Draper remarks that from purely theoretic considerations derived from terrestrial chemistry, and the nebular hypothesis, the presence of oxygen in the sun might have been strongly suspected; for this element is currently stated to form eight-ninths of the water of the globe, one-third of the crust of the earth, and one-fifth of the air, and should therefore probably be a large constituent of every member of the solar system. On the other hand, the discovery of oxygen, and probably other non-metals, in the sun gives increased strength to the nebular hypothesis, because to many persons the absence of this important group has presented a considerable difficulty. I have already remarked on the circumstance that we cannot, according to the known laws of gaseous diffusion, accept the reasoning of those who have endeavoured to explain the small density of the outer planets by the supposition that the lighter gases were left behind by the great contracting nebulous mass, out of which, on the nebular hypothesis, the solar system is supposed to have been formed. It is important to notice, now, that if on the one hand we find in the community of structure between the sun and our earth, as confirmed by the discovery of oxygen and nitrogen in the sun, evidence favouring the theory according to which all the members of that system were formed out of what was originally a single mass, we do not find evidence against the theory (as those who have advanced the explanation above referred to may be disposed to imagine) in the recognition in the sun’s mass of enormous quantities of one of these elements which, according to their view, ought to be found chiefly in the outer members of the solar system. If those who believe in the nebular hypothesis (generally, that is, for many of the details of the hypothesis as advanced by Laplace are entirely untenable in the present position of physical science) had accepted the attempted explanation of the supposed absence of the non-metallic elements in the sun, they would now find themselves in a somewhat awkward position. They would, in fact, be almost bound logically to reject the nebular hypothesis, seeing that one of the asserted results of the formation of our system, according to that hypothesis, would have been disproved. But so far as I know no supporter of the nebular hypothesis possessing sufficient knowledge of astronomical facts and physical laws to render his opinion of any weight, has ever given in his adhesion to the unsatisfactory explanation referred to.
The view which I have long entertained respecting the growth of the solar system—viz., that it had its origin, not in contraction only or chiefly, but in combined processes of contraction and accretion—seems to me to be very strongly confirmed by Dr. Draper’s discovery. This would not be the place for a full discussion of the reasons on which this opinion is based. But I may remark that I believe no one who applies the laws of physics, as at present known, to the theory of the simple contraction of a great nebulous mass formerly extending far beyond the orbit of Neptune, till, when planet after planet had been thrown off, the sun was left in his present form and condition in the centre, will fail to perceive enormous difficulties in the hypothesis, or to recognize in Dr. Draper’s discovery a difficulty added to those affecting the hypothesis so presented. Has it ever occurred, I often wonder, to those who glibly quote the nebular theory as originally propounded, to inquire how far some of the processes suggested by Laplace are in accordance with the now known laws of physics? To begin with, the original nebulous mass extending to a distance exceeding the earth’s distance from the sun more than thirty times (this being only the distance of Neptune), if we assign to it a degree of compression making its axial diameter half its equatorial diameter, would have had a volume exceeding the sun’s (roughly) about 120,000,000,000 times, and in this degree its mean density would have been less than the sun’s. This would correspond to a density equal (roughly) to about one-400,000th part of the density of hydrogen gas at atmospheric pressure. To suppose that a great mass of matter, having this exceedingly small mean density, and extending to a distance of three or four thousand millions of miles from its centre, could under any circumstances rotate as a whole, or behave in other respects after the fashion attributed to the gaseous embryon of the solar system in ordinary descriptions of the nebular hypothesis, is altogether inconsistent with correct ideas of physical and dynamical laws. It is absolutely a necessity of any nebular hypothesis of the solar system, that from the very beginning a central nucleus and subordinate nuclei should form in it, and grow according to the results of the motions (at first to all intents and purposes independent) of its various parts. Granting this state of things, we arrive, by considering the combined effects of accretion and contraction, at a process of development according fully as well as that ordinarily described with the general relations described by Laplace, and accounting also (in a general way) for certain peculiarities which are in no degree explained by the ordinary theory. Amongst these may specially be noted the arrangement and distribution of the masses within the solar system, and the fact that so far as spectroscopic evidence enables us to judge, a general similarity of structure exists throughout the whole of the system.
Inquiring as to the significance of his discovery, Dr. Draper remarks that it seems rather difficult “at first sight to believe that an ignited5 gas in the solar atmosphere should not be indicated by dark lines in the solar spectrum, and should appear not to act under the law, ‘a gas when ignited absorbs rays of the same refrangibility as those it emits.’ But, in fact, the substances hitherto investigated in the sun are really metallic vapours, hydrogen probably coming under that rule. The non-metals obviously may behave differently. It is easy to speculate on the causes of such behaviour; and it may be suggested that the reason of the non-appearance of a dark line may be that the intensity of the light from a great thickness of ignited oxygen overpowers the effect of the photosphere, just as, if a person were to look at a candle-flame through a yard thickness of sodium vapour, he would only see bright sodium lines, and no dark absorption.”
The reasoning here is not altogether satisfactory (or else is not quite correctly expressed). In the first place, the difficulty dealt with has no real existence. The law that a gas when glowing absorbs rays of the same refrangibility as it emits, does not imply that a gas between a source of light and the observer will show its presence by spectroscopic dark lines. A gas so placed does receive from the source of light rays corresponding to those which it emits itself, if it is cooler than the source of light; and it absorbs them, being in fact heated by means of them, though the gain of temperature may be dissipated as fast as received; but if the gas is hotter, it emits more of those rays than it absorbs, and will make its presence known by its bright lines. This is not a matter of speculation, but of experiment. On the other hand, the experiment suggested by Dr. Draper would not have the effect he supposes, if it were correctly made. Doubtless, if the light from a considerable area of dully glowing sodium vapour were received by the spectroscope at the same time as the light of a candle-flame seen through the sodium vapour, the light of the sodium vapour overcoming that of the candle-flame would indicate its presence by bright lines; but if light were received only from that portion of the sodium vapour which lay between the eye and the candle-flame, then I apprehend that the dark lines of sodium would not only be seen, but would be conspicuous by their darkness.
It is in no cavilling spirit that I indicate what appears to me erroneous in a portion of Dr. Draper’s reasoning on his great discovery. The entire significance of the discovery depends on the meaning attached to it, and therefore it is most desirable to ascertain what this meaning really is. There can be no doubt, I think, that we are to look for the true interpretation of the brightness of the oxygen lines in the higher temperature of the oxygen, not in the great depth of oxygen above the photospheric level. The oxygen which produces these bright lines need not necessarily be above the photosphere at all. (In fact, I may remark here that Dr. Draper, in a communication addressed to myself, mentions that he has found no traces at present of oxygen above the photosphere, though I had not this circumstance in my thoughts in reasoning down to the conclusion that the part of the oxygen effective in showing these bright lines lies probably below the visible photosphere.) Of course, if the photosphere were really composed of glowing solid and liquid matter, or of masses of gas so compressed and so intensely heated as to give a continuous spectrum, no gas existing below the photosphere could send its light through, nor could its presence, therefore, be indicated in any spectroscopic manner. But the investigations which have been made into the structure of the photosphere as revealed by the telescope, and in particular the observations made by Professor Langley, of the Alleghany Observatory, show that we have not in the photosphere a definite bounding envelope of the sun, but
