Page:Philosophical magazine 23 series 4.djvu/109

Rh A and B have been fully investigated by M. Verdet, who has shown that the rotation is strictly proportional to the thickness and to the magnetizing force, and that, when the ray is inclined to the magnetizing force, the rotation is as the cosine of that inclination. D has been supposed to give the true relation between the rotation of different rays; but it is probable that C must betaken into account in an accurate statement of the phenomena: The rotation varies, not exactly inversely as the square of the wave-length, but a little faster; so that for the highly refrangible rays the rotation is greater than that given by this law, but more nearly as the index of refraction divided by the square of the wave-length.

The relation (E) between the amount of rotation and the size of the vortices shows that different substances may differ in rotating power independently of any observable difference in other, respects. We know nothing of the absolute size of the vortices; and on our hypothesis the optical phenomena are probably the only data for determining their relative size in different substances.

On our theory, the direction of the rotation of the plane of polarization depends on that of the mean moment of momenta, or angular momentum, of the molecular vortices ; and since M. Verdet has discovered that magnetic substances have an effect on light opposite to that of diamagnetic substances, it follows that the molecular rotation must be opposite in the two classes of substances.

We can no longer, therefore, consider diamagnetic bodies as. being those whose coefficient of magnetic induction is less than that of space empty of gross matter. We must admit the diamagnetic state to be the opposite of the paramagnetic; and that the vortices, or at least the influential majority of them, in diamagnetic substances, revolve in the direction in which positive electricity revolves in the magnetizing bobbin, while in paramagnetic substances they revolve in the opposite direction.

This result agrees so far with that part of the theory of M. Weber which refers to the paramagnetic and diamagnetic conditions. M. Weber supposes the electricity in paramagnetic bodies to revolve the same way as the surrounding helix, while in diamagnetic bodies it revolves the opposite way. Now if we regard negative or resinous electricity as a substance the absence of which constitute positive or vitreous electricity, the results will be those actually observed. This will be true independently of any other hypothesis than that of M. Weber about magnetism