Heroes of Science: Chemists

by M. M. Pattison Muir

But I think if we consider this application of the term "atom" to elements and compounds alike, we shall see objections to it. When an atom of a compound is divided the smaller particles so produced are each very different in chemical properties from the atom which has just been divided. We may, if we choose, assume that the atom of an element could in like manner be divided, and that the products of this division would be different from the elementary atoms; but such a division of an elementary atom has not as a matter of fact been yet accomplished, unless we class among elements substances such as potash and soda, which for many years were universally regarded as elements, and rightly so regarded because they had not been decomposed. In Dalton's nomenclature then, the term "atom" is applied alike to a small particle with definite properties known to be divisible into smaller particles, each with properties different from those of the undivided particle, and to a small particle which, so far as our knowledge goes, cannot be divided into any particle smaller than or different from itself.

Nevertheless, if the atomic theory was to be victorious, it was necessary that it should be applied to elements and compounds alike. Until a clear conception should be obtained, and expressed in accurate language, of the differences in structure of the ultimate particles of compounds and of elements, it was perhaps better to apply the term "atom" to both alike.

These two difficulties—(1) the difficulty of attaching to the term "atom" a precise meaning applicable to elements and compounds alike, and (2) the difficulty of determining the number of elementary atoms in the atom of a given compound, and hence of determining the relative weights of elementary atoms themselves—were for many years stumbling-blocks in the path of the upholders of the Daltonian theory.

The very great difficulty of clearly comprehending the full meaning of Dalton's proposed theory becomes apparent when we learn that within three years from the publication of Part I. of the "New System," facts were made known by the French chemist Gay-Lussac, and the true interpretation of these facts was announced by the Italian chemist Avogadro, which facts and interpretation were sufficient to clear away both the difficulties I have just mentioned; but that nevertheless it is only within the last ten or fifteen years that the true meaning of the facts established by Gay-Lussac and the interpretation given by Avogadro have been generally recognized.

In 1809 Gay-Lussac, in a memoir on the combination of gaseous bodies, proved that gases combine chemically in simple proportions by volume, and that the volume of the product always bears a simple relation to the volumes of the combining gases. Thus, he showed that two volumes of hydrogen combine with one volume of oxygen to form two volumes of water vapour; that one volume of nitrogen combines with three volumes of hydrogen to form two volumes of ammonia gas, and so on. Now, as elements combine atom with atom, the weights of these combining volumes of elements must represent the relative weights of the atoms of the same elements.

In 1811 Avogadro distinguished between the ultimate particles of compounds and elements. Let a gaseous element, A, combine with another gaseous element, B, to form a gaseous compound, C; then Avogadro supposed that the little particles of A and the little particles of B (Dalton's atoms) split up, each into two or more smaller particles, and that these smaller particles then combine together to form particles of the compound C. The smaller particles produced by splitting a Daltonian elementary atom were regarded by Avogadro as all identical in properties, but these very small particles could not exist uncombined either with each other or with very small particles of some other element. When the atom of a compound is decomposed, Avogadro pictured this atom as splitting into smaller particles of two or three or more different kinds, according as the compound had contained two or three or different elements.

To Avogadro's mental vision an elementary gas appeared as built up of a great many little particles, each exhibiting in miniature all the properties of the gas. The gas might be heated, or cooled, or otherwise physically altered, but each of the little particles remained intact; the moment however that this gas was mixed with another on which it could chemically react, these little particles split into smaller parts, but as the smaller parts so produced could not exist in this state, they seized hold of the corresponding very small parts of the other gas, and thus a particle of a compound gas was produced.

A compound gas was pictured by Avogadro as also built up of small particles, each exhibiting in miniature the properties of the gas, and each remaining undecomposed when the gas was subjected only to physical actions; but when the gas was chemically decomposed, each little particle split, but the very small parts thus produced, being each a particle of an elementary substance, continued to exist, and could be recognized by the known properties of that element.

To the smallest particle of any substance (elementary or compound) which exhibits the properties of that substance, and which cannot be split into parts without destroying these properties, we now give the name of molecule.