CHAPTER V.. The Atomic Theory.

THE ATOMIC THEORY.

1. The Atomic Theory considered on Chemical Grounds.--WE have already seen that the combinations which result from chemical affinity are definite, a certain quantity of one ingredient uniting, not with an uncertain, but with a certain quantity of another ingredient. But it was found, in addition to this principle, that one ingredient would often unite with another in different proportions, and that, in such cases, these proportions are multiples one of another. In the three salts formed by potassa with oxalic acid, the quantities of acid which combine with the same quantity of alkali are exactly in the proportion of the numbers 1, 2, 4. And the same rule of the existence of multiple proportions is found to obtain in other cases.

It is obvious that such results will be accounted for, if we suppose that the base and the acid consist each of numerous definite equal particles, and that the formation of the salts above mentioned consists in the combination of one particle of the base with one particle of acid, with two particles of acid, and with four particles of acid, respectively. But further; as we have already stated, chemical affinity is not only definite, but reciprocal. The proportions of potassa and soda which form neutral salts being 590 and 391 in one case, they are so in all cases. These numbers represent proportions of weight in which the two bases, potassa and soda, enter into analogous combinations; 590 of potassa is equivalent to 391 of soda. These facts with regard to combination are still expressed by the above supposition of equal particles, assuming that the weights of a {49} particle of potassa and of soda are in the proportion of 590 to 391.

But we pursue our analysis further. We find that potassa is a compound of a metallic base, potassium, and of oxygen, in the proportion of 490 to 100; we suppose, then, that the particle of potassa consists of a particle of potassium and a particle of oxygen; and these latter particles, since we see no present need to suppose them divided, potassium and oxygen being simple bodies, we may call atoms, and assume to be indivisible. And by supposing all simple bodies to consist of such atoms, and compounds to be formed by the union of two, or three, or more of such atoms, we explain the occurrence of definite and multiple proportions, and we construct the Atomic Theory.

2. Hypothesis of Atoms.--So far as the assumption of such atoms as we have spoken of serves to express those laws of chemical composition which we have referred to, it is a clear and useful generalization. But if the Atomic Theory be put forwards (and its author, Dr. Dalton, appears to have put it forwards with such an intention,) as asserting that chemical elements are really composed of atoms, that is, of such particles not further divisible, we cannot avoid remarking, that for such a conclusion, chemical research has not afforded, nor can afford, any satisfactory evidence whatever. The smallest observable quantities of ingredients, as well as the largest, combine according to the laws of proportions and equivalence which have been cited above. How are we to deduce from such facts any inference with regard to the existence of certain smallest possible particles? The Theory, when dogmatically taught as a physical truth, asserts that all observable quantities of elements are composed of proportional numbers of particles which can no further be subdivided; but all which observation teaches us is, that if there be such particles, they are smaller than the smallest observable quantities. In chemical experiment, at least, there is not the slightest positive evidence for the existence of such atoms. The assumption of indivisible particles, smaller than the smallest {50} observable, which combine, particle with particle, will explain the phenomena; but the assumption of particles bearing this proportion, but not possessing the property of indivisibility, will explain the phenomena at least equally well. The decision of the question, therefore, whether the Atomic Hypothesis be the proper way of conceiving the chemical combinations of substances, must depend, not upon chemical facts, but upon our conception of Substance. In this sense the question is an ancient and curious controversy, and we shall hereafter have to make some remarks upon it.

3. Chemical Difficulties of the Hypothesis.--But before doing this, we may observe that there is no small difficulty in reconciling this hypothesis with the facts of chemistry. According to the theory, all salts, compounded of an acid and a base, are analogous in their atomic constitution; and the number of atoms in one such compound being known or assumed, the number of atoms in other salts may be determined. But when we proceed in this course of reasoning to other bodies, as metals, we find ourselves involved in difficulties. The protoxide of iron is a base which, according to all analogy, must consist of one atom of iron and one of oxygen: but the peroxide of iron is also a base, and it appears by the analysis of this substance that it must consist of two-thirds of an atom of iron and one atom of oxygen. Here, then, our indivisible atoms must be divisible, even upon chemical grounds. And if we attempt to evade this difficulty by making the peroxide of iron consist of two atoms of iron and three of oxygen, we have to make a corresponding alteration in the theoretical constitution of all bodies analogous to the protoxide; and thus we overturn the very foundation of the theory. Chemical facts, therefore, not only do not prove the Atomic Theory as a physical truth, but they are not, according to any modification yet devised of the theory, reconcileable with its scheme.

Nearly the same conclusions result from the attempts to employ the Atomic Hypothesis in expressing another important chemical law;--the law of the {51} combinations of gases according to definite proportions of their volumes, experimentally established by Gay Lussac[40\6]. In order to account for this law, it has been very plausibly suggested that all gases, under the same pressure, contain an equal number of atoms in the same space; and that when they combine, they unite atom to atom. Thus one volume of chlorine unites with one volume of hydrogen, and forms hydrochloric acid[41\6]. But then this hydrochloric acid occupies the space of the two volumes; and therefore the proper number of particles cannot be supplied, and the uniform distribution of atoms in all gases maintained, without dividing into two each of the compound particles, constituted of an atom of chlorine and an atom of hydrogen. And thus in this case, also, the Atomic Theory becomes untenable if it be understood to imply the indivisibility of the atoms.

In all these attempts to obtain distinct physical conception of chemical union by the aid of the Atomic Hypothesis, the atoms are conceived to be associated by certain forces of the nature of mechanical attractions. But we have already seen[42\6] that no such mode of conception can at all explain or express the facts of chemical combination; and therefore it is not wonderful that when the Atomic Theory attempts to give an account of chemical relations by contemplating them under such an aspect, the facts on which it grounds itself should be found not to authorize its positive doctrines; and that when these doctrines are tried upon the general range of chemical observation, they should prove incapable of even expressing, without self-contradiction, the laws of phenomena.

4. Grounds of the Atomic Doctrine.--Yet the doctrine of atoms, or of substance as composed of indivisible particles, has in all ages had great hold upon the minds of physical speculators; nor would this doctrine ever have suggested itself so readily, or have been maintained so tenaciously, as the true mode of {52} conceiving chemical combinations, if it had not been already familiar to the minds of those who endeavour to obtain a general view of the constitution of nature. The grounds of the assumption of the atomic structure of substance are to be found rather in the idea of substance itself, than in the experimental laws of chemical affinity. And the question of the existence of atoms, thus depending upon an idea which has been the subject of contemplation from the very infancy of philosophy, has been discussed in all ages with interest and ingenuity. On this very account it is unlikely that the question, so far as it bears upon chemistry, should admit of any clear and final solution. Still it will be instructive to look back at some of the opinions which have been delivered respecting this doctrine.

5. Ancient Prevalence of the Atomic Doctrine.--The doctrine that matter consists of minute, simple, indivisible, indestructible particles as its ultimate elements, has been current in all ages and countries, whenever the tendency of man to wide and subtle speculations has been active. I need not attempt to trace the history of this opinion in the schools of Greece and Italy. It was the leading feature in the physical tenets of the Epicureans, and was adopted by their Roman disciples, as the poem of Lucretius copiously shows us. The same tenet had been held at still earlier periods, in forms more or less definite, by other philosophers. It is ascribed to Democritus, and is said to have been by him derived from Leucippus. But this doctrine is found also, we are told[43\6], among the speculations of another intellectual and acute race, the Hindoos. According to some of their philosophical writers, the ultimate elements of matter are atoms, of which it is proved by certain reasonings, that they are each one-sixth of one of the motes that float in the sunbeam.

This early prevalence of controversies of the widest and deepest kind, which even in our day remain undecided, has in it nothing which need surprize us; or, at least, it has in it nothing which is not in conformity {53} with the general course of the history of philosophy. As soon as any ideas are clearly possessed by the human mind, its activity and acuteness in reasoning upon them are such, that the fundamental antitheses and ultimate difficulties which belong to them are soon brought into view. The Greek and Indian philosophers had mastered completely the Idea of Space, and possessed the Idea of Substance in tolerable distinctness. They were, therefore, quite ready, with their lively and subtle minds, to discuss the question of the finite and infinite divisibility of matter, so far as it involved only the ideas of space and of substance, and this accordingly they did with great ingenuity and perseverance.

But the ideas of Space and of Substance are far from being sufficient to enable men to form a complete general view of the constitution of matter. We must add to these ideas, that of mechanical Force with its antagonist Resistance, and that of the Affinity of one kind of matter for another. Now the former of these ideas the ancients possessed in a very obscure and confused manner; and of the latter they had no apprehension whatever. They made vague assumptions respecting the impact and pressure of atoms on each other; but of their mutual attraction and repulsion they never had any conception, except of the most dim and wavering kind; and of an affinity different from mere local union they did not even dream. Their speculations concerning atoms, therefore, can have no value for us, except as a part of the history of science. If their doctrines appear to us to approach near to the conclusions of our modern philosophy, it must be because our modern philosophy is that philosophy which has not fully profited by the additional light which the experiments and meditations of later times have thrown upon the constitution of matter.

6. Bacon.--Still, when modern philosophers look upon the Atomic Theory of the ancients in a general point of view merely, without considering the special conditions which such a theory must fulfil, in order to represent the discoveries of modern times, they are {54} disposed to regard it with admiration. Accordingly we find Francis Bacon strongly expressing such a feeling. The Atomic Theory is selected and dwelt upon by him as the chain which connects the best parts of the physical philosophy of the ancient and the modern world. Among his works is a remarkable dissertation On the Philosophy of Democritus, Parmenides, and Telesius: the last mentioned of whom was one of the revivers of physical science in modern times. In this work he speaks of the atomic doctrine of Democritus as a favourable example of the exertions of the undisciplined intellect. 'Hæc ipsa placita, quamvis paulo emendatiora, talia sunt qualia esse possunt illa quæ ab intellectu sibi permisso, nec continenter et gradatim sublevato, profecta videntur.'--'These doctrines, thus [in an ancient fable] presented in a better form, are such glimpses of truth as can be obtained by the intellect left to its own natural impulses, and not ascending by successive and connected steps,' [as the Baconian philosophy directs]. 'Accordingly,' he adds, 'the doctrine of Atoms, from its going a step beyond the period in which it was advanced, was ridiculed by the vulgar, and severely handled in the disputations of the learned, notwithstanding the profound acquaintance with physical science by which its author was allowed to be distinguished, and from which he acquired the character of a magician.'

'However,' he continues, 'neither the hostility of Aristotle, with all his skill and vigour in disputation, (though, like the Ottoman sultans, he laboured to destroy all his brother philosophers that he might rest undisputed master of the throne of science,) nor the majestic and lofty authority of Plato, could effect the subversion of the doctrine of Democritus. And while the opinions of Plato and Aristotle were rehearsed with loud declamation and professorial pomp in the schools, this of Democritus was always held in high honour by those of a deeper wisdom, who followed in silence a severer path of contemplation. In the days of Roman speculation it kept its ground and its favour; Cicero everywhere speaks of its author with the {55} greatest praise; and Juvenal, who, like poets in general, probably expressed the prevailing judgment of his time, proclaims his merit as a noble exception to the general stupidity of his countrymen. . . . . Cujus prudentia monstrat Magnos posse viros et magna exempla daturos Vervecum in patriâ crassoque sub aere nasci.

'The destruction of this philosophy was not effected by Aristotle and Plato, but by Genseric and Attila, and their barbarians. For then, when human knowledge had suffered shipwreck, those fragments of the Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy floated on the surface like things of some lighter and emptier sort, and so were preserved; while more solid matters went to the bottom, and were almost lost in oblivion.'

7. Modern Prevalence of the Atomic Doctrine.--It is our business here to consider the doctrine of Atoms only in its bearing upon existing physical sciences, and I must therefore abstain from tracing the various manifestations of it in the schemes of hypothetical cosmologists;--its place among the vortices of Descartes, its exhibition in the monads of Leibnitz. I will, however, quote a passage from Newton to show the hold it had upon his mind.

At the close of his Opticks he says, 'All these things being considered, it seems probable to me that God, in the beginning, formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, moveable particles, of such sizes and figures, and with such other properties, and in such proportions to space, as most conduced to the end for which He formed them; and that the primitive particles, being solids, are incomparably harder than any porous bodies compounded of them, even so very hard as never to wear or break in pieces; no ordinary power being able to divide what God had made one in the first creation. While the particles continue entire, they may compose bodies of one and the same nature and texture in all ages: but should they wear away or break in pieces, the nature of things depending on them would be changed. Water and earth composed {56} of old worn particles and fragments of particles would not be of the same nature and texture now with water and earth composed of entire particles in the beginning. And therefore that nature may be lasting, the changes of corporeal things are to be placed only in the various separations and new associations and motions of these permanent particles; compounded bodies being apt to break, not in the midst of solid particles, but where those particles are laid together and only touch in a few points.'

We shall hereafter see how extensively the atomic doctrine has prevailed among still more recent philosophers. Not only have the chemists assumed it as the fittest form for exhibiting the principles of multiple proportions; but the physical mathematicians, as Laplace and Poisson, have made it the basis of their theories of heat, electricity, capillary action; and the crystallographers have been supposed to have established both the existence and the arrangement of such ultimate molecules.

In the way in which it has been employed by such writers, the hypothesis of ultimate particles has been of great use, and is undoubtedly permissible. But when we would assert this theory, not as a convenient hypothesis for the expression or calculation of the laws of nature, but as a philosophical truth respecting the constitution of the universe, we find ourselves checked by difficulties of reasoning which we cannot overcome, as well as by conflicting phenomena which we cannot reconcile. I will attempt to state briefly the opposing arguments on this question.

8. Arguments for and against Atoms.--The leading arguments on the two sides of the question, in their most general form, may be stated as follows:

For the Atomic Doctrine.--The appearances which nature presents are compounded of many parts, but if we go on resolving the larger parts into smaller, and so on successively, we must at last come to something simple. For that which is compound can be so no otherwise than by composition of what is simple; and if we suppose all composition to be removed, which {57} hypothetically we may do, there can remain nothing but a number of simple substances, capable of composition, but themselves not compounded. That is, matter being dissolved, resolves itself into atoms.

Against the Atomic Doctrine.--Space is divisible without limit, as may be proved by Geometry; and matter occupies space, therefore matter is divisible without limit, and no portion of matter is indivisible, or an atom.

And to the argument on the other side just stated, it is replied that we cannot even hypothetically divest a body of composition, if by composition we mean the relation of point to point in space. However small be a particle, it is compounded of parts having relation in space.

The Atomists urge again, that if matter be infinitely divisible, a finite body consists of an infinite number of parts, which is a contradiction. To this it is replied, that the finite body consists of an infinite number of parts in the same sense in which the parts are infinitely small, which is no contradiction.

But the opponents of the Atomists not only rebut, but retort this argument drawn from the notion of infinity. Your atoms, they say, are indivisible by any finite force; therefore they are infinitely hard; and thus your finite particles possess infinite properties. To this the Atomists are wont to reply, that they do not mean the hardness of their particles to be infinite, but only so great as to resist all usual natural forces. But here it is plain that their position becomes untenable; for, in the first place, their assumption of this precise degree of hardness in the particles is altogether gratuitous; and in the next place, if it were granted, such particles are not atoms, since in the next moment the forces of nature may be augmented so as to divide the particle, though hitherto undivided.

Such are the arguments for and against the Atomic Theory in its original form. But when these atoms are conceived, as they have been by Newton, and commonly by his followers, to be solid, hard particles exerting attractive and repulsive forces, a new set of {58} arguments come into play. Of these, the principal one may be thus stated: According to the Atomic Theory thus modified, the properties of bodies depend upon the attractions and repulsions of the particles. Therefore, among other properties of bodies, their hardness depends upon such forces. But if the hardness of the bodies depends upon the forces, the repulsion, for instance, of the particles, upon what does the hardness of the particles depend? what progress do we make in explaining the properties of bodies, when we assume the same properties in our explanation? and to what purpose do we assume that the particles are hard?

9. Transition to Boscovich's Theory.--To this difficulty it does not appear easy to offer any reply. But if the hardness and solidity of the particles be given up as an incongruous and untenable appendage to the Newtonian view of the Atomic Theory, we are led to the theory of Boscovich, according to which matter consists not of solid particles, but of mere mathematical centers of force. According to this theory, each body is composed of a number of geometrical points from which emanate forces, following certain mathematical laws in virtue of which the forces become, at certain small distances attractive, at certain other distances repulsive, and at greater distances attractive again. From these forces of the points arise the cohesion of the parts of the same body, the resistance which it exerts against the pressure of another body, and finally the attraction of gravitation which it exerts upon bodies at a distance.

This theory is at least a homogeneous and consistent theory, and it is probable that it may be used as an instrument for investigating and expressing true laws of nature; although, as we have already said, the attempt to identify the forces by which the particles of bodies are bound together with mechanical attraction, appears to be a confusion of two separate ideas[44\6].