Electro-magnetic Theory of Light

The Standart Electrical Dictionary · 1892 · p. 3
This theory is due to J. Clark Maxwell, and the recent Hertz experiments have gone far to prove it. It holds that the phenomena of light are due electro-magnetic induction of alternating currents acting on the ether. In a non-conductor any disturbance sets an ether wave in motion owing to its restitutive force; electricity does not travel through such a medium, but can create ether waves in it. Therefore a non-conductor of electricity is permeable to waves of ether or should transmit light, or should be transparent. A conductor on the other hand transmits electrical disturbances because it has no restitutive force and cannot support an ether wave. Hence a conductor should not transmit light, or should be opaque. With few exceptions dielectrics or non-conductors are transparent, and conductors are opaque. 220   STANDARD ELECTRICAL DICTIONARY. Again, the relation between the electrostatic and electro-magnet units of quantity is expre ed by 1: 30,000,000,000; the latter figure in centimeters gives approximately the velocity of light. The electro-magnetic unit depending on electricity in motion should have this precise relation if an electro-magnetic disturbance was propagated with the velocity of light. If an electrically charged body were whirled around a magnetic needle with the velocity of light, it should act in the same way as a current circulating around it. This effect to some extent has been shown experimentally by Rowland. A consequence of these conclusions is (Maxwell) that the specific inductive capacity of a non-conductor or dielectric should be equal to the square of its index of refraction for waves of infinite length. This is true for some substances--sulphur, turpentine, petroleum and benzole. In others the specific inductive capacity is too high, e. g., vegetable and animal oils, gla , Iceland spar, fluor spar, and quartz.
Readham'da tam maddeyi gor →