The Atom and the Bohr Theory of Its Structure

CHAPTER I. Atoms and Molecules

ATOMS AND MOLECULES

Introduction.

As early as 400 B.C. the Greek philosopher, Democritus, taught that the world consisted of empty space and an infinite number of small invisible particles. These particles, differing in form and magnitude, by their arrangements and movements, by their unions and disunions, caused the existence of physical bodies with different characteristics, and also produced the observed variations in these bodies. This theory, which no doubt antedated Democritus, later became known as the Atomic Theory, since the particles were called atoms, i.e. the “indivisible.”

But the atomic conception was not the generally accepted one in antiquity. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) was not an atomist, and denied the existence of discontinuous matter; his philosophy had a tremendous influence upon the ideas of the ancients, and even upon the beliefs of the Middle Ages. It must be confessed that his conception of the continuity of matter seemed to agree best with experiment, because of the apparent homogeneity of physical substances such as metal, glass, water and air. But even this apparent homogeneity could not be considered entirely inconsistent with the atomic theory, for, according to the latter, the atoms were so small as to be invisible. Moreover, the atomic theory left the way open for a more complete understanding of the properties of matter. Thus when air was compressed and thereafter allowed to expand, or when salt was dissolved in water producing an apparently new homogeneous liquid, salt water, or when silver was melted by heat, or light changed colour on passing through wine, it was clear that something had happened in the interior of the substances in question. But complete homogeneity is synonymous with inactivity. How is it possible to obtain a definite idea of the inner activity lying at the bottom of these changes of state, if we do not think of the phenomenon as an interplay between the different parts of the apparently homogeneous matter? Thus, in the examples above, the decrease in the volume of the air might be considered as due to the particles drawing nearer to each other; the dissolving of salt in water might be looked upon as the movement of the salt particles in between the water particles and the combination of the two kinds; the melting of silver might naturally appear to be due to the loosening of bonds between the individual silver particles.

The atomic theory had thus a sound physical basis, and proved particularly attractive to those philosophers who tried to explain the mysterious activity of matter in terms of exact measurements. The atomic hypothesis was never completely overthrown, being supported after the time of Aristotle by Epicurus (c. 300 B.C.), who introduced the term “atom,” and by the Latin poet, Lucretius (c. 75 B.C.) in his De Rerum Natura. Even in the Middle Ages it was supported by men of independent thought, such as Nicholas of Autrucia, who assumed that all natural activities were due to unions or disunions of atoms. It is interesting to note that in 1348 he was forced to retract this heresy. With the impetus given to the new physics by Galileo (1600) the atomic view gradually spread, sometimes explicitly stated as atomic theory, sometimes as a background for the ideas of individual philosophers. Various investigators developed comprehensive atomic theories in which they attempted to explain nearly everything from purely arbitrary hypotheses; they occasionally arrived at very curious and amusing conceptions. For example, about 1650 the Frenchman, Pierre Gassendi, following some of the ancient atomists, explained the solidity of bodies by assuming a hook-like form of atom so that the various atoms in a solid body could be hooked together. He thought of frost as an element with tetrahedral atoms, that is, atoms with four plane faces and with four vertices each; the vertices produced the characteristic pricking sensation in the skin. A much more thorough treatment of the atomic theory was given by Boscovich (1770). He saw that it was unnecessary to conceive of the atoms as spheres, cubes, or other sharply defined physical bodies; he considered them simply as points in space, mathematical points with the additional property of being centres of force. He assumed that any two atoms influenced each other with a force which varied, according to a complicated formula, with the distance between the centres. But the time was hardly ripe for such a theory, inspired as it evidently was by Newton’s teachings about the gravitational forces between the bodies of the universe. Indeed there were no physical experiments whose results could, with certainty, be assumed to express the properties of the individual atoms.

The Atomic Theory and Chemistry.

In the meantime atomic investigations of a very different nature had been influencing the new science of chemistry, in which the atomic theory was later to prove itself extraordinarily fruitful. It was particularly unfortunate that in chemistry, concerned as it is with the inner activities of the elements, Aristotle’s philosophy was long the prevailing one. He adopted and developed the famous theory of the four “elements,” namely, the dry and cold earth, the cold and damp water, the damp and warm air, the warm and dry fire. These “elements” must not be confused with the chemical elements known at the present day; they were merely representatives of the different consistent combinations of the four fundamental qualities, dryness and wetness, heat and cold. From the symmetry in the system these were supposed to be the principles by means of which all the properties of matter could be explained. Neither the four “elements” nor the four fundamental qualities could be clearly defined; they were vague ideas to be discussed in long dialectic treatises, but were founded upon no physical quantities which could be measured.

A system of chemistry which had its theoretical foundations in the Greek elemental conceptions naturally had to work in the dark. Undoubtedly this uncertainty contributed to the relatively insignificant results of all the labour expended in the Middle Ages on chemical experiments, many of which had to do with the attempt to transmute the base metals into gold. Naturally there were many important contributions to chemistry, and the theories were changed and developed in many ways in the course of time. The alchemists of the Middle Ages thought that metal consisted only of sulphur and quicksilver; but the interpretation of this idea was influenced by the Greek elemental theory which was maintained at the same time; thus these new metal “elements” were considered by many merely as the expressions of certain aspects of the metallic characteristics, rather than as definite substances, identical with the elements bearing these names. It is, however, necessary to guard against attributing to a single conception too great influence on the historical development of the chemical and physical sciences. That the growth of the latter was hindered for so long a time was due more to the uncritical faith in authority and to the whole characteristic psychological point of view which governed Western thought in the centuries preceding the Renaissance.

Robert Boyle (1627-1691) is one of the men to whom great honour is due for brushing aside the old ideas about the elements which had originated in obscure philosophical meditations. To him an element was simply a substance which by no method could be separated into other substances, but which could unite with other elements to form chemical compounds possessing very different characteristics, including that of being decomposable into their constituent elements. Undoubtedly Boyle’s clear conception of this matter was connected with his representation of matter as of an atomic nature. According to the atomic conception, the chemical processes do not depend upon changes within the element itself, but rather in the union or disunion of the constituent atoms. Thus when iron sulphide is produced by heating iron and sulphur together, according to this conception, the iron atoms and the sulphur atoms combine in such a way that each iron atom links itself with a sulphur atom. There is then a definite meaning in the statement that iron sulphide consists of iron and sulphur, and that these two substances are both represented in the new substance. There is also a definite meaning, for instance, in the statement that iron is an element, namely, that by no known means can the iron be broken down into different kinds of atoms which can be reunited to produce a substance different from iron.

The clarity which the atomic interpretation gave to the conception of chemical elements and compounds was surely most useful to chemical research in the following years; but before the atomic theory could play a really great rôle in chemistry, it had to undergo considerable development. In the time of Boyle, and even later, there was still uncertainty as to which substances were the elements. Thus, water was generally considered as an element. According to the so-called phlogiston theory developed by the German Stahl (1660-1734), a theory which prevailed in chemistry for many years, the metals were chemical compounds consisting of a gaseous substance, phlogiston, which was driven off when the metals were heated in air, and the metallic oxide which was left behind. It was not until the latter half of the eighteenth century that the foundation was laid for the new chemical science by a series of discoveries and researches carried on by the Swedish scientist Scheele, the Englishmen Priestley and Cavendish, and particularly by the Frenchman Lavoisier. It was then discovered that water is a chemical compound of the gaseous elements oxygen and hydrogen, that air is principally a mixture (not a compound) of oxygen and nitrogen, that combustion is a chemical process in which some substance is united with oxygen, that metals are elements, while metallic oxides, on the other hand, are compounds of metal and oxygen, etc. Of special significance for the atomic theory was the fact that Lavoisier made weighing one of the most powerful tools of scientific chemistry.

Continue reading The Atom and the Bohr Theory of Its Structure free in the Wunder reader →