Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Chem One textbook versus Physics of the Atom textbook Chapt13.40081
Democritus Atomic Theory stated using "perpetual motion" #693 New Physics
#813 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Posted:
Jul 1, 2012 3:03 AM
|
|
Alright, what I am doing here is making a survey of the Atomic Fact
and want to know
when "perpetual motion" entered the Atomic Fact. So far, it is obvious
that Feynman
used perpetual motion in his statement of the Atomic Fact in his
textbook of 1963.
So was Feynman being brilliant or had he copied it from someone else
previous?
And in this survey, let us look at the statement of the Atomic Fact
from others.
Now here is a good statement of the Atomic Fact by what I think was
the best
chemistry textbook between 1960 and 1980.
--- quoting from CHEM ONE, Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, page 10
---
The idea that there are elementary components, or elements, common to
all substances is at least as old as the fifth century B.C. Leukippos
and Demokritos developed at that time an atomistic (Greek: a, not;
tomos, divisible)
theory in which all substances were regarded as composed of
indivisible and indestructible particles (atoms) which differed from
each other in shape, weight, relative position, and orientation but
did not differ internally.
--- end quote ---
This was a good textbook and should have been continued unto this day.
It has a long description of the Atomic Fact and even mentions the
alternative
theory that won in the fifth century B.C. by Anaxagoras and Empedokles
with the support of Aristotle. The alternative theory of "all matter
was continuous--
that is, indefinitely divisible-- and composed of the same fundamental
material."
And then this textbook CHEM ONE describes when the atomic theory was
established: "The atomic theory became established unambiguously only
after the brilliant insight of John Dalton in the early nineteenth
century had been supported and developed by subsequent convincing
experimental evidence."
Further, this textbook guides us on the history of the electron as
part of the atom
with the electrolysis of water starting with Ohm 1827 through Faraday.
So that from pages 10 through 13, the textbook CHEM ONE gives us an in
depth look and analysis of the history of the Atomic Fact.
Sharply contrasting CHEM ONE is Physics of the Atom.
--- quoting Physics of the Atom, Wehr, Richards, Adair 1985, page
appendix
---
c. 450 B.C. Leucippus (Greece) proposed an atomic concept of matter.
c. 400 B.C. Democritus of Abdera (Greece, c 460-357 B.C.) pupil of
Leucippus, was the most famous of the atomists in ancient times. He
taught: "The only existing things are the atoms and empty space; all
else is mere opinion."
Something strikes me as very illogical that you can write a textbook
titled Physics of the Atom and have a very poor introduction and first
chapter that never states the Atomic Fact, and that the only place in
the book which states the Atomic Fact is the
appendix in the back with a one sentence fleeting statement.
Now I myself admit I am having trouble organizing my textbooks and to
mitigate that problem I said I would title them as Research NoteBook
rather than a textbook. Now
Wehr, Richards, Adair book is not a Research Notebook but a textbook
used for education and classrooms. So I find this very sad situation
that the Introduction talks about philosophy when it should never even
mention philosophy and the Introduction of
Physics of the Atom should have given some comprehensive logical idea
of the Atomic Fact. Since it is a book on the Atom, the authors should
have done at least as good of a elaboration of the Atomic Fact as the
authors of Chem One. So in my opinion, the introduction and first
chapter of Physics of the Atom is one of the poorest and illogical
writings in physics texts. But I am sure that other authors of
chemistry or physics books are just as unclear and illogical as
Physics of the Atom.
Perhaps science textbooks cannot all be reviewed by a logician, but
some textbooks that are heavily used such as Halliday and Resnick
should have been sent to a logician
for improvements. In my prior post I quoted the Halliday and Resnick
statement of the
Atomic Fact and it started with "In Franklin's day electric charge was
thought of as a continuous fluid, an idea that was useful for many
purposes."
Now let me say something about Logic in science endeavors. Logic is
perhaps the key ingredient in doing science for without it, we are not
doing science at all. Suppose Ben Franklin had been superlogical and
had accepted the Atomic Fact from Democritus and with his experiments
in electricty and magnetism Franklin knew there was positive charge
and negative charge. So now, let us say Franklin was not just a
ordinary scientist with average logic but with superlogic. If you
accept the Atomic Fact and know that there is positive charge and
negative charge, well, with superlogic, you would deduce, not induce
but deduce that the atom must then be composed of at least two
subatomic particles of a proton and a electron. So now, what if Ben
Franklin, before Faraday of 1830s had announced that the atom exists
and has a subatomic particle of
a electron and a proton. Well, that would be well over a hundred years
before such was
experimentally proven. What I am showing here in this example is that
most scientists run on average to below average logic in their science
endeavors, and that if a scientist
strived to run on higher rpm logic while doing science can get to the
truth of science centuries before others even wake up.
If you know the Atomic Fact by Democritus, and you know of electric
charge and later electrolysis, then you should have known the
existence of subatomic particles by the time of Franklin and Faraday.
But only if you have a good logical mind can you do this.
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
|
|
|
