CONCERNING V. I. LEBEDEV’S ARTICLE “THE DISCOVERY OF THE CONNECTION BETWEEN ELECTRICAL AND MAGNETIC PHENOMENA BY I. A. DVIGUBSKY”

Dear comrades! In issue 4 of volume XLII of Uspekhi fizicheskikh nauk I read V. I. Lebedev’s article “The Discovery of the Connection between Electrical and Magnetic Phenomena by I. A. Dvigubsky,” which cannot but cause bewilderment. In fact, the author asserts:

First, that in 1808 I. A. Dvigubsky was the first to discover that when a Leyden jar is discharged through a steel needle, the latter becomes magnetized (“the needle will become magnetized when an electric spark passes through it”).

Second, that I. A. Dvigubsky, in this way, twelve years before Arago, was the first to establish the connection between electricity and magnetism.

Both of these assertions by V. I. Lebedev clearly testify to his complete incompetence in questions of the history of physics.

In actual fact, experiments on the magnetization of steel needles by the discharge of a Leyden jar were performed many times throughout the entire second half of the eighteenth century, namely by Wilcke, Franklin, Dalibard, Van Marum, and many others. Aepinus, in his Treatise on the Theory of Electricity and Magnetism (St. Petersburg, 1759), attempted to give a theory of the action of discharges on steel objects. There can be no doubt that I. A. Dvigubsky was familiar with these works, which had gained universal renown. I. A. Dvigubsky would never have allowed himself to claim so outdated a discovery; indeed, he did not claim it at all—V. I. Lebedev did that for him.

Moreover, in 1808 experiments on the magnetization of needles by direct current from a voltaic battery were already known. Aldini points to them in his Traité sur le galvanisme (Paris, 1804). This book describes such experiments by Mostron and Romagnosi.

Further, Arago’s experiments of 1820 consisted in his surrounding a steel needle with a spiral of copper wire through which a direct current from a voltaic battery passed. In other words, Arago’s experiments of 1820 were a further step in the development of electromagnetism. In addition, Arago showed that a copper wire through which a direct current passes acts on iron filings. Thus it is perfectly obvious that I. A. Dvigubsky cannot in any way be regarded as Arago’s predecessor.

Finally, a few more words about the effect itself of the magnetization of steel needles during the oscillatory discharge of a Leyden jar. When the discharge passes through (along) the needle, there is produced, as is known, a circular magnetic field, which cannot magnetize the needle longitudinally. It should not be forgotten, however, that in these experiments the needle is subjected to the action of the constant magnetic field of the earth. The superposition of a rapidly varying field facilitates magnetization in the constant terrestrial field, similarly to mechanical blows or shocks. This circumstance was correctly noted by Aepinus in 1759 in his treatise. (Aepinus believed that the discharge causes blows analogous to mechanical ones.) Thus, although at that time the action of the discharge on the magnetic state of the needle was observed, no profound dependence between electric current and magnetism was inferred from it.

From the quotations cited by V. I. Lebedev, it is not evident that in 1808 Dvigubsky understood that profound connection which (after the experiments of Oersted and Arago) Ampère discovered in 1820.

Thus, Dvigubsky made no discovery whatsoever in this field.

Lebedev’s article can be used exclusively to the detriment of the question of the priority of Russian scientists; this must be stated with complete clarity.

The history of science is also a science, one that requires painstaking and careful work with primary sources. The pursuit of easy sensationalism has no place in Soviet historical scholarship.

Ya. G. Dorfman

From the Editors

In addition to the letter by Prof. Ya. G. Dorfman printed above, the editors have received letters of similar content from Prof. D. B. Gogoberidze and Docent V. N. Goloushkin. In particular, Docent Goloushkin pointed out that I. A. Dvigubsky’s book Physics, to which V. I. Lebedev refers, is not original, but is a translation, as is stated directly in the preface to the first edition.

The editors of Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk consider it their duty to apologize to readers for publishing unverified materials.