The Transformations of the Atomic Concept Through the Ages [1969f]
If one opens a textbook of atomic physics, one will read on the first page that the atomic concept was introduced into science by the Greeks. It is true that the word ‘atom’ is a Greek word that means ‘indivisible’; however, every child knows today that we are perfectly able to split atoms, and that the components of atoms are themselves made up of even smaller particles. From this point of view it is a good thing that children are no longer forced to learn Greek; for the poor Greek children the word ‘atom’ is perhaps even more confusing, for in Modern Greek it denotes a single human being, an individual. This discordance is already a hint that the introduction of the atomic concept did not proceed quite so smoothly: in the course of time this concept has undergone an essential alteration, which has of course been conditioned by our increased knowledge of the structure of matter. If we look more closely at the historical development, we get in fact a very varied picture of continually changing notions about the smallest parts of matter — whether the idea of atom was upheld in sonic form or other, or was completely rejected. It is not without interest to try to understand the motivations that at various periods led philosophers and scientists to so different opinions: such an analysis sheds light upon the way in which the construction of our scientific concepts is influenced by our knowledge of the phenomena and related to the tasks imposed on us by nature itself or by society.
KeywordsGreek Philosophy Atomic Concept Materialistic Description Reidel Publishing Company Finite Displacement
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Boas. M., Robert Boyle and XVIIth Century Chemistry, Cambridge University Press. 1958.Google Scholar
- Boas. M., ‘Newton’s Chemical Papers’ in Isaac Newton’s Papers and Letters on Natural Philosophy (ed by I. B. Cohen ), Cambridge University Press. 1958.Google Scholar
- G. Bugge., (ed). Das Buch der grossen Chemiker, vol. II, Verlag Chemie. Berlin. 1930: See the essay on Canizzaro by B L. Vanzetti and M. Speler, on Kekulé by R Winderlich, and on Van’t Hoff by E. Cohen.Google Scholar
- Enriques, F. and de Sanlillana, G.,: ‘Histoire de la pensée scientifique’. Actualités scientifiques et industrielles. Nos. 384, 385. 386. Hermann, Paris, 1936.Google Scholar
- Farrington, B., Greek Science. Pelican Books. London. 1953.Google Scholar
- Gillis, J., ‘Auguste Kekulé et son oeuvre, réalisée à Gand de 1858 à 1867’. Mémoires in 8 o . Cl. des Sciences. Acad. Roy. Belg. 37 (1966). No. 1.Google Scholar
- Levey, M., ‘Studies in the Development of Atomic Theory’, Chymia: Annual Studies in the History of Chemistry. No. 7 ( University of Pennsylvania Press. Philadelphia, 1961 ) pp. 40–56.Google Scholar
- van Melsen, A G. M., Het wijsgeerig verleden der atoomtheone, Amsterdam 1941. [See the later work of van Melsen, From Atomos to Atom: The History of the Concept ‘Atom’ (Harper. New York. 1960) — Ed.].Google Scholar
- Pedersen, O. and Pihl, M., Historisk indledmng til den klassiske Fysik. I. De eksakte naturvidenskaber i oldtid oy middelaider, Munksgaard. Copenhagen, 1963.Google Scholar
- Rosenfeld, L., ‘The Velocity of Light and the Evolution of Electrodynamics’. Supplemeto al Nuovo Cimento 4 (1956), 1630 [This volume, p. 134).Google Scholar
- Rosenfeld. L., ‘Newton and the Law of Gravitation’. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 2 (1965), 365. [This volume, p. 58].Google Scholar