Advertisement

Foundations of Chemistry

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 157–166 | Cite as

Atom and aether in nineteenth-century physical science

  • Alan F. ChalmersEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper suggests that the cases made for atoms and the aether in nineteenth-century physical science were analogous, with the implication that the case for the atom was less than compelling, since there is no aether. It is argued that atoms did not play a productive role in nineteenth-century chemistry any more than the aether did in physics. Atoms and molecules did eventually find an indispensable home in chemistry but by the time that they did so they were different kinds of entities to those figuring in the speculations of those natural philosophers who were atomists. Advances in nineteenth-century chemistry were a precondition for rather than the result of the productive introduction of atoms into chemistry.

Keywords

Atoms Aether Chemical formulae Scientific realism 

References

  1. Berzelius, J.: Experiments on the nature of azote, of hydrogen, and of ammonia and upon the degree of oxidation of which azote is susceptible. Ann. Philos. 2, 276–284, 357–368 (1813)Google Scholar
  2. Berzelius, J.: An address to those chemists who wish to examine the laws of chemical proportions and the theory of chemistry in general. Ann. Philos. 5, 122–131 (1815)Google Scholar
  3. Brock, W.: The atomic debates. Leicester University Press, Leicester (1967)Google Scholar
  4. Cannizzaro, S.: Sketch of a Course of Chemical Philosophy (Reprint 18). Alembic Club, Edinburgh (1910)Google Scholar
  5. Chalmers, A.F.: The heuristic role of Maxwell’s model of electromagnetism. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 17, 415–427 (1986). doi: 10.1016/0039-3681(86)90002-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chalmers, A.F.: The lack of excellency of Boyle’s mechanical philosophy. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 24, 541–564 (1993). doi: 10.1016/0039-3681(93)90052-L CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chalmers, A.F.: Maxwell, mechanism and the nature of electricity. Phys. Perspect. 3, 425–438 (2001). doi: 10.1007/PL00000539 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chalmers, A.F.: The status of Dalton’s atomic theory. Rutherford J. 1, http://www.rutherfordjournal.org (2005)
  9. Hunt, B.: The Maxwellians. Cornell University Press, Cornell (1991)Google Scholar
  10. Kekulé, A.: On some points of chemical philosophy. Lab. 1, 303–306 (1867)Google Scholar
  11. Klein, U.: Experiments, models, paper tools: cultures of organic chemistry in the nineteenth century. Stanford University Press, Stanford (2003)Google Scholar
  12. Knight, D.: Ideas in Chemistry: a History of the Science. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, N.J (1992)Google Scholar
  13. Needham, P.: Pierre Duhem: Mixture and Chemical Combination and Related Essays. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  14. Needham, P.: Has Daltonian atomism provided chemistry with any explanations? Philos. Sci. 71, 1038–1048 (2004). doi: 10.1086/428008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rocke, A.: Chemical Atomism in the Nineteenth Century: From Dalton to Cannizzaro. Ohio University Press, Columbus (1984)Google Scholar
  16. Smith, G.: J. J. Thomson and the electron. In: Buchwald, J., Warwick, A. (eds.) Histories of the Electron: the Birth of Microphysics, pp. 21–76. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2001)Google Scholar
  17. Thackray, A.: Atoms and Powers: An Essay on Newtonian Matter Theory and the Development of Chemistry. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (1970)Google Scholar
  18. Tyndall, J.: Address to the British Association, Liverpool, 16 September, 1970. In: Fragments of Science, pp. 127–162. Longmans, Green and Co. (1889)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentFlinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations