The Project Gutenberg eBook of Archimedes; or, the future of physics
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Archimedes; or, the future of physics
Author: Lancelot Law Whyte
Release date: February 23, 2025 [eBook #75452]
Language: English
Original publication: London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co, 1927
Credits: Carla Foust, Tim Lindell and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from images made available by the HathiTrust Digital Library.)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ARCHIMEDES; OR, THE FUTURE OF PHYSICS ***
ARCHIMEDES
OR
THE FUTURE OF PHYSICS
TO-DAY AND TO-MORROW
_For a full list of this Series see the end
of this Book_
ARCHIMEDES
OR
THE FUTURE OF PHYSICS
BY
L. L. WHYTE
LONDON:
KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., LTD.
NEW YORK: E. P. DUTTON & CO.
To
LOTTE
Made and Printed in Great Britain by
M. F. Robinson & Co. Ltd. at the Library Press, Lowestoft
CONTENTS
CHAP. PAGE
I THE SCIENCES CONVERGE 7
II A MODERN DUEL: EINSTEIN AND EDDINGTON _v._ BERGSON AND
WHITEHEAD 22
III TIME IN ASTRONOMY AND PHYSICS 37
IV AN EVOLUTIONARY EXPERIMENT 47
V PHYSICS AND THE HUMAN MIND 66
VI THE FUTURE OF THE SCIENCES 79
NOTES 95
ARCHIMEDES
OR
THE FUTURE OF PHYSICS
CHAPTER I
_The Sciences Converge_
One of the most fascinating features in the history of thought is that
on several occasions an important new idea has come simultaneously to
independent minds. Thus after Euclid’s geometry had remained without
a rival for two thousand years the conception of an alternative
non-Euclidean system was reached separately by Gauss, Lobatschewsky,
and Bolyai during the years 1820-30. Bolyai’s father, while ignorant of
the fact that Gauss had already made the same discoveries, wrote to his
son urging him to publish his results and used the following prophetic
words:
“There is some truth in this, that many things have an epoch, in which
they are found at the same time in several places, just as the violets
appear on every side in the spring.”
Another example of the simultaneous emergence of an idea in the minds
of different thinkers is given by Darwin in his introduction to the
_Origin of Species_. He there calls attention to the fact that in
1794-5 the broad idea of the evolution of species--though not its
cause--was simultaneously formulated by Goethe in Germany, St Hilaire
in France, and his own grandfather, Dr Darwin, in England. Moreover
Darwin himself had the remarkable experience of finding in an essay
submitted to him in 1858 by A. R. Wallace a complete summary of his
own unpublished theory of natural selection as the chief cause of the
evolution of species.
The last few years constitute another critical period of a similar
kind, since an idea, which when made precise will transform scientific
thought, has already come independently to many thinkers. Since 1922
many scientists have felt that in studying the emission and absorption
of light physics has come near to the problem of life.[1] Others have
proposed that in order to straighten out its atomic problems physics
will have to take a hint from biology, but what this hint should be
has not yet been indicated. The following pages suggest a definite
line of advance for physics, and interpret these isolated flashes of
intuition as evidence of a special feature in the present situation of
the sciences.
We stand at the eve of a new epoch. Physics, biology, and psychology
are converging towards a scientific synthesis of unprecedented
importance, whose influence on thought and social custom will be so
profound that it will mark a stage in human evolution. For centuries
science has concentrated its highest genius on the study of inanimate
matter; to-day the three great sciences are at last reaching the
problem of life. For their researches on matter, life, and mind are
now overlapping at one common issue: the nature of the fundamental
electrical processes which underlie radiation and chemical combination.
Thus physics is at present occupied with the changes that occur when
an atom emits either light or electricity. Biology is at the same
problem in studying the electrical processes which are the basis of all
organic behaviour, whether in primitive forms of protoplasm or in the
highly developed central nervous system of man. Meantime psychology is
dealing with an identical process when it analyses the structure of
mind, and considers the elementary changes of consciousness which are
produced when light of a given colour falls on the retina and sends
its influence to the brain.
As the result of these convergent researches, life and consciousness
will soon be subject to the first stages of a theoretically-grounded
control, compared with which the present tentative efforts of medicine
and psychology will be looked back on much as we remember the haphazard
work of the alchemists before the foundation of chemistry. But this
development of human knowledge and powers will carry with it great
responsibilities, and scientists have to prepare themselves for the new
tasks that will very soon fall to them. By indicating the main ideas
through which this broad scientific synthesis may come about, this
essay aims at showing that this possibility has to be taken seriously.
We shall first examine the situation in physics and then turn to
consider the influence which future developments of physical theory
may have on biology and psychology.
Two main types of process defy interpretation within the present scheme
of physical conceptions: life itself, and the atomic processes of
radiation and the building up of stable compounds. In organic processes
on the one hand, and the energy-interchanges of atoms on the other
hand, we find something happening which cannot adequately be explained
as a change in the _structure_ of the system considered. By structure
is meant a spatial pattern of particles, which are supposed to be
permanent and to move about like cricket balls or planets. Systems
with a structure of this kind could not display the purposive quality
of organic behaviour, and when we try to make a structural model
of the atom we find that it fails to explain why the atom radiates
energy in the abrupt packets which are called ‘quanta’, instead of
in a continuous wave. We shall return presently to the question of
organisms, after making an endeavour to discover why the atom cannot be
described in terms of a particle structure.
In 1911 Rutherford achieved remarkable success in accounting for the
results of his own researches in radioactivity by adopting a model of
the atom as a miniature solar system, with planetary electrons rotating
rapidly around a nucleus. But in order to explain the fact that the
spectrum of the light emitted by an atom shows a characteristic series
of lines, Bohr suggested that an electron inside an atom could emit
light only by making a discontinuous jump from one possible orbit to
another quite distinct orbit. This apparent discontinuity in the motion
of electrons has intrigued physicists for more than ten years, and the
following interpretations have recently been offered for this puzzling
behaviour:
1. Nature is made up of electrons, but neither space nor time is
fundamentally discontinuous. The electron appears to have some freedom
of choice, and to be able to reappear unexpectedly at forbidden places.
2. Nature is not discontinuous or arbitrary, but nevertheless
something prevents us determining all the things we should like to
know about an electron. For instance, if we try to determine exactly
where it is, it behaves so that we cannot simultaneously measure its
exact velocity. (Heisenberg.) This view may perhaps be interpreted
to mean that we have made the atom model more complex than the atom
itself is, and that consequently we have been using more quantities
than are necessary for describing all we can observe of its behaviour.
3. Nature is not made up of electrons, but of waves. The atom must be
considered as a system of electric waves spread over its whole volume.
‘Electrons’ are merely an inaccurate way of describing some of the
properties of these waves. The wave picture of the atom is, however,
to be considered only as a temporary expedient to be used until some
better description of the atom can be invented, in which both the wave
and the corpuscular properties of atoms will appear as aspects of some
more profound physical property. (Schrödinger.)
The first alternative is a mere cry of despair, since it does not
propose any line of advance. But the other two suggestions may be
combined thus:
4. The view of the atom as a structure of Newtonian particles is wrong
since it gives rise to discontinuities, and provides more quantities
than we at present need. A new formulation of atomic processes must
be found using fewer quantities which will explain why we find wave
properties, and why sometimes the electron does behave like a small
billiard ball though really it is some different sort of thing.
Now since the Newtonian mathematics of moving particles is inadequate
for describing the changes that go on in the atom--just as it is for
describing organic processes--there must be some assumption implicit in
Newton’s laws which is valid neither for atom nor for organism. Such
an assumption can be found very easily, though physics has never given
it much attention. It is that the elementary processes in nature are
_reversible_, or would be if they could be isolated. By reversible is
here meant that the laws governing the process remain unchanged when
the direction of time is reversed, i.e. when -t is substituted for +t.
If the law is changed by this substitution so that the reversed process
never occurs or is recognizably different, then the process is called
irreversible. An irreversible process can therefore be used to yield an
objective criterion of past and future, when these terms have been once
defined.
To take an example. If I am standing behind a hedge and take a
cinematograph film of a stone which suddenly rises in the air and
disappears from sight, I could not tell from an examination of the
film which way to wind it. Thus if it is wound one way the stone
appears to rise, and if wound the other way to fall from the sky.
To tell which was the right way I should have to use my subjective
sense of the direction of time, i.e. remember the fact that I saw the
stone low in the air before I saw it high up. This case, like every
gravitational process, is reversible, and motions of this kind have
provided the basis for modern physical conceptions.
But suppose that instead I had taken a film of a cup of tea as it was
cooling. One end of the film would show the steam above the cup and the
spoon changing in length as it changed in temperature. Passing along
the film these effects would grow less marked until the successive
photos showed no variation when the temperature of the tea was nearly
that of the surrounding air. It would be obvious which way to wind
this film, without using any subjective criterion supplied from memory
of the individual process which had been photographed. This process is
irreversible, but physics has hitherto assumed that all such processes
are merely the statistical result of a chaos of molecular motions each
of them perfectly reversible.
The assumption of reversibility seems to some physicists so fundamental
that they think there could be no science without it. But that is
a mere prejudice arising from the fact that Newton conceived one
particular way of giving mathematical formulation to the measurable
features of physical processes. By suggesting that all the laws of
nature might take a form similar to his law of gravitation, he made
the implicit assumption that all elementary processes were reversible.
Gravitational motions are so, at any rate within the accuracy of
Newton’s law, and as a consequence of the confirmation of his law
and the fact that it has been taken as a model for the whole system
of modern physical conceptions, the latter are only appropriate for
reversible processes.
Apparent irreversibility, such as the cooling of a cup of tea,
is attributed to statistical effects, and the second law of
thermodynamics, which asserts that temperatures tend to uniformity,
is treated as merely a statement of what is highly probable. This is
probably quite legitimate, but even where no statistical effect can
enter and the process is clearly irreversible physics usually adopts
any measure rather than assume that a fundamental elementary process
is irreversible.[2] We cannot be surprised at this, since if physics
once admitted that any elementary process was irreversible it would
have to give up the whole system of Newtonian conceptions. Matter,
force, energy, action, and wave properties are all unsuitable for the
treatment of irreversible effects since they all ultimately depend on
Newton’s reversible law.
An entirely new set of ideas is necessary for describing processes
which necessarily proceed in one direction, so that one particular
state of the system must precede another state. It appears conceivable
that an alternative set of conceptions to replace the Newtonian might
be established by demanding the irreversibility of all natural laws, as
well as the demands hitherto made by physics, i.e. the permanence of
matter and the conservation of energy.
The question of the reversibility of natural processes provides the key
to a great intellectual struggle which is now in progress behind the
complexities of philosophic and scientific thought. The issue can be
formulated thus:
Is there a real temporal process in nature? Is the passage of
irreversible time a necessary element in any view of the structure of
nature? Or, alternatively, is the subjective experience of time a
mere illusion in the mind which cannot be given objective expression?
These are not metaphysical questions that can still be neglected
by science with impunity. For just as Einstein made his advance by
analysing conceptions such as simultaneity, which had been thought
to be adequately understood for the purposes of empirical science,
so the next development of physical theory will probably be made by
carrying on the analysis of time from the point at which Einstein left
it. Moreover, the above questions may be put into precise scientific
form by asking if the causal relations which are studied by science
are symmetrical and reversible so that we cannot obtain from them any
criterion by which to distinguish past and future. If, on the other
hand, they are asymmetrical and irreversible, the laws of nature lead
us on necessarily from what went before to what comes afterwards.
CHAPTER II
_A modern duel: Einstein and Eddington v. Bergson and Whitehead_
In this battle over the importance of time and process great names
stand out as representatives of the two opposed views: Einstein
and Bergson, with their lieutenants, Eddington and Whitehead. The
two leaders use very different methods. Einstein, as mathematical
physicist, suggests that physical laws can best be expressed if we
assume that space and time are so similar that physics can make no
absolute distinction between them. Thus in relativity theory the
symmetry of space involves the symmetry of time, and therefore the
reversibility of physical laws, as has been shown by Birkhoff.
Bergson, as biologist and philosopher, denies that the view of time
which is implicit in relativity mathematics is adequate when a wider
range of experience is taken into account.
Einstein starts by excluding all but a very narrow range of physical
experience, and finds that he can make successful predictions about
light and gravitation by treating the irreversibility of the passage
of time as of no importance for scientific measurements. Bergson, by
studying a wide range of biological and subjective experience, comes
to assert the existence of a creative process, though the inherent
limitations of the intellect and of science may leave the essence of
this process outside their reach.
Both protagonists have left their flanks exposed, by omitting to
present their view as a consistent logical system, Einstein because he
is concerned only with the equations that can be empirically tested,
and Bergson because his chief interest is non-intellectual. It is here
that their lieutenants step forward to develop the two points of view,
and hence to intensify the conflict.
Eddington provides a logical basis for the theory of relativity and
reveals that the significance of physical laws is not quite what we
used to think. They are, he argues, identities which the human mind
discovers in its search for something permanent that it can call
_matter_ beneath all the changing appearances of the world. We have
made matter the real thing by demanding permanence or indestructibility
as the basis of physical reality. Now that we know that we have done
this it need not trouble us too much to find that absolute unchanging
matter doesn’t exist, since this merely means that we started out with
a demand that nature cannot fulfil. Unfortunately Eddington doesn’t
discuss what alternative demand we might now make in order to build
up a more satisfactory system of scientific ideas. But in spite of his
enthusiastic support of Einstein’s theory, with its implicit assumption
of reversibility, Eddington hesitates at least once in his advocacy
of reversible laws, for facts are turning up which suggest that this
undiscussed presupposition may not prove valid.[3]
Meantime Whitehead has been at work on the other side, and by
sharpening his logic till few can understand him has made the idea of
temporal process the basis of all intellectual and scientific thought,
whereas up to now process has always presented many difficult problems
for the intellect. He proposes that since the conception of matter
has been found to be unsatisfactory we must start from the basic idea
of process in building up a new physical theory. As a consequence of
his line of thought, Whitehead found it necessary to reject some of
Einstein’s arguments and to show that Einstein’s law could be reached
from quite different postulates. For instance, Whitehead assumed that
the motion of light was irreversible, and that light did not travel
with the same velocity in the two opposed directions.
So much for one aspect of the conflict, its logical and philosophical
basis. But the issue must be decided by appeal to experimental
confirmation over the widest range of phenomena. Orthodox physics still
assumes reversibility, and has on its side the explicit statement made
by Einstein in 1925,[4] but by doing so it excludes at the start any
reference to organic processes. Conceptions based on this assumption
could never be legitimately applied to life, and all attempts made
hitherto to explain the central controlling processes of organisms in
terms of classical physics have necessarily failed. We know now that
this failure could have been foreseen.
The same objection cannot be made against the basic ideas of Bergson
and Whitehead, nor against the new atomic physics as interpreted by
Born, as we shall see in a moment. To Bergson and Whitehead, as to many
others amongst whom Lloyd Morgan must be mentioned, the process of
nature is creative, i.e. it involves the coming into being of the new,
the appearance of new combinations essentially precluded before. This
probably means that the laws of physics which are to describe what is
actually happening in the world must be given irreversible form. For
reversible equations make no distinction between to-day and to-morrow,
and cannot express the fact that at later moments new forms may emerge,
either in the evolution of organisms or of stars. On the other hand
irreversible laws can be arranged so as to display time as an active
factor in causation, i.e. to emphasize the fact that a certain period
of time necessarily has to pass before some new combination can be
attained.[5]
The upholders of a real process in nature can appeal to the facts of
organic life, human memory, and to biological and stellar evolution.
But their case is still weak because fundamental irreversibility
has not yet received explicit mathematical formulation suitable for
experimental test. When this has been done the intellectual battle will
be brought to its decision, and if irreversibility wins the day biology
and psychology will find themselves in possession of a physical basis
well suited to the facts with which they have to deal.
There is reason to believe that the decision will be made very soon.
We saw that the implicit assumption of reversibility underlies all
Newtonian conceptions. It may therefore be that the reason why we
cannot interpret atomic behaviour in terms of particle motions is that
electrical and radiational processes are essentially irreversible.
Particle motion and wave propagation--the two ideas on which all
modern theories of matter are based--are both represented by
mathematical expressions which are essentially reversible since time
enters only through the square of ‘dt’. If the quantum processes should
prove to be irreversible, we have already found a reason why the old
conceptions of particles and waves must be inadequate.
This speculation may indeed be found correct, since Born, one of
the leading experts in Quantum Dynamics, asserts that all quantum
processes are irreversible and that the apparent reversibility of
classical processes is only an approximation due to the fact that their
irreversibility happens to be negligible.[4] We may therefore hope that
the atomic physicists will soon formulate the quantum laws in a clearly
irreversible form which admits of precise experimental test.
But this may take some years, and in the meantime we must look around
and see how this issue is affecting current thought. We find the doubt
about process presented by Mr Sullivan (in _Gallio_), who has not yet
made up his mind to which side science will grant the victory. Thus on
one page he writes: “it seems to be true that events do not really take
place, we come across them” and suggests that process may be “a totally
irrelevant idea when applied to reality”. But later we learn to our
surprise that “it seems likely that (in scientific theory) the world
will have to be regarded as an evolutionary process, where patterns of
value emerge”. However, this inconsistency need not bother us, since
we are told that “the teachings of science so far as the spiritual
problems of man are concerned are merely irrelevant”.
These views reflect perfectly the uncertainty of the time, and will be
looked back on as a precious record of the state of mind which preceded
the scientific synthesis. Perhaps the most interesting feature of
the essay is the indecision it displays with regard to the spiritual
importance of science. This is a relic from the days when there were
two worlds, the world of science and the world of religion and art. No
one ever knew which of these worlds they were living in, and this is no
wonder. For the division was made only because at one time it looked
as though the scientific method could only deal with _quantities_,
and therefore that science could have nothing to say about values or
qualities. This view is no longer tenable. For instance, there is a
quality in organic integration which most of us value, and without this
and many other such conceptions biology and psychology could not get
far.
Before proceeding any further it is necessary to correct a common
misunderstanding with regard to the significance of Einstein’s theory
of relativity. This theory is mathematical, and is based on a series
of postulates which rule out any claim to present an ultimate theory
of space and time. One of these postulates[6] asserts that all our
physical knowledge can be reduced to the space-time coincidences
of pairs of point-events, or in other words the intersection of
the world-lines of electrons. No respect for the supreme genius
who predicted two experimental results and eliminated the chief
discrepancies remaining in Newtonian theory should restrain scientists
from pointing out that this postulate assumes something that has never
been known to occur, and has no valuable reference to the world of
physical experiment. The confirmation of Einstein’s final equations
cannot give any validity to this postulate. For it is difficult to
think of any physical experience considered by theoretical physics
which does not involve the perception of light or colour, and one
cannot assume that the perception of light is a perception of
coincidences. Light varies in colour and intensity; coincidence in
space is too abstract to account for an effect which is subject to
variation. Moreover all physical experience requires a certain amount
of time, and this fact is neglected if perception is reduced to the
recognition of instantaneous coincidences. Even if these two criticisms
are left on one side we still have to notice that Einstein’s postulate
rules out from the range of physics the important fact that many
processes are irreversible. For instance, if we accept Einstein’s
definition of physical experience, then the interesting fact that
radioactivity is only observed in the form of disintegration, and not
also as the reverse process of a spontaneous building up of heavier
elements from lighter, has to be left over by physics to be dealt with
by some other science.
It almost always happens that the formulations of genius are
exaggerated and form the basis of a pernicious orthodoxy, and it has
certainly happened to relativity theory. Against a tide of exaggerated
praise Whitehead, Larmor, and Bridgman, as well as some Continental
astronomers, have debated the general assumption that the theory of
relativity is adequate to its task, but those in whose hands the power
of orthodoxy lies have not yet answered their criticisms in print.
Neglect has always been the weapon by which orthodoxy has unknowingly
hindered the advance of new ideas. But while this neglect is easy to
understand, it is really remarkable that the postulates of relativity
theory were not subjected to closer examination before it was made the
basis of wide philosophical speculation. The experimental confirmation
of Einstein’s law of gravitation does not guarantee his postulates,
since Whitehead has reached a similar law (identical within the
accuracy of the observations) from different assumptions.
Einstein’s profound creative intuition and use of a difficult
technique compel our deepest respect, but his work should never have
been regarded as a _general_ theory of time and space. Not only does
he neglect the question of irreversibility but it is very doubtful if
periodic processes can be made to fit into his scheme, as has been
pointed out by Russell and Bridgman during the last year. Probably
Einstein himself has never regarded his theory as more than a stage in
the attempt to create a still wider physical synthesis, and we must
not interpret in a broad sense his statement that one of the demands
of his theory “takes away from space and time the last remnant of
physical objectivity”.[6] This could only be true if physical time
shared the absolute symmetry of space, i.e. if physical processes
were all reversible. But there are processes from which we can obtain
an objective criterion of the direction of time, and hence time does
retain an element of physical objectivity as distinct from the
absolute symmetry of space. One of the most interesting features in the
future of physics will be the explanation of the fact that Einstein
reached a correct law from postulates of limited validity, and in
this connection Whitehead’s alternative derivation may prove to be of
importance.
CHAPTER III
_Time in Astronomy and Physics_
The real discrepancy between the world of physics and that of life lies
in the fact that physics has never recognized the irreversibility of
time, while this is fundamental to life. We may even feel a doubt if
the ‘t’ of physics has the same significance as the time of biology,
evolution, history, and human experience. The physical conception of
time arose from the practical utility of clocks for describing natural
processes, and finally took the form of defining astronomical time in
terms of the rotation of the earth. The day was in fact taken as an
absolute measure of time, and this remained quite satisfactory so long
as the laws of physics were found to take a simple form with reference
to the time so defined.
But then a complication arose. The study of the moon’s motion suggested
to astronomers that the earth’s rotation was slowing down, i.e. to
account for the apparent motion of the moon they had to assume that
the day was increasing in length. The theory of the tides revealed
a possible cause for this slowing down in the tidal friction on the
bottom of shallow water basins, for instance the rush of the Atlantic
tides into the Irish Sea provides an appreciable frictional force
retarding the spin of the earth. In addition to this slowing down there
appears to be a very slow periodic variation in the length of the day
such as would be accounted for by a rhythmic expansion and contraction
of the earth’s crust.
The astronomers declare that our old measure of time is not only
getting slower and slower, it is even varying rhythmically! It is clear
that they have thrown over the earth as their definition of equal
time intervals and have surreptitiously substituted something else.
Yet one cannot discover any formal announcement of this, or find out
if they realize that by doing this they have altered the theoretical
significance of all physical measurements. In earlier days physics
defined time in terms of a selected clock, and then set about finding
the laws of nature. But the old ways aren’t good enough for the modern
astronomer who gives us our time and sets the clocks of our physical
laboratories. He has reasons for disapproving of the earth, and has
almost reversed the procedure. In order to save the laws of inertia
and gravitation in connection with the moon’s motion--and to a lesser
degree in the cases of the planets and the sun--he has made these laws
his standard of equal time intervals in place of the earth’s rotation.
It is a curious situation, especially in view of the fact that
Einstein’s law, which has superseded Newton’s, is not very suitable
for use as an astronomical clock, as has been pointed out by Larmor.
Perhaps the physicist will soon be able to use the atom as the
theoretical clock for physics, and we can go on using the corrected
rotation of the earth as our practical standard. There is a faint
chance, for instance, that if physics can invent some way of measuring
the minute time intervals along the track of an electron, then
electrons might be used as giving the fundamental measure of time. Thus
if the velocity of an electron were first measured by some indirect
method the electron itself might then be used as a clock. But in the
meantime the astronomers should make a formal announcement to the Royal
Society of what they have been up to. It then might be found necessary
to appoint a commission to discover exactly what physics is now doing.
For by using an astronomical clock of the new type it is assuming
classical laws while researching on processes which are already
known to undermine the absolute validity of these laws. Theoretical
physics cannot hope to clear up its fundamental problems until it has
considered exactly what is involved in this suspicious procedure.
Like most professions, physics includes a good deal of bluff, but
unlike the others physics is now occupied on a campaign to get rid of
all pretence. For instance, physical text-books have been filled for
twenty years with phrases of this kind: “an electron with a velocity
of so many cms per sec.” Yet the professors omitted to tell their
students the awful secret that this hypothesis of electron velocities
is one that has never yet received direct experimental confirmation.
To-day a reaction has set in and the demand is being made that physical
theory shall not make use of conceptions that do not correspond to
directly observed quantities. Thus the latest theories of the atom have
eliminated the idea of electron orbits because it was realized that
these were nothing more than a mathematical trick for calculating
something quite different: the wave-length of the light an atom can
emit. In place of the orbits it is hoped to substitute something which
only makes use of the directly-observed features of the atom, but this
new picture is not complete.
Yet physics still makes use of ideas that have not been adequately
justified. For though the idea of moving electrons has been removed
from the latest atomic model, no substitute for it has yet been
proposed for the case of electrons outside the atom. It therefore
becomes very important for the experimental physicist to discover
whether he can measure the distance travelled by an electron in a
measured fraction of a second. As yet we have no proof that nature
has not confused us by making electrons behave rather like moving
particles, though really they are something different. In fact we
have not yet made enough direct experiments to know even whether
the dimensional system which is used for electrons is correct. Since
no electron velocity has ever been directly measured we cannot be
sure that the dimensions of the new constant ‘h’--called Planck’s
constant--are really what we suppose, energy multiplied by time. Until
a way has been invented of making a direct measurement of some _time_
involved in electronic motions, it is impossible for physical theory to
know how it should deal with the quantum processes.
When we realize how uncertain are the conceptions on which the whole
of electron theory is based, we may wonder what is really known about
the atom itself. Yet it is possible that we know more about the atom
than we think, and that what are talked about as facts concerning
electrons and radiation may really be better viewed as information
about individual atoms and the way in which they influence one another.
The emission of light is an atomic process, and we only know about
light when it has reached some atom and been at least partially
absorbed. Some un-understood change of condition occurs in an atom when
it radiates and passes this changed condition on to another atom. The
absorbed energy may cause chemical change, as on a photographic plate.
But if a human mind is to become aware of this change of condition,
then sooner or later, directly or indirectly, its influence must be
passed on to an atom in the retina. We know very little about this
change of atomic condition, and though it is usually called a change of
the internal electrical energy of the atom this supposes more than we
really know until some electron velocity has been directly measured.
The dimensions of electrical energy are taken as those of kinetic
energy, i.e. mass times square of velocity, but we do not yet know if
this describes atomic changes correctly. Since no one has ever measured
a _time_ involved in an electronic process, the scale of time in the
atom might be quite different from that given by our calculations.
Our ignorance of what this change of atomic condition really signifies
is so profound that some writers have begun to treat the atom as though
it were an organism, alive when the atom is excited, and dead when in
a state of minimum energy. Thus Whitehead proposes that we should call
the atom an organism, though this of course may only muddle us since we
know even less about life than we do about the atom.
Yet we do know one very interesting thing about this change which
happens to atoms but cannot be reduced to a change of structure. When
light reaches an atom in the retina, an electrical stimulus passes
up a nerve and alters the condition of the protoplasm somewhere in
the brain. This change in brain condition is known to us directly as
the perception of colour. Therefore in one sense we know more about
this change of atomic condition than we ever did about ‘electric
fields’ or ‘gravitational potential’ or any other of the mathematical
conveniences used by physics in correlating observed quantities. The
change in a sodium atom when we put salt in a flame is not a change
in the consciousness of the sodium atom, because it is not part of a
complex nervous system with the same high co-ordination as is found in
the human being, and therefore the atom has no consciousness. But when
an atom in the brain undergoes the same change we may become conscious
of it, and the changes in matter which occur when light is absorbed are
undoubtedly associated with the problem of consciousness.
Thus we are led to ask: how are single atoms built up into complex
systems which have the characteristics of life, and finally into still
more complex systems which have human consciousness?
CHAPTER IV
_An Evolutionary Experiment_
Questions are often made unnecessarily difficult by their being
expressed in an abstract or theoretical form, and instead of asking
What is life? it will be more valuable to put forward a practical issue
for discussion: Could an infinitely wise physicist order the necessary
chemicals to-day, and to-morrow put together a synthetic man? If not,
why not? What are we really up against, that seems to put some aspects
of life beyond our control?
Let us watch this ambitious physicist as he enters his laboratory.
He has started quite easily and has in a moment prepared some simple
molecules from their elements. Now he has completed the first colloid
that he will require, and is starting on his first organic synthesis.
But his infinite wisdom does not give him eternity within a minute,
and we notice that he is getting on more slowly. While the actual
combination of the first molecules took only about a thousandth of a
second, once he had the apparatus ready, the simplest colloid took
about a second. The organic colloid has taken him about a minute; it
seems that nature won’t work faster than that. She has her own rhythm
and won’t be rushed. If we wait patiently till the end of the day our
friend may have his first speck of protoplasm, and all the skill in the
world would only have helped him to make more of it, not to have got
any further in his game of evolution.
But look at him now! He is making a hasty calculation as though he had
just realized some great secret of nature, and knew that he could never
create his homunculus. We look over his shoulder and read:
_Estimated minimum time required by the synthetic processes of nature
to attain various evolutionary stages._
Starting from the Minimum
elements, to Time
Simple inorganic compound 1/1000 sec.
Simple colloid 1 sec.
Protein 1 hour
Primitive protoplasm 1 month
Simplest uni-cellular organism 10 years
Flagellate 1,000 years
Mammal, including _Homo sapiens_ 1,000,000 years
This highly speculative estimate is based on suggestive facts. A
certain amount of time is necessary for two atoms to approach one
another and form a molecule. The time required will be greater if many
atoms have to settle down together into some special arrangement. For
instance, the metal silver is normally crystalline, but if silver
vapour is condensed too quickly the atoms will not have time to
arrange themselves, and it is found that they pile up anyhow into an
amorphous mass.
Colloidal processes require even longer periods, because great clumsy
molecules have to arrange themselves on the surface of the colloidal
particles. In elementary forms of protoplasm the molecular patterns
are still more complex, and yet more time must be necessary to get the
molecules properly adjusted.
It is probable that only our ignorance prevents us from building up
protoplasm, but that we shall require rapidly increasing amounts of
time for each successive stage of evolution. This will certainly be
the case when we have reached organisms which can only be rendered
more complex by controlling their environment while they reproduce
themselves for many generations. A higher organism cannot be built up
directly; the molecular arrangements in its body can only be reached
through the synthesis of some simple form of life which must then be
allowed to evolve through countless generations. Organic heredity
resides in molecular patterns which can only be built up by this very
slow process of repeated reproduction. Thus it is _shortage of time_
that our ambitious scientist is up against in his haste to create a
homunculus. Only the synthetic alchemy of time can build up organisms,
each bearing within itself a long heredity.
The estimates given for the minimum time required in each case are
about a thousandth of the actual time taken in a laboratory experiment
or in the history of evolution as known from geological records. It may
have taken a million years or more for the first mobile cells to have
developed from inorganic materials and a thousand million years for the
mammals. Yet perhaps these processes might have gone on more quickly.
The times given are mere suggestions of a minimum time which may be
necessary under ideal conditions. We waste a lot of time adjusting
the apparatus in a laboratory experiment, and in evolution there may
have been stationary periods with little or no new development. But it
seems likely that when we know more about it we shall discover that a
certain time is required for the formation of organic systems of given
complexity. In this sense we may say that then human spermatozoon and
ovum carry within them the synthesis of at least a million years.
Only an International Institute of Evolutionary Research under the
most stable of Leagues of Nations could hope to create an artificial
man, and even then man could hardly take the credit, for Time would
have done more than man. But with sufficient consistency of purpose
man could do this, provided he learnt how to make use of every moment
of the creative power of time, and never made a slip by which the
accumulated treasure of the years (i.e. heredity) might be broken. How
man would learn to value life, and how profoundly such an experiment
might alter his view of human beings, each one a priceless miracle,
fruit of a million years!
In twenty years’ time scientific knowledge will be adequate for the
beginning of this giant task, and we shall be subscribing our guineas
for the foundation of the Institute. Time has created man; man may use
time to create man once more. With a million years ahead of us before
we reach the sensitive mammals, we need hardly fear criticism from the
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. We are simply going
to allow life to evolve itself under ideal conditions with Switzerland
as the State for Evolutionary Research.
It may happen that under such perfect conditions life will evolve more
swiftly than it did on this rough-and-ready planet. But equally well
we--or rather our descendants--may find that the Darwinian struggle for
survival is essential for evolution, and then the nations would have to
debate on the morals of reproducing the ‘cruelty of nature’ inside the
World’s Evolutionary Zoo. Perhaps a wrathful god will seek to punish
mankind for attempting to build this ladder to the secret of life, this
modern Tower of Babel, and amuse himself by watching the community of
scientists stricken by a plague of inconsistency amongst their weights
and measures.
The possibilities of such grand schemes have to be taken seriously. We
are now highly self-conscious beings with a tremendous technique for
research. Men with genuine creative imagination who reverence life must
shoulder the responsibilities of the twentieth-century consciousness,
and use scientific technique for creative not life-destroying purposes.
One can imagine a growing fraction of the interest now given to
war, other people’s adultery, and greyhound racing, turned towards
Switzerland, whence at critical moments wireless bulletins would
announce that the first amoeba had just successfully taken nourishment.
If we wish it, the future of science can be such as to recompense for
its recent occupation with gunpowder. Governments would be powerless
to make war if the physicists refused to make the guns and the Royal
Society called upon scientists to go on strike until each war crisis
had been settled by arbitration.
The problem of life may be seen in a new light if the speculations of
the last section are accepted and we assume that a definite period
of time is necessary for the building up of any living organism. For
if this is so the laws which govern life must involve the age of the
organism since some definite moment in its history. We might choose for
this moment the instant when the parent spermatozoon entered the ovum
in the case of a higher organism, or in the evolutionary experiment
just described the age might be reckoned from the moment when the first
elementary chemicals were combined into molecules. The point is that
this whole evolutionary process must be described by laws which take
into account the age of the system under consideration.
Let us take a very simple, indeed the simplest possible, example.
If two hydrogen atoms having just the correct total energy for the
formation of a hydrogen molecule have approached one another and
combined, the law describing what has happened must indicate that at
a definite moment the combination was complete and the process at an
end. This is an example of an irreversible process, since the molecule
does not _spontaneously_ break up again. Moreover, the mathematical
formulation of this process must include the definite age of the system
at which the process was complete, this age being measured from some
selected initial moment.
This process provides an interesting limitation to a principle put
forward by Maxwell as the basis of physical science. He suggested that
the laws of physics must be considered to be eternal and unchanging and
that therefore they must be expressed in a form which does not contain
the time explicitly. This means that for physical laws there can be no
difference between to-day and to-morrow. The laws are concerned with
small changes which systems undergo in small time intervals, and need
not express any fundamental distinction between one moment and another.
Such laws cannot express the fact that anything sudden ever occurs
which makes an essential change in the system as when two systems
become one, or when one system breaks up into two. The laws of organic
growth or the evolution of individual systems must display the fact
that at a certain age of the system special things happen, such as the
combination of two hydrogen atoms, or the attainment of maturity by an
organism. Maxwell’s principle puts a limitation on the form of physical
laws which precisely eliminates the laws that would be appropriate for
organisms. But there is no reason why a broader physics should not try
to frame this new type of law that would be applicable to the history
and development of individual systems, and it is probable that if this
could be done the reversible laws of Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein
would appear as approximations which were valid when nothing of special
interest was happening, i.e. when only spatial movements were involved
without synthesis, disintegration or the emission of light.
Laws of the Newtonian type which Maxwell had in mind assume that
one can adequately describe the present state of a system without
specifying its past history. But we cannot say anything very precise
about the inside of a living organism, and it is found far more
efficient to describe what is known of its past history. We do not try
to say where atoms are in an organism; instead we mention its species,
age, etc. Organisms might be defined as systems whose future behaviour
is more easily estimated from their past history than from what can be
known about their immediate internal structure. The most convenient
formulation of organic laws will therefore be expressed in terms of
the age of the organism and take account of how its life has been
spent. These laws are necessarily irreversible, since the assimilation
of oxygen or food is always going on in a manner which can never be
reversed. Life is like a function which must always alter in one
direction; when this development ceases life has disappeared.
The contrast of living and dead now appears less important than the
following classification of natural processes:
1. Processes which are reversible and whose laws can be expressed
independently of the age of the system, e.g. gravitational and
mechanical motions which do not involve light or heat.
2. Processes which are irreversible, the laws being best expressed in
terms of the total time which has passed since some initial state,
e.g. chemical combination, growth, evolution, radioactivity, and all
changes involving light or heat.
Physics has always asserted that processes of the first type were
fundamental in nature, and astronomy provided the ideal example in
planetary motion. It was this assertion that gave rise to the essential
issue behind the conflict of mechanism and vitalism. But if Born is
right, and the fundamental atomic processes are irreversible, then
the situation is completely altered. There is no longer a question
of life being an arbitrary irruption in a world of mechanical law,
since the laws of gravitation and mechanics must then be looked on as
the limiting case, when the irreversibility is vanishingly small, of
a whole series of irreversible processes which constitute the most
important examples of the fundamental order in nature. This series
would include the atomic processes connected with heat, light, and
electricity, chemical combination, colloidal effects, organic growth
and evolution, and the highly co-ordinated electrical processes which
form the physiological basis of consciousness.
If this view is correct the atomic processes of radiation and chemical
combination should be just what the biologist needs to build up
organisms. Instead of a chaos of little particles obeying inverse
square laws, the modern physicist offers to the biologist a new kind of
atom with electrical and magnetic properties which cause it to build
up stable compounds.
The biologist may reply: “Yes, but organisms have four chief
characteristics, their behaviour is irreversible, and displays
growth, memory, and purposiveness. If you tell me that your atoms
obey irreversible laws, so much the better, because my organisms
certainly do. But your crystals grow very differently from my cells and
organisms, and you can’t explain away the apparent purposiveness of all
life.”
To which the physicist may answer: “Suppose that two hydrogen atoms are
some distance apart with the total energy necessary to make a molecule.
If they begin to move towards one another under some attractive
influence which they exert we display no surprise. But they are moving
towards a final end, which is an end, even though they are of course
unconscious of it; and provided that nothing interferes they will reach
one another, form a molecule, and the process will be consummated.
The atoms move under an irresistible law of attraction towards a final
condition which is unavoidable unless outside influences prevent
it. The system of the two atoms develops necessarily towards a
consummation, and the process has in this sense a teleological quality,
though this need not mean that any god or man had consciously planned
the end for these particular hydrogen atoms.
“This quality was not present in Newton’s law of gravitation precisely
because it failed to say what happens at the end of any process, for
instance when a meteorite hits the earth. Newtonian laws avoid the
responsibility of dealing with all the exciting events, like the
wedding of the atoms or the death of the meteorite. On the other hand
it appears probable that all irreversible laws can be interpreted as
leading either from or to some critical end condition. Thus all heat
processes tend towards an approximate uniformity of temperature, and
chemical reactions also move towards a final condition.
“Such systems as these display the rudiments of unconscious purpose.
One must imagine these systems made much more complex so that it takes
a long time and considerable nourishment before their unconscious
purpose is fulfilled, whether this be the instinctive reproduction of
their kind or any other biological function.”
“Maybe. I like the unconscious purpose which you have revealed in
irreversible physics, because I am troubled by colleagues who see
conscious mind everywhere.
“But if I grant that your view of the atom, and hence of molecules
and colloids, allows me two of the four features I find in life, i.e.
irreversibility and unconscious purpose, you have still to deal with
growth and organic memory.”
“Yes. Growth and memory are things that physics has as yet little
to say about. But we have at any rate reduced the problem of life
to smaller proportions. It is no longer the question what is
life? but, how do colloidal processes build themselves up into
continuously-active, developing systems which can react to their
surroundings so that some distant condition can ultimately be attained?
This is a much less difficult question. Moreover, since the problem of
radiation underlies all the chemical processes which are associated
with the maintenance of life, we may expect considerable assistance
when physics has cleared up this crucial problem.”
CHAPTER V
_Physics and Mind_
If a psychologist who was not a behaviourist had been listening to this
conversation he might break in:
“Does the physicist seriously propose that we should try to leave mind
out of our picture of the human organism? Even if we can eventually
explain the unconscious purposes of the lower organisms as ends towards
which they are driven by physical laws, yet man has the supreme
distinction of a conscious mind, he can select his aim, and if he likes
renounce it again for something else. You must therefore allow in your
picture for the emergence of mind at some point during the course of
evolution.”
“Wait a moment,” replies the physicist. “Your whole outlook towards
consciousness betrays not only an anthropomorphic standpoint, but one
limited to a single stage in man’s development. There is no single
condition adequately described by the word ‘conscious’. There are in
fact a great many different states of awareness which may grade into
one another, or may form a series of distinct conditions. We do not
know much about them yet, but their variety is most striking. There
is the dim sentience as we awake from chloroform, the awareness of
the dreaming state, the passive experiencing that accompanies any
intensely rhythmic activity such as running. Again, quite different
states are known in day-dreaming, intellectual concentration and the
delicately-balanced semi-consciousness of creative thought.
“Consider especially the states of awareness associated with love, or
with the supreme creative activities of the mind. Free-will, or the
deliberate choice of a purpose, is completely lost in a whole-natured
falling in love, as it is also in the artist’s need to follow some
dimly-conscious intuition of a task he must attempt. At these important
occasions free-will disappears before a sense of inner organic
necessity.
“These examples seem to me to make it clear that ‘conscious purpose’ is
not in any sense the ultimate or highest criterion of human behaviour,
and that free-will need not be taken necessarily to mean the power
to over-ride any laws of nature. In my view ‘free-will’ is simply
the apparent characteristic of organic behaviour when no complete
integration of the personality has been achieved and the mind seems
to be able to oscillate from one purpose to another. We really have
to deal in human beings with a whole series of forms of behaviour
of increasing complexity and integration: reflex and instinctive
actions, deliberate activity, and finally the intuitive whole-natured
creative functioning which leads to ends which could not have been
intellectually foreseen. To each of these must correspond a certain
type of awareness, and in my view, a brain process of a definite degree
of complexity. By analogy with our own experience of different modes
of consciousness, we may be able to infer from the structure of the
central nervous system of an organism what sort of awareness it can
experience.
“Eventually we must expect to be able to give a complete scheme of all
organic behaviour in terms of the organic processes and their laws, but
none the less it will remain a great deal more convenient in some cases
to refer to what happens to human beings by using words that suggest
their conscious experience. The behaviourist denies the scientific
significance of all but the very barest elements of conscious
experience, but of course he has to start from the human perception
of light and colour. Science cannot get on without ideas which obtain
their whole meaning from the qualities of conscious experience, and
hence the extreme behaviourist position merely arises from a prejudice
which prevents clear thinking. But as a campaign to put more stress on
the direct observation of what really happens to living beings in terms
of physical movements, behaviourism can only do good by bringing more
unbiassed knowledge about life.
“My own interpretation of the question may be put in this way. The
thing that is given in nature is a process in time. According to
its complexity and degree of co-ordination an organic process has
different degrees of awareness. There is no one condition called human
consciousness, because the human organism can function with different
degrees of co-ordination, and if we ask if an atom in absorbing light
is conscious, the question has no definite meaning. But in a few years
those who are studying the physiology of the central nervous system
will be able to indicate how many steps of synthesis and integration
occur between the simplest cell and the creative thinker, and to each
of these stages will be ascribed a mode of awareness. But below a
certain degree of organic complexity this ‘awareness’, will cease to
be anything that can be consciously imagined by man, e.g. below the
dimmest sentience one might allow an undifferentiated knowledge of mere
continuance, based in turn on the rhythmic pulsation of the elementary
cells.”
“Your scheme is of course still rather vague, but in its main outlines
it appears satisfactory”, replies the psychologist. “But tell me
outright, can mind influence matter? If I understand you rightly, you
suggest that matter certainly influences mind.”
“On the contrary, I do not! You are back at the meaningless questions
on which philosophers have wasted much time. To ask if mind can
influence matter does not mean anything until you know what you mean
by mind and matter, and to a scientist that means knowing the laws
they obey. Now, on the one hand, relativity and modern quantum theory
indicate that there is no matter in the old sense of particles made of
some unchanging stuff, and physical science recognizes atomic and other
_processes_ as fundamental in the place of ‘matter’. On the other hand,
you really mean by ‘mind’ one particular form of conscious activity:
the deliberate selection of a purpose. Therefore to give your question
real meaning I have to ask instead ‘Does the conscious selection of a
purpose alter the physical processes going on in the human organism?’
“But that is an absurd question. It is like asking: Does a dint in the
outside of a hat _cause_ an alteration in the shape of the inside of
the hat? To which the only reply is that the dint on the outside is
merely another way of describing the dint on the inside. There is no
_causing_ of the one by the other any more than if you fold a bit of
paper you can say that the crease on one side causes the crease on the
other side. They are identical and the double method of description
used in the question creates a meaningless problem.
“‘Conscious selection of a purpose’ is one way of describing a
particular process, and after this process has occurred the brain
will be different from before. The old theories of the correlation or
interaction of mind and matter presupposed that they were separate
things in themselves. The important questions become quite different
when one realizes that mind and matter do not exist independently,
but that they are both somewhat inadequate ways of describing certain
_aspects_ of one organic process. The spatial aspect of organic
process is called the physical organism. The temporal aspect of organic
process corresponds to the content of its consciousness. The physical
body is a group of spatial characteristics. Consciousness is a system
of temporal elements; memory, anticipation, deliberate repetition,
creative longing, hope and fear are all things set in time.
“Professor Alexander has said ‘Time is the mind of Space.’ He attempts
to explain space and time by an anthropomorphic analogy. It is a very
suggestive idea, though for the searcher whose goal is the nature of
consciousness itself it is more valuable to put it the other way round:
mind is the temporal aspect of process, body the spatial aspect. But
it is very important indeed to notice that we have not yet found the
adequate terms for describing these two aspects of process. Matter is
unsatisfactory for the spatial aspect, because there are no unchanging
particles. But nor is mind sufficient for the temporal aspect, because
there is a temporal aspect to the combination of hydrogen atoms and to
chemical and colloidal processes, and yet we must not speak of these
as having mind. When the new words for these two aspects are invented
they will form the foundation of the scientific synthesis which I am
expecting.”
To which the psychologist may answer: “Well, at heart I have always
been a thorough-going determinist like you, at least in dealing with
my patients. Moreover I find it works, because I have always included
in my picture of the patient a life-impulse of some sort, which can be
influenced by my personality. Thus if the behaviour of my patient is
absolutely determined, the conditions which determine what happens to
him include some inner life tendency, and also the effects produced on
him by all the people he meets.
“But if one attempts to formulate such an absolute determinism, or
to apply it to oneself, one gets into deep waters, and I haven’t the
courage to try it. It seems you must be right at bottom, but that only
a god could believe it without its upsetting his mental balance or his
sense of moral responsibility.”
“There I agree,” replies the physicist, “as long as one does not
simultaneously revise one’s whole view of life in terms of this new
organic knowledge. That is a very big task, but I should like one
day to attempt it. Two things especially would attract me to such a
revision of human values. One is that people who ought to know better
still go about making moral judgments about their acquaintances. Now
that we know how profound is the influence on a child of the treatment
it receives during its first five years of life, moral judgments become
rather old-fashioned and only show that the person making them has
himself not yet learnt to find emotional fulfilment in healthier ways.
An analysis of human behaviour along the lines of organic determinism
might do something to show that moral condemnations, whether of
bolshevism or of the sins of one’s children, are never effective unless
immediately accompanied by positive example or creative suggestion.
“But there is another more attractive reason why I should like to
attempt this transvaluation of values. If organic determinism is valid,
then the artist’s aspiration to create is a natural consequence of
some organic law. Creative aspiration may then be looked on as the
natural destiny of certain human beings, though they no more know
where they are going than did the two hydrogen atoms. But organic
determinism allows us to understand why it is of no importance that the
artist doesn’t know what he is going to create before he does it. It
seems that in some matters our organic body is wiser than ourselves,
or rather wiser than our very immature consciousness. When we have
developed our consciousness by the discovery of the organic laws of our
own natures we may be able to make human life more beautiful.”
CHAPTER VI
_The Future of the Sciences_
The preceding pages have very broadly indicated the way in which
current physical researches may influence the scientific outlook on
the problems of matter, life, and mind. The view has been put forward
that we are on the eve of a profound scientific synthesis of which the
main outlines are already determined. These general suggestions will
now be made more precise in order to offer to anyone who is interested
the opportunity of testing for himself some definite prophecies
regarding the future of scientific thought. The forecast made here does
not involve any supernatural reading of the future, but is based on
tendencies already inherent in the different departments of science.
For convenience it is expressed in the form of separate assertions
concerning the future of physics, biology, and psychology.
1. Before 1940 a very remarkable simplification will be made in atomic
theory, which will indicate that in quantum processes physics has
‘touched bottom’ and that--for the time being--we may consider that
nature is not infinitely complex within the heart of the atom. The
proof of this apparent if not absolute limit to the micro-structure
of nature will take the form of the discovery of simple relationships
between the fundamental constants of atomic structure, e, m, M, c, and
h. (The electronic charge and mass, the mass of the hydrogen nucleus,
the velocity of light, and Planck’s constant.) Such relations are
already known but are considered to be of no significance since they
are ruled out by the accepted theory of electrical dimensions.
Yet this dimensional system is not based on direct observation,
and the importance of these relationships will soon be recognized
in consequence of experiments aimed at a direct determination of
an ‘electron velocity’, in a curved track. ‘Electron velocity’ as
calculated from deflection experiments will be found not to be the same
as the directly measurable cms. per sec., and in the case of straight
electron tracks, the measured velocity may be found to be always that
of light, though this does not mean much since the velocity of light in
one direction has never been measured.
As the result of the study of individual radiation tracks, for instance
in the reflection of electrons by crystals, and particularly of
any _time_ measurements that can be made, a new system of physical
conceptions will be built up appropriate to irreversible processes,
which will be substituted for the Newtonian reversible system. The
new scheme will probably be based on the conception of the atom,
with its radiating electron tracks, as a natural clock which not
only can be used to measure out equal time intervals, but also to
yield an objective criterion of past and future. In order to make
this idea, or at least one part of it, capable of empirical test the
following hypothesis is put forward: The time-interval between any two
point-events on any electron track is a simple function of the length
and curvature of the part of the track between the two points. This
hypothesis contradicts the current interpretation of electron theory on
a point which has never yet been subjected to experimental test.
The conceptions which will be built up on electron velocity experiments
will very quickly bring within one simple theory the facts of chemical
combination and colloidal processes. For these depend upon irreversible
effects connected with radiation and electrons, and will therefore be
amenable to treatment by the new conceptions for the very reason which
necessarily puts them beyond the scope of Newtonian laws.
2. As the result of the alteration in physical conceptions biology
will soon cease to draw a definite line between inanimate and
living systems. The normal characters of life will be recognized
as appearing in steps as one passes up the series atom, molecule,
colloid, protoplasm, cell, and through further stages to mammal and
man. In each class of organism a central controlling process will be
discovered and its laws formulated with some precision, in terms of
irreversible electrochemical processes. The process which in each
organism represents the co-ordinating factor and is the life of the
organism considered as a unit may for instance be described in terms
of a quantity which we shall call ‘f’. ‘f’ would be such that so long
as ‘f’ keeps on increasing the organism is alive, while if ‘f’ stands
still the organism dies. The rate of increase of ‘f’ indicates the
tempo or intensity of the organism’s life. In a simple case ‘f’ might
be directly related to the intake of oxygen or food, and just as
respiration and assimilation are irreversible, so is the change in ‘f’.
‘f’ must go on increasing, or else cease to represent any quantity
in nature; as soon as it ceases to increase the process to which it
corresponds cannot be identified any longer.
The most important factors which influence the life-function ‘f’ (i.e.
which affect the central controlling process in any organism) will be
known before about 1950, with the result that local rebellions such as
cancer will not only be controllable, but easily prevented. Harmless
methods for increasing the rate of change of ‘f’, i.e. for increasing
the _élan vital_ of the organism, will be discovered, so that, for
instance, the duration of child-birth will be reduced to a natural
minimum. If child-birth sometimes takes very long nowadays, this is
presumably because the woman’s body is tired, exhausted, or partially
poisoned by her mode of living, and by raising her vitality at the
critical moment we may expect to be able to let the process go on at
its natural speed. There must be some minimum time necessary for the
act, since a vast number of complex organic processes have to complete
themselves in a certain order, but probably this time is considerably
shorter than that during which many women in this country have to
suffer.
It is already known that the Mendelian _genes_ which determine heredity
are related to the rates of development of special processes in the
organism, and a control over the life-tempo, or rate of increase of
‘f’ in any organism or group of cells within an organism, will provide
a new method of tackling the practical problem of heredity. It is
possible that hereditary tendencies to specific weakness or disease
will be overcome by accelerating or retarding the rate of development
of the human system at some special moment between conception and
maturity.
Rejuvenation will soon be safe and efficient, but not as a means for
attempting immortality. It will be socially recognized as healthy and
legitimate only when undertaken to compensate for premature ageing due
to specific repressions, illness, or anxiety.
The elimination of known diseases by a genuine science of life does not
mean that other diseases will spring up perhaps worse than before. A
theoretical science of life will know the meaning of all disease, and
will not prevent one in such a way as to give rise to another. Instead
of making campaigns against influenza or any other one disease, it will
determine the conditions in which no disease can survive, and thus
gradually eliminate all the organic diseases which attack the body.
But this does not mean the attainment of a hygienic Utopia in which
human life necessarily fulfils itself. A balance will be made to
the disappearance of cancer and syphilis, not by the arising of
other diseases but as a result of the consequent increase in the
sensitiveness of the human brain.
The supremely difficult task of the next hundred years will be to keep
the mind of the race healthy and stable through a period of critical
sensitiveness. We are in a transition stage of violent instability, of
intense cruelty coupled with compassion (America), of blended love of
liberty and need of discipline, of emotional religions and of wars--but
we must hope that it will lead to some mode of life with greater
inherent stability.
3. Psychology is now occupied with the discovery that the human
response to perceptions is not additive, i.e. that the effect made by a
group of sounds or colours depends on the pattern in space and time in
which they are arranged. (_Gestalt-theorie._) For instance, the effect
made on a man by the individual notes of ‘God save the King’ when
played in the wrong order is negligible, and bears no relation to his
response when he hears the tune played in a cinema, and it reminds him
of ‘patriotism’ and the War. So far no scientific method has been found
of describing when a group of elements is to be treated as a ‘whole’
for the purposes of psychology, and this is where the greatest advances
may be expected.
Most scientific conceptions have been based on the method of spatial
analysis, i.e. the reduction, where possible, of a thing to its
smallest spatial elements. Physics, biology, and psychology have all
lacked the equipment to describe what makes the atom, organism, or the
pattern function as a unit, and how we are to know if some group is
a unit or not. The analytical method is fully developed, but we lack
even the basis for a synthetic treatment. This leads some hard-headed
scientists of the materialistic school who will ‘stand no nonsense’
to assert that there is no such thing as ‘synthesis’, that this is a
mystical idea left over from primitive anthropomorphism. Yet to any
mind that is guided not by prejudice but by a simple search for truth,
the fact of synthesis is obvious, though not yet properly formulated.
Here modern physics can supply a clue. Analysis is the method required
in a search for instantaneous spatial structure; the synthetic method
which we need must deal with the temporal history and behaviour of
systems. The fact that the human being reacts in the ways he does to a
tune as a whole is evidence of something in his history, that he has
heard the tune often under certain emotional surroundings. The unity
of any synthesis, whole, or organism is not an instantaneous fact
explicable in terms of structure, for we can recognize this unity only
from a continued observation over a period of time.
Physics can invent one law to describe the approach of the two
hydrogen atoms to form a molecule, and in doing so treats the two
together as a unit. This suggests that the fact of organic unity is to
be defined and formulated in terms of an irreversible law which governs
the system as a whole. Thus a group of atoms, cells, or any other
elements is to be called a unit when, and only when, one irreversible
law can be found which expresses the behaviour of the different
elements as contributing towards some common end, like the formation of
the molecule in the case of the hydrogen atoms.
We can now draw a practical conclusion for the future of psychology,
which is in great need of a moral principle to guide its treatment of
disintegrated human personality. On the analogy of the two atoms, a
human being is to be considered as a unity when his whole behaviour
displays continuous co-ordination towards some end. But there is an
important difference in the two cases: the atoms move towards an end
which we know because it has already happened in history, whereas
man’s development is creative, that is it proceeds towards an end we
cannot know exactly before it comes into being. Thus the parent or
psychologist need not trouble if he cannot understand what his child or
subject is aiming towards: so long as some consistency and harmony of
functioning is apparent, the ‘end’ can be left to nature to look after,
because such harmony _means_ that the organism is tending towards some
ultimate condition.
The psychologists of the future will therefore have to follow some
principle such as this: their only legitimate aim is the maintenance
and restoration of harmonious co-ordination of all the human functions,
and no concern need be paid to ultimate intellectual or spiritual
ideals. Of course if the person considered is apparently tending
towards some degenerate condition, that is known to the onlooker
because it is _not_ new but a repetition of what many human beings
have done before, then this tendency can be altered. At least, it can
be altered if the onlooker can use his intuition to discover signs
of repressed conflict which show that the immediate tendency is not
whole-natured, but based on the repression of some more profound
aspiration or desire. Then by bringing this repressed aspiration back
into consciousness the degenerate tendency may be arrested. But this
control over the lives of others can only be effectively exercised
by the intuitive discovery that their present tendencies are not
whole-natured.
* * * * *
Prophecy can never be scientific, and forecasting in the realm of
science is perhaps the most dangerous form of intellectual acrobatics.
Science must be thorough, and all vague speculation is its enemy.
But there are moments when a profound revision is necessary, and
amidst the responsibilities and rich appeal of daily life no one will
undertake this task who does not believe that it offers an adequate
reward to science and to man. To-day prophecy can call attention to
unjustified limitations inherent in current scientific thought, and
encourage the students of matter and of life to get together and try to
discover the single system of natural law which we must believe covers
both realms. It may even help them to find crucial experiments by which
to guide their search.
The reward is certainly great. The indifference to the destruction of
life which has marked recent years is no cause either for surprise or
for despair after an epoch of orthodox and insincere religion coupled
with an abstract science of matter. One thing only can guide humanity
to a saner and richer life: the recognition and valuation of life.
This can be assisted by science and art both revealing life in all its
significant forms. But the roots of art have been destroyed by the
domination of a science which had not recognized the significance of
life within the realm of natural law. For great art can only arise from
a profound reverence for life, whereas to the scientific mood of this
period life appeared as an arbitrary impulse in continual conflict with
the laws of matter.
Physics is now studying light. The radiant influence of light nourishes
life and within human body forms the fabric of consciousness. We are
alive and conscious, but our consciousness is immature for we do not
yet know the laws that govern our own lives and thoughts. Yet it is
certain that light, life, and consciousness are bound together by some
undiscovered law. This secret of nature’s alchemy is still hidden from
us within our own bodies. By revealing it physics will create a new
hope for man.
NOTES
[1] Whitehead, _Science and the Modern World_. Eddington comes near
to the same idea in an essay in _Science, Religion, and Reality_,
1925. See also Weyl, _Was ist Materie?_ 1924, p. 84. It has also been
expressed by others quite independently, though I do not know of other
published references.
[2] E.g. the irreversible motion of an electron in the field of a bar
magnet is rendered formally reversible by the assumption that the
magnetic field is due to moving electrons. Yet this assumption is
highly artificial since it postulates electronic movements that have
never been observed. In other cases irreversibility is eliminated by
the choice of special co-ordinate systems. Some physicists now hold the
view that irreversibility may be inherent in atomic as it is in organic
processes.
[3] _Internal Constitution of the Stars_, 1926, p. 56. Compare note on
p. 44.
It may be convenient here to summarize the processes that give at any
rate superficial evidence of their irreversibility: processes involving
heat changes, or the radiation of light, or mass; the production of
energy in a star, the motions of electrons in magnetic fields, certain
types of atom-ion collision in mixed gases, processes dependent on
retarded potentials, radioactivity, organic growth and evolution,
and consciousness itself. Eddington deals only with the case of the
emission and absorption of light, but suggests that the direction
of time can only be deduced from statistical processes. This is the
orthodox view, though it is very doubtful if it is valid now that the
quantum processes are receiving formulation. In this connection, see
note 4.
[4] Einstein. Berlin Akad., _Sitzungsberichte_, 1925, p. 418. But
Einstein’s view must be revised in view of recent experimental results
(e.g. Harnwell, _Phys. Rev._, vol. 29, 1927, pp. 683 and 831), if these
have been correctly interpreted. See Born, _Zeitschr für Physik_, vol.
40, pp. 177-8; and Jordan, _Naturw._ 1927, p. 792.
[5] The idea that time may be an active factor in causation has the
mathematical significance that ‘t’ (for the system in question) must
appear explicitly in the formulation of the law, and not merely as the
square of a time-differential found convenient for the correlation of
a standard clock with a reversible process which is being observed.
A law whose mathematical formulation involves ‘t’ measured from some
moment in the history of the system, gives an entirely new meaning
to ‘t’, though one consistent with the properties of the reversible
Newtonian differential ‘dt’. Such a law may claim to express the fact
of historic, irreversible, duration, a feature in nature which is
neglected by laws involving only ‘dt’ squared.
[6] Einstein, _Annalen der Physik_, vol. 49, pp. 776-7, 1916.
_SIXTY VOLUMES ARE NOW PUBLISHED_
TO-DAY AND TO-MORROW
_Each, pott 8vo, boards, 2/6 net_
This series of books, by some of the most distinguished English
thinkers, scientists, philosophers, doctors, critics, and artists, was
at once recognized as a noteworthy event. Written from various points
of view, one book frequently opposing the argument of another, they
provide the reader with a stimulating survey of the most modern thought
in many departments of life. Several volumes are devoted to the future
trend of Civilization, conceived as a whole; while others deal with
particular provinces. It is interesting to see in these neat little
volumes, issued at a low price, the revival of a form of literature,
the Pamphlet, which has been in disuse for many years.
_Published by_
KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., LTD.
Broadway House: 68-74 Carter Lane, London, E.C.4
_FROM THE REVIEWS_
_Times Literary Supplement_: “An entertaining series of vivacious and
stimulating studies of modern tendencies.”
_Spectator_: “Scintillating monographs ... that very lively and
courageous series.”
_Observer_: “There seems no reason why the brilliant To-day and
To-morrow Series should come to an end for a century of to-morrows.
At first it seemed impossible for the publishers to keep up the
sport through a dozen volumes, but the series already runs to more
than two score. A remarkable series....”
_Daily Telegraph_: “This admirable series of essays, provocative and
brilliant.”
_Nation_: “We are able to peer into the future by means of that
brilliant series [which] will constitute a precious document upon
the present time.”--_T. S. Eliot._
_Manchester Dispatch_: “The more one reads of these pamphlets, the
more avid becomes the appetite. We hope the list is endless.”
_Irish Statesman_: “Full of lively controversy.”
_Daily Herald_: “This series has given us many monographs of
brilliance and discernment.... The stylistic excellencies of this
provocative series.”
_Field_: “We have long desired to express the deep admiration felt by
every thinking scholar and worker at the present day for this
series. We must pay tribute to the high standard of thought and
expression they maintain. As small gift-books, austerely yet
prettily produced, they remain unequalled of their kind. We can give
but the briefest suggestions of their value to the student, the
politician, and the voter....”
_New York World_: “Holds the palm in the speculative and
interpretative thought of the age.”
VOLUMES READY
=Daedalus=, or Science and the Future. By J. B. S. HALDANE, Reader in
Biochemistry, University of Cambridge. _Seventh impression._
“A fascinating and daring little book.”--_Westminster Gazette._
“The essay is brilliant, sparkling with wit and bristling with
challenges.”--_British Medical Journal._
“Predicts the most startling changes.”--_Morning Post._
=Callinicus=, a Defence of Chemical Warfare. By J. B. S. HALDANE.
_Second impression._
“Mr Haldane’s brilliant study.”--_Times Leading Article._ “A book
to be read by every intelligent adult.”--_Spectator._ “This
brilliant little monograph.”--_Daily News._
=Icarus=, or the Future of Science. By BERTRAND RUSSELL, F.R.S.
_Fourth impression._
“Utter pessimism.”--_Observer._ “Mr Russell refuses to believe that
the progress of Science must be a boon to mankind.”--_Morning Post._
“A stimulating book, that leaves one not at all
discouraged.”--_Daily Herald._
=What I Believe.= By BERTRAND RUSSELL, F.R.S. _Third impression._
“One of the most brilliant and thought-stimulating little books I
have read--a better book even than _Icarus_.”--_Nation._ “Simply and
brilliantly written.”--_Nature._ “In stabbing sentences he punctures
the bubble of cruelty, envy, narrowness, and ill-will which those in
authority call their morals.”--_New Leader._
=Tantalus=, or the Future of Man. By F. C. S. SCHILLER, D.SC., Fellow
of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. _Second impression._
“They are all (_Daedalus_, _Icarus_, and _Tantalus_) brilliantly
clever, and they supplement or correct one another.”--_Dean Inge_,
in _Morning Post_. “Immensely valuable and infinitely
readable.”--_Daily News._ “The book of the week.”--_Spectator._
=Cassandra=, or the Future of the British Empire. By F. C. S.
SCHILLER, D.SC.
“We commend it to the complacent of all parties.”--_Saturday
Review._ “The book is small, but very, very weighty; brilliantly
written, it ought to be read by all shades of politicians and
students of politics.”--_Yorkshire Post._ “Yet another addition to
that bright constellation of pamphlets.”--_Spectator._
=Quo Vadimus?= Glimpses of the Future. By E. E. FOURNIER D’ALBE, D.SC.
_Second Impression._
“A wonderful vision of the future. A book that will be talked
about.”--_Daily Graphic._ “A remarkable contribution to a
remarkable series.”--_Manchester Dispatch._ “Interesting and
singularly plausible.”--_Daily Telegraph._
=Thrasymachus=, the Future of Morals. By C. E. M. JOAD, author of “The
Babbitt Warren,” etc. _Second impression._
“His provocative book.”--_Graphic._ “Written in a style of
deliberate brilliance.”--_Times Literary Supplement._ “As outspoken
and unequivocal a contribution as could well be imagined. Even those
readers who dissent will be forced to recognize the admirable
clarity with which he states his case. A book that will
startle.”--_Daily Chronicle._
=Lysistrata=, or Woman’s Future and Future Woman. By ANTHONY M.
LUDOVICI, author of “A Defence of Aristocracy,” etc. _Second
Impression._
“A stimulating book. Volumes would be needed to deal, in the
fullness his work provokes, with all the problems raised.”--_Sunday
Times._ “Pro-feminine but anti-feministic.”--_Scotsman._ “Full of
brilliant common-sense.”--_Observer._
=Hypatia=, or Woman and Knowledge. By MRS BERTRAND RUSSEL. With a
frontispiece. _Third impression._
An answer to _Lysistrata_. “A passionate vindication of the rights
of woman.”--_Manchester Guardian._ “Says a number of things that
sensible women have been wanting publicly said for a long
time.”--_Daily Herald._
=Hephaestus=, the Soul of the Machine. By E. E. FOURNIER D’ALBE, D.SC.
“A worthy contribution to this interesting series. A delightful
and thought-provoking essay.”--_Birmingham Post._ “There is a
special pleasure in meeting with a book like _Hephaestus_. The
author has the merit of really understanding what he is talking
about.”--_Engineering._ “An exceedingly clever defence of
machinery.”--_Architects’ Journal._
=The Passing of the Phantoms=: a Study of Evolutionary Psychology and
Morals. By C. J. PATTEN, Professor of Anatomy, Sheffield University.
With 4 Plates.
“Readers of _Daedalus_, _Icarus_ and _Tantalus_, will be grateful
for an excellent presentation of yet another point of
view.”--_Yorkshire Post._ “This bright and bracing little
book.”--_Literary Guide._ “Interesting and original.”--_Medical
Times._
=The Mongol in our Midst=: a Study of Man and his Three Faces. By
F. G. CROOKSHANK, M.D., F.R.C.P. With 28 Plates. _Second Edition,
revised._
“A brilliant piece of speculative induction.”--_Saturday Review._
“An extremely interesting and suggestive book, which will reward
careful reading.”--_Sunday Times._ “The pictures carry fearful
conviction.”--_Daily Herald._
=The Conquest of Cancer.= By H. W. S. WRIGHT, M.S., F.R.C.S.
Introduction by F. G. CROOKSHANK, M.D.
“Eminently suitable for general reading. The problem is fairly and
lucidly presented. One merit of Mr Wright’s plan is that he tells
people what, in his judgment, they can best do, _here and
now_.”--From the _Introduction_.
=Pygmalion=, or the Doctor of the Future. By R. MCNAIR WILSON, M.B.
“Dr Wilson has added a brilliant essay to this series.”--_Times
Literary Supplement._ “This is a very little book, but there is much
wisdom in it.”--_Evening Standard._ “No doctor worth his salt would
venture to say that Dr Wilson was wrong.”--_Daily Herald._
=Prometheus=, or Biology and the Advancement of Man. By H. S.
JENNINGS, Professor of Zoology, Johns Hopkins University. _Second
Impression._
“This volume is one of the most remarkable that has yet appeared in
this series. Certainly the information it contains will be new to
most educated laymen. It is essentially a discussion of ... heredity
and environment, and it clearly establishes the fact that the
current use of these terms has no scientific justification.”--_Times
Literary Supplement._ “An exceedingly brilliant book.”--_New
Leader._
=Narcissus=: an Anatomy of Clothes. By GERALD HEARD. With 19
illustrations.
“A most suggestive book.”--_Nation._ “Irresistible. Reading it
is like a switchback journey. Starting from prehistoric times we
rocket down the ages.”--_Daily News._ “Interesting, provocative, and
entertaining.”--_Queen._
=Thamyris=, or Is There a Future for Poetry? By R. C. TREVELYAN.
“Learned, sensible, and very well-written.”--_Affable Hawk_, in _New
Statesman_. “Very suggestive.”--_J. C. Squire_, in _Observer_. “A
very charming piece of work, I agree with all, or at any rate,
almost all its conclusions.”--_J. St Loe Strachey_, in _Spectator_.
=Proteus=, or the Future of Intelligence. By VERNON LEE, author of
“Satan the Waster,” etc.
“We should like to follow the author’s suggestions as to the
effect of intelligence on the future of Ethics, Aesthetics,
and Manners. Her book is profoundly stimulating and should be
read by everyone.”--_Outlook._ “A concise, suggestive piece of
work.”--_Saturday Review._
=Timotheus=, the Future of the Theatre. By BONAMY DOBRÉE, author of
“Restoration Drama,” etc.
“A witty, mischievous little book, to be read with
delight.”--_Times Literary Supplement._ “This is a delightfully
witty book.”--_Scotsman._ “In a subtly satirical vein he visualizes
various kinds of theatres in 200 years’ time. His gay little book
makes delightful reading.”--_Nation._
=Paris=, or the Future of War. By Captain B. H. LIDDELL HART.
“A companion volume to _Callinicus_. A gem of close thinking and
deduction.”--_Observer._ “A noteworthy contribution to a problem of
concern to every citizen in this country.”--_Daily
Chronicle._ “There is some lively thinking about the future of war
in _Paris_, just added to this set of live-wire pamphlets on big
subjects.”--_Manchester Guardian._
=Wireless Possibilities.= By Professor A. M. LOW. With 4 diagrams.
“As might be expected from an inventor who is always so fresh, he
has many interesting things to say.”--_Evening Standard._ “The
mantle of Blake has fallen upon the physicists. To them we look for
visions, and we find them in this book.”--_New Statesman._
=Perseus=: of Dragons. By H. F. SCOTT STOKES. With 2 illustrations.
“A diverting little book, chock-full of ideas. Mr Stokes’
dragon-lore is both quaint and various.”--_Morning Post._ “Very
amusingly written, and a mine of curious knowledge for which the
discerning reader will find many uses.”--_Glasgow Herald._
=Lycurgus=, or the Future of Law. By E. S. P. HAYNES, author of
“Concerning Solicitors,” etc.
“An interesting and concisely written book.”--_Yorkshire Post._ “He
roundly declares that English criminal law is a blend of barbaric
violence, medieval prejudices and modern fallacies.... A humane
and conscientious investigation.”--_T.P.’s Weekly._ “A thoughtful
book--deserves careful reading.”--_Law Times._
=Euterpe=, or the Future of Art. By LIONEL R. MCCOLVIN, author of “The
Theory of Book-Selection.”
“Discusses briefly, but very suggestively, the problem of the future
of art in relation to the public.”--_Saturday Review._ “Another
indictment of machinery as a soul-destroyer ... Mr McColvin has the
courage to suggest solutions.”--_Westminster Gazette._ “This is
altogether a much-needed book.”--_New Leader._
=Pegasus=, or Problems of Transport. By Colonel J. F. C. FULLER,
author of “The Reformation of War,” etc. With 8 Plates.
“The foremost military prophet of the day propounds a solution for
industrial and unemployment problems. It is a bold essay ... and
calls for the attention of all concerned with imperial
problems.”--_Daily Telegraph._ “Practical, timely, very interesting
and very important.”--_J. St Loe Strachey_, in _Spectator_.
=Atlantis=, or America and the Future. By Colonel J. F. C. FULLER.
“Candid and caustic.”--_Observer._ “Many hard things have been
said about America, but few quite so bitter and caustic as
these.”--_Daily Sketch._ “He can conjure up possibilities of a new
Atlantis.”--_Clarion._
=Midas=, or the United States and the Future. By C. H. BRETHERTON,
author of “The Real Ireland,” etc.
A companion volume to _Atlantis_. “Full of astute observations and
acute reflections ... this wise and witty pamphlet, a provocation to
the thought that is creative.”--_Morning Post._ “A punch in every
paragraph. One could hardly ask for more ‘meat.’”--_Spectator._
=Nuntius=, or Advertising and its Future. By GILBERT RUSSELL.
“Expresses the philosophy of advertising concisely and
well.”--_Observer._ “It is doubtful if a more straightforward
exposition of the part advertising plays in our public and private
life has been written.”--_Manchester Guardian._
=Birth Control and the State=: a Plea and a Forecast. By C. P.
BLACKER, _M.C._, M.A., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P.
“A very careful summary.”--_Times Literary Supplement._ “A
temperate and scholarly survey of the arguments for and against the
encouragement of the practice of birth control.”--_Lancet._ “He
writes lucidly, moderately, and from wide knowledge; his book
undoubtedly gives a better understanding of the subject than any
other brief account we know. It also suggests a policy.”--_Saturday
Review._
=Ouroboros=, or the Mechanical Extension of Mankind. By GARET GARRETT.
“This brilliant and provoking little book.”--_Observer._ “A
significant and thoughtful essay, calculated in parts to make our
flesh creep.”--_Spectator._ “A brilliant writer, Mr Garrett is a
remarkable man. He explains something of the enormous change the
machine has made in life.”--_Daily Express._
=Artifex=, or the Future of Craftsmanship. By JOHN GLOAG, author of
“Time, Taste, and Furniture.”
“An able and interesting summary of the history of craftsmanship
in the past, a direct criticism of the present, and at the end his
hopes for the future. Mr Gloag’s real contribution to the future of
craftsmanship is his discussion of the uses of machinery.”--_Times
Literary Supplement._
=Plato’s American Republic.= By J. DOUGLAS WOODRUFF. _Fourth
impression._
“Uses the form of the Socratic dialogue with devastating success. A
gently malicious wit sparkles in every page.”--_Sunday Times._
“Having deliberately set himself an almost impossible task, has
succeeded beyond belief.”--_Saturday Review._ “Quite the liveliest
even of this spirited series.”--_Observer._
=Orpheus=, or the Music of the Future. By W. J. TURNER, author of
“Music and Life.” _Second impression._
“A book on music that we can read not merely once, but twice or
thrice. Mr Turner has given us some of the finest thinking upon
Beethoven that I have ever met with.”--_Ernest Newman_ in _Sunday
Times_. “A brilliant essay in contemporary philosophy.”--_Outlook._
“The fruit of real knowledge and understanding.”--_New Statesman._
=Terpander=, or Music and the Future. By E. J. DENT, author of
“Mozart’s Operas.”
“In _Orpheus_ Mr Turner made a brilliant voyage in search of first
principles. Mr Dent’s book is a skilful review of the development of
music. It is the most succinct and stimulating essay on music I have
found....”--_Musical News._ “Remarkably able and
stimulating.”--_Times Literary Supplement._ “There is hardly another
critic alive who could sum up contemporary tendencies so
neatly.”--_Spectator._
=Sibylla=, or the Revival of Prophecy. By C. A. MACE, University of
St. Andrew’s.
“An entertaining and instructive pamphlet.”--_Morning Post._ “Places
a nightmare before us very ably and wittily.”--_Spectator._
“Passages in it are excellent satire, but on the whole Mr Mace’s
speculations may be taken as a trustworthy guide ... to modern
scientific thought.”--_Birmingham Post._
=Lucullus=, or the Food of the Future. By OLGA HARTLEY and MRS C. F.
LEYEL, authors of “The Gentle Art of Cookery.”
“This is a clever and witty little volume in an entertaining series,
and it makes enchanting reading.”--_Times Literary Supplement._
“Opens with a brilliant picture of modern man, living in a
vacuum-cleaned, steam-heated, credit-furnished suburban mansion
‘with a wolf in the basement’--the wolf of hunger. This banquet of
epigrams.”--_Spectator._
=Procrustes=, or the Future of English Education. By M. ALDERTON PINK.
“Undoubtedly he makes out a very good case.”--_Daily Herald._ “This
interesting addition to the series.”--_Times Educational
Supplement._ “Intends to be challenging and succeeds in being so.
All fit readers will find it stimulating.”--_Northern Echo._
=The Future of Futurism.= By JOHN RODKER.
“Mr Rodker is up-to-the-minute, and he has accomplished a
considerable feat in writing on such a vague subject, 92 extremely
interesting pages.”--_T. S. Eliot_, in _Nation_. “There are a good
many things in this book which are of interest.”--_Times Literary
Supplement._
=Pomona=, or the Future of English. By BASIL DE SÉLINCOURT, author of
“The English Secret”, etc.
“The future of English is discussed fully and with fascinating
interest.”--_Morning Post._ “Full of wise thoughts and happy
words.”--_Times Literary Supplement._ “His later pages must stir
the blood of any man who loves his country and her poetry.”--_J. C.
Squire_, in _Observer_. “His finely-conceived essay.”--_Manchester
Guardian._
=Balbus=, or the Future of Architecture. By CHRISTIAN BARMAN.
“A really brilliant addition to this already distinguished series.
The reading of _Balbus_ will give much data for intelligent
prophecy, and incidentally, an hour or so of excellent
entertainment.”--_Spectator._ “Most readable and reasonable. We can
recommend it warmly.”--_New Statesman._ “This intriguing little
book.”--_Connoisseur._
=Apella=, or the Future of the Jews. By A QUARTERLY REVIEWER.
“Cogent, because of brevity and a magnificent prose style, this book
wins our quiet praise. It is a fine pamphlet, adding to the value
of the series, and should not be missed.”--_Spectator._ “A notable
addition to this excellent series. His arguments are a provocation
to fruitful thinking.”--_Morning Post._
=The Dance of Çiva=, or Life’s Unity and Rhythm. By COLLUM.
“It has substance and thought in it. The author is very much alive
and responsive to the movements of to-day.”--_Spectator._ “A very
interesting account of the work of Sir Jagadis Bose.”--_Oxford
Magazine._ “Has caught the spirit of the Eastern conception of world
movements.”--_Calcutta Statesman._
=Lars Porsena=, or the Future of Swearing and Improper Language. By
ROBERT GRAVES. _Third impression._
“Goes uncommonly well, and deserves to.”--_Observer._ “Not for
squeamish readers.”--_Spectator._ “No more amusingly unexpected
contribution has been made to this series. A deliciously ironical
affair.”--_Bystander._ “His highly entertaining essay is as full
as the current standard of printers and police will allow.”--_New
Statesman._ “Humour and style are beyond criticism.”--_Irish
Statesman._
=Socrates=, or the Emancipation of Mankind. By H. F. CARLILL.
“Devotes a specially lively section to the herd instinct.”--_Times._
“Clearly, and with a balance that is almost Aristotelian, he
reveals what modern psychology is going to accomplish.”--_New
Statesman._ “One of the most brilliant and important of a remarkable
series.”--_Westminster Gazette._
=Delphos=, or the Future of International Language. By E. SYLVIA
PANKHURST.
“Equal to anything yet produced in this brilliant series. Miss
Pankhurst states very clearly what all thinking people must soon
come to believe, that an international language would be one of the
greatest assets of civilization.”--_Spectator._ “A most readable
book, full of enthusiasm, an important contribution to this
subject.”--_International Language._
=Gallio=, or the Tyranny of Science. By J. W. N. SULLIVAN, author of
“A History of Mathematics.”
“So packed with ideas that it is not possible to give any adequate
_résumé_ of its contents.”--_Times Literary Supplement._ “His
remarkable monograph, his devastating summary of materialism, this
pocket _Novum Organum_.”--_Spectator._ “Possesses a real distinction
of thought and manner. It must be read.”--_New Statesman._
=Apollonius=, or the Future of Psychical Research. By E. N. BENNETT,
author of “Problems of Village Life,” etc.
“A sane, temperate and suggestive survey of a field of inquiry
which is slowly but surely pushing to the front.”--_Times Literary
Supplement._ “His exposition of the case for psychic research is
lucid and interesting.”--_Scotsman._ “Displays the right temper,
admirably conceived, skilfully executed.”--_Liverpool Post._
=Aeolus=, or the Future of the Flying Machine. By OLIVER STEWART.
“Both his wit and his expertness save him from the
nonsensical-fantastic. There is nothing vague or sloppy in these
imaginative forecasts.”--_Daily News._ “He is to be congratulated.
His book is small, but it is so delightfully funny that it is well
worth the price, and there really are sensible ideas behind the
jesting.”--_Aeroplane._
=Stentor=, or the Press of To-Day and To-Morrow. By DAVID OCKHAM.
“A valuable and exceedingly interesting commentary on a vital phase
of modern development.”--_Daily Herald._ “Vigorous and well-written,
eminently readable.”--_Yorkshire Post._ “He has said what one
expects any sensible person to say about the ‘trustification’ of the
Press.”--_Spectator._
=Rusticus=, or the Future of the Countryside. By MARTIN S. BRIGGS,
F.R.I.B.A.
“Few of the 50 volumes, provocative and brilliant as most of them
have been, capture our imagination as does this one.”--_Daily
Telegraph._ “The historical part is as brilliant a piece of packed
writing as could be desired.”--_Daily Herald._ “Serves a national
end. The book is in essence a pamphlet, though it has the form and
charm of a book.”--_Spectator._
=Janus=, or the Conquest of War. By WILLIAM MCDOUGALL, M.B., F.R.S.
“Among all the booklets of this brilliant series, none, I think is
so weighty and impressive as this. It contains thrice as much matter
as the other volumes and is profoundly serious.”--Dean Inge, in
_Evening Standard_. “A deeply interesting and fair-minded study of
the causes of war and the possibilities of their prevention. Every
word is sound.”--_Spectator._
=Vulcan=, or the Future of Labour. By CECIL CHISHOLM.
“Of absorbing interest.”--_Daily Herald._ “No one, perhaps, has ever
condensed so many hard facts into the appearance of agreeable
fiction, nor held the balance so nicely between technicalities and
flights of fancy, as the author of this excellent book in a
brilliant series. _Vulcan_ is a little book, but between its covers
knowledge and vision are pressed down and brimming
over.”--_Spectator._
=Hymen=, or the Future of Marriage. By NORMAN HAIRE.
This candid and unprejudiced survey inquires why the majority
of marriages to-day seem to be so unsatisfactory, and finds the
answer in the sexual ethic of our civilization which is ill adapted
to our social and economic needs. The problems of sex-morality,
sex-education, prostitution, in-breeding, birth-control,
trial-marriage, and polygamy are all touched upon.
=The Next Chapter=: the War against the Moon. By ANDRÉ MAUROIS, author
of ‘Ariel’, etc.
This imaginary chapter of world-history (1951-64) from the pen of
one of the most brilliant living French authors mixes satire and
fancy in just proportions. It tells how the press of the world is
controlled by five men, how world interest is focussed on an attack
on the moon, how thus the threat of world-war is averted. But when
the moon retaliates....
=Galatea=, or the Future of Darwinism. By W. RUSSELL BRAIN.
This non-technical but closely-reasoned book is a challenge to the
orthodox teaching on evolution known as Neo-Darwinism. The author
claims that, although Neo-Darwinian theories can possibly account
for the evolution of forms, they are quite inadequate to explain the
evolution of functions.
=Scheherazade=, or the Future of the English Novel. By JOHN CARRUTHERS.
A survey of contemporary fiction in England and America lends to the
conclusion that the literary and scientific influences of the last
fifty years have combined to make the novel of to-day predominantly
analytic. It has thus gained in psychological subtlety, but lost its
form. How this may be regained is put forward in the conclusion.
=Caledonia=, or the Future of the Scots. By G. M. THOMSON.
Exit the Scot! Under this heading the Scottish people are revealed
as a leaderless mob in whom national pride has been strangled. They
regard, unmoved, the spectacle of their monstrous slum-evil, the
decay of their industries, the devastation of their countryside.
This is the most compact and mordant indictment of Scottish policy
that has yet been written.
=Albyn=, or Scotland and the Future. By C. M. GRIEVE, author of
‘Contemporary Scottish Studies’, etc.
A vigorous answer, explicit and implicit, to _Caledonia_, tracing
the movements of a real Scottish revival, in music, art, literature,
and politics, and coming to the conclusion that there is a chance
even now for the regeneration of the Scottish people.
=Lares et Penates=, or the Future of the Home. By H. J. BIRNSTINGL.
All the many forces at work to-day are influencing the planning,
appearance, and equipment of the home. This is the main thesis of
this stimulating volume, which considers also the labour-saving
movement, the ‘ideal’ house, the influence of women, the servant
problem, and the relegation of aesthetic considerations to the
background. Disconcerting prognostications follow.
_NEARLY READY_
=Archon=, or the Future of Government. By HAMILTON FYFE.
A survey of the methods of government in the past leads the author
to a consideration of conditions in the world of to-day. He then
indicates the lines along which progress may develop.
=Hermes=, or the Future of Chemistry. By T. W. JONES, B.Sc., F.C.S.
Chemistry as the means of human emancipation is the subject of this
book. To-day chemistry is one of the master factors of our
existence; to-morrow it will dominate every phase of life, winning
for man the goal of all his endeavour, economic freedom. It may also
effect a startling change in man himself.
=The Future of Physics.= By L. L. WHYTE.
The last few years have been a critical period in the development
of physics. We stand on the eve of a new epoch. Physics, biology,
and psychology are converging towards a scientific synthesis of
unprecedented importance whose influence on thought and social
custom will be so profound as to mark a stage in human evolution.
This book interprets these events and should be read in connexion
with _Gallio_, by J. W. N. Sullivan, in this series.
=Ikonoclastes=, or the Future of Shakespeare. By HUBERT GRIFFITHS.
Taking as text the recent productions of classical plays in modern
dress, the author, a distinguished dramatic critic, suggests that
this is the proper way of reviving Shakespeare and other great
dramatists of the past, and that their successful revival in modern
dress may perhaps be taken as an indication of their value.
_IN PREPARATION_
=Bacchus=, or the Future of Wine. By P. MORTON SHAND.
=Mercurius=, or the World on Wings. By C. THOMPSON WALKER.
=The Future of Sport.= By G. S. SANDILANDS.
=The Future of India.= By T. EARLE WELBY.
=The Future of Films.= By ERNEST BETTS.
* * * * *
Transcriber’s note
Minor punctuation errors have been changed without notice.
Other spelling has been retained as originally published except
for the changes below.
Page 92: “be effectively exercized” “be effectively exercised”
Page 105: “Mr Colvin has the” “Mr McColvin has the”
Page 113: “their montrous slum-evil” “their monstrous slum-evil”
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ARCHIMEDES; OR, THE FUTURE OF PHYSICS ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
