the assumption is the case, then
they are more material, in the abstract sense, than the matter of this our globe; for
matter, according to the assumption, being made up of nuclei and force, the aether
particles have in this respect proportionately more of the nucleus and less of the
force.

On the other hand, the infinite elasticity assumed as belonging to the particles of
the aether, is as striking and positive a force of it as gravity is of ponderable
particles, and produces in its way effects as great; in witness whereof we have all

  2  
the varieties of radiant agency as exhibited in luminous, caloric, and actinic
phaenomena.

Perhaps I am in error in thinking the idea generally formed of the aether is that its
nuclei are almost infinitely small, and that such force as it has, namely its elasticity,
is almost infinitely intense. But if such be the received notion, what then is left in
the aether but force or centres of force? As gravitation and solidity do not belong to
it, perhaps many may admit this conclusion; but what are gravitation and solidity?
certainly not the weight and contact of the abstract nuclei. The one is the
consequence of an attractive force, which can act at distances as great as the
mind of man can estimate or conceive; and the other is the consequence of a
repulsive force, which forbids for ever the contact or touch of any two nuclei; so
that these powers or properties should not in any degree lead those persons who
conceive of the aether as a thing consisting of force only, to think any otherwise of
ponderable matter, except that it has more and other forces associated with it than
the aether has.

In experimental philosophy we can, by the phaenomena presented, recognize

various kinds of lines of force; thus there are the lines of gravitating force, those of
electro-static induction, those of magnetic action, and others partaking of a
dynamic character might be perhaps included. The lines of electric and magnetic
action are by many considered as exerted through space like the lines of
gravitating force. For my own part, I incline to believe that when there are
intervening particles of matter (being themselves only centres of force), they take
part in carrying on the force through the line, but that when there are none, the line
proceeds through space. Whatever the view adopted respecting them may be, we
can, at all events, affect these lines of force in a manner which may be conceived
as partaking of the nature of a shake or lateral vibration. For suppose two bodies,
A B, distant from each other and under mutual action, and therefore connected by
lines of force, and let us fix our attention upon one resultant of force, having an
invariable direction as regards space; if one of the bodies move in the least degree
right or left, or if its power be shifted for a moment within the mass (neither of these
cases being difficult to realise if A and B be either electric or magnetic bodies),
then an effect equivalent to a lateral disturbance will take place in the resultant
upon which we are fixing our attention; for, either it will increase in force whilst the
neighboring results are diminishing, or it will fall in force as they are increasing.

It may be asked, what lines of force are there in nature which are fitted to convey
such an action and supply for the vibrating theory the place of the aether? I do not
pretend to answer this question with any confidence; all I can say is, that I do not
perceive in any part of space, whether (to use the common phrase) vacant or filled
with matter, anything but forces and the lines in which they are exerted. The lines
of weight or gravitating force are, certainly, extensive enough to answer in this
respect any demand made upon them by radiant phaenomena; and so, probably,
are the lines of magnetic force: and then who can forget that Mossotti has shown

  3  
that gravitation, aggregation, electric force, and electro-chemical action may all
have one common connection or origin; and so, in their actions at a distance, may
have in common that infinite scope which some of these actions are known to
possess?

The view which I am so bold to put forth considers, therefore, radiation as a kind of
species of vibration in the lines of force which are known to connect particles and
also masses of matter together. It endeavors to dismiss the aether, but not the
vibration. The kind of vibration which, I believe, can alone account for the
wonderful, varied, and beautiful phaenomena of polarization, is not the same as
that which occurs on the surface of disturbed water, or the waves of sound in
gases or liquids, for the vibrations in these cases are direct, or to and from the
centre of action, whereas the former are lateral. It seems to me, that the resultant
of two or more lines of force is in an apt condition for that action which may be
considered as equivalent to a lateral vibration; whereas a uniform medium, like the
aether, does not appear apt, or more apt than air or water.

The occurrence of a change at one end of a line of force easily suggests a

consequent change at the other. The propagation of light, and therefore probably
of all radiant action, occupies time; and, that a vibration of the line of force should
account for the phaenomena of radiation, it is necessary that such vibration should
occupy time also. I am not aware whether there are any data by which it has been,
or could be ascertained whether such a power as gravitation acts without
occupying time, or whether lines of force being already in existence, such a lateral
disturbance at one end as I have suggested above, would require time, or must of
necessity be felt instantly at the other end.

As to that condition of the lines of force which represents the assumed high
elasticity of the aether, it cannot in this respect be deficient: the question here
seems rather to be, whether the lines are sluggish enough in their action to render
them equivalent to the aether in respect of the time known experimentally to be
occupied in the transmission of radiant force.

The aether is assumed as pervading all bodies as well as space: in the view now
set forth, it is the forces of the atomic centres which pervade (and make) all bodies,
and also penetrate all space. As regards space, the difference is, that the aether
presents successive parts of centres of action, and the present supposition only
lines of action; as regards matter, the difference is, that the aether lies between the
particles and so carries on the vibrations, whilst as respects the supposition, it is by
the lines of force between the centres of the particles that the vibration is
continued. As to the difference in intensity of action within matter under the two
views, I suppose it will be very difficult to draw any conclusion, for when we take
the simplest state of common matter and that which most nearly causes it to
approximate to the condition of the aether, namely the state of the rare gas, how

  4  
soon do we find in its elasticity and the mutual repulsion of its particles, a departure
from the law, that the action is inversely as the square of the distance!

And now, my dear Phillips, I must conclude. I do not think I should have allowed
these notions to have escaped from me, had I not been led unawares, and without
previous consideration, by the circumstances of the evening on which I had to
appear suddenly and occupy the place of another. Now that I have put them on
paper, I feel that I ought to have kept them much longer for study, consideration,
and, perhaps final rejection; and it is only because they are sure to go abroad in
one way or another, in consequence of their utterance on that evening, that I give
shape, if shape it may be called, in this reply to your inquiry. One thing is certain,
that any hypothetical view of radiation which is likely to be received or retained as
satisfactory, must not much longer comprehend alone certain phaenomena of light,
but must include those of heat and of actinic influence also, and even the conjoined
phaenomena of sensible heat and chemical power produced by them. In this
respect, a view, which is in some degree founded upon the ordinary forces of
matter, may perhaps find a little consideration amongst the other views that will
probably arise. I think it likely that I have made many mistakes in the preceeding
pages, for even to myself, my ideas on this point appear only as the shadow of a
speculation, or as one of those impressions on the mind which are allowable for a
time as guides to thought and research. He who labours in experimental inquiries
knows how numerous these are, and how often their apparent fitness and beauty
vanish before the progress and development of real natural truth.

I am, my dear Phillips,

Ever truly yours,

M. Faraday,

April 15, 1846

*"Experimental Researches in Electricity", Vol III, M. Faraday, p447-452<

1) M. Faraday, Philosophical Magazine, S.3, Vol XXVIII, N188, May 1846

2) M. Faraday, Phil Magazine, 1844, Vol XXIV, p136; or Exp.Res.II.284

  5