Faraday to Edward Jones   9 and 10 June 1857

Royal Institution | 9 June 1857.

My dear Sir

I have received your very kind letter¹ and paper & am delighted at such a result of my evening². If nothing else had come of it but that, it would have been a sufficient reward:- but much else has come & I expect much more.

I do not think you can find in my papers any word or thought that contradicts the law of gravitating action - my observations are all directed to the definition or description of the force of gravitation with the view of clearing up the received idea of the force so that if inaccurate or insufficient it may not be left as an obstacle in the present progressive state of science[.] If I am wrong in believing that according to the present view the mutual gravitating force of two particles A & B remains unchanged whatever other particles come to bear upon A or B then the sooner I am corrected publicly the better. If your view (whether old or new) that the power of A remains unchanged in amount but is subdivided upon every particle which acts upon it is the true or the accepted one then I shall long to see it published & acknowledged for I do not find it received at present. I have proved to my own satisfaction that such is the case with the dual powers Electricity* & Magnetismø and it is the denial of it as regards gravity which makes up my chief difficulty in accepting the established view of that power. Your statement that (A) may attract or act on B.C. with a force of one whilst B C act on A with a force of two, seems to me inconsistent with the law that action & reaction are equal; but I suppose I am under some misconception of your meaning.

The cases of action at a distance are becoming in a physical point of view daily more & more important[.] Sound, Light, Electricity, Magnetism, Gravitation, present them as a series[.] The nature of sound & its dependence on a medium we think we understand pretty well - the nature of light as dependent on a medium is now very largely accepted - the presence of a medium in the phenomena of Electricity & magnetism becomes more & more probable daily. We employ ourselves & I think rightly in endeavouring to elucidate the physical exercise of these forces or their sets of antecedents & consequents & surely no one can find fault with the labours which eminent men have entered upon in respect of light or into which they may enter as regards electricity & magnetism. Then what is there about gravitation that should exclude it from consideration also: Newton did not shut out the physical view but had evidently thought deeply of it x, and if he thought of it why should not we in these advanced days do so to[o.] Yet how can we do so if the present definition of the force, as I understand, is allowed to remain undisturbed; or how are its inconsistencies or deficiencies as a description of the force to be made manifest except by such questions & observations as those made by me & referred to in the last pages of your paper. I believe we ought to search out any deficiency or inconsistency in the sense conveyed by the received form of words that we may increase our real knowledge striking out or limiting what is vague. I believe that men of science will be glad to do so & will even as regards Gravity, amend its description if they see it is wrong. You have I think done so to a large extent in your M.S. and I trust (& know) that others have done so also. That I may be largely wrong I am free to admit. Who can be right altogether in physical science which is essentially progressive & corrective; still if in our advance we find that a view hitherto accepted is not sufficient for the coming development we ought I think (even though we risk something on our own part) to run before and raise up difficulties that we may learn how to solve them truly. To leave them untouched hanging as dead weights upon our thoughts or to respect or preserve their existence whilst they interfere with the truth of physical action is to rest content with darkness & to worship an idol[.]

I take the liberty of sending by this post copies of two papers. The one on Conservation of force³ is I suppose that which you have read[.] I have made marks in the margin which I think will satisfy you that I do not want to raise objections except where the definition of gravity originates them of itself. The other is on the same subject two years anterior⁴. If you would cause your view of Gravity as a force unchanging in amount in A but disposable in part towards one or many other particles, to be acknowledged by Scientific Men; you would do a great service to science[.] If you would even get them to say yes or no to your conclusions it would help to clear the future progress. I believe some hesitate because they do not like to have their thoughts disturbed. When Davy discovered potassium it annoyed persons who had just made their view of chemical science perfect⁵ & when I discovered the Magneto-electric spark, distaste of a like kind was felt towards it even in high places⁶. Still science must proceed, and with respect to my part in the matter of gravitation I am content to leave it to the future. I cannot help feeling that there is ground for my observations for if there had been an evident answer it must have appeared before now[.] That the answer when it comes may be different to what I expect I think is very probable, but I think also it will be as different from the present received view. Then a good end will be obtained - and indeed your observations & views appear to me to be much of that kind[.]

If it should be said that the physical nature of gravitation has not yet been considered but only the law of its action & therefore that no definition of gravity as a power has hitherto been necessary that may be so with some; but then it must be high time to proceed a little further if we can, & that is just one reason for bringing the principle of the conservation of force to bear upon the subject. It cannot I think for a moment be supposed that we are to go no further in the investigation. Where would our knowledge of light or magnetism or the voltaic current have been under such a restraint of the mind.

Again thanking you most truly for the attention you have given to me & the subject I beg you to believe that I am Very Gratefully

Your faithful Servant | M. Faraday

Revd Edwd Jones | &c &c &c

10th June. Dear Sir I omitted a passage in my reply to your letter which ought to have appeared at the end of the second paragraph. The passage is (A) - will you have the goodness to consider the passage as inserted[.]

Ever Truly Yours M. Faraday

* Exp. Researches 8vo vol 1. par 1177, 1215⁷, 1681⁸, &c

ø Exp Researches xxviii. Vol iii⁹ p.328 &c. Paragraph 3109, 3121¹⁰, 3225¹¹ & - Also Par. 3324 of the same vol III p.544¹².

x Note p7 of the paper on Conservation of force¹³