The Stars and Partial Impact (R.A.L.)

Progress, Volume VI, Issue 11, 1 September 1911, Page 804

The Stars and Partial Impact (R.A.L.)

If one thing is better known than anything else in this Dominion, it is that Professor Bickerton originated the theory of Partial Impact to account for the behaviour of the new stars which has perplexed so many astronomers. The agitation of the energetic professor is familiar to the people of the Dominion now, and has been so for the past forty years. Some have laughed, some have applauded, many of the most judicious and best instructed have added their weight of approval. This is why the GovernorGeneral of Australia gave a handsome subscription to enable the professor to go to Europe to prosecute his claims to the discovery of his new system of the creation of worlds, and to get his theory accepted by the world of astronomers. It is astounding to read in a recent, issue of the “Scientific American” (Feb. 18, 1911), a treatise giving the credit of the

whole discovery to another individual altogether.

Svante August Arrhenius, the founder of the Theory of Electrolytic Dissociation, is declared by his biographer, Professor Ostwald, to be the discoverer of the things which Professor Bickerton pub-

lished to the world long before Mr. Arrhenius was heard of. Certainly I remember Professor Bickerton unfolding his theory of Partial Impact in 1.875, when Mr. Arrhenius was sixteen years old only, and had not yet entered University life which, he did later in 1876, at Upsala as a rather precocious but very energetic and able student of mathematics, physics, and biology. The precocious young Swede became famous in due course by the exercise of his remarkable talents, and attained a position in the scientific world in derogation of which I wish to say nothing here whatever. He is now director of the Nobel Physical Institute, which position is a guarantee of the strongest for his proved capacity and advanced leadership. Nevertheless he did not place that new system of creation or re-creation before the world before Professor Bickerton, lie published, it seems, within the last four or five years a book entitled Worlds in the Making.” His biographer says it exhibits his characteristics splendidlyhis “independence, startling boldness of conception, the ability to regard apparently disconnected facts from a common standpoint, and a masterly simplicity and comprehensiveness of result and statement.” All of which may be true, no doubt is true, but not truer than the fact that he was not the first to give the world that theory of “Worlds in the Making.” Bickerton gave the same view to the world long before. From the “Scientific American” it seems to be the same theory as Bickerton’s: “A vivid picture of two giant suns, chilled to black cinders, but still imprisoning within their frozen shells a fierce heat and compounds of terrific explosive energy, crashing together in a celestial head-on-collision. When that occurred each sun was rushing at the rate of 400 miles per sec. — enormous bodies travelling at such speed cannot be suddenly arrested without in some way disposing of their energy.” They blaze forth, their gases rush out into space at different rates, as revealed by the spectrum, there is a steady dying down and in the end, out of the debris new planetary worlds are formed, and go rushing on just as those known to us. Now this much is what Bickerton said in 1875, over thirty years before, has said in the columns of Progress repeatedly, and is saying with not too much success from the scientific worldor too much courtesy we regret to say—now. The only difference is that Arrhenius speaks of a “head-on-collision,” whereas Bickerton calls it “partial impact,” otherwise of “grazing collisions.” But the whole theory is the same, and it is strange to find the younger man appropriating it entirely without a word or a bow of acknowledgment of the writings of the older. It may, of course, be a case of independent work, as happened with Darwin and Wallace on the most famous occasion in scientific history. These men, however, were contemporaries in the exact sense, but between the published works of the other two there are thirty odd years. This is a matter which ought to be cleared up.

It is true that the theory has not been accepted from other genius; many go no further than claiming that it proves that still there are men who invest scientific research with Homeric grandeur. But even if it be only “Homeric grandeur” let credit be given where it is due.