No actual measurement ... was required : Maxwell and Cavendish's null method for the inverse square law of electrostatics
MetadataShow full item record
In 1877 James Clerk Maxwell and his student Donald MacAlister refined Henry Cavendish’s 1773 null experiment demonstrating the absence of electricity inside a charged conductor. This null result was a mathematical prediction of the inverse square law of electrostatics, and both Cavendish and Maxwell took the experiment as verifying the law. However, Maxwell had already expressed absolute conviction in the law, based on results of Michael Faraday’s. So, what was the value to him of repeating Cavendish’s experiment? After assessing whether the law was as secure as he claimed, this paper explores its central importance to the electrical programme that Maxwell was pursuing. It traces the historical and conceptual re-orderings through which Maxwell established the law by constructing a tradition of null tests and asserting the superior accuracy of the method. Maxwell drew on his developing ‘doctrine of method’ to identify Cavendish’s experiment as a member of a wider class of null methods. By doing so, he appealed to the null practices of telegraph engineers, diverted attention from the flawed logic of the method, and sought to localise issues around the mapping of numbers onto instrumental indications, on the grounds that ‘no actual measurement … was required’.
Falconer , I 2017 , ' No actual measurement ... was required : Maxwell and Cavendish's null method for the inverse square law of electrostatics ' Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A , vol. 65-66 , pp. 74-86 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.05.001
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. This work has been made available online in accordance with the publisher’s policies. This is the author created accepted version manuscript following peer review and as such may differ slightly from the final published version. The final published version of this work is available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.05.001
Items in the St Andrews Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.