Summary
This Nobel lecture, "The Splitting of the Atom by Artificial Means (1951)," primarily addresses the scientific refutation of abiogenesis, the theory that life arises from non-living matter. While the title suggests a focus on atomic physics, the provided passages extensively detail historical experiments and evolving scientific understanding regarding the origin of life. The lecture traces the scientific dismantling of abiogenesis, starting with Redi's experiments preventing flies from laying eggs and progressing to Pasteur's disproof of abiogenesis in the microscopic world.
The central argument, as evidenced in the text, is that "omne vivum e vivo" – every living thing comes from a pre-existing living thing. This principle, initially demonstrated for macroscopic organisms, was further solidified by microscopic observations. The passages highlight the shift in scientific consensus from early beliefs in spontaneous generation to the established biological law of biogenesis, while acknowledging the possibility of a primordial archebiosis in the remote past.
Key concepts
- Abiogenesis — The theory that life arises from non-living matter.
- Omne vivum e vivo — The principle that every living thing comes from a pre-existing living thing.
- Biogenesis — The scientific refutation of abiogenesis, asserting that life originates from other life.
- Archebiosis — The theory that protoplasm developed from non-living matter in the remote past.
- L. Pasteur — A scientist whose work disproved abiogenesis in the microscopic world.
From the book
Title: The Splitting of the Atom by Artificial Means (Nobel Lecture, 1951) by Ernest Thomas Sinton Walton
For other versions of this work, see Encyclopædia Britannica . ← 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica ( 1911 ) Title page → related portals : Reference Works Shortcut : EB11 or EB1911 Notes on reading the Wikisource edition . A special disclaimer for this project . Collaboration page for contributors . 12543 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica 1911 Table of contents This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1931. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works . Public domain Public domain false false← Alabama 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica , Volume 1 "Alabama" Arbitration by Montague Hughes Crackanthorpe Alabama River → See also Alabama Claims on…
He is commonly known as Rab.← Abbadie, Jakob 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica , Volume 1 'Abbahu Abba Mari → See also Abbahu on Wikipedia ; and our 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica disclaimer . 12925 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica , Volume 1 — 'Abbahu ʼABBAHU, the name of a Palestinian ʼamora ( q.v. ) who flourished c . 279–320. ʼAbbahu encouraged the study of Greek by Jews. He was famous as a collector of traditional lore, and is very often cited in the Talmud.
Popular questions readers ask
- Explain, as if to someone unfamiliar with the American Civil War, why the British government's proclamation of neutrality and recognition of the Confederates as belligerents was a pivotal moment leading to the "Alabama" Arbitration.
- The text suggests the "Alabama" Arbitration highlights "the value of arbitration as a means of averting war." Based *only* on the actions described concerning the vessel's construction and US concerns, how did the potential for arbitration begin to mitigate a direct conflict between the US and Britain?
- From the perspective of a neutral nation like Britain, what specific obligations or challenges arose when the United States presented evidence regarding the "Alabama" being built on British soil for a belligerent power?
- If you were the US Consul in Liverpool, what would be your most compelling argument to Earl Russell for the immediate detention of the "Alabama," and what diplomatic risks might such a request entail for Anglo-American relations?
- How does the detailed description of the "Alabama"'s construction and the subsequent US diplomatic actions illustrate the evolving concept of international neutrality during wartime in the 19th century?