and '2tU* = 97'66 ; the former of these is 1*84 times the latter. In this case we found the ratio of to ^Zv,<2v to be 1*87.
§ 54. In conclusion, I wish to refer, in connexion with Class II., § 28, to a very interesting and important application of the doctrine, made by Maxwell himself, to the equilibrium of a tall column of gas under the influence of gravity. Take, first, our one-dimensional gas of § 50, consisting of a straight row of a vast number of equal and similar atoms. Lei now the line of the row be vertical, and let the atoms be under the influence of terrestrial gravity, and suppose, first, the atoms to resist mutual approach, sufficiently to prevent any one from passing through another with the greatest relative velocity of approach that the total energy given to the assemblage can allow. The Boltzmann-Maxwell doctrine (§ 18 above), asserting as it does that the time-integral of the kinetic energy is the same for all the atoms, makes the time-average of the kinetic energy the same for the highest as for the lowest in the row. This, if true, would be an exceedingly interesting theorem. But now, suppose two approaching atoms not to repel one another with infinite force at any distance between their centres, and suppose energy to be given to the multitude sufficient to cause frequent instances of two atoms passing through one another. Still the doctrine can assert nothing but that the time-integral of the kinetic energy of any one atom is equal to that of any other atom, which is now a self-evident proposition, because the atoms are of equal masses, and each one of them in turn will be in every position of the column, high or low. (If in the row there are atoms of different masses, the Waterston-Maxwell doctrine of equal average energies would, of course, be important and interesting.)
§ 55. But now, instead of our ideal one-dimensional gas, consider a real homogeneous gas, in an infinitely hard vertical tube, with an infinitely hard floor and roof, so that the gas is under no influence from without, except gravity. Fii*st, let there be only two or three atoms, each given with sufficient velocity to fly against gravity from floor to roof. They will strike one another occasionally, and they will strike the sides and floor and roof of the tube much more frequently than one another. The time-averages of their kinetic energies w ill be equal. So will they be if there are twenty atoms, or a thousand atoms, or a million, million, million, million, million atoms. Noiv each atom will strike another atom much more frequently than the sides or floor or roof of the tube. In the long run each atom will be in every part of the tube as often as is
every other atom. The time-integral of the kinetic energy of any one atom will be equal to the time-integral of the kinetic energy of any other atom. This truism is simply and solely all that the Boltzmann-Maxwell doctrine asserts for a vertical column of a homogeneous monatomic gas. It is,
I believe, a general impression that the Boltzmann-Maxwell doctrine, asserting a law of partition of the kinetic part of the whole energy, includes obviously a theorem that the average kinetic energy of the atoms in the upper parts of a vertical column of gas, is equal to that of the atoms in the lower parts of the column. Indeed, with the wording of Maxwell's statement, § 18, before us, we might suppose it to assert that two parts of our vertical column of gas, if they contain the same number of atoms, must have the same kinetic energy, though they be situated, one of them near the bottom of the column, and the other near the top. Maxwell himself, in his 18(H) paper (u The Dynamical Theory of Grases'*) *, gave an independent synthetical demonstration of this proposition, and did not subsequently, so far as I know, regard it as immediately deducible from the partitional doctrine generalized by Boltzmann and himself several years after the date of that paper.
§ 56. Both Boltzmann and Maxwell recognized the experimental contradiction of their doctrine presented by the kinetic theory of gases, and felt that an explanation of this incompatibility was imperatively called for. For instance, Maxwell, in a lecture on the dynamical evidence of the molecular constitution of bodies, given to the Chemical ►Society, Feb. 18, 1875. said : “I have put before you what “ I consider to be the greatest difficulty yet encountered by u the molecular theory. Boltzmann has suggested that we u are to look for the explanation in the mutual action between
the molecules and the ethereal medium which surrounds “ them. I am afraid, however, that if we call in the help of “ this medium we shall only increase the calculated specific “ heat, which is already too great." Rayleigh, who has for the last twenty years been an unwavering supporter of the Boltzmann-Maxwell doctrine, concludes a paper “ On the Law of Partition of Energy," published a year ago in the Phil. Mag., Jan. 1900, with the following words : “ The difficulties u connected with the application of the law of equal partition
of energy to actual gases have long been felt. In the case of “ argon and helium and mercury vapour, the ratio of specific “ heats (1*67) limits the degrees of freedoms of each molecule
* Addition, of date December 17,1866. Collected works, vol. ii. p. 76.
