Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T03:20:33.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Structure of Liquids and Vitreous Solids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

Harold Jeffreys
Harold Jeffreys
Affiliation:
St John's College.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The success of the kinetic theory in accounting for the properties of gases, and that of the ionic lattice theory in accounting for those of crystals, have been such as to warrant the belief that the main features of the constitution of gases and crystals are now understood, and that future development will proceed mainly on the lines already laid down. For liquids, on the other hand, we have hardly the beginnings of a theory; amorphous solids are in a slightly better state. The present article does not claim to have gone far towards the construction of such a theory, but it is hoped that it will at any rate indicate what are some of the chief problems to be faced when one is constructed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , January 1928 , pp. 19 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Philosophical Society 1928

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* Phil. Trans. A, 221, 163–198, 1920.Google Scholar

* Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 106, 441–477 and later papers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

† Born, M., Atomtheorie des festen Zustandes, 1923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

‡ Braunbek, W., Zs. f. Phys. 38, 549–572, 1926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

* Cf. Ewing, J. A., Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 48, 342–358, 1890;CrossRefGoogle Scholar or Poynting, and Thomson, , Electricity and Magnetism, 195–199, 1914.Google Scholar

* Adams, L. H. and Williamson, E. D., J. Frank. Inst. 195, 1923;Google ScholarBridgman, , Amer. J. Sci. 10, 359–367, 1925. I failed to find the density of one of the most interesting volcanic rocks in four geological text-books and three sets of standard tables.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

† Adams, and Gibson, , Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 12, 275–283, 1926. These densities of gabbro and tachylite are explicitly stated to refer to materials of similar composition.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

‡ Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 102, 643–667, 1923, and later papers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

* Cf. also Beilby, , Aggregation and Flow of Solids, 1921.Google Scholar

† Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 107. 422–451, 1925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

* The Earth, 109–116, 1924.Google Scholar

* Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., 23, 768–778, 1927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

† Ann. d. Phys., 34, 185–221, 1911. But an alternative possibility is that the thermometric conductivity is proportional to 1/T 2 and the specific heat roughly to T; the latter would fit the facts for both crystals and glasses better.Google Scholar

‡ Wolfskehl-Vorträge z. Göttingen, 1914.Google Scholar

* This could be accounted for if the specific heat rises with temperature, without corresponding change in the thermometric conductivity.Google Scholar

† Amer. J. Sci., 7, 81–102, 1923.Google Scholar

‡ Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts and Sci., 59, 141–169, 1923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

* Cf. Raman, C. V., Nature, 04 21 and 05 5, 1923.Google Scholar

† Cf. recent papers in the Indian Journal of Physics.Google Scholar

* Raman, C. V. and Krishnan, V. S., Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 117, 1–11, 1927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

† Principles of Petrology, p. 82.Google Scholar