2

I have been reading about atoms. Currently, I am referring to the book "Atom : Journey across the subatomic cosmos" by Issac Asmov.

I believed that if we start dividing something so we can just keep dividing it(not atomist). To prove it to myself, I assumed that if I have the power to scale my self in negative, then I would just may be become 4*(size of item) and divide it and keep on going.
Now, I was introduced to the Law of multiple proportion and the author stated that "it fit the notion of atoms.". And yeah, I proved it to myself this way assuming that mass of element A is fixed(say x) and we take mass of element B as y and z in two reactions.
It is found that : $$\frac{y}{z} \in Z$$ where Z is a set of Integers.
Suppose, n atoms of A interact with m atoms of B to form some compounds. This implies that y grams of B has $m / y$ atoms and no. of atoms in z grams of B would be : $$m \frac{z}{y}$$Since atoms are in integers, so z : y should be an integer. So, yeah it fits the notion of atoms.

Suppose, I don't know much more than this(I am in this time period when this was discovered). Do you have any other notion of elements/matter which explains this law of multiple proportion.

Any recommendations on how to understand the developments in the atoms are welcome.

Mithoron
  • 4,546
  • 14
  • 40
  • 61
Shekhar Dangi
  • 29
  • 1
  • 1
    You may find useful reviewing of search results for site:stackexchange.com OR site:libretexts.org OR site:wikipedia.org OR site:hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu law multiple proportions – Poutnik Feb 17 '24 at 17:50
  • I suppose the quantal idea of an "atom" is not necessarily implied (the fact that an atom is not divisible into something with the same properties except quantity). A continuum of matter to infinitely small size could be possible, if difficult to explain. – Buck Thorn Feb 17 '24 at 18:11
  • @BuckThorn Can you please explain? I understood that you are talking about something that an atom can be divided into something else also but that might not have the same property as that of an atom. – Shekhar Dangi Feb 17 '24 at 18:27
  • Well, atoms can be divided into subatomic bits… – Jon Custer Feb 17 '24 at 18:41
  • Issac Asimov, the professor of biochemistry in Boston, the famous Sci-Fi writer and the author of The Three Laws of Robotics. // Atom: Journey Across the Subatomic Cosmos – Poutnik Feb 17 '24 at 19:28
  • 1
    Tbh the atomic theory is quite convincing ;) I thought I was onto an alternative but I'm no longer sure it pans out. The catch is of course the required proportionality. My argument is that solids with known properties (eg crystalline) have to exist in given proportions, according to the law, but lacking microscopic information, that proportionality might be exhibited as, for instance, interleaved sheets of elemental substances. But as soon as you start working with gases (presumably also solutions, eg saturated), the argument falters. – Buck Thorn Feb 17 '24 at 19:30
  • 1
    https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/83/what-were-the-dominant-non-atomic-theories-of-matter-in-the-19th-century – Mithoron Feb 17 '24 at 19:45
  • 1
    https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/4989/when-did-the-atom-theory-become-indisputable – Mithoron Feb 17 '24 at 19:50
  • 2
    BTW, not all compounds fall neatly into the law of multiple proportions. If early chemist first investigated intermetallic compounds, or compounds where one element can substitute for another (e.g., alums, double sulfates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alum), they could find confounding evidence against the law of definite proportions! Perhaps physics, such as the Millikan-Fletcher oil drop experiment, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment, led more directly to acceptance of atoms. – DrMoishe Pippik Feb 18 '24 at 01:41
  • So, just law of multiple proportion is not enough to convince someone for an existence of atoms. Since, this just FITS the notion of atoms and also it doesn't fit everywhere. – Shekhar Dangi Feb 18 '24 at 05:31
  • It would be one brick consistent with an atomic theory and not consistent with a number of other theories. A related question is whether there are experiments that would have pointed to the atomic theory being false? – Buck Thorn Feb 18 '24 at 10:59
  • I did not think this way. Were there experiments that proved it false? – Shekhar Dangi Feb 18 '24 at 19:23
  • Dalton's theory postulated that the atom is indivisible, when in fact it has an internal structure. The existence of electrons, ions, nuclei, isotopes (an internal atomic structure) took another century to uncover. – Buck Thorn Feb 18 '24 at 19:44
  • Yeah, I studied these in school but I am digging into things this time. So, I would consider that when I will study this. – Shekhar Dangi Feb 19 '24 at 10:04

0 Answers0