Notwithstanding its genuine physical nature and properties, the ether is singularly intangible and inaccessible to our senses, and accordingly is a subject on which it is extremely difficult to try experiments. Many have been the attempts to detect some phenomena depending on its motion relative to the earth. The earth is travelling round the sun at the rate of 19 miles a second, and although this is slow compared with light—being in fact just about ¹/_10,000th of the speed of light,—yet it would seem feasible to observe some modification of optical phenomena due to this motion through the ether.

And one such phenomenon is indeed known, namely, the stellar aberration discovered by Bradley in 1729. The position of objects not on the earth, and not connected with the solar system, is apparently altered by an amount comparable to one part in ten thousand, by the earth's motion; that is to say, the apparent place of a star is shifted from its true place by an angle ¹/_10,000th of a "radian,"[3] or about 20 seconds of arc.

This is called Astronomical Aberration, and is extremely well known. But a number of other problems open out in connexion with it, and on these it is desirable to enter into detail. For if the ether is stationary while the earth is flying through it—at a speed vastly faster than any cannon ball, as much faster than a cannon ball as an express train is faster than a saunter on foot—it is for all practical purposes the same as if the earth were stationary and the ether streaming past it with this immense velocity, in the opposite direction. And some consequence of such a drift might at first sight certainly be expected. It might, for instance, seem doubtful whether terrestrial surveying operations can be conducted, with the extreme accuracy expected of them, without some allowance for the violent rush of the light-conveying medium past and through the theodolite of the observer.

Let us therefore consider the whole subject further.

Aberration.

Everybody knows that to shoot a bird on the wing you must aim in front of it. Every one will readily admit that to hit a squatting rabbit from a moving train you must aim behind it.

These are examples of what may be called "aberration" from the sender's point of view, from the point of view of the source. And the aberration, or needful divergence between the point aimed at and the thing hit has opposite sign in the two cases—the case when receiver is moving, and the case when source is moving. Hence, if both be moving, it is possible for the two aberrations to neutralise each other. So to hit a rabbit running alongside the train you must aim straight at it.

If there were no air that is all simple enough. But every rifleman knows to his cost that though he fixes both himself and his target tightly to the ground, so as to destroy all aberration proper, yet a current of air is very competent to introduce a kind of spurious aberration of its own, which may be called windage; and that he must not aim at the target if he wants to hit it, but must aim a little in the eye of the wind.

So much from the shooter's point of view. Now attend to the point of view of the target.

Consider it made of soft enough material to be completely penetrated by the bullet, leaving a longish hole wherever struck. A person behind the target, whom we may call a marker, by applying his eye to the hole immediately after the hit, may be able to look through it at the shooter, and thereby to spot the successful man. I know that this is not precisely the function of an ordinary marker, but it is more complete than his ordinary function. All he does usually is to signal an impersonal hit; some one else has to record the identity of the shooter. I am rather assuming a volley of shots, and that the marker has to allocate the hits to their respective sources by means of the holes made in the target.

Well, will he do it correctly? Assuming, of course, that he can do so if everything is stationary, and ignoring all curvature of path, whether vertical or horizontal curvature. If you think it over you will perceive that a wind will not prevent his doing it correctly; the line of hole will point to the shooter along the path of his bullet, though it will not point along his line of aim. Also, if the shots are fired from a moving ship, the line of hole in a stationary target will point to the position the gun occupied at the instant the shot was fired, though it may have moved since then. In neither of these cases (moving medium and moving source) will there be any error.

But if the target is in motion, on an armoured train for instance, then the marker will be at fault. The hole will not point to the man who fired the shot, but to an individual ahead of him. The source will appear to be displaced in the direction of the observer's motion. This is common aberration. It is the simplest thing in the world. The easiest illustration of it is that when you run through a vertical shower, you tilt your umbrella forward; or, if you have not got one, the drops hit you in the face; more accurately, your face as you run forward hits the drops. So the shower appears to come from a cloud ahead of you, instead of from one overhead.

We have thus three motions to consider, that of the source, of the receiver, and of the medium; and, of these, only motion of receiver is able to cause an aberrational error in fixing the position of the source.

So far we have attended to the case of projectiles, with the object of leading up to light. But light does not consist of projectiles, it consists of waves; and with waves matters are a little different. Waves crawl through a medium at their own definite pace; they cannot be flung forwards or sideways by a moving source; they do not move by reason of an initial momentum which they are gradually expending, as shots do; their motion is more analogous to that of a bird or other self-propelling animal, than it is to that of a shot. The motion of a wave in a moving medium may be likened to that of a rowing-boat on a river. It crawls forward with the water, and it drifts with the water; its resultant motion is compounded of the two, but it has nothing to do with the motion of its source. A shot from a passing steamer retains the motion of the steamer as well as that given it by the powder. It is projected therefore in a slant direction. But a boat lowered from the side of a passing steamer, and rowing off, retains none of the motion of its source; it is not projected, it is self-propelled. That is like the case of a wave.

The diagram illustrates the difference. Fig. 1 shows a moving cannon or machine-gun, moving with the arrow, and firing a succession of shots which share the motion of the cannon as well as their own, and so travel slant. The shot fired from position 1 has reached A, that fired from position 2 has reached B, and that fired from position 3 has reached C, by the time the fourth shot is fired at D. The line A B C D is a prolongation of the axis of the gun; it is the line of aim, but it is not the line of fire; all the shots are travelling aslant this line, as shown by the arrows. There are thus two directions to be distinguished. There is the row of successive shots, and there is the path of any one shot. These two directions enclose an angle. It may be called an aberration angle, because it is due to the motion of the source, but it need not give rise to any aberration. True direction may still be perceived from the point of view of the receiver.

To prove this let us attend to what is happening at the target. The first shot is supposed to be entering at A, and if the target is stationary will leave it at Y. A marker looking along Y A will see the position whence the shot was fired. This may be likened to a stationary observer looking at a moving star. He sees it where and as it was when the light started on its long journey. He does not see its present position, but there is no reason why he should. He does not see its physical state or anything as it is now. He sees it as it was when it sent the information which he has just received. There is no aberration caused by motion of source.

But now let the receiver be moving at same pace as the gun, as when two grappled ships are firing into each other. The motion of the target carries the point Y forward, and the shot A leaves it at Z, because Z is carried to where Y was. So in that case the marker looking along Z A will see the gun, not as it was when firing, but as it is at the present moment; and he will see likewise the row of shots making straight for him. This is like an observer looking at a terrestrial object. Motion of the earth does not disturb ordinary vision.

Fig. 2 shows as nearly the same sort of thing as possible for the case of emitted waves. The tube is a source emitting a succession of disturbances without momentum. A B C D may be thought of as horizontally flying birds, or as crests of waves, or as self-swimming torpedoes; or they may even be thought of as bullets, if the gun stands still every time it fires, and only moves between whiles.

The line A B C D is now neither the line of fire nor the line of aim: it is simply the locus of disturbances emitted from the successive positions 1 2 3 4.

A stationary target will be penetrated in the direction A Y, and this line will point out the correct position of the source when the received disturbance started. If the target moves, a disturbance entering at A may leave it at Z, or at any other point according to its rate of motion; the line Z A does not point to the original position of the source, and so there will be aberration when the target moves. Otherwise there would be none.

Now Fig. 2 also represents a parallel beam of light travelling from a moving source, and entering a telescope or the eye of an observer. The beam lies along A B C D, but this is not the direction of vision. The direction of vision, to a stationary observer, is determined not by the locus of successive waves, but by the path of each wave. A ray may be defined as the path of a labelled disturbance. The line of vision is Y A 1, and coincides with the line of aim; which in the projectile case (Fig. 1) it did not.

The case of a revolving lighthouse, emitting long parallel beams of light and brandishing them rapidly round, is rather interesting. Fig. 3 may assist the thinking out of this case. Successive disturbances A, B, C, D, lie along a spiral curve, the spiral of Archimedes; and this is the shape of the beams, as seen illuminating the dust particles, though the pitch of the spiral is too gigantic to be distinguished from a straight line. At first sight it might seem as if an eye looking along those curved beams would see the lighthouse slightly out of its true position; but it is not so. The true rays or actual paths of each disturbance are truly radial; they do not coincide with the apparent beam. An eye looking at the source will not look tangentially along the beam, but will look along A S, and will see the source in its true position. It would be otherwise for the case of projectiles from a revolving turret.

Thus, neither translation of star nor rotation of sun can affect direction. There is no aberration so long as the receiver is stationary.

But what about a wind, or streaming of the medium past source and receiver, both stationary? Look at Fig. 1 again. Suppose a row of stationary cannon firing shots, which get blown by a cross wind along the slant 1 A Y (neglecting the curvature of path which would really exist): still the hole in the target fixes the gun's true position, the marker looking along Y A sees the gun which fired the shot. There is no true deviation from the point of view of the receiver, provided the drift is uniform everywhere, although the shots are blown aside and the target is not hit by the particular gun aimed at it.

With a moving cannon combined with an opposing wind, Fig. 1 would become very like Fig. 2.

(N.B.—The actual case, even without complication of spinning, etc., but merely with the curved path caused by steady wind-pressure, is not so simple, and there would really be an aberration or apparent displacement of the source towards the wind's eye: an apparent exaggeration of the effect of wind shown in the diagram.)

In Fig. 2 the result of a wind is much the same, though the details are rather different. The medium is supposed to be drifting downwards, across the field. The source may be taken as stationary at S. The horizontal arrows show the direction of waves in the medium; the dotted slant line shows their resultant direction. A wave centre drifts from D to 1 in the same time as the disturbance reaches A, travelling down the slant line D A. The angle between dotted and full lines is the angle between ray and wave-normal. Now, if the motion of the medium inside the receiver is the same as it is outside, the wave will pass straight on along the slant to Z, and the true direction of the source is fixed. But if the medium inside the target or telescope is stationary, the wave will cease to drift as soon as it gets inside, under cover as it were; it will proceed along the path it has been really pursuing in the medium all the time, and make its exit at Y. In this latter case—of different motion of the medium inside and outside the telescope—the apparent direction, such as Y A, is not the true direction of the source. The ray is in fact bent where it enters the differently-moving medium (as shown in Fig. 4).

A slower moving stratum bends an oblique ray, slanting with the motion, in the same direction as if it were a denser medium. A quicker stratum bends it oppositely. If a medium is both denser and quicker moving, it is possible for the two bendings to be equal and opposite, and thus for a ray to go on straight. Parenthetically I may say that this is precisely what happens, on Fresnel's theory, down the axis of a water-filled telescope exposed to the general terrestrial ether drift.

In a moving medium waves do not advance in their normal direction, they advance slantways. The direction of their advance is properly called a ray. The ray does not coincide with the wave-normal in a moving medium.

All this is well shown in Fig. 5.

S is a stationary source emitting successive waves, which drift as spheres to the right. The wave which has reached M has its centre at C, and C M is its normal; but the disturbance, M, has really travelled along S M, which is therefore the ray. It has advanced as a wave from S to P, and has drifted from P to M. Disturbances subsequently emitted are found along the ray, precisely as in Fig. 2. A stationary telescope receiving the light will point straight at S. A mirror, M, intended to reflect the light straight back must be set normal to the ray, not tangential to the wave front.

The diagram also equally represents the case of a moving source in a stationary medium. The source, starting at C, has moved to S, emitting waves as it went; which waves, as emitted, spread out as simple spheres from the then position of source as centre. Wave-normal and ray now coincide: S M is not a ray, but only the locus of successive disturbances. A stationary telescope would look not at S, but along M C to a point where the source was when it emitted the wave M; a moving telescope, if moving at same rate as source, will look at S. Hence S M is sometimes called the apparent ray. The angle S M C is the aberration angle, which in Chap. X we denote by e.

Fig. 6 shows normal reflexion for the case of a moving medium. The mirror M reflects light received from S₁, to a point S₂,—just in time to catch the source there if that is moving with the medium.

Parenthetically I may say that the time taken on the double journey, S₁ M S₂, when the medium is moving, is not quite the same as the double journey S M S, when all is stationary; and that this is the principle of Michelson's great experiment; which must be referred to later.

The ether stream we speak of is always to be considered merely as one relative to matter. Absolute velocity of matter means velocity through the ether—which is stationary. If there were no such physical standard of rest as the ether—if all motion were relative to matter alone—then the contention of Copernicus and Galileo would have had no real meaning.